X-MEN: DAYS OF FUTURE PAST – A Hit But No Home Run

0

X-Men-Days-of-Future-Past-2014Movie Review: X-MEN: DAYS OF FUTURE PAST (2014)
By
Michael Arruda

I really enjoyed X-MEN: FIRST CLASS (2011), the film that chronicled the early relationship between Charles Xavier (James McAvoy) and Erik Lehnsherr (Michael Fassbender), the two characters who would become Professor Xavier and Magneto in the X-MEN universe. In fact, X-MEN: FIRST CLASS is one of my favorite superhero movies.

So, it goes without saying, I was excited and eager to see X-MEN: DAYS OF FUTURE PAST, the latest in the Marvel X-MEN series, a film which through the magic of time travel would unite characters from FIRST CLASS with the characters from the previous X-Men films, an anchoring both time periods would be the most iconic of the film X-Men, Wolverine (Hugh Jackman).

How could such a perfect premise go wrong? How indeed!

X-MEN: DAYS OF FUTURE PAST opens in the near future when the Sentinels, an army of robots, are at war with both the mutants and the humans, and it’s a war that the Sentinels are winning. It is learned that the Sentinels are unstoppable because back in 1973, their creator Dr. Bolivar Trask (Peter Dinklage) obtained the DNA of Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence) and used it on his robots, giving them the ability to replicate and take on the form of their opponents, in effect using the mutants’ own powers against them.

Professor Xavier (Patrick Stewart) and Magneto (Ian McKellen) decide to send Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) back in time to 1973 to convince their younger selves to put aside their differences and stop Mystique from falling into Trask’s hands, all in an effort to save the future. They are able to do this through a new special ability possessed by Kitty Pride (Ellen Page), and it is Pride who transports Wolverine’s consciousness back to 1973 where it enters his body there so that he can find both the younger Professor Xavier (James McAvoy) and the younger Magneto (Michael Fassbender).

So Wolverine returns to 1973 and the time travel game is afoot.

I’ll cut right to the chase and say up front that I was disappointed with X-MEN: DAYS OF FUTURE PAST. I expected this one to be a home run, a classic, the best of the series, but it’s not. Is it a bad movie? No. It’s just a mediocre one.

First and foremost, its time travel adventure isn’t really all that exciting. It gets stuck on its one central plot point and never seems to move beyond it. The mission is clear: Wolverine and friends must stop Dr. Trask from getting Mystique’s DNA. This simple plot point needed something else, some complications to take the story to the next level. It fails to do this.

Magneto, for example, being Magneto, has an agenda of his own, and I was eager to see where this sinister side would take the story. Unfortunately, it doesn’t take the story very far, as his agenda isn’t all that ambitious and sadly doesn’t amount to much.

For a time travel story, it’s nowhere near as playful or as creative as it needs to be. While there are a few moments here and there— such as when Wolverine pokes fun at Beast’s comment that they have “three main TV channels plus PBS”— there are not enough of them.

James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender are two dynamic actors who dominated X-MEN FIRST CLASS and drove that movie along. They’re very good here once again, but in a larger cast, they have less to do and simply don’t have as prominent a role in the proceedings as they did in the earlier movie.

Hugh Jackman, who in the past has nailed the role of Wolverine and made it his own, is somewhat more down to earth here and doesn’t seem to possess the same energy or spark he has demonstrated in earlier portrayals.

Jennifer Lawrence, one of the most talented actresses working today, is completely wasted here as Mystique. She really doesn’t get to do anything which allows her to show off her acting talents.

While I was happy to see Patrick Stewart back as Professor Xavier, and Ian McKellen as Magneto, neither one is in this movie all that much, and both seem old and tired. The majority of the original X-Men cast are featured in nothing more than glorified cameos.

I did enjoy Nicholas Hoult as Beast, reprising the role from X-MEN: FIRST CLASS, and he fares better in these movies than he did in WARM BODIES (2013) and JACK THE GIANT SLAYER (2013).

Stealing the movie however is Evan Peters as Quicksilver, the mutant who possesses incredible speed. The scene where Quicksilver helps Wolverine, Xavier, and Beast break Magneto out of his prison cell deep beneath the Pentagon is by far the best scene in the movie. It’s really too bad that Quicksilver was featured in this movie so briefly.

