BIG SCREEN: Ghostbusters Revieux (PG-13)

Man, there was a lot of online smack talk going around about this Ghostbusters remake long before it was released. From the nerve of filmmakers to (gasp!) cast women in the lead roles, to the placement of minor player/token male Chris Hemsworth at the center of publicity photos, to the sort of goofy but -- gimme a break -- harmlessly fun Fall Out Boy/Missy Elliott theme song, I felt like I needed to cut it some slack and go in with very low expectations.

Turns out, that was unnecessary.

In this installment, much like the original, a trio of scientists (Melissa McCarthy, Kristen Wiig, and Kate McKinnon) teams up to investigate a spate of frightening paranormal activity in New York City. A subway worker (Leslie Jones) with historical knowledge of the city -- and information that helps lead to the source of problem -- soon joins the team, as does a really attractive, but dimwitted male bimbo (Hemsworth), who is inexplicably hired as the worst receptionist of all time. When everything escalates and thousands of mischievous ghosts descend on Times Square, they load up the proton packs, fire up the hearse, and go kick some serious phantom fanny.

I honestly can’t figure out why critics have been so hard on this movie. The cast is fantastic (they mesh together seamlessly as an ensemble, and as many called it, Kate McKinnon is a total scene-stealer), the special effects are super cool (we saw it in IMAX-3D, totally worth it!), the writing is funny, and the plot remains just faithful enough to the original (with some fun cameos peppered in) to maintain familiarity, while allowing plenty of room for the new characters and storyline to fully develop. Best of all, they let the women be strong, smart, cool, and witty -- how’s that not a recipe for a good movie?!

As you may have noticed, it earned a PG-13 rating. The first ghost encounter might be a little scary for younger kids, and there’s a handful of bad language (just your basic curse words, nothing overly hardcore) and rude humor (gestures and references) scattered about. It’s not excessive, but it’s certainly present. Every parent sets their own specific limits for their kids, but I felt completely comfortable letting my 10-year-old watch it. Partly because I have a strict “emulate what you see or hear in the movies, and you’ll be demoted back to baby rated-G movies pronto” policy, but also because, thankfully, the most cringe-worthy reference went way over his head.

Ghostbusters, which opens this Friday, July 15, is probably the most fun I’ve had in the movie theater all summer. And we’ll definitely see it again as a rental!

Click here to see where it’s playing locally.

BIG SCREEN: The Secret Life of Pets Revieux (PG)

If you’ve ever looked into your pets eyes and SWORE you could read their minds, this movie will probably feel like confirmation. Desperately missing you while you’re gone, expressing disdain for ho-hum kibble -- and I really need to create a meme of Chloe the cat (Lake Bell) saying, “As your friend, I’ve gotta be honest with you, I don’t care about you or your problems.” Hilarious!

But the star of the movie is content little Max the terrier (Louis C.K.), who’s living the perfect life with his doting owner and fellow pet buddies in a high-rise building in New York. He's devastated, however, when said-owner adopts a giant, disruptive mutt named Duke, and everything is ruined. As they clash and try to find ways to get rid of each other, the two dogs wind up loose on the streets where they fight ferocious alley cats, dogcatchers, and a deranged bunny/gang leader (Kevin Hart). A motley crew of pets mobilizes to rescue them, but help comes from an even more unlikely source.

My son and I go to LOTS of movies, and we’ve been watching the adorable and very lengthy trailers for months and months waiting for this movie’s release. All the while, I’ve worried that they gave too much away -- what can possibly be left after so many super cute scenes were revealed in the previews? Turns out, they did, indeed, give away too much. The movie still holds up, but some of the very best scenes lacked comedic impact because we knew all the punchlines already, darn it!

Having said that, it’s still an enjoyable movie, and they truly captured the exact essence of what I assume my neurotic, codependent dog goes through every time I leave the house. Louis C.K. is perfect for the voice of Max, and Jenny Slate manages to make a squeaky but determined little fluffball dog rather endearing, but it’s Kevin Hart who really steals the show with his over-the-top, high-octane delivery as Snowball, the borderline psychotic rabbit. Other members of the stellar cast include Dana Carvey, Albert Brooks, Ellie Kemper, Eric Stonestreet, and Bobby Moynihan.

Overall, it's just a fun little summer family movie. It opens today, July 8. Go here for local showtimes.  

BIG SCREEN: Pixels Revieux (Rated PG-13)

Hearing that Adam Sandler is in a movie has a similar effect on me these days as hearing that Keanu Reeves was in a movie had on me back in the 90s. Cringe. Pass.

But, that’s mean and sort of unfair. Everyone deserves a millionth chance, right? Besides, my kid really wanted to see Pixels, so off we went. Because that’s what moms do. Sigh.

Pixels opens in 1982 with two kids excitedly rushing to a newly opened arcade. (Behold, the arcade! The only thing my kid has ever found appealing about my childhood. He audibly gasped at the sight of a huge room full of flashing, beeping, blinking video games. As he should. Arcades were, indeed, awesome!) One of the kids finds that he has insane gaming skills and winds up the runner-up in a world championship. These skills come in handy when, 30 years later, aliens misinterpret old video game feeds as declarations of war, and use the games as models for their attacks on Earth. The president (Kevin James) calls on that washed up video gamer, aka his best bud Sam Brenner (Adam Sandler), to lead a team of other former gamers (Peter Dinklage and Josh Gad) in saving the planet.

