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
The new choices in movies debuting in theaters today should tell you
something about the quality of movies these days: two sequels of just
okay (if that) movies and another one based on a video game. In other
words, nothing to write home about.
* The Conjuring 2 – R: Obviously, this is a sequel to the original “The Conjuring” (read my review), but it’s not quite as scary. It’s also a sequel of sorts to “Anabelle” (read my review).
Both movies involve the real-life couple, Ed and Lorraine Warren
(Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga), who did exorcisms and tried to remove
demons on behalf of the Catholic Church. (Ed Warren died in 2006, but
his wife is still alive.) This movie is based on yet another of the
Warrens’ real-life experiences in the exorcism biz.
At the beginning of the movie, Lorraine Warren has a series of
visions and nightmares of a demon (which looks like a half-nun/half
skeleton kind of figure). She also has visions of the demon killing her
husband. It’s against that backdrop that the Warrens are once again
recruited by a Catholic Church priest to help a family affected by the
possession of a demon. This time, it’s in London, where a working
class, single-mother household with four kids is facing some scary
experiences. Many weird things start happening in the home, and the
youngest daughter begins having visions of scary creatures, including
and especially an old man, chasing her around the home. Soon, she
becomes possessed. It turns out the old man died in the home years ago,
and he won’t go away. But he’s a stand-in for a scarier familiar
demon.
A few parts of the movie are very scary, but overall, I just didn’t
find it that scary. Still, it was entertaining and there is nothing
objectionable about it. I liked the way–as per Conjuring films–the
religious and the faithful are portrayed with reverence. The Warrens
take their Catholic faith seriously, and they are the heroes of the
film, something you rarely see coming out of Hollywood. Also I liked
that, as with other Conjuring films, the movie shows the real-life
people (and they look similar to their actor counterparts) at the end of
the movie, as credits roll.
The movie takes place in the ’70s, and once again, I love the close
attention to detail in terms of ’70s wardrobe, cars, decor, and other
accoutrements of the time. Farmiga is generally a good actress and
Wilson does a workmanlike job. The movie mixes some humor in, unlike
the other Conjuring films, so that’s a plus, and the movie is
entertaining, though maybe not as much as previous Conjuring movies.
However, it’s a little long and slow, clocking in at about two hours and
15 minutes. So, go to the bathroom beforehand.
ONE REAGAN
* Now You See Me 2 – PG-13: This is basically the same thing as the original “Now You See Me” (read my review)
only with a new actress in the chick role (Lizzy Caplan replaces Mrs.
Sacha Baron Cohen a/k/a Isla Fisher). And I wasn’t that crazy about the
original. In the original, a group of magician con artists do all
kinds of tricks and stunts and rob from the rich to give to the poor.
But they’re nothing but criminals, even if the movie doesn’t want you to
think so and wants you to cheer them on instead.
And, as with the original, the villains are not these charlatan
magicians. The villains are Hollywood’s stock evil rich businessmen.
In the original, it was Michael Caine. In this one, Caine is eventually
back, joined by Harry Potter’s Daniel Radcliffe (who adds nothing and
isn’t a good actor beyond the kids’ wizardry school). And here’s a tip:
it ain’t double the pleasure or double the fun. I wonder if magician
David Copperfield, who produced this movie, agrees with the evil
businessman diatribe? If so, he should give back the millions he made
with big shows in Vegas and on TV over the decades. But he won’t.
As with the original Now You See Me, a lot of magic tricks and stunts
and a lot of the plot are confusing, cockamamie, contrived, and just
downright preposterous. And, as with the original, the Horsemen, as the
magicians are called, are on the run from the FBI. This time, though,
Mark Ruffalo, as the agent investigating them, is also a double agent,
quietly and secretly helping them, though he’s quickly discovered early
on.
The original was something of a shaggy dog story with layers of an
onion constantly unfolding. But this one is even more of a shaggy dog
and the layers constantly unfolding are a confusing mess that seems
kinda silly. A plot theme involving the mysterious “The Eye”
organization, which instructs and helps protect the Horsemen, is
somewhat misleading and not fully explained.
So, you see, they basically revomited the original movie with a few minor changes.
That said, the movie is still somewhat entertaining, if you need two
hours to waste and have nothing else to do. It wasn’t objectionable
other than the typical Hollywood anti-capitalist narrative. That is, if
you find Woody Harrelson (playing two characters), Jesse Eisenberg, and
Dave Franco entertaining. Also, I found the movie to be a little long,
circuitous, and repetitive.
