Movie review

Review of “Taken 3”

Bryan Mills (Liam Neeson) arrives at the apartment of his daughter Kim (Maggie Grace) just after she has taken a pregnancy test and learns she is expecting. Taken by surprise by his visit, Kim doesn’t tell Bryan about the pregnancy. Later, Bryan’s ex-wife Lenore (Famke Janssen) arrives at Bryan’s apartment and tells him of her marital problems with her current husband Stuart St. John (Dougray Scott). Lenore and Bryan kiss but Bryan tells her they shouldn’t do anything until she works out her issues with Stuart. She leaves and the next day, Stuart shows up at Bryan’s apartment. After some small talk, Stuart asks Bryan to stay away from Lenore while they work on their marriage. Bryan reluctantly agrees. The next morning, Bryan gets a text from Lenore asking him to pick up bagels as she is on her way to talk. When Bryan returns with the bagels he finds a bloody knife in the hallway and Lenore dead in his bed with a slit throat. As he’s trying to revive her, police enter with guns drawn believing Bryan has killed Lenore. Bryan manages to escape and contacts his old covert crew including Sam (Leland Orser) for help in disappearing for a while so he can figure out who killed Lenore and why he was set up. Investigating Lenore’s murder and also looking for Bryan is Inspector Franck Dotzler (Forest Whitaker). Dotzler and his team are aware of Bryan’s background to an extent but are unprepared for all the tactics he will use to remain free, look for the killers and protect Kim. Meanwhile, someone owes Russian mobster Oleg Malankov (Sam Spruell) a great deal of money and he’s willing to kill anyone to get it back. Somehow, all of this is connected.

“Taken 3” is about what you’d expect from the third installment of an action series. I wasn’t expecting much and I wasn’t surprised when I didn’t get much. Perhaps it’s time for Bryan Mills to find a secluded island in the middle of the ocean and move everyone he knows there to protect them. That way, they won’t be taken by anyone ever again…please.

There is so much wrong with “Taken 3” it is difficult to know where to start. Perhaps it should be from the beginning with the opening credits. The best way to describe them is “jumpy.” As the image of an evening cityscape shift from picture to picture, it transitions with a bit of blurriness along with the name of the actor switching positions on the screen. Something about this style hit me wrong, putting me in a less than friendly mood to critique the movie. Even if they credits had made me feel like the king of the world, the rest of the movie would have brought me back to Earth.

While “Taken 3” is predictable with even a plot twist near the end being telegraphed from a mile away, it is also a rather confused mess. Various plot points are picked up and dropped with such speed it makes you wonder if the projector operator had switched movies. The script can’t decide who it should focus on (despite Liam Neeson’s Bryan being the obvious choice) so it uses a scattershot approach that causes the film to feel disjointed. The movie is edited in a similar fashion making the story drag on in areas where it should only visit for a moment while important bits get just a passing glance.

With a PG-13 rating “Taken 3” has to keep a tight lid on its violence and language. The filmmakers seem to have a real problem with that when it is compared to the first film of the series. “Taken,” also rated PG-13, had the feel of a much more violent, gritty movie. The action scenes felt more painful and the memory I have of the film is much more blood-soaked than is perhaps the reality. “Taken 3” is so bloodless it feels anemic. Even scenes where there should be an enormous amount of blood have little or none. One scene in particular stuck out when Bryan and another man engage in a gunfight. One of them is not wearing a shirt and is shot twice in the abdomen. The other man then sticks the barrel of his gun in the wound to try and get some information. All the while, there is no blood coming from the wounds or is visible anywhere on or around his body. While I’m not a doctor, I believe a wound in the abdomen would probably squirt blood like a fountain. The floor and both men should have been covered in blood. This may make me sound like a bloodthirsty ghoul but the reality of the situation called for some red fluid to be scattered about and it wasn’t. It makes the movie seem more like a high school play than a studio action film.

Another problem with the action is the way it is shot: Close camera, lots of edits and a shaky perspective. This is my trifecta of hate when it comes to movies and action scenes. This style is probably used to hide some things about the action such as the speed of the movements and the need to throw punches that don’t land. I can understand this but other stunt coordinators are able to simulate realistic fights that don’t require putting the camera a half inch from the actors and on a paint shaker.

While “Taken 3” is a kind of middle-aged man wish fulfillment, it often stretches credibility past the breaking point when it comes some of Bryan’s escapes from certain death. Without giving too much away, Bryan seems to be able to disappear and reappear at will. One car crash is shot in such a way that he couldn’t have escaped yet we are shown him doing just that in a flashback. While running from the police, Bryan just happens to run into a house with a trapdoor that leads to the sewers. Did he know the people in the house so he’d know the escape route is there? I don’t know as the movie doesn’t tell us. “Taken 3” also depends on many of Bryan’s plans going exactly as he expects; otherwise, he’s dead. He rarely has to improvise once he escapes the initial attempt to arrest him and even then, things always fall his way. If the moviemakers want us to care about Bryan that means we need to worry about him as well as like him. If he’s never in any serious trouble (even though we know he will probably survive to the end of the film) the audience won’t need to worry about his welfare. All heroes need to be in a certain amount of peril for us to empathize with them. While we don’t think about it from moment to moment, we are all in danger every second of our lives. Whether its crime, accidents, illness, asteroid/comet impact, other natural disasters or slipping in the tub, we all live with a certain amount of danger in our lives. Not to the extreme of the characters in the “Taken” movies but some bit of peril hangs over us every day. If Bryan isn’t tied up, beaten up, shot or otherwise imperiled, he is too much like a superhero and not enough like us.

