Cindy Prascik's Review of The Boys In The Band

 

Dear reader(s): Last weekend offered no real excuse for getting out to the cinema, but fortunately my friendly neighborhood streaming services had me covered. On my agenda: The Boys in the Band.

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

In late 1960s New York City, eight gay friends gather for the worst birthday party ever.

Netflix' the Boys in the Band is a remake of the 1970 film of the same name. Anyone who watches this space regularly won't waste time wondering whether I bothered to revisit the original before opining on its successor; of course I did not. This updated rendering features the company of the Tony Award-winning 2018 revival of the off-Broadway groundbreaker from 1968.

The Boys in the Band takes place in a time when homosexuality was still outlawed, and even dancing or socializing with a partner of the same sex could get a person thrown in jail. The whole thing should feel very dangerous, but, sadly, this telling is mostly missing the feel of another era. Excepting Zachary Quinto's unfortunate hairstyle, the movie feels more like a modern story with characters who are into retro fashion, which leaves the film with less edge than it could have had. Jim Parsons enjoys the most screen time, but his is an unsympathetic take on an abrasive character. Also on the character note (back to the actors later), the question I kept asking myself was: "Why do these people even hang out together?" Their disdain for one another is obvious, and it only becomes more so the more they drink. The underlying theme of self-loathing is critical to the story, but most of these people seem to hate each other more than they hate themselves. A few characters ultimately prove decent and aware enough to start trying to repair the damage, but - given the things that are said and done throughout - it feels like too little, too late. There's an nasty awkwardness to the whole that makes it a difficult watch, BUT...

Difficult or not, the Boys in the Band is definitely a worthwhile watch, for a number of reasons. The cast is so good I'd be hard-pressed to pick a standout. Zachary Quinto is an obvious choice, but Robin de Jesus is also terrific, and on- and off-screen couple Andrew Rannells and Tuc Watkins are heart-wrenching. The extraordinary Matt Bomer is a bit underused. Understandable, since his character doesn't feed into any of the major conflicts, but disappointing because featuring him more prominently might have made the whole an easier watch. (And not just because Matt Bomer is quite easy to watch, if ya know what I mean.) For whatever reason, we humans tend to be fascinated by others' trials, and here there is an aspect of watching something awful unfold without risk of being dragged into it personally...rather like reading all 500 comments in a Facebook argument among people you don't know! Finally, while the impact of this play in the late 1960s must have been monumental, it continues to carry a feeling of immense release and freedom. Seeing a story that reflects your own - warts and all - is an all too uncommon experience for many. I'm reminded of a moment when the the National Tour of Rent stopped in my city a few years back. As the theatre emptied out after the show, two people stood at the front for the longest time, crying and hugging each other, so deeply moved they were oblivious to anything around them. Long before Rent, the Boys in the Band would have been the first time many folks had seen someone like themselves on page, stage, or screen, and that emotion runs through even its bitchiest moments. 

The Boys in the Band runs 121 minutes and is rated R for "sexual content, language, some graphic nudity, and drug use."

The Boys in the Band isn't a perfect movie by any means, but its fantastic cast and emotional wallop make for worthwhile viewing. Of a possible nine Weasleys, the Boys in the Band gets seven.

The Boys in the Band is now streaming on Netflix.

Until next time...

Cindy Prascik's Review of Snowden

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dearest Blog: Yesterday it was off to Marquee Cinemas to check out the latest from Oliver Stone: Snowden. 

 

Spoiler level here will be mild, nothing you wouldn't know from the trailers. Convinced the US government's spying has gone too far, a CIA consultant steals information to expose its secrets. Snowden is awards bait at its most obvious. 

 

Timely, contentious subject matter combines with decorated talent to peg it an early contender, but that doesn't necessarily make it a great movie. 

 

Joseph Gordon-Levitt is compelling as Edward Snowden, though his deliberate method of speech is nearly as distracting as his French accent was in The Walk. Rhys Ifans and Nicolas Cage turn in terrific performances as Snowden's CIA mentors, and Melissa Leo, Zachary Quinto, and Tom Wilkinson are fantastic as the journalists who helped break Snowden's remarkable story. 

 

While Snowden's tale is undoubtedly fascinating, the movie seems to drag. Your attention isn't likely to wander too far, but you'll be getting mighty fidgety by the second act. A political story by default, Snowden may annoy both sides of the aisle equally. 

 

Unlike last weekend's pristine cinema hero, Sully, Ed Snowden is no squeaky-clean good guy; his reasons were brave and selfless, but he still broke laws intended to protect the country he loves so much. Is he a heroic villian? A villianous hero? The movie asks the questions, but isn't all that convincing in its answer. Snowden is distractingly desperate for awards, but there are some great moments to be found. 

