MOVIE REVIEW: LITTLE WOMEN

In the years after the Civil War, Jo March lives in New York and makes her living as a writer, while her sister Amy studies painting in Paris. Amy has a chance encounter with Theodore, a childhood crush who proposed to Jo but was ultimately rejected. Their oldest sibling, Meg, is married to a schoolteacher, while shy sister Beth develops a devastating illness that brings the family back together.

Director: Greta Gerwig

Cast: Saoirse Ronan, Emma Watson, Florence Pugh, Eliza Scanlen, Laura Dern, Timothée Chalamet, Tracy Letts, Bob Odenkirk, James Norton, Louis Garrel, Chris Cooper, Meryl Streep

Release Date: December 25, 2019

Genres: Drama, Romance

Rated PG for thematic elements and brief smoking.

Runtime: 2h 15  min 

Review:

It's impossible to not walk away from Greta Gerwig's adaptation of Little Woman feeling uplifted.  Sure it's a story that's been told multiple times before but Gerwig's take feels fresh and timely.  Some alterations to the story make it feel more modern and the film overall is better for it.  She shuffles up the chronology of the novel which makes the familiar story much more interesting and engaging.  Gerwig is blessed with a stellar cast which makes the whole thing incredibly watchable.  Her muse, Saoirse Ronan, couldn't be better suited to play the head strong Jo.  It's easy to forget that she's only 25 since she's so naturalistic and engaging as an actress.  Florence Pugh is just as strong in this film even pulling off the incredible feat of of making Amy less annoying and interesting.  Emma Watson and Eliza Scanlen round out the other tow sisters with their performances being solid but more subdued.  Ultimately it's Ronan's film and she carries it with great ease even though we already know the majority of the story beats.  The story does start to drag a bit near the end of it's run time and it's easy to see where 15 or 20 minutes could have been shaved off.  Regardless, Gerwig's film is a fine example of how to bring something new to a well worn story but keeping it's spirit at the same time.  

A-

Cindy Prascik's Review of The Circle

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dearest Blog: Yesterday it was off to Marquee Cinemas to join The Circle.

 

Spoiler level here will be mild, nothing you wouldn't know from the trailers.

 

A young woman takes a position with a tech juggernaut that appears to be a dream employer...but all is not as it seems at The Circle.

 

It was always fair to assume The Circle wouldn't be as smart as it thinks it is, but, from the trailers, it appeared it'd at least be a solid way to pass a couple hours. Sadly, appearances can be deceiving.

 

The Circle is a criminal waste of a really good cast, and it's important to note that the movie's failings are not on the actors. Tom Hanks and John Boyega are sadly underused, but Emma Watson does as well as can be expected carrying such sub-par material. Karen Gillan is also quite good, and, with limited screen time in what appears to be his final big-screen appearance, Bill Paxton turns in a nice performance. The Circle poses timely questions: How connected is too connected? How open is too open? In better hands, the movie might have been a chilling cautionary tale or an interesting take on personal freedom/privacy vs. the greater good. Instead, it's a plodding affair burdened with paper-doll characters, excruciating dialogue, and a "reveal" that's so ambiguous as to be pointless...a painful experience from start to finish.

 

The Circle clocks in at an interminable 110 minutes and is rated PG13 for "a sexual situation, brief strong language, and some thematic elements including drug use."

 

The Circle is a fitting closer for an underwhelming month at the movies, but, hey, at least we've got Guardians of the Galaxy next week! Of a possible nine Weasleys, The Circle gets two.

 

This blog is dedicated to my friend and fellow movie buff Melissa Bradley, who today lost a long and hard-fought battle with cancer. Rest well, Melissa.

 

Until next time...

MOVIE REVIEW: BEAUTY AND THE BEAST

Bill Condon (Dreamgirls) directed this live-action retelling of the Disney animated classic from 1991. As before, this fairy tale centers on a young woman named Belle (Emma Watson), who is forced to live in an enchanted castle with a prince who is cursed to look like a hideous Beast (Dan Stevens). In time, the pair fall in love as Belle learns to see the good man hiding behind the Beast's monstrous exterior. The film co-stars Luke Evans as Gaston, Ewan McGregor as Lumière, Emma Thompson as Mrs. Potts, Ian McKellen as Cosgworth, Kevin Kline as Belle's father, and Josh Gad as Gaston's sidekick LeFou. ~ Jack Rodgers, Rovi

Director: Bill Condon

Cast: Emma Watson, Dan Stevens, Luke Evans, Josh Gad, Ewan McGregor

Release Date: Mar 17, 2017

Rated PG for Peril, Frightening Images and Some Action Violence

Runtime: 2 hr. 9 min.

