TV SHOW REVIEW: ORANGE IS THE NEW BLACK

Piper Chapman (Schilling), a woman from Connecticut, living in New York City who is sent to the women's Litchfield, NY federal prison for possessing a suitcase full of drug money for Alex Vause (Prepon), an international drug smuggler and Chapman's one-time lover. Sentenced to serve a fifteen-month sentence, Chapman must survive the hardships of prison life, and she may have to be a different person to do so.

Cast: Taylor Schilling, Jason Biggs, Michael Harney, Natasha Lyonne, Laura Prepon, Kate Mulgrew, Pablo Schreiber

Created by Jenji Kohan

Based on the book Orange Is the New Black by Piper Kerman

Review:

Jenji Kohan’s Weeds is the type of show that really divided a lot of people after certain massive changes utterly changed the landscape of that show. Personally, I’ve always been impressed by how bold Kohan was but I digress. I loved Weeds more often than not and it made me a big fan of Mary Louise Parker in the process. Kohan’s new series has some of the hallmarks of what people liked about the first few seasons of Weeds, sharp writing and a deft mix of comedy and drama. Orange is the New Black does occasionally head into melodramatic territory but the sharp writing and impressive ensemble keeps you interested throughout. The story unfolds with a Lost style series of flashbacks after the main plot is presented, each episode focuses on the backstory of one inmates, so we are introduced to the characters before we know their story. As a result, Kohan has us playing into a lot of stereotypes Piper experiences. I’d never call this a hard hitting Oz style prison drama but it does pack an emotional punch quite consistently while providing plenty of laughs along the way. Taylor Schilling, who looks like a pathetic version of Diane Kruger in this unglamorous role, does a solid job in the lead role. She’s believable as a yuppie trying to navigate prison but she isn’t tasked with carrying the entire series. Her character is complex and somewhat unlikable especially as the series progress. Luckily the supporting characters are just as interesting, occasionally more sympathetic, than the lead. The supporting actors and actresses make up one of the most eclectic cast assembled in recent memory. They run the gamut of Star Trek, That 70’s Show, American Pie franchise alums, to character actors who have populated the background of various movies or shows. Each one delivers a strong sense of authenticity to their characters. Kate Mulgrew turn is rather impressive since it’s so effective while she’s sporting a bad Russian accent. Jason Biggs does a solid job as Piper’s fiancé but his American Pie castmate, Natasha Lyonne, really shines throughout. Lyonne, who’d had her battles with addition, nails her portrayal of a former addict. She has a certain warmth and acidity to her performance while never overdoing it. Laura Prepon is nearly as impressive as Pipers ex-lover especially once her backstory is fleshed out. Laverne Cox provides a fascinating performance as a transgender inmate. Pablo Schreiber provides the most obvious antagonist throughout and he makes you hate his character more and more with each passing episode. The world they all create is incredibly rich with multiple characters bringing an engaging storyline to the series. This first season covers a lot of ground in the main and supporting characters emotional arches but leaves plenty to explore in season 2 which I’ll be looking forward to.

B+

Cindy Prascik’s review of Pacific Rim

Dearest Blog, today it was Godzilla versus Transformers as I hit the cinema for Pacific Rim.

Spoiler level here is mild, mostly limited to what you'd know from the trailers, though I must get specific on one point. In an attempt to remain as unspoilery as possible, I won't name the characters involved.

In the not-so-distant future, alien monsters dubbed "Kaiju" have come through a fault deep beneath the Pacific Ocean and are attacking Earth. Mankind creates giant robots called "Jaegers" to defend itself and fight back.

Pacific Rim is not a perfect film. It's not even a special film. It is, however, an enormous, entertaining summer blockbuster that not only MUST be seen at the cinema, but should be seen as soon as possible on the biggest screen you can find.

Dear reader(s), it says nothing very good about me that, since discovering Charlie Hunnam was going to be in a movie called Pacific Rim, at least 85% of my brain has, at all times, been occupied with finding some play on those words to bring up Hunnam's early work on Queer as Folk. Reader(s), it is to your benefit (or your great disadvantage) that I got nothing...but I still giggle a bit every time I think "Pacific Rim."

Anyway, getting the bad news out of the way first, here are Pacific Rim's (heheheheheh) weaknesses.

