Wknd Box Office: The Great Gatsby, The Reluctant Fundamentalist, Peeples, Upstream Color

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 chosing good movies to watch yourself!

Wknd Box Office: The Great Gatsby, The Reluctant Fundamentalist, Peeples, Upstream Color


By Debbie Schlussel



Nothing new that’s notable or good at theaters, this weekend.


* “The Great Gatsby“: Should have been called, “The Great Glitz-by,” or “The Jay-Z-izing of F. Scott Fitzgerald.” ‘Cuz that’s all it was, a bright, loud, horribly miscast, rushed-and-yet-long 2.5 hours pretending to be “The Great Gatsby,” the Fitzgerald novel about a mysterious millionaire trying to woo his married long lost love. And it was ridiculously drenched in cacophonous Jay-Z-infested synthesizer noise.



While the movie is better than I expected, that’s only because I set my expectations extremely low. It is pretty true to the book, even though reports said it was based on the darker first draft, “Trimalchio,” which Fitzgerald lightened at the request of his publisher. Still, the movie is filled with Jay-Z music, hip-hop, and rap. And the few musical notes that actually come from the era of the 1920s were pumped up on steroids, sped up and chock full of loud hip-hop beats. And the movie was way too bright, flashy, and glitzy from start to finish. It wasn’t eye candy. It was garish, distracting, and annoying. Oh, and I saw it in 3D. Why on earth does a novel about the wealthy old- and new-moneyed on East and West Egg (the fictionalized Long Island) in the 1920s need to be in 3D? I still don’t know.


I just didn’t see Leonardo DiCaprio as the mysterious stalker Jay Gatsby or Carey Mulligan (whose acting “talent” seems limited to pouts and tears) as Daisy Buchanan, the selfish, torn debutante who was his love five years earlier. Joel Edgerton as wealthy polo player Tom Buchanan was a better pick, but even he was far too cartoonish to be the guy I pictured as I read the book. The only one that I think fit the bill was Tobey Maguire as Nick Carraway (Daisy’s distant cousin and Gatsby’s neighbor), but even he looks too young. Like DiCaprio, he is too boyish-looking and looks like he had his Bar Mitzvah yesterday.



The movie went way too fast at times and then way too slow. It was kind of exhausting, though the two-and-a-half hours dizzyed past me. Also an annoyance was the constant use of handwritten words on the screen as Nick Carraway uttered them. Why did we need that? The screen wasn’t busy enough? This movie is very high on style–in fact, it’s overloaded with it (the costumes and sets are fabulous but excessive)–but has little substance.



The best way to see “The Great Gatsby” is in your own mind as you are picturing the book while you read F. Scott Fitzgerald’s words. This movie proves yet again that attempts to best that by putting it on-screen generally fail.



I didn’t completely hate it, and it was mildly entertaining, so I give it . . .



HALF A REAGAN



* “The Reluctant Fundamentalist“: More like, “The Liberal, Muslim Fantasy of Why Muslims Are Right to Hate America.” I hate, hate, hated this movie. It’s typical anti-American crap based on the novel of the same name written by Muslim author Mohsin Hamid. Like the book, this is pan-Muslim propaganda. There is nothing “reluctant” about this movie, including and especially the anti-American orgy that populates it. I’ve seen other critics upset that this movie “doesn’t explain” the “subtle reasons” why the Muslim main character smiles and rejoices at the attacks on the World Trade Center on 9/11. . . as if there is a justifiable reason for that, “subtle” or otherwise.



The main character in this movie, Changez Khan (Riz Ahmed), has been given everything by America–an athletic scholarship to Princeton, a prized, high-paid position at a high-powered consulting firm in New York, and the personal tutelage of one of its principals (Kiefer Sutherland), who takes Khan under his wing and gives him a plum promotion. And, yet, he smiles at the attacks on the World Trade Center, a move that this horrible (and horribly slow and boring) flick’s point of view believes is justified.



Khan is shown unfairly harassed by police and strip-searched at the airport because he is Muslim and has been profiled. But, while we should have done that to Muslim aliens here (in Khan’s case, he is here for no legit reason–we have plenty of Americans suited for consulting jobs and on unemployment), that is exactly the opposite of what politically correct America did. We didn’t and still don’t profile Muslims.



Khan’s rich American photographer girlfriend (the always annoying Kate Hudson, who, herself, said she hates Americans) also ridicules him in her art exhibit which features his photo, recordings of him, and phrases in Arabic. Yeah, right. Like liberal American rich girl artists ridicule Muslims. Just the opposite, sadly. They readily lie down and spread eagle (and she did some of that, too, in this film). But in this movie, the Muslim main character is endlessly the victim of countless horrible acts by the evil Americans.



