MOVIE REVIEW: HANSEL & GRETEL WITCH HUNTERS

Fifteen years after a horrific experience in a deceptively inviting ginger bread house, an orphan Hansel (Jeremy Renner) and Gretel (Gemma Arterton) have become famous for ridding the countryside of witches. Despite their stellar success record, the brother and sister face a unique challenge when an extremely powerful witch. The film was directed by Tommy Wirkola. Actresses Famke Janssen and Pihla Vitala co-star. ~ Tracie Cooper, Rovi

Director: Tommy Wirkola

Cast: Jeremy Renner, Gemma Arterton, Famke Janssen, Peter Stormare, Ingrid Bolsø Berdal.

Release Date: Jan 25, 2013

Rated R for fantasy Horror Violence/Gore, Brief Sexuality/Nudity and Language

Runtime: 1 hr. 28 min.

Genres: Fantasy

Review:

If you are watching a movie called Hansel & Gretel Witch Hunters then you have a good idea about what kind of film you are going to see, more so, if you are familiar with Tommy Wirkola’s previous film, the schlock fest Dead Snow. Hansel & Gretel Witch Hunters has a good sense of humor about itself and never takes itself overly seriously. A generic plot, which only has a few flourishes, is pedestrian enough that you could watch this while doing other things while never missing much in terms of plot. That’s not to say it isn’t watchable, which it is, but that’s mostly because the cast seems to be having a great time. Jeremy Renner and Gemma Arterton make a fun duo, each fully embracing the general silliness of plot and their characters. They have great chemistry together. Famke Janssen is equally fun as the main baddie. She vamps it up from the first moment she hits the screen. The interplay and overly gory and vulgar script partnered with some solid direction keep the film moving. It’s fun and rather silly but never great. The entire film looks like it was done on a cheap sound stage which becomes more and more noticeable as the film progresses. Likewise, cheap 3D showcase shots litter the film’s 2nd half. This might have been fun on the big screen in 3D but at home it’s just wasted space and time. The biggest issue is the script which is so bland that it rarely takes advantage of the performances. It all plays out the way you think it will and rarely provides enough to fully engage the audience. For what it is, it’s disposable fun which has the good grace to keep things light and short.

C+

Cindy Prascik’s Review of World War Z

Dearest Blog, today it was off to the cinema for World War Z.

Folks, the zombie apocalypse is upon us, and it's left to Brad Pitt to turn the tide.

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

Surprise, dear reader(s), I have actually read the book on which this film is based! The Great Gatsby? No. World War Z? Yes. If anyone's looking for me, I'll be off killing myself for the good of the species.

World War Z is a so-so zombie flick, but a pretty darn good dramatic thriller. Everything is presented in such a grounded way that, had filmmakers elected to use a term other than "zombie," it could have been another Contagion. Tension stays high throughout, and--though I've heard complaints that it's too slow--my attention never strayed. The living dead are appropriately creepy and, as fans will have noted from the trailers, can not only run but climb, a significant change from the usual zombie lore. Sorta made me want to sprint for the car when it was all said and done...just in case!

Brad Pitt is effective in the lead, though the role is hardly taxing. Fans of The Killing will note that Mirielle Enos smiles more in a film about the end of the friggin' world than she does in her weekly TV series...what?? The remaining cast is serviceable, if not remarkable, with the closest thing to a standout being Daniella Kertesz. The kids are a little annoying, but aren't on screen enough that it much matters. Personally, I was delighted to see David Morse and The Hour's Peter Capaldi in small roles.

The strangest thing about World War Z is what it's missing: blood and guts. We've become accustomed to The Walking Dead and its tendency to get up close and personal with zombies gnawing on human flesh, or Daryl Dixon putting an arrow through a walker's eye and splattering brains out the back of its head. You'll find virtually none of that in WWZ, which elects to keep the camera on the person wielding the gun/sword/axe/baseball bat/whatever, as opposed to actually showing a zombie's head getting smashed into a billion pieces. While I'm not saying making the film a gratuitous splatter-fest would have been the better artistic choice, I will say the extremely tame language and lack of any significant gore does leave the movie lacking an edge it probably could have used.

Regular reader(s) will know that vampires are my "thing," not zombies; in fact, if not for the presence of Mr. Pitt, I'd probably have paired my weekly Star Trek screening with Monsters University rather than with World War Z. I also found the book painfully dull, so, while I figured the movie had to be at least somewhat better, my expectations were moderate at best. I'm happy to report I was pleasantly surprised and liked the film much better than I anticipated.

World War Z runs a steadily-paced 116 minutes and is rated PG13 for "intense, frightening zombie sequences, violence, and disturbing images." It bears little resemblance to the book on which it's based, but that's not necessarily a bad thing! Of a possible nine Weasleys, World War Z gets six and a half.

Until next time...