Too long, too long, too long! Pacific Rim is barely over two hours, but would have been better at 1:30-1:45. Might have stopped them shoehorning in so many......forced emotional moments. Father/son. Hero/heroine. Mentor/protégée. Person/dog. There's about as much chemistry as between me and my cat. (Hint: my cat hates me.) Sometimes it's the writing, sometimes it's the acting, sometimes it's a li'l of both, but it's extra-annoying because the movie stands well on other merits and could have done without any of it.

Charlie Hunnam is the weakest link in a pretty strong cast, and I wasn't impressed by his leading lady, Rinko Kikuchi, either. Sadly, the same is true of Hunnam in his TV series, Sons of Anarchy. A good actor never appears to be acting, but with Hunnam, it's always obvious how hard he's working. He's not a terrible actor, by any means, but he's not strong enough to front a project of this magnitude, and he's consistently outshone by lower-billed cast. Kikuchi's longing looks in his direction are inappropriate for the character and for the circumstances and set me off right out of the gate. (But who hasn't looked at Charlie Hunnam that way a time or two, right??)

Some of the monster/robot fight scenes drag on too long, and jiggly, super-close-up shots make it difficult to see what's happening....not to mention making me a bit seasick.

Finally, there's one dippy moment where a character is unconscious and possibly dead, and rather than...oh, you know, DOING ANYTHING TO HELP...another character sits there sobbing, "Don't go! Don't go!" I wanted to throw something at the screen.

The good news is there's plenty of good news to outweigh the bad.

Pacific Rim looks spectacular in every way. My cinema doesn't have IMAX or any other special technology--hell, I didn't even see it in 3D--but those giant monsters and huge robots are overwhelming and seem almost ready to come off the screen. I love that the monsters are actually scary, credit I'll very rarely give, and the robots so intimidating. Very, very impressive technical and design work.

Pacific Rim boasts a super supporting cast, led by the incomparable Idris Elba. It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia's Charlie Day and Torchwood's Burn Gorman are terrific, together and separately, as a pair of scientists among all the military personnel. Clifton Collins, Jr. gets more screen time than I anticipated, and more Clifton Collins, Jr. is always better than less Clifton Collins, Jr. And...Ron Perlman's brief but entertaining turn totally steals the show. Let's be honest, too: Charlie Hunnam is easy on the eyes, and I won't complain about looking at him for two hours under any circumstances, even if he's not Oscar worthy!

Pacific Rim tells a solid, original(ish) story that reels you in from start to finish. It presents characters you're rooting for because the movie's made you care about them, and not just because you're supposed to be pulling for the "good guys."

Pacific Rim clocks in at 132 minutes and is rated PG13 for "sequences of intense sci-fi action and violence throughout, and brief language." It's a top-notch summer blockbuster, and there's something very wrong with a world where the movie-going public fails to make it summer's biggest hit.

Of a possible nine Weasleys, Pacific Rim gets seven and a half.

Until next time...




Wait...what was I saying?

MOVIE REVIEW: PACIFIC RIM

Filmmaker Guillermo del Toro teams up with Legendary Pictures to bring audiences a unique take on the monster film with this sci-fi production. Charlie Hunnam (Sons of Anarchy) stars as a washed-out controller and pilot of a series of robots called Jaegers, which are put into production after Earth is invaded by a species of giant monsters, the Kaijus. Thor's Idris Elba leads the rest of the starring cast, which includes Charlie Day, Rob Kazinsky and Ron Perlman. ~ Jeremy Wheeler, Rovi

Director: Guillermo del Toro

Cast: Charlie Hunnam, Idris Elba, Charlie Day, Rinko Kikuchi, Ron Perlman.

Release Date: Jul 12, 2013

Rated PG-13 for sequences of intense sci-fi action and violence throughout, and brief language

Genres: Sci-Fi/Fantasy

Review:

While I know Pacific Rim is meant as a loving homage to Godzilla films personally I had my head floating in thoughts of other repurposed anime cartoons from my childhood (Robotech, Voltron, etc…). Whether it was intentional or not Pacific Rim tapped into those much loved recesses of my memory with such verbosity that I literally got chills when a Jaegers pulls out a sword in the outreaches of the atmosphere. Guillermo del Toro has delivered something that was missing from the robust manically excess of Michael Bay’s Transformers film, consistent fun. Yes the characters are broadly drawn and closer to cartoon character than real human beings but that never keeps the entire thing from being 2 and half hours of jaw dropping intensity and fun. The cast, a mini FX channel reunion, does a solid job of grounding the action while never getting in its way. Charlie Hunnam, still carrying that Jax Teller walk and sound, is a solid lead and has a decent if not great connection with his costar/love interest Rinko Kikuchi. Idris Elba is appropriately stoic and inspiring when needed. Personally I think Guillermo del Toro has created a modern day classic which will age very well. It’ll leave a generation of children fills with dreams of robots and monsters. I’ll just keep praying someone will make me a Robotech film, I’d love to see that before I die…