In this one, they trot out an “evil twin brother” character for
Harrelson to play (who, with the wig he’s sporting, looks like Roger
Clinton, bro-in-law of Hillary recently in the news for drunk driving),
in addition to his Horseman role. And I have this “Doublemint Twins”
theory of movies: when they gotta trot out an evil twin, you know the
movie’s in trouble.
TWO MARXES
Watch the trailer . . .
* Warcraft – PG-13:
I hated this. It was interminably long and boring. The “story” is
stupid. And the computer-generated image (CGI) animation was awful and
so obvious that it looked like 1980s’ technology was used. Constant
orchestral music playing in the background didn’t help the movie get
better. In fact, it made it worse. I couldn’t wait for this to end,
but I felt like it had a zillion endings, then kept on going. Not that I
expected anything good out of a movie based on a silly,
formerly-popular (several years ago) video game. And it lived down to
my expectations.
Oh, and another thing: Paula Patton is really a Z-list actress,
which is why she’s in this . . . with tusks coming out of her mouth.
Watching her try to make out with another character with those tusks
getting in the way, was unintentionally hilarious. Or was it
unintentional? This movie is so bad, I feel like maybe they purposely
made it that way for a future following due to campiness a la Rocky
Horror Picture Show. It’s that dumb.
The story: there are two worlds–one with humans in what appears to
be a Medieval English kingdom (but filled with minority nobles,
including Asians and Blacks, which wasn’t the case then), and another
with giant animated, ugly, caveman-like monsters, known as “Orcs.”
Somehow humans have gotten into the Orc’s world, and the evil Orc
leaders keep them prisoner to suck the life out of them and feed that
lifeforce to a gateway to the human world. The Orcs want to eventually
make the gateway powerful enough that they can travel through it to the
human world and take it over.
The humans discover the Orc world and want to stop what the Orcs are
trying to do. They take prisoner a beautiful half-breed Orc, played by
Poundstone, and she eventually helps them and infiltrates the Orc world
on their behalf. Then, there is a giant battle between Orcs and humans.
Believe me, I’m making this sound more understandable than it
actually is. It’s really quite confusing. And you just don’t care
enough to try to figure it out. Again, it’s from a video game. So,
there’s no hope for it anyway.
If there was one thing I liked about this, it’s that some of the Orcs
have interesting-looking tusks. One has tusks on his back with skulls
on them. Others wear monster skeletons as accessories. Those kept me
interested for like two minutes. Not enough to wanna waste two hours of
my life I’ll never get back.
ONE MARX
Watch the trailer . . .
By Debbie Schlussel
Here are my belated reviews of last weekend’s new movies. I did not
see Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Out of the Shadows. Surprisingly,
the only movie I found worthwhile is the documentary about former
Democratic Congressman Anthony Weiner.
Remember, you can always hear my movie reviews live, first thing every Friday morning on “
The Pat Campbell Show” on KFAQ 1170 AM Tulsa at 7:35 a.m. Eastern, and on “
The James Show,”
on KWTX 1230 AM at 8:30 a.m. Eastern, on “The Larry The Cable Guy Show”
(sometimes on Thursdays) between 10:30 a.m. and 11:30 a.m. Eastern on
SiriusXM’s Jeff and Larry’s Comedy Roundup Channel 97, and on “The Mike Church Show” on the
Veritas Radio Network/CRUSADE. I do my movie reviews on all four shows, as well as some discussion of current political issues and pop culture topics.
*
Weiner – R:
I have mixed feelings in continuing to make former New York
Congressman Anthony Weiner the punching bag. After all, in liberal New
York City, where he ran for Mayor, Weiner is almost a right-winger
compared to the scumbag Marxist America-hater, Warren Wilhelm Jr. a/k/a
“Bill DeBlasio.” Even though he’s a perv, Weiner would have been
preferable to the Communazi that occupies New York’s Mayor seat right
now.
Weiner’s run for Mayor–a year after his Twitter sexting scandal was
uncovered and he resigned from Congress–is the subject of this
documentary. The movie follows Weiner through the ups and many downs of
the campaign. At first, he is leading in the polls, as New Yorkers are
willing to give him a second chance. But, then, as new sexting between
Weiner and a woman named Sidney Leathers is uncovered, the movie shows
Weiner’s hard fall. And all the king’s horses and all the king’s men
can’t put Humpty Dumpty Weiner together again. Weiner, ever the
optimist, seems naive for a seasoned politician. He won’t face that
there is no chance of winning the race, once the news has broken. It’s
just “too soon,” as they say.