I was very surprised to see Sandler and James turn in much more understated performances than they usually do, instead letting Gad (you know him as the voice of Olaf from Frozen!) and Dinklage (Game of Thrones/Elf) steal the show. Gad plays an uber-nerdy conspiracy theorist given to hilarious outbursts, while Dinklage is an overconfident, delightfully creepy dude with bad hair and questionable scruples.

I fully expected a giant bucket of stupid from this movie, but it was way more entertaining than I imagined. I love being pleasantly surprised! The soundtrack, video game graphics, and 3-D are cool, and while the story is certainly silly, they kept the pointless gags and really bad dialogue to a minimum, which was a huge relief. Adam Sandler seemed a bit haggard and tired, to be honest -- but I’ll cut my middle-aged brother a break. A little more energy from him would have been nice, but years of silly voices and over-the-top performances are sure to wear a dude out eventually, I suppose.

Overall, Pixels is some no-harm, no-foul fun, but earns its PG-13 rating pretty much solely from some scattered bad language, in case that kind of thing bothers you. It opens on Friday, July 24. Go here for local showtimes and theaters.

BIG SCREEN: Minions Revieux (Rated PG)

Spin-off movies face really high expectations, especially if the original movies were as universally loved as Despicable Me and Despicable Me 2. And for any contemporary family movie to be really great, it needs to (a) entertain the parents, as well as the kids (b) save up some surprises that aren’t revealed in the trailer, and (c) make my kid laugh so hard he can’t catch his breath. I’m happy to report that Minions succeeds on all levels!

As the movie opens, we get to witness the very origins of the Minion species, and their incessant drive to find the baddest bad guy to serve -- all narrated in Geoffrey Rush’s delightfully dulcet tones.They make some bizarre, hilarious choices throughout history, but when they get stuck in a masterless rut, three intrepid guys -- Bob, Stuart, and Kevin -- set out to find a great villain that will get them back on track, and save all Minion-kind.

The year is 1968, and the greatest villain of the moment is actually the world’s first female super villain, Scarlet Overkill, voiced by Sandra Bullock. The trio is given a trial run as her henchmen, and their lives -- and the future of all the Minions -- depends on their success. So, naturally, many mishaps and much mayhem ensue. (And the soundtrack, by the way, is extra groovy!)

I had high hopes, but low expectations going into this movie. I’ve been disappointed by far too many spinoffs (Penguins of Madagascar) and sequels (Night at the Museum 3) lately, and I was also concerned that the Minion gibberish would become annoying at least halfway through the movie. But I was pleasantly surprised. The movie is full of fun plot twists you just don’t see coming, and there were countless times when I wanted to hit the rewind and/or pause button because I was certain I’d missed funny stuff, given the many layers of comedic details they crammed in. (Another hallmark of a good movie -- immediately planning to watch the DVD!)

Minions opens in gazillions of theaters today. For local theaters and showtimes, go here.

BIG SCREEN: Inside Out Revieux (Rated PG)

Emotional turmoil is a very tough concept for kids to comprehend. When bad or difficult situations arise, how do you help them cope? Inside Out tackles just that.

As the movie opens, we meet young Riley, a happy 11-year-old girl living in Minnesota with her parents. We also meet the colorful team of emotions -- Joy (Amy Poehler), Sadness (Phyllis Smith), Anger (Lewis Black), Disgust (Mindy Kaling), and Fear (Bill Hader) -- who operate the machinery inside her head. It’s an elaborate and carefully constructed combination of amusement park and industrial complex, all designed to catalog memories and keep her emotionally stable.  Everything is great, until she and her parents move to San Francisco. The stress of the situation gets the better of her, and despite everyone's best efforts, the entire system crashes, and Riley stands on the brink of a very dangerous emotional breakdown.

Great topic, right? I love a kids’ movie that actually tries to teach a vital lesson. However, in this case, I think the filmmakers bit off more than they could chew. 

But, let’s start with the positives. I was immediately struck by the vibrant colors and cool animation of the emotions. It’s certainly a very delightful movie to look at, and the casting is brilliantly, ridiculously right on. Amy Poehler was born to do animated voiceover work. Her energy is very similar to that of Ellen Degeneres, probably my favorite voice actor of all time. If the name Phyllis Smith doesn’t ring a bell, she played Phyllis on The Office -- and is perfect for the droll voice of Sadness. But my favorite was definitely Lewis Black, who made me laugh every time his character spoke. To have such a caustic comedian voice the animated embodiment of anger in a kids’ movie is just too perfect. Mindy Kaling and Bill Hader do great jobs, too, but their characters are not nearly really scene stealers like the others.

On the flipside, while I really liked the concept of helping kids to understand the role that various emotions play in their overall character and well-being, I think it went a little too high concept. I loved how Joy and Sadness wind up realizing how they have to work together, but there’s a whole lot of convoluted stuff that gets in the way of this message. Subconscious? Core memories? Abstract thought? What little kid is going to understand and stay focused on any of this? I like to think I’m a fairly smart grownup, and they lost even my attention several times.

Inside Out is definitely an original movie with a fabulous cast, which earns it a lot of brownie points. But losing sight of your audience is a huge problem. It’s probably not ideal for kiddos with extra short attention spans.

It opens today, Friday, June 19. Go here for local theaters and times.

BIG SCREEN: Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) - (Rated R)

If you pay any attention to movie industry scuttlebutt, no doubt you’ve heard at least some of the Oscar buzz surrounding Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance). Critics are falling all over themselves with praise for it, declaring it the year’s best film, and a shoo-in for an Academy Award or two. But, for me, this wasn’t a simple thumbs-up or thumbs-down kind of movie. (Gasp!) If that excludes me from the cool kids’ table, well -- I can live with that. Probably won’t be the last time.

