Movie Reviews: "Frozen" (2013)

“Frozen” (2013)

When I first heard about Disney’s next 3D animated movie, “Frozen,” I was excited. Two of the last films that came out of this animated giant, “Tangled” and “Wreck-It Ralph,” both managed to be engaging, imaginative and reminiscent of previous Disney films without stealing their thunder. So to hear they would be doing another one so soon was something that had my attention and curiosity.

Unfortunately, “Frozen” didn’t hold my attention for very long.

Part of the problem might be that I’m comparing “Frozen” to Disneys’ previous entries without even realizing it. That in the shadow of such ambitious projects, “Frozen” just doesn’t hold a candle to it.

It also might be that “Frozen” has very little going for it. While “Tangled” and “Wreck-It Ralph” drew me in almost instantly without even trying, “Frozen” had to work extremely hard to get interesting and takes far too long to set up an otherwise interesting premise.

In the far-off kingdom of Arendelle, there is the royal family, consisting of the king and queen and their two daughters, Elsa (Idina Menzel) and Anna (Kristen Bell). Unbeknownst to the kingdom, Elsa, the eldest of the daughters, was born with magical powers and the ability to control ice and snow. One day though, the king and queen are killed in a raging storm and Elsa becomes the new queen of Arendelle. 

However, due to a traumatic childhood experience involving Anna, where Elsa’s powers nearly killed her, Elsa has spent nearly her entire life in confinement, never to see or interact with anyone, especially her sister. 

So when Anna wants Elsa’s blessings to merry a man she just met (Disney, am I right?), Elsa freaks out and runs away from her own coronation and accidentally casting the entire kingdom in an eternal winter. Now Anna must find a way to break the curse on Elsa before she becomes consumed by her own power.

Let’s start with what I felt worked for “Frozen.” Elsa is a great character, especially in the classic Disney sense. If this were any other Disney film, Elsa would simply be the one-note villain. Pure evil, set on conquering the world and making everyone gravel at her feet. But she’s nothing like that. She’s merely misunderstood and lost. Having spent most of her life away from others and taught to never use her powers, even though they seem to have a mind of their own.

Elsa never does anything to intentionally harm others, unless out of self-defense or by pure accident. She is certainly a flawed character, but that’s what makes the most interesting character in the entire film. She doesn’t play to the audience or is the picture of perfection. She has a character-arc and a realistic one at that.

Another element that works well in the film is the art-style. I’ve never seen ice and snow look so cool in animation before. For example, Elsa builds an entire castle out of ice and carved into the side of a mountain. The interior of this castle is massive and yet surprisingly empty, which is both haunting and beautiful to look at. 

Also, there are some nice inside jokes that seem directed at other Disney films, such as “Cinderella” and “The Little Mermaid.” As I mentioned, Anna meets a guy and instantly falls in love with him and wants to marry him. Later on, any time she mentions this to other characters, they laugh her off and question her knowledge of true love. I couldn’t help but laugh at this because of how it raises questions towards the actions of Cinderella and Ariel and how quickly they “fell in love.”

Anyone else ever think that Cinderella and her prince broke up like three weeks after the film ended?

However, outside of the excellently flawed queen and wonderful art style, the film doesn’t have much going for it. It’s a basic, by the numbers journey to save a kingdom. Granted, in the end, it’s more about the relationship between sisters rather than a romantic one, which is greatly appreciated, but not fully realized. 

Elsa and Anna have such a small connection to one another, due to Elsa being forced to stay away from Anna, that their relationship had no foundation. It would be more interesting if Anna was the only one who knew Elsa’s secret and had to keep it hidden from the world to protect her sister and herself, but instead they decide to erase Anna’s memory of her sister’s powers. 

Also, for being a magical kingdom where someone can be born with ice powers, this world hardly seems fleshed out. We know nothing about the kingdom of Arendelle or the people who live in it, nor do we know anything about the king and queen before their demise. Not even their names.

I hate to harp on this, but in “Tangled” we knew everything about the kingdom and how it operated. There was a unique style to the world, backstories were given, the side characters had multiple dimensions to them and as a result, the kingdom became its own character. The same cannot be said for “Frozen.”

I think the reason I’m disappointed in “Frozen” is due to its lack of imagination and creativity, something that the previous Disney films had plenty of. Here is this unique and interesting premise of a queen who accidently freezes her kingdom and its up to her sister to save everyone, and I feel like little came from it. The way in which Elsa uses her ice powers can be fun its own right, but its not enough to save the film.