OHMYGOSH, IT'S THE ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE!!

MOVIE REVIEW: WORLD WAR Z

Brad Pitt stars as an ex-United Nations employee racing around the globe in a bid to halt a worldwide zombie pandemic in Marc Forster's sprawling adaptation of Max Brooks' bestselling novel of the same name. James Badge Dale, Matthew Fox, and David Morse co-star in this Paramount Films production. ~ Jason Buchanan, Rovi

Director: Marc Forster

Cast: Brad Pitt, James Badge Dale, Ludi Boeken, Matthew Fox, David Morse

Release Date: Jun 21, 2013

Rated PG-13 for intense frightening zombie sequences, violence and disturbing images.

Runtime: 1 hr. 55 min.

Genres: Action/Adventure, Drama, Horror

Review:

World War Z, the book, is one of the smartest slants on zombies I’ve ever read. The amount of research that Max Brook put into his heady novella is extensive and well thought out. I personally think the best way to adapt the book faithfully is via a mini series. Of course that won’t happen. The film version bares little resemblance to the book and if book readers can detach themselves from that fact they might be able to enjoy it. It’s a generic but occasionally thrilling blockbuster. Brad Pitt is pretty much the only character that matters throughout. There are other ancillary characters but honestly they don’t matter outside of window dressing. Pitt is tasked with saving the world because he works for the UN doing, um, well something. Either way its Pitt’s show and thankfully he’s one of the few actors strong enough to carry a film like this. The plot littered is logical holes but thanks to his commanding, paternal presence you can overlook them, for the most part. Marc Forster does a solid job in the director’s chair. He crafts some impressively tense sequences throughout. This film is a relentless yet sterile PG-13 funhouse ride filled with big action set pieces. Even the airplane sequence, which I still found rather silly, works. It also confirmed my longstanding theory that Brad Pitt could survive an airplane crash solely based on good looks and charm. Unfortunately, like some rides, its ends abruptly with very little pomp and circumstance almost like it was out of breath and motivation. It’s all easily digestible and forgettable.

B-

TV SHOW REVIEW: HEMLOCK GROVE

A teenage girl is brutally murdered, sparking a hunt for her killer. But in a town where everyone hides a secret, will they find the monster among them?

Cast: Famke Janssen, Penelope Mitchell, Freya Tingley, Bill Skarsgård, Freya Tingley, Kandyse McClure, Aaron Douglas

Executive producer(s) Eli Roth, Charles H. Eglee, Eric Newman, Michael Connolly, Lee Shipman, Brian McGreevy, Dan Paige

Written by Brian McGreevy Lee Shipman Dan Paige

Review:

Hemlock Grove feels familiar, incredibly familiar. A multitude of supernatural themed shows litter the airwaves and movie screens. Shows like True Blood and The Vampire Diaries cover somewhat similar territory with the latter proving to be a more consistently written product. Hemlock Grove has an uphill battle from the start. It has to bring us engaging characters and a new slant on certain genre tropes. Does it succeed? Not really. The central mystery at the heart of season 1 is rather uninteresting and the final reveal is telegraphed early on. The characters vary from semi interesting to bland. The fact that a mute comes off as the most intriguing character speaks volumes. The cast has a few stand outs such as Landon Liboiron as Peter Rumancek. Liboiron performance feels comfortable and natural throughout and he never comes across like he’s trying too hard unlike Bill Skarsgård. Skarsgård’s performance undersells what’s supposed to be a sexy conflicted lead; instead he comes off as whiny and disinterring. Nicole Boivin with Amazon Eve working as her massive body double as Shelly, the mute mutant Godfrey sister, emotes more through simple looks, while under extensive make up, than most of her cast mates. A usually reliable Dougray Scott comes off as stiff and fairly bland even though he’s a regular cast member. Battlestar Galactica alums, Aaron Douglas and Kandyse McClure are surprisingly bad. Some of their line delivers, especially some of the more emotional moments, miss the mark badly. Bad acting is hardly limited to them because it does pester the first season like an annoying fly. The best example of this is Famke Janssen. Janssen, with a truly embarrassing and distracting “British” accent, chews up scenery like she hasn’t eaten for weeks. Her character is supposed to be a rich, sexy man eater with a biting tongue. Janssen’s performance rarely hits her mark, occasionally falling into camp territory. Her character doesn’t become truly interesting until the latter episodes. The same can be said for the season as a whole. Its plot hints at a supernatural sci-fi, religious mix but stays in a holding pattern for most of the season. As a result, most of the plot feels like a trudge mainly because the ”twists” revealed in the latter episodes are fairly obvious and you wished it’d just get on with it already. After the reveals, the series seems to find some much stronger forward moment, something it could have sorely used earlier on. Let’s hope season 2, just confirmed, can take advantage of it.