Birdman is a dark comedy that stars Michael Keaton as Riggan Thomson, an aging actor whose uber successful super-hero movie franchise made him rich and famous back in the day. Decades later, we find him plagued by (a) self-doubt, (b) the notion that he sold his soul and integrity to Hollywood, and (c) a menacing phantom voice -- that of Riggan as Birdman (a la, Keaton as Batman) -- which constantly fills his head with delusions of grandeur and super powers from yesteryear. In an attempt to prove his relevance and regain some dignity, Riggan is writing, directing and starring in a Broadway play, based on the work of the highly respected writer and poet, Raymond Carver. He’s desperate for the play to be successful, and terrified it’ll fail -- and with good reason, especially considering the cast of characters surrounding him.

First, there’s his troubled daughter (Emma Stone) who’s fresh out of rehab, begrudgingly working as his assistant, and hellbent on constantly reminding him of his failures as a father and a legitimate actor. His jittery producer (Zach Galifianakis) is truly trying to be supportive of his friend, but recognizes the potential disaster at hand, and is ready to just pull the plug and go home. His new co-star (Edward Norton) is a loose cannon and veteran of the theater. He’s beloved by the critics and represents Riggan’s most urgent desires and fears, while undermining him at every turn. His lead actress (Naomi Watts) is the embodiment of all the worst acting stereotypes -- desperate for validation, emotionally fragile, and a terrible judge of character -- both her own and others’. There’s also a horribly elitist New York Times theater critic (Lindsay Duncan) who promises to destroy the show, based merely on her hatred of Riggan’s Hollywood pedigree. And finally, there’s Birdman himself. Though he’s a figment of Riggan’s imagination, his incessant nagging about returning to their vapid, but lucrative and familiar movie roots seems destined to send Riggan right over the edge. Quite literally.

That’s really the big, lingering question throughout the movie… will Riggan go completely insane, or will he achieve the critical success he craves?

It’s a pretty good premise, right? I think we all can relate to his inner conflict as he strives to reach his goal. Should you measure success by wealth, or by personal satisfaction? Is your identity based on who you think you are, or how others perceive you? Can you possibly hope to completely overhaul your life and correct past mistakes in your later years?

Great questions. But I can’t say that Birdman does a particularly thorough job addressing them.

While it’s fascinating to witness the dissection of these egomaniacal, narcissistic actors and the battle of Hollywood schlock vs. Broadway grit, in order to really connect with a movie’s characters and their struggles, I really need to either sympathize with them, or to find them relatable. There are moments -- squeezed in between wink-wink, nudge-nudge industry jokes about X-men prequels and Robert Downey, Jr.’ acting abilities -- when Birdman comes awfully close to achieving this. It frequently hovers right on the edge, but because it remains so focused on Riggan the actor and all the sad and comical trappings of the profession, I never got that raw, painful moment of truth I was hoping for, when all the artifice is stripped away, and we get to the core of the actual man. Maybe that was their point -- that there’s nothing behind an actor’s facade? But, I doubt it. That seems a bit too cynical, even by Hollywood standards.

All that being said, Birdman has a lot of other things going for it. While so many movies today go crazy with quick edits and jumpy hand-held camera sequences, Birdman takes the opposite approach with smooth, seamless long shots that create an endlessly unflinching effect throughout the movie. It’s also filled with really great performances. I mean, how could you go wrong with a cast like this? Especially with Keaton providing such enormous depth and texture, and Norton bringing his signature intensity and humor. I can certainly see how the Oscar buzz could pertain to the two of them.

Despite what I perceived as its shortcomings, Birdman is still a good movie, and worth seeing for its originality, cinematic style and great acting ensemble. I’ll be curious to see if moviegoers will be as blown away as the overwhelming majority of critics, or if they’ll be with me at the “uncool” kids’ table. (There’s plenty of room, I’ll save you a seat.)

BIG SCREEN: The Second Best Exotic Hotel (Rated PG)

You can’t help but smile when The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel opens with George Thorogood’s “Move It on Over” blaring as Maggie Smith (as the adorably prickly Muriel Donnelly) and Dev Patel (as the ever-optimistic Sonny Kapoor) are speeding down a highway in a convertible. Sonny politely refuses Muriel’s urgent request to put the top back up, simply stating, “This is Route 66, and we are most assuredly getting our kicks.”

(Really sets a fun tone, doesn’t it?)

For those who are unfamiliar, the first movie, The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel, introduced audiences to a group of British retirees who relocated to India with the promise of a lavishly restored luxury hotel in which to spend the rest of their days. What they found was a rather shabby shell of a property that had seen better days. Obviously meant to reflect much of the world’s view of elderly people being past their prime, the group learns to see themselves -- and their new home -- with fresh eyes, which means letting go of the past and finding a new perspective on life and love. In this sequel, the young proprietor, Sonny, is quickly becoming overwhelmed by his efforts to open a second hotel, and is dangerously close to ruining his relationship with his gorgeous fiancee (Tina Desai) as his wedding day is rapidly approaching. Meanwhile, each of the retirees finds themselves at a crossroads where love and important life events are concerned, as well.

