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-

MOVIE REVIEW: IT’S A BEAUTIFUL DAY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD

A journalist's life is enriched by friendship when he takes on an assignment profiling Fred Rogers. Based on the real-life friendship between journalist Tom Junod and television star Fred Rogers.

Director: Marielle Heller

Cast: Tom Hanks, Matthew Rhys, Susan Kelechi Watson, Chris Cooper

Release Date: November 15, 2019

Genres: Biography, Drama

Rated PG for some strong thematic material, a brief fight, and some mild language

Runtime: 1h 48min

Review:

It’s a Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood isn’t the Fred Rodgers biopic you might expect.  His character is mostly a secondary player but the film does a solid job of capturing the epitome of his spirit.  Marielle Heller’s film is a subtle but a well crafted tale that uses some wonderful visual and framing devices to really capture the feel of a Mr. Rodgers episode.  At the center of the film is Matthew Rhys who delivers a fine performance.  Rhys carries the air of a broken man from the beginning of the film.  Ultimately, this movie is about his story and how his interactions with Rodgers helped him identify his personal pain and grow into a better person.  There’s nary a question that nobody could play Mr. Rodgers except Tom Hanks.  Hanks brings his own inherent likeability to the role and it would have been easy to just coast through his performance based off of just that.  Thankfully Hanks doesn’t do that and the film is so much better for it.  It’s a showcase of subtly as he uses vocal inflections and mannerisms to channel Rodgers.  It shouldn’t come as a surprise that the film perks up every time he shows up on screen.  It’s wonderful performance that leaves you wishing he’d been a bigger focus of the film as a whole.

B+

Cindy Prascik's Review of The Amazing Spider-Man 2

Dearest Blog, yesterday it was off to the pictures for an afternoon with one of my favorite heroes, the Amazing Spider-Man.

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

Spidey faces off with a trio of new foes, while Peter Parker deals with the travails of teen love.
In the Amazing Spider-Man 2, Andrew Garfield reprises his role as the titular web-slinger. Whatever problems this movie has--and, trust me, it has 'em--Garfield's enthusiasm for the role really shines and is something special to watch. As a fan, there's nothing quite like knowing the guy in the suit is as excited about it as you are.

The movie doesn't stretch Garfield's talent, but it's better for having him. The cast boasts some pretty big names, but if there's anyone else worth mentioning it's Dane DeHaan, who is terrific as Harry Osborne.

Like its predecessor, the Amazing Spider-Man 2 has inexcusably poor special effects. For all the money the filmmakers have thrown at the screen, it looks no better than a video game. Jamie Foxx' Electro is pretty badass, but the flying sequences and other CGI are terrible.It goes without saying--but I'll say it anyway--the Amazing Spider-Man 2 is far too long.

There's barely enough substance here for a 90-minute popcorn flick, yet the movie drags on for another 50 minutes beyond that...I considered going for popcorn I didn't want or making a bathroom run I didn't need just to shake off the drowsies.

Most of the humor is juvenile and falls flat, though Garfield and co-star (and real-life love) Emma Stone are just charming enough to make some of it work. I disagree with complaints that there are too many villains in the movie, but I don't think the script really gives any of them their due.

As long as the movie is, they definitely could have done much better on that front. The Amazing Spider-Man 2 has its fun moments, but watching it is a little like trying to do a jigsaw puzzle with a cat in the house: just when you think you're getting all the pieces together, they land in a jumble on the floor.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 runs 142 minutes and is rated PG13 for "sequences of sci-fi action/violence."

It's worth seeing for great performances by Andrew Garfield and Dane DeHaan, even if it doesn't live up to its "amazing" billing.

Of a possible nine Weasleys, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 gets five.

Until next time...

"A million dollars isn't cool. You know what's cool? 95 million dollars!"

MOVIE REVIEW: THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN 2

The web-slingin' wall-crawler hits the screens once again in this follow-up to Marc Webb's 2012 reboot of the series. Andrew Garfield returns as Peter Parker, who squares off against the villainous Electro, played by Jamie Foxx. Emma Stone heads up the rest of the starring cast, which includes Paul Giamatti, Dane DeHaan, and Chris Cooper. ~ Jeremy Wheeler, Rovi

Director: Marc Webb 

Cast: Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Jamie Foxx, Dane DeHaan, Chris Cooper, Paul Giamatti

Release Date: May 02, 2014

Rated PG-13 for seq. of Sci-Fi Action/Violence

Runtime: 2 hr. 21 min.

Genres: Action/Adventure

Review:

I’ll start this review like I’ve probably started the 4 other Spider-man reviews before it.  I’ll never been much a fan of the character, I’m not sure why but he’s just never grabbed my attention like DC’s Mount Olympus of heroes or the X-Men for example.  I did enjoy the first two Sam Raimi and despised the third.  The first film in the rebooted series didn’t hit the mark for me even though I liked Garfield and Stone in their roles.  The 2^nd go around doesn’t fair much better.  The film suffers from some truly awful writing filled with stale dialogue and plot holes just a tad too large to ignore.  It’s never a good thing when certain segments of the film remind you of 90’s era Joel Schumacher Batman films.  As a whole the film feels like a throwback but not in a good way.  While most superhero films are trying to infuse some deeper meaning into their stories or at the very least some fun, this one seems content to give us a few CGI heavy set pieces and the most basic of back stories for the villains and call it a day.  In between this all we get an overdose of Parker and Stacy’s romance which is solid but overdone.  It’s propped up by Garfield and Stone’s chemistry which makes the whole thing more watchable than it should be but they can’t save this bloated mess of a film.  I personally have no problem if a film is 2 and half hours long as long as it earns that runtime, this one doesn’t come close to deserving its runtime, not by a long shot.  It would have been better served with a more focused storyline and villain instead of trying to lay the groundwork for future spinoffs and sequels like the planned Sinister Six films.  The Amazing Spider-man 2 is purely for diehards and anybody wanting to see Paul Giamatti scream out intelligible dialogue in a 2 minute cameo.

D