MOVIE REVIEW: STEVE JOBS

Set backstage at three iconic product launches and ending in 1998 with the unveiling of the iMac, Steve Jobs takes us behind the scenes of the digital revolution to paint an intimate portrait of the brilliant man at its epicenter.

Director: Danny Boyle

Cast: Michael Fassbender, Seth Rogen, Katherine Waterston, Kate Winslet, Jeff Daniels

Release Date: Oct 09, 2015

Rated R for Language

Runtime: 2 hr. 1 min.

Genres: Drama

Review:

Danny Boyle’s electric biopic of Apple’s cofounder and CEO crackles at a steady pace throughout.  Aaron Sorkin’s script is excellent as expected with Michael Fassbender and Kate Winslet excelling at the requisite walk and talk throughout the film.  Boyle’s direction and his filming techniques, he uses 3 different film stocks for each section, keeps the dialogue heavy film moving at an impressive pace.  It rarely lags, an impressive feat for a 2 hour film that doesn’t have much going on outside of a series of conversations.  Fassbender disappears into his role especially as the film moves into the final act.  He’s magnetic for the entire run time.  Kate Winslet delivers equally impressive work in a supporting role with Jeff Daniels and Seth Rogen making the most of their limited screen time.  Daniels and Rogen both get excellent exchanges with Fassbender that you just have to sit back and appreciate the level of talent on display.  Steve Jobs is sure to litter the awards docket with Fassbender leading the charge with a best actor nomination.

A

MOVIE REVIEW: PARANORMAL ACTIVITY: THE GHOST DIMENSION

A family that has recently moved into a new house in Palo Alto, CA is terrorized by supernatural entities in the fifth installment of the Paranormal Activity horror franchise. The father Ryan (Chris J. Murray) discovers a box of video tapes left in the house and a video camera that can record paranormal occurrences that are invisible to the naked eye. Together with his wife Emily (Brit Shaw) and his brother Mike (Dan Gill) they must fight protect their daughter Leila (Ivy George), a six year old who is talking to spirits. Directed by Gregory Plotkin, who previously served as the editor on several films in the franchise. ~ Jennifer Lackman, Rovi

Director: Gregory Plotkin    

Cast: Brittany Shaw, Don McManus, Cara Pifko.

Release Date: Oct 23, 2015    

Rated R for some Horror Violence and Language    

Runtime: 1 hr. 35 min.    

Genres: Horror    

Review:

If you find yourself sitting in the 6^th installment of the Paranormal Activity series, you probably have some sort of lingering affection for the franchise or just needed someplace cool and dark to sit down.   In all seriousness, I’m the type of person who likes to follow through and see how things end.  This is supposed to be the last entry in the series and they’ve thrown in some tweaks that kind of goes against what made the series impressive in the first place.  The ghost camera is a neat idea but it just kind of throws out any subtly about the things that go bump in the night.  Instead we get to see everything coming from a mile away leaving very little to the imagination.  A few jump scares here and there don’t really make up for it.  Doesn’t help that the last act of the film starts mining just about every possession and creepy little girl horror movie trope you can think of.  It’s a sputtering end to the series.  By the time the finale comes, you can’t help but feel like you’ve watched this all before.

D

Cindy Prascik's Review of The Last Witch Hunter & Steve Jobs

 

 

 

Dearest Blog: With awards season in full swing, the weekend once again features too many desirable cinema options and too little time. My schedule allowed for just two of the four new releases playing at my theatre, so I chose the two everybody knew I would.

 

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

 

First on the docket: The Last Witch Hunter.

 

Vin Diesel protects humanity from big bad witches. No, seriously, that's it.

 

The Last Witch Hunter combines Hobbity-looking historical battles with an uneasy present-day truce between witches and humans. There'd be no movie if said truce didn't quite hold, so it won't be much of a spoiler to reveal that witches are, in fact, hunted here. Diesel goes from looking like a caveman to looking like an undertaker (or The Undertaker), and I am unsurprisingly giddy about all of it. 

 

The Last Witch Hunter is too dark at times to really see much of anything, but the effects are pretty solid and overall it's got a cool gothic look that's well suited to the subject matter. Action sequences are well executed and keep the picture moving, amid a backstory that's a bit of a shambles and more than the movie needs. 

 

There's a good deal of humor, both intentional and as a result of some spectacular overacting. Female lead Rose Leslie has come a long way since she just wanted to learn to type on Downton Abbey, and I lost count of how many times I muttered, "You know nothing, Jon Snow," under my breath when she was onscreen. 

