MALEFICENT Review

Who exactly was this movie intended for? I couldn't help but to keep asking myself this as Maleficent played out, unsure of what it wanted to be, completely torn between two drastically different tones. There was naturally something interesting about this different approach to the current trend of re-telling classic fairy tales in live action form and casting Angelina Jolie as the titular villain guaranteed nothing short of a fair amount of interest but the final result we've been delivered is nothing but a badgering of the original Disney animated film that proves trying something different is truly hard to accept if it isn't done right. While it is easy to give credit to the machine that is Disney for at least attempting to think outside the box rather than simply bringing the same story to the screen with real-live people (though it looks like 90% of the film is CG anyway) Maleficent is actually less innovative than Tarsem Singh's 2012 take on the Snow White tale. At least that movie had a different rhythm to get in tune with while here we get exactly what we expect and even a little less depending what age group you belong to. So, it was a strong idea with factors that lent themselves towards what could have been an interesting execution yet what we have as the final product is anything but substantial and a film trying to be so many different things it ends up failing on all levels. This brings us back around to the question of who might this movie actually be targeted at? There were certainly a lot of children at the screening I attended, mainly young girls, and throughout you could hear them giggling at the intended bits of comic relief and gasping as Jolie re-created the famous scene in which Maleficent casts her spell on the young princess. To those reactions I began to wonder what I might have thought of this had I seen it as a child. Would it have been one of those my parents might have bought when it came out on VHS and I re-watched over and over? The only equivalent I came up with was Stephen Sommers 1994 adaptation of The Jungle Book that also came from Disney. It was very much a children's film while playing on the darker tones of the Rudyard Kipling story and that is what first-time director Robert Stromberg (yes, they entrusted this summer tentpole to a first-time director) seems intent on doing here as well, but his over-reliance on special effects and muddled screenplay do nothing but disservice what vision he might have had.

First Trailer for KILL THE MESSENGER

I don't mind seeing Jeremy Renner take on the blockbuster and franchise roles that he's kept busy with since breaking out six years ago, but after his underwhelming showing in last years much-hyped American Hustle it is good to see the actor getting back to basics and playing someone like Gary Webb in a tough, gritty procedural like Kill the Messenger. The film is based on the true story of Webb, a journalist who stumbles on leads that take him to the beginning of the crack epidemic in America and the theories of conspiracy that go along with it. The trailer plays to the beats of films we've seen before about noble acts, where the main character sacrifices what is important to him for the greater importance of those he can inform but it looks to be executed with keen precision and high-caliber acting here. Adapted from Webb's book by Peter Landesman (Parkland) and directed by Michael Cuesta (Six Feet Under, Dexter, Homeland) this serves the kind of unnerving performance Renner can deliver a la The Hurt Locker and The Town. There is much to like on display here, but more than anything I'm looking forward to how Cuesta captures the specific tone of this genre and if the globe-trotting investigation aspects feel like something fresh. I'm intrigued if not by the inherently engaging story and truths it uncovered, but for the caliber of the cast they have recruited here to support Renner in what he no doubt hopes to be a definitive role that cements his leading man status. Kill the Messenger also stars Rosemarie DeWitt, Ray Liotta, Barry Pepper, Michael Sheen, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Oliver Platt, Andy Garcia, Tim Blake Nelson, Robert Patrick, Michael Kenneth Williams, Paz Vega and opens October 10th.

CHEF Review

The wisest thing you could do before going to see Chef is to make sure your stomach is not on empty, but you also don’t want to be full off a big meal either. A nice pre-movie snack is suitable as you likely won’t make it through the film if you go in on an empty stomach, but will be more than mad at yourself if you go in stuffed not allowing space in your tummy for a dinner afterwards that might at least attempt to rival the look and taste of what you just witnessed being crafted on screen. It is with this middle of the road mentality (and hunger) that you receive something wholly fulfilling from Chef and if nothing else are surprised at the deeply affecting ways in which this film, that may initially come off as nothing more than superficial, moves you and teaches a well-worn lesson. For, despite the full buffet of A-list names on the roster the food (or any idea, goal, theme, etc. you want to apply there, really) is the real star of writer, director and star Jon Favreau’s latest. Favreau, who has been around the block and back in terms of directing makes his glorious return to what he clearly has a knack for in terms of pure, character-driven stories here. Don’t get me wrong, the guy is clearly more than a capable director as he not only crafted the under-appreciated Zathura, the now holiday-classic Elf (we forget to give him the credit he deserves on that one) and launched the Marvel Cinematic Universe as we now know it with Iron Man while not buckling under the pressure of turning around and delivering a competent sequel, but he also poured his heart and soul into the writing of the cult classic Swingers (launching not only his own, but buddy Vince Vaughn’s career) and then returning to the characters for his feature directorial debut with Made in 2001. He’ll soon return to the world of big budget tentpoles, but it is with great delight that we first get this small, delicately prepared dish that not only gives us a break from the larger productions the summer season is known for offering but more than providing an interesting diversion is the fact this is a truly solid and moving film that while featuring the food as its star attraction, is more about the heart and soul that is poured into the creation of that food that makes the final product, that full meal if you will, all the more satisfying.

