Cindy Prascik's Reviews of Alice Through the Looking Glass & X-Men: Apocalypse

 

 

 

Dearest Blog: Yesterday it was off to Marquee Cinemas for the maligned pair of Alice Through the Looking Glass and X-Men: Apocalypse. Spoiler level here will be mild, nothing you wouldn't know from the trailers. 

 

Well, dear Reader(s), I was prepared to tell you neither of these pictures is as bad as you've probably heard, but last night I spent good money to watch How to Be Single, so, by comparison, now I guess I'm prepared to call them both Oscar worthy. 

 

First on the docket: Alice Through the Looking Glass. The further adventures of Ms. Kingsleigh and her whimsical Wonderland friends. It's probably fair to say that Through the Looking Glass is the sequel nobody who isn't collecting a paycheck from it ever wanted, but I'm pleased to report it's really not all that bad. 

 

On the positive side, the movie boasts enjoyable performances from Johnny Depp, Mia Wasikowska, and Helena Bonham Carter. Colleen Atwood's costumes are glorious, and Danny Elfman provides a magical score. 

 

The film kicks off with an exciting high-seas action sequence, sets and cinematography are beautiful throughout, and there's some nice CGI work. On the downside, there won't be much middle ground on Depp's Mad Hatter; if you don't love it, you're likely to hate it, as I did with that weird, fluttery thing Anne Hathaway kept doing with her hands. 

 

In one of his final roles, Alan Rickman has barely three lines. Finally, though the movie mostly keeps a good pace and isn't overlong, the final act slows to a snail's pace. Alice Through the Looking Glass runs 113 minutes and is rated PG for "fantasy action/peril and some language." 

 

It's hardly special, especially from a company that inspires the devotion that Disney does, but Alice Through the Looking Glass provides a couple hours of enjoyable escapism. 

 

Of a possible nine Weasleys, Alice Through the Looking Glass gets five. Fangirl points: Richard Armitage and Andrew Scott. 

 

Next on my agenda: X-Men: Apocalypse. When a godlike mutant threatens to destroy the world, the X-Men must band together to save it. X-Men: Apocalypse isn't a perfect film, but it's good fun and hardly deserves the critical beating it's taking. The movie has a fantastic cast and does a fine job of fairly distributing screen time, though, once again, its Evan Peters' Quicksilver who manages to steal the show. 

 

If a brief, crowd-pleasing appearance by a certain someone isn't precisely a surprise in this Internet age, it definitely retains its impact on the audience, if not really on the plot. Apocalypse runs overlong and is a bit convoluted, but the action is terrific and keeps things moving at a good pace. Some great effects and huge set pieces make the movie well worth seeing on a big screen. 

 

X-Men: Apocalypse clocks in at 144 minutes and is rated PG13 for "sequences of violence, action, and destruction, brief strong language, and some suggestive images." The weakest link in a pretty strong trilogy, X-Men: Apocalypse is still worth your movie dollar. Of a possible nine Weasleys, X-Men: Apocalypse gets six. Fangirl points: Zeljko Ivanek and a Duran Duran "Rio" poster on the wall! 

 

Until next time... 

 

 

Cindy Prascik's Reviews of Crimson Peak & Bridge of Spies

Dearest Blog, yesterday it was off to the pictures for the "I'd Rather See Goosebumps" double-bill of Crimson Peak and Bridge of Spies.

Spoiler level here will be mild, nothing you haven't seen in the trailers.

First on the agenda: Crimson Peak.

A young American would-be author (Mia Wasikowska) marries a titled Englishman (Tom Hiddleston), and accompanies him to his creepy mansion in less-than-merry old England.

Dear reader(s), imagine if you will: You stop by the local bakery and select the best-looking cupcake from their display. It's big and fluffy, with an inch of chocolate icing and lots of colorful sprinkles. You get it home, take a bite, and...it's made of sand.

That's Crimson Peak, a thing of unparalleled beauty--from its preternaturally gorgeous (and top-notch) cast to its striking Gothic architecture to its frilly Victorian finery--that's a grave disappointment underneath.

Crimson Peak does a fine job of looking creepy, and jump-scares are cheap and plentiful, but it never builds any genuine tension. If you haven't figured out exactly where it's going and exactly how it's getting there within the first 15 minutes, you probably aren't paying attention. Jessica Chastain couldn't be more blatantly sinister if she had a moustache to twirl, and, far from being frightened, half of my theatre laughed out loud at the ghouls.

On the plus side, if you love the art of making movies or just enjoy something that's wonderful to look at, Crimson Peak is worth the price of admission on its visual merits alone. In shallower news, Charlie Hunnam is adorable, and there are even a few brief seconds of Hiddlesbutt for those of us who swoon for Tom!

Crimson Peak clocks in at 119 minutes and is rated R for "bloody violence, some sexual content, and brief strong language."