And after this, Khan is ordered by his “evil” Western boss (the one who hired him instead of Americans and promoted him ahead of Americans) to fire a Muslim publishing house exec. He refuses, quits his job, and moves back to Pakistan, where he leads student radicals and is suspected of helping kidnap an American professor.



Most of the movie consists of Khan telling an American journalist/CIA agent (Liev Schreiber) his story, while the agent wants to know where the professor is so he can be rescued. Schreiber accuses him of being part of the kidnapping. Of course, predictably, Khan is innocent, wrongfully accused. And, yet again, we Americans are the bad guys.



High quality Bin Laden cinema brought to you by Indian director Mira Nair, whose hubby is Muslim. Ms. Nair has made millions showing her films in America, and this is how she slaps us in the face in response. One other thing: the movie is financed and produced by the Doha Film Institute, funded and run by the same Qatar government that funds and runs Al-Jazeera, the Terrorist News Network. This is typical of the kind of propagandistic crap they put out.



FOUR MARXES PLUS FOUR OBAMAS PLUS FOUR BIN LADENS




* “Peeples“: Prime Gitmo torture material. Absolutely awful. Extremely painful to sit through. Anything with two words attached to it–Tyler Perry–is absolute crap. And this is no exception. It’s “Exhibit A” of the rule. And it’s an example of the real racism that permeates Hollywood: that Hollywood execs believe Black America apparently isn’t worthy of anything better than this Black version of “Three’s Company” misunderstandings as plot points and groanworthy, unfunny jokes. And apparently Black America is self-hating and racist against itself, too, because the screening I attended for this horrid cinematic display was chock full of Black moviegoers who seemed to love this tripe.



Kerry Washington plays the girlfriend of a man (Wade Walker), who is not up to the standards of her wealthy, snooty family. He crashes her family weekend at a Hamptons beach house and learns the family is unaware he exists. But now that they know, they mostly don’t like him, as made known to him by his girlfriend’s judge father (David Alan Grier). Soon, the boyfriend begins to learn that most of the family is weird, living a lie, and really not better than he is. But to get there, the audience has to endure cheesy, unfunny jokes, bad dialogue, and other silliness.



A complete waste of time and ten dollars. Skip this.



FOUR MARXES PLUS FOUR OBAMAS



* “Upstream Color“: WTF? I’m not sure what this was about. I spent ten dollars and over 1.5 hours to see this artsy-fartsy movie that has no story. Instead I sat there and watched scenes of a guy in a pig farm interspersed with scenes of a woman hypnotized to give her life savings to some guy and a woman (may be the same woman–don’t know, don’t care) and a man who are dating and then hiding from some invisible thing while sleeping in their bathtub. Oh, and the guy with the pig farm also records noises of rocks, insects, and streams. This is one of those horribly boring, David-Lynch-style, pretentious nonsense movies. When I asked others who saw it if they understood what was going on, they responded that it’s “art” and that “you’re not supposed to understand what’s going on. It’s designed to evoke emotion.” (How much you wanna bet these phonies and idiots, who pay ten dollars to see a nonsensical movie “to evoke emotion,” voted for Obama?)



Well, it evoked emotion all right: anger and frustration that I wasted money and time I’ll never get back. Thanks for nothing.



FOUR MARXES PLUS FOUR OBAMAS

Wknd Box Office: G.I. Joe: Retaliation, The Host, Tyler Perry’s Temptation

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 chosing good movies to watch yourself!


Wknd Box Office: G.I. Joe: Retaliation, The Host, Tyler Perry’s Temptation


By Debbie Schlussel



Can’t say much for any of the Easter/Passover Weekend selections debuting at movie theaters today. I didn’t really like any of these, and I was somewhat charitable in my ratings. I wouldn’t spend $10 on any of ‘em.



* “G.I. Joe: Retaliation“: Some readers have accused me of giving favorable or more favorable reviews to movies for which the studios give me cool stuff a/k/a “swag.” But, while the studio sent me a really cool mask (a “G.I. Joe Special Ops Mask”) to promote this movie, I still didn’t think this was a great movie. It had a ridiculous, hard-to-follow story, and almost no plot to speak of. It makes the first G.I. Joe movie–read my review–(which wasn’t screened for critics–this was, surprisingly) look like a masterpiece.



While this movie is filled with action, cool stunts, and lots of fighting and chases (including a cool chase using ropes and harnesses high in the mountains of Asia), it was confusing and non-sensical at times, and just absurd at others. The story, from what I could piece together is this: the President of the United States has been kidnapped and replaced by an evil villain who has morphed into the President’s image (could be the real life Barack Obama story). He sets up the G.I. Joes to look like villains and assassins and has them killed off . . . or so he thinks. But a few survive (including Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson). If you are watching this movie for Channing Tatum (as some women probably are), you’ll be disappointed, as he is killed off in the first five minutes. The G.I. Joes who survive return to foil the fake President and stop his plot of mutually assured destruction of the world in a mad nuclear plot.