Overall, “Frozen” has a few good elements to it, but it ultimately left me cold and wanting so much more. If you like Disney and whatever they do or just enjoy a heartwarming story of family love, give this one a try. Otherwise, it’s really not worth your time.

Final Grade: C-

Movie Review: "The Phantom Of The Opera" (1925)

How many well executed elements does it take for a movie to become more than just good? Can it really take just one fantastic performance from a wonderful actor for the film to transcend so many other ones that came before it? 

I believe the answer is no.

I’ve always felt that truly great cinema always has more than one element that makes it worth watching. For example, when I wrote my review of “The Passion Of The Joan Of Arc,” it lead to an interesting discussion about the film and silent cinema where I realized that Maria Falconetti, who played Joan of Arc, did give a performance that changed how acting was pursued from that point on. Yet, even with this revelation, I still couldn’t bring myself to say the film does anything for me. “The Passion Of The Joan Of Arc” may have a revolutionary performance, but that’s about it. That’s not enough for me to recommend the movie to others.

We have another beloved silent film from the 1920s that falls into the same category, “The Phantom Of The Opera.” I can understand why this would be so well received upon its release and could continue to entertain audiences even today, through the makeup and performance of Lon Chaney, also known as “The Man Of A Thousand Faces.” The problem is that once the initial affect of Chaney and his sunken-in eyes and massive jaw have faded away, the film doesn’t have much to offer.

I think most people are aware of the story of the Phantom (Lon Chaney), of a man who was once a great composer and intellect yet became badly scared and was rejected by society, forced to live underground and hide within the catacombs of the opera house.

One day though, the Phantom discovers a new talent of the play, Christine (Mary Philbin), and is smitten by her. He begins to send cryptic and angry messages to the directors, saying to give Christine larger roles or else terrible fates will befall them. As Christine’s fame begins to soar, the Phantom makes his presence known to her and wishes to make her the greatest star in the world, if she promises to accept him as her master.

First off, the performance of Lon Chaney is wonderful. He did his own make-up and design for the Phantom, and it works to keep him intimidating yet mysterious. I can understand why his face in this film has translated to one of the most iconic images of horror. It is a difficult face to forget and the moment of his eventual reveal is suspenseful and perfectly paced.

Also, I enjoy the use of color filters used throughout the film. As you can tell, this is a silent film but it takes full advantage of using filters to add atmosphere and tone to many of the scenes. The brightly lit opera house has a yellow filter, while the dark torture chambers deep below Paris are a dark purple. Though it is strange during the giant party when everything is in proper color, only to go back to filters once the scene is over.

However, outside of those elements, I couldn’t find myself getting drawn into the film. The story is rather unremarkable and the characters, outside of the Phantom, don’t have much going for them. Christine is mostly reduced to playing the damsel in distress, while her boyfriend Raoul is merely set on saving her. Many of the scenes that lack the Phantom just leave me wanting to see more of the only interesting character.

So while Lon Chaney is the vehicle that drives the greatness of the 1925 version of “The Phantom Of The Opera,” it is honestly not enough for me. A great performance and make-up can only take a film so far, especially when the remaining story and characters fail to pull their own weight. 

If you enjoy the story of the Phantom, really like great make-up or are interested in learning more about horror icons, try this one a try. If you’re in it for an involving story like me, don’t be surprised if you don’t exactly what you came for.

Final Grade: C

The Hopper #5

A small group of films today. Just two, but ones that are quite different and have very little in common other than the fact they both are on celluloid. These also come with different experiences while I watched them, with one being good and other being abysmal. 

The sad truth is that if you have a bad experience while watching a movie, it will color the outlook you have on the film. For example, I was deathly ill when I first watched “Fight Club.” I tried to pay attention to this complex web of subplots and metaphors, but all the headaches, runny noses and cough syrup made me woozy and sleepy. Much of the film was lost on me. 

To this day, “Fight Club” is a strange piece of work that escapes me and have yet to give it another try, all because of the experience I had with it. Thinking about the movie only revives unpleasant memories that are best left forgotten. This certainly isn’t the films’ fault, but it is something that cannot be helped.

With that said, let’s take a look at...

“Thor: The Dark World” (2013)

A word of advice: If you can help it, avoid going to a movie that you know will gross a lot at the box office on opening weekend. Or at the very least, go see it during the theater’s least busiest hours.