Beneath its gorgeous exterior, Crimson Peak unfortunately has nothing to offer. 

Of a possible nine Weasleys, Crimson Peak gets two.

Next up, Bridge of Spies.

An American insurance attorney is reluctantly dragged into the business of international espionage.

If there were an award for "Trailer I'm Most Tired Of Seeing," Bridge of Spies would be the hands-down winner. It feels like this one's previewed before every single film I've seen since March, and, since that very first trailer, one thing's been abundantly clear: Bridge of Spies is throwing its hat into the awards ring.

To that end: Tom Hanks is fantastic, as always, in the lead. The Academy owes him as much as its ever owed anybody for snubbing his magnificent work in Captain Phillips, so, even though the Best Actor races look pretty tight this year, it'd be hard to be mad at Hanks if he bumps someone else out (unless said "someone else" is Johnny Depp...then Yours Truly shall be good and damn mad!). Mark Rylance more than holds his own opposite Hanks--could earn some well-deserved hardware of his own--and the supporting cast is uniformly solid, if unremarkable.

Bridge of Spies does a nice job of holding the attention with its nerve-wracking tale, and offers a still-timely message about the perils of unchecked jingoism masquerading as patriotism. Clearing two hours by a good 20 minutes, it could have done with a trim, but the film keeps moving and never feels as long as it is.

Bridge of Spies runs 141 minutes and is rated PG13 for "some violence and brief, strong language."

It's a fascinating yarn with some great performances, but, despite its obvious intentions, Bridge of Spies doesn't look like Best Picture material to me.

Of a possible nine Weasleys, Bridge of Spies gets six.

Until next time...

MOVIE REVIEWS: ALICE IN WONDERLAND 3D

Sunday, March 07, 2010

IN THEATERS



ALICE IN WONDERLAND 3D

Director Tim Burton and screenwriter Linda Woolverton (Beauty and the Beast, The Lion King) team up to deliver this visually-dazzling take on the classic Lewis Carrol tale. Nineteen year old Alice (Mia Wasikowska) is attending party at a lavish country estate when she sees a White Rabbit with a pocket-watch dart into the bushes. Curious, she follows the rabbit to an enormous tree, and tumbles down a hole that takes her to Underland, a strange world inhabited by anthropomorphic creatures in search of someone to save them from the dreaded Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter), who has assumed control of the kingdom by decapitating anyone who dares disagree with her. According to a scroll detailing a historical timeline of Underland - including events that have not yet taken place - it is Alice who will set the kingdom free by defeating the Jabberwocky, a powerful, dragon-like creature under the control of the Red Queen. But is this Alice the same Alice who appears in the scroll? While some of the creatures of Underland have their doubts, the Mad Hatter (Johnny Depp) and his friends are certain she's the same girl who previously visited them years ago. When the Red Queen kidnaps the Mad Hatter, Alice attempts to free her friend and locate the one weapon with the power to slay the Jabberwocky, thereby restoring the White Queen (Anne Hathaway) to the throne, and bringing peace back to Underland. ~ Jason Buchanan, All Movie Guide

Director: Tim Burton

Cast: Mia Wasikowska, Johnny Depp, Anne Hathaway, Helena Bonham Carter, Matt Lucas.

Release Date: ..Mar 05, 2010..

Rated PG for scary situations, scary images, fantasy action violence and a smoking caterpillar

Runtime: 1 hr. 49 min.

Genres: Fantasy

Review:


Alice in Wonderland and Tim Burton should be a match made in creative head trip heaven. Sadly, Burton’s adaptation comes to the screen feeling terribly inert and unoriginal. Visually, Burton adds his usual flair to the proceedings and occasionally the film has some inspired moment. Those moments keep you hoping the film will find its stride but it never finds its footing. The story, written by Linda Woolverton, borrows pieces from Alice in Wonderland and its literary follow up Through the Looking Glass feels uninspired and derivative coming off closer to The Chronicles of Narnia than something original. Mia Wasikowska does well in the lead role providing the necessary curiosity and strength. Johnny Depp is surprisingly one note as the Mad Hatter and is probably the biggest disappointment on the acting side. Helena Bonham Carter is good fun as the Red Queen but the character, like the Mad Hatter, is terribly underwritten. Anne Hathaway suffers a similar fate with the White Queen but she does provide some fun moments especially how she moves around. Crispin Glover feels very comfortable in his role as Stayne the Knave of Hearts bringing his usual oddness. The voice talents for the CGI creations are adequate with Stephen Fry making the best impression as the Cheshire Cat. Once the film’s climactic battle comes and goes you can’t help but be left feeling a tad under whelmed. The film’s use of 3D was equally unimpressive with Burton only using it for the occasional trick scenes, something popping towards the audience, and nothing more. Sadly, it’s a symptomatic of the general state of this film. The subject matter could have been a treasure trove for Burton to add his typical spin on but the execution never achieves anything above mediocre.

C-