To be honest, it’s hard to be overly critical of this movie. Filmmakers approached it with such a light touch -- it’s neither preachy nor kitschy nor overly sentimental, all of which would be easy to do, given the subject matter. Instead, it imparts some lovely lessons on life and love that pertain to both the young and old. It’s well-written, with just enough warmth and humor to make it endearing, without becoming too precious or cheeky. And, of course, it’s a visual pleasure, beautifully highlighting the rich textures, colors, and rituals of Indian culture.

All that being said, the absolute heart and soul of this movie lies in its exceptional ensemble cast, providing proof that there should be more opportunities for seasoned actors in Hollywood. It’s a who’s who of superb British actors: Judi Dench, Maggie Smith, Bill Nighy, Celia Imrie, and Ronald Pickup, to name a few. Even if you don’t recognize the names, the faces are instantly recognizable from previous memorable roles.

The one weak spot, I’m afraid I have to point out, is… Richard Gere. I mean, Richard Gere? What an odd choice. He plays a handsome stranger with questionable motives who shows up at the hotel and creates a bit of a stir. He’s handsome, for sure, but sadly, he adds very little more to the movie, and even detracts, if you ask me. I can’t recall ever being very impressed with any of his performances, but when thrown in with such a talented cast, his laid-back style seems incredibly lazy. And while all the other performances come across as charmingly effortless, Gere appears to rely solely on his charisma to carry him through the movie.

Thud. He falls very flat in an otherwise effervescent movie.

Truth be told, though I knew the premise, I only saw a portion of the first movie, so I was a little concerned that I wouldn’t be able to connect with its established characters and running storyline. But it’s a true testament to both the cast and filmmakers that the sequel stands so well on its own. It’s just such a hopeful and positive movie, providing a welcomed escape from whatever hardships and turmoil may be happening outside the theater doors. And isn’t that what a movie is supposed to do?

BIG SCREEN: Only Lovers Left Alive Revieux (Rated R)

Finding out that uber cool Tilda Swinton and Tom Hiddleston were starring in Only Lovers Left Alive was all the incentive I needed to go see this movie. That these two such otherworldly actors were playing vampires was just icing on the cake.

Okay so, this is the story of Adam and Eve. No, not that Adam and Eve, this pair is of the undead variety, living on separate continents and facing some serious issues. Adam is a brilliant underground musician who’s totally reclusive, vaguely suicidal, and living in an extra dilapidated section of Detroit. When his wife Eve, who has a surprisingly sunny disposition for a nosferatu, realizes he’s in a dangerously deep depression, she abandons her own decaying metropolis of Tangier to go help him out. Their sweet, passionate reunion is soon overshadowed, however, by the ominous news that Eve’s troublesome, unpredictable younger sister (Mia Wasikowska) is on her way, and likely to wreak havoc.

The good news is Swinton and Hiddleston (and the supporting cast, for that matter) carry the film with all the sophistication and refinement that one might expect of them. Despite seemingly infinite wealth, their characters each choose to live amidst urban decay. They dress like rock stars, they’ve rubbed elbows with all the long-dead (and one undead) literary greats, their musical taste is groovily eclectic, and their intellectual prowess is immense. All of this creates introductory scenes that are smooth and cool and mysterious and full of the promise that something really epic is going to happen here.  

I kept trying to guess where it was heading. They made a lot of references to humans’ increasingly contaminated blood and the planet’s dwindling natural resources, and their names are Adam and Eve -- are they planning to repopulate the world with vampires after some sort of apocalypse? They speak of Einstein and the theory of entanglement -- are they going to enlighten us with a new spin on some old properties of physics? Are they going to reveal some secret to life and existence that we raggedy, ignorant humans have missed?

No idea. Sadly, the story never truly goes anywhere, so they sort of just leave us hanging. Instead of developing a carefully constructed screenplay that creates some sort of a disturbing crescendo or reveals some great insight into the human condition, it’s like someone has just hurled handfuls of literary, cultural, scientific and historical references at the screen to see what would stick. And what we’re left with is a messy spaghetti pile of intention, but no real sense of purpose, other than to tell us mankind is doomed. Well, duh.

It’s a shame because it truly is beautifully shot, the soundtrack is great, the premise is interesting, the characters and cast are intriguing…  but it just winds up being a disappointing case of style over substance. What a waste.

Only Lovers Left Alive opens in New Orleans at The Theatres at Canal Place and AMC Elmwood 20 on May 9.

BIG SCREEN: The Past Revieux (PG-13)

As a middle-aged, married mom with a fairly normal (some might say boring) life, I sometimes reminisce about my younger years, when relationships meant drama and suspense and uncertainty. Exciting, right? Certainly never boring. But it’s stories like the one in The Past that make me thank my lucky stars that I grew out of all that and became good friends with the concept of normalcy.

In The Past, a man named Ahmad comes home to finalize his divorce from his wife, Marie, after a four-year absence. Seems like a simple task, but there are truckloads of complications awaiting him. First off, a new man has moved into Marie's house with his sweet young son, who's struggling with recent events. Secondly, Ahmad's teenage stepdaughter is desperately upset with her mother and the new man, and Marie has asked Ahmad to intervene. Plus, there seem to be unresolved feelings between Marie and Ahmad. Oh, and Marie is pregnant, and her boyfriend’s wife is in a coma after a suicide attempt that may or may not be a direct result of the affair.

Whew. The kids are confused and distressed, the parents aren’t handling the kids or the situation very well, people are making very questionable choices, and Ahmad somehow finds himself acting as the central diplomat in this web of messy relationships. It certainly has all the elements of an over-the-top melodrama, but the beauty of The Past is its delicate, subtle, honest approach, which results in a seamlessly told fable.