“Taken 3” is rated PG-13 for intense sequences of violence/action and brief strong language. There are numerous fights and shooting in the film. The most graphic is one where a thug forces Bryan’s gun into his mouth and shoots himself. While there is a great deal of broken glass and shattered furniture in the film, there is no significant amount of blood and no gore. Foul language is scattered and limited largely to “s–t.” The film doesn’t take advantage of its one ratings-allowed “F-bomb.”

“Taken 3” could be looked at as another example of how Hollywood has run out of ideas. How many ways can someone connected to Bryan Mills be “taken” and how many ways are there for him to beat up and kill a bunch of nameless thugs to rescue them. It turns out there aren’t enough to fill up the running time of a third movie. “Taken 3” lacks originality, is painfully predictable and looks like it was edited with a food processor. The script, action and plot are all weak and despite Liam Neeson’s efforts the movie is a bit of a bore.

“Taken 3” gets two stars out of five.

This week, there are best men, snipers, hackers, detectives and bears on the menu.  I’ll review at least one of these films next week.

American Sniper–

Blackhat–

Inherent Vice–

Paddingon–

The Wedding Ringer–

Follow me on Twitter @moviemanstan and send email to stanthemovieman@comcast.net.

Review of “The Imitation Game”

Alan Turing (Benedict Cumberbatch) is a brilliant mathematician who usually rubs people the wrong way due to his complete lack of social skills. When he’s called into the office of Cdr. Alastair Denniston (Charles Dance) to discuss working on a top secret project for the British Government during the Second World War, he nearly talks himself out of the interview. Eventually, Turing convinces Denniston that he’s the right man for the job and he’s introduced to the rest of the team who will try to devise a way to break the Nazi Enigma code machine. Turing immediately alienates the rest of the group and sets himself apart to work alone. The leader of the group, Hugh Alexander (Matthew Goode) files a formal complaint against Turing hoping to get him removed from the team. Turing writes a letter to Prime Minister Winston Churchill and is suddenly put in charge. Turing continues to be inapproachable and brusque with his co-workers while he builds a machine that he believes will be able to sort through the trillions of possible code combinations of Enigma. Deciding he needs more help, Turing puts a crossword puzzle in the local newspaper with a phone number to call for anyone who can solve it in less than 10 minutes. Several people succeed including Joan Clarke (Keira Knightley), the only woman who responds, and they are invited to take a test. Giving the respondents another crossword to solve, this time in less than six minutes, Joan and another young man are the only ones who succeed and are then told about the top secret work they will be doing by Maj. Gen. Stewart Menzies (Mark Strong), a member of the British intelligence agency MI-6. Joan and Turing become friendly as she doesn’t attach any personal insult to his odd personality. Joan is able to show Turing that he needs to work with his team and that won’t happen unless they like him. Turing makes awkward gestures of friendship to the group which breaks the ice and leads the team to begin helping with the machine. Despite all the secrets with which they are dealing, Turing has the biggest secret of all: He’s a homosexual, which is illegal under British law, and that would get him banned from working on the project and sent to jail.

“The Imitation Game” is joyous and heartbreaking, thrilling and infuriating, funny and sad. Told in a series of flashbacks that look at Turing’s unhappy childhood, his work at the Bletchley Radio Factory that was a front for his secret military work and the period after the war when a burglary at his home started in motion the events that would lead to his pleading guilty to gross indecency and lead to his chemical castration, “The Imitation Game” is perhaps a perfect movie that I wish had ended differently. Not that the ending needs to be changed; it’s history that needs an overhaul. Turing is the father of modern computer science. His codebreaking machine is thought to be responsible for shortening the war in Europe by over two years and saving an estimated 14 million lives. His work is the basis for research into artificial intelligence. He should have won at least one Nobel Prize and been taught in high schools all over the world. Sadly that isn’t the case because of who he loved—other men. Turing is ultimately a tragic figure and the perfect subject of a movie. He knew both great triumphs and enormous tragedies and the prejudice of the time led to him taking his own life in 1954 at the age of 41.

Benedict Cumberbatch is my favorite to win the Best Actor Oscar. His portrayal of Turing is mesmerizing. When Turing is working out problems, either mathematical or personal, his thought process can be seen streaming across Cumberbatch’s face. His eyes dart from side to side yet never lock on anything as the biochemical computer in his skull races to find a solution. Cumberbatch is so good in this role it will be difficult for him to top it. Yet, I think he probably will as he is constantly full of surprises. The intensity and emotion of his work in the film is incredible. There’s very little left to be said.

I can see Keira Knightley being nominated for a Supporting Actress Oscar for her work as Joan Clarke. Knightley plays the part almost like Joan is Turing’s big sister. She understands his genius as she is nearly as smart as he is and his inability to behave normally. For both of them, being normal is highly overrated. Knightley’s role as Joan may be overemphasized when compared to the historical record; however, Joan in the film is the conduit by which Turing becomes something understandable. Turing is at first glance an unlikable character. While we know he’s a genius he knows it as well and he doesn’t mind reminding anyone who will listen how smart he is. Joan is able to soften Turing’s rough edges and show the audience the decent guy on the inside. Her guidance in the film leads to the breakthrough that made Turing’s machine work. Knightley brings her usual grace and poise to the role of Joan. She also adds a touch of fun as she gently prods Turing to be a more likable person.

