Movie Reviews

Once again I have seen enough movies on my cable movie channels that it is time to offer up some more reviews. Just as a reminder, for the most part these reviews aren't intended to be taken as endorsements or criticisms because I would never presume to know what kind of movie you would enjoy. That is why these reviews very rarely mention the quality of the movie and tend to focus on random things which caught my eye while watching them. The goods news is that if something I said intrigues you, these movies are old enough that by now they should either on your cable movie channels On-Demand feature, NetFlix or available for rent on the cheap using whichever system you prefer (to be honest you could probably pirate this particular crop of movies and no one would blame you because they have made all the money they were ever going to make by now). The good news is that if you see any of these and then hate it, at least you didn't have to pay $12 to be disappointed. Let's get to it...

Hyde Park On Hudson: Going in I thought this movie was going to consist mostly of Bill Murray over-acting as he blatantly trolled for an Oscar. After all he would be playing former President Franklin Roosevelt and telling the story of when the King of England came to America seeking help for the upcoming war with Germany. It's just the kind of role Oscar voters love to reward. However it quickly became apparent that Murray couldn't have been too intent on winning an Academy Award because if he had he would have been willing to sit in the make-up chair for a couple of hours and at least look a little like FDR. Instead, he looked like Bill Murray wearing glasses and nothing more. If Jon Voight can do it for a bad movie like "Pearl Harbor" (his performance was the best thing in that movie) than Murray could have done it here. The other problem this movie faced was that the character of King George VI was just played by Colin Firth a couple years ago and he did win an Academy Award for his performance. When an audience has just seen the same character done better that recently it throws the whole movie off. No wonder they had to settle for Golden Globe nominations.

Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters: When "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" was being released in theaters I thought that even though the movie looked bad, at least the writer could claim it was something different. Anyone could tell the same old "President Lincoln was a great man" story, but it took some guts to take at a familiar character in a completely different direction. Obviously, once I saw 10 minutes of that movie my opinion on the matter changed drastically but I still contended the principle made sense. This movie just goes to prove that I was ultimately right because it was everything "Vampire Hunter" was not. This takes the familiar tale of Hansel and Gretel and turns it on its head by advancing the story 20 years and making them the hunters, not the ones in need of rescue. On top of the the character twist it had good special effects and a fun plot, which made for a very entertaining couple of hours. It was never going to win any awards but there was enough action, comedy and gore to appeal to a wide-ranging audience. It just goes to remind us all that sometimes having a really good idea isn't enough - you have to follow through when it comes time to execute.

Warm Bodies: If anyone was ever going to describe a zombie movie as a "cute", this film is probably what they will be talking about. While the premise that zombies could turn back into humans if we just gave them some compassion probably turned off any of the hardcore horror buffs, I thought it made for a pretty good flick. My only issue with it was the naming of the two central characters - the boy zombie was named "R" and the human girl was named Julie. I think you can see what the director was going for and just in case you couldn't, he even threw in a scene when Julie was out on a balcony just to drive the point home (don't know why I was expecting subtlety in a zombie movie). Now, I get that every writer ultimately wants their work to be measured up against Shakespeare because he is the standard bearer. However, at the same time you can't force anyone to make that comparison (and when you are working with a horror story I am not sure you would want that to happen anyway). Let the movie goers worry about making that connection and if people can't see it than it's probably because it shouldn't be made. Not every teen romance has to be quite that dramatic.

Gangster Squad: This was another one of those films about take-no-prisoner cops in 1950s Los Angeles. Now, I both love and loathe this film noir kind of movie. I love it because they look cool and the stories are always well-written, plus sometimes it is just nice to see the bad guy get roughed up without any repercussions even though in the back of your mind you are thinking, "Today, any of this stuff would get the case dismissed." However I also hate them because they tend to glorify LA as if it was the only town which was a little out-of-control trying to deal with organized crime. I contend that there were just as many stories (and probably better ones) going on in Chicago or New York at the same time but these filmmakers either didn't want to travel or want to make the place they now have to call home seem that much cooler, so it feels slightly lazy. And that sloppy work is a problem for this particular movie because it just isn't as good as previous movies such as "Mulholland Falls" or "LA Confidential". If you're going to make this kind of movie you have to know those lines are going to be drawn - it would be like making a western and not expecting it to be measured against recent entries such as "Tombstone". Maybe if they had moved it to another city that wouldn't have been in my mind, so I guess the moral is that sacrificing location for convenience can end up hurting your movie in ways you probably never expected.

Jack Reacher: Normally I hate the people who tell you that the book was better than the movie because it is such a snobby thing to say. Half the time I don't even think they mean it, they just want to sound better than your average movie-goer by pointing out they read. There is only one area in which I am happy to let them complain, which is when it comes to casting. There is nothing worse than seeing the absolute wrong person get a role that you care deeply about and even though I have no great affection for the character of Jack Reacher, even I knew this movie was doomed from the beginning. You see, in the books Reacher is described as a 6'4", blond-haired, blue-eyed intimidating former Army investigator. All of that makes the casting of Tom Cruise in the role look as though the casting director either never read the book or ignored it all just to get the biggest name they could. I understand big stars make a movie easier to sell but they shouldn't be handed just any old part. In this case it completely ruined the movie before it ever started, which is too bad because the script was still pretty great. I'm not quite sure how this movie did but I would love to see a sequel with a different actor in the title role because I think it would make for a completely improved experience.