Genres: Family, Music/Performing Arts, Romance, Sci-Fi/Fantasy

Review:

The live action Beauty and The Beast hits all the right notes both figuratively and literally but it still feels like it’s missing something.  Bill Condon does a fine job of directing the film delivering lavish musical numbers and a cornucopia of visual treats.  His cast is excellent with Emma Watson sliding into the Belle role with great easy.  Her voice isn’t quiet as strong as the role needs it to be but she’s still a great choice for the role.  Dan Stevens is solid if uninspired as the Beast which is a shame considering he’s a strong actor.  It doesn’t help that the CGI on the Beast is thoroughly unconvincing.  The rest of the CGI characters are well done which makes the misstep on one of the main characters all the more puzzling.  Ewan McGregor stands our as Lumière as does Emma Thompson.  As for the rest of the live action cast, Luke Evans and Josh Gad make for a great duo which is helped by the fact that they are clearly have a great time.  All in all, the live action version of the film is strong across the board even though it could have used a bit of a trim here there.  Unfortunately, it never really finds itself and it really makes you want to revisit the original animated film.

B-

Cindy Prascik's Review of Beauty and the Beast

Dearest Blog: Today it was off to Marquee Cinemas for the live-action remake of Disney's classic, Beauty and the Beast.

 

Spoiler level here will be...oh, who am I kidding? Everybody knows how this turns out.

 

A selfish prince is turned into a hideous beast by a curse that can only be lifted by his learning to love and be loved.

 

Dear Reader(s), other than Pirates of the Caribbean and that awesome old Robin Hood cartoon, I'm not really a Disney super-fan. If you want to know how the current imagining of Beauty and the Beast stacks up against the much-loved animated version (which I failed to revisit, despite my best intentions), you're going to have to look elsewhere. That out of the way...

 

The new Beauty and the Beast gets just about everything right. Emma Watson is a delight in the lead. She hasn't got the strongest singing voice, but she's gifted with numbers that aren't much beyond your average shower performer, getting by on her natural charm, beauty, and ever-growing acting chops. As for the Beast, well, casting a handsome devil like Dan Stevens in a role where you hardly see his face has to be a black mark on a film's permanent record, but Stevens' charisma is never hidden by his beastly facade. The cast's true gems are in its supporting players. Luke Evans, Josh Gad, and the divine Audra McDonald use their musical theater cred to steal the show, and the number "Gaston" (featuring Evans and Gad) is easily the highlight of the picture. Some interior scenes are a bit too dark (a by-product of seeing a 3D product in 2D), but the movie's glorious sets are otherwise on full, stunning display. Costumes are also top notch. Seeing Emma in that iconic yellow dress tugged at even my Grinch-sized heart. For my money, the movie's only serious flaws are bland tunes (I daresay most don't share that opinion) and the fact it could use about a 20-minute trim, but a good--if predictable--story, fun action, and solid humor more than compensate for these minor quibbles.

 

Disney's Beauty and the Beast runs 129 minutes and is rated PG for "some action violence, peril, and frightening images."

 

The live-action remake of Beauty and the Beast is magic for old and new fans alike. 

 

Of a possible nine Weasleys, Beauty and the Beast gets seven and a half.

 

Fangirl points: The Goddess Audra! My beloved Luke Evans!

 

Until next time... 

 

Cindy Prascik's reviews of Sabotage & Noah

Dearest Blog, yesterday it was off to the cinema with all the Rainy Day People for a double-feature of Sabotage and Noah.

Spoiler level here will be mild, nothing you wouldn't know from the trailers.

Arnie was first on the docket with Sabotage.

An elite, undercover DEA unit comes under suspicion when ten million dollars in drug money disappears.

Dear Blog, I'm going to tell you something you might not know: Sabotage was made JUST for me. It's Hollywood's way of saying, "Look, we're sorry for all the pretentious Oscar drivel and Easter-season religious propaganda, but you've been a good sport, so here are a couple testosterone-fueled hours of mayhem for your trouble. Well, Hollywood, apology accepted.

Sabotage is yet another attempt to thrust an aging Arnold Schwarzenegger back into the leading action hero mold. Like previous efforts, the general reception seems middling, but it's once again made me a happy action fan. If Schwarzenegger is getting a bit long in the tooth, it doesn't keep him from carrying a picture with flair, and at no time is there any doubt that this is Arnold's movie. The supporting cast is comprised of actors both very good (Terrence Howard, Mireille Enos) and pretty bad (Sam Worthington, Joe Manganiello), but none really stands out either way, aside from Enos, who is ah-maz-ing.

