Swanner and Judd talk about John Wick and Ouija
Monthly Archives: October 2014
Ouija
Swanner: A few weeks ago, Brian and I were discussing what Brian and I thought was scary. Brian liked the 60’s and 70’s camp, gore horror while I like subtle, scary movies like Insidious and The Conjuring. So, when it came to who would review Ouija, and who would review John Wick, Brian took Wick and I, alone, ventured to see Ouija. The film is about a teenaged girl, Debbie (she looked older and is played by a 27 year old actress), who has been playing alone with her Ouija Board. First rule of Ouija is never play alone. Debbie has unlocked something evil, and it convinces her to do herself in, but her friends know something isn’t right. Laine, Debbie’s best friend, finds the Ouija Board and convinces all of Debbie’s friends to get together for one last chance to say goodbye… of course this goodbye takes place in Debbie’s house with the Ouija Board. Will they be talking to Debbie on the Ouija Board? Of course not.
That is the basic plot. For the next 83 minutes Debbie’s friends will all be hunted by this evil until it ends the way you suspect it will. Now, I’m not saying it wasn’t scary fun… because it was. I’m just saying it’s predictable and that’s okay. (Especially if you’re watching it alone) The cast is made up of young up and coming actors, while the director is a special effects man turned director, Stiles White. Simon Kinberg and Juliet Snowden wrote the script. As predictable as the film is, it still has a lot of scares. This is the perfect October date movie because it’s scary, but its PG-13 rating keeps it from sending your date home after the film because she’s too frightened.
This isn’t the best horror movie of the year, but it’s a solid, scary, and it’s short. I didn’t have time to look for too many flaws because it moved well and I was pretty terrified… I was by myself remember. Overall, the film is well made and the cast does a good job. As far as Ouija Board movies go, this is one of the better ones. It’s not breaking any new ground, but if you’re looking for a scare this weekend, this one works, but don’t expect it to be around too long.
Swanner 2 1/2 stars
John Wick
Judd: John Wick is a retired hitman who recently lost his wife to some mysterious illness. When someone then comes and steals his ‘69 Boss 429 Mustang and kills his dog, he’s more than a little upset. Keanu Reeves plays the titular character, with a script by newcomer Derek Colstad and directed by first timers David Leitch and Chad Stahelski. David and Chad, however, are no strangers to action movies; both men have done coordinated stunts for countless big action movies over the years, including “fight masterpieces” 300, Fight Club and the Bourne Movies. These guys know how choreograph a fight scene, and John Wick is proof.
The movie by itself is terrible. The first 15 minutes of the movie is a mishmash of odd cuts and edits, giving the audience John’s recent backstory. His wife or girlfriend died from a tragic and emotional illness, and leaves him a puppy to remind him of her. From there, John takes his car to a heavily guarded, but seeming unused landing tarmac, to do some burnouts, drifting and other fancy driving. Why? Who knows, other than it looked cool. While fueling up after his car shenanigans, he’s approached by some Russian no-goodniks who appreciate his car. Refer to the beginning of this review if you’ve forgotten what happens next.
From there the movie is one highly stylized fight after another, with appearances from some familiar faces such as Michael Nyquist, Willem Dafoe, Dean Winters, John Leguizamo, Ian McShane, Adrianne Palicki and Lance Reddick. The weakest actor in the movie is Keanu, which is no surprise. During the film, I kept thinking of the number of actors that should have played the role. Viggo Mortsen kept popping in my head, with his similar movies, A History of Violence and Eastern Promises. I don’t think Reeves is capable of the depth the character could have had, and the fact that he was with virgin directors compounded the problem.
I really liked the look of the movie; you can tell that Leitch and Stahelski have a clear vision and a knack for visuals. It’s their inexperience behind the camera, though, that bring the movie down. The weird montage in the beginning felt like an amateurish attempt at being interesting, and the overall flat character portrayals from actors capable of much better can only be attributed to these virgin directors. However, the fight scenes and sound design can only be described as amazing. These guys know how to stage a fight; they kept the camera trained on the footwork and the choreography was tight, fast and perfectly executed. I don’t think I’ve seen better fighting than the trailer fight between Uma Thurman and Darryl Hannah in Kill Bill. The sound of the gun fights was crisp and different from what you normally hear in movies like this. It seems like a small thing, but it really makes an impact.