Opening weekends tend to drag out the people who have little respect for those around them. They go see movies like “Thor: The Dark World” intent on having a good time with their buddies, but believe that they’re the only ones in the audience that matter. They’ll speak as loudly as they want, text on phones even after the film has started, constantly leave to refill their popcorn and soda and even whip out the e-cigarette. 

That is the curse of opening weekend. You bring so many people of different creeds and backgrounds together that you’re bound to have some who lack proper theater etiquette and ruin the whole experience for everyone.

Because these people forget that film is an experience. Not just a source of entertainment, but an intimate moment between you and the world of cinema, as you witness the unbridled power of the moving picture. It captivates and enthralls you, makes you feel like you’re a part of their world. 

To see the glimmer of a smart phone out the corner of your eye takes you out of that moment. Once you’re out of that moment, it’s hard to get back into it. Especially when the same people keep doing it constantly. 

If it seems like I’m rambling on about this subject, its only because I am. If you came to read about my thoughts on “Thor: The Dark World,” I apologize. As I write my thoughts and experience with the movie, the only thing that comes to mind is how rude and irritating the people in the audience were.

Also that it needed more Loki. 

The few scenes that deterred me from those sitting across from me as they drew another smoke from their e-cigs were the ones that featured Loki (Tom Hiddelston), the Asgardian god of trickery, as he does a great many things, including mess with his brother Thor (Chris Hemsworth), get revenge on those who have wronged him, save the universe from the Dark Elves alongside Thor and secure his rightful place as the ruler of Asgard.

When Hiddelston is on screen, you can tell he is having a blast. His energy shines through every time through the simplest gesture or smile, which makes Loki the character that I want to root for. 

“Thor: The Dark World” builds off of Loki’s character through “The Avengers” and focuses on his downfall, but also the reasons for why Loki chose to attack Earth in that film. In “The Avengers” his reasons weren’t fully explained, but here we get a better idea through Hiddelston’s interactions with his father, Odin (Anthony Hopkins).

The true shining moments are when his sense of humor is exposed. There’s a scene where Thor breaks Loki out of prison and Loki believes he should be disguised. Being the god of trickery, he can make himself or others look like anyone he wants. Hijinks ensue, Thor gets a new look and another Avenger is thrown into that mess.

Overall, while there were parts of “Thor: The Dark World” that I enjoyed, the experience of watching it was diminished by those around me. Unfortunately, that is what I will walk away from this movie from. Not remembering the action sequences or the comedy, but the lack of respect and etiquette on opening night (and Loki).

Final Grade: N/A

“12 Years A Slave” (2013)

When this film ended, I was reminded of a quote that filmmaker and illustrator Don Bluth once said about putting terrifying imagery in children’s movies, “As long as you have a happy ending, you can put anything in front of a child and they’ll be fine.”

While “12 Years A Slave” may not be terrifying and certainly not a children’s film, that quote still rung in the back of my mind. 

This is a film that doesn’t shy away from showing the brutality and harsh world of being a black slave during mid-1800s America. We see every last detail of the world that Solomon Northup (Chiwetel Ejiofor) lives when he is kidnapped from his home in New York and sold as a slave in the South. Solomon fights to survive every day, as he deals with whippings, unforgiving overseers, incompetent slaves and backstabbing from everyone around him. 

This attitude of savagery and cruelness is constant throughout the film, as it should be. We are meant to sympathize with Solomon and his struggle to endure that which he wasn’t supposed to be apart of. 

It is not until a traveling carpenter, Bass (Brad Pitt), comes to town that this consistent stress is alleviated. He seems a man far ahead of his time, who sees that white men and black men are equal in the eyes of god and that slaves are more than just property, much to the chagrin of Solomon’s master, Edwin Epps (Michael Fassbender). 

This leads to the climax and resolution of the film, which is quite possibly where Don Bluth’s quote resonates with me. It speaks volumes about not only Bluth’s work as a filmmaker, but also the impression “12 Years A Slave” leaves me with.

While I may not fully agree with Bluth’s feelings about terrifying imagery being coupled with a happy ending, this kind of philosophy does leave the audience with an impact. To see our protagonist triumph after all that has happened to him and to reclaim that which he lost makes his victory all the sweeter. It is a simple yet effective way to make us care and appreciate the main character.

On top of that, “12 Years A Slave” is superb from a technical standpoint. I found myself being impressed constantly by the cinematography and sound work. Many shots of the film will go uninterrupted by edits and linger on the full affect of scenes, such as Solomon being whipped or nearly hung to death. 

