Here is an interesting article from http://www.debbieschlussel.com/ reviewing some of the movies that came out over the past weekend. This follows this post about some of the movies from last week and THIS POST about some movies that have been released over the past few years that you might have missed! This all follows this post about guidelines to choosing good movies to watch yourself!
By
Debbie Schlussel
I’ve been away and out of posting commission because I’ve been
working on a few things I’ll announce soon. But I’m back with these, my
reviews of the new movies debuting in theaters today.
Sad to say, there’s nothing here I’d spend a penny on. But a lot I
shoulda been paid to sit through. It’s a
high-quality-Gitmo-torture-material weekend at the movies. Instead, I’d
recommend you Netflix or otherwise find a way to watch
Taking Chance
(will post my review later this weekend), which is an excellent, very
moving film to remember our fallen heroes on this Memorial Day Weekend.
As for the rest of these, I wonder, did our military men really die for
Hollywood’s right to make this crap? . . .
*
X-Men: Apocalypse – PG-13:
This is like the fifth or sixth installment (I lost count) of the
X-Men movies, and it shows. It’s long, overstuffed, tired, and stodgy.
The story is ridiculous and silly. And it seems like I’ve already seen
it before in two other superhero movies in the last four months. Yes,
it’s another “superheroes v. superheroes” civil war movie, which we
already saw in
“Captain America: Civil War” (read my review) and
“Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice” (read my review). Enough, Hollywood. Come up with something new. Or at least, slightly different.
More problems with this movie: it has too many characters, so many
that you may get confused. Plus, it has too many flashbacks and flash
forwards. That’s bad enough, but the movie takes place in the late ’80s
or early ’90s, so it’s hard to figure out and keep track of what’s what
and when, since the whole movie is already a flashback of sorts, and
then there are these flashbacks within that. I probably needed a map to
follow things. On top of that, there are the allusions and references
to things that happened in previous X-Men movies, and who can remember
what happened in each of those, unless you’re a diehard fanboy and don’t
see as many movies as I do. A good sequel is an independent movie
without all of that, or at the very least, it has a brief rehash or
reminder/explanation of what they are talking about. This didn’t have
any of that. So, if you’re not familiar with the characters from
previous X-Men movies, good luck.
This movie had a ton of special effects, action, fights, and computer
generated images (CGI). But, while it was high on the effects and
action, it was very light on story. The story: an ancient Egyptian
villain who is mummified below a pyramid in Cairo (I thought the
pyramids were elsewhere), is revived by some fellow Egyptians. He is
the mutant X-men villain known as “Apocalypse.” Some of the renegade
X-Men, such as Magneto, join his team to fight and try to destroy the
“good” X-Men and to destroy the world. He begins by destroying some of
the world’s major cities. The X-Men fight back and try to stop him, all
with the leadership of Xavier, who heads the gifted school where they
stay and develop their powers.
Posters for this bear the motto, “Only the Strong Will Survive.” And
this is a weak movie, so it should die quickly. But because it’s a
superhero movie with a lot of hype and a built-in fanbse, it will
dominate at this weekend’s box office. I saw this movie about a month
ago, and the studio said I could post my review immediately. Normally, I
would do that. But I was so underwhelmed by this, and it’s so
forgettable, that I waited until today, it’s debut. That’s how
lackluster this is. These superheroes aren’t so super. Not even close.
Which is why, I’m being incredibly generous when I give this a
positive rating (because it’s neither political nor offensive and the
good guys do win in the end) of . . .
HALF A REAGAN
Watch the trailer . . .
*
Alice Through the Looking Glass – PG: Six years ago, I
reviewed “Alice in Wonderland,”
of which this is supposed to be a sequel. As you may recall, I hated
it. In that version, Alice isn’t the Lewis Carroll Alice. She’s the
Gloria Steinem Alice–a feminist action hero who bears little resemblance
to the story you remember from your childhood. This is more of the
same. Only worse.
I mean, how many female ship captains do you think there actually
were in 1875 and 1876, when this movie takes place? It’s a sure bet the
number was zero. But in this, a grown Alice is a ship captain who has
just returned from a three-year voyage in the dangerous high seas. The
movie is something of a feminist fight by Alice (Mia Wasikowska) to
continue to sail ships instead of giving in to the stock Hollywood evil
White male capitalist who wants to stop her and make her a clerk. That
man is someone who proposed to Alice, but she turned him down in order
to be an independent swashbuckling ship captain, and so he’s now a man
scorned trying to take away her widowed mother’s home and her deceased
father’s company and ship. Ultimately, Alice, of course, prevails, cuts
her long locks short in a lesbionic butch cut, and wears pants. Talk
about heavy-handed.
And amidst that as the back story, adult Alice also travels back to
Wonderland (this time through a mirror in the aforementioned evil rich
guy’s mansion) to save the ever annoying and weird Johnny Depp’s
depressed and dying Mad Hatter. He’s very sad and has given up on life
because he believes that his parents, siblings, wife, and kids are dead
and that he’s the indirect cause. But then there is a glimmer of hope
that they may all be alive, and Alice travels through Wonderland to try
to find and save them so her dear old friend, the Mad Hatter, will come
back to life and vitality. She does this by stealing an orb from Time
(a man played by Sacha Baron Cohen), which helps her to time travel
throughout Wonderland. Time’s minions are chasing her to get it back,
and Time’s girlfriend, the evil Queen of Hearts (Helena Bonham Carter)
is back and trying to help him get Alice.
The movie has great special effects. I saw this in 3D (but you’ll
lose nothing except $10 if you don’t), and the colorful, whimsical sets,
costumes, and effects are wonderful eye candy. The movie is very high
on style. But, sadly, it’s also equally low on story and anything else
of interest.