LOCKE Review

Much is required not only of Tom Hardy in director Steven Knight's Locke, but from the audience as well in which I mean it isn't for the the likes of everyone. As someone who is deeply entrenched in the world of movies, where they've been, are currently at and where the trends point them towards going it is always nice to see a film take a certain amount of risk and to see it pay off is even more rewarding. I realize that not everyone will see the merit not only in Hardy's highly nuanced performance, but in what it actually takes to maintain interesting, compelling drama for nearly an hour and a half without resorting to anything more than a man in his car and the world he once knew falling down around him, but Locke illustrates brilliantly how it can take very little to create something of significant impact. There is hardly a minute of this film where Hardy is not on screen and when he's not we are only given brief moments to take in the dimly lit highways of England as Hardy's Ivan Locke makes his way towards London. Even Locke himself is barely able to focus on the road and the world around him because his mind only has the bandwidth to deal with a certain amount of things, granted they are highly emotional items, and in the case of this particular night where we meet him and stay with him in real time he is performing a balancing act of personal and professional tasks that see both of them going nowhere but a place he least expected to end up. It is a bleak film, with a dim color palette and ambiguous atmosphere where all of the information we are able to gather is from our titular character and those he speaks with on the phone. It is not so much what an accomplishment Locke is in terms of pulling off what it did with its restraints, but more that it was able to do so much with them. Within these confinements Knight and Hardy were able to pull off what doesn't feel like a stunt for the sake of attempting something daring but instead have crafted a film that feels as if it is all the better for using the elements it has to build the suspense and create the right kind of mood for which to most honestly convey this story to the audience. It is actually a thing of wonder as I remember being so doubtful of a similar premise four years ago with Buried, but was as almost impressed with how well it was pulled off as I am here, almost.

A MILLION WAYS TO DIE IN THE WEST Review

There is always a sense of trepidation within me when approaching a Seth MacFarlane comedy as I've never been a fan of Family Guy or any of his other animated outings. This is not necessarily because I don't like them, but because I've never really become interested enough to actually sit down and watch them. I realize this isn't MacFarlane's fault and that I might actually appreciate his brand of humor if given the chance. That is almost what happened after seeing Ted two years ago and being surprised by how much I actually enjoyed and laughed at the outrageously broad comedy. I say almost because I still never watched a single episode of any of his television series' or Star Wars parodies, but instead I looked forward to what he might do next in an effort to sustain the good will he received from Ted and bring to the big screen another one of his ridiculous premises only to have it hit with a certain, under-appreciated crowd. MacFarlane makes it clear throughout his latest feature in which he stars, directs and co-wrote titled A Million Ways to Die in the West that he is the underdog and always has been. He seems intent on making very clear not only that he is accustomed to playing this role in life, but that he truly embodies in Albert, his character here, the kind of person it takes to become the guy who'd rather talk things out intelligently than put up their dukes. In fact, he's learned from his no frills father that life isn't easy and so he resorts to ridiculing everything and everyone around him while ultimately feeling like he's never good enough. There is nothing wrong with this and as a general consensus I imagine audiences will agree with his tactics, but it is also made clear that Albert is better than you and he knows it, but he can't bring himself to say it to your face. It's a tough position to be in and an even tougher attitude to pull off when preaching to the crowds that will flock to see this in hopes of another original comedy. The thing about MacFarlane's comedy (and again I'm only speaking from the experience of having seen this and Ted) is that while he condescends and outsmarts his opponents the majority of the time he never makes us, the audience, feel as if we're in on the joke with him, but instead that we are as stupid as those he is talking down to.