Showing posts with label Zac Efron. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Zac Efron. Show all posts

Friday, January 30, 2015

The Worst 10 Movies Of 2014!

| | |
The Basics: 2014 was hardly a sterling year for films . . . but these ten are the movies that ought to be avoided at all costs!


It has been a long time since I have cared so little about what movies might win the Best Picture Oscar than this year. 2014 might have had some big blockbusters and two perfect films, but it had a giant load of mediocrity for the bulk of the year. While the Razzies tend to pick out the most obvious commercial failures, this year’s list of dud films would not be complete without the ten movies below.

It is important to note that while I’ve seen a great number of movies from 2014, I tended to avoid horror movies (on principle) – I’m certain if I had bothered with the latest movies from the overdone franchises of horror there might be some alterations to the list. But, for cinephiles and those who value their time, these are the 10 films too annoying, painful, boring or poorly made to bother watching from 2014:

10. Behaving Badly (reviewed here!) – The sex comedy Behaving Badly was so poorly received that even Selena Gomez appearing in it couldn’t scare up interest in the film at the box office. Behaving Badly is what happens when humor from audacious animated shows like Family Guy and South Park becomes the norm; by the time live action goes as surprising and raunchy, it’s passé. Behaving Badly might have been a cult film fifteen years ago, but in 2014, it’s utterly forgettable,

9. Listen Up Philip (reviewed here!) – The Academy and art house movie viewers usually love films about miserable people and writers at a point of crisis. Sadly, Listen Up Philip is just a collection of the worst stereotypes of writers and smart people. I never thought I’d see a year when Jonathan Pryce was in one of the worst movies of the year, but there it is . . .,

8. Expelled (reviewed here!) – While the major studios were duking it out during Oscar Pandering Season, one chose to dump one of its worst creations during the same time. Alas, hoping all the attention the big dogs would get vying for serious box office dollars might allow a concentrated fan effort to make an upset was not a marketing technique that worked. Instead, this droll comedy represents one of the year’s biggest conceptual failures: the entire premise is a slacker gets expelled from school and then has to apply himself to get back into school. The Herculean efforts made by the protagonist to get expelled make his ridiculous efforts to avoid boarding school all the more unrealistic, especially when he sees that the place he is threatened with ending up is incredibly easy to escape from! With no significant performers, performances, or ideas, Expelled is gut-wrenching to watch,

7. Horrible Bosses 2 (reviewed here!) – At the other end of the spectrum from Expelled is Horrible Bosses 2. Packed with talent, this limp sequel parades out as many of the stars from Horrible Bosses as it can to remind viewers what they liked about the original before degenerating into a disappointing and decidedly un-funny hostage caper movie that adds nothing worthwhile to the franchise. Seldom have so many truly funny and smart individuals been part of something that falls so short of humor and was so very dumb,

6. Authors Anonymous (reviewed here!) – I’m not sure if I should admire Kaley Cuoco-Sweeting for taking her time off as one of the highest paid actresses on television to appear in an indie film or lament that when she made the effort, she was put into essentially the same role. Either way, Authors Anonymous might be the best proof that when you’re at the top of the industry, it’s time to experiment and spread your wings (when there’s no risk to your finances or career for trying). Unfortunately, Authors Anonymous is neither ambitious, nor smart; it is not funny, nor does it allow any of the performers in it to truly showcase their talents – it is more a string of jokes that fail to land and missed opportunities than a film painfully bad to watch,

5. Vampire Academy (reviewed here!) – My only guess is that Vampire Academy was in production before Beautiful Creatures (reviewed here!) proved that not all supernatural teen lit translated into box office gold. Vampire Academy was so unmemorable that when I began assembling this list, I found I could not remember what was so bad about it. So, I picked up a copy, popped it in the Blu-Ray player and by the time the characters started talking to one another, I remembered! The dialogue is horrible, the acting is atrocious, the story is so familiar it has become an archetype - complete with the requisite and obvious reversals.  The only reason to pay to see this film would be if a Mystery Science Theater 3000 version of it was produced,

4. Bad Neighbors (reviewed here!) – I know I am in the minority of the world’s population on this one, but I did not find Neighbors funny. Dumb frat guys behaving badly, tormenting a working family . . . this is a horror movie disguised as a comedy and while Rose Byrne might have had a good year at the box office, it’s hard to imagine she or most of the rest of the cast is proud of this “comedy,”