 

A scene where a video-screen Ifans looms cartoonishly-large over Levitt's doubting Snowen is particularly effective. 

 

The film maintains tension throughout, but a cheesy ending leaves you feeling like it was all for naught. Snowden clocks in at 134 minutes and is rated R for "language and some sexuality/nudity." Snowden is a reasonably entertaining outing, but its heavy-handedness is ultimately its downfall. Of a possible nine Weasleys, Snowden gets five and a half. 

Fangirl points: Timothy Olyphant! Until next time... 

 

MOVIE REVIEW: STAR TREK BEYOND

Captain Kirk and the crew of the Enterprise encounter an alien warrior race when marooned on a distant planet after the destruction of their spaceship in this thrilling sequel directed by Fast & Furious director Justin Lin. ~ Violet LeVoit, Rovi

Director: Justin Lin

Cast: Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Simon Pegg, Anton Yelchin, John Cho

Release Date: Jul 22, 2016

Rated PG-13 Sequences of Sci-Fi Action and Violence

Runtime: 2 hr. 2 min.

Genres: Action/Adventure, Sci-Fi/Fantasy

Review:

Star Trek Beyond feels like an extended episode of the non existent rebooted series and not a particularly good one.  That’s not to say it isn’t a fun film because it’s an enjoyable lightweight romp which comes and goes with little of consequence really happening.  Justin Lin’s direction is action heavy as expected with lots of big set pieces which are fun and well choreographed.  The biggest asset of the rebooted series has always been the cast and the best thing Beyond does is it gives each of them their time to shine.  Clearly most of the actors have settled into their roles.  Karl Urban has always been a personal favorite of mine as McCoy and here he’s given a much larger role which is to the film’s benefit.  Pine and Quinto are solid as Kirk and Spock with their personal story lines feeling well thought out and meaningful.  Sadly, the overall story is fairly weak even though there’s some nice fan service written into the script, an NX class ship! yelled those few Enterprise fans, but ultimately it’s a waste of Idris Elba as the villain.  Elba is a fine actor wasted underneath a ton of make up and a thinly written character which is really a massive shame.  As is Star Trek Beyond is a mindlessly fun film but one that isn’t terribly deep or meaningful like some of the Trek films in the past.

C

Cindy Prascik's Review of Star Trek Beyond

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dearest Blog: Today it was off to Marquee Cinemas for Star Trek Beyond. Spoiler level here will be mild, nothing you wouldn't know from the trailers. Midway through a five-year mission to deep space, the Enterprise crew is called upon to save the world(s) from a ruthless enemy. While I'm a casual fan of Star Trek in general, I'm positively rabid over the current film franchise, which boasts my favorite cast of any series and movies that I'll happily watch over and over and over again. I am pleased to report that Beyond does not miss a step on the path of excellence set by the first two movies. 

 

First we have the ensemble, for my money, Hollywood's very finest. Every person is ideally suited to his or her role, and consistently turns in sincere, entertaining performances. The more comical tone of the current installment fits co-writer Simon Pegg, Chris Pine, and Karl Urban to a "T," and the picture is not short on laugh-out-loud moments. The sad losses of Leonard Nimoy and Anton Yelchin since the previous film cast a bit of a pall over the experience, but that is in no way the movie's fault. Bring the tissues, though. You're gonna need them at least once. Franchise newcomers Sofia Boutella and Idris Elba are both fantastic. 

 

Michael Giacchino's lovely score is the perfect accompaniment to moments both large and small. Nice-looking sets underscore some great big effects, and the Enterprise's first appearance is, as always, a chill-inducing moment. Under director Justin Lin's hand, we get a more action-oriented movie this time out (insert Fast & Furious joke here), so the film does feel a bit more like a plain old action-comedy than any great step forward for the Trek universe, but thanks to an edge-of-your-seat story, genuine, well-written dialogue, and the cast's terrific chemistry, you're never less than fully immersed. 

 

A few small quibbles: the movie's a little too heavy on the jiggly camera work, some scenes are impossibly dark (a by-product of seeing a 3D picture in 2D?), and whatever they were thinking when they cast Idris Elba as a character who doesn't look like Idris Elba, well, it was clearly misguided. Star Trek Beyond clocks in at 120 minutes and is rated PG13 for "sequences of sci-fi action and violence." A big, fun summer blockbuster that also delivers a great message about the importance of love and friendship, Star Trek Beyond has a lot to love for Trek die-hards, casual fans, and even folks without so much as a passing familiarity with the franchise. 