Director Bryan Singer, who directed the first two X-Men movies, does an okay job here. The film looks fine, but other than the aforementioned Quicksilver scene, there really aren’t any other memorable scenes in this movie, action or otherwise.

Probably the weakest link of X-MEN: DAYS OF FUTURE PAST is the screenplay by Simon Kinberg. Oddly, Kinberg wrote the screenplay for X-MEN: THE LAST STAND (2006), largely considered to be the worst in the series. Why he would be asked to pen this latest film is beyond me. I didn’t really enjoy the story to this one, as it never moved beyond its central plot point about Mystique’s DNA, and it never offered creative diversions and pathways which could have lifted its story to higher levels. It also didn’t really take advantage of its time travel storyline. In terms of creativity, it’s all pretty standard.

The buzz is out there: X-MEN: DAYS OF FUTURE PAST is one of the best superhero movies ever made, a topnotch summer blockbuster. Unfortunately, I didn’t see it this way.

Rather, X-MEN: DAYS OF FUTURE PAST is an okay superhero movie that features a very talented cast working beneath their potential for the simple reason that the material they’re working with, the story, isn’t up to snuff.

The scenes in the future are stagnant. The scenes in the past are ordinary. And the two never really meet to any degree of satisfaction.

X-MEN: DAYS OF FUTURE PAST may be a hit at the box office, but it’s not the home run it should have been.

—END—

 

THE HORROR JAR: Movies starring PETER CUSHING, CHRISTOPHER LEE, and VINCENT PRICE

0

 

Christopher Lee, Peter Cushing, and Vincent Price in HOUSE OF THE LONG SHADOWS (1983), the second and last time they would all appear in one movie together.

Christopher Lee, Peter Cushing, and Vincent Price in HOUSE OF THE LONG SHADOWS (1983), the second and last time they would all appear in one movie together.

THE HORROR JAR: Movies Starring Peter Cushing, Christopher Lee, and Vincent Price
By Michael Arruda

Welcome to another edition of THE HORROR JAR, that column where we feature various lists of odds and ends pertaining to horror movies.

Peter Cushing, Christopher Lee, and Vincent Price all share birthdays in May: Cushing on May 26 and both Lee and Price on May 27.

To celebrate the birthdays of these three horror icons, here’s a list of movies in which all three stars, Peter Cushing, Christopher Lee, and Vincent Price appeared together. It’s a brief list, since it only happened twice:

SCREAM AND SCREAM AGAIN (1970)
An Amicus Production
Directed by Gordon Hessler
Screenplay by Christopher Wicking, based on the novel The Disoriented Man by Peter Saxon
Dr. Browning: Vincent Price
Fremont: Christopher Lee
Benedek: Peter Cushing
Running Time: 95 minutes

HOUSE OF THE LONG SHADOWS (1983)
Directed by Peter Walker
Screenplay by Michael Armstrong based on the novel Seven Keys to Baldpate by Earl Derr Biggers
Lionel Grisbane: Vincent Price
Corrigan: Christopher Lee
Sebastian Grisbane: Peter Cushing
Lord Grisbane: John Carradine
Running Time: 100 minutes

Sadly, neither of these movies is very good. But you can’t beat the cast!

Thanks for reading!

—Michael

What I’m Reading: Z – A NOVEL OF ZELDA FITZGERALD By Therese Anne Fowler

0

Zelda FitzgeraldWhat I’m Reading – Z – A Novel of Zelda Fitzgerald By Therese Anne Fowler
Book Review by MICHAEL ARRUDA

I often read in themes.

Last year, I taught a unit on The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald to a class of high school sophomores. This combined with the 2013 film THE GREAT GATSBY starring Leonardo Di Caprio, got me in the mood to read more Fitzgerald, and so I read Tender Is The Night  considered by many to be Fitzgerald’s most autobiographical novel.

Now comes Z- A Novel of Zelda Fitzgerald by Therese Anne Fowler, a fictional account of the life of Zelda Fitzgerald, the wife of F. Scott, who often is cited as being the ruin of her famous husband.

Z- A Novel of Zelda Fitzgerald paints a sympathetic portrait of Zelda Fitzgerald, and in this meticulously researched work of historical fiction, author Therese Anne Fowler takes the stance that more often than not, it was F. Scott Fitzgerald who incurred the majority of the damage in their troubled relationship, and it was Fitzgerald who actually held his wife back and ruined her career.

