MOVIE REVIEW: STRAYS

Abandoned on the mean city streets by his lowlife owner, Doug, a naive but lovable dog named Reggie falls in with a fast-talking, foul-mouthed Boston Terrier and his gang of strays. Determined to seek revenge, Reggie and his new canine pals embark on an epic adventure to get him home and make Doug pay for his dirty deed.

Director: Josh Greenbaum

Cast: Will Ferrell, Jamie Foxx, Will Forte, Isla Fisher, Randall Park, Josh Gad, Harvey Guillén, Rob Riggle, Brett Gelman, Jamie Demetriou, Sofía Vergara

Release Date: August 2, 2023

Genre: Animation, Adventure, Comedy

Rated R for pervasive language, crude and sexual content, and drug use.

Runtime: 1h 33m

There's a pretty long history of talking animals family films from The Adventures of Milo and Otis, Homeward Bound: The Incredible Journey to more recent entries like A Dog's Purpose which are generally wholesome affairs.  Strays takes the general concept and delivers a raunchy comedy which leans heavily on gross out humor with uneven results.  Josh Greenbaum's film delivers some laughs throughout its brisk runtime but it never really finds a consistent groove since some set ups work better than others.  When it works, there are some genuinely funny moments but when they don't they fall noticeably flat which is a shame since the main foursome is made up of strong comedic talents.  Will Ferrell, Jamie Foxx, Isla Fisher and Randall Park deliver fun performances as the motley crew that embarks on the journey.  The four of them deliver lines with a snappy ease that you'd expect with experienced performers with Foxx delivering the most consistent turn.  Ferrell's role seems perfectly suited for his style but the script doesn't let his character let loose as much as you'd expect which keeps him reined in from his classic freak out mode.  Isa Fisher and Randall Park are fun in supporting roles with Fisher proving to be the film's secret weapon.  The four share solid chemistry together but they never really hit their stride because the script uses gross out humor way too much for my taste.  Its a shame because there's plenty to satirize about the genre, something do in passing with a recurring bit about a narrating dog and a very specific cameo.  That's not to say there aren't laughs to be had in Strays but a bit of variety in the comedy would have made it more memorable overall. 

C+

MOVIE REVIEW: FROZEN 2

Elsa the Snow Queen and her sister Anna embark on an adventure far away from the kingdom of Arendelle. They are joined by friends, Kristoff, Olaf, and Sven.

Director: Jennifer Lee, Chris Buck

Cast: Idina Menzel, Kristen Bell, Jonathan Groff, Josh Gad, Ciarán Hinds, Sterling K. Brown, Evan Rachel Wood, Alfred Molina, Martha Plimpton, Jason Ritter, Rachel Matthews, Jeremy Sisto

Release Date: November 22, 2019

Genres: Animation, Adventure, Comedy

Rated PG for action/peril and some thematic elements

Runtime: 1h 43min

Review:

The original Frozen was a film I ignored as long as I possibly could.  Once I finally succumbed to the weight of its cultural impact and finally watched the film, I was left shrugging my shoulders.  The film itself is perfectly fine but it reminded me a lot of older Disney films which never really did much for me.  The songs were catchy enough to make the whole thing watchable.  The sequel has a very similar feel with a story that’s adequate if uninspired.  Honestly, the music is the center piece of this animated musical.  The songs are all solid enough but sadly none are nearly as memorable as “Let It Go” from the original.  As such, it’s easier to dissect the fairly routine story that doesn’t hold any sort of tension for anyone over the age of 10.  Pixar has raised the bar so high for children’s films that it’s almost quaint to run into a film that’s perfectly fine just catering to its core audience while leaving very little for the adults in the audience.  It’s a shame the story isn’t a bit more dense because the cast is all impressive with Idina Menzel and Kristen Bell carrying the film with great ease.  Josh Gad’s Olaf still fluctuates between amusing to annoying and his character is given a bigger role in this sequel.  Ultimately, this sequel checks all the boxes to keep the younger kids entertained but I doubt anyone will look back on this entry with sort of great fondness or affection. 

B-

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 The Jungle Book, The Angry Birds Movie, Now You See Me 2

 

 

 

Dearest Blog: Yesterday it was off to Marquee Cinemas for Now You See Me 2 and Warcraft...except I couldn't bring myself to face Warcraft and ended up catching up on The Jungle Book and Angry Birds instead. 