There are also many scenes that lack music and instead focus solely on sound effects. The rustling of leaves and sloshing of mud is often more effective than an entire orchestra, especially with so many scenes taking place in the cotton fields or on a ranch. 

Overall, “12 Years A Slave” is an impressive piece of work, with wonderful sound design, cinematography that matches the longing and hopelessness of the situation, underscored but captivating acting by Ejiofor and Fassbender and mood and atmosphere that never lets up. A depiction of slavery that is honest and unmerciful, even if it’s not always fun.

Final Grade: B+

This guy is not amused by those who text and smoke during the movie...Do not upset him.

Family Movie Night #3

Movie suggestions are still aplenty, so there are more reviews that are sure to follow. Of course, if you’re reading this and you have any suggestions for films you think I should watch, just post a comment and I’ll be sure to add it to the list.

“When Harry Met Sally...” (1989)

Boy, I sure have been watching a lot romance movies lately, haven’t I?

Not just any romantic movies though, ones that take place over an extended time. “(500) Days Of Summer” was the first, and now we have a movie about the developing relationship between two people who initially hate one another over the course of twelve years.

The difference between “When Harry Met Sally...” and “(500) Days Of Summer” though is that the latter is more about Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s character changing as a result of his relationship with Summer. The former, on the other hand, is about how the relationship between Harry and Sally changes as a result of both characters changing.

The film begins when the two, of course, meet each other and share a road trip from Chicago to New York. There is that initial spark where Harry (Billy Crystal) admits that Sally (Meg Ryan) is attractive, but Sally turns him down. 

As the film progresses and years pass before they see each other again, both Harry and Sally have become rather different people. Their experiences in New York have changed them as individuals, to the point where they can now find people who they once found disgusting to be trusted companions. 

Sally, the once high-maintenance woman focused on her career, now has the job she wants but wants to focus on other things like her boyfriend. Harry, the self-centered guy who feels he has to question everything that doesn’t fit his worldview, now always tries to find a chance to make someone laugh or crack a joke at something. 

In short, the two lead characters are growing up.

The environment these two live in and the people they surround themselves with are changing who they are. Opening their eyes to new possibilities that they had never considered, including relationships with one another. 

For me, “When Harry Met Sally...” is a core example of a film strictly about the characters and their journey through life. Billy Crystal and Meg Ryan capture these roles so well that you forget you’re watching the actors and become one with these people. It is an effective romance because it doesn’t get bogged down in anything superfluous or out-of-place and focuses on just giving what is necessary to Harry and Sally.

Final Grade: B+

“Amadeus” (1984)

I freely admit that I know next to nothing about opera and know very little about music. What I do know about is the passion and energy behind someone’s taste for life and how well that translates on screen. 

“Amadeus” makes it clear that you don’t need to know anything about how music operates to enjoy what happens. Through the subtle way in which F. Murray Abraham speaks about how Mozart changed his life through his music and that through the same drive is the need to kill him. This is where the true energy of the film lies.

During the late 1700s in Vienna, the once famous Court Composer Antonio Salieri (Abraham) reflects on his life and all the sins he has committed. The most heinous of which being the years in which the world-renowned Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart (Tom Hulce) lived in Vienna and bested Salieri at every turn, leading him to renounce his faith in god and swear to ruin Mozart.

What ties everything together nicely is that this story is being told entirely from Salieri’s perspective, as he explains it to a priest. Salieri starts out as a religious man who thanked god every day for giving him all he has, including his musical talents. Once Mozart arrives, who is a giggling child who can never refuse a part or an open invitation to make himself look like an idiot, Salieri begins to question what God was thinking. 

It’s not that he believes God doesn’t exist, just that God is cruel, unfair and has a bad sense of humor. Mozart, this immoral and improper man, creates music that is befitting of the heavens. Yet Salieri, who has spent his life worshipping the lord, has his music reduced to mediocrity in the face of Mozart. You can see where Salieri is coming from, thus making his actions just.

In a way, “Amadeus” is more of a confession of Salieri’s sins than anything else. Yet, Salieri knows that confessing his sins won’t change anything. Though he may have outlived Mozart, his music still speaks louder than ever, making Salieri stick out every less. This is why both he and God laugh, through Mozart’s insane giggle. 

