kellym40 film review

Sci-Fi dives into a world of ‘Surrogates’

Rating 3/5

The world of science fiction has brought many ideas and inventions through the years. In 2009, Surrogates hit theaters and presented a futuristic world where people stay at home and live their lives through mechanical puppets and can virtually be anyone and do most anything. They control these “surrogates” through a type of virtual reality system where direct human interaction is nearly non-existent, as is most violent crime and any other dangers of daily life. Jonathan Mostow, whose most recent sci-fi directing venture was the third installment in the Terminator series, Terminator: Rise of the Machines, directed this film and seemed to do a better job with this material he was provided with by writers Michael Ferris and John Brancato than the Terminator film.

The script’s story had a somewhat interesting premise that might appear to be similar in other stories in the genre and poignant to today’s world where many people “live” their life with Smartphones. Here’s a look at the trailer below:

Surrogates Trailer

On the surface the film looked and felt like a piece of science fiction with a little mystery added to the story. Bruce Willis plays Greer, an FBI agent who, along with his partner Peters (Radha Mitchell) investigate a double homicide in the beginning of the film, an incident in which sets the story in motion. The homicide is of the destruction of two surrogates that have also killed their users. This is something that is not supposed to happen, and therefore the mystery and investigation unfold and develop. An interesting part is during the course of the investigation, Greer’s surrogate is destroyed and he ultimately opts to not get another one. And so, he spends the rest of the film without a surrogate. He is an actual human interacting in a world full of robots. During the run of the film, Greer begins to realize how much he misses actual physical touching and human contact. This is an underlying theme in the film and I think an important aspect to look at in today’s world with our dependence upon technology.

Surrogates is not a blockbuster but does have interesting overtones and themes in connection with technology, because in many cases today it seems our use of technology isolates us from others, just as Greer felt as he was venturing into the world in real life as others were still virtually living. Many people today are fascinated with technology and social media and become so engrossed in being “social” on their phone, they miss being social in “real life.”

kellym40 film review

‘Central Intelligence’ fails to be intelligent

Rating 2/5

In mid-June, the film Central Intelligence hit theaters. The movie starred a couple of big names with Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson and Kevin Hart to lead the cast into what looked like a typical action comedy. Rawson Marshall Thurber, whose most recent adventures in film directing were Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story and We’re the Millers (among some television credits), helmed the director’s chair. I’ve seen Dodgeball. That movie seemed like another typical Ben Stiller/Vince Vaughn silly comedy that appeared to work a little better than this film.

They say in theater (stage plays), comedy is the hardest genre to direct and produce (I should know because I’ve performed in several or been a part of in some capacity through college and such). Because of the sheer fact of the timing of jokes and dialogue and pacing, comedy is difficult. So if it is done right, then the laughs and audience should enjoy it. If the pacing or timing is off, then the show doesn’t quite work as well. Somehow with this film, Central Intelligence didn’t seem to know quite what kind of movie it was supposed to be and therefore didn’t work as well as it could have. It had the makings of an action-drama, but weaved comedy, a touching “love” story, and an overlaying message about bullying in the script, which was penned by Ike Barinholtz and David Stassen. Just as we were getting into the second act (the main thrust of the film) I wasn’t sure what to think about it. And by the end of the film, I was (lack of a better word) confused. I wasn’t sure those elements worked together well for this film. While the film did have moments of touching friendship, laughter and action, it just didn’t work well enough to keep up with the overall story.

The performances by Hart and Johnson were nothing more than ordinary. At times, I felt Johnson’s character just wasn’t sure how to act and it seemed the comedy was a little forced at times (maybe much of the time), which made me feel unsure and even uneasy about the character. Hart’s character was a little more believable, but it still seemed somewhat under par. Amy Ryan, Danielle Nicolet, Aaron Paul, and a couple of other big names, Jason Bateman and Melissa McCarthy, lend their talents in cameos. Bateman’s character had a little more screen time than what I would call a cameo, but yet that still didn’t seem to redeem the film. All of the performances appeared to be nothing special here.

The premise, at first, seemed promising. And the overall story was something seemingly “fresh” in buddy action-comedy, but apparent flaws with the script and direction stalled the film from being better than it could have been. The film is rated PG-13 and comes in at about 1 hours and 47 minutes.

 

 

kellym40 film review

The science heroes are back in ‘Ghostbusters II’

Rating 3/5

The original Ghostbusters was original and took on a surprising following over the 30 plus years since its release in 1984. When I first saw this second installment in the theater, I wasn’t quite sure what to think of it. Honestly, I thought it wasn’t as good as the first one (but I was still only a teenager at the time of its release in 1989). I decided to revisit the film since it was just on TV at the time of this writing.

The four Ghostbusters are back: Peter Venkman (Bill Murray), Ray Stantz (Dan Aykroyd), Egon Spengler (Harold Ramis), and Winston Zeddmore (Ernie Hudson) to battle this new paranormal threat. Sigourney Weaver returns as Dana Barrett, who has a new baby. Also returning to the supporting cast are Louis Tully (Rick Moranis) and Janine Melnitz (Annie Potts). Peter MacNicol joins the cast as museum curator Dr. Janosz Poha, who seems to have a crush on Dana, and becomes a servant to Vigo (Wilhelm von Homburg), the 17th century evil spirit trying to enter the world through Dana’s infant baby. Ivan Reitman returns to direct.

The film’s opening sequence shows Dana out with her baby in a carriage. She stops to talk to a street vendor, and then the carriage mysteriously begins rolling down the sidewalk into the city streets. In this sequel, there does not seem to be a whole lot new to bring to the table as an evil spirit tries to enter this world from beyond (in this case a painting) and bring an end to humanity. After viewing the film again, I can say I liked it a little more than my original viewing in 1989. It does have some merit despite having a similar story. The means by which the evil spirit attempts to come into this world is different and the presence of this mysterious pink slime that responds to various human emotions adds to this new story.

There is some expository dialogue between the characters to explain what has happened to them in the last five years and catch the audience up from the events of the first one. Soon the Ghostbusters discover the pink slime and begin to analyze it and investigate, get imprisoned for a time, then called upon when things start getting really bad.

Ghostbusters II isn’t too bad, at least not as bad as I originally thought. Again, as with the first film, the humor and comedy comes from the story and dialogue rather than being forced for comedy’s sake. Some of the dialogue, though, might not be as clever and witty as the original but still is decent and moves the story. There are some good moments here and there to keep the audience entertained. It’s not excellent and falls just under the original 1984 film, but it’s fun entertainment.

 

 

kellym40 film review

Ghosts be afraid, the Ghostbusters are here

Rating 4/5

With the release of the ‘Ghostbusters’ reboot with a female cast, and my recent review of that film, I decided to revisit the original 1984 film and offer some thoughts. You can view the trailer for the reboot here:

Ghostbusters 2016

The original film, written by Dan Aykroyd and the late Harold Ramis, is a comedy classic that has seemed to endure for over 30 years.

The film seemed to have all the right elements that appeared to have worked together flawlessly. With the comedy team of two Saturday Night Live alums, Bill Murray and Aykroyd, and Ramis, a funny man on his own having written several classics as Animal House, Caddyshack, Stripes, and Groundhog Day, among several others, and director Ivan Reitman putting this cast, with its great supporting cast, production pieces, and the scientific, yet witty, dialogue together into comedy gold with a mixture of action, sci-fi, and a little suspense. You can view the original trailer here:

Ghostbusters – Original Trailer

A quick synopsis of the film is three parapsychologists, after being fired from their university positions, decide to set up a service in which they capture ghosts and become the Ghostbusters. Murray, Aykroyd, and Ramis bring their characters to life with humor, quick-witted and intelligent dialogue, and a believable grasp of the scientific language. During the course of their adventures, they take on another member to their team portrayed by Ernie Hudson. All of the characters are varied and well acted with performances by Rick Moranis, Sigourney Weaver and Annie Potts as they round out the supporting cast.

The special effects in this film are many and decent for the time (1984) in which it was released. The story and plot appear simple but effective. The world of the paranormal and the “real” world collide during the climax of the film and results in the ultimate showdown between good and evil. The film is a well-blended mixture of a well-written script, visual effects, great direction and performances, and the right amount of comedy that flows from the characters and story rather than seeming forced and just there just for comedy’s sake.

kellym40 film review

The secret is out with ‘The Secret Life of Pets’

Rating 3.5/5 

Another animated film hit theaters this summer along the lines of “Toy Story,” “Finding Nemo,” and this summer’s “Finding Dory.” The writing credits for this film go to Cinco Paul, Ken Daurio and Brian Lynch. It is directed by Chris Renaud, who directed the “Despicable Me” films and 2012’s “The Lorax,” among others, and Yarrow Cheney is credited as co-director.

The animation is this film appeared to be a slice of the animation for “Despicable Me” and the story had elements of the “Toy Story” series. But all in all it was an enjoyable film, even with the familiarities.

The first several minutes of the film showcased a series of bits and scenes in which we see how a pet might actually spend their day while the owners are away. These clips essentially filled the trailer for the film before its release. In the opening, the audience meets Max, voiced by Louis C. K., a Terrier who is living a happy life with his owner, Katie (Ellie Kemper). The story picks kicks up when Katie brings home a new friend for Max. Instantly, Max does not like his new friend, Duke (Eric Stonestreet), who appears to be bossy and boisterous and so Max develops a plan to get rid of Duke. The next day on their walk, they slip away from their dog walker and have a run in with an alley full of stray cats. During the confrontation, their collars are ripped off. Max and Duke are then picked up by animal control. They escape with the help from Snowball (Kevin Hart), a rabbit with a vengeance towards humans. They are lead back underground where they find Snowball to be the leader of gang of animals who have been abandoned. As Max and Duke work together to make it back home, Gidget leads her own search party with the help from some other friends.

The film had its share of fun humor and touching moments blended with some action sequences that would keep children and adults alike entertained with the story. The animals such as dogs, cats, birds, a pig, a snake, and so on were brought to life by their actions and dialogue. Other familiar actors provided their voices to help bring some of the other main animated characters to life on screen like Albert Brooks, Dana Carvey, Hannibal Buress, Bobby Moynihan, Lake Bell, and Steve Coogan.

The film stands on its own as a new animated adventure with lively characters and a tender story about friendship and the longing to love and be loved. And coming in at just under 90 minutes, it’s a good length to where the story is not too drawn out and still can keep the audience’s attention. All in all, it is a fun, family film.

 

 

kellym40 film review

Tarzan swings into action in ‘The Legend of Tarzan’

Rating 3/5

The character of Tarzan has been around for more than 100 years and was first created by Edgar Rice Burroughs. The latest film adaptation hit theaters July 1 and starred Alexander Skarsgard at the jungle hero. The screenplay, written by Adam Cozad and Craig Brewer, and director David Yates took the material provided by Burroughs and created a story of an original adventure with occasional flashbacks to effectively bring the character’s origins to light.

The story seems simple and does not appear to be written as a full action-adventure filled with many fight sequences and special effects that are known for summer blockbusters. The story picks up as Tarzan, or John Clayton, has been living in England for years with his wife Jane (Margot Robbie) and learns the King of Belgium might be promoting slave labor in Tarzan’s homeland. Upon learning of this news, Tarzan plans a trip to return to his jungle home with the assistance of George Washington Williams (Samuel L. Jackson), an American representative of President Benjamin Harrison. And of course Jane is not going to sit around and let her husband leave her, so she insists on returning with him. Soon after they arrive, they are ambushed and Jane is captured. Tarzan chases after his wife and her captor, Captain Rom (Christoph Waltz) who works for the King.

Skarsgard brings Tarzan to life with heart and quiet strength. Robbie’s portrays Jane with her own sense of female strength, and is not your typical damsel. Jackson puts some humor into his character as Tarzan’s sidekick. And Waltz brings his usual charm and charisma to the antagonist Captain Rom, with the right amount of bad-guyness (yes I just created that word) to the role.

As mentioned, the film does not contain a lot of large battles, fight scenes, and non-stop action (because I don’t believe it’s meant to). But it does have its share of those elements that prevent the film from becoming too dull. What worked for me was the fact that it wasn’t a retelling of an origin story, which I thought it might be when I was viewing the trailers and hearing about its upcoming release. The film seemed to intertwine the flashback sequences into the overall story to bring the right amount of background for the main characters without seeming awkward and disrupting the flow of the story. The characters appeared genuine and varied, which added to my enjoyment.

