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!

Wknd Box Office: In the Heart of the Sea

By Debbie Schlussel
Every year, the movies get worse, and this year is Exhibit A. I don’t understand what the heck Hollywood is doing, giving us horribly dreadful movies like “In the Heart of the Sea,” in theaters today. This is supposed to be Christmastime, when the studios give us their best movies. But instead, they bring you this–“The Feel-Good Cannibalism, Animal-Rights/Save-the-Whales Movie of the Year.” Thanks, Ron Howard. (“MacBeth” also debuts today, but I saw so many new movies this week–more about that in a later post–that I didn’t have time to watch the MacBeth screener DVD until later this week, and I kept falling asleep because it was boring. Will try to finish it and post a review over the weekend or next week.) *** SPOILER ALERT: This review contains SPOILERS! for which you’ll thank me, as I am performing a public service.
Not only was this movie long, slow, and boring (what was just over two hours seemed like five), it is horrifying. The last thing I want to do when I go to the movies is watch starving, desperate grown men choose which one of them they will kill and eat, next. The second-to-last thing I want to see at the movies is a gaunt, anorexic, skull-and-bones Chris Hemsworth, who is so dangerously thin, you can literally see his skeleton through his facial skin. But this movie has both of these, um, “features.”
In the Heart of the Sea takes place mostly in 1820, when there was no electricity or natural gas usage, and people relied on whale oil to heat and light homes and businesses. The movie is supposed to be the true story of the Essex whaling ship and how it was haunted and attacked by a great white whale. The whale is the subject of Herman Melville’s classic novel, “Moby Dick,” and the movie depicts Melville hearing the story of what happened to the Essex from the ship’s youngest survivor, who is now old and gray. The man has never spoken of the horrors he saw and endured to survive, and he reticently tells them to Melville, pursuant to a contract he signed with the author (the author paid him for the story).
In 1820, a group of working-class men are hired as the crew of the Essex and set sail from their native New England to the sea off the coast of South America, in search of whales to hunt. The movie focuses on Chris Hemsworth, who is one of those men and has been hired to lead them, just under the command of the ship’s captain (a relative of the ship-owner). The men have a tough time finding and killing a whale, and when they finally do, there isn’t much oil. They’d hoped to return to Massachusetts with many more barrels of whale oil than they’ve got. It’s a tough life at sea on the ship, and the men are growing restless and constantly arguing.
During one stop on land, the men learn of a great white whale, which attacked another ship. One of the ship’s surviving crewmen tells the men of the Essex that the whale fought and haunted them, following them around waiting to attack. Eventually, after returning to sea, the Essex men spot the white whale and try to kill it for the oil. But the whale bests them, attacks the Essex, and causes the ship to sink. The crew escape on three small wooden boats, which look like little more than large canoes.
After many days on the sea and rationing small portions of biscuits (or crackers) and water, the men are literally starving to death. So, to survive, they draw straws to decide which of them they will murder next and eat. Humans . . . It’s What’s For Dinner (and Lunch and Breakfast). I couldn’t stand watching this. It made me think of the Nazis deciding who deserves to live and who deserves to go to the ovens. It was awful to watch. Just as awful to watch was the emaciated Hemsworth, whom director Ron Howard put on a 500-calorie-a-day diet. You can literally see his skeleton on his barely-there face.
And on top of this, the movie moves so slowly and is so boring that, when it finally gets moving and has any suspense, it’s half over (or more). I repeatedly fought the sleep demons while watching this.
A number of entertainment industry figures and movie critics are gushing over this because it is directed by Richie Cunningham from Happy Days (Ron Howard). But it’s not up to his usual standards. Not even close. In fact, it’s hard to believe he directed this garbage. But he did.
That doesn’t make it worth seeing. Nope.
The movie has an anti-business vibe: the “insensitive,” rich owners of the companies for which the whaling ships sailed, are the typical Hollywood stock “evil businessmen” characters to which we’re always treated. Plus, watching this depiction of how humans who hunted whales for necessity are forced to become cannibals–and many of them die–I couldn’t help but wonder if the people who made this movie were animal rights activists a la PUTAh (People for the Unethical Treatment of Animals and humans). The message of the movie is quite clear: if you hunt animals for human needs, it’ll come back to bite you, and you’ll forced to become a cannibal and do unspeakable things. This movie was less Moby Dick, more vegan bad musician (and animal rights nut) Moby (who is supposedly a descendant of Melville).
Twenty years from now, they’ll probably make a movie like that about people who eat meat and wear leather shoes.
G-d help us. And G-d help you, if you waste ten-bucks-plus and two hours of your life on this.
Despite the flick’s title, this movie has no heart. And it definitely doesn’t have a soul.
THREE MARXES PLUS THREE OBAMAS PLUS THREE VEGAN MOBYS

Watch the trailer . . .

