Search This Blog

Showing posts with label Julianne Moore. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Julianne Moore. Show all posts

Sunday, May 16, 2021

Cindy Prascik's Review of The Woman in the Window

 






















My dear reader(s), for the first time in what seems like a very long time, I have two reviews to share this weekend. My second film of the weekend was Netflix' the Woman in the Window.

An agoraphobic woman's credibility comes into question when she claims to have witnessed a terrible crime.

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

Regular reader(s) will know for certain: I am not a movie snob. I'm addicted to the Expendables movies. I actually own that dreadful remake of Lost in Space. My annual top-ten list once included Gnomeo & Juliet *and* one of the Hotel Transylvania sequels (same year, don't judge). I do not believe the cinema is the only credible way to see new movies. I want Netflix, Amazon, and all the other streaming services to do well with their original films. BUT...the Woman in the Window definitely won't help Netflix be taken seriously as a purveyor of quality content.

I have not read the Woman in the Window. I understand filmmakers took some creative liberties with the book, but I can't say if that's what's to blame for this sad waste of a brilliant cast. Even putting my obsession with Gary Oldman aside, how can a movie go so wrong when it has Amy Adams? Julianne Moore? Brian Tyree Henry? Jennifer Jason Leigh? Anthony Mackie, for flip's sake?? I can't say exactly how, but it definitely does go very, very wrong indeed. Dialogue is so wooden that even this company of decorated, gifted actors might as well be reading from cards. The story itself skips around and fails to maintain any tension or mystery; the characters couldn't be more obvious if they were twirling cartoon moustaches. By the time it limps to its pitiful conclusion, you'll wish they all were murder victims, rather than potential witnesses.

The Woman in the Window runs a painful 100 minutes and is rated R for "violence and language."

The Woman in the Window is a criminal waste of an interesting concept and a superb group of actors. Of a possible nine Weasleys, the Woman in the Window gets two.

The Woman in the Window is now streaming on Netflix.

Fangirl points: My Gary (of course). MACKIE! Until next time...

PS: Just saw a headline that said "The Woman in the Window has two Captain Americas," and I can state with authority that that is the most interesting thing about it.





Sunday, October 29, 2017

MOVIE REVIEW: SUBURBICON







































Suburbicon is a peaceful, idyllic, suburban community with affordable homes and manicured lawns -- the perfect place to raise a family, and in the summer of 1959, the Lodge family is doing just that. But the tranquil surface masks a disturbing reality, as husband and father Gardner Lodge must navigate the town's dark underbelly of betrayal, deceit and violence.

Director: George Clooney

Release Date: Oct 27, 2017

Cast: Matt Damon, Julianne Moore, Oscar Isaac, Glenn Fleshler, Michael Cohen

Rated R for violence, language and some sexuality

Runtime: 1 hr. 44 min.

Genres: Crime, Drama, Mystery

Review:

Suburbicon is an odd hodgepodge of a film from director George Clooney.  It’s a film that has multiple things going on but they never mesh into a coherent story thread.  The film’s script was a reworked from the Coen’s brother’s original draft and the film does seem to be at war with itself for the better part of its runtime.  On one hand you have the Matt Damon lead murder mystery which feels very much like a Coen’s creation with its high body count and black comedy seeping from its veins.  On the other hand there’s a thoroughly uncooked subplot about a black family dealing with increasingly hostile neighbors.  The entire subplot feels incredibly underdeveloped even though I think it’s a well intentioned effort to give the film some added weight and depth.  The issue is that the characters on display are never developed with barely a few lines of dialogue thrown their way.  Both these plots don’t really mesh well as the tone changes abruptly in a moments notice.  Oscar Issac is the most interesting thing in the whole film but sadly he comes and goes way too soon.  Suburbicon feels like it should be a much better film than it actually is.  Sadly, it just never jells into an enjoyable whole. 