3. Happy Christmas (reviewed here!) – Forgettable and neither complicated, nor entertaining, Happy Christmas was the last straw for me with actress Anna Kendrick. Kendrick either has one way to perform or she does not have the wherewithal to stand up to directors to challenge her to do more than appear on screen and keep her mouth partially open. Seriously; I know Anna Kendrick has a nice smile, but at some point, viewers need something more from her than reaction shots where she looks surprised, with her mouth slightly agape. Yet Happy Christmas seems to hinge on that one note of performance. As little as I ever root for the career death of anyone, as one who loathes how Lena Dunham has become the voice of fauxmanism (that’s "faux-feminism" or "a dumbing down of the fight for equality and civil rights," for which Dunham has become the poster woman), when Girls comes to its inevitable end, one hopes anyone who thinks of hiring Lena Dunham again might just check this film out and be assured that investing in her future is not worth it,

2. The Wait (reviewed here!) – Jena Malone did not have a good year in 2014. Her character in Mockingjay – Part 1 (reviewed here!) was virtually absent until the last few moments (and allowed her to show off none of her talent!) and Inherent Vice (reviewed here!), was delayed into 2015 in most markets, which meant that the most time she had on the big screen was in this lemon. The Wait is, as its name suggests, a ponderous film in which very little happens. At least Malone’s career will not suffer much from the film’s release . . . it did not get a wide-enough release, so most people will never see it to know how bad it was,

. . . and . . .

. . .the worst movie of 2014 is . . .

1. Making The Rules (reviewed here!) – Robin Thicke acting vehicle. Need I say more? Given how few people witnessed this cinematic atrocity, I probably should. Frances Conroy appears in her worst supporting role since supporting in Catwoman, Jaime Pressly plays Abby a lonely housewife obsessed with former boyfriend played by Robin Thicke and what is supposed to be a steamy, sexy drama about temptation is just another stupid, escapist trashy romance novel that isn’t smart enough to acknowledge itself for what it is. At under 80 minutes, at least Making The Rules does not make us suffer watching its terribleness long, but when that is the best that can be said about a film, it is hardly a ringing endorsement!

For other lists, please check out my:
Worst Ten Episodes Of Star Trek: Enterprise
The Top Ten Episodes Of Frasier
The Top Ten Episodes Of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine

To see how all movies I have reviewed have stacked up against each other check out my Film Review Index Page where the movies are organized from best to worst!

© 2015 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Sunday, May 4, 2014

Milking Rose Byrne For Laughs: Bad Neighbors Fails Entirely!


The Good: One or two laughs, Convincing-enough performances
The Bad: Largely banal and repetitive humor, Dull plot, Obvious character arcs, More misses than hits on the jokes, No stellar performance moments.
The Basics: The Seth Rogen/Zac Efron vehicle Bad Neighbors is a listless comedy not worth wasting time and money to watch.


As Summer Blockbuster Season begins, the popular alternative to special effects-driven action films is raucous comedies. This summer, the search for quality alternative programming seems to have skipped the entire comedy genre . . . at least if the new film Bad Neighbors is any indication.

Bad Neighbors is a Seth Rogen and Zac Efron vehicle that has a ridiculously simple premise that it barely delivers on. The movie never truly gets deeper than the one-line summary for the film and the result is a movie packed with jokes that barely pad the flick up to 96 minutes and leave the viewer feeling largely cheated for the entire running time. Bad Neighbors has a thirty-something couple with a newborn baby living next door to a fraternity house and the two houses go to war over their different lifestyles. Only, the family being terrorized by having the frat house next door, the Radners, is barely more mature than their tormentors next door. The result is an extended prank movie that is hardly original, not at all audacious, and only minimally funny.

Mac and Kelly Radner have poured all their money into a small house in the suburbs where they believe they can happily and safely raise their new daughter, Stella. After attempting to christen their dining room – but failing because they are creeped out by Stella watching them have sex – the Radners see that the house next to theirs is on the market and has some (apparently) serious potential buyers. But when moving day comes, the quiet gay family they think is going to move in is replaced by a small fraternity from the nearby college. Bringing their leaders, Teddy and Pete, a joint, the Radners think they have solved their problems by asking the frat brothers to keep the volume down. That night, though, there is a loud party and rather than keeping the neighborhood quiet, Mac and Kelly actually join Teddy, Pete, and the frat brothers of Delta Psi Beta for a night of revelry.

