The Interview

In a week when cheaters can still play in the Super Bowl and major cities braced for winter superstorms that never came, what better time to review The Interview?

Originally intended to be just another bad stoner flick from James Franco and Seth Rogan, The Interview gained frightening national and international infamy by reputedly being the target of a cyber attack on Sony supposedly by North Korea. While the facts of who did what may be in question, it seems that making a film about what a monster the leader of North Korea is and how a couple of idiots attempt to assassinate him could actually lead to an act of war. Sounds silly, doesn't it? But apparently it happened.

I didn't plan on seeing this movie, but now that it is quickly available on Netflix, I thought, what the heck I might take a peek. And it's not a matter of wanting to see it as much as it's a matter of wanting to see what all the fuss is about. In The Interview, James Franco is an idiot talk show host and Seth Rogan his long suffering producer who longs to do serious journalism. In an attempt to remedy the latter, they land an exclusive interview with Kim Jong-un. The CIA intervenes and hopes to get them to stealthily assassinate the dictator.

The opening scene with Eminem is hilarious. There are sweet moments like Franco bonding with Kim Jong-un and Seth Rogan mooning over his North Korean counterpart but for the most part this is another Franco/Rogan dick and fart joke stoner movie, nothing new and nothing should be expected to be new. And when it takes a serious turn in the middle of its childish humor, I didn't know how to feel. Really, this film has a moral lesson and political agenda now? Way out of left field.

This is still a terrible movie, but it's better than it has any right to be. And I'm not sure whether that's good or bad. I certainly didn't hate it like I did This Is The End. I really didn't think I could hate James Franco more than I already did, and then I saw The Interview. The man is now on my do-not-watch list. Yeah, he's that bad. He makes Adam Sandler look like Cary Grant. Seth Rogan isn't bad, and Lizzy Caplan does her best with what she has to work with.

These movies seem to be quite popular and I don't like them much. A friend threw an idea my way that has been weighing on me, so I thought I'd throw it out to you. She compared the Franco/Rogan films to some of the sillier comedies of the 1960s, and suggested that they were just this generation's version of that type of humor. She mentioned two names in particular, and I'll pass them along - are these the type of movies that Jerry Lewis or Don Knotts be making if they were in their prime today? Thoughts?

Otherwise, I would say to wait to see The Interview for free, if at all. This flick is only a curiosity because of the controversy around it, not because of anything special in it.

On The Interview

I wasn't going to pipe in on this one. I figured it was old news by the time I had the time to get to my blog, and no one would care any more, but this story has seemed to linger. That, and many friends, both online and in real life, have wanted me to say something, so here you go. Yeah, I'm talking about The Interview.

The Interview is not a film I would have paid to see. I might have caught it when it got to my pay cable channels, but not otherwise. As I've said here before, I'm not a big fan of stoner movies, and James Franco and Seth Rogan, the stars of the film, left a really bad taste in my mouth the last time they got together - so this one was definitely not on my watch list.

What bothers me the most about the situation is that now everyone wants to see this movie, and not for the right reasons. If it ever gets released, it will make a mint. The other major thing that gets in my crawl is that Sony backed down, they pulled the film, and in short - the terrorists won. I hate that.

What if this was an important film (yes, there are important films) rather than some silly stoner comedy, would Sony have knuckled under as well? Is our entertainment now at the mercy of foreign powers or terror groups? Rant over. It's Christmas, I'm going to try to be happy now.

This Is The End

This Is The End ~ This film does one thing that I like. Usually when one sees a movie with name stars, unless the movie completely immerses the viewer or the acting is prime, one will always think of the star as the star rather than the character. For instance most folks don't know who John McClane is, but they know Bruce Willis was all that in the Die Hard films.

This Is The End uses that logic in its own favor by having its stars - Seth Rogan, James Franco, Jonah Hill, Danny McBride, etc. - play themselves. Well, it's themselves as pot smoking partying losers, which may or may not be the truth, but at least you know who is who. As someone who stopped 'partying' quite some time ago, it made me think of most of these actors in a lesser light, fiction or not. Now get off my lawn.

Anyway, the pothead slob comedy brigade are at a party at James Franco's house when apparently The Rapture happens, followed by an apparent Hell on Earth. It vacillates between end of days satire and Exorcist parody and succeeds in neither. The movie tries really hard to be funny, but unlike old Cheech and Chong, which is funny whether you're high or not, I imagine only stoners would find this flick hilarious.

The only time I even smiled was when Emma Watson from the Harry Potter films, and later the Backstreet Boys, showed up for a couple minutes. Although I did jump when the demon bull jumped in through the window - so points for horror but very little for comedy. For a movie called This Is The End, it really never seemed to end, it just went on and on and on. This was relentlessly bad, I hated it a lot.

Oz the Great and Powerful

Oz the Great and Powerful ~ Let's see, what the rules again? Wait an hour after eating before swimming. Don't get involved in a land war in Asia. You can't put too much water in a nuclear reactor. Don't pull on Superman's cape. And never make sequels (or prequels) to beloved classic films.