C+

Sunday, September 24, 2017

MOVIE REVIEW: KINGSMAN: THE GOLDEN CIRCLE







































“Kingsman: The Secret Service” introduced the world to Kingsman - an independent, international intelligence agency operating at the highest level of discretion, whose ultimate goal is to keep the world safe. In “Kingsman: The Golden Circle,” our heroes face a new challenge. When their headquarters are destroyed and the world is held hostage, their journey leads them to the discovery of an allied spy organization in the US called Statesman, dating back to the day they were both founded. In a new adventure that tests their agents’ strength and wits to the limit, these two elite secret organizations band together to defeat a ruthless common enemy, in order to save the world, something that’s becoming a bit of a habit for Eggsy…

Director: Matthew Vaughn

Cast: Taron Egerton, Colin Firth, Julianne Moore, Edward Holcroft, Mark Strong

Release Date: Sept 29, 2017

Genres: Action Adventure

Rated R for sequences of strong violence, drug content, language throughout and some 
sexual material

Review:

Kingsman: The Golden Circle is a solid if flawed follow up to the surprise hit.  Matthew Vaughn delivers more of what made the first film so much fun but the follow up seems to lacks a bit of spark that made the original work so well.  That’s not to say it’s not an entertaining film, because in spurts it’s a lot of fun, but it just feels overstuffed.  The film is helped by a strong cast with some welcome additions but you can’t help but think that Vaughn could have made better use of the talent on hand.  Jeff Bridges and Channing Tatum roles are pretty much glorified cameos with Halle Berry and Pedro Pascal having the beefier roles.  Julianne Moore is fun as the villain even if her character is slightly underdeveloped.  She’s good fun but doesn’t approach the level of Sam Jackson’s lisping villain from the first film.  Kingsman: The Golden Circle has a lot to offer for fans of the original but unfortunately it leaves you wishing it’d been trimmed and streamlined a bit before its release.

B-

Cindy Prascik's Review of Kingsman: The Golden Circle


Dearest Blog: Yesterday it was off to Marquee Cinemas for a peek at Kingsman: The Golden Circle.
Spoiler level here will be mild, limited to a couple non-plot-related things you won't have seen in the trailers.
Their headquarters destroyed and their resources gone, the Kingsman (Kingsmen?) ally with their American cousins.
Kingsman: The Secret Service was my number-one movie of 2015. As it seems I'm saying a lot this year...even a great sequel to a great movie is without that element of surprise that makes the original seem so special, but that reality in no way diminished my expectations for Kingsman: The Golden Circle. I'm pleased to report the movie exceeded all of them.
There's a lot to discuss here, but I feel duty bound to start with Taron Edgerton. Still minus the status that would give him top billing in a movie of which he's clearly the star, he IS a star, perfectly hitting every note of the many sides of Eggsy. I love this kid. The Golden Circle's supporting players are a who's who of mega-stars and awards darlings, including returning favorites Colin Firth and Mark Strong, Halle Berry, Channing Tatum, Jeff Bridges, Julianne Moore (clearly having the time of her life as the picture's number-one baddie), and, yes, Sir Elton John in what's sure to be one of the most talked-about appearances of the movie year. This film is right up my alley in every way, and such a tremendous cast can't help but elevate it beyond what it might have been otherwise. 
The Golden Circle hits the ground running with a wacky chase through the streets of London, and, for over two hours, it never lets up. The action is spectacularly choreographed and never gets old despite being almost non-stop. Humor is consistent and organic, never shoehorned in just for the sake of it. Oh, and on that topic, remember that bit you hated at the end of the first Kingsman? (Well, I'm assuming you hated it, it seems everyone did.) The sequel actually makes that right, so obviously that Matthew Vaughn himself might well have prefaced the moment with, "Hey guys, this is how that was SUPPOSED to work." I have heard a couple people say The Golden Circle is too much fun, but I can't imagine what anyone means by that. This sequel is so much fun that everything should aspire to its heights!
Kingsman: The Golden Circle clocks in at 141 minutes and is rated R for "sequences of strong violence, drug content, language throughout, and some sexual material."
Kingsman: The Golden Circle is a clever, fast-paced, well-acted good time, an absolute can't-miss on the big screen. Of a possible nine Weasleys, Kingsman: The Golden Circle gets nine.
Fangirl points (buckle in, there are a lot of them!): Keith Allen! Emily Watson! Bruce Greenwood! 
OMG that weird mashup/cover of Cameo's Word Up! How about John Denver's resurgence in 2017 cinema?? And...Mark Strong, you can come sing Country Roads with us here in West Virginia any ol' day!
Until next time...