When the loud scene repeats itself the next night and Teddy does not answer his phone (as he had asked the Radners to call him before they call the police), the young parents try to get the frat party shut down with police intervention. The Delta Psi Betas trash the lawn for the Radner’s house and vow to keep disrupting their lives for being so uncool to them. When Mac smashes a pipe that floods the frat house basement, the fraternity brothers band together and make molds of their penises in order to make dildos, which they then sell and raise so much money they are able to afford a pool in addition to the repairs! When the Radner’s confront the Dean after Stella nearly swallows a condom on their lawn, they find the college officials largely unhelpful, though she details the school’s three-strike rule for the frats. To try to get the frat shut down, Kelly tries to get Pete to put “hoes before bros” by getting the drunk (but smartest of the) frat boy to have sex with Teddy’s girlfriend. Using a hazed-upon pledge to infiltrate the house to try to get the last strike, Mac and Kelly bond as the fraternity comes apart at the seams!

There is so little to Bad Neighbors that it is almost surprising that the film was even made. To flesh out the thin revenge plot that has two groups of shockingly immature people going to war with one another (without much in the way of real world consequences, despite such things as fireworks getting shot into a police car, yet not burning the hell out of the officer inside), Bad Neighbors includes scenes like Kelly realizing she had too much alcohol to nurse and Mac having to milk her in order to relieve the pain in her breasts. Even that scene, though, is truncated in an odd way for an R-rated comedy, making one assume that there will be an unrated director’s cut released on DVD that is even more graphic than the theatrical release was.

The characters in Bad Neighbors are universally foul-mouthed and largely monolithic. Mac is hardly mature and the Radner’s obsession with weed and sex mirrors the frat boys’ binge drinking and casual sex. Neither group is particularly compelling to watch and outside the joy of the cameos (the young men of Workaholics, Andy Samburg, and Lisa Kudrow all have brief appearances in Bad Neighbors) the only real strong moment of comedy is the first appearance of a detached airbag going off and flinging Mac a great distance.

Bad Neighbors is not going to be the shining point of any of the participant’s resumes. Seth Rogen is playing a remarkably familiar stoner/slacker character that he has done to death and Dave Franco’s part of Pete is basically a slightly smarter version of his brother’s type familiar party animal character. Rose Byrne and Zac Efron do not show off any skills that they are likely to be proud of. In fact, Efron’s role in the movie seems to be to show off his new, buff self as opposed to creating a character with even a modicum of pathos, as he did in 17 Again (reviewed here!).

With its lack of original humor or engaging characters and hampered by a predictable plot and juvenile gags, Bad Neighbors completely fails to entertain or create a film worth writing more about.

For other works with Rose Byrne, be sure to check out my takes on:
This Is Where I Leave You
X-Men: First Class
Bridesmaids
Adam
28 Weeks Later
Marie Antoinette
Star Wars: Episode II – Attack Of The Clones

2/10

For other movie reviews, please check out my Film Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2014 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Saturday, July 14, 2012

Despite The Obvious Attention To Wholesome, 17 Again Is Worth Watching!


The Good: Funny, Fun, Moments of acting
The Bad: Predictable, Obvious character arcs, Overbearing moralizing, Editing
The Basics: Funny, but poorly edited and assembled for adults who watch such things carefully, 17 Again is still entertaining for a wide audience.


[Note: This was originally written based on a screening of the film in advance of its cinematic release. Hence the verb tenses . . . Enjoy!]

The true joy of free movies has to be that they allow reviewers to take risks they might not otherwise take, namely watching films that are not necessarily their cup of tea. I, for example, have been seeing a lot more "family fare" so far this year largely because I have been getting into screenings. The latest film that I would not have been predisposed to seeing if not for my status as reviewer was 17 Again. Unlike some other risk films I've seen of late, I actually enjoyed the movie quite a bit, despite its formulaic nature and the overbearing "family values" b.s. that I usually despise.

17 Again is the latest vehicle for Zac Efron, whose soul may or may not be owned by Disney and appears as a nonthreatening good guy in this non-Disney (but might as well be) movie. As my partner observed, 17 Again is a great example of a test for the generation divide; our screening was packed by people who were there to see Friends alum Matthew Perry along with a gaggle of tweens who were clearly mooning over Efron. Despite figuring that Perry would not last in the film more than ten minutes early in the movie (he gets about fifteen minutes early on) and about two at the end, my partner and I went enthused to see Perry working again and we were delighted to find there was much more to the movie to enjoy beyond that.