The rest of the cast is also excellent with special mention to Mark Strong. Playing the MI-6 agent Stewart Menzies, Strong is especially sneaky and at times frightening. Strong’s performance gives the audience the impression he could make anyone disappear and there would be no questions which is perfect for a shadowy character in World War II. While Menzies at times uses questionable tactics, Strong is able to make these seem suave and mysterious. Charles Dance plays Cdr. Denniston as a no-nonsense military man with little time for Turing’s personality peccadillos. Once Turing is working at Bletchley Park, anytime Denniston is on screen usually means trouble. Dance plays the role as if he was a king and Turing was a peasant. That apparent desire to be the undisputed ruler of the Bletchley project means the two are going to clash and Dance is able to make the character both dislikable and sympathetic. While not on screen that much, Dance makes the most of his performance.

“The Imitation Game” is rated PG-13 for some sexual references, mature thematic material and historical smoking. There are a couple of dirty jokes told that leave out most of the dirty part. Concepts of homosexuality and its perception in British society at the time are a central theme. Several people are shown smoking cigarettes. There are no language issues.

It’s rare that a movie without spaceships, aliens, monsters and other flashy special effects grabs and holds my interest the way “The Imitation Game” did. It’s a story that, despite some historical inaccuracies, needs to be told to everyone. If you live in a free country, Alan Turing is probably at least partially responsible and this film about his life and contributions is a spectacular piece of work. SEE IT!!!

“The Imitation Game” gets five stars out of five.

Another historical figure gets the big screen treatment along with the third in a series of action films. I’ll see and review one of these, both of these or something else entirely. You never can tell as I’m unpredictable.

Selma—

Tak3n—

Follow me on Twitter @moviemanstan and email at stanthemovieman@comcast.net.

Review of “Into the Woods”

The fairytale characters of Cinderella (Anna Kendrick), her handsome Prince (Chris Pine), Jack (Daniel Huttlestone), his mother (Tracey Ullman), their cow and a beanstalk, Little Red Riding Hood (Lilla Crawford) and the Big Bad Wolf (Johnny Depp), Rapunzel (MacKensie Mauzy) and her Prince (Billy Magnussen) are all connected to the childless couple of the Baker (James Corden) and his wife (Emily Blunt) and the witch (Meryl Streep). Each is looking for their “happily ever after” but does that end the story?

Based on the Broadway play of the same name, “Into the Woods” is a star studded film made with the cooperation of writer and lyricist Stephen Sondheim. His witty use of language is on full display in the songs that fill the movie, informing the audience far better than standard dialog could. While the movie musical is a fairly rare event, “Into the Woods” is a worthy addition to the list.

Meryl Streep is perhaps the main reason to see “Into the Woods” in a theater instead of waiting for it to arrive On Demand. Her performance is big, wild and thoroughly entertaining. The film really comes to life when she pops on the screen. Her wild hair tinged with blue and grey is similar to the whirlwind in which she disappears. While comical, the witch is the heavy of the story, setting it in motion years before when she put a curse on the Baker’s father. Now, she gives the Baker and his wife an opportunity to lift the curse and allow them to become parents by gathering items from each of the fairytale characters mentioned above. Her plan is devious because it will also restore her youthful beauty once the curse is lifted. Her urgency as the time ticks down for the Baker and his wife to find all the items belies this fact. Streep, who showed off her singing ability in “Mamma Mia,” easily handles the big, theatrical musical numbers. Her talents truly seem to know no bounds as she also wrings her part for all the emotional strength it has as she deals with Rapunzel who believes the witch is her mother. If it was up to me, Streep would be nominated for yet another Oscar.

James Corden and Emily Blunt are both terrific as the Baker and his wife. The little spats they have as they run into problems gathering all the items sound almost real as each gets on the other’s nerves. Corden and Blunt have a very comfortable chemistry together, like they’ve been in each other’s lives a long time. They are also able to convey to the audience that these two people really love each other. It’s a sweet relationship that takes a bit of a dark turn late in the film. This change in tone was unexpected (as I was unfamiliar with the source material) and really caused me to sit up and pay attention. I don’t want to give away too much but it sets one of them back on their heels and causes that character to question how they will continue in his/her life. It’s a turn that kept the story interesting for me at a point when it could have started to become dull and predictable.

If the film has any issues it’s with the Rapunzel section of the story. It doesn’t feel fully realized like in adapting the musical for the screen part of the story was left out that would have made it make more sense. According to the movie’s Wiki page, there was a major plot point that was changed because studio executives didn’t think it would go over well with audiences. Perhaps this revision was so vast it lessened the impact and value of her story. I’d have to see the stage version to know for sure but her story feels unfinished.

This is a minor quibble when looking at the film as a whole. All the cast from the primary leads right down to the actress who plays a giant that we barely see is excellent in their roles. Anna Kendrick plays the conflicted Cinderella who isn’t sure a life in the castle with the terminally confident Prince, played by Chris Pine, is what she really wants. While all the characters she encounters question why she doubts her life with the Prince would be amazing, she is steadfast in her reservations. Chris Pine’s performance as the supremely self-assured Prince reminded me at times of a certain actor as he strutted and preened on screen. I couldn’t help but think Pine reminded me of William Shatner, the first actor to play James T. Kirk, captain of the Enterprise on Star Trek. Pine has taken over the role in the rebooted film franchise and the two couldn’t be more different in look and style; however, Pine seems to be mimicking, consciously or subconsciously, the speech patterns and acting style of Shatner. While this took me out of the story for a few seconds, I just accepted it as his interpretation of the Prince. Little Red Riding Hood is a precocious child played by Lilla Crawford who is both confident and inexperienced which puts her in danger when she encounters Johnny Depp’s Wolf. The dynamic between Red and the Wolf strays uncomfortably close to a creepy pedophilia vibe. Again, according to the movie’s Wiki page, that aspect of the characters interaction was actually toned down from the staged version. I can’t imagine it getting much creepier and still being something an audience would accept. Perhaps the distance between the audience watching the stage play and the intimacy of a camera up close to those same characters in a movie lessens how uncomfortable those viewing the scene would feel. While I understood the Wolf was referring to consuming Red and her grandmother, it still made my skin crawl a little. Despite this, Depp is entertaining as the Wolf as he both sweet-talks and threatens Red. Tracey Ullman, Christine Baranski, Lucy Punch and Tammy Blanchard all make the most of their limited screen time and make the supporting characters as entertaining as any other.