 

Of a possible nine Weasleys, Star Trek Beyond gets eight and a half. 

 

Fangirl points: Idris Elba. Did I mention Idris Elba? Because...yeah...Idris Elba. 

 

Until next time...

Cindy Prascik's Reviews of American Ultra & Hitman: Agent 47

Dearest Blog: Yesterday it was off to the pictures for a pair of shoot-em-up flicks, American Ultra and Hitman: Agent 47.

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

This week's first kudos go not to either movie, but to the schedule maker(s) at Marquee Cinemas, who receive a full nine Weasleys for two 90-minute films with 30 minutes in between. Perfection!

First up on that ideal schedule: American Ultra.

All is not as it seems with a pair of stoners in a (made-up) little West Virginia town.
American Ultra is one of those movies that has the potential to be accidentally awesome. It doesn't look like anything special, but all the pieces are there so it *could* be, you know? It isn't quite awesome, but it's still pretty solid.

Jesse Eisenberg and Kristen Stewart share an awkward chemistry that serves them well as a couple pretty awkward people. Eisenberg moves effortlessly from mellow to panicked to deadpan to badass, always believable and sympathetic.

Stewart is often accused of being expressionless, but she's solid here as well. The supporting cast is uniformly decent, for as much as they need to be (what a waste of Bill Pullman!), but basically, if you don't like Eisenberg and/or Stewart, that's going to be an almost insurmountable hurdle with this movie. American Ultra has plenty of twists and turns, with fast, brutal, bloody action, and a dry wit that holds it all together.

American Ultra clocks in at 95 minutes and is rated R for "strong bloody violence, language throughout, drug use, and some sexual content."

American Ultra is missing that *something* that would have made it exceptional, but I still found it smart, exciting, and entertaining.

Of a possible nine Weasleys, American Ultra gets six and a half.

Next on the agenda, Hitman: Agent 47.

A woman reluctantly teams with a super assassin to unravel the mysteries of her past.

Dear reader(s), there's no sugar-coating it: Agent 47 is a real snooze-fest, and, if not for my mad crush on Zachary Quinto, I might have nodded off. There's not a hint of genuine emotion or excitement to be found anywhere in Agent 47. Nicely-designed stunts are blandly executed, and the leads are as dry as my lawn invariably is 'round about this time of the year. Hannah Ware has all the expression of the freshly-Botoxed, and Rupert Friend looks like a perpetually-annoyed Orlando Bloom. Ciaran Hinds gets the job done, but he doesn't turn up until it's far too late to salvage anything. It's quite a feat for a movie this short to wear out its welcome, but that seems to be the one area where Hitman: Agent 47 actually succeeds.

Hitman: Agent 47 runs 96 minutes and is rated R for "sequences of strong violence, and some language."

Agent 47 is so dull I was hardly even annoyed when the guy next to me played on his iPad the whole time.

Of a possible nine Weasleys, Hitman: Agent 47 gets two.

Until next time...

Curiously, this is also how my homecooked Sunday dinners usually turn out!

Cindy Prascik’s Review of Star Trek Into Darkness

Dearest Blog, today I set out for the cinema to see the much-anticipated sequel Star Trek Into Darkness.
An attack on Starfleet HQ sends Kirk and company after the terrifying culprit and into peril...erm...darkness.
Spoiler level here will be mild.

First, dear reader(s), a couple disclaimers. Been awhile since I've needed a review disclaimer, so here are two to make up for lost time.

1.) I am not deeply invested in Star Trek lore. The series was always on at my house when we were growing up, and I love the 2009 reboot with the fire of a thousand suns, but there's...uh...let's say a 90% chance that anything non-canon would go right over my head, and there's a 100% chance that it wouldn't bother me even if I noticed.

2.) The cast of the 2009 Star Trek flick is one of my top five movie casts of all time. I stalk red carpet footage, watch hour upon hour of interviews, and use their photocall shots as my desktop wallpaper. I love them as I love my dearest friends, and there's no doubt that affection colors my opinion of their movies.
That out of the way, I loooooooooooved Star Trek Into Darkness!

My beloved cast does not let me down. There's screen chemistry to spare between Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto, and both have ample opportunity to showcase their dramatic and comedic chops. Simon Pegg has a bit more to do this time 'round, and more Simon Pegg is always better than less Simon Pegg. Karl Urban, Zoe Saldana, John Cho, and Anton Yelchin are once again solid, exceedingly likeable, and exceedingly easy on the eyes. If I resent having to put up with Alice Eve and Aisha Hinds, it's more than outweighed by the awesomeness that is Benedict Cumberbatch. His performance is magnetic. Those who aren't yet fans (what's wrong with you???) surely will be by the end of 2013!