“Amadeus” also offers a portrayal of Mozart that is both funny and touching. Though he may behave childishly, it could be interpreted that he does so through his lack of a proper childhood, always performing instead of playing. He has a simple view, but one that is understandable without going over the top. This makes Mozart’s triumphs all the sweeter, and Salieri’s defeats more bitter.

Overall, “Amadeus” is a stylized masterpiece with outstanding performances from Abraham and Hulce, a tight script that never looses momentum and a beautiful soundtrack that fits the theme and mood of the story. Like Mozart’s music, if anything were removed or replaced in this film, it would cease to be the excellent work of cinema that it truly is.

Final Grade: A+

“Almost Famous” (2000)

It is interesting I would follow up “Amadeus” with another film centered on music, with “Almost Famous.” This time, the film is focused on the late 1960s and early 1970s and the impact of rock-and-roll. However, unlike “Amadeus,” if you are unfamiliar with the musical styles of this era, you will more than likely get lost or lose interest.

Fifteen-year old William Miller (Patrick Fugit) has spent the last four years of his life learning all he can about rock-and-roll and wishes to become a great rock journalist. An opportunity arises for him when Rolling Stone magazine gets ahold of some of his work and wants him to cover the low-profile band Stillwater and their tour across America. Much to his mother’s (Frances McDormand) irritation, William agrees to join the band’s hijinks of booze, drugs, sex and rock music while learning the ins-and-outs of why music can be so powerful.

As I previously mentioned, I know very little about music. Of course, I’ve listened to Bob Dylan, the Beatles, David Bowie and Elton John, but I can’t for the life of me describe what makes this type of music so emotional and heartfelt like I do with cinema. Movies click with me, but most great music just goes right over my head, especially rock-and-roll. Meaning that much of the dialogue and breath of this film is lost on me, because it doesn’t try to draw in those who are not familiar with the craft. 

Instead of focusing on something I can’t adequately describe, there are other reasons why I didn’t find myself enjoying “Almost Famous” that mostly revolve around the resolution of all things.

The beginning of the film is quite solid as it tells the disjointed adventures of both William and Stillwater as they have quarrels and mistrust, while William decides between having fun with the band or being accurate with his story. However, once the climactic moment in the film occurs, it feels like “Almost Famous” can’t make its mind on what it wants to say and loses track of what previously happened.

For example, from the start there is a central focus on William, with every main action revolving around him. Yet once Will has made his decision, the film switches focus on the lead guitarist of Stillwater, Russell Hammond (Billy Crudup) as he reflects on the decisions he’s made since joining the band. William, our main character, is practically left with nothing to do.

Not to mention William is the same person he has at the beginning of the film as he is at the end of it, while Russell is the one who at least gets some character change. This makes me believe that during the last act, the movie suddenly decides to switch protagonists, like it can’t decide who to focus on.

I also question what the audience is supposed to walk away from “Almost Famous” learning. I want to say its moral is to be honest yet unmerciful, since multiple characters tell this to William, but when he does so it comes back to bite him in the butt and nothing good comes from that. 

If there is no moral or anything to learn other than an appreciation for rock-and-roll, then why even bother with the film?

Overall, “Almost Famous” starts off nicely with its string of “This Is Spinal Tap”-Esque shenanigans with a good grasp of character and pace, but runs out of steam near the end and becomes indecisive on what it wants to do or say. The film has a good grasp of rock-and-roll and speaks passionately about it, but it doesn’t go anywhere with it.

Final Grade: C

“Ben-Hur” (1959)

I’ve always had a problem with movies over three hours in length. Maybe it’s because of my attention span or because of the films I watch, but once it gets over three hours long it becomes more a chore to sit through.

A three hour movie needs to have a good reason for being that length, since it’s twice the time of the average human attention span. For example, “The Dark Knight” is over 195 minutes, but has so much going on and has such interesting characters that I’m excited when it has multiple climaxes. In the case of “Seven Samurai,” it moves at a fast enough pace and never slows down that the film ends up feeling more like an hour and a half instead of well over three and a half hours.

“Ben-Hur” is a case of a film over indulging itself on it’s own image. As it tells the story of Jesus’ time on Earth and the connecting story of Judah Ben-Hur (Charlton Heston) and his struggle against the Roman Empire, the film takes its sweet time to give the audience story or character drama and instead focusing on the majesty of the landscape and scope of this epic.

For example, there is a sequence near the beginning of the film where we see a vast market of people returning to their homes to be counted and categorized. This scene is followed by a seemingly never ending stream of Roman soldiers and their trek through the town of Nazareth. These scenes go on for quite a while before the audience learns anything about the main characters, such as Ben-Hur and Messala (Stephen Boyd).