These days most action movies have to pick a side. Either they go too vanilla to secure the coveted PG13 rating, or the gore and swearing are so extreme that shock value seems the only objective. Sabotage definitely leans toward the latter, and it suffers some laughably bad dialogue, but a well-executed, suspenseful plot saves the movie from being just a big-screen bundle of bad words and maximum carnage.

Sabotage clocks in at 109 minutes and is rated R for "strong bloody violence, pervasive language, some sexuality/nudity, and drug use."

A solid action flick with a good cast and a hero that's familiar and easy to root for, of a possible nine Weasleys, Sabotage gets seven.

Next on Saturday's agenda was the Biblical epic, Noah.

A man suffers a terrifying vision of the world destroyed by a great flood, and must battle Sauron's legions as he attempts to get the One Ring to Mount Doom. Wait, what? Sorry...wrong movie.

There's been much fuss about Noah's lack of faithfulness to the Bible story on which it's based. In the interest of full and fair disclosure, I admit that means about as much to me as a less-than-accurate adaptation of any novel or comic book. I don't say that to be offensive or provocative, merely to be clear: If the rumor is non-religious people will love this and religious people will hate it, this card-carrying heathen is here to tell ya, there's no shortage of reasons to hate this movie, whatever you believe.

Russell Crowe is one of my top three actors, and, in my opinion, the most magnetic screen presence working in movies today. Not once in his long and storied career have I seen a movie and thought, "Boy, even Russell Crowe couldn't help that." Until now, that is. Instead of a man tormented by difficult choices he feels his "Creator" has forced him to make, this Noah is a profoundly unlikable nut job who comes dead even with the movie's villain in the "I really hate that guy" sweepstakes. Then there's the bloat. Yes, that's "bloat," dear Blog, not "boat." Pared by 20-30 minutes, Noah would have been a far more bearable exercise creative license. As it stands, I had plenty of time to count ceiling tiles (I think there are 180 in theatre eight, but it was a little tricky in the dark) and ponder what I was going to eat at Olive Garden after the movie (spaghetti marinara, if you're wondering). During the interminable ark-building, I wondered why they didn't just ask Hermione to wave her wand and get it done. Hang on... Huh? Oh, sorry, there I go again. Somewhere around a halfway point that seemed to take 12 hours to reach, I wrote "TERRIBLE" on my notepad, in all caps and underlined three times, as if I'd need a reminder when I sat down to write this review.

There are positives, of course, among them some glorious cinematography and a couple time-lapsey sequences that are quite stunning...if possibly seizure inducing. The CGI procreation-ready pairs of animals look pretty great, and Emma Watson continues to be a revelation in a role that's at least half an underwater world away from the studious Miss Granger of the Harry Potter movies. There's also a sneaky pro-vegetarian message that made me think I might have had a chance of bunking with the Noah family instead of dog paddling for my life.

Noah runs 138 minutes and is rated PG13 for "violence, disturbing images, and brief suggestive content."

Whether you believe the Bible or not, Noah is a bloated mess that might as well have starred Adam Sandler for all the credibility it's got. Of a possible nine Weasleys, Noah gets two. Oh, and when someone films the book of Revelations, remind me to get high before I see it.

Until next time...

 Hands up, who's ready for that Gladiator prequel?

MOVIE REVIEW: NOAH

Darren Aronofsky brings the story of Noah's Ark to the big screen with this Paramount/New Regency religious drama. Aronofsky directs from his own script cowritten by Ari Handel and John Logan. Russell Crowe, Jennifer Connelly, Anthony Hopkins, and Emma Watson head up the starring cast. ~ Jeremy Wheeler, Rovi

Release Date: Mar 28, 2014

Rated: PG-13 Disturbing Images, Brief Suggestive Content and Violence

Runtime: 2 hr. 17 min.

Genres: Action/Adventure, Sci-Fi/Fantasy

Director: Darren Aronofsky

Cast: Russell Crowe, Jennifer Connelly, Ray Winstone, Emma Watson, Anthony Hopkins