I try to make it a point to NOT do research on a movie before I see it, and I’m especially glad I didn’t do it in this case. I love going in without preconceived notions and being pleasantly surprised. Turns out, The Past was nominated for a slew of prestigious international film awards, and even won a couple of them, and I can certainly see why. It’s a French film, complete with subtitles, about and by Iranian people, but neither language nor cultural differences got in the way of the story. A delightful cast and flawless directing allow the universal themes involving love and family -- and the complexities that go along with both -- to easily shine through.

The Past opens in New Orleans on February 21 at The Theatres at Canal Place.

BIG SCREEN: The Invisible Woman Revieux (Rated R)

I’m one of those rare breeds who actually loves period films about uptight literary figures. High, starchy collars, airless rooms, Victorian tension that masks the passion burning beneath the surface… oh, the drama!  Especially when they’re about seemingly stodgy writers whose works vexed me in high school – yet, they turn out to be shameless adulterers or otherwise wicked people! Why didn’t they include these kinds of juicy details in those monotonous classroom lectures?!

Such is the plot of The Invisible Woman. It seems old Charles Dickens (Ralph Fiennes, who’s also the director) had a secret mistress named Nelly Ternan (Felicity Jones) who was both his lover and literary muse for 13 years. This film spotlights their relationship.

We first meet Nelly in the late 1800s, several years after Dickens’ death, when she's a troubled, distracted boys’ school drama teacher given to frantic walks on the beach and countryside, as though she’s trying to outrun something. Her husband is frustrated by her melancholia, and some old man, who’s convinced she’s got a secret, nags her about spilling the beans. This seems to unlock a torrent of memories that we, the audience, get to experience via flashback for much of the rest of the movie.

As a young girl, Nelly is the talentless member of an acting troop, comprised of her mother (Kristin Scott Thomas) and sisters. Charles Dickens has already achieved rock star status for his writing, so the ladies are delighted when he befriends them, paying extra attention to teenaged Nelly. Mom is reluctant to let her daughter get involved with a married man, but, as I mentioned, she’s a lousy actress and her future is uncertain. Nelly is insulted and disgusted by the concept at first, especially when mean old Chuck makes his sad, frumpy wife/mother of his ten children (she fits the description of “invisible woman,” too, fyi) hand deliver a gift to her. But of course, she eventually gives in, and the affair begins.

Sounds like a great setup for a deliciously passionate film, right? Well, it should be. While many of the elements I look for are well represented – really cool cast, beautiful costumes, gorgeous sets, and achingly tense Victorian restraint – there’s no real release or satisfying insight into the characters. It starts off weighty and rigid, and remains so through the long, drawn out, snail’s pace of a process that finally leads to the affair.

To be sure, there are some breathtakingly gorgeous, well-choreographed scenes that look like museum paintings come to life, but I wanted the relationship between these two people to come to life a little more. We’re allowed very tiny glimpses at their chemistry – a brief conversation, a quick picnic, a rather benign argument – but these interactions deserved a lot more attention and detail. Even their first physical encounter is meh. Not that I was looking for something pornographic, but considering they found it necessary to randomly show Dickens urinating into a chamber pot (yuck, why?!), I can’t figure out why they would be reluctant to loosen up a little on the more beautiful intimate moments!

It sort of boils down to being told of a great love affair, instead of being shown one. But what we’re shown is certainly beautiful to look at, and performed by an exquisite cast.

The Invisible Woman opens on January 24. Go here for local showtimes.

BIG SCREEN: 12 Years A Slave Revieux (Rated R)

It’s always chancy to read the book before seeing the movie that’s based on it. Way too often the book is a thousand times better, so the movie suffers in comparison. But I threw caution to the wind and read Twelve Years a Slave by Solomon Northup prior to the screening, with mixed results.

First of all, I really, really, really think the book should become required reading for high school kids. The perspective on slavery – and lesson in humanity -- is truly like no other. It’s written by an African-American man who was born a free man in 19^th century New York state. He enjoyed a pleasant, comfortable life with a wife, family, home, education, and respect from his racially mixed community. While he was certainly aware of the institution of slavery in the South, he was far removed from its terrifying reality – just like those of us who have only read about it in text books. So, when he describes being kidnapped, sold into slavery, and forced to endure all the ensuing horrors and hardships, the reader is able to identify with him, and experience the utter shock and hopelessness right along with him.

The movie -- which stars a perfectly cast Chiwetel Ejiofor as Solomon and was shot in and around New Orleans -- remains quite faithful to the plot and overall tone of the book, eschewing unnecessary dramatic elements, and sticking with a very realistic and stark portrayal of his journey.  Both the book and the movie are surprisingly even-handed in the portrayal of the very ugliest aspects of slavery, as well as the slightly less brutal side – which is, at best, depraved indifference, as opposed to outright depravity. In the movie, Michael Fassbender turns in a MASTERFUL performance as Edwin Epps, the heartless slave owner who terrorizes Solomon for ten of his twelve years in captivity. On the other end of the spectrum, Benedict Cumberbatch plays Master Ford, a much more sympathetic man, who is obviously conflicted by slavery, though still a very willing participant. (Brad Pitt, one of the producers, *somehow* managed to land the pivotal role of the film's ultimate good guy. Which is fine, I guess. I mean, he was the boss and all, but his presence is sort of random and disruptive, if you ask me.) 

One of the benefits of having read the book is the slight advantage of knowing what’s coming. Not that it’s easier to see the nightmares and heartbreaks play out on screen, but having already experienced them in written form allowed me to sort of steel myself a bit more when I knew tough, tough scenes were coming. But they are, indeed, still very tough to watch.