I saw this movie weeks ago, weeks and weeks ago. I am still conflicted over whether I liked it or not. It was the second film I saw at the new Marlton 8 theater so the accommodations were fantastic, I couldn't have been more comfortable had I been in my own home. But why did I have, still have such a problem with it?

Oz is a beautiful film. It takes full advantage of CGI and the 3D effects available to the cutting edge of that technology. Here, we have an Oz that both boggles the mind, but brings L. Frank Baum's imagination to life. It is fantastic, and gorgeous. Props to director Sam Raimi for bringing the unimaginable to our eyes.

The casting, especially that of James Franco and Mila Kunis, while problematic, is fitting. Franco is smarmy, and perpetually playing (or maybe living) the part he played in "Freaks and Geeks." He is a stoner, and even here, as the eventual wizard of Oz, if he took a second to take a toke, I don't think anyone would bat an eye. This time, it works for the part, because his character is a slimy sort, not to say stoners are slimy, but Franco's is. Bottom line, he's believable.

Kunis, in my mind, has never grown from her role in "That '70s Show." Oh, she's been good in stuff, and been quite believable, but like Keanu Reeves saying "Whoa," she is always a second away from breaking character and waiting for the canned laughter after a sitcom punchline. I just can't shake it. Here, she completely fits as pre- and post-Wicked Witch of the West, and is awesome in her passive-aggressive power hungry and clingy psycho ex-girlfriend role. Zach Braff, a traditionally sitcom actor on the other hand is equally awesome as the comedy relief flying monkey, a true highlight of the film.

Sounds like I liked the flick, doesn't it? The problem comes with its prequel status. It tries so hard to emulate MGM's classic The Wizard of Oz. All of the cues are there, except for the music of course. It begins in black and white and goes to color after the twister. There are numerous winks and nods to the original film. And every time it happens, I got a strong "Santa Claus Is Coming to Town" vibe.

Remember the Rankin/Bass Christmas special "Santa Claus Is Coming to Town"? Fred Astaire plays a mailman telling a group of children the secret origins of ol' Kris Kringle. Every time he hits a prime power point of his origin, one of the kids says, "That's why he comes on Christmas Eve" or "That's where the flying reindeer came from." That what happens in Oz, and every time we see the hints to the Scarecrow, the Tin Man, the Cowardly Lion, the glowing head illusion, etc. it pulls us out of the story.

If it wasn't for those little nudge-nudge-wink-wink moments, this would be a great flick, as great as the underrated sequel, Return to Oz of a few years back. And that's why I'm so conflicted. I liked it, but then again, I didn't. It's still in theaters, so definitely give it a viewing for yourself, and see what you think.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes

Rise of the Planet of the Apes ~ As a kid growing up in the 1970s, Planet of the Apes was very important to me, and probably to most kids of my generation. I remember asking to stay up to watch the movies on CBS, and their creaky continuity. I remember the lame TV show. I remember the girl across the street who got the Mego PotA treehouse for a gift. It's instilled in my childhood, like the "Brady Bunch," Marathon bars, and the "Six Million Dollar Man," PotA was the 1970s.

All that said, you can imagine my disappointment with the Tim Burton remake, and especially that effed up ending swiped from a bad Kevin Smith comic book. When I heard they were making a prequel to it, my heart sank. A prequel to a bad movie is never a good idea, and besides, let's get real, the original prequels to PotA weren't that great either.

In truth, prequels rarely work, especially when we already know the story. Viewers might just give a pass to a prequel because it's not going to tell them anything they didn't already know. I already know the origins of Batman, Superman, and Spider-Man, you don't need to tell me again. In most cases they aren't even needed, and sometimes even hurt the property. Case in point - Star Wars.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes surprised me though. It hooked me first with an intriguing trailer before throwing the title at me. I wanted to see it before I even knew it was PotA. Finally, I've got hold of it on DVD. Let's see if my instincts were right.

From the start, there are homages , both verbal and visual, to the original series of movies. Much like the preview, the movie itself grabbed me right away. James Franco, in less than annoying mode, is a geneticist searching for a cure to Alzheimer's, testing on apes, and inadvertently succeeds with a chimp named Caesar that he raises himself. John Lithgow gives a wonderful performance as Franco's afflicted father as well. Andy Serkis does his usual as does Tom (Draco Malfoy) Felton, so much for typecasting.

If you know the mythos, you can connect the dots, but there is still a strong emotional story here, not just a this-is-how-we-got-here vibe. The CGI effects make for the needed realism of the tale. While the ape masks and make-up of the original PotA were state of the art for the time, sadly now, they are just, well, ape masks and make-up. These apes look real and emote real, it's very stunning. In fact it's a tribute to the power of CGI done well that the scenes of Caesar and other apes are so hypnotic.

I really dug this flick. When all hell really breaks loose, and the apes begin their 'rise,' I was ten years old again. Yeah, it's that good.