“Into the Woods” is rated PG for thematic elements, some suggestive material and fantasy action and peril. The concept of a childless couple, the abandonment of a father, the stealing of a child and the death of parents might confuse or upset the very youngest viewers. The suggestive material is just a couple kissing in the woods. The fantasy action and peril is very mild. Even the deaths of characters are handled off screen.

While many find the movie musical to be somewhat off-putting, “Into the Woods” actually benefits from having the characters burst into song at the drop of a hat. The fantastical setting, characters and situations are best handled and explained in a song. The talented cast and often witty wordplay of the lyrics makes this an experience even anti-musical people should enjoy unless they’ve had a curse placed on their heart by an evil witch.

“Into the Woods” gets five stars.

I also watched the troublemaking satire “The Interview” starring James Franco and Seth Rogen. While I understand the North Koreans are a prickly bunch, I can’t see why they would put up a stink over such a silly film. While Rogen and co-writer Evan Goldberg have stuffed the movie with a huge number of jokes and humorous situations, the film is eventually overcome by its own lightness. The concept is pretty ridiculous as well with the CIA giving the job of killing Kim Jung-un to a talk show host and his producer. Exhibiting their incompetence from the outset, there’s no way the plan would have continued past the preliminary stages. Of course, one must ignore common sense when dealing with a film like “The Interview.” It doesn’t waste any time or energy on logical thinking in either the story or the acting.

“The Interview” gets two and a half stars out of five.

January usually is a dumping ground for movies the studio has no faith in being either a commercial or critical success. That makes the first month of the year a perfect time to catch up with the movies that are making awards season waves. Several have just opened in Knoxville, TN and I’ll see about reviewing as many as I can before the trophies are handed out.

Big Eyes—

Foxcatcher—

Wild—

The Woman in Black 2: Angel of Death—

Send questions or comments to stanthemovieman@comcast.net and follow me on Twitter @moviemanstan.

Review of “The Hobbit: Battle of the Five Armies”

Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) and the company of dwarves led by Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage) have reclaimed the underground kingdom of Erebor. Smaug the dragon (voiced and motion captured by Benedict Cumberbatch) is using his fire breath to destroy Laketown in retaliation for some of their residents aiding the dwarves. Locked up in the jail, Bard the Bowman (Luke Evans) manages to break out in an imaginative way and heads to the tower to try and kill Smaug with a bow and arrow. His son has seen where Bard hid the last Black Arrow and brings it to his father. (Minor Spoiler Alert) Bard is able to kill Smaug with the last Black Arrow but Laketown is in ashes. Bard, who has become the de facto leader with the death of the Master of Laketown (Stephen Fry) upon whom Smaug landed in his death dive, leads the survivors to the nearby abandoned village of Dale. Also arriving there is an army of elves led by Thranduil (Lee Pace). Thranduil wants access to Erebor’s treasure to reclaim a necklace of white gems while Bard wants a share of the dwarves gold that Thorin promised; however, Thorin has been afflicted with Dragon Sickness which causes Thorin to covet the treasure as much as Smaug did. He’s also obsessed with finding the Arkenstone, the symbol of leadership for the dwarves. Bilbo stole the Arkenstone during his encounter with Smaug and has snuck out of Erebor with the stone. Gandalf (Ian McKellen) has rejoined the elves at Dale after being freed from Sauron’s prison by the White Council. Bilbo arrives with the Arkenstone and urges Bard and Thranduil to offer it in exchange for the necklace and share of the gold in hopes of avoiding a war. Unknown to all, an Orc army led by Azog the Defiler (motion capture by Manu Bennett) is headed to Dale while a second Orc army is coming from Gundabad in another direction to conquer Erebor and begin preparations for the return of Sauron.

Unless you have been keeping up with the events in “The Hobbit” trilogy, what I described above may as well be in Latin as it probably doesn’t make much sense. Both “The Hobbit” and “Lord of the Rings” trilogies are films that are unkind to casual fans that don’t choose to pay attention to every bit of plot in every film. Unlike “The Fast and Furious” and “Die Hard” movies, these films require you be aware of what has gone on before. If “The Hobbit” had come out first, to fully enjoy “The Lord of the Rings” movies you’d need a nearly encyclopedic knowledge of Middle Earth history just to keep up. For that reason, I suggest if you haven’t seen any of the previous “Hobbit” movies, stay away from “The Battle of the Five Armies” as you will be either completely lost or poking the person with whom you came asking constant questions.

Having given that warning, this will not be my usual review as I have always been a fan of Peter Jackson’s interpretation of J.R.R. Tolkien’s works. Purists may quibble about omitted or modified characters or story details; but one cannot argue that his films aren’t masterful achievements in merging special effects and colorful characters into epic stories of heroism and friendship. What this review will be is kind of a critique of the three films as a whole.