Anyone who hasn’t read the book will probably be completely unaware of what I consider to be a really important missed opportunity in the movie. What makes the book so powerful is Solomon’s voice. His eloquence, gentle insight, and even his incredibly detailed understanding of the mechanics of running plantations and their mills, creates more depth of character, and it establishes a respectful intimacy with the reader. So, why in the world didn’t the movie use a little voice over narration to replicate a little of that intimacy and point of view? I think it would’ve elevated a very good movie to a GREAT one. But, they didn’t ask me, so there ya go.

Overall, I highly recommend 12 Years a Slave. Phenomenal cast, haunting locations, and some pretty devastating directing. It's truly astounding to know you're basically watching reenactments of real events that happened to, and because of, real people. The movie may be a bit too brutal for younger teens, but the book is a must.

12 Years a Slave is now playing in theaters. For local theaters and showtimes, please go here.

BIG SCREEN: Blue Jasmine Revieux (Rated PG-13)

I suppose I should preface this by admitting that I was already a total jittery wreck, full of decongestant and coffee, when I arrived at the screening of Woody Allen’s latest film. I would’ve either skipped that last coffee, or maybe sucked down a Bloody Mary beforehand had I known more about the nature of Blue Jasmine. But, as per my usual pre-screening habit, I made sure not to read anything about it in advance so that I could be pleasantly surprised. 

(It has nothing to do with being lazy and unprepared. Really.)

So, the plot… Cate Blanchett plays a woman named Jasmine, and she’s really unhappy. (Get it? Blue Jasmine?) She’s a pampered Park Avenue wife who’s trying to regain her footing after her unscrupulous husband (Alec Baldwin) gets taken down by the feds, leaving her homeless and penniless. With nowhere else to turn, she moves in with her estranged, blue-collar sister Ginger (Sally Hawkins) in San Francisco, and thus begins her steady decline into madness.

She's much like I image Annie Hall would’ve turned out, if she’d gone on to become a shallow, soulless socialite. She’s perpetually nervous and jumpy, she talks to herself in public, and is quite fond of booze and pills. Despite feeling like I needed to breathe into a paper bag just watching her, I was willing to see where this anxiety-ridden little ride was heading at first. But I started to disconnect when I was expected to believe that a socially agile, modern woman -- who’d spearheaded multiple Manhattan charity events -- would have no idea how to operate a computer. As in, could barely turn one on. As in, she couldn’t even shop for Louis Vuitton bags on the Nieman Marcus website if her life depended on it.  And it’s the only thing keeping her from launching an interior design career, and therefore getting her life back on track.  M-kay.

What saves this movie from being totally "meh" for me is Cate Blanchett’s beautifully executed portrayal of this woman’s tragic and sloppy decline.  Impeccably dressed, but sporting perpetual mascara smudges and a Stoli buzz, she give us insight into the perspective of those wealthy women who enjoy their husbands’ ill-gotten riches, but turn a conveniently blind eye to the piracy behind the acquisition of the treasure – a la, Ruth Madoff.

Yes, this is definitely the Cate Blanchett show. But while none of the supporting characters were particularly interesting (Alec Baldwin as a morally corrupt husband? Ho-hum. What a stretch.), it was a treat to see an aging Andrew Dice Clay and Louis C.K. take on rather non-comedic roles. 

Being that I’m a big Woody Allen fan, I have certain expectations of his projects, and was pretty bummed when I realized this movie was not going to be chock full of his usual witty dialogue and playful neuroses. That, in itself, is not a crime. I guess he was going for a little social commentary and a character study, which I could appreciate, but overall, it really never hits its stride.

Bummer, indeed.

Now, where's that Xanax?

BIG SCREEN: Trance Revieux (Rated R)

I'm always excited about seeing a Danny Boyle film. He has such a signature energy that I always connect with, and this energy leaped off the screen from the very first scene in Trance.

Trance tells the story of a fine art auctioneer named Simon (James McAvoy) who gets caught up in a brazen heist. With the assistance of his charming, Scottish voiceover, we’re shown the auction house’s detailed security measures, then we witness a choreographed robbery, and Simon’s subsequent head injury at the hands of one of the thieves.  When the thieves discover they don’t actually have the valuable painting they thought they'd stolen, they go after Simon, who is now suffering from amnesia. To locate the missing painting, they enlist the help of hypnotherapist, Elizabeth Lamb (Rosario Dawson). And this is when the real fun begins, as there's a lot more than they bargained for locked up in Simon's injured brain. The movie becomes a big, tangled web of recalled memories and post-hypnotic suggestion, which are often indecipherable from each other.

Okay, is this really happening? Or is he under hypnosis? Who is actually recalling this memory? Who’s the real bad guy here? Wait, I’m perplexed. Whoa, Rosario Dawson is completely nude -- the girls got guts (and a rockin' bod)!

Working off the premise that seeing is not necessarily believing, This twisty, turny little romp employs all the wit and cadence and cool music that come standard in the artistic arsenal of director Danny Boyle to offset all the violence and confusion.

McAvoy is a delightful cross between Ewan McGregor and Edward Norton, and Vincent Cassell, as the leader of the band of crooks, is a charismatic scene-stealer. But, Dawson actually holds her own amidst a big cluster of dudes. One minute  a beguiling minx, the next a terrified victim, she is an essential component in the unpredictability of the movie.