To be fair, there are some wonderful sequences throughout the film with flawless execution and perfectly paced. Near the one hour mark in the film, there is a colossal ship war, clearly done with miniatures and set pieces, but the craftsmanship and the camera angles enhance the scene to the point where you don’t care if the set pieces aren’t real.

Not to mention the famous chariot race sequence, in which Ben-Hur and Messala finally meet to have their ultimate battle. This particular scene sticks out because of the consequences of what would happen should a warrior make even one mistake during the race. We see firsthand how much contestants fall and what happens to them, and it’s not pretty. This makes the threat of losing even more potent.

However, I ultimately couldn’t get behind many of the main characters and their struggle in a Roman oppressed society. While these wonderful sequences were gems to behold, there just weren’t enough of them to keep me interested after watching it for over three hours. It is in the nature of epics to indulge themselves in the grandness of the past, so I don’t mind the rather slow pacing of “Ben-Hur,” but it certainly doesn’t help the film either.

Final Grade: C

Final Thoughts:

With this group of movie reviews, we come across my first A+ film, with “Amadeus.” It is odd that a film so strikingly similar, “Almost Famous,” would be so much lower on my rating system. 

I’ve mentioned this prior, but when I watch a movie, the main aspects I focus on are the characters and the story of their struggle or triumph. “Amadeus” impressed me through the passion of characters like Salieri and Mozart, but also made them feel human through their weaknesses, such as envy and pride. “Almost Famous,” on the other hand, while having solid character arcs, didn’t feel solid in what it wanted to do with the story, especially near the end. 

I realize I’m sometimes harsh on certain movies, such as my grading of “The Passion Of Joan Of Arc,” but that is only because I’m so passionate about cinema. When I watch a great movie, I’m passionate about what made that film so great and about telling others why they need to see it. When I watch a film that is a challenge to sit through, I’m passionate about why it made me uncomfortable and why I feel the film should be avoided. Just know that my passion runs very deep and comes right from the heart.

Movie Review: "Enough Said" (2013)

Pacing is an important factor to filmmaking that is often neglected and hard to describe adequately. As the actions and suspense begin to build up, the pace at which the scene moves is key. Do you take it slow to keep the audience guessing what will happen? Or do you ramp it up and get the viewers’ hearts pounding?

Of course, it’s possible to do so much of either one that it works against the film. A movie can be so slow that when something finally does happen, the audience has stopped caring and lost interest long ago, like in many Ingmar Bergman pieces. On the opposite side of the spectrum, if you go too fast then there’s the risk of skimming over important plot points or sequences that the audience wanted to see, such as the terribly received “Godzilla: Final Wars.”

Ultimately, the pace at which a film should move depends entirely upon the movie itself and how it wants to make the audience feel. One thing that it should always be is consistent. A movie should never move at a brisk pace yet slow down once it gets near the end, or vice versa. 

Such is the problem with “Enough Said,” a romantic-comedy starring the late James Gandolfini and Julia Louis-Dreyfus as an aging couple who are both getting over their ex-spouses and their only children going off to college. It is revealed later on that Louis-Dreyfus’ character, who is a masseuse, has become friends with Gandolfini’s ex-wife (Catherine Keener) and has been unknowingly effecting how she looks at her boyfriend.

The problem with the pace of “Enough Said” is it drastically shifts once this reveal comes down on us. The first half of the movie is spent with Louis-Dreyfus and Gandolfini developing their relationship, cracking jokes at their own shortcomings and getting over their age problems. It feels like these two have become teenagers again when they’re around one another.

Once she learns that Gandolfini and Keener have been married before, the film suddenly slows down to a snails pace, indulging in many scenes that don’t add much to the story or ones that go no where. In fact, there is a large gap where James Gandolfini disappears from the film once the big reveal is made, as if his character has vanished from the plot.

Even the scenes that do add to the story seem to go on much longer than they should. There’s a scene where the couple have a double date with friends of theirs. As the night progresses and they become increasingly drunk, Louis-Dreyfus starts to insult Gandolfini for the smallest things, like having no night stands by his bed or that he can’t whisper. While this scene certainly has a point, it stops being comedic and instead becomes disrespectful and hard to watch.

If the filmmakers still want me to care about her character, then making her rude, stubborn and insulting is not the way to go.