Z- A Novel of Zelda Fitzgerald opens with a teenage Zelda living in the Deep South—Montgomery, Alabama—with her large southern family, under the guiding hand of her patriarch father, the judge. When Zelda meets Scott, he is an officer in the army, on his way to serve in Europe in the Great War. Even during these early years, Scott is teeming with confidence and tells Zelda he’s going to be one of the greatest American authors. They fall in love, much against her father’s wishes, who sees life as an author as a poor career, one that will not be able to support his daughter. But they will have to wait, as Scott is about to be shipped off to Europe.

During these early scenes, Fowler really brings the courtship of these two young lovers to life. Take this scene, for example, where Zelda and Scott dance for the first time:

He danced as well as any of my partners ever had- better, maybe. It seemed to me that the energy I was feeling that night had infused him, too; we glided through the waltz as if we’d been dancing together for years.

I liked his starched, woolly, cologne smell. His height, about five inches taller than my five feet four inches, was, I thought, the exact right height. His shoulders were the exact right width. His grip on my hand was somehow both formal and familiar, his hand on my waist both possessive and tentative. His blue-green eyes were clear, yet mysterious, and his lips curved just slightly upward.

The result of all this was that although we danced well together, I felt off-balance the entire time. I wasn’t used to this feeling, but, my goodness, I liked it.

 

Fate intervenes, as the Great War is suddenly over, and Scott is spared going off to battle. In a state of jubilation, Scott proposes to Zelda, promising her a wonderful life, eager to whisk her off to New York City for a grand time, one that she could never have imagined before. Seeing this as a once in a lifetime opportunity to leave her southern rural life behind, Zelda agrees. She and Scott marry, and the next thing she knows she’s living in the greatest city in the world, New York.

Zelda and Scott begin their life together on top of the world. Zelda is absolutely flabbergasted by everything in New York City, and she and Scott are head over heels in love with each other.

The buildings, the people, the noise of engines and whistles and voices, the commotion of cars clattering past! I glanced at my sister; she looked frightened. I laughed and said, “I might never leave!”

But when the entry and front spires of St. Patrick’s came into view, my eyes filled with tears. I’d never seen a structure that was at once so ornate and so serene. The sight- the complexity of architecture, the graceful, intricately carved spires towering over the street, inlaid with smaller intricately carved spires, all of them topped by crosses- literally stole my breath. No wonder the woman at the station had looked impressed.

The thought of being married in this church felt overwhelming, but fitting, too; I was convinced that ours was no ordinary union. Scott was no ordinary fiancé. How, though, had he engineered this?

 

And Scott even manages to make good on his promise to support her through his writing. His short stories sell with regularity, to great critical acclaim, and even better, for top dollar. His early novels, This Side of Paradise, The Beautiful and Damned, and The Great Gatsby also sell well, and money is not a problem for Scott and Zelda.

In this scene, Zelda and Scott spot a display of his novel in Scribner’s bookstore:

The window display featured a number of books individually. Copies of Scott’s, though, had been built into a pyramid that dominated the display. In front of the pyramid was a sign:

At only twenty-three years of age, Mr. F. Scott Fitzgerald is the youngest writer for whom Scribner’s have ever published a novel.

I said, “Is that true?”

Scott nodded.

“This is my husband’s book!” I shouted, pointing to the display. Passersby smiled. I turned to Scott and said, just to him, “And this is my husband.”

They become almost drunk with success.

“Are we rich?” I asked.

“We are unstoppable.”

Not quite. Scott and Zelda live way beyond their means, attending one social event after another, spending money on whatever they want, living the highlife, and consuming alcohol, plenty of alcohol. Scott even receives offers from Hollywood, where the real money is, and it seems for a time that they will be unstoppable. Even better, they become national celebrities, trend setters, and it seems the entire nation knows Scott and Zelda Fitzgerald.

But then the rejections start. Scott’s Hollywood scripts are turned down, and suddenly he finds himself suffering from massive writer’s block, as he can’t seem to finish his next novel. They move to Europe, where they socialize in a literary circle unheralded before this time. Scott meets Ernest Hemingway, who he sees as a younger author who he would like to mentor, but according to Zelda, he spends too much time helping Hemingway instead of his own works.