Trance is a crisp, energetic, mind-trippy little caper. I’ve never had so much fun being left a bit baffled and unsure if I actually reached the correct conclusion in the end. 

BIG SCREEN: The Place Beyond the Pines Revieux (Rated R)

While I’ve never truly understood why so many women are so rabidly ga-ga for Ryan Gosling, I will say that opening a movie with images of his shirtless torso covered in tattoos is quite a pleasant attention-getter. And having him straddle a motorcycle with a cigarette dangling from his lips, yeah – I'll admit that had a little bit of a ga-ga effect.

In The Place Beyond the Pines, a bleach-blond Gosling plays a gritty motorcycle daredevil, aptly named “Awesome Luke,” who performs with a traveling carnival. When he reconnects with a former conquest (Eva Mendes), and discovers that she has given birth to their child, the nomadic bad boy decides to stick around and give fatherhood a go. Having grown up without a father himself, he has no clue how to be one, and comes to the misguided conclusion that robbing banks is his best option for providing for his child.

Bradley Cooper plays a cop whose run-in with Luke forever alters his life, and the lives of both of their sons. And thus begins a chain of events that affect and connect two generations of the two families. The movie strings together three separate narratives that illustrate the dramatic domino effect, set in motion by Luke’s choices.

Sounds interesting , right? In theory, it is.

Out of curiosity, I scanned the internet to see what other reviewers thought of the movie, and sure enough, I found that I’m in the minority in my lack of enthusiasm for it. The premise is certainly intriguing, the cast is great (it's sort of a battle of blue-eyed brooders, if you will), and I think it had the potential to be really cool. But, to me, it was poorly executed and the pacing was atrocious! I checked the time at about an hour in, and realized I still had an hour and twenty minutes to go. I managed to contain my audible groan, but just barely.

Many people say it’s brilliantly clever, but I must have had a rare moment of clairvoyance, because I saw most of it coming from a mile away. The movie certainly maintains a very dangerous, desperate vibe throughout, but I just didn’t find the characters sympathetic or compelling enough to keep me adequately invested the whole time. As far as I know, I don’t suffer from A.D.D., but it felt like the movie slowed to a snail’s pace, and it lost me more and more as it progressed.

I was also very disappointed to see Ray Liotta and character actor Robert Clohessy tossed in as ubiquitous two-dimensional, almost cartoonish bad cops. Why try to elevate such throw-away characters by using such familiar, beloved actors who are capable of so much more? Quite a letdown.

So, bleh. I had high hopes, but The Place Beyond the Pines just left me flat. Bummer.

BIG SCREEN: Amour Revieux (PG-13)

I was so excited to finally see Amour, the French film that’s up for Oscars in the categories of Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Actress in a Leading Role. I had read nothing about it, so I had no real expectations, but I’m a sucker for arty foreign films. And, I mean, a French film called Amour? Pass the champagne and bring on the high-brow, chic, European romance!

Um, yeah. Not that kind of amour.

This Amour is the story of an elderly couple, Georges (Jean-Louis Trintignant) and Anne (Emmanuelle Riva), whose pleasant, comfortable life together is cruelly disrupted when Anne suffers a series of strokes that slowly rob her of control of her body. Georges resists suggestions from others to institutionalize her, opting to care for her himself at home. Naturally, this becomes increasingly difficult, and his love for her is put to the ultimate test.

So, yeah -- the subject matter is pretty bleak, but it certainly sets the stage for an amazing love story. Unfortunately, the film is so dedicated to portraying the ugliness of physical decline that it fails to give enough attention to beauty of love.

While I applaud the film's brutal honesty, I really wanted to see more dimension. Georges and Anne’s devotion to each other is apparent, but I found myself wanting to catch a glimpse of how things were between them in happier, more youthful days. I wanted a more complete picture of these lovely individuals and their relationship so that I could become emotionally invested, instead of merely witnessing this painful deterioration. As it stands, Amour felt more like a documentary than a fictional film. This is, of course, a testament to the actors’ incredibly believable performances, but other than a few tender moments and a couple of snapshots in a photo album, there’s no real context beyond this almost clinical look at the cruelty of aging.

Now, I’m not one who requires sappy music and a happy Hollywood ending, but this thing should come with a free prescription for Zoloft, for Pete’s sake! I got a little satisfaction out of the ending (I won’t ruin it for you), but I still walked out of the theater wondering if I should rush home to write out my living will, or just go suck on an exhaust pipe, and get it over with!

I think Ms. Riva is certainly deserving of her nomination, but I’ll be shocked if Amour takes home any other awards. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to try to lighten up with a volume of Shakespeare’s tragedies while listening to "La Boheme."

Amour opens in New Orleans at The Theatres at Canal Place on Friday, February 15.

BIG SCREEN: Les Miserables Revieux (PG-13)

The timing of the release of this screen adaptation of Les Miserables is especially poignant, as the emotions it evokes seem to mirror the roller coaster of emotions our country is experiencing right now. We’ve been mired in the horror and heartbreak of terrible tragedy that has brought about acts of kindness that serve to renew our faith in humanity. So, be prepared. It’s quite a cathartic experience!

So, the plot… a 19th century Frenchman named Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman) is finally released from prison after serving nineteen grueling years for stealing a loaf of bread. As he jumps parole and tries to make a new, meaningful life for himself, he’s ceaselessly hunted by Javert (Russell Crowe), the man who made his life extra hellish in prison. Just as he’s about to surrender to Javert, Valjean finds a new reason to remain free when he vows to raise the young daughter of a destitute, dying factory worker (Anne Hathaway), and later finds himself fighting alongside the passionate young rebels of the French Revolution.