Sunday, November 22, 2015

MOVIE REVIEW: THE HUNGER GAMES: MOCKINGJAY PART 2







































In the conclusion of the global-phenomenon, Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) stakes her claim as the leader of District 13 and commands the revolution against the brutal dictatorship of President Snow (Donald Sutherland) and the Capitol. Josh Hutcherson, Liam Hemsworth, Elizabeth Banks, Jena Malone, and Julianne Moore all return to reprise their roles one last time, with Francis Lawrence continuing his directorial duties. ~ Daniel Gelb, Rovi

Director: Francis Lawrence    

Cast: Jennifer Lawrence, Natalie Dormer, Julianne Moore, Wes Chatham, Elden Henson.

Release Date: Nov 20, 2015    

Rated PG-13 for Intense sequences of violence and action, and for some thematic material    

Runtime: 2 hr. 16 min.    

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

Review:

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 2 is unfortunately a laborious slog to the finish line of the franchise.  It’s never a particularly bad movie Francis Lawrence’s direction is solid throughout as are most of the performances from the films cast.  Jennifer Lawrence is fairly comfortable in Katniss skin and she does a solid job of showing us all sides of the character’s constant perturbness.  Donald Sutherland does get plenty of credit for perfecting the art of eyebrow acting.  The biggest issue at play here is the film’s story just isn’t that interesting.  The story plays out exactly as expected throughout with very little surprise and it never really builds to a crescendo to finish off the story.  It’s probably a result of unnecessarily stretching the story out to 2 films when it could have been handled ably in 1 film.  As it stands the final film delivers some solid action sequences and throws some character deaths at you to keep you awake during the 2 hours plus runtime but none of it carries all that much weight when it’s all said and done.

C+

Cindy Prascik's Reviews of The Hunger Games: Mockingjay-Part 2 & Secret in Their Eyes

 
 
 
 
Dearest Blog, yesterday it was off to Marquee Cinemas for the depressing double-bill of The Hunger Games: Mockingjay-Part 2 and Secret in Their Eyes. Spoiler level here will be mild, nothing you wouldn't know from the trailers. 
 
 Mama always said, "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all." If I adhered to that advice, I'd have a free day today, but since I wasted yesterday watching these movies, it seems fitting that I waste today writing about them. 
 
First on the docket: The Hunger Games: Mockingjay-Part 2, the further and final adventures of Katniss Everdeen. Dear Reader(s), let it be noted that I consider myself a fan of the Hunger Games franchise. 
 
It doesn't talk down to its audience, and the folks responsible for bringing it to the screen have done so with genuine regard for quality, rather than just milking a popular franchise for a cash grab. 
 
It's a miserable premise--the sort of thing I'd never watch more than once--but to this point I've given HG full marks for execution. 
 
Sadly, this final installment is a real letdown. For as much as Mockingjay-Part 2 has got going on, it is insufferably slow and dull. Perhaps stretching the final book to two movies was a bad idea, or maybe they've just done a poor job of translating events from page to screen, but I was ready to claw out my eyes long before the halfway point. 
 
The film yadda-yadda-yaddas over at least one thing that seems pretty important, and the ending feels like the author just got bored and turned it over to a 14-year-old fan-fiction writer. On the plus side, James Newton Howard has provided his usual strong score, and there are some nifty effects. 
 