Star Trek Into Darkness has big, loud effects that, at times, had me jumping out of my seat. Per usual, I did a 2D show, but I'm confident several scenes must be absolutely stunning in 3D, almost certainly worth the upcharge and stupid-glasses headache.

What really makes this film special is the relationships among the characters. Sure, it's a wild ride, complete with terrific effects, amazing ships, shootouts, mortal peril, and crazy, futuristic weapons, but it's the great affection among the crew, and their faith in one another, that gives Star Trek Into Darkness its heart, and makes it better than your average summer sci-fi blockbuster.

Star Trek Into Darkness clocks in at 132 minutes and is rated PG13 for "intense sequences of sci-fi action and violence." I'm always complaining about movies being too long, but I could easily have sat through another two hours of this one.

Of a possible nine Weasleys, I'm giving Star Trek Into Darkness eight and a half, and officially naming it the best film of 2013 so far.

Until next time...




Perfect cast is perfect.

MOVIE REVIEW: STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS

The Star Trek franchise continues with this follow-up to 2009's J.J. Abrams-directed reboot. Abrams returns to direct from a script by Damon Lindelof and the writing team of Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman. The crew of the Enterprise engages in an epic battle of good versus evil after being summoned home, only to discover Starfleet in ruins, and they venture into a war zone to find the powerful villain (Sherlock's Benedict Cumberbatch) responsible for the devastation. ~ Jeremy Wheeler, Rovi

Director: J.J. Abrams

Cast: Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Karl Urban, Benedict Cumberbatch, Zoe Saldana.

Release Date: May 16, 2013

Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of sci-fi action and violence.

Runtime: 2 hr. 12 min.

Genres: Action/Adventure, Sci-Fi/Fantasy

Review:

4 years ago J.J. Abrams restarted the Trek universe by moving it into an alternate time in order remove the burden of years of mythology to deal with. His new version was fun and had a certain pop while removing most of the subtext in most of the classic Trek shows and movies. As a long time fan of Star Trek I’ve had a weird relationship with the reboot because I like it but never warmed up to it as much as new fans. Still, I was interested in seeing where Abrams would take the franchise with the opportunity to blaze his own trail and tell his own stories. Star Trek Into Darkness delivers all the visual spectacle and massive action set pieces (a duel space flight and the Enterprise’s out of control decent to Earth in particular stand) to appease the summer blockbuster hordes. The story this go around is darker, duh, and more nuanced with plenty of real world parallels readily evident. Long time fans will have plenty to geek out over like redesigned Klingons, Birds of Prey and if you look carefully the Enterprise NX-01 and Zefram Cochrane's warp ship. Needless to say, there’s plenty of fan service throughout the film. Unfortunately, there are a multitude of issues with the film. While the over all plot is better the script itself is a disappointment. A large chunk of the dialogue sounds incredibly clunky with some of the speeches sounding kind of silly. Chris Pine, who did a solid job in the original film, is rather wooden this time around. There are times where his line delivery just comes off as disinterested. Zachary Quinto fares much better but it’s not on the same level as his debut as Spock. Karl Urban, Zoe Saldana, John Cho, Simon Pegg and to a smaller extent Anton Yelchin get moments to shine but they are in the background more often than not. Benedict Cumberbatch delivers the best performance of the bunch with his bellowing voice used to maximum villainous effect here. His character is the crux of a major twist. Sadly, said twist is so obvious that most people should be able to figure it out in the first act if not earlier. It’s a common theme as there are numerous moments that the filmmakers clearly expect to make a huge impact but they fail because it’s all so obvious. For a reboot series that tried so hard to tear itself away from it’s past, a lot of this feels incredibly familiar. I could go through a list of films that it borrows from but I’d spoil most of the plot. New fans should find plenty to enjoy and I did like it more often than not but not nearly as much as I did the first time around.

C+

[Trailer] Star Trek Into Darkness

We get our first glimpse of the upcoming reboot sequel via this "announcement" trailer, as a life long Trek fan I’m still not sure what to make of it. I enjoyed the reboot but it lacked a true Trek feel, we’ll see if this one can capture that as of right now it looks like a big action tent pole film….