In 1989, Mike O'Donnell is a basketball champion at Hayden High School who is being watched by talent scouts, his entire school and his girlfriend, Scarlett. But when Scarlett gets pregnant, Mike gives up his dreams of playing basketball to go be a responsible father. Twenty years later, Mike is living in his best friend's house when Scarlett throws him out pending their divorce. As Mike mourns his wife wanting to terminate the marriage, he and his geeky best friend try to make the best of things. After visiting his children at their high school, Mike encounters a mystical janitor who he later sees while driving back to Ned's. Trying to follow the janitor, Mike falls into a mystical energy vortex and is suddenly de-aged to seventeen.

Mike enrolls in Hayden High School as Ned's child in order to restart his basketball career and be closer to his children. The seventeen year-old Mike soon realizes his son Alex is being bullied and his daughter, Maggie, is on the fast track to losing her virginity to the school bully. Mike quickly realizes that his purpose in being de-aged is not to take the road not taken - i.e. revitalize his basketball career - but rather to get closer to his children and become a better husband to Scarlett. In the process, Ned begins to court the school principal and Mike relearns all that he might have forgotten about love and relationships.

17 Again is a fun, but sloppy movie that is predicated on the idea that viewers are young and not watching the movie or thinking too closely about it. First, the plot is ridiculously simple and fairly obvious in that the "made young for the purpose of learning a valuable lesson" plot has been done before and the moralizing is pretty obvious. The purpose and character arcs are largely unsurprising and they promote a family-friendly agenda that advocates abstinence, strong family bonds, the value of working at a marriage (no divorce!), and strong, traditional gender roles. Bullies get put in their place, there is a double standard for boys and girls. Despite references to safe sex and pressure for teen sexuality, abstinence is pushed fairly heavily and all teen drinking occurs off-screen and is referenced as such a bad thing that the only characters even accused of it are treated as ridiculous.

The thing is, 17 Again has a few issues within its own narrative that are more ridiculous than the contradictions between reality in teen behavior and the "reality" of the film. So, for example, Mike is 17 in 1989 and today (specifically mentioned as 2009 later in the film), Mike has a daughter who is a Senior in high school and a son who appears to be a Junior at the same high school. Mike's daughter, though, would be 19! Mike references working for the company he works for in the opening scenes for about twenty years, but the idea that his daughter would not be age-appropriate for the storyline is simply glossed over. Also unaddressed is the relationship between the de-aged Mike and Alex; one need not work in high schools to recall that underclassmen and upperclassmen seldom fraternize the way Mike and Alex do, especially at the larger high schools like Hayden High School.

Despite the contradictions and the simplicity - as well as the obvious way Zac Efron is highlighted by appearing on screen for the first five to ten minutes so the tween audience does not have to wait for him any longer than they might want to - 17 Again is a fun and funny movie. It takes a lot to get me to laugh these days, but this film made me laugh out loud fifteen times and smile an additional twenty-two times, which puts it well above most other recent films.

What surprised me most, though, was the quality of the acting. Zac Efron reappears on-screen as the de-aged adult Mike O'Donnell and he plays the role as Matthew Perry for a few minutes as he adjusts from the adult to the teen role once again. Efron almost effortlessly takes on the mannerisms of Matthew Perry which he has in his early scenes. Fans of Perry can see Perry in Efron's performance and that illustrates well the ability the young actor actually has.

The cast is rounded out well by Leslie Mann as Scarlett, Thomas Lennon as Ned and Sterling Night and Michelle Trachtenberg as Mike's son and daughter, Alex and Maggie. Lennon has a decent role as Ned, though much of his performance is upstaged by props and wardrobe used to define his character. Mann, however, utilizes her second billing role to shine and she clearly outperforms the expectations one might have of her from such things as Knocked Up. Problematic, though, is that director Burr Steers cast Mann as Scarlett and Melora Hardin as Principal Masterson, Ned's love interest. Mann and Hardin look far too much alike and are put into virtually identical roles that there are several scenes that the only way the viewer knows which woman is appearing on screen is by who is with her.

Overall, 17 Again is amusing and seems to be lightly PG-13 (I was surprised that it was not PG) and is likely to entertain children, young adults and the middle agers as well. The film is funny and a decent fun date movie, but it is not extraordinary entertainment or thematically clever or super-engaging in a way that older audiences will be blown away by it.

For other works featuring Matthew Perry, please be sure to visit my reviews of:
Studio 60 On The Sunset Strip
The Whole Ten Yards
The West Wing - Season Five
The West Wing - Season Four
The Whole Nine Yards
Friends

6/10

For other film reviews, be sure to check out my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2012, 2009 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |