kellym40 film review

‘Going in Style’ needs just a little more style

Rating 2.5/5

The recent release of Going in Style was a remake of a 1979 film of the same name starring George Burns, Art Carney, and Lee Strasberg. It would be interesting and fun to see those actors in that film and I will have to check that out. So that will be on my list for a future post. Not having seen the prior film, I cannot comment on it so I’ll have to rely on what I saw as I viewed this 2017 version.

This 2017 remake stars Michael Caine, Morgan Freeman, and Alan Arkin, and was written by Theodore Melfi and Edward Cannon. At the helm of this production is director Zach Braff. The trailer leads us to believe the film is a laugh out comedy. I believe it was written as a comedy (or at least meant to be a comedy) but it is not what it appears. Of course there were comedic moments in the film, but they were few and far between and those moments did not sustain the film as a comedy. However, I believe this version seemed to be more of a social commentary on big corporations keeping the working-man down and the importance of family. But even those elements did not seem to hold up the film. With all that being said, the filmmakers were more than likely looking at the big names (Caine, Freeman, and Arkin) in the cast to really sell this movie. The film also starred Ann-Margret, Christopher Lloyd, and Joey King.

Even with its flaws, the film was enjoyable. It was probably not as enjoyable as it could have been, but still watchable. One of the main problems with this film, though, is that it plays on and on, seemingly taking forever to really get going. The plot is pretty basic, as the three main characters have been screwed by big banks and a shady corporate deal that robs them of their pensions. So they decide to rob a bank (the same bank that holds the mortgage for one of them). All the planning, family issues, and social issues that are shown through half of the film come together for the actual event of the heist, which remarkably takes only a few minutes of the film. Most of the time for the film is spent looking into the lives of these characters and their reaction to the world around them.

The performances were adequate here for the film, but nearly bordered on low-key performances and almost seemed wasteful of the talents from these three film actors. There have been other films where it seems to have low energy or a lot of excitement infused in the action of the film and I mostly despise those films. I’ve compared those films to seeing a live theatrical play where the energy from the actors is low and the play just seems to drag. That’s almost how this film felt at times, but even so there was a quiet charm to the film. It had just enough to keep me into the film and engaged with the characters and story to see it through, despite its quiet, slow action and soft characters.

If you’re looking for a fun time, laugh out loud comedy, then this film is probably not for you. If you might be looking for stellar performances from three iconic actors, you might look somewhere else. But even with its slow-moving action, low-key performances, it might be good for some simple entertainment for a lazy afternoon. As it did with me, it might just keep your interest just enough to be watchable and enjoyable on some level.

 

kellym40 film review

Four friends bring fun, sentiment to ‘Last Vegas’

Rating 3/5

The premise of Last Vegas brings the idea of four life long friends coming together again for a big hoo-rah after nearly 60 years. This kind of formula has been seen before and since the release of this movie. However, it still works. It works, due in part, to the acting talents of Michael Douglas, Robert De Niro, Morgan Freeman, and Kevin Kline. That’s not to say the film isn’t flawed, but the flaws are minor and are somewhat lost through the fun overall story.

The film generally has a nice story of friendship and forgiveness, mixed with a love triangle (twice). The film begins with four young boys who seem to do a lot together. They protect each other. They have fun together. Flash forward to nearly 60 years later and we find the four are living their lives, but they still have a yearning to have some fun. It starts with Billy (Douglas) who is dating a much younger girl and suddenly proposes to her. So what does he do? He calls his childhood buddies to the wedding in Las Vegas. We then see Archie (Freeman), after suffering a minor stroke, living with his son (who treats his father as a child, becoming very protective). Sam (Kline) is married, but still misses his youthful times. Archie and Sam, on their way to the airport, decide to stop by and pick up Paddy (De Niro). Here we learn Paddy and Billy have had a falling out. Paddy reluctantly agrees and the three head off to Vegas.

Upon arrival, they meet up with Billy and get to the hotel only to find the hotel is still being renovated as they squabble over who was supposed to make the reservation. They go to the casino, to the bar, to the pool and manage to obtain a room for the rest of the weekend until the wedding. While there, they meet a beautiful lounge singer Diana (Mary Steenburgen) who Paddy seems to instantly fall for, and Billy is not far behind. This brings up a similar love triangle from their childhood where they both liked the same girl. This ultimately resulted in their riff between each other. This plays out, though, through comedy and a touching gesture that turns their friendship around.

Jon Turteltaub directed the film written by Dan Fogelman who created likeable characters and an enjoyable story with humor, love, and sentiment. The film ran for 1 hour 45 minutes, which seemed a tad long to tell the story, but the story was good and the pace seemed to flow. However, one problem of the film’s story was when the guys meet Dean (Jerry Ferrara), a seemingly obnoxious 20-something and that whole line in the story just didn’t seem to satisfactorily play out. There were a couple of decent moments with the character, but it just didn’t seem to fit in as well with the rest of the film.

De Niro, Freeman, Douglas, and Kline all turned in fine performances, as did the supporting cast. It wasn’t stellar. But it didn’t have to be. It was a very enjoyable film. And now it seems there is a sequel in the works with an unknown release date. Time will tell if it will be as enjoyable and satisfying as this first go around.

 

 

kellym40 film review

‘The Lego Movie’ snaps together, brings fun entertainment

Rating 4/5

When I first saw the previews for The Lego Movie, I wasn’t sure what to think. Of course, it seems like there has been a run of success with Lego video games base on films like Star Wars, so why not have a film like this. I was pleasantly surprised and thoroughly entertained. With the success of this film, another film – the Lego Batman Movie – comes to theaters next year.

I remember playing with my Legos often as a child. I had a series of the Lego spaceships and spacemen. I fondly remember my brother attaching firecrackers to the Lego men. For the longest time, I had several with no hands and burnt bodies.

But I digress. The Lego Movie is a wonderfully crafted piece of animation. The film’s story introduces us to Emmet (Chris Pratt), an average guy who is happy with his life (oh, and by the way he is in construction). He is happy to follow the instructions for living implemented by President Business (Will Ferrell). Soon he meets a fiery adventurer called Wyldstyle (Elizabeth Banks) who lets Emmet in a prophecy stating that a hero will rise up to save the people from President Business’ evil plans of using a weapon of mass destruction known as the Kragle.

As Emmet is seemingly mistaken to be the hero, he is introduced to Virtruvius (Morgan Freeman) and Emmet then becomes aware of President Business’ plan. Virtruvius tries to instill the belief that Emmet can be the hero they need in order to stop the dastardly plan. Along the way, Emmet is introduced the team of Master Builders comprised of a 1980’s Spaceman Benny (Charlie Day), (the exact kind that my brother so eloquently blew up), the pirate Metal Beard (Nick Offerman), Batman (Will Arnett) and others that include a few known heroes from the DC Universe.

Writers/directors Phil Lord and Christopher Miller masterfully penned a script that has fun, action, and humor, with just the right amount of sentiment to make these characters fully “animated” with life. I found the film’s theme song, “Everything is Awesome,” was a catchy, entertaining song and added to the fun of the film (and was Oscar nominated). The film was a fun, colorful spectacle of imagination brought to life on the screen. Everything seemed to click in this film, from the dialogue and characters to the story and visual effects. With heart, The Lego Movie also showed the idea of working together (despite differences) and accomplishing great things. It taught us to believe in one self; dream big, and that we can be a part of something awesome. The Lego Movie is charming, fun, and very entertaining.

kellym40 film review, Uncategorized

‘Olympus’ sequel, ‘London Has Fallen,’ falls under its predecessor

Rating 2.5/5

Last July I reviewed ‘Olympus Has Fallen,’ which was released in 2013, in anticipation of the sequel that has just been released. Creighton Rothenberger and Katrin Benedikt who penned ‘Olympus,’ wrote this sequel with a new director, Babak Najafi. His previous directing credits are mostly short films. Together, they seemed to fail to deliver a tense action-drama from three years ago. Don’t get me wrong. The film did have some tense moments and it did deliver explosions, gunfire, and car chases, but did not seem to be any different than previously seen in most any other film in the genre.

The film sets up the players and introduces the antagonist Aamir Barkawi (Alon Aboutboul), an arms dealer who is a very bad man. Well, what arms dealer is a good man? Tragedy strikes Barkawi and his family and he then blames the United States, primarily President Benjamin Asher, portrayed once again by Aaron Eckhart. After the tragedy, it flashes forward two years later where we see Asher jogging with Secret Service Agent Mike Banning. Gerard Butler reprises his role as ex-special forces turned Secret Service Agent. There’s the usual banter between the two and they have picked up nicely from the events of ‘Olympus.’ Banning and his wife Leah (Radha Mitchell) are expecting a child. We also learn that Banning is considering his resignation.