I didn’t get how or why, Storm Shadow, a villain the Joes don’t trust or who is normally against them, is now on their side and does martial arts to help them win–and there are scenes with him and some other Asian martial artist and their respective gurus in which I couldn’t figure out what the heck was going on. But this isn’t a movie of “gettting” anything.



Weaved into the plot, Hollywood plays politics, with the surviving female G.I. Joe (Adrianne Palicki) whining about how her father didn’t want her to serve in the military because he said a woman couldn’t protect the country. She joined anyway and spent her life trying to outrank her father so he’d have to salute her (talk about bitter), but he died before she could achieve that goal. At the end of the movie, her twisted goal is “achieved,” when an original G.I. Joe, Bruce Willis, tells her that he served with her father and he would be proud of her. Strange that this movie comes out just after the Obama administration shoves women in combat down our throats. Now, the movies are shoving it down our throats, too.



Like I said, the mask they sent me was very cool. Sadly, the movie, not so much. There’s nothing objectionable about it, other than the women in combat BS. It’s just a silly flick and a waste of time. I originally gave this movie HALF A REAGAN, changed it to A WASH (ZERO REAGANS OR MARXES), and now, on third thought, I’m changing it back.



HALF A REAGAN




* “The Host“: As science fiction movies go, this was one of the more ridiculous and uninteresting. But that doesn’t matter because it’s based on a novel written by Stephenie Rumpeltstiltskin Meyer, the “Twilight” author who turns utter dung into publishing and box office gold. I found this movie long, slow, and boring, and I struggled to stay awake. Much of it either doesn’t make sense, and there are giant plot holes. Still, young women and teens who read Meyer’s stuff and go in droves to see movies based on them will make this the biggest movie of the holiday weekend. I missed the critics screening of this and tried to see it last night when it debuted, but it was sold out, even at the movie theater in my very “hood” neighborhood (I saw it this morning, so I could review it for you).



The story: the earth has been invaded by aliens (who are mad at us humans for “destroying each other and the planet”–please Stephenie Meyer, come up with something other than the usual Hollywood meme about us destroying the planet; yaaaaawn). The aliens are tiny spindly things that look like the koosh balls I used to throw against my wall. They are inserted into the necks of the bodies of dead humans they are fighting to overtake. Then, those bodies come back to life as “hosts” of the aliens. But some of the host bodies still have the minds and memories of the humans who once occupied them, and they are at war with the aliens being hosted.



One of the host bodies is that of Melanie (Saoirse Ronan), a dead human rebel who has been fighting against the aliens. The alien who occupies her body is called “Wanderer” or “Wanda” for short. As the other aliens (“Seekers”) try to get her to find memories within her host so they can find out where the other remaining rebels are hiding, Wanda is fighting off Melanie’s inner thoughts of resisting the interrogation efforts. But, eventually, Melanie wins out and gets Wanda to escape from the Seekers to locate and rejoin her fellow rebels. Melanie was in love with one of the rebels, but Wanda is in love with a different rebel, and there is a fight within/between the host and the alien over that.



Things that don’t make sense: Melanie doesn’t want Wanda to tell the rebels that Melanie is still living within her body, despite the fact that the rebels want to kill the host because they believe only the alien is living within the body. Also, Melanie doesn’t want Wanda to kiss the rebel Melanie loves even though Melanie still loves him. Confused? So was I? But I just didn’t care enough to need this or anything else clarified. Also, non-sensical: why all the hosts occupied by aliens look like supermodels, wear post-modernist white suits, and drive in silver, ultra-modern Buicks and fly silver helicopters. The movie seemed like European Vogue models versus shabby Americans.



There’s no new ground in this movie. It’s not a good science fiction thriller, not even close. There was no suspense, and nothing keeping you sitting through this, except a lot of caffeine. A dull movie with lots of window dressing, nearly zero substance.



ZERO REAGANS OR MARXES – A WASH



* “Tyler Perry’s Temptation“: This wasn’t screened for critics, but I went to see it on my own, since it’s the most heavily marketed Tyler Perry movie I can remember. I hate reviewing a movie that has the director’s name pompously placed at the beginning of the title. That said, this is better than any other Tyler Perry movie I’ve seen, though all things are relative because every Tyler Perry movie I’ve seen is absolutely horrid and this isn’t that great. And in every single one, the men are all cretins, creeps, and thugs. In this one, though, there is a good message and a good man, a husband who is dumped for a bad guy. Add to that, however, that this movie features Kim Kardashian (who cannot act, except when playing herself in porn videos) in a minor role. And she is as annoying as ever. Yuck.