Religion films are always going to be a touch call because they’ll either be too faithful or they’ll deviate too far from the scripture.  Either option will result in factions of believers and non believers being turned off by the material on display.  Darren Aronofsky’s Noah isn’t a by the letter retelling of the story even though it hits all the major points.  Within 10 minutes of the film you’ll be able to tell where you stand with it, depending on your beliefs.  Personally, I found a bombastic but loving cinematic take of a very familiar tale.  Aronofsky delivers a film that’s beautiful to look at and engaging at the same time.  The film is over 2 hours long but in never really drags as the story keeps you engaged throughout.  Russell Crowe gives us one of his most earnest performances in a long while with supporting cast rounding an all around well made movie.  Jennifer Connelly in particular has a wonderful moment to shine near the end of the film but its Crowe’s film through and through.  Crowe gives us a realistic idea of what Noah would have experienced mentally while Aronofsky gives us a wonderfully dense thesis on hard line scripture vs. interpretation.  It’s a fascinating idea played out with characters that are so ingrained in most of our collective psych that is sure to upset one faction or the other.  In the end your personal enjoyment of the film will depend on your beliefs. At it’s core, it’s a wonderfully filmed, acted and produced film which deserves to be seen.

A

[Trailer] Noah

The first trailer for the upcoming religious epic is finally out and we get 2 tonally different trailer. The American trailer seems to hit more traditional beats playing up the religious angle more so than the International trailer which plays more like a traditional FX event film. Honestly, if Darren Aronofsky and Russell Crowe weren’t attached to this project I probably would have ignored it.

With Aronofsky in the director’s chair it leaves the door open to all kinds of possibilities, just think about his underrated film The Fountain. Both trailers look intriguing if a tad safe, either way I’m interested enough to mark this one on my calendar.

Official Trailer


International Trailer

MOVIE REVIEW: HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS PART 2

IN THEATERS

HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS PART 2



The final adventure in the Harry Potter film series follows Harry (Daniel Radcliffe), Ron (Rupert Grint), and Hermione (Emma Watson) as they prepare for a final battle with Lord Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes), who is determined to destroy Harry once and for all. In order to defeat the powerful wizard, they must find and destroy Voldemort's last and most elusive Horcrux -- that is, the enchanted piece of soul allowing him to remain immortal -- before his nefarious plans come to fruition. David Yates directs. ~ Tracie Cooper, Rovi

Director: David Yates

Cast: Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Helena Bonham Carter, Ralph Fiennes

Release Date: Jul 15, 2011

Rated: Some sequences of intense action violence and frightening images

Runtime: 2 hr. 5 min.

Genres: Action/Adventure, Family, Sci-Fi/Fantasy

Review:

Finishing a series a series I originally thought would end up like some kind of cinematic fad is a strange thing. I’m one of those folks that’s never read one chapter of the novels, never been a big fantasy fan in any medium, so I started the cinematic versions as a chore. The first few films I found light and mostly dismissible, I kept with it and slowly but surely the films and character matured. The films became more complete works as a cinematic experience even if some of the jargon still sounds like some alternate version of Star Trek tech speak. In all honesty, I became found of the characters but can’t say I ever adored them. Radcliffe’s Potter has all the calling cards of a typical hero’s journey and coming of age story. This finale completes both sides of these plot threads with wonderful vigor. Radcliffe brings earnestness to the character that just transcends the screen. His ability to ably display quiet strength and growing maturity is an underrated talent. It’s really something incredible to witness, with Radcliffe starting as a green child actor to an impressive performer who can carry the weight of this monolith sized story. Rupert Grint and Emma Watson each show similar growth and are able to reach a similar level of achievement, even if they do kind of fall into the background here more than in Part 1. The film is filled with character moments for series favorites some making sacrifices while other rise to surprising heights. Ralph Fiennes who’s held a restrained check on his character’s evilness is finally allowed to spread his wings and he does so with fantastic results. Director David Yates deserves an untold amount of credit as he’s steered the franchise for the better part of its trek. Here, Yates maintains a strong pace filled with impressively lavish and dour set pieces that impress throughout. He’s fine tuned everything by this point that’s it’s easy to enjoy and easier to overlook how incredibly difficult Yates job was. While I still felt like it might have help to have a scorecard to keep track of some of the secondary and third level characters are, it’s the kind of finale a franchise of this size deserves.

A-

MOVIE REVIEWS: HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS: PART 1

IN THEATERS

HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS: PART 1



The first installment of the two-film adaptation of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows follows Harry (Daniel Radcliffe), Ron (Rupert Grint), and Hermione (Emma Watson) as they search for the pieces of Voldemort's (Ralph Fiennes) soul that he extracted from his being and hid in obscure locations both far and wide. If the trio is unable to locate and destroy them all, Voldemort will remain immortal. Despite their long friendship, a combination of dark forces, romantic tensions, and long-held secrets.

Director: David Yates

Cast: Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Helena Bonham Carter, Ralph Fiennes

Release Date: Nov 19, 2010

Rated: For some sequences of intense action violence and frightening images

Runtime: 2 hr. 27 min.