A

MOVIE REVIEW: THE BAY

Three years after a massive government cover-up involving a parasitic outbreak in a small seaside town, a reporter unearths chilling footage that reveals the terrifying truth in this ound footage-style shocker from Oscar-winning director Barry Levinson. On July 4th, 2009, the town of Claridge, Maryland experienced an unprecedented biological disaster. An isopod parasite typically found in fish somehow found its way into a human host. As the town gathered for its annual Independence Day celebration, the parasite began to spread at unprecedented speeds, consuming its victims from the inside out. Now witness the terrifying events that unfolded that fateful holiday weekend as captured on the security cameras, mobile phones, and webcams of the people who witnessed them firsthand, but never lived to tell their stories. ~ Jason Buchanan, Rovi

Director: Barry Levinson

Cast: Christopher Denham, Stephen Kunken, Frank Deal, Kether Donohue, Kristen Connolly

Release Date: Nov 02, 2012

Rated: Bloody Images, Language and Disturbing Violent Content

Runtime: 1 hr. 24 min.

Genres: Horror

Review:

I remember seeing the trailer for The Bay and being vaguely intrigued by it because I’m a sucker for found footage films plus Barry Levinson was directing it. Strangely it came and went with very little fanfare. Thankfully it pop up on Netflix streaming recently which, truth be told, made me wonder if it was just a bad film. I was rather surprised at how effective it was and am still rather left wondering why it was mostly ignored. The premise is kind of a hodgepodge of found footage, suppressed footage in this case, plotted with a sprinkling of Jaws and Contagion. It’s fairly graphic once the infection / infestation starts spreading. It does its job well enough to leave you feeling kind of icky afterwards and wondering about your drinking water. Its green message isn’t very subtle which might be a turnoff for folks looking for a straight up horror film. That being said it works most often than not, rarely relying cheap scares. The whole thing feels rather authentic throughout although there are a few people in the town taking the whole thing far too well. Its overall authenticity is probably aided by the fact that Isopods are real albeit living in their natural habitat, the deep ocean.

B

MOVIE REVIEW: JUAN OF THE DEAD (JUAN DE LOS MUERTOS)

A group of slackers face an army of zombies. The Cuban government and media claim the living dead are dissidents revolting against the government.

Director: Alejandro Brugués

Cast: Alexis Díaz de Villegas, Jorge Molina, Andrea Duro, Andros Perugorría

Release date: March 16, 2012 (USA)

Unrated

Runtime: 1 hr. 32 min.

Genres: Comedy, Horror

Review:

Juan of the Dead is the kind of film that I kept hearing about but promptly forgot about. Thankfully, I had the good fortune to catch it playing on HBO Latin recently and was pleasantly surprised. I went into this film mostly blind since I vaguely remembered the trailer. I rather enjoyed its freewheeling gonzo type of filmmaking. It has a very Cuban feel to it, anti Castro satire is peppered throughout, mixed with Shaun of the Dead and even some Ghostbusters for good measure. It’s not nearly as polished as either of those films but that doesn’t mean it isn’t a lot of fun. The humor is vulgar and inconsistent but when it hits its mark it delivers some impressive laugh out loud moments. Alexis Díaz de Villegas, who looks like a Cuban John Turturro, is a capable lead throughout. Supporting characters kind of fall in and out of the plot so there’s not much development going on but for a film like this it’s not much of a detriment. There are some more glaring issues such as the non existent plot which changes course at a moments notice and some shoddy effects but none of it really kills the fun.

B-

Cindy Prascik’s Review of The Lone Ranger

Dearest Blog, yesterday I trekked to the cinema to see The Lone Ranger. Should have been The Lone Ranger and Despicable Me 2, but, alas, the lure of Star Trek remains too strong, so Gru will have to wait.

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

A reluctant masked hero and his Native American sidekick seek justice in the Old West.

