Cindy Prascik's Review of Captian America: Civil War

Dearest Blog: Yesterday it was off to Marquee Cinemas for the highly-anticipated blockbuster Captain America: Civil War. Spoiler level here will be mild, nothing you wouldn't know from trailers and the odd Internet clip. 

 

Well, dear Reader(s), I've got good news and bad news. The good news is Civil War is a pretty great movie. 

 

The bad news is it doesn't even come close to the masterpiece that preceded it, Captain America: The Winter Soldier. To justify my disappointment, I'll be making some comparisons...not, as regular reader(s) might expect of me, to that *other* costumed hero grudge match movie that came out a few weeks back, but rather to some of Cap's Marvel stablemates. 

 

There are a good many positives here, though, so let's get started with some of those. This cast is a gift. Most everyone is a fantastic talent in his or her own right, and the chemistry among them is extraordinary. Stoic and steely-eyed Chris Evans remains the perfect embodiment of our all-American hero, and is 100% effective in selling Steve Rogers' Boy Scoutish worldview. Sebastian Stan is incredible, but, while he has more screen time this outing, he unfortunately seems to have fewer opportunities to really showcase his skills. 

 

Disappointing. A longtime Stan-Fan must be forgiven for being a little over-enthusiastic about the Captain America movies, as they're pretty much the only decent movies this gifted actor ever makes. 

 

The other returning Avengers are solid as always, and newcomers Tom Holland, Daniel Bruhl, and especially Chadwick Boseman all turn in terrific performances. Those are some BIG impact moments when Black Panther and Spider-Man turn up; electricity rolls through the room like a lightning strike. Civil War includes so many Marvel favorites it's jokingly been called "Avengers 2.5," yet it never shortchanges its titular hero, a remarkable feat in its own right. 

 

Much like The Winter Soldier before it, Civil War opens the action with a massive, complicated sequence that's as much espoinage as ass-kicking, and the overall scope of things leaves some dodgy CGI quickly forgotten. There are plenty of one-liners to go around, and the story itself is engaging, if not as smart or interesting as its predecessor. On the downside, permit me to copy and paste from a hundred previous reviews: This movie is TOO. DAMN. LONG. No excuse for this thing exceeding two hours, certainly it should never run longer than 2:15. 

 

Civil War needs some serious editing, and I don't mean by taking a hacksaw to entire scenes, I mean, as always, by using an Xacto knife to trim it to a sharper, more manageable whole. Civil War gives the original Avengers a run for its money in the battle fatigue department, and much of the fight choreography isn't even all that interesting, particularly by comparison to the stellar Lumerian Star sequence in CATWS. The movie's humor also misses the mark a bit too often. 

 

Unlike Guardians of the Galaxy, which expertly rides a fine line between brilliant and so-goofy-it's-actually-brilliant, Civil War often shoehorns silliness into scenes where it fits poorly with both mood and content. 

 

The deadpan wit of Tony Stark and Sam Wilson always sets well, but Peter Parker, and, to a much lesser degree, Scott Lang, are jarringly stupid at all the wrong times. By comparison to the Winter Soldier, even Henry Jackman's score feels like it's missing something. 

 

Captain America: Civil War runs 146 minutes, and is rated PG13 for "extended sequences of violence, action, and mayhem." It's not a perfect movie, but if you bring those expectations down just a smidge, Civil War is a fun, action-packed bit of brain candy. 

 

Of a possible nine Weasleys, Captain America: Civil War gets eight.

 

Until next time... 

 

 

Cindy Prascik's Review of The Huntsman: Winter’s War

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dearest Blog: Last night I did that rarest of things for people my age, I made plans to be out on a work night. On my agenda: Marquee Cinemas' sneak-peek of The Huntsman: Winter's War.

 

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

 

I enjoyed Snow White and the Huntsman, but confess I was underwhelmed by the idea of a sequel. In the four years since the original was released, I've even convinced myself it only seemed good due to being released in close proximity to the unfortunate Mirror Mirror, which did such an awful job of (re)telling the same story. However, I have good news for you, dear reader(s): This sequel does NOT suck!