The Star Trek franchise continues with this follow-up to 2009's J.J. Abrams-directed reboot. Abrams returns to direct from a script by Damon Lindelof and the writing team of Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman. The crew of the Enterprise engages in an epic battle of good versus evil after being summoned home to discover Starfleet in ruins, and venturing into a war zone to find the powerful villain (Sherlock's Benedict Cumberbatch) responsible for the devastation. ~ Jeremy Wheeler, Rovi





Japanese trailer below has a bit of extra footage which hints that they might be doing a version of a classic Trek film…



Full new trailer

Movie Reviews: STAR TREK

Friday, May 08, 2009
Movie Reviews: STAR TREK
IN THEATERS
STAR TREK

From director J.J. Abrams ("Mission: Impossible III," "Lost" and "Alias"), producers Damon Lindelof and Bryan Burk and screenwriters Roberto Orci & Alex Kurtzman ("Transformers," "MI: III") comes a new vision of the greatest space adventure of all time, "Star Trek," featuring a young, new crew venturing boldly where no one has gone before.

Cast: Chris Pine, Zachary Quinto, Leonard Nimoy, Eric Bana, Bruce Greenwood, Karl Urban

Director: J.J. Abrams

Opened May 7, 2009

Runtime: 2 hr. 6 min.

Rated PG-13 for violence, sci-fi action and brief sexual content

Genres: Space Adventure, Science Fiction

Review:

First let me preface this review that I’ve been a Trek fan since I was kid and started watching ST: The Next Generation in 87’. Since then I’ve watched any and every incarnation of Trek that’s come out, good or bad. Needless to say I may be a bit biased in my view of J.J. Abrams redux. Regardless I’ll give it my best shot. J.J. Abrams has created a new “version” of classic Trek which now comes in an easy to swallow pill for the uninitiated. First off it’s not a reboot in the truest sense as the script uses a few of Trek’s biggest crutches, time traveling and alternate realities, to give us this fresh version of Star Trek. From the opening sequence we get a great sense of what’s in store. An impressive space battle filled with the type of frenzied combat that has rarely been seen in Trek before. The action is well choreographed and briskly paced. The classic phaser beams from the starships have been replaced with pulse shots which resemble Star Wars a tad more. As a result, the space battles are quicker and more like dog fights as opposed to the classic submarine feel. Its effect and engaging, grabbling the audience from the start. J.J. Abrams makes it clear from the start that his version of Trek would have a higher focus on action as opposed to the cerebral aspect of Roddenberry’s original concept. In this version we don’t get long philosophical monologues about the prime directive or any high sounding concepts. In doing so Abrams streamlines the overall concept and make the film a more visceral experience as opposed to a cerebral one. The space battles are massive set pieces clearly benefiting from the greatly improved budget, when compared to the previous Trek films. The technical aspects are deftly handled giving the audience all it can handle in each engagement. Needless to say, Abram’s does a great job at the helm giving the general audience something fun and easily digestible throughout. Scripting from his long time collaborators Roberto Orci & Alex Kurtzman does a fine job of giving hardcore fans plenty of tidbits and throwaway lines that’ll make them grin while never folding too deeply into Trek’s massive mythology. That being said, the script is a weak point as it relies on very traditional Star Trek devices and antagonist. The overall plot is a rehash from countless other Trek stories from the movies and shows. The villain and his motivations are just as familiar. The fresh faced cast gives the script a much needed lift and most turn in very impressive performances considering the task at hand. Chris Pine was tasked with the toughest task of turning in a fresh approach to Shatner’s Kirk. Pine turns in a solid if slightly uneven performance. There are moments were channels Shatner’s charisma and charm and other times he just misses the mark. Thankfully he succeeds more than he fails and makes a fine Kirk and never falls into parody. Zachary Quinto delivers a measured performance, his younger version of Spock brims with emotions ready to bubble up at any moment. Karl Urban truly channels the late Deforest Kelly in his turn as Doctor McCoy. It’s a fun performance that recalls all of Kelly’s fine work but avoids strict imitation. Zoe Saldana gives Uhura a strong sense of self and purpose in limited screen time. Simon Pegg, John Cho & Anton Yelchin are all clearly having fun in their supporting turns as Scotty, Sulu and Chekov. Bruce Greenwood’s turn as Captain Pine, the Enterprise’s first captain, is appropriately serious and fatherly. Ben Cross as Sarek, Spock’s father, misses the mark especially when compared to Mark Lenard’s previous interpretation. He doesn’t do anything new with the role and is mildly forgettable. Eric Bana is straddled with a very traditional Star Trek villain and he does the best he can with it. Bana gives Nero a decent amount of rage but the script doesn’t really allow for much more. Leonard Nimoy’s extended cameo is great giving longtime Trek fans a nice link to this new iteration. Cameo’s by Winona Ryder and Tyler Perry (?) are non invasive and ultimately pointless. As a whole this entire endeavor is a fine example of properly rebooting long running franchises much like the recent James Bond and Batman redux. J.J. Abram’s film walks that fine line, keeping hardcore fandom and the general public happy.

A