You might also like:

VIDEO: McCain’s, Obama’s Precious Syrian Rebels Cut Out ...

Wknd Box Office: A Most Violent Year (a/k/a “All the Bad ...

Wknd Box Office: In a World, You’re Next, The World’s End

Weekend Box Office: The Wolverine, The To Do List

 

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!

Wknd Box Office: Jurassic World, Farewell Party, Madame Bovary, 100-Year-Old Man Who Climbed Out the Window and Disappeared

By Debbie Schlussel

Though my reviews are late in being posted as I wasn’t able to finish them before the Jewish Sabbath began, you aren’t missing much. The relative highlight–with “relative” being very much the key word here–is the remake/reboot “Jurassic World,” but even that is just okay. Not bad, but not great.
* “Jurassic World“: Um, didn’t they learn after the first–or the first THREE?!–Jurassic movies that humans plus dinosaurs equals danger? That’s why this more than kinda sorta seems like the same old thing . . . again. And I say this as someone who has never seen any of the first three Jurassic movies from beginning to end (though I’ve seen large swaths of the first one and parts of the second).
They’re calling this both a remake and a reboot of the original 1994 “Jurassic Park” movie. And both are true because it’s basically a repeat of the original with new tweaks and technology. Plus, there are references and tributes to the original. But you needn’t have seen any of the previous Jurassic movies to know what’s going on. This one stands alone. The movie seems to be Chris Pratt’s audition tape to be the new Indiana Jones, a role he’s rumored to soon play. He’s definitely wearing Indiana Jones’ clothes and doing his swashbuckling in this flick.
And despite all of my talk above–and the plain fact that there’s nothing new here–it’s not a bad movie. Fans of the originals will like it, and newcomers probably will, too. It’s very suspenseful and fast-paced. There’s lots of action, and it doesn’t disappoint. But it also has a not-so-veiled anti-business storyline, not to mention the fact that one of the villains of the movie is a Blackwater military type of guy (Vincent D’Onofrio) who wants to use the dinosaurs as weapons and soldiers in the Middle East. Imagine that–wanting to save American soldiers’ lives and limbs. Yup, datz evil!
The story: Jurassic World is a new Disneyland-stylie resort/attraction on the same island where Jurassic Park was set. The resort is owned by arrogant billionaire businessman Simon Masrani (Indian Muslim actor Irrfan Khan). Masrani paid scientists working on the island to develop new dinosaurs through gene/DNA splicing because if the resort doesn’t create new dinosaurs every few years, the public gets bored and won’t come to the resort. They’ve developed a secret, giant mutant dinosaur, which is being kept in a special cage on the restricted part of the island.
The resort is managed by Bryce Dallas Howard (whose acting career has nothing whatsoever to do with being the daughter of Ron Howard, right?). She is a workaholic, prissy, stick in the mud, who went on one date with Chris Pratt, a dinosaur-whisperer, who has his own independent dinosaur training camp, where he trains velociraptors. The date didn’t work out because he’s very masculine and she had the date all planned out in writing (or something like that). Howard convinces Pratt to come the resort to help with something regarding the mutant dinosaur.
Howard’s nephews have come to visit the resort, but she’s so busy working, she neglects them, leaving them with her assistant. They ditch the assistant and sneak off to the rides and attractions in the middle of the dinosaur park on the island. But, soon, the mutant dinosaur, who is very smart, tricks people from the resort, and escapes. It is on a rampage, and is killing other dinosaurs and a lot of people.
Pratt warns billionaire Masrani that he must used lethal weapons, such as RPGs, to kill the mutant dinosaur and that he must also evacuate all humans from the island. But Masrani refuses, saying it will hurt his costly investment ($26 million) in the mutant dinosaur and give Jurassic World such bad PR that it will be forced to go out of business.
Pratt eventually goes with Howard into the middle of the island jungle to rescue her two nephews, who are stranded near the mutant dinosaur and in danger. And the rest of the movie follows the rescue attempts, as well as the pair’s attempts to save the rest of the surviving guests and kill the mutant dinosaur.
Some who’ve seen the movie object to the use of a lot of computer generated images (CGI) in the movie. But the CGI isn’t bad or that noticeable. Plus, try finding some real-life AND harmless dinosaurs for use in the movies. I saw this in 3D and the 3D effects are not bad, but you’ll be fine not paying the extra bucks and seeing it in regular 2D.
Many conservatives believe actor Pratt is also a conservative because he owns guns, hunts and fishes, hails from a small town and values small town life, and posted a video teaching his two-year-old son the pledge of allegiance. All of those things are laudable. But you have to question any “conservative”–any American–who willingly stars in an anti-business, anti-American military movie. This one is both. And for that reason, while I’d normally give this TWO REAGANS, it is lowered to . . .
ONE-AND-A-HALF REAGANS