An international incident (the death of London’s Prime Minister) then propels the story forward, which prompts the gathering of world leaders and the U. S. President to London for the funeral. The President and his staff have days to plan the trip to London, unknown to them the Prime Minister’s death was just a ploy to gather the world leaders. The day arrives and the leaders gather in London making. Moments later, the attacks begin. As the story unfolds, plot points are revealed and the audience learns of the plot as information is revealed to the U. S. and London officials. Morgan Freeman returns and now is Vice President, Secret Service Director Lynn Jacobs (Angela Bassett) returns, Robert Forster reprises his role as Gen. Edward Clegg, and returning Defense Secretary Ruth McMillan (Melissa Leo) rounds out the key players for the United States. However, they all seem to take a back seat to the action as Banning and Asher are at the forefront this time around. Charlotte Riley is introduced as MI-6 Operative Jacqueline Marshall, who helps Banning and works with the rest of MI-6 and others to uncover the threats from Barkawi.

Butler portrays his character with the same intensity as before. But it didn’t work as well this time around because, as stated, the driving action was similar to other films in the genre. Eckhart’s President Asher did get a little more action in this film as he was running and firing guns as opposed to just being tied up and pushed around, and was believable but just not anything special. The rest of the supporting cast, from the United States personnel or the London operatives were decent in their respective roles. Aboutboul was not real convincing as the antagonist Barkawi. The fault there, I think, was that it didn’t feel like the character was written with enough dimension. Even his son, Kamran Barkawi (Waleed Zuaiter) appeared as a carbon copy of most other terrorists in action films such as this one.

From the onset, one can see the opening attack was a well-coordinated attack. As with ‘Olympus,’ there might have been a couple of things that might make you scratch your head. For example, knowing where the world leaders would be at the exact moment of the planned attack might have been questionable. But again, like its predecessor, it follows the idea that this was a well-planned attack. But if it took Barkawi two years to plan this attack, he must not be as good as an antagonist. This film, while it had its moments, seemed to have missed the mark on creating a worthy sequel.

kellym40 film review

‘Olympus Has Fallen’ a familiar action film that delivers

Rating 3.5/5

This film was released a little over two years ago. It is from Sony Pictures and runs just under two hours. Director Antoine Fuqua, who directed “King Arthur” in 2004, “Shooter” in 2007, and most recently last year’s “The Equalizer” with Denzel Washington, has taken the script from Creighton Rothenberger and Katrin Benedikt and delivered a tense action-drama. And with the pending release of a sequel entitled “London Has Fallen” to be released early next year, I decided to go back to the film and offer my take. You can watch the trailer for the sequel below.

London Has Fallen

Is the film a masterpiece? Not quite. Was it a runaway hit? Not hardly. Or at least not the hit the filmmakers possibly hoped it would be. However, with a budget of $70,000,000 and grossing more than $160,000,000 worldwide, it did carry its own. I will mention there are some spoilers. The ‘Olympus’ trailer can be viewed below.

Olympus Has Fallen

When it was released, there were several comparisons to “Die Hard.” I would agree that it had some similarities as it was about a former Secret Service agent Mike Banning, played by Gerard Butler, who now has taken a desk job in the treasury after a winter car accident results in the loss of the First Lady. However, a terrorist attack on the White House springs him into action and Banning finds himself in the White House, unbeknown to the terrorists at first, and tries to figure out what is going on. I believe that’s about as close to “Die Hard” it gets.

The day begins like any other day. U. S. President Benjamin Asher (Aaron Eckhart) is meeting with the South Korean Prime Minister. After the attack, the President is rushed to the bunker and goes against protocol to allow the Prime Minister and his team in the bunker as well. From there, the terrorists carry out their plan by someone inside the Prime Minister’s detail, who we find out later is a known terrorist known as Kang (Rick Yune). Kang was not necessarily real threatening as a villain but was believable as a man who thought what he was trying to do was right. With the president and vice president being held hostage, the duties of the acting president fall under the Speaker of the House Alan Trumball, played by Morgan Freeman. He was calm and collected, yet forceful when needed, as the acting president. Eckhart was believable as a strong president and a loving father to his son.

Olympus Has Fallen

To me the film had elements of the television series “24” with its inside job players. The most notable is a former Secret Service agent played by Dylan McDermott. He is at the White House on the day of the attack and is supposed to be in retirement, although his presence is never quite fully explained. But I guess the terrorists can’t have the access they have without someone being there on the inside that was part of the government. The majority of the film also took place within a 24-hour period, much like the series. Additionally, Butler’s character was ex-special forces, similar to Kiefer Sutherland’s character on “24.”

From the onset, one can see the attack on the White House was a well-coordinated attack. There might have been a couple of things that might make you scratch your head. For example, a bus was blown up at a certain time for a distraction. It might make you wonder how the terrorists would know that the bus would be there at that exact moment for their plan to work. But again, it follows the idea that this was a well-planned attack. Additionally, the terrorists did have some help from the inside as well. I’m sure that made things a little easier to coordinate. All in all, the action seemed to flow at a good pace and seemed enjoyable as an action-drama.