Still, “Enough Said” does have elements that makes it enjoyable. As previously mentioned, the first half is simple yet captivating at getting the point across that these middle aged and flawed people are falling in love. Furthermore the film is very well handled at showing just how flawed these adults can be, such as when Louis-Dreyfus explains that she never regrets anything including her mistakes in life. These flaws lend credence to the fact they’re both divorced and their children are leaving them.

Overall though, I felt like not much was accomplished in “Enough Said.” Often relying on cliches and a predictable romantic-comedy formula, the film doesn’t feel much different from others of its genre. While the comedy is often good, it is the pacing that brings this movie down. A film should never be too fast or too slow, but one thing which always kills the piece is switching from one to the other halfway through.

Final Grade: C-

The Hopper #4

Let it be known that I did not watch these three films consecutively. Rather, I went to the movie theater three times over the past week, but due to a multitude of things getting in the way, I haven’t found the time to write reviews on any of them until now.

Still, I like to think that “The Hopper” has become my style of reviewing new releases or films that are still in theaters, even if I don’t watch them back-to-back.

“Captain Phillips” (2013)

It appears that 2013 is or will become the year of Tom Hanks.

With the release of “Captain Phillips” and Hanks’ portrayal of the real man who stood up to Somalian pirates and never backed down even after being trapped on small contained lifeboat with them for days, as well as the impending release of “Saving Mr. Banks” and Hanks attempting to pull off a loving imitation of Walt Disney, I can honestly see yet another Best Actor nomination in his future. 

Whether it’ll be for “Captain Phillips” or “Saving Mr. Banks” remains to be seen, but I’d have no qualms if he was nominated for either one. Or both.

Hey, if Meryl Streep could do it, so could Tom Hanks.

Hanks has often been branded as the modern day equivalent of James Stewart, well known for roles such as “It’s A Wonderful Life” and “Mr. Smith Goes To Washington.” While I see plenty of similarities between Hanks and Stewart, mostly their ability to pull off the “every man” so effectively, I see Hanks as a far different actor. 

“Captain Phillips” is more than enough of an example to show Hanks’ diversity as an actor. I cannot see James Stewart pulling off a role like this, with his calm and pleasant demeanor. Hanks, on the other hand, isn’t afraid to shut off the kindness of his roles in “Forrest Gump” and “Big” and stare at these pirates with strength yet sincerity. 

Phillips works his crew hard once he learns that pirates might be lurking and the crew doesn’t take kindly to this, even calling him a hard-ass. In fact, during one scene where he openly talks to the crew of his freight ship and members speak up against Phillips, he doesn’t want to hear any of it and goes on his merry way. 

Yet under all of that fierce exterior lies a man who only wishes to protect everyone under his command. This side of him shows when the pirates finally board the ship, when he complies with their demands to the best of his ability but never revealing anything about his crew. He keeps them safe and hidden from harm, all without raising a gun or forcing anything upon the Somalians. 

Tom Hanks is able to keep the loving and caring nature of his acting style, but is also able to embrace the strength and coldness needed to pull of his role in “Captain Phillips.” That is where the strength of this film thrives. 

Final Grade: B-

“Machete Kills” (2013)

There is a distinct advantage to a film that never takes itself seriously. For one, you can go in with zero expectations and often end up having a blast with how over-the-top and cheesy the movie can be. Much like junk food, these types of movies aren’t that great for you, but they’re a blast to enjoy while you feast upon it.

“Machete Kills” is one such film, taking every opportunity to make the audience roll with laughter at how ridiculous the one-liners, action sequences and caricature characters can get. This is an absurdly stupid movie, but Robert Rodriguez and company know this and just roll with the punches.

The movie follows an agent of the Mexican government, known only as Machete (Danny Trejo), an unstoppable wall of knives and muscle, as he is sent on a mission by the President of the United States (Charlie Sheen...we’re all doomed) to stop a Mexican revolutionist who has a nuclear mission pointed at Washington D.C. As he gets closer to his target, new information comes to light that shows there may be more people in on this plan, including weapon designer Voz (Mel Gibson).

To give some idea how many crazy pills went around the film set, here are just some of the side characters. Sofia Vegera plays the owner a brothel in Mexico, who is determined to kill Machete after he leaves her place of business without paying, while also going by the nickname “Man-eater.” Vegera takes every opportunity to thrust her lady parts at the audience and have as many sexual weapons as possible. 