I don’t know if I would recommend John Wick, given that it’s not a good movie. Leitch and Stahelski should stick with coordinating stunts, of which they are masters, and leave the directing to more capable hands. Who knows, maybe they’ll hone their craft as time goes on, but as it stands they’re not there yet.
Judd: 2 1/2 stars
PODCAST: SJ32: St. Vincent; Fury
Swanner and Judd talk about St. Vincent and Fury
Fury
Swanner: We all know by now that Brian doesn’t like romantic comedies and I don’t like war movies…so why am I seeing a screening of Fury? This is a film about a World War 2 tank and its crew as they gun down Nazi’s in German. It stars Brad Pitt, Shia LaBeouf and Logan Lehman. Its 134 minutes of guys stuck in a tank!!! Directed and written by David Ayer (End of Watch).
Judd: You saw the movie before me and let me know how you felt about it. When you said it was 134 minutes of guys stuck in a tank, I thought you might be exaggerating. You weren’t. Outside of an awkward dinner scene where the guys talked about killing horses, the majority of the movie took place inside of a tank. The graphic gore and violence of the movie reminded of a quote from the brilliant critic Brian Judd, “…movies like (this) are made for viewers who fit in a very particular niche – armchair soldiers… who were too fat, too stupid or too cowardly to join the military themselves… Or, the mercenary psychopaths who can only get a boner watching people die.” That was about Lone Survivor. It also applies to Fury.
Swanner:I thought it was just me. I mean the acting was good once they stopped using strange accents, but I saw Locke earlier this year and it seemed less claustrophobic — and that took place in the front seat of a car for 90 minutes. I’m not sure if that was the intention… if it was, then great, you’ve succeeded. This is a movie for people who like war movies and definitely not the date movie guys were hoping for.
Judd: I don’t like this new wave of war movies where the entertainment factor comes solely from the horrifically realistic portrayal warfare. We could copy our review of Lone Survivor almost word for word and it would fit for Fury. All the performances were good, with Shia earning some goodwill after his assholish behavior in the recent past. However, I think the script was thin and relied on gunfights/tank fights and the dazzle of tracer rounds to carry the tension. Although I’ve got to say I’m happy to see Hollywood move past slavery and go back to the Holocaust and WWII for its Oscar Baiting.
Swanner: Look at you finding a silver lining. I am glad we’ve moved off slavery and AIDS but I’m not happy it’s back to WWII. When you can make movies like Pride, St. Vincent and Chef, who needs WWII to Oscar bait? I was also a bit surprised that this wasn’t based on something real. At least Lone Survivor was based on something. It’s a well-made movie with good acting but not a great movie they were hoping. I was moved by the three previously mentioned movies but not for Fury, and I should have been. I think that says a lot.
Judd: I think if more time was spent with the characters, getting to know them, rather than watch them, literally, fight for their lives, it would have been a great film. It’s the reason Saving Private Ryan is the current gold standard when it comes to war movies. Beyond the violence, there is heart, which Fury is unfortunately lacking.
Swanner: 2 stars
Judd: 2 ½ stars
St Vincent
Judd: Vincent (Bill Murray) is a crabby, drunken misanthrope who regulars a middle-aged, pregnant whore (Naomi Watts). The day his new neighbors move in, a single mother and her young year old son (Melissa McCarthy and Jaeden Lieberher) Vincent is recovering from what probably is a fairly routine hangover. One thing leads to another, and Vincent ends up babysitting and befriending the boy while his mother works at the local hospital. St Vincent is a routine, but extremely well done dramedy that features one of Murray’s best performances on film.
Swanner: Theodore Melfi serves as director and writer on this incredible little gem. With very little experience, Melfi creates a real world where people work, pay bills and have flaws…in some cases lots of flaws but all these people are real. It’s hard to believe a first time feature director/writer can produce characters so real and rich with wisdom and life. I was floored with the film.