Now, dearest Blog, my great affection for Johnny Depp might reasonably lead reader(s) to assume I'd have a positive bias towards this film, so I must stress that nothing could be further from the truth. I was flatly against this movie from the outset, and prayed every bump on its troubled production path would be the one that kept my adored team of filmmakers (Bruckheimer, Verbinski, Elliott and Rossio) from embarrassing themselves with what seemed like the mother of all bad ideas. When trailers started popping up, I was relieved it didn't look quite as bad as I'd feared. Yesterday at the cinema, to my great surprise, I was in love from the first frame.

The Lone Ranger is not without flaws, and, since I always prefer to get my bad news out of the way first, we'll go ahead and start with where it goes wrong.

Regular reader(s) won't be too stunned to hear me complain about the length. At almost two and a half hours, The Lone Ranger is 30-45 minutes longer than it needs to be. Bad enough when a complex drama or some epic fantasy runs long, but it's inexcusable in a summer popcorn flick.

The Lone Ranger derives much of its humor from cheap sources: horse manure, a guy in a bonnet, a dead bird. Not that I didn't laugh, but at some point that kind of thing does wear out its welcome.
Mostly, though, as an idea, The Lone Ranger seems too broadly drawn to be updated effectively for 21st-century cinema; such a vanilla good guy is almost a joke by current standards. Having said that, the original intent was sincere, and for a different time, so playing the bumbling hero for laughs feels like an insult to the source, as does the extreme violence in the film.

Onto the positives, starting where I always will, with the cast. Ahhh, this cast! Armie Hammer stars in the title role and does a fine job of it, despite being relegated to sidekick in his own film. Hammer is the perfect leading man, a solid actor with a flair for comedy--painfully good looking to boot--and this kind of "white hat" role suits him to a T. Johnny Depp enjoys top billing as Tonto, his Tonto portrayed as the wise one who (reluctantly) guides the Lone Ranger on his path. I am the truest of true Depp fans, so I desperately wish he'd return to roles that remind people why he's the best actor in the world, but he's entertaining in a part that does little to tax his extraordinary talent. The Lone Ranger's chief baddie is the amazing William Fichtner, and wow, what a baddie! I think the last time I was this in love with a villain was Fichtner in Drive Angry. Tom Wilkinson, Helena Bonham-Carter, and Barry Pepper turn in terrific performances in supporting roles, and I give myself full marks for picking out favorites James Frain, W. Earl Brown, Stephen Root, and Leon Rippy despite their having limited screen time and being covered in dirt and/or fake hair!

For my money, there is no genre that suits the big screen quite so magnificently as the Western. Everyone knows I love big explosions and big effects and I'll pay my money any day for great monsters and huge spaceships and sweeping shots of superheroes overlooking their fair cities, but none of it quite compares to a panorama of rock and sand and galloping horses. But for one wonky CGI shot near the beginning, The Lone Ranger is a glorious feast for the eyes, the likes of which I've not seen in some time.

The humor is effective, though, as mentioned, mostly lowbrow, with some solid physical comedy thrown in for good measure. My packed cinema was roaring with laughter throughout.

Despite The Lone Ranger's excessive runtime, I was never bored, never inclined to check the time, never wished it'd just get over already. That doesn't mean it's not too long, and it certainly would have been a more-effective and better-regarded 100-minute movie, but it never stopped entertaining me.

Finally, The Lone Ranger's final act boasts one of the best action sequences in recent memory, exciting and beautifully filmed. Any problems the with rest of the film are quickly forgiven and forgotten once that train gets a-rollin'.

The Lone Ranger is taking a critical drubbing and will undoubtedly be considered a "flop" by this team's usual standards, but I think its worst enemy is those who are so swayed by what they've heard that they can't just enjoy the movie for what it is. I'm not talking about low expectations, which I firmly contend are the key to a happy life; I'm talking about people who are so determined to hate it that they've left themselves zero chance of being pleasantly surprised. Much like 2009's The A-Team, I understand why everyone won't love The Lone Ranger, but the film does NOT deserve the pure spite being leveled at it.

The Lone Ranger clocks in at 149 minutes and is rated PG13 for "intense sequences of action and violence, and some suggestive material." As certain as I was that it would be awful, I'm delighted and surprised to call it one of my favorite films of the year so far.
Of a possible nine Weasleys, The Lone Ranger gets seven and a half.

Until next time...


All the evil awards all the time to you, sir!