Watch the trailer . . .

* “The Farewell Party [Mita Tova]“: I’ve often warned you on this site that Israel’s filmmakers are just as far-left as–and actually far worse than–Hollywood filmmakers. And this is yet another case in point. The original Hebrew title of this movie is “Mita Tova,” which means “good death” or “a good death.” Yup this is the “feel-good, musical euthanasia movie of the year,” complete with at least two scenes of sagging, naked senior citizens’ bodies. Those were “I just threw up in my mouth” moments I can’t seem to erase from my mind but really wish I could. TMI [Too Much Information], Israeli Hollywoodites. TMI! Ditto for the many, many scenes of two senior citizen gay men having an affair, kissing, and lying in bed, etc. They are among those we are forced to see naked. File Under: Um, NO THANKS!
The story: a small group of senior citizen friends see one of their group in the hospital, and he’s suffering greatly. He’s also terminally ill, dying, and has no chance to get better (or so they tell you). The friends discuss it and two of them want to kill the sick man so that he is “put out of his misery.” Soon, they convince the rest of their small circle of friends, some of whom are reluctant, to participate in killing–no, murdering!–their friend. One of them, a retired veterinarian, tells them what poison to use, and another creates a Dr.-Kevorkian-style machine to administer the poison. They sneak into the hospital and murder their sick friend.
Soon, news spread throughout their senior citizens’ housing community that they’ve killed their friend. Suddenly, many other residents want the group to kill their sick wives, husbands, and selves. And after a very quick hesitation, they are soon videotaping the good-byes of other seniors and killing them. The wife of one of the group is suddenly forgetting things and doing things that are dangerous as a result. She clearly has Alzheimer’s Disease. So, now, the dilemma is whether or not she should be next.
Inserted into all of this killing is a musical number, with various members of the group and those who want their help, singing some song about it all. And, then, there is also a scene of the members of the group sitting naked in a greenhouse, something I really didn’t need to see. We don’t know if these Israeli actors are members of SAG [Screen Actors Guild], but they are definitely members of sag.
I’m proudly pro-life, and so is the Jewish religion, despite what legions of ignorant, liberal Jewish morons might tell you. And, so, it was incredibly annoying when the people in this dumb propaganda film kept invoking the word, “mitzvah,” which means good deed (or, literally, commandment) in Hebrew and in Judaism. In fact, it is a mitzvah–or commandment–in Judaism NOT to perpetrate euthanasia. Because, again, Judaism is a pro-life religion, which forbids poisoning the sick, including the terminally ill.
In Hebrew with English subtitles.
THREE MARXES PLUS ONE ISIS BEHEADING

Watch the trailer . . .