 

Spoiler level here will be mild, nothing you wouldn't know from the trailers. (I'm assuming everyone knows Warcraft is terrible from the trailers?) 

 

First on the docket: The Jungle Book. When the vicious tiger Shere-Khan threatens his life, Mowgli, a boy raised by a wolf pack, is forced to flee his jungle home. 

 

The Jungle Book is a gorgeous film, and a vote of confidence for CGI at a time when, let's face it, even the biggest-budget CGI is starting to look a little dodgy. The movie is probably eighty-percent jungle and jungle animals, and the only time you can tell most of it is fake is when the bear starts singing. I've never seen a real one sing. 

 

Then again, my experience with bears is somewhat limited. Outside its technical virtures, the movie's main plus is some great voice work from the likes of Idris Elba, Ben Kingsley, Bill Murray, Lupita Nyong'o, Christopher Walken, and Scarlett Johanssn. 

 

Unfortunately, it's merely a silver lining on what's ultimately a pretty boring picture. The movie tiptoes around its brutality, with most of it played out off screen. It would have served no one's purpose for a kids' film to be a total bloodbath, but the impact of losses is certainly diminished. There are chases and plenty of other action, but the movie is plain dull in its execution. 

 

The second half, in particular, seems to drag on forever. The Jungle Book clocks in at 106 minutes and is rated PG for "some sequences of scary action and peril." Worth a look for its technical prowess alone, 2016's Jungle Book sadly falls short of the animated feature on which it's based. 

 

Of a possible nine Weasleys, The Jungle Book gets five. Fangirl points: Giancarlo Esposito. Again! 

 

Next up: The Angry Birds Movie. An island of peaceful, (mostly) happy, flightless birds faces a threat from neighboring green pigs. 

 

Whoa. Trippiest. Synopsis. Ever. Dear Reader(s), I have not even a passing familiarity with video games. 

 

Luckily, The Angry Birds Movie is pretty cute, and I don't think I missed out on anything for not having spent hours with my nose in my phone, playing the Angry Birds game. Angry Birds is a great-looking picture, full of gorgeous animation and bright colors. The film boasts an impressive array of voice talent, including Jason Sudeikis, Josh Gad, Peter Dinklage, and Sean Penn. 

 

The plot is pretty thin, but the film keeps moving and doesn't bog down. There's some charming humor alongside some that's truly disgusting...at least for grownups...as well as a lovely score by Heitor Pereira. The Angry Birds Movie runs 97 minutes and is rated PG for "rude humor and action." It's no game-changer, but Angry Birds is a bright, colorful, quick-moving film that's fun for the whole family. 

 

Of a possible nine Weasleys, The Angry Birds Movie gets six. 

Fangirl points: Angry Birds was created in Finland. This movie kicks off with a Black Sabbath song. (I'm not joking.) 

 

Finally, the closer on yesterday's agenda: Now You See Me 2. After hiding out for 18 months, the Horsemen resurface to perform their greatest heist yet. 

 

When the first Now You See Me was released into a summer of prequels, sequels, and reboots, I recall lauding it as a breath of fresh air in a sea of franchise installments. Of course, then Hollywood had to go and commission a sequel because...Hollywood. 

 

The good news is, if the sequel wasn't entirely necessary, it is a great time nonetheless. NYSM2 raises the stakes from the Horsmen's first outing, meaning even more incredible stunts that require even more suspension of disbelief. 

 

I mean, faking one's death can't possibly be as easy as depicted here (more than once) or everyone who has a crazy ex or owes on a credit card would be doing it! Still, the movie doesn't take itself too seriously, so playing along isn't a problem. Some of the illusions are spectacular, in particular, the rain-manipulation trick hinted at in the trailers, and the plot has plenty of twists and turns to hold your attention. 

 

The cast is terrific from top to bottom, with Jesse Eisenberg again the standout. Lizzy Caplan's character is a somewhat brash replacement for Isla Fisher, but she's great fun and will grow on you quickly. Daniel Radcliffe continues to distance himself from his Potter past with a funny, quirky performance as the film's baddie. 

 

The movie gets a bit preachy here and there, but it's mostly a thrilling, layered ride. Now You See Me 2 clocks in at 129 minutes and is rated PG13 for "violence and some language." That rare sequel that is as good as, and perhaps even better than, the original, 

 

Now You See Me 2 is great fun and (still) something a little different for the summer blockbuster season. 