The acting is solid from top to bottom, and Jennifer Lawrence is no less outstanding than when she's fronting something the Academy takes seriously. The Hunger Games: Mockingjay-Part 2 clocks in at an excessive 137 minutes and is rated PG13 for "intense sequences of violence and action, and for some thematic material." 
 
It's not without its good points, but The Hunger Games: Mockingjay-Part 2 is, overall, a disappointment. 
 
Of a possible nine Weasleys, Mockingjay-Part 2 gets five.
 
Next up: Secret in Their Eyes. A group of law-enforcement professionals presses the law's limits when one of their young daughters is murdered. It's clear, at some point, someone fancied Secret in Their Eyes a legitimate awards contender, The film on which it's based has already collected an Oscar (thanks, Maynard Maynard, for that tidbit!), the cast is mint, and it's a Very Serious Story. 
 
Sadly, it's also a tedious affair in which the twists happen exactly how and when you'd expect, and two-thirds of the decorated principals are embarrassingly bad. 
 
Nicole Kidman is about as expressive as a ventriloquist's dummy, which may be less about her actual acting than it is about her tinkering with her face 'til it no longer moves. On the other end of the spectrum, Julia Roberts flails through the proceedings "as if there were no such thing as overacting." (I have shamelessly poached that glorious insult from an old review of Gary Oldman's performance in Bram Stoker's Dracula!) 
 
Chiwetel Ejiofor is terrific, making it hard to believe he's the only one of the three who doesn't (yet) have an Oscar. 
 
An unnecessary romantic subplot adds nothing, and the movie seems to take it as a matter of personal pride that each storyline reaches the least-satisfying resolution possible. Secret in Their Eyes runs 111 minutes and is rated PG13 for "thematic material involving disturbing violent content, language, and some sexual references." 
 
Secret in Their Eyes has all the pieces of a great bit of cinema, but, unfortunately, it fails to put them together. 
 
Of a possible nine Weasleys, Secret in Their Eyes gets four. 
 
If you are visiting the cinema this weekend, and--like me--you weren't lucky enough to get Legend or Spotlight, I suggest you revisit Spectre or The Peanuts Movie, and take a pass on these two downers. 
 
Until next time...


Saturday, November 29, 2014

Cindy Prascik's Review of The Hunger Games: Mockingjay, Part 1















































Dearest Blog, since a freakishly icy November morning cost me the cinema last weekend, I am a week late with my review of the latest Hunger Games installment. That means just one thing: prepare for my rambling to be even less relevant than usual!    

Spoiler level here will be mild, nothing you wouldn't know from the trailers or, you know, if you've been on the Internet at all this past week.     Katniss Everdeen becomes the face of the Districts' rebellion against the Capitol, but concern for Peeta's safety is chief on her mind.    

Well, dear reader(s), I'm not exactly what you'd call a Hunger Games fangirl. The movies are pretty well done, but, to me, it's a slightly-better-than-average young adult series that was fortunate to land on a shooting star at just the right moment. To its credit, the franchise seems well aware of that, and it utilizes Jennifer Lawrence's formidable talent, screen presence, and star power to their absolute fullest.     

If J-Law is as astonishing as we've come to expect, that takes nothing away from a supporting cast that is, to a person, very, very good, and Mockingjay Part 1 continues the series' tradition of leaving us wanting more of Woody Harrelson's Haymitch, especially.     

This third Hunger Games installment seems even more grim than the first two, which is really saying something when you take into account that the first one was about children killing one another for entertainment. Like the Hunger Games and Catching Fire, I left the theatre knowing I'd never watch Mockingjay again; it's just too miserable. The movie is also...erm...let's just say "deliberately paced" (to be polite) and runs perhaps a tad too long.     

None of that is to say, however, that it isn't interesting or well done; on the contrary, it is both. The story expertly sustains tension, and there are a couple disaster effects that left me holding my breath.    