With Scott seemingly completely focused on Hemingway, Zelda begins to feel alone and ignored, and she seeks attention elsewhere. The pattern begins, an extramarital affair, depression, illness, Scott’s deepening alcoholism, and soon what was heaven is now hell.
Zelda tries her turn at writing, and she publishes several short stories, all of which she’s told by Scott and his agent must be published with both her name and Scott’s in the byline, as they wouldn’t sell without Scott’s name, even though Scott did not write them. Eventually, her name is dropped and only Scott’s remains, even though again, she wrote the story.

When Zelda is committed to a sanitarium, the doctors there tell her not to write anymore, because that will only upset her, and Scott agrees. She grows distant from her daughter Scottie, who grows closer to her father.

In this story, there are no happy endings. As Zelda fights to regain her mental health, she dreams of getting back together with Scott, who has professed to her that in spite of everything, he will never leave her, but at the age of 44, he does just that, dying of a heart attack, leaving Zelda alone. She lives the rest of her life in and out of sanitariums, and it is in a sanitarium that she dies, in a fire.

Z- A Novel of Zelda Fitzgerald by Therese Anne Fowler is a compelling read, mostly because Fowler has done such a masterful job of telling the story of Zelda and F. Scott Fitzgerald that it practically plays like fact. She captures the lives of these two flamboyant personalities so naturally and with such confident ease that it’s easy to accept these things as true.

The early scenes profiling Zelda’s infatuation with New York City are particularly effective. Fowler also does a fine job showing how much Zelda and Scott love each other, setting up the reader for the emotional toil of having to read the details of when it all goes downhill and falls apart. Then there’s Ernest Hemingway, portrayed here as a manipulative predator, who’s kind and accepting of Zelda until she rejects his sexual advances.

In an Afterward, author Fowler explains that she wrote this interpretation of the Fitzgeralds based on exhaustive research, and it shows, although she admits it’s difficult to find the truth, as the two sides, Scott’s on the one, and Zelda’s on the other, both blame each other for the other’s problems. Fowler writes that she based most of her story on what she found in the letters written by Scott and Zelda.

My favorite part is that Fowler depicts in Zelda and Scott a complicated relationship that at its core is held together by a love that neither one of the two ever wanted to see end. Through it all, the alcohol, the extra marital affairs, the writing struggles, the bouts with mental illness, Scott and Zelda never stopped loving each other, and it’s this central theme that Fowler keeps throughout the novel that makes the eventual ending all the more sad and tragic.

In spite of their problems, they truly loved each other.

Near the end, Zelda is devastated by one reviewer’s reference to her work as “the work of a wife,” that after all these years of trying to make it in the world on her own, she has never been able to get out of the shadow of her husband Scott, and that her legacy, how she will be remembered in the world, will be as the wife of F. Scott Fitzgerald. It’s at this point in the story that Zelda pretty much gives up.

Time magazine ran a review and had found a label for me: Work of a Wife, read the headline, and despite the praise that followed in the body of the review, I felt myself deflating.

That was it. W-I-F-E, my entire identity defined by the four letters I’d been trying for five years to overcome.

Why was it that every time I finally chose, every time I did, my efforts failed- I failed- so miserably? Why was I so completely unable to take control of my own life? Was there any point to it, for me? I’d thought it was Scott I’d been fighting against, but now I wondered if it was Fate.

When I was young, I’d believed that it would be awful to try and try and try at something only to find that you could never succeed. Now I knew I’d been right: I was not a sufficient dancer, or writer, or painter, or wife, or mother. I was nothing at all.

Z- A Novel of Zelda Fitzgerald by Therese Anne Fowler is a fascinating chronicle of one of America’s most celebrated literary couples, Zelda and F. Scott Fitzgerald, seen through the eyes of Zelda. They lived their own version of Gatsby, fighting for a lost dream, and like Jay Gatsby, constantly struggled to repeat the past, to reclaim a past that they viewed as ideal, a battle that like the famous literary character they ultimately lost.

It’s a sad tragic tale brought to vivid life by Fowler’s sharp and insightful prose.

A highly recommended read.