* “Madame Bovary“: I’m not exactly sure why this movie needed to be made, given that this must be the zillionth on-screen (both movies and TV) depiction of Gustave Flaubert’s novel of the same name. It’s been done . . . to death, but Hollywood’s annoying habit is to lather, rinse, repeat (with an emphasis on the “repeat” part). It’s also a novel which I’m proud to say I never read, but I knew what it was about before seeing this. If the movie is true to the novel, I didn’t miss much. And, from what I’ve read about the novel, this cuts a lot out of that, but still has the main gist of it. While I loved the beautiful cinematography and period costumes and knickknacks, that’s about all I liked in it. The story is miserable, and in this movie, it’s slow and boring, making it all the more miserable. Not much actually happens until almost an hour (or halfway) into the movie. And even then it still moves slowly. Things might have been moved along if less of the details of the novel had been cut out.
In case you aren’t familiar with the story, Madame Bovary (Mia Wasikowska) is a French woman who marries a small town doctor. She is bored with life and seeks solace in having extra-marital affairs and spending all of her husband’s money on extravagant clothing and accoutrements they cannot afford. Not sure what the point of that is or why the story needs to be retold on the silver screen yet again. When the novel debuted in the mid 1800s, this might have been a big deal. Today, it’s just another re-telling of the same old story we’ve seen repeatedly. Moreover, the part about the doctor’s first wife and his background are completely gone from the movie, as is how he met Madame Bovary. And I believe this takes away from the story.
The acting in the movie was fine. But I was unsure why some characters in the movie, particularly the Aussie Wasikowska playing Madame Bovary, had American accents, and others, such as a character played by American Paul Giamatti, had English accents. It is even more odd, given that the story takes place in France, and all of the characters are supposed to be French.
I probably wouldn’t pay ten bucks-plus to see this. Or the two hours, which should have moved a little faster. Or a half hour could have been excised, and we’d have missed nothing. In fact, some of it seems a little too repetitive. Oh, and by the way, not only is this miserable, it’s a miserable chick flick, which makes it even worse. So, guys, you’d be best advised: stay away.
ONE MARX

Watch the trailer . . .

* “The 100-Year-Old Man Who Climbed Out the Window and Disappeared“: A very old, but very lucid and independent Swedish man discovers that a wolf (or fox?) has killed his dear pet cat. And, so, he makes a bomb with hot dogs (or sausages?) tied all around it, blowing up the wolf (or fox). Because of that, he’s put in a nursing home. But he’s bored and feels he doesn’t belong there And, on his 100th birthday, the Swedish man decides that nursing home life is not for him. So, he sneaks out of his first story window and embarks on an adventure, taking a bus to the most distant location he can afford, which turns out to be the countryside not far away.
We learn in interspersed flashbacks that he’s already lived a long life of adventure. He’s obsessed with explosives and is something of an expert on the subject. He’s also worked as a welder on New York high rises, served as a double agent for the CIA and the Soviets, working on the Manhattan Project, befriending President Truman and Spain’s Francisco Franco, and so on. I felt like I was watching a mixture of a low-rent Forrest Gump and a mobster caper in which all the gangsters are idiots.
The rest of the plot: the 100-year-old man is being sought out and chased by a group of mobsters who are also in a motorcycle gang, called “Never Again” (which is weird since that is the slogan many Jews use in commemorating the Holocaust). The reason: the old man has–through a mishap–ended up with the mobsters’ suitcase that has something of great value in it. Through the story, the old man picks up new friends and helpers while being sought by both the mobsters and the police.
While there are some parts that are entertaining and funny, it’s mostly hard to believe and mostly a bore. I also didn’t care for the scene making Ronald Reagan look like a jerk. That was completely gratuitous and added nothing to the story. But it’s no surprise it’s in there, given that this is based on a best-selling novel by novelist Jonas Jonasson who hails from socialist Sweden.
Mildly entertaining, but mostly a waste of time and not something I’d spend the money or time to see, given what I know now. If you’ve seen Forrest Gump, you’ve seen the original–and far superior–version. The movie is mostly in Swedish, with English subtitles. But there is also a great deal of English and Russian (also with English subtitles).
ONE MARX

Watch the trailer (NSFW) . . .

Angels & Demons Review

A big hat tip from www.debbieschlussel.com as a review for Angels and Demons.