C

[Trailer] Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues

First trailer for Anchorman 2, which shows some actual footage, has hit and it doesn’t show its hand too much. A few bit here and there made me grin but nothing made me laugh out loud.

I’m working on the assumption that they are keeping the best bits for the actual movie or at least hoping so since Anchorman is a personal favorite of mine, expectations are a tad high…

Cindy Prascik’s review of Man of Steel / This Is the End

Dearest Blog, today I followed the herd to the cinema for Man of Steel. Though I'd happily have seen Star Trek again, I did the responsible thing and paired MOS with This Is the End, so, dear reader(s), I could share my "wisdom" on the week's big new releases. You're welcome. ;-)

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

A reboot of the Superman franchise, Man of Steel is the obligatory origins tale.

The usual disclaimers, personal biases that will, no doubt, color this review: I love superhero movies. I do not love Superman, but I adore this team of filmmakers, and most of this cast. I very much wanted to love this movie. I did not.

Starting with the obvious: Henry Cavill.

I'm an Anglophile, so this is not the first time Mr. Cavill and I have crossed paths. While he is an extraordinarily good-looking young man, he is, unfortunately, only an average actor, with no special charisma. Never is that more obvious than when he shares a screen with one of Hollywood's most magnetic leading men, Russell Crowe, who is terrific as always, even with limited screen time. This film really needed a Robert Downey, Jr.-esque leading man to overcome its flaws, and Cavill is not that guy. (I'm a fan, but it is what it is.) The cast is fleshed out with big names and very familiar faces: Amy Adams, Kevin Costner, Diane Lane, Michael Shannon, Christopher Meloni, Laurence Fishburne, and, as mentioned, Russell Crowe. Other than Crowe, they are as unremarkable as the material. The usually superb Shannon is a particular disappointment, flat and uninspired as the film's main villain.

While the acting in Man of Steel is nothing to write home about, the cast can't really be blamed for the film's chief handicap: it's just plain boring. I somehow managed not to check the time more than once, which, in and of itself, constitutes a super-human feat.

Man of Steel does have some positives, including big, solid special effects, and a grand score by Hans Zimmer. My fellow Crowe fans will be pleased to note that Russell is looking fit these days, and there's no denying Henry Cavill is easy on the eyes, and has the perfect look for this iconic role.

Man of Steel attempts to drag Superman into the darker territory where Batman and Watchmen now comfortably reside, but Superman is ill
suited for that world. Take away the camp, and you're left with something that's no less silly, just less entertaining. This is an okay movie, but, sadly, far from the perfect superhero movie many of us were counting on.

Man of Steel clocks in at an excessive 143 minutes, and is rated PG13 for "intense sequences of sci-fi violence, action and destruction, and for some language." This will make a bundle at the box office this weekend, and, despite my disappointment, I'm very happy about that for all involved, and I look forward to a sequel that I'm already confident will be brilliant. Of a possible nine Weasleys, Man of Steel gets six.

Next on my agenda was the raunch-comedy, This Is the End, starring James Franco, Seth Rogen, Jay Baruchel, Craig Robinson, Jonah Hill and a slew of their Hollywood compatriots as what I'm told are very exaggerated versions of themselves...facing the Apocalypse.

This Is the End is one of those films I don't quite know what to do with. When it was funny, it was really, really funny, but, unfortunately, there was a good bit I just didn't find funny. Being that the film is essentially one long "in" joke, I'm willing to concede that maybe I just didn't get some of it, but there were also times when it was simply too much: too gross, too much foul language, too, too much. (Bear in mind I think Tropic Thunder is the funniest movie of all time, so I'm not particularly squeamish about any of that.)

The entire cast shows off brilliant comedy chops, especially Jay Baruchel (a personal favorite) and James Franco. Not sure how much credit is due there if they were basically playing themselves, but, to a man, they are hilarious. It goes without saying that I loved Harry Potter's Emma Watson in a small role that allowed her to play against type. The movie is a tad too long, and the plot (such as it is) bogs down in places, but generally speaking it's good fun from start to finish. While I won't spoil the ending for anyone who hasn't see it, I have to at least say there's a squee-worthy moment that: a.) caused me to embarrass myself in front of a packed theatre, and b.) immediately allowed me to forgive this film for any shortcomings.

This Is the End runs 107 minutes and is rated R for "crude and sexual content throughout, brief graphic nudity, pervasive language, drug use, and some violence."

It's a raucous comedy that's a great time, if you've got the stomach for it. I enjoyed it, but I also spent most of the two hours thinking how much funnier The World's End is certain to be. Of a possible nine Weasleys, This Is the End gets six.

The moral of today's cinema trip: If you're thinking of seeing either of these films, but haven't yet seen Star Trek Into Darkness or Now You See Me, do yourself a favor and see one of those instead.

Until next time...





Wait...what was I saying?