Mostly, I thought this was a bore and a propaganda film
cross-dressing as a childhood fairy tale. Unfortunately, the audience
of free ticket holders with whom I saw it, just didn’t get that. They
applauded at the end, being the American sheeple without critical
thinking skills that they are. If that sounds snobby, in this case
snobbery is vastly underrated. Betty Friedan would be proud.
TWO BETTY FRIEDANS PLUS A MARX
Watch the trailer . . .
*
The Lobster – R: I love science fiction. But this is the worst and most disturbing science fiction film I’ve ever seen, tied only with
“The Skin I Live In” (read my review).
It’s stupid. It’s ridiculous. It’s barbaric. And it’s disgusting.
What was an interesting premise and what could have been an even more
interesting movie, is a big mess. And horrifying to boot. That is,
unless women being deliberately blinded, and men having their hands put
in hot toasters is your idea of fun. Not mine. But apparently it
appeals to the sicko filmmakers behind this celluloid crap.
The story: it’s the dystopian future (as in far too many movie these
days), and if you lose your romantic partner (either through death,
divorce, or break-up), you must go to a hotel where you have 45 days to
find a new love. If you do not, then at the end of the 45 days, you are
transformed into the animal of your choice, until the animal is killed
or dies. You can extend the 45 days if, during the nightly hunts, you
kill other humans. Then your life before animalhood is extended by an
extra day for each person you kill. Sounds like a really great movie,
right? But, wait, it gets worse.
For the first full night and day in the hotel, you have to have one
of your hands handcuffed to your pants, which are locked. They never
explain why. But Colin Farrell, who stars in this, manages to squeeze
the pants off, though, so he can relieve himself. Also, no masturbation
is allowed, so John C. Reilly, who befriends Farrell, gets punished
when he is caught doing that. The hotel managers force him to put his
dominant hand in a toaster, which they turn on while holding his hand in
the toaster to burn. Yup, Hollywood’s and ISIS’ warped minds have
common barbaric fantasies, none of which make for pleasant or purposeful
movie viewing. Oh, and did I mention that the maid comes into the
men’s hotel rooms daily to do a “lap dance” on them to make sure they
are still, um, sexually functional?
Farrell, when he first arrives at the hotel, identifies the lobster
as the animal he’d want to be transformed into if he fails to fall in
love. But he never turns into one of them, so the title is kind of
pointless. Farrell arrives with a dog, who used to be his brother.
Eventually, Farrell like some of the others he’s met at the hotel, fakes
certain aspects of his personality in order to get a women to like and
couple with him. The woman he couples up with is a heartless killer.
Ultimately, he escapes into the forest and joins a group of partisans
there. But he falls in love with one of them (Rachel Weisz) despite
their leader’s express prohibitions against it. So, the leader takes
Weisz into the city to get an operation which blinds her.
This brutal, sick, disgusting movie is what Hollywood and mainstream
(a/k/a liberal) movie critics think is “art.” It’s torture. And it’s a
bore. It went on forever and in a million different irrelevant
tangents. Two hours of this felt like five.
FOUR MARXES
Watch the trailer . . .
*
Love & Friendship – PG:
I’m normally a fan of Jane Austen and movies based on her work. But
not this. This movie, based on an Austen novella, “Lady Susan,” is
boring and mostly unfunny, especially for something that’s supposed to
be a comedy.
Kate Beckinsale plays Lady Susan, a member of English nobility in the
1700s or 1800s (I can’t remember and don’t really care). She’s widowed
and looking for a husband for herself and her daughter. And she’s
looking for rich husbands for the two of them, in order to keep up the
wealthy lifestyle to which she’s accustomed. To that end, she’s decided
to stay at the estate of her wealthy relatives (her in-laws) and plots
to find a suitable husband from among their friends and acquaintances.
The cast in this movie is far too large and hard to keep up with.
But, essentially, Lady Susan plots to set herself up with a much younger
man (I guess she was the original “cougar”) and her daughter with an
idiot. The results change, and there is a hurt wife of a man along the
way. There is also Lady Susan’s American friend (Chloe Sevigny), who
plots along with her.
As with many of these bloated and lackluster period movies, I loved
the costumes, sets, and Victorian accoutrements. This movie is high on
style. But it’s also low on story and an interesting plot, which is
nowhere to be seen here. Although Kate Beckinsale is lovely, she has
little to work with here and to many cast members with which to share
the stage. I also don’t think she’s very suited to comedy and find her
performances are better in dramas and thrillers. The story/plot isn’t
new, it’s not interesting, and I feel like I’ve seen this kind of
thing–done far better–many times before. Also, Lady Susan just isn’t
likable, nor is anyone else in this film. So, you just don’t care about
her or the others or anything that happens here. Lady Susan is
manipulative, scheming, spoiled, and entitled. Not to mention conceited
and cocksure. Who wants that? Sadly, some men in the movie are pulled
in. It’s also hard to believe that Lady Susan’s semi-sweet, pathetic,
and meek daughter is really related to her nasty mom or that she
continues to have anything to do with her.
This movie is only 92 minutes, which I’d normally praise. I like
brevity. But, unfortunately, it felt like it was twice that long. And I
struggled to get through it. I definitely wouldn’t pay ten bucks plus
to see this. But if I did, I’d ask for my money back. There is neither
love nor friendship anywhere in this movie. Or even close.
ONE-AND-A-HALF MARXES
Watch the trailer . . .
You might also like:
Photos.com 
Posts
3 Comments