While there’s nothing exactly knew in this documentary, it’s
interesting nonetheless. We see how egomaniacal both he and his wife,
Hillary Clinton’s Saudi-Arabian Muslim top aide Huma Abedin, are. And,
though the movie goes overboard trying to portray Huma as a sympathetic
victim, it doesn’t really work. She comes off as a phony who worries
mostly not about what’s good for her marriage or family, but what’s good
for her image and political career. In truth, Weiner–as out of touch
and idiotic as he is–is far more sympathetic than his scheming,
calculating, ever-PR-ing wife. He is more of a putz than a schmuck.
And she clearly wears the pants . . . and mans the puppet strings in
that “marriage.”
Huma is worried only about Huma, even as she stays in the marriage
and declares her continued love for Weiner. But a loving, supportive
wife doesn’t deliberately refuse to appear in political ads with her
husband. Huma refuses. And a loving, supportive wife doesn’t refuse to
accompany him to vote at the polls on election day. Self-centered
Huma, worried about the optics for herself, refuses. And she leaves
Weiner to take their kid in the stroller to the polls to vote alone . . .
and to come up with the less-than-believable excuse of “scheduling” as
the reason she is not there.
I couldn’t help but notice a couple of things:
Huma is repeatedly–and only–shown all glammed-up and wearing a series
of high-fashion dresses, reminiscent of a Stepford Wife’s stock
wardrobe. I also noticed the Abedin-Weiners’ magnificent, fancy New
York apartment, complete with expensive SubZero refrigerator (which
typically costs several thousand dollars).
The apartment looked like a multi-million dollar pad. And, yet, the
documentary makers never asked how the couple can afford the place. He,
after all, is unemployed and previously worked as a Congressman who
made less than $200,000 per year. She was supposed to be living on a
public servant’s salary, too. But, then, there is the fact–never ever
mentioned in the movie–that Huma was somehow able to
work as a high-paid “consultant” for the mysterious Teneo
“advisory” firm at the same time that she was also collecting her State
Department Clintonista salary, illegally double-dipping. If only the
filmmakers bothered to mention this or, at least, inquire about the
apartment’s cost and source of funding.
Like I said, nothing new here. But it is somewhat entertaining,
especially if you’re a political junkie and want to see inside the heads
of a selfish political couple who exemplify Mr. and Mrs.
Uber-Narcissist.
Anthony Weiner is a dope who can’t help himself to save his life.
But Huma is cold, calculating, and a flat-out selfish phony who is the
queen of all selfish phonies. Real victims reside in the morgue, not
the Abedin-Weiner household.
ONE REAGAN
*
Me Before You – PG-13:
The Feel-Good Euthansia Movie of the Year! I found this manipulative
movie appalling because it sells death with a whole lot of phony
glamour, comedy, luxe decor, and bright colors. In this, assisted
suicide is rewarding and pretty. And, in this, assisted suicide is a
chick flick filled with good-looking, happy-go-lucky people laughing and
smiling. No dark Dr. Kevorkian and his battered old Volkswagen van
dumping out the dead bodies in the alley. ‘Cuz that would be a
turn-off. And closer to reality.
This movie takes place in Europe, but we in America are sadly, unduly
trying to become the next Europe. And we’re well on our way.
Unlimited Muslim immigration jihad, legalized pot and gay marriage,
transgenderism as the new civil right, and legalized assisted suicide
fast become more and more available across the formerly-fruited and
now-jacked-up plane.
Taken from the “romance” novel of the same name by British writer
Jojo Moyes, this movie follows happy-go-lucky working class girl Lou
Clark, played by Game of Thrones’ Emilia Clarke (who has it easy
answering throughout the movie to her nearly-identical real-life last
name). Clarke is a great actress with huge charm and personality, who
is excellent in this movie and will be a big star. The problem is that
she’s excellent in a movie that glorifies and soft-pedals death.
The 20-something, cheery Lou, who lives in a village near London, is
hired by a very wealthy couple (they own the town’s castle and a giant
estate) to care for their quadriplegic 30-something son, Will. He lost
most bodily function and movement, after a motorcycle hit him on a rainy
day. Before that, he was an athletic, powerful buyer of distressed
companies. Now, he is bitter and obnoxious about his current state.
Soon, though, Will warms up to Lou and her unassuming charm. And the
two of them fall in love.
But Lou discovers that Will plans to travel to Switzerland for an
assisted suicide and has given his parents six months to try to stop
him. Lou learns she was hired for that purpose. She tries to save him
and begins taking Will on adventures and ultimately a romantic vacation.