—END—-

 

GODZILLA (2014) – The King of the Monsters Deserves Better

0

Godzilla 2014 poster 2 THE HORROR: GODZILLA (2014)

Horror Movie Review by Michael Arruda

 

He’s the King of the Monsters, and has been since he debuted in his first feature film 60 years ago in 1954. I’m talking of course about Godzilla, and he’s back on the big screen in GODZILLA (2014), a stylish reboot by director Gareth Edwards.

For some, this movie is being hailed as one of the best in the series, a phenomenal motion picture that deserves four stars. For me, it’s an okay giant monster movie that in spite of the creative talents of its director, suffers from a lackluster story, dull characters, and way too little of the main star— and I’m not talking about Bryan Cranston.

I’m talking about Godzilla. The King of the Monsters just might need a new agent after this one.

GODZILLA opens in 1999. Joe Brody (Bryan Cranston) and his wife Sandra (Juliette Binoche) send their young son off to school and then head off to work at the local nuclear power plant. On this fateful day, there is a nuclear accident and Sandra is killed.
The action switches to present day, where the adult Ford (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) has just returned to his family after a tour in the military, but before he can even settle back in with his wife Elle (Elizabeth Olsen) and young son, he receives word that his father has been arrested in Japan. Ford decides to go off to Japan to help his dad.

To Ford’s dismay, he learns that his father is obsessed with trying to prove that the nuclear accident which killed his mother was not the result of a natural disaster but of something else that the government is covering up. Of course, it turns out that Joe Brody is correct, that there has been a major cover-up, that the true cause of the disaster was a giant monster called the MUTO, an acronym for Massive Unidentified Terrestrial Organism.

There are two MUTO, a male and a female, and they are a threat to the world, which is why suddenly Godzilla emerges from the depths of the ocean to defeat these monsters, to make things right. Who knew Godzilla was so thoughtful?

While the strength of any Godzilla movie has never been its story, I thought the plot to this latest GODZILLA movie was considerably lame. The reason for Godzilla’ appearance is all right, and admittedly it’s consistent with a lot of his appearances in the Toho films, in that he shows up to defeat the bad monsters and save the world, but this was mostly the case in the silly Toho films from the 1960s and 1970s.

In the Toho Godzilla movies from the 1990s and 2000s, Godzilla was a bit more menacing, and so I expected more from this 2014 film in terms of Godzilla. Not that Godzilla is back to his silly superhero self. He’s not. He’s rather scary looking here. However, he doesn’t do much in this film that makes him frightening to humans. In fact, the military spares him throughout, since they’re constantly advised by Dr. Serizawa (Ken Watanabe) that Godzilla might be their best bet to defeat the MUTO. I found the military’s easy acceptance of this theory farfetched.

The best Godzilla movies are the ones where you’re not too sure about Godzilla. He’s fighting those bad monsters, sure, but he’s destroying cities and killing people, too. In this movie, Godzilla comes off like the savior of the world. I almost expected to see a halo around his head.

Godzilla’s screen time is also limited. No surprise, since director Gareth Edwards did the same thing with his earlier monster movie MONSTERS (2010), a stylish film that skimped on the monster scenes. Similarly, Edwards does some stylish things in GODZILLA, but Godzilla and the MUTO monsters are featured minimally.

The screenplay by Max Borenstein is disjointed and uninspiring. Its multiple storylines never quite seem to gel with each other, and there isn’t one strong narrative holding it all together, mostly because the main storyline is nothing special. Strangely, the Godzilla plot seems to be the least important part of the entire movie, playing second fiddle to the MUTO and the Aaron-Taylor Johnson storylines. The Bryan Cranston subplot is not much more than an afterthought.

Bryan Cranston is a terrific actor, and he could have been the glue that held this narrative together, but he’s simply not in it enough. His role is very, very small.

Aaron Taylor-Johnson as Ford Brody is rather dull, largely because we never really get inside his head. He’s putting his life on the line to stop Godzilla and the MUTO, while also trying to get back to his family, yet he doesn’t seem scared at all. He should be terrified.

Elizabeth Olsen as Ford’s wife Elle does seem terrified, and when she’s frightened, she’s very good, but that’s about all she does in this movie, act afraid.

Ken Watanabe as Dr. Serizawa gets some of the worst lines in the movie, delivering such simple utterances as “Godzilla must fight the MUTO,” and “Godzilla will save us.” And the camera always seems to be closing in on his face for some dramatic revelation, but all he has to say is silly nonsense like “Let them fight.”