My "Angels & Demons" Review . . . Or "101 Ways to Torture and Slay a Priest" *** SPOILER Alert ***
By Debbie Schlussel
**** WARNING: There are a number of spoilers in this review of the movie, "Angels & Demons." If you don't want to know these spoilers and the ending of the movie, don't read any further than the first three paragraphs of this review. ****
As readers know (and as I've noted on this site), my biggest objection to the movie, "Angels & Demons"--which opens tonight in theaters at Midnight--is that director Ron Howard changed the identity of the assassin in the movie from Muslim to "Danish."
After seeing the movie, full of scenes in which "the preferiti"--high ranking Vatican priests with the best shot of becoming Pope--are tortured and slaughtered to death in various explicitly gruesome ways, I can see why it was so important for this character to remain a Muslim in the movie, as he was in the book. And why Ron Howard, a PC liberal, was so eager for a Muslim not to be portrayed doing such horrid things that are carried out by the minute throughout the "Danish" Middle-East.
After all the most nearly successful modern attempt on a Pope's life was committed by Mehmet Ali Agca . . . clearly, a Danish name. And we don't want Catholics seeing a Muslim carrying out such hideous tortures and murders of priests because, after all, the "Religion of Peace" would never ever do such a thing and never has throughout it's history over the centuries. In fact, Director Ron Howard and scriptwriter Akiva Goldsman went out of their way to have this non-descript, non-Muslim assassin utter lines about how the Jewish G-d, allah, and the Christian G-d are all the same and all murderous. Yup, love that anti-religious moral equivalency lumping us Judeo-Christians with the religion of Greater BarbArabia.
**** SPOILERS BEGIN HERE ****
That said, for the first two hours and five minutes of the two-hour, twenty-minute "Angels & Demons," I thought, "WOW, this is a great movie, and very pro=Catholic, too." But, then, when the heroic Irish Catholic priest who is the adopted son and personal assistant to the Pope suddenly becomes not the young moral superman and hero we thought, but instead a crazed murdering, torturing monster, the movie lost me. The movie lost me, especially because the reason the padre did this was because he was against science. Pure propaganda.
Even though I'm no Catholic--I'm a Jew--I am pro-life and against embryonic stem cell research, just like the Vatican. Does this mean I am "against science"? Does this mean that my religious leaders would set of a chain reaction of torturous murders of top clerics and try to blow up an entire major city . . . all just to fight science? Are those of us who are conservative on social issues and don't want the "brave new world" scenario--are we all monsters?
The movie slapped me with this message basically in the second to last scene of the movie. It was such a buzzkill. Until then, my only reservation, other than the Muslim whitewash, was the repeated scenes of priests being branded, tortured, and killed in disgusting ways. That was painful to watch, and I hope it doesn't give nuts copycat ideas. "101 Ways to Torture and Kill a Priest" isn't a video manual we needed (especially when, in the original "Angels & Demons" book, it's more like, "101 Muslim Ways to Torture and Kill a Priest").
And that's sad, because until then, I loved this movie. It was fun, exciting, suspenseful and thrilling (if kinda gruesome). The special effects are fantastic, the scenes of Rome and the statues inside old churches--most of which are likely Hollywood sets and computer generated images--were stunning. I found it extremely entertaining and enjoyable.
The story: The Pope has just died, and a new one must be chosen by Vatican Cardinals. Symbologist Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) is invited by the Vatican to help in a desperate crisis. Someone has kidnapped four "preferiti" (Cardinals favored to become the next Pope). That same person assassinated a priest working at a supercollider and stole a dangerous vial of "anti-matter," which could blow up a major city.
The kidnapper threatens to murder one of them each hour for four hours. At the end of the day--at Midnight--the killer will let the anti-matter explode all of Vatican City and parts of Rome. The kidnapper has identified himself as part of the Illuminati, a mysterious ancient society of scientists at war with the Catholic Church.
Dr. Langdon, with his knowledge of symbols and ancient societies like the Illuminati, is brought in to try to decipher hints of where the preferiti are being held. Also there is a female scientist who headed up the supercollider anti-matter project. They work with the Vatican City's Swiss Guard and the help of the late Pope's adopted son/personal assistant, a young Irish Catholic priest. It is a race against time to find the priests before they are murdered one by one and then everyone is blown to kingdom come.
I didn't find this movie to be anti-Catholic. If anything--despite the murderous, anti-science, young Priest (which was definitely objectionable, not to mention preposterous)--the movie is endearing to the Catholic Church and far better than "The Da Vinci Code." The Church and its traditions is contrasted with the absolute pronounced agnostic and nearly-atheist bent of Robert Langdon, whom you can tell must have a tiny shred of belief somewhere under all of his elitist Harvard scientist armor.
Yes, overall, it is a positive portrayal of the Catholic Church, including the very end. But it is not a positive portrayal of those of us who are morally conservative and have ethical dilemmas with brave new world technologies--a core position of the Church. We are not against science. In fact, many of us, like me, embrace science, which has made our lives easier and helped us to develop cures and better treatments for diseases, etc.
But that doesn't mean we have to embrace science's extremes. Nor that we have to except this otherwise great movie's portrayal of us as extremists.