Most of the film is set in muted greys and blacks and neutrals, effectively conveying the hopelessness felt by the Districts in their fight against the Capitol's oppression, and the ending will definitely leave you anxious for Mockingjay Part 2, coming next Thanksgiving.    

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay, Part 1 clocks in at 123 minutes and is rated PG13 for "intense sequences of violence and action, some disturbing images, and thematic material."    

The Hunger Games series has yet to prove itself worthy of the hype, but as the genre goes, it's still better than most.    

Of a possible nine Weasleys, The Hunger Games: Mockingjay, Part 1 gets six.    

No reviews next weekend, as I'll be making my annual, much-anticipated trek to the Big Apple!    

Until next time..


























If you're telling me someone fell for Josh Hutcherson while this guy was standing in front of them, I'm telling you that's the least-believable thing I've EVER seen in a movie!

Saturday, November 22, 2014

MOVIE REVIEW: THE HUNGER GAMES: MOCKINGJAY, PART 1









































The worldwide phenomenon of The Hunger Games continues to set the world on fire with The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1, which finds Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) in District 13 after she literally shatters the games forever. Under the leadership of President Coin (Julianne Moore) and the advice of her trusted friends, Katniss spreads her wings as she fights to save Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) and a nation moved by her courage.

Director: Francis Lawrence 

Cast: Jennifer Lawrence, Liam Hemsworth, Josh Hutcherson, Julianne Moore, Sam Claflin

Release Date: Nov 21, 2014

Rated PG-13 for some Disturbing Images, Intense Sequences of Violence, Intense Sequences of 

Action and Thematic Material

Runtime: 2 hr. 3 min.

Genres: Action/Adventure

Review:

The Hunger Games: MockingJay, Part 1 represents a lot of issues with long running franchises.  It’s overstuffed but undercooked all the way through.  There are plenty of interesting ideas thrown at the wall but none of them are explored fully or expounded upon.  Instead we get a slog of a movie which seems to be treading water more than actually moving the story forward, making the decision to split this finale into 2 parts even more baffling.  Lawrence delivers solid work as usual but she seems slightly bored with the proceedings from time to time as the film moves from creating a revolutionary symbol to stalling another hour before we get to some actual plot momentum.  There are a few set pieces which are worthwhile but mostly it’s a lot of overly serious sadness, mostly because the story type has changed from the first 2 films.  It’s a common issue with franchises like this, the story demand a larger scope which results in a change in the story’s DNA which isn’t always a good thing.

C+

Saturday, October 19, 2013

MOVIE REVIEW: CARRIE



Stephen King's Carrie gets a new life in this remake starring Chloë Grace Moretz as a teenager who discovers that she has the extraordinary ability to move objects with the power of her mind, which eventually leads to mayhem and horror at her high-school prom. Kimberly Peirce (Boys Don't Cry) directs, and Julianne Moore co-stars as Carrie's overbearing mother. ~ Jeremy Wheeler, Rovi

Director: Kimberly Peirce

Cast: Chloë Grace Moretz, Julianne Moore, Gabriella Wilde, Portia Doubleday, Judy Greer

Rated R for bloody violence, disturbing images, language and some sexual content

Runtime: 1 hr. 39 min.

Genres: Horror

Review:

Remakes are a tricky business. More times than not they are simply money grabs trying to capitalize on name recognition. This remake is tough to review simply because as a stand alone film it’s not terrible. It’s fully competent with a decent cast featuring Chloë Grace Moretz who delivers a fine performance even if she’s miscast. Kimberly Peirce, clearly in paycheck mode, gives us a sleek and efficient little film. Unfortunately it hits all the exact same beats as original 1976 film. There are scant bits of modern touches (Youtube, Cellphones!) but considering the subject matter and current focus on bullying I can’t help but feel like there are plenty of missed opportunities. The remakes is solid but (in my best old man voice) do yourself a favor and watch the original or read the book because the remake is simply a rehash, albeit a decent one.

C+
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...