My first and biggest issue with the films is Jackson’s inability to cut anything. The number of long reaction shots (some lengthened via slow motion) and sweeping helicopter camera views of a line of characters walking through the New Zealand wilderness probably adds half an hour of time to films that total up to almost eight hours. The battle scenes in the last film also run on as they consume most of the last half of the film. Surely there are parts of the battle that could have been cut. Watching 75 year old Ian McKellen and 92 year old Christopher Lee battling with Orcs and demons and such also stretches credibility. While both appear to be in good health it’s obvious their action scenes were shot with stunt doubles and their faces digitally stitched on to their replacements. Suggesting they were involved in the battles would have been sufficient. Showing them at length swinging swords and at times performing acrobatic maneuvers should have provided a reaction of “oh wow” but instead I thought “yeah, right.”

For all of Jackson’s mastery and innovation in the field of special effects, “The Hobbit” films have a couple of really bad looking rear projection or green screen shots. These are exclusively close-ups of characters riding on a horse or driving a sled of some sort. It seems inexplicable that Jackson would slip up on something as simple as that. Perhaps he ran out of time or someone else was overseeing that day’s shooting but the fact they made it into the movie is mindboggling.

Taken together, these are minor quibbles when compared to the wonder and majesty of “The Hobbit” trilogy. The spectacular world Jackson built out of J.R.R. Tolkien’s works is the kind of achievement that only comes along once in a while. Considering Jackson has done it twice in the last two decades is amazing. While I don’t think this third film in “The Hobbit” trilogy will meet with quite the kind of award season love the last “The Lord of the Rings” film did, it will probably win a lot of money at the box office. Considering that’s all that is necessary to get more jobs in the film business, “The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies” will be considered a success.

The question is, where does this final film rank among the six Middle Earth movies? I would have to say in fifth place. My order goes as follow: “The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King,” “LOTR: The Fellowship of the Ring,” “LOTR: The Two Towers,” “The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug,” “TH: The Battle of the Five Armies” and “TH: An Unexpected Journey.” The difference from first to last isn’t enormous but the first “Hobbit” film is something of a slog with the aforementioned long helicopter shots of characters walking through the wilderness.

This brings me to my final point: “The Hobbit” should have been only two films as Peter Jackson first announced. The leaden pacing of “An Unexpected Journey” and the lack of any real movement in the story except near the end seems to make nearly the entire first film a huge waste of time and money. With a bit more surgical excision of unnecessary plot points and more economy of storytelling, “The Hobbit” could easily have fit into two films. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy sword and sorcery films as much as the next person but only if they don’t waste my time.

“The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies” is rated PG-13 for intense fantasy action, frightening images and intense fantasy violence. Numerous Orcs are separated from their heads during the lengthy battle scenes. A couple of characters are stabbed to death. We see goblin creatures menacing people during an attack and one is shown stabbed in the chest. Legolas kills several Orcs with his bow and arrow and he shoots a large bat in the head. There is a very violent fight between Tauriel and one of the larger Orcs. Much of the violence is aimed at imaginary creatures but a few of the human (or dwarf or elf) characters are killed in sometimes graphic but not gory ways. Foul language is not an issue.

Taken as a group, “The Hobbit” films are somewhat frustrating as they sometimes feel like overstuffed burritos: You know there’s good stuff in there but it takes too long to get to it. When they are hitting on all cylinders, “The Hobbit” films are as good as any of Peter Jackson’s work. When they stumble, the movies are a dull struggle. “The Hobbit” films are more inconsistent than “The Lord of the Rings” movies, probably due to the difference in the source material. All in all, “The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies” is a fitting end to the Middle Earth saga, giving us a rousing (if too long) battle between creatures from both fantasy and nightmare. With rights issues and a limited amount of material this is probably the last visit we will have with the residents of the Shire, Erebor, Rivendell and all the other lands of Middle Earth. It may not have been the best of the lot but “The Hobbit: Battle of the Five Armies” is still a fairly good time with Bilbo, Gandalf and Thorin. I’ll miss them all.

“The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies” gets four stars out of five.

If you have questions, feel free to send an email to stanthemovieman@comcast.net. You can also follow me on Twitter @moviemanstan.

There are a bunch of movies coming out as Christmas arrives this week. Below are trailers for them and, if I have time, I’ll see and review one of them.

The Gambler—

The Imitation Game—

Into the Woods—

Unbroken—

Reviews of “Exodus: Gods and Kings” and “Top Five”

From a Biblical hero to a legend of comedy, this week’s movies run the gamut. In one, God is a central character while the other features no references to God at all. Each has their merits and one is far more uplifting than the other.