The story: a small town Southern girl and her sweetheart from childhood get married and move to Washington, D.C. The the wife works for a matchmaking service for rich men as the company’s in-house therapist. At that company, she meets an internet billionaire who aggressively courts and teases her, even though he knows she is married. But, soon, she gives in to temptation and limitless ambition and dumps her terrific, hard-working, devoted husband for the glamorous life with the billionaire. But it’s a mistake that ruins the rest of her life.



As I noted, the message is good, but the movie is like a glorified Lifetime Channel movie of the week. Nothing new here, except Vanessa Williams’ really awful French accent. And the movie is depressing.



ZERO REAGANS OR MARXES – A WASH

Wknd Box Office: Alex Cross, Paranormal Activity 4

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 some of the movies from last weekand 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 chosing good movies to watch yourself!



Wknd Box Office: Alex Cross, Paranormal Activity 4


By Debbie Schlussel



Nothing that great among the new movies at theaters, this weekend. Ironically (or maybe not), the low-budge movie is far better than the big budget one subsidized by the Michigan Film Tax Credit.









* “Alex Cross“: Absolutely awful. Just laughable, and not intentionally so. Tyler Perry assumes the role of police detective and profiler Alex Cross, previously played by Morgan Freeman in a couple of other, far better thrillers. The movie, paid for in no small amount by Michigan taxpayers, this movie is set in Detroit, and it stinks. The funniest part–which wasn’t meant as comedy–was when Cross’ wife isn’t sure she wants to movie to Washington, DC, because, she says, “I don’t even know what the public schools in Washington are like.” As if the public schools in Detroit are so shout-from-the-rooftops awesome. The audience at the screening I attended hooted and snickered with laughter.



A good mystery/whodunit gives the viewers some sort of hint as to the murderer (or his handlers) and why the murders are being done. There is no such hint in this flick, until the man pulling the strings and his reasons are unmasked. And I really didn’t care. This movie is just that G-d-awful bad. Alex Cross’ sidekick, played by actor Edward Burns, has a perfect Detroit accent . . . if you come from the Brooklyn, New York borough of Detroit. And there are so many other ridiculous things about this joke of a horribly violent, gruesome movie, not least of which is that it’s rated PG-13, and misguided parents will actually think it’s a good idea to bring their kids to this movie chock full of brutally graphic scenes of people dying while on fire, a woman having all ten of her fingers cut off, and a woman having had her eyes gouged out, along with facial disfigurement. Yup, it’s an incredibly disgusting unbearable movie.



And it’s filled with silly, unbelievable, soap-opera-like melodrama that is so over the top and overwrought, it’s absurd. The movie was neither thrilling nor entertaining. It was just slow, boring, and pointless. And the acting is terrible.



Then there’s the “story,” if you can call it that. Perry and Burns are on the trail of a crazy serial killer (Matthew Fox), the motivation of whom they cannot figure out, other than that he’s targeting a wealthy German man and his employees. Soon, he is also targeting the cops and their loved ones. But I just wanted everyone to die quickly, so this horrible piece of garbage would end and I could leave the theater.



You’ll do better than I did, if you just skip it altogether. I’m cross that I spent nearly two hours of life (I’ll never get back) on this.



FOUR MARXES


* “Paranormal Activity 4“: This wasn’t the best of the “Paranormal Activity” movies. I liked the last one better, but this is better than the first. And it’s fine for its apparently target audience, which is teens and 20-somethings, other than the constant four-letter words. While it’s slightly scary, it’s not nearly as scary as “Paranormal Activity 3″ (read my review) and some of it is slow-moving.



The movie begins with a scene showing an aunt taking her baby nephew away from a house. The aunt is the character from a previous Paranormal Activity movie, but you needn’t have seen it to understand this movie. We are told that they’ve never been seen again. Then the movie flashes forward to a new, unrelated story, or what appears to be. A cute, blonde teen girl (Kathryn Newton) and a teen guy friend of hers communicate via a laptop (it might be an iPad). The girl also has a video camera. Both the iPad and the video record what is happening in her house, and it appears to be haunted, as strange things keep happening. Some of the strange things appear to be connected to a boy from the house across the street. His mother has become ill, and the girl’s family takes him in. That’s when the strange things really start to happen at great frequency.



The movie is a tiny bit violent and it’s clearly not for young kids. But, as I said, it’s fine for the target audience and isn’t objectionable, so much as it is bland and seems like old hat after three previous “Paranormal Activity” movies with somewhat similar storylines.



HALF A REAGAN