Overall, the story and characters were engaging and the film not bogged down by a lot of special effects, although there were some but not overbearingly so. The film seemed to accomplish what it was supposed to be. A simple story of the bad guy being bad and trying to take more that he should, and the underdog triumphantly overcoming some obstacles and saving the day (and the feisty damsel in distress). With a budget of $180 million it has garnered $103, 371, 594 domestically in revenue as of July 17, and over $195 million worldwide. The film isn’t necessarily a big summer blockbuster thus far, but it is decent summer entertainment.

kellym40 film review

From 1984 to 2016, the ‘Ghostbusters’ are back

Rating 2/5 Stars

More than 32 years ago, a film was released, penned by a couple of guys named Dan Aykroyd and Harold Ramis, and became a comedy classic. The film had the right amount of humor and story and the execution of those elements were blended well by the crafty Ivan Reitman (Ghostbusters II, Kindergarten Cop, Twins, Dave, Six Days Seven Nights – and a host of other memorable comedies and action-comedies).

Now, 32 years later Paul Feig and Katie Dippold pen a script and thus, Ghostbusters is remade. But somehow, Feig’s (Bridesmaids, The Heat, Spy) direction fails to do bring this adaptation up to par. I say adaptation because it is adapted from the script by Aykroyd and Ramis. That is one thing I liked about the film. It wasn’t just a rehash of the same story and characters with a couple of things changed here and there. It was a fresh take on the story with some big names in female comedy today like Melissa McCarthy, Kristen Wiig, and Kate McKinnon. Leslie Jones joins and rounds out the four Ghostbusters.

McCarthy and Wiig play former friends and paranormal enthusiasts who had a falling out after writing a book together, and get sucked in to chasing paranormal activity after witnessing a sighting of a ghost. They are joined by a nuclear engineer (McKinnon) and subway worker (Jones).

While the film had its moments, I believe much of the comedy present was there for comedy’s sake. It seemed to have a lot of gags and “funny” bits, too much for my taste. The ladies’ new receptionist (Chris Hemsworth) was one the funnier roles, but there I think much of his actions and dialogue seemed to be there to just for comedy’s sake and Hemsworth’s portrayal appeared to be a little forced at times. It did have a decent story that I did find it somewhat captivating, and the characters were varied with some entertainment value, but, overall, I think it was trying to hard to be funny and just didn’t work for me.

The original cast even had cameos, which still didn’t seem to save the film. Bill Murray played a debunker of myths and facts. Aykroyd portrayed cab driver. Ernie Hudson played Jones’ uncle who happened to own a funeral parlor where she got the hearse (a nod, if you will, to the original). Even Sigourney Weaver had a cameo.

The film just seemed to not have enough substance to keep me fully entertained for the just under two hour run time. However, the other members in the audience seemed to enjoy the film there was a lot of laughter. So, while the film may work for some, it just failed for me.

kellym40 film review

Spend one last Christmas Eve on ‘The Night Before’

Rating 3/5 Stars

This may not be an ideal time for a review of a holiday film such as this one, but everyone enjoys a good Christmas story right? This one proves to become a classic in its own right. Written and directed by Jonathan Levine, who also brought Seth Rogan and Joseph Gordon-Levitt together for “50/50,” the film shows themes of family and friendship.

This film seems to begin slow but does a decent job in getting into the story. And although it seemed to me the pacing was slow at times, the overall story and characters involved my attention. I found it to be filled with warmth and just the right amount of humor.

In this film, Gordon-Levitt and Rogan are joined by Anthony Mackie and form the trio of best friends who have one final Christmas Eve bash together before they become more involved with their own lives. Isaac (Rogen), Chris (Mackie), and Ethan (Gordon-Levitt) have been best friends for years. Each year they celebrate the holidays together, but now their lives are starting to get in the way. Chris is a famous football star, Isaac is about to become a parent for the first time, and Ethan feels his life isn’t really going anywhere, his girlfriend (Lizzie Caplan) dumped him, and he’s working as an elf during the Christmas season.

Ethan manages to get his hands on tickets to a Christmas bash to end all Christmas bashes, thereby promising their final time together will be a blowout to remember. The trio rides around in a Red Bull limousine for the evening thanks to Chris. At the start of the evening, Isaac’s wife (Jillian Bell) gives him a gift – a variety pack of nearly every drug on the planet – and becomes stoned out of his mind. The film seems to hypothesize whether it’s possible for adults to maintain friendships when family and career seem to take priority.

Throughout the film, the three friends great together and perform their roles with humor and heart. All of the characters appear real and give much to the story, or at least as much as you can in a sort of screwball comedy such as this. Overall, the film is just plain fun and easily entertaining. The sentiments presented in the film are small and honest without doing too much or being too big.