Exodus: Gods and Kings

Moses (Christian Bale) grows up in the palace of Seti (John Turturro), Egypt’s Pharaoh, along with Seti’s son Ramses (Joel Edgerton). Moses and Ramses are cousins but have grown up together as close as brothers. Seti’s seer reads the entrails of a goat and sees a new leader emerging as one hero saves the life of another hero. This concerns Ramses as he and Moses are about to go to war with the Hittite army camped at their boarder. During the fight, Moses saves Ramses life. Seti wants Rameses to go to the slave labor camp and investigate conditions there. Moses offers to go in his place as inspecting a slave camp is beneath the future leader of Egypt. During his visit, Moses notices the overseer of the camp, Viceroy Hegep (Ben Mendelsohn), is living in luxury fit for a king and warns Hegep he may be arrested for stealing from the Pharaoh. During his inspection of the camp, he meets with the leadership of the enslaved Hebrews. One of them, Nun (Ben Kingsley), pushes Moses to the point of anger. He later gets a note to Moses to meet him at his home. Curious, Moses shows up and Nun tells him the true story of his birth, his being put in the basket and set adrift in the river and the sister of the Pharaoh finding him and raising him as her own. Two spies also hear the story and pass it along to Hegep. Sometime later, Seti dies and Rameses becomes Pharaoh. Hegep then approaches Ramses and tells him the story. Ramses threatens to cut the arm off of Moses’s nanny who is actually his sister and Moses admits the story is true. Moses is then sent into exile in the wilderness where he stumbles upon a village and meets Zipporah (Maria Valverde) and her father. Moses becomes a member of the community and marries Zipporah. The couple has a child and Moses settles into the life of a husband, father and sheepherder. One night, three sheep begin running up the nearby mountain. Moses chases after them despite being told God forbids anyone from climbing the mountain. A storm breaks out and causes a mud and rockslide, burying Moses up to his face. While buried, he sees a young boy named Malak (Isaac Andrews) standing in front of a bush burning with a blue flame but not being consumed by the fire. Malak is wise beyond his years and Moses realizes it is God. Malak tells Moses he needs to go back and free the Hebrews. Telling Zipporah of this, she thinks he was hallucinating due to his injuries. Moses heads back to the city despite Zipporah and his son’s objections and begins an insurrection, training the Hebrews how to fight, with the goal of setting his people free.

“Exodus: Gods and Kings” takes some liberties with the biblical tale on which it is based. Some events are truncated, others are excised all together and still more are created out of whole cloth. If you approach the film as a reverent retelling of the Bible story or a modernization of Cecil B. DeMille’s classic “The Ten Commandments” you’ll be sorely disappointed. Much of the approximately 140 minute running time is spent looking at the scenery of Spain where much of the film was shot and Joel Edgerton wearing too much eyeliner. The film only really comes alive during the opening battle scene, the ten plagues and the parting of the Red Sea. Much of this is thanks to the talented computer artists who made the crocodiles that attack every boat on the Nile and each other to turn the water to blood, who created the hordes of lice, flies, frogs and locusts, and who caused the massive hail storm that batters the ancient city. Otherwise, the movie is a bit of a dull slog with the power struggle between Moses and Ramses about as interesting as watching a modern political debate.

The combination of overly stretched story and dull dialog makes “Exodus: Gods and Kings” rather emotionless. While the production hits many of the expected story points and takes an interesting look at God’s and Moses’ conversations, it does so with such a detached point of view that it makes the film feel more like an uninteresting documentary. Forgive my personal injection of opinion but these films should engender wonder and awe in the audience. While the movie is visually stunning much of the time it never actually stuns the heart. Filmmaker Ridley Scott seems to be satisfied to let the audience create their own warm feelings about the characters and the story and doesn’t sense a requirement to crank up the wonder factor. The parting of the Red Sea is impressive, especially when it comes crashing back on the Egyptian army, but everything before and after that does nothing to excite our souls. I’m not looking for a film that causes a revival to break out in the theatre. I’m just looking for something that stirs the soul and takes advantage of what should have been an uplifting story. “Exodus: Gods and Kings” doesn’t do that.

“Exodus: Gods and Kings” is rated PG-13 for violence including battle sequences and intense images. The opening battle scene shows people and horses being shot with arrows. There are also numerous stabbings with swords but none of it is gory. There are many dead animals in various states or decay in the film. We see numerous lambs slaughtered but again, it isn’t gory. We get a look at a piece of goat entrails but it looks more like a chicken liver. One of the plagues is boils and that is somewhat gross. There are no language issues.

The recent crop of Biblical or faith-based movies has been a mixed bag of quality. “Son of God,” while reverent, looked cheap and smacked of an effort to cash in on the success of the History Channel special from which it was edited. “Noah” turned the reluctant shipbuilder into something of a psychopath. “Heaven is For Real” was a sweet story that still managed to upset some religious groups. “Left Behind” is possibly the worst movie I’ve ever seen. While “Exodus: Gods and Kings” isn’t as bad as “Left Behind” it also isn’t as good as “Heaven is For Real.” It should have been much better.

“Exodus: Gods and Kings” gets three stars out of five.

Top Five

Andre Allen (Chris Rock) started his career as a standup comedian. Becoming hugely successful, he starred in a series of comedy films where he was dressed in a bear costume and was playing a police officer named Hammy. The Hammy films were huge successes and made Allen very rich. His life became a whirlwind of TV appearances, commercial endorsements, family and friends asking for money, drugs and alcohol. He was dating reality TV star Erica Long (Gabrielle Union) who helped him get clean. Allen and Long are about to be married in a wedding that will be filmed as part of her reality show on Bravo. Wanting to branch out from comedy, Allen is out promoting a drama he stars in about the Haitian slave uprising. Despite his desire to move on to something more serious, people constantly ask him when he will make the next Hammy movie. Tagging along is New York Times reporter Chelsea Brown (Rosario Dawson) who is doing a profile of Allen. At first closed off and protective, Allen eventually warms up to Brown as she refuses to put up with his obfuscations and sound bite answers and asks why he isn’t funny anymore. He begins to tell her about his struggles with drugs and alcohol, his efforts to get sober and his daily struggle with substance abuse. She tells him she is also in recovery. Brown follows Allen all day as he picks up his wedding tux, finds out the wedding rings have been changed without his knowledge due to the reality show people, does numerous interviews about the new film with satellite radio hosts and begins to worry the film will be a flop. Along the way, secrets are shared and discovered, old friends remind Allen of his roots and lists of top five hip-hop artists are shared.

If “Top Five” has a weakness, it is that it lacks any real story. The film follows the characters as they go through a series of ups and downs over the course of a day. We see some resolutions to the various issues and problems that are brought up along the way and are introduced to the concept of fame and the price one must pay to acquire it. It is about as close as a fictional film can get to being a documentary about celebrity and what that now means in a world where being a housewife in New Jersey can make you famous. It is at times hilarious, depressing, honest, painful and joyous. Despite its lack of story, it is worth your time.

Chris Rock is essentially playing himself. While he does continue to perform standup, Rock has appeared in some movies that he admits were done just for the paycheck. “Top Five” is his attempt to make something he can be proud of and that isn’t just comedy. Rock not only stars but wrote and directed the movie. His directing style is a bit jumpy with frequent camera angle changes for scenes that might have been more effective if they had been shot from only one perspective. Still, “Top Five” is a very moving, funny and serious film. The main character is going through a crisis involving his self-worth. He thinks he can’t be funny since he isn’t drinking anymore and worries he will be forgotten if he attempts a comedy comeback and fails. He’s marrying the reality TV star because he feels he owes it to her, not because he truly loves her. He feels guilty because he’s leaving his old friends behind him when they helped him get his start. Andre Allen is a man being pulled in a thousand different directions and he’s close to breaking apart. While he puts up a veneer of confidence with a healthy dose of arrogance, Allen is concerned his career might be over. Meanwhile, Rosario Dawson’s Chelsea Brown is going through a certain bit of crisis herself. Brown is the single mother of a 10-year old girl and also lives with her mom. She hasn’t had the best luck with men and during her evening with Andre makes a discovery about her current boyfriend that ends their relationship. Brown uses fake names to write puff pieces but uses her own name for the stories she is proud of. Her pen names, she has a couple, come back to bite her late in the film. Brown is just trying to make her way in the world and would like a companion to join her on the journey. Both characters are finding the things they thought would make them happy come up a bit short. It’s a story most of us can relate to even if we aren’t famous comedians.

While “Top Five” isn’t funny throughout, it does manage to cause some serious laughs. Rock is primarily the straight man for most of the film and lets his numerous comedy friends carry most of the humor load. The number of comedians or comic actors in the film is staggering. Some may only be on screen for a few seconds while others play major roles. Still others provide a laugh or two then are gone for the rest of the picture. Some of the comedians who appear include Cedric the Entertainer, Tracy Morgan, J.B. Smoove, Michael Che, Jay Pharaoh, Anders Holm, Kevin Hart, Sherri Shephard, Adam Sandler, Doug Stanhope, Bruce Bruce, Whoopi Goldberg, Brian Regan and Jerry Seinfeld. Seinfeld makes a particularly strong impression as he “makes it rain” during Andre Allen’s bachelor party. The sheer number of comedians, both up and coming and legendary, must have made it a fun set to work on. While I’m sure the film was shot on a tight schedule (and on a budget of just $10-million), there are probably a couple of hours of funny material plus outtakes that ended up on the cutting room floor. When the DVD comes out, I’ll be looking for that edited material as a bonus feature. The presence of so many of Rock’s friends and colleagues must have made the often chaotic experience of making a movie just a little bit better. The comradery shows in the finished product.

“Top Five” is rated R for language throughout, crude humor, nudity, some drug use and strong sexual content. There are a couple of sex scenes in the film. One is used mostly for comedic effect. We see several women topless and the naked behind of man. There is some talk of sex outside of these scenes. There is a scene where pot is showed being rolled up and smoked. There is also discussion of using cocaine. Foul language is prevalent throughout the film.

While it certainly could have been funnier “Top Five” works as a comedy and a drama, following a man as he discovers what it is he truly wants in life. The editing is a bit jumpy and the acting is occasionally amateurish, but overall the film works to make us laugh and think a bit. It is a rare feat that those two goals are achieved in one film. “Top Five” is well worth your time.

“Top Five” gets four stars out of five.

This week, a musical orphan, a half-ling and a museum full of magic would love to entertain you during the holidays.  I’ll review one or more of these films next week.

“Annie”

“The Hobbit:  The Battle of the Five Armies”

“Night at the Museum:  Secret of the Tomb”

Follow me on Twitter @moviemanstan and send your emails to stanthemovieman@comcast.net.

Review of “Dumb and Dumber To”

Usually, when a movie is a smash hit and generates lots of devoted fans, a sequel is two to three years down the road. If the movie is part of a huge franchise (like “Harry Potter” or “Paranormal Activity’) the next film in the series could be as little as a year away as these movies are often shot concurrently. “Dumb and Dumber To” is not like any of the above as the first film was released in December, 1994. Now, almost 20 years later, we pay a much delayed return visit to those lovable numbskulls Harry and Lloyd. Was the two decade delay worth the wait?

Lloyd Christmas (Jim Carrey) has been in a nursing home for the last 20 years. He went into a catatonic state following the rejection of his true love Mary Samsonite. Each Wednesday, Harry Dunne (Jeff Daniels) visits Lloyd bringing him candy, talking to him and even changing his adult diaper. On this visit, Harry tells Lloyd he may not be back for a while as he has a medical condition that will require attention. As Harry is walking away, Lloyd begins to stir. Harry grabs Lloyd and encourages him to speak. Lloyd then yells “Gotcha!” in Harry’s face saying his condition has been a 20 year long practical joke. Both boys have a good laugh at that. Back at their apartment, unchanged in 20 years, Harry tells Lloyd he needs a new kidney or he’ll drown in his own pee. Lloyd suggests they visit Harry’s parents to see if they would be able to give him a kidney. Harry is reluctant since he hasn’t seen his parents in 20 years but agrees and the pair jumps on a bike and ride the 150 feet down the street to Harry’s parent’s house. Harry asks about getting a kidney when his parents, both very Asian, tell Harry he’s adopted. Disappointed, Harry and Lloyd leave with a box of Harry’s mail that’s been collecting for him. There they find a postcard from Harry’s old girlfriend saying she’s pregnant and Harry should call as soon as possible. Lloyd suggests they find Harry’s kid and see if he or she can donate a kidney. The postcard is over 20 years old. Harry doesn’t know where the woman lives but remembers he met her at the funeral home run by her family. There they see her for the first time in over two decades and time hasn’t been kind. Fraida Felcher (Kathleen Turner) doesn’t look anything like the hot young girl of their memories. She proves she’s Fraida by showing them the smiley face tattoo just above her backside that, over time, has become a frown. Fraida tells the boys she gave her baby girl that she named Fanny up for adoption. She regretted the decision almost immediately but by then it was too late. Fraida wrote the girl a letter a few years ago but it was returned unopened with a note written on the envelope telling her not to contact her again. Thinking things are hopeless Lloyd tells Harry he should just give up until Fraida shows them a picture she found on social media. The young woman, now named Penny Pinchelow (Rachel Melvin) is beautiful and Lloyd is immediately smitten, telling Harry they should find her using the address on the letter. The boys then set off on an adventure that takes them from their hometown in Rhode Island all the way to El Paso, Texas. Along the way, they’ll encounter murderous twin brothers, an evil stepmother and a convention center full of nerds.

“Dumb and Dumber To” essentially tells the same story as “Dumb and Dumber” but this time the emphasis more on Harry than Lloyd. Their journey takes them across the country in various odd vehicles, encountering numerous individuals of questionable character and always managing to barely escape danger by using their complete lack of wits. Substitute a briefcase full of money with a small, mysterious box containing a billion-dollar invention and you’re ready to go. The story is largely a retread and unfortunately so is many of the jokes. The problem is this time the Farrelly Brothers seem to have lost their nerve for the crudest jokes that were the funniest from the original film leaving this sequel feeling tired an unnecessary.

Neither Jim Carrey nor Jeff Daniels deserves any blame for the lackluster humor as they are giving their all to the characters and the story (such as it is). Both men re-inhabit their characters with the same sort of abandon they displayed in the original. Carrey, who doesn’t seem to worry about looking stupid, dives head first into Lloyd and pulls out all his rubbery face moves and wild gesticulations. Daniels, kind of the straight man of the pair, is given the job of selling the emotional context of the story as he’s dealing with learning he has a grown daughter. Harry feels guilty about not being there for her and he worries he’ll be rejected when she finds out he needs a kidney. But none of this stops Harry from diving head first into all the madness the pair encounters. Sadly, the madness is pretty tame in comparison to the first film.

The rest of the supporting cast isn’t given much to do but either look confused or roll their eyes at Harry and Lloyd’s antics. Rob Riggle is largely wasted in the dual role of Travis and his twin brother, Special Forces Captain Lippincott. Riggle seems to be somewhat muzzled as his usual energy is missing here. He’s never allowed to cut loose and provide his characters with any originality or uniqueness. Rachel Melvin as Penny is dumb as a stump. She’s cute and wide-eyed and innocent and couldn’t reason her way out of a wet paper bag. The character is just a rehash of Harry and Lloyd and it doesn’t really work. Penny talks kind of like Shirley Temple in her early movies. It’s a bit annoying and you just want her to shut up. Kathleen Turner comes out better as Fraida Felcher. She seems to have impeccable comic timing and turns her brief screen time into scene stealing moments. She should have gone on the road trip with Harry and Lloyd but sadly she disappears for most of the middle section of the film. It seems like a wasted opportunity to put Turner’s deep, raspy voice to good use.

The story tacks on a crime subplot just like the first film. It is so outlandish that it never really holds our attention and makes us wonder how it will turn out. The payoff doesn’t do much to justify its existence and once again mimics the first film. The script, written by the Farrelly Brothers along with four others, follows the first movie pretty much beat for beat. It never tries to expand beyond the parameters of the first film and plays it safe by simply repeating the same formula. That could have worked had it been funnier.

“Dumb and Dumber To” is rated PG-13 for language, crude and sexual humor, partial nudity and some drug references. It wouldn’t be a Farrelly Brothers movie if there were plenty of poop, pee and fart jokes. There are also a few crude sexual references. The partial nudity refers to the several times we see male butt crack or full butt. There’s also a brief scene with Penny in her panties and underwear. The drug references are early in the film in regards to Harry’s new roommate who make crystal meth. Foul language is scattered and the film uses its one ratings-allowed “F-bomb.”

“Dumb and Dumber To” is funny…about 20 percent of the time. There are some big laughs but they are so few and far between that I grew impatient waiting for the next truly funny bit. Many of the gags in the trailer (the catheter bit, the elderly lady in the nursing home) are there and somewhat expanded upon, plus a couple of other scenes, one involving a barking dog Lloyd encounters and one where the boys try to get free beers at a convention of geniuses, work well and produce some serious laughs. It’s too bad that after 20 years there aren’t more gut busters. “Dumb and Dumber To” is mostly just dumb.

“Dumb and Dumber To” gets two stars out of five.

This week, “The Hunger Games: Mockingjay-Part 1” is the only new release. I’ll see it or maybe something at the art house theatre like “Birdman” or the directorial debut of Jon Stewart “Rosewater.” Check back next week to find out.