Genres: Action/Adventure, Family, Sci-Fi/Fantasy

Review:

Taking a purely cinematic journey through J.K. Rowling’s now classic tome about the titular boy wizard, mainly because fantasy books have never grabbed my attention in the slightest, has been in interesting if somewhat confounding experience. The first 3 or 4 films really felt closer to standard issue preteen fantasy writing and story telling that while mildly interesting was never thoroughly engaging. Still I trudged forward, mainly because I like to finish whatever I start, and as the child actors grew the storytelling became more layered and detailed, creating a more engaging story and series of events. While I’d hardly ever call myself a diehard I had grown to enjoy the story and its darker far more adult undertones as the finale drew closer. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 is an epic start to what’s sure to be a rousing and hopefully fulfilling finish. David Yates again directs and he’s been a wonderful guide for these latter entries. Part 1 has an epic and world weary, at times almost apocalyptic feel to it that been building for the last couple of chapters. It’s a thoughtful film that knows when to insert humor or character moments when needed to break the occasionally oppressive tone of story. There is enough action to keep novice interested while some of mythology mumbo jumbo sinks in. The cast is equally comfortable in their roles, the primary trinity now having spent the majority of their adolescence in these characters. They are all more than capable of handling the characters more intensive story lines. While Radcliffe and Grint have shown a steady improvement as they’ve aged, Emma Watson has become the best of the lot and displays an impressive level of naturalism here. A few dead spots here and there especially in the final act where the film kind of starts to feel like Harry Potter and the Fellowship of the Horcrux as they wander the woods before a hurried finale that simply reinforces the point that this is the end of act 1.

B+

Movie Reviews: HARRY POTTER AND THE HALF BLOOD PRINCE

Sunday, July 19, 2009
Movie Reviews: HARRY POTTER AND THE HALF BLOOD PRINCE
IN THEATERS

HARRY POTTER AND THE HALF BLOOD PRINCE

Voldemort is tightening his grip on both the Muggle and wizarding worlds and Hogwarts is no longer the safe haven it once was. Harry suspects that dangers may even lie within the castle, but Dumbledore is more intent upon preparing him for the final battle that he knows is fast approaching. Together they work to find the key to unlock Voldemort’s defenses and, to this end, Dumbledore recruits his old friend and colleague, the well-connected and unsuspecting bon vivant Professor Horace Slughorn, whom he believes holds crucial information.


Cast: Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Helena Bonham Carter, Jim Broadbent, Robbie Coltrane, Michael Gambon, Alan Rickman


Director: David Yates


Opened ..July 15, 2009..


Runtime: 2 hr. 33 min.


Rated PG for scary images, some violence, language and mild sensuality


Genres: Children's Fantasy, Fantasy Adventure, Fantasy, Children's/Family


Review:





Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince continues the maturation process that started in earnest in The Order of the ....Phoenix..... David Yates crafts an elegant and pensive film that doesn’t shoot for big trills and focuses more the characters and the evolution from children to adulthood. Hormones rage at Hogwarts and the scenes dealing with the trios budding feeling are mostly handled well and delicately. That being said it’s hard to watch this entry into the series and not feel like it’s all set up for the final 2 entries; The Death Hallows is being split into 2 to be released over the next two years. The plot is fairly straight forward if you’ve been following the series and none of the twist or turns are thoroughly shocking or surprising, mainly because they are telegraphed in a fairly obvious manner. Yates still manages to make the events here engaging and manages to put some beautiful imagery on screen. Hogwarts, much like the previous entry, doesn’t carry that fancy and wonder it possessed in the early films. Instead Yates bathes this film in grey and sepia tones throughout, rarely showing any sunlight. The actors also bring more gravitas to the proceeding. Daniel Radcliff brings more confidence to Harry while still maintaining that wide eyed innocence of the early films. Rupert Grint and Emma Watson have both grown into their roles and can now add more subtle character work than before. Grint in particular shows fairly good comedic timing. Michael Gambon as Dumbledore continues to be appropriately fatherly and sagely but is strangely one note in this particularly important entry for his character arch. Alan Rickman once again delivers strong character work in limited screen time. Newcomer to the series Jim Broadbent shines and he uses his vast talent to make his character the most memorable of this entry. Helena Bonham Carter is devilish fun as Bellatrix Lestrange but she gets painfully little screen time to truly shine. As the events in the film come to an end you are left pining for the finale and Yates makes no secret of the fact that this entry is mostly set up as he ends this tales with a sense of meandering melancholy and unresolved issues.





B+