 

Of a possible nine Weasleys, Now You See Me 2 gets seven. Fangirl points: DanRad in *another* movie about magic! 

 

Until next time...

Cindy Prascik's Reviews of Southpaw & Pixels

Dearest Blog: The weekend's bad news: The cinema schedule was impossibly awkward, forcing me to stretch my new-release double-bill over two days. The good news: The crappy timing allowed me to sneak in a second screening of Spy yesterday, and extra Statham isn't exactly a hardship.

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

On Friday's agenda, the Kurt Sutter-penned boxing drama Southpaw.

A former world champion boxer has to rebuild his life after his wife's murder sends him into a downward spiral.

If I had to describe Southpaw in one word, it would be "intense." I don't think Sutter is a great writer, but he is an exciting writer, and it's to his credit that I was a nervous wreck for the duration of the movie, despite being relatively certain I knew how it'd play out. (In the interest of remaining unspoilery, I won't say whether or not I was correct in that assumption.)

Southpaw's boxing scenes are extremely real, and sometimes difficult to watch. The personal drama is equally so. Performances are superb in roles large and small, and Jake Gyllenhaal is amazing in the lead. Gyllenhaal is frustrating and sympathetic, inspiring and heartbreaking, and ridiculously fit, handling all his own boxing chores in the interest of realism. (My movie popcorn and soda have never, ever made me feel more guilty!) July is hardly a hotbed of awards contenders, but hopefully folks won't forget Gyllenhaal's incredible performance when awards season rolls around.

Southpaw is marked by Sutter's characteristic violence, family angst, and anger issues. The movie is predictable and broadly drawn at times, but it moves at a good clip and has no problem holding your attention right up to the last minute. By the end I was so wound up I was talking to the screen just like I would while watching a real sporting event. (Thank goodness for almost-empty weekday theatres!)
Southpaw runs 123 minutes and is rated R for "language throughout, and some violence."

You don't have to love boxing to love Southpaw; it's a straight-up great film.

Of a possible nine Weasleys, Southpaw gets eight.

On the docket for Saturday, Adam Sandler's comedy/adventure Pixels.

Aliens mistake video of an arcade competition for a threat, and attack Earth in the form of 80s video-game characters.

I make a point of not reading reviews before I write mine, but, being online as much as I am, I couldn't miss the fact that a lot of people think Pixels really stinks. I'm here to ask those folks, in the immortal words of the Slowskys, "Why don't you like fun?"

I do not like Adam Sandler, not even a little bit. On occasion I like a movie despite Adam Sandler, but never because of Adam Sandler. I continue to give Adam Sandler chances to win me over, because I felt the same way about Ben Stiller before Tropic Thunder, and I figure everyone deserves a second, tenth, or 250th chance, right?

I won't pretend Pixels should sweep the Academy Awards or anything. Much as I enjoyed it, I even understand a little bit why critics are bashing it, though I'd bet some of them didn't bother watching it before doing so. I'm pretty sure you lose your Official Critics' Card if you say anything nice about a movie starring Adam Sandler. For the rest of us, though, Pixels has more than a few things going for it.

As with many Sandler vehicles, the nostalgia is laid on thick and heavy. If you're in the 40-60 age range, you're almost guaranteed to love the movie based solely on the musical selections and pop-culture references. The first half of Pixels is consistently laugh-out-loud funny. The second half is more action heavy, and, if the laughs taper off a bit, they're replaced with truly marvelous special effects. Due to time constraints, I saw Pixels in 2D, but you can bet I'm seeing it again in 3D as soon as humanly possible, and I have no doubt it's going to be worth it.

The look of this film is TOP-NOTCH. Pixels isn't going to change your mind about its cast; you'll enjoy the actors you already like, and continue to be annoyed by the ones you don't. To Sandler's credit, he only does one (1) of his trademark stupid voices the whole time, making him at least 95% less irritating to me than he normally is.

Pixels clocks in at a quick 105 minutes and is rated PG13 for "some language and suggestive comments."

It's possible Pixels won't connect with people of a certain age, but young kids are sure to love the action and eye-popping effects as much as we older folks do the tunes and 80s jokes.

Of a possible nine Weasleys, Pixels gets seven.

Until next time...