Judd: I agree. I really liked the script, and even though it teetered on the melodramatic, I don’t think it ever crossed into that territory, like the recent film, The Judge. Vincent’s troubles with his wife, drinking, gambling — we’ve all seen it before — but the difference here is that there is an earnestness about the film as a whole. Vincent, as a character, was extremely real to me. More so than, I can say, any other character from any other movie that I’ve ever seen. I was absolutely swept away with him.
Swanner: It’s definitely Murray picture. His performance is real and the people around him have to fall in line with him. McCarthy and Watts are both in supporting roles but they give big performances. We were bitching about how McCarthy needs to step out and prove how good she can be and she does here. Watts gets to play comedy, which is nice after seeing her always play drama. Finally, Jaeden Lieberher, who plays McCarthy’s son, was fantastic and Murray couldn’t have asked for a better co-star. Lieberher reminded me of Chris Makepeace who played Rudy in Meatballs. The scenes Murray has with both child actors shows that W. C. Fields was wrong about acting with children. Murray can do it and do it very well
Judd: As far as McCarthy goes, we all know she can shed a tear on command, and in this instance it was appropriate, but I wouldn’t say she was a stand out. Though I will say it was better to see her in this role than a dressed down glamourpuss. The cast, as a whole, was slovenly and greatly added to the feel of the movie. People that look like this cast, in other movies, tend to be white-trash, skid row addicts a la Gone Baby Gone or The Fighter. I really, really liked this movie. Between St. Vincent and Pride, I’m going to have to start sneaking tissues into the theatre with me.
Swanner: I agree this wasn’t a movie that people who think they are movie stars make. There is nothing glamorous about the film. This is a film for actors. It’s a film that tells the story of people we never see in films and if we do, as you said, they are the white trash neighbors with too many dogs. I am totally in love with this film and I plan to sing it’s praises till award season.
Swanner: 4 stars
Judd: 4 stars
PODCAST: SJ30: Dracula Untold; The Judge; Alexander and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day
Swanner and Judd talk about Dracula Untold; The Judge; Alexander and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day
Alexander and the Terrible Horrible No Good Very Bad Day
Swanner: When Brian and I were driving to see a matinee of Alexander…bad day we were expecting much. I had watched the preview and it stank of all those terrible Disney live action pictures from the late 60’s/early 70’s. Lots of slapstick for the kids and 90 minutes of nodding off for the adults. We both felt hopeful when we were told it was 83 minutes long. I mean how bad can a movie be that’s 83 minutes long?
Judd: The book, Alexander and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good Very Bad day was first published in 1972, and as such I grew up with the book. I remember it being very popular and always being checked out of the library. Add to that I hadn’t seen the trailer, so I wasn’t dreading the movie as much as Tom. It’s a good thing, too, because Alexander is a funny, entertaining family film. I would say it’s one of the best in the live-action family film genre. Jennifer Garner and Steve Carell as the parents are goofy, but are kept from being complete morons, which most movies like this aim for, and that makes all the difference.
Swanner: The film was very likable. For those of you who could never get the library copy, Alexander is a boy that everything bad happens to while the rest of his families lives are simple and easy. On his birthday he wishes his family could know what his life is like for one whole day. Of course, the next day anything that could go wrong goes wrong. The film is smart, funny and a real treat. I was expecting something awful like a love bug movie but this is more like Diary of a Wimpy Kid.
Judd: Director Miguel Arteta has a resume long as my arm and seems to have successfully dabbled in every genre. In the hands of someone different, the movie could very well have been one of those broad Disney comedies starring Dean Jones. I also like the fact that the physical humor, while toned down, wasn’t childish. Many of the jokes could have played in an Apatow type comedy, if they were made a little raunchier or a little more adult. I
Swanner: An Apatow film it would have been at least 40 minutes longer but I do see where you are going. It was far away from those Dean Jones disasters for the “good old days”. I’m still surprised how it surprised me and how I can’t believe I’m giving my approval for it. If you have kids to entertain this would be a great movie to distract them with.
Swanner: 3 Stars
Judd: 3 Stars
Dracula Untold
Swanner: I was really looking forward to seeing Dracula: Untold because it was playing at the IMAX theatre and everything is better at the IMAX. Remember I gave Hansel and Gretel a positive review. The film did not let me down; it looked great on the big screen. Now, if it had only been something I wanted to see. The IMAX can’t make up for Hollywood wanting to make another Dracula movie.