 

The Huntsman gets off to a bit of a slow start, but once it gets rolling, it doesn't stop. The movie's not going to land on anyone's Academy Awards shortlist, but a good cast, nice special effects, and great fight choreography help the thin storyline earn its two-hour runtime. 

 

Chris Hemsworth is charming and easy on the eyes, and Charlize Theoron, though too little used this go-round, is the highlight of the movie as she reprises her evil queen role with wicked relish. Emily Blunt and Jessica Chastain are troopers despite seeming weirdly miscast, and supporting players Nick Frost, Rob Brydon, and Sheridan Smith are especially entertaining in smaller roles. 

 

There are some dodgy Scottish accents to work around, but the players are otherwise more than solid. A fantastic score by James Newton Howard, some very pretty sets and locations, and an ever-changing assortment of stunning evil-queen dresses all help make The Huntsman worth your movie dollar.

 

The Huntsman: Winter's War clocks in at 114 minutes and is rated PG13 for "fantasy action violence and some sensuality."

 

It's not buzzy, nor is it the sort of picture you won't be able to stop talking or thinking about, but if you're looking for an entertaining couple hours filled with action and eye candy, The Huntsman is well worth your time. 

 

Of a possible nine Weasleys, The Huntsman: Winter's War gets six.

 

Until next time...

 

Cindy Prascik's Review of Criminal

Dearest Blog: Yesterday it was off to Marquee Cinemas to see my main man Gary Oldman in his new movie, Criminal.

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

In order to thwart a nefarious plot, an experimental procudure is used to transfer the mind of a murdered agent into a notorious criminal.

Dear Reader(s), I had genuinely high hopes for Criminal. It's been awhile (four years, to be exact) since Gary has had a critical and/or box office winner, and this one looked like it might break the chain of disappointments. Alas, it was not to be.

Right off the top, Criminal is saddled with one almost-insurmountable handicap, that is, Kevin Costner's acting abilities...or lack thereof. If he were a bit player, or in any supporting role, really, you might get around it, but not when he's the focal point of the whole picture. Sure, the lead character is meant to be a thug lacking social graces, but the way Costner grunts his way through the movie, he might as well be a gorilla...and that's probably not a very nice thing to say about the acting talent of gorillas.

The supporting cast is solid, in particular an under-used Ryan Reynolds, but it's just not enough. Gary's character does a lot of barking orders at people, a somewhat angrier and less honorable Jim Gordon. It's fine for what it is, but it hardly taxes his talent. (Though, for the record, he looks really, REALLY good!)

Criminal presents an interesting premise that fails in its execution. The writing is atrocious, with allegedly top-notch agents acting so stupidly you'll want to scream at the screen. There are a few laugh-out-loud bits prompted by Costner's character's inappropriate behavior. They're uncomfortable, but, curiously, still one of the more entertaining things about a movie that otherwise sleepwalks its way to one of the most insufferably hokey endings ever.

Criminal clocks in at 113 minutes and is rated R for "strong violence and language throughout."
In my book, Gary Oldman is reason enough to get out and see ANY movie, but, if you're looking for another reason to see Criminal, you won't find it.

Of a possible nine Weasleys, Criminal gets three.

Until next time...

MOVIE REVIEW: THE BOSS

Academy Award®-nominated star Melissa McCarthy (Bridesmaids, The Heat, Tammy) headlines The Boss as a titan of industry who is sent to prison after she’s caught for insider trading. When she emerges ready to rebrand herself as America’s latest sweetheart, not everyone she screwed over is so quick to forgive and forget.McCarthy is joined in The Boss by an all-star cast led by Kristen Bell, Peter Dinklage and Kathy Bates. Directed by Ben Falcone (Tammy), the comedy is based on an original character created by McCarthy and written by McCarthy and Falcone alongside their Groundlings collaborator, Steve Mallory. The film is produced by McCarthy and Falcone through their On the Day productions and Will Ferrell, Adam McKay and Chris Henchy through their Gary Sanchez Productions.