 

She's not bad by any means, there's just nothing about the role or the performance to make anyone forget what she's done before. Michael Caine and Elijah Wood are both underused, but certainly up to what little is required of them. The movie is nicely-paced and smart enough not to wear out its welcome. 

 

Not an awards hopeful by any stretch of the imagination, The Last Witch Hunter earns its October release with Halloween-appropriate subject matter, but, if you're looking for real scares, you'll need to look elsewhere.

 

The Last Witch Hunter runs 106 minutes and is rated PG13 for "sequences of fantasy violence and frightening images."

 

It's undeniably hokey, but The Last Witch Hunter is also great fun. 

 

Of a possible nine Weasleys, The Last Witch Hunter gets six. 

 

(Yes, that's one more than Mississippi Grind. So sue me.)

 

Next on my agenda: one of my most anticipated 2015 titles, Steve Jobs.

 

Long before people started queuing up for days to get the newest iPhone, Steve Jobs was a meanie who actually failed at stuff.

 

When a movie like Steve Jobs is released, the loudest initial reaction is almost always from those complaining about exaggerations and inaccuracies in the portrayal. No doubt this film contains a fair few of both, but, even if it were two hours of total fiction, Steve Jobs is a great, GREAT movie.

 

Starting with the obvious: Aaron Sorkin has once again penned a masterful script, full of the smart, rapid-fire dialogue that is his trademark. Michael Fassbender is remarkable, completely disappearing into his role as the future electronics juggernaut. The handsome Fassbender even bears an uncanny resemblance to Jobs at times, especially in his later years. 

 

Kate Winslet is no less stunning as Jobs' long-suffering right hand, Joanna Hoffman, seemingly the only person able to derail the locomotive of Jobs' ambition when sanity requires it. Jeff Daniels, Michael Stuhlbarg, and Seth Rogen round out the award-worthy supporting cast.

 

Steve Jobs can be a difficult film to watch, as Jobs browbeats staff and friends, and alienates the few people who actually care for him. Winslet is especially heartbreaking as she lobbies Jobs to do right by his daughter. For an entirely action-less picture, Steve Jobs keeps an extraordinary pace and never once feels dull or too long.

 

Like the Social Network before it, Steve Jobs paints its subject as quite the jerk, but, if lack of social graces is the cost of foresight like Jobs' (or Zuckerberg's), for my money, it's worth it every time. Daryl Dixon may survive alright without the products of such genius, but I daresay the rest of us wouldn't even be interested in trying.

 

 

Steve Jobs clocks in at 122 minutes and is rated R for language.

 

I cried at the end of Steve Jobs, not because it was happy and not because it was sad, but because it was just that great. 

 

Of a possible nine Weasleys, Steve Jobs gets eight and a half.

 

Until next time...

Cindy Prascik's Review of Mississippi Grind

 

 

 

Dearest Blog: This week, Wednesday brought me a new flick in the form of Mississippi Grind, thus managing to achieve something besides being not-as-horrible-as-Monday-but-not-as-awesome-as-Friday.

 

Spoiler level here will be mild, nothing you wouldn't know from the...erm...has anyone even *seen* a trailer for this? I haven't. Okay, I'll try not to give away anything of consequence.

 

A gambling addict hits the road with a newfound friend, in search of a big score or redemption or maybe just something new.

 

Dear reader(s), you know me. I like actors. I like a LOT of actors a LOT, but far greater in number than those obsessions who sometimes grace my Instagram are those who simply delight me when they turn up in a movie or show, even if I have no idea of their birthdays or favorite colors. One such actor is Australian Ben Mendelsohn. 

 

When I heard there was some Oscar buzz around his Mississippi Grind performance, it didn't take more than that to sell me on the movie.

 

Mississippi Grind is a downbeat portrait of addiction. It's occasionally humorous and sometimes even a bit sexy, but it's mostly a realistic depiction of desperation, a person who just can't stop what he's doing, however harmful it is to himself or to those around him. Mendelsohn is breathtaking, probably no greater than he's been a dozen times before, but for some reason people are noticing this time. Ably playing opposite is the constantly maligned Ryan Reynolds. 

 

For my money, Reynolds is always solid, however bad the project. He'll surely lose his reputation as box-office poison with next year's Deadpool, but, for now, give him full marks for holding his own opposite a performance that's being called Oscar-worthy. Verbal exchanges between the two leads, as the new friends try to get a read on one another, are the clear highlight of a movie that's otherwise somewhat slow and unremarkable.

 

Mississippi Grind clocks in at 108 minutes and is rated R for language.