But at the end of the vacation, Will informs Lou that despite their
love, he will go on with the suicide as planned. That’s because he’s a
selfish, incredibly spoiled unlikable creep, no matter how much the
movie tries to romanticize him.
Of course, as in most such movies, Hollywood provides us with the
stock “ignorant, unsophisticated, working-class, pro-life Christian.”
Lou’s mother–who is suddenly wearing her cross for the first time in the
movie–tells her daughter not to travel to Switzerland because if she
does, it’s the same as taking part in a murder (which, in fact, it is).
“Oh, Mom . . . ” is the refrain. Lou’s sister tells their mother that
“it’s not that simple. It’s more complicated than that.” Not really.
Of course, Lou ends up going to Switzerland to watch Will’s assisted
suicide. And, of course, the setting is a glamorous white Victorian
mansion. Instead of seeing Will being snuffed out, we are shown leaves
softly fluttering in the air.
Awwww . . . assisted suicide, it’s just like a Harlequin romance novel.
In the next and final scene, Lou is in Paris on an all-expenses-paid trip courtesy of the now-dead Will and she’s sitting at a
romantic cafe, then going shopping to buy expensive perfume. Lou has
just learned that Will left her a giant bank account to free her from
her “irrelevant” working-class life with a simpleton pro-life Christian
mom. See, going along with assisted suicide has its rewards. And the
disabled are useless and to be snuffed out.
Those are the messages in this disgusting movie, which should have been called “Pimping Death.”
As I was watching this I was reminded of the movie “Million Dollar
Baby,” one of the first movies I ever reviewed here more than a decade
ago. In that bait-and-switch film, a successful female boxer is also
assisted in suicide after she is disabled and no longer able to fight.
Excuse me if I value life and think disabled human beings are worthy
of it. That’s not what Hollywood wants you to think. And funny how the
Nazis felt the same way as the showbiz people. Now, on to the
ObamaCare death panels for the little people . . . .
FOUR DR. KEVORKIANS (W/BABA WAWA) PLUS THREE MARXES PLUS THREE OBAMAS
*
Popstar: Never Stop Never Stopping – R:
Though this movie had some funny moments and lines, I hated it. It’s
absolute garbage. And just plain stupid. The only spot-on insight here
was the statement by the main character–a popstar–that “there’s no such
thing as selling out anymore.” No kidding. This movie is Exhibit A of
that. It’s yet more cinematic trash eagerly mass-produced to make a
buck.
Saturday Night Live alum Andy Samberg (who I never thought was all
that funny) stars in this as a Justin-Beiber-esque White rapper/pop
star. At first, Samberg is in a three-member pop group, The Style Boys,
which is his real-life Lonely Island Boys act on SNL, co-starring his
childhood friends Jorma Taccone and Akiva Schaffer. When Samberg’s
character becomes “too big,” the group members feud and break up. One
of them bitterly leaves and becomes a farmer in rural America. The
other becomes the DJ for Samberg’s new solo act. Samberg’s raps stink,
and are filthy and politically incorrect (but not in a good way). And
Samberg is just an all-around schmuck who self-destructs.
The movie takes the form of a “documentary” a la VH1’s former
documentary series, “Behind the Music.” It’s chock full of celebrity
cameo appearances and other SNL alumni and current cast members. But
it’s just not that funny . . . unless your idea of “funny” is a penis
hanging over the window of a limo. Sorry, not funny. And most of the
jokes are gratuitously raunchy like that.
The one thing this movie does well is its portrayal of bratty pop
acts a la Bieber. It captures the excesses, whether its women,
behavior, or spending. The guy is an egomaniac. Ultimately, Samberg
gets upstaged by another rapper and must “suffer” the consequences of
the same kind of behavior to which he’s treated everybody else. And the
movie captures the crass commercialism of music acts these days.
Samberg makes a ridiculous deal with a major appliance company to have
all of its products play the songs from his dud album, as soon as
somebody opens them. For example, a refrigerator or oven, when opened
or in use, begins playing Samberg’s horrible raps (about how he supports
gay marriage, but “I’m not gay” he repeatedly notes).
Although this movie is less than 1.5 hours, it seemed painfully
longer. It was gross, went too far and was repetitive and just dumb,
filled with dumb jokes that loudly thud if they don’t fall flat. Plus,
it has the loathsome Sarah Silverman in it. Ugh.
Yes, I know I’m not the target of this movie. The scary thing is
that the aimed-for demo–20-somethings and 30-somethings–are mindless
sheep who eat this stuff up and think it’s a masterpiece.
We’re well into the summer movie season, and this is the best they got?!
THREE MARXES
Posts
26 Comments