Director: Ben Falcone

Cast: Melissa McCarthy, Kristen Bell, Peter Dinklage, Kristen Schaal, Kathy Bates.

Release Date: Apr 08, 2016

Rated R for Sexual content, language and brief drug use.

Runtime: 1 hr. 29 min.

Genres: Comedy

Review:

The Boss is a comedy that’s sporadically funny and consistently uneven through out.    It’s not nearly as bad as Tammy, also directed by McCarthy’s husband Ben Falcone, but it does feel like a missed opportunity.  The supporting cast is made up of an excellent collection of comedic actors like Tyler Labine, Cecily Strong and Kristen Schaal but proceeds to give them nothing to do.  Kathy Bates passes through and doesn’t really add much to the film which is a shame because it does seem like there’s a much funnier movie in there but it just never hit’s the sweet spot.  Melissa McCarthy, to her credit, is committed as always and she delivers some of the films funniest lines.  Peter Dinklage seems incredibly at home on the comedic side, I just wished his character was a bit more fleshed out.  Overall it’s a forgettable comedy that’ll probably end up on a late Saturday afternoon double header with Identity Crisis.

C

Cindy Prascik's Review of Hardcore Henry

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dearest Blog: With this weekend's promising new releases opening nowhere near me, yesterday it was off to Marquee Cinemas for the...um...less-than-promising Hardcore Henry. Spoiler level here will be mild, nothing you wouldn't know from the trailers.

 

A man awakes in a laboratory to discover he's acquired a bunch of robot parts, but lost his memory.

 

Dear Reader(s), I'ma be straight with ya: With time to spare between halves of yesterday's double-feature, I stepped out of Harcore Henry, sat in the hallway, and wrote something akin to Spinal Tap's infamous "S**t Sandwich" review. However, the well-stated enthusiasm of one of my cinema buddies caused me to give the movie some additional thought, and, with thanks to Paul at Marquee, here's a more considered opinion.

 

Hardcore Henry is quite unique. Shown entirely through Henry's eyes, the viewer sees all the wiggly-jiggly action in the first person. While that's not always a great choice for your viewing enjoyment (and thank heavens it's not in 3D!), the filmmakers get full marks for commitment and attention to detail. Every bit looks entirely authentic. 

 

Sharlto Copley is his usual brilliant self, changing personalities like I change my socks. Like Sebastian Stan, Copley is a fantastic actor who usually deserves better than the projects he or his agent chooses, but, on the plus side, even a bad movie is so much better for having him. The action sequences are very well-choreographed, and the film is also smart enough not to wear out its welcome, clocking in at a quick hour and a half.

 

Now, the bad news: the violence and portrayal of women in Hardcore Henry are straight out of a teenage boy's dream. Even I--Number-One Expendables Fan--have to admit that the pointless chaos wears thin pretty quickly. The picture’s clearly more interested in grabbing your attention with something weird or shocking than keeping it with a well-thought-out story; the plot is riddled with holes and bizarre moments that make no sense...even in the context of something that makes so little sense overall. 

 

Minus anything more substantial underlying it, the incessant brutality is a lot to take, and the non-stop action can't save the movie from being a bit of a bore. 

 

Hardcore Henry runs 96 minutes and is rated R for "non-stop bloody brutal violence and mayhem, language throughout, sexual content/nudity, and drug use." 

 

Harcore Henry certainly isn't everyone's cup of tea, but, if you're looking for something well and truly different at the movies, it might just be for you. Of a possible nine Weasleys, Hardcore Henry gets three.

 

Until next time...

 

Cindy Prascik's Review of Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

Dearest Blog: With Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice opening worldwide this weekend, it's a fair bet I'll be spending most of my holiday break at Marquee Cinemas. 

 

As goes the Bat, so go I. Probably the biggest spoiler here is that I loved this movie, otherwise nothing you wouldn't know from the many trailers and clips making the rounds. 