In addition to the breathtaking cinematography and wonderful directing by Tom Hooper (The King's Speech), what makes this version so successful is the casting. Pure genius, with maybe one or two missteps.

Anne Hathaway and Hugh Jackman are just astounding. Hathaway’s raw portrayal of Fantine is just hard to comprehend. The musical’s signature song, “I Dreamed a Dream” has been done a zillion times, yet she manages to totally own and reinterpret it in a gut-wrenching fashion. How the heck do you emote and sob to the degree that she did, while maintaining vocal control? If they did overdubs, I don’t want to know.

And Jackman’s amazing transformation into a hollow, unrecognizable shell of a man at the start of the film is mindboggling. He then proceeds to ably carry the entire film, and beautifully performs some seriously, seriously difficult songs. Holy smokes, is that dude talented.

The child actors are all heartbreakingly spot-on, Helena Bonham Carter and Sacha Baron Cohen as the innkeeper and his wife are brilliantly absurd, and the rest of the supporting cast members just nail it. Then, there’s Russell Crowe. One of the aforementioned missteps. Oh, Russell. Bless his heart, he’s not bad, but next to all the powerhouses, he just falls short. You can sense the incredible amount of effort he puts into the role, but it just doesn’t measure up to everyone else. I felt sort of the same way about Amanda Seyfried as the adult Cosette. The acting was great, the vocals just didn’t do it for me. Bummer.

Other than those two blips, the rest of the film is just perfection. Do yourself a favor, though – be sure to go with fellow musical lovers. It’s pretty faithful to the stage play – all singing, all the time for two-and-a-half hours. Trust me, you do not want to sit next to someone sighing and squirming throughout the movie, as I did. You may also want to make a pact with your fellow moviegoers to be allowed to freely and openly weep, as needed. I seriously would like to rent an entire theater out for myself so I can sing and sob to my heart’s content.

It’s a true masterpiece. Enjoy!

BIG SCREEN: The Dark Knight Rises Revieux (PG-13)

You know how men scoff at chick flicks for their implausibility? And women argue that we KNOW the plots and romantic scenarios are sort of ridiculous, but we’re willing to suspend disbelief and just enjoy the experience? Well, I think The Dark Knight Rises is the dude equivalent of a great chick flick.

So, in this, the final installment of Christopher Nolan's Batman franchise, Bruce Wayne has hung up his suits (both the Bat and tuxedo varieties), and withdrawn from the world, letting himself and his company fall into ruin. Broken in body and soul ever since the traumas he endured eight years ago in The Dark Knight, he’s pretty much become a recluse at stately Wayne Manor. It’s only after – you guessed it – Gotham City really needs him that he gets back in the game.

As for the cast, Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Gary Oldman, and Morgan Freeman are back as Batman, Alfred, Commissioner Gordon, and Lucious Fox, respectively. New to the mix are Joseph Gordon-Levitt as a rookie cop who seems to be the only brave and logical man on the force; Anne Hathaway as icy, badass “cat burglar,” Selina Kyle; and Tom Hardy as Bane, a terrifying, partially masked, Darth Vader-y terrorist leader who takes the whole city hostage, and turns an energy fusion core, developed by Wayne Enterprises, into a nuclear bomb that’s set to demolish the city.

Suffice it to say, Batman and the citizen of Gotham wind up facing some insurmountable odds. Like, really, truly, impossibly impossible odds. That’s where the suspension of disbelief was truly tested for me. But, I’ve heard that critics who’ve written negatively about the film have gotten death threats, so perhaps I’ll get to the positive stuff first… Cool Bat vehicles. Elaborate sets, locations, and special effects. Amazing cast. Impressively unnerving bad guy.

Okay, now the not-so positive stuff. First of all, it was kind of overly ambitious, in both population and scale, which made it a bit cluttered and clunky. Sometimes just a tad less is more. Also, uh -- Bruce wears pointy ears, a cape, and fake torso muscles, but he has absolutely no wit or sense of humor. I find costumed people who take themselves too seriously to be really funny, which, I’m sure, was not the desired effect, so that was a little distracting. A little self-deprecating levity might have also made the little spinklings of bad dialogue, which are totally acceptable and sort of expected in action movies, a little more palatable. I was also a little distracted by a few questionable plot points that made the aforementioned suspension of disbelief a bit tough for me. Once “wait a minute, he couldn’t have…” starts rattling around in my brain, it’s a problem for me.

It’s been eight long years since The Dark Knight came out, so perhaps you’ve forgotten or never saw it in the first place, but this franchise doesn’t exactly produce the kid-friendly variety of PG-13 material. I take my six-year-old son to the occasional PG-13 movie, such as The Amazing Spider-Man, which was totally fine for him. But I would not take him to this one. Not only is it incredibly long (almost three hours – even I got a little squirmy), but it’s far more frighteningly sinister and intense than most comic book-inspired movies. He’s disappointed, of course, but this ain’t Xbox Lego Batman.

Anyway, it’s quite an impressive spectacle overall, and I’m pretty sure most serious Batman fans will approve. And, I suppose, if I can allow myself to shrug off the implausibility of a one-handed Nicolas Cage falling in love with Cher because she cries at the opera (yeah, I’m talkin’ Moonstruck, people), then maybe this movie can be forgiven for its little shortcomings.

The Dark Knight Rises is now showing in New Orleans. Go here for theaters and showtimes.