Then you have Charlie Sheen (credited as Carlos Estevez) and Mel Gibson, who have both become parodies of themselves at this point. Charlie Sheen plays how most people have imagined him nowadays, with beds full of women, drugs constantly being thrown around and insane dialogue that’ll make you wonder how Sheen isn’t in a mental hospital. The only difference is that he’s now President Rathcock (yes, that’s his name). I wouldn’t be surprised if Sheen came up with that name on his own.

As for Gibson, he plays the stereotypical mustache-twirling villain, Voz. He has everything you could imagine at his disposal, including legions of cloned super soldiers, at least three nuclear missiles pointed at the U.S., guns that vaporize people at the atomic level and a space ship ready to be launched at any moment. The only difference between Voz and Lex Luther is that Voz has hair.

In the end, “Machete Kills” is one of the stupidest films I’ve seen in a long time and it is enjoyable for that very same reason. While I wouldn’t want to see many movies like this, silly stupid films have their time and place. Watch this one with friends and a beer and you’ll have a blast. 

Final Grade: C+

“Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs 2”

Puns. Puns galore. 

Here’s the thing about puns. While they’re often said to be the lowest form of comedy, that’s only the case for bad puns. Ones where you can’t help but roll your eyes at the absurdity of what you just listened to, such as any one of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s lines in “Batman And Robin.”

Good puns, on the other hand, can make you laugh just as hard as any other good joke. It’s all about execution. For example, “My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic” takes loads of opportunities to make puns about their pony-filled world, like having the names of their cities include Fillydelphia, Las Pegasus, Manehattan and Saddle Arabia. 

“Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs 2” takes every chance it can get to make puns, combining the names of a food and an animal together, for example Shrimpanzees, Watermelephants and Mosquitoasts. It’s this kind of humor that keeps the film fresh and distinct from its predecessor. Unfortunately, that’s about the only thing keeping it afloat. 

Taking place directly after the events of the first “Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs,” Flint Lockwood (Bill Hader) is approached by his childhood hero, Chester V (Will Forte), the world’s greatest inventor, to join his company, Live Corp., and become the scientist that he had dreamed about. But when it turns out the machine responsible for the food storms is still active, it’s up to Flint and his friends to return to Swallow Falls and stop the food animals from leaving the island and taking over the world.

While the characters are still as enjoyable in this film as they were in the first one, there are some noticeable down grades. The town’s local cop is no longer voiced by Mr. T and is instead replaced by Terry Crews. Let’s face it, anyone is a downgrade from Mr. T. 

Tim Lockwood (James Caan), has a considerably reduced role from the first film, where he was a constant reminder of Flint’s failure and continued need to succeed. Here, he mostly serves as comic relief as he teaches some of the local food animals (or foodimals) how to fish.

That might be why the film doesn’t win me over as much as the first movie did, with far too much focus on comic relief. While in the first one, every character had their moment of comedy, it varied and didn’t tend to repeat itself. The comedy from characters felt natural without going too over the top. Here, there are at least five different main characters are used for comic relief, not including most of the foodimals. 

As a result, the characters don’t feel nearly as developed or fleshed out, as they seem to exist only to provide jokes rather than to play an active part in the story.

Still, I can’t find any reason to hate any of the returning characters, especially Flint and Sam Sparks, the comedy is still fresh and clever and the visuals for the food and animal combinations is wonderful at times, especially on the much larger ones. It’s just disappointing that after the forerunner did so well at balancing characters who were funny, interesting and active in the story, we have the follow-up and its desire to have these characters simply make puns.

Final Grade: C

Final Thoughts: 

Oddly enough, the winner of this set of movie visits was “Captain Phillips.” I honestly didn’t expect a whole lot going into that, due to the director, Paul Greengrass, known for directing the Bourne movies. After watching the trailer, I knew most of the shots would be in the traditional Greengrass fashion: Shaky-Cam. 

Here’s a lesson to all you aspiring filmmakers. If you want to make an action sequence, and by extension a movie, look clear and focused, avoid shaky-cam. While the effect does make the audience feel like they’re apart of the action, it comes at the cost of being able to tell what the hell is going on. Most instances of shaky-cam have the camera far too close to the action and move around so much that it’s sometimes impossible to recognize individuals. Far too many filmmakers use this style these days and it has quickly become one of my pet peeves. 

That might have painted an image of “Captain Phillips” in my head that didn’t make the movie that desirable to me. Once the film started, I pushed that image aside and enjoyed the film for what it was. In the end, that was the right thing to do and I’m glad I did.