Judd: I am so tired of Hollywood steering away from the established legend of these horror monsters to make them sympathetic characters. In this iteration, Vlad the Impaler (Luke Evans) is forced to turn over his own son, and the sons of the village, to the Turkish army. Instead of succumbing to this command, he gives himself over to the dark forces to receive the powers to fight the Turkish army single handed. Aww, how sweet.
Swanner: I thought it was very big of him. The look of the film was great; my one real plus to the movie. I agree that the Impaler was not that interesting. It felt more like a segment from the Hobbit movies than a Dracula movie. Outside of the already mentioned IMAX, plus and the look of the film, there wasn’t much there, but what they did do they did it all in under 90 minutes.
Judd: The amazingly short runtime was bonus, especially for something that wasn’t that interesting. I think your comparison to The Hobbit movie is very accurate, because Dracula Untold felt very much like a Fantasy film to me — A genre I loathe. The thing that bothered me most about the movie, though, was the villain. Turkish General Mehman, played by Dominic Cooper, looked like a Jersey Boy douche, complete fake orange tan and Pauly D hair. He was distractingly modern in a period film.
Swanner: He did look the same way he looked in the Avengers…good call. The film was entertaining enough but for the most it was a big yawn. Can they please think out something new and original? I know it won’t happen but one can dream.
Judd: I don’t care if it’s new, just be good. Vampires are my least favorite creature because they’re so adaptable. It’s because of this we’ve had to suffer with brooding teenage glitter-pires, bisexual emo-pires, and now a revenge seeking Rambo-pire. Enough is enough. Bella Lugosi is rolling in his grave.
Swanner: 1 ½ stars
Judd: 1 ½ stars
The Judge
Swanner: As I’ve been saying, when the Fall comes so comes the good movies. The ones meant for adults, so the language is bad and the situations are well…adult. The Judge stars Robert Downey Jr. (Hank Palmer) as a big city lawyer who goes home to small town America when he gets the news his mother has died. Once “home”, Hank deals with the grief of his mother and the rest of his dysfunctional family, including his father the Judge.
Judd: As you can tell from the trailer Judge, as even his family addresses him, has hit and killed someone with his Cadillac. Was it murder? Was he drunk? Why does he hate his son? I really liked the way this movie unfolded the plot. We were given clues to the past, that were explained later in the movie and I thought that kept things moving along. However, with a runtime of two hours and twenty minutes, there were moments and complete subplots that went nowhere and could have been left out completely, saving 20 minutes or more.
Swanner: There were a lot of those subplots that could have been removed. The father/son storyline was plot enough. Granted Hank needed time away from his father but that could have been done better to follow leads in the trial and not trailing from the past. The performances are all excellent and wherever it was filmed it’s totally eye candy with the loveliness of small town living.
Judd: I disagree that the Father/Son story line was enough. I really liked the subplot with the ex-girlfriend, played by Vera Farmiga; I think it was key to developing Hank’s character and how his actions affected loved ones other than his family. There were several big, emotional moments, however, that were wielded about as deftly as a sledgehammer. As much as I liked The Judge, there were several times that I rolled my eyes at the melodramatic bludgeoning.
Swanner: I really like Farmiga but I think she and her daughter were a subplot better lost. Apples and Oranges, but we can agree that as good as the film was it could have been better if it were 30 minutes less. It was nice seeing Downey Jr. not relying too heavy and regurgitating his Tony Stark character and bringing something new to the table. Duvall was also very good playing up vulnerability while still very stern as the Judge. David Dobkin does a great job with the directing of Nick Sckenk and Bill Dubuque’s screenplay.
Judd: We agree that The Judge is a good movie, but it’s not without its flaws. We both agree that with some critical editing the bloated 2 hour and 20 minute runtime could be whittled down to a manageable 2 hours. We disagree where those cuts could have been made. While I think some of the gushing sentimentality could have been toned down, the performances, script and direction make the movie ultimately watchable.
Swanner: 3 ½ stars
Judd: 3 stars
Swanner & Judd Film Reviews 