 

It won't brighten your day, but Mississippi Grind is a decent drama made worthwhile by stellar performances. 

 

Of a possible nine Weasleys, Mississippi Grind gets five.

 

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...

Cindy Prascik's Review of Pan & The Walk

 

 

 

Dearest Blog: With an insanely busy weekend looming in front of me, it was down to Friday afternoon to cover cinema duties. 

 

On the agenda were two movies that, if we're being honest, I'd have been just as happy to skip: Pan and The Walk.

 

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

 

First up: Pan, a Peter Pan origins story. (Yes, Hollywood is apparently *that* desperate!)

 

By now you've undoubtedly heard that Pan is terrible, and, even worse in many people's eyes, a box office flop. Both of these statements are undeniably true, but there are some qualifiers, so, first, let's get to the positives...

 

Kid actors. Even when they're good for kid actors, they're not always GOOD, but Pan lucked out with its Peter, Levi Miller. A movie riding on a kid star walks a fine line between precociously adorable and annoyingly snotty, but Miller falls firmly on the good side. Pan boasts some lovely locations and sets, and costumes and makeup--while not always to my taste--are unique and interesting. Pan's best feature by far, though, is a soaring score by John Powell that is good enough to make the movie's many other failings almost entirely forgivable.

 

Now the bad news...

 

While Hugh Jackman's booming delivery and exaggerated mannerisms might serve him well on the stage, here he'd have done better to dial it back a notch or ten. 

 

Garrett Hedlund's Hook bears no resemblance to the pirate of lore, but rather looks like a poor-man's Indiana Jones and sounds like someone doing the world's worst impression of Dr. McCoy from the newest Star Trek movies. It's so awful it'll give you a start every time the man opens his mouth. Odd choices that would have looked like genius, had they played well, only end up providing a couple WTF moments. (Some old-school punk or 90s grunge, anyone?) 

 

Finally, the movie is so dark that even bright daylight scenes appear dingy, a possible side-effect of seeing a 3D movie in 2D because the schedule said so. It's clear the folks who crafted Pan threw as much money as they could at the screen, and it's clear they wanted that to be garishly obvious, so the middling box office was bound to be a disappointment; Pan was a "flop" before it ever got out of the gate.

 

Pan clocks in at 111 minutes and is rated PG13 for "fantasy action violence, language, and some thematic material."

 

It may be terrible, and it may be a flop, but Pan is still strangely enjoyable at times. 

 

Of a possible nine Weasleys, Pan gets five.

 

Next on the docket: The Walk.

 

French high-wire artist Philippe Petit captivates the world with a daring illegal walk between the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center.

 

Dear reader(s): I'ma be straight: My preconception of The Walk was the same as Gravity, that is, I expected the movie to be visually stunning and boring as hell. 

 

As with Gravity, though, I was too hasty in judgment.

 

The Walk IS visually stunning. When you hear the 3D is making people throw up, BELIEVE IT. I was forced by the schedule to endure 3D myself; I'm not particularly skittish about heights--this is not to say I'm eager to do a high-wire walk anytime soon, either!--but I still I had to look away more than a few times. The visuals from both ground and air level are quite spectacular. Joseph Gordon-Levitt pulls double-duty as Petit, the movie's star and narrator, and his supreme charm is once again in full effect. It's literally impossible to dislike Gordon-Levitt, though I found his French accent to be a bit distracting. 

 

He does a fine job of it, but, as with David Tennant's American accent in Gracepoint, it's just so weird coming out of his face that it feels very noticeable all the time. 

 

The supporting cast, outside of Ben Kingsley, will be mostly unrecognizable to fans on this side of the pond, but they are uniformly solid. The Walk would have been smart to take a page from Gravity's book and rein it in at about 90 minutes, but other than a bit of bloat, it's a pretty fantastic film. 

 

Where the movie is most successful, though, where it's really, really effective, is not with top-notch 3D or engaging actors. At its heart, The Walk is a love letter to the Twin Towers, a heartbreaking declaration of affection from Petit and the filmmakers to those big, beautiful buildings that now live only in memory. I didn't anticipate that aspect, so for me it was a pleasant surprise that turned a good movie into a great one (and left me a blubbering mess).

 

The Walk runs 123 minutes and is rated PG13 for "thematic elements involving perilous situations, and for some nudity, language, brief drug references, and smoking."

 

The Walk is a film of great visual magnificence, but it's real beauty is in its heart. 

 

Of a possible nine Weasleys, the Walk gets seven and a half.

 

Until next time...