 

As the world wrestles with the pros and cons of Superman's protection versus his unchecked power, Gotham's most famous resident weighs in. 

 

 Dear Reader(s), if you have access to a computer or a tablet or a smartphone or a TV, you've probably already heard somebody say something bad about Dawn of Justice. I am here to tell you why the naysayers are wrong, and, though it may surprise you, I have more (if not better) reasons than: "Batman. Duh." Batman v Superman is an epic tale, crafted by a fan for fans. 

 

This picture is setting the table for what's to come, and, as such, it's got a lot of balls in the air, and plenty of appearances that earned applause from the crowd each of the three times I've seen the movie so far. Ben Affleck is not only a great Batman/Bruce Wayne, he is ideal for where the DC cinematic universe now finds itself. 

 

He's older and more jaded, but no less strong or purposeful (some might say pig-headed!). I was a little stunned by the vitriol directed at Affleck's casting--the guy's always seemed a bit benign to inspire such passion--but I confess, seeing him in the Batsuit gave me a mad crush that went from zero to Renner in exactly two hours and 31 minutes. 

 

Most of the supporting cast is equally terrific, with Jesse Eisenberg unsurprisingly the standout as super-villain Lex Luthor. Gal Gadot makes a fantastic Wonder Woman, and from the young men's reactions at Thursday night's sneak-peek...well...let's just say I'm glad I don't have to clean that theatre. Jeremy Irons, Amy Adams, Diane Lane, and Laurence Fishburne all contribute more than their fair share towards elevating the movie from good to great. Batman v Superman boasts sweet fight choreography, nice effects, some intense battles between good and good as well as good and evil, and a fair few chuckles, too. 

 

Dawn of Justice does have some flaws, and, lest I be accused of too much fangirling, it's only fair I mention those. Like so many movies these days, this one could have used a trim. Coming in at two hours or even two-fifteen wouldn't have cost the picture any massive cuts, just an edit here and there on those lengthy battles, chases, and flashbacks/dream sequences. 

 

The titular faceoff, in particular, though any fanboy's dream, strays a bit into overkill. Holly Hunter is a great actress, but listening to her speak is like nails on a blackboard; by her third line I'd have given anything to have ANY other actress in her role (except maybe Carey Mulligan, because we all know how I feel about that one). 

 

And then there's Henry Cavill, bless his perfect, perfect self. Cavill attempting to cob together memorized dialogue with the appropriate facial expression is nearly as difficult to watch as Charlie Hunnam desperately trying to cling to an accent for more than five minutes. 

 

I adore Cavill, and I think he's about as perfect a Superman as a person could want, but his acting chops could use some work. Truly, those are the only problems I had with Batman v. Superman. My bottom line on Dawn of Justice is this: Many people were determined to hate this movie before they ever saw it; that is the unfortunate reality of the Internet age. 

 

Many people are determined to compare the movie to Marvel in general, and to the upcoming Captain America movie in particular, but DC is DC; it is not trying to be Marvel (nor should it), and I'd rather enjoy each for what it is than pick either apart for what it isn't. 

 

At last check, there was about a fifty-percentage-point difference between critics' and fans' ratings of Batman v Superman over at Rotten Tomatoes, so I guess, you, dear Reader(s), can let somebody else tell you what to think about this movie, or you can go and see for yourself. If you go with an open mind, I think you'll enjoy what you see. Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice clocks in at a whopping 151 minutes and is rated PG13 for "intense sequences of violence and action throughout, and some sensuality." 

 

While it's not *quite* as magnificent as The Dark Knight or Watchmen (each of which holds a spot in my top ten movies of all time), Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice is an entertaining epic and a perfect launchpad for DC's next phase. 

 

Of a possible nine Weasleys, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice gets eight and a half. 

 

Oh, and, for the record, I've got a milestone birthday coming up this year, so somebody be a dear and get me Affleck in that Batsuit, won't you? 

 

Please and thank you. 

 

Until next time...