David Strathairn, who I usually like, is wasted here as Admiral William Stenz. He’s one of the more ineffective military leaders you’ll see in a monster movie. The monsters are running rampant destroying cities left and right, and Strathairn’s Admiral is in his command center listening to Dr. Serizawa utter his absurd lines of dialogue.

And while the CGI effects look good, I wasn’t blown away by them. I thought Godzilla looked decent, but honestly, he didn’t look any better than the man-in-suit TOHO films from the 90s and 2000s.

I didn’t see it in IMAX, but I did see it in 3D, and I wasn’t impressed with the 3D effects at all.

GODZILLA never drew me in to a level of fear or suspense or even excitement where I was psyched to see the final battle between Godzilla and the MUTO. We continually see the monster stuff happening from a distance without getting in close, and I just didn’t get the sense of the human fear, loss of life, and destruction. Director Edwards’ idea of showing us the destruction caused by the monsters is a headline scrolling across the bottom of a television newscast saying “Honolulu destroyed. Thousands missing.” In terms of effective storytelling, that just doesn’t cut it for me.

But I do like Edwards’ style when he does decide to show us things. Godzilla’s first appearance is a good one, although it’s brief. I thought the sequence on the train where Aaron Taylor-Johnson has to save a young boy while the monsters are attacking all around them was effective, as was another scene involving a train, when the military is transferring a bomb across a fog shrouded bridge and the MUTO attacks them.

I also liked the attack scene on the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco. So, there were moments I definitely liked. But there just weren’t enough of them.

This combined with a lack of Godzilla, no interesting characters other than Bryan Cranston’s brief role, and a mediocre story that never wowed me, made GODZILLA a major disappointment for me, an uneven film that failed to make me forget the TOHO productions which inspired it.

The King of the Monsters deserves better.
—END—

 

PICTURE OF THE DAY: THE REVENGE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1958)

0
Peter Cushing as Dr. Stein about to reveal his latest creation to his young assistant Hans (Francis Matthews) in the Hammer Film THE REVENGE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1958)

Peter Cushing as Dr. Stein about to reveal his latest creation to his young assistant Hans (Francis Matthews) in the Hammer Film THE REVENGE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1958)

PICTURE OF THE DAY: THE REVENGE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1958)

Here’s a picture from Hammer’s second Frankenstein movie, THE REVENGE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1958).

This film has always lived in the shadow of its predecessor, THE CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN (1957), and it’s rarely listed by fans as one of Hammer’s best, but I’ve always liked this movie, and Peter Cushing delivers one of his best performances as Baron Frankenstein here, this time going by the alias “Dr. Stein” since the world believes Baron Frankenstein is dead.

In this photo, Dr. Stein (Peter Cushing) has placed his right hand on the tarp behind him and is just about to remove it to reveal to his young assistant Hans (Francis Matthews) the unborn body of his latest creation.

Stein had just been showing Hans around his laboratory, in particular an experiment involving a brain, eyes, and a hand, and Hans is astounded and says that Stein should be proud of this accomplishment. Stein dismisses this praise, lamenting the limits of what he has been able to do so far.

He asks Hans if he knows why Victor Frankenstein was condemned to death, and Hans says of course, that everyone knows, that he created a man who became a monster, to which Stein responds:

“I built him to be perfect. If the brain hadn’t been damaged—.”

And then, “I swore I would have my revenge. They will never be rid of me.”

Stein pauses, and just before removing the tarp, says, “This is something I am proud of.”

And then he reveals his latest unborn creation to the movie audience.

Many fans have complained that they don’t understand what the revenge in the title refers to, especially since Cushing does not portray the Baron as all that villainous in this movie. But the revenge in the title refers to Baron Frankenstein’s sticking it to the nonbelievers. He’s out to prove to the world that he was right the first time, that he can create life, and that the Creature in the first film was only a murderous beast because Victor’s assistant had damaged the brain.

By the way, Hans’ statement that everyone knows why Baron Frankenstein was condemned to death, because he had created a monster actually goes against the events in the first movie, THE CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN. In that film, the Baron is sentenced to death on murder charges, and his claims that he’s innocent and that his Creature committed the murders falls on deaf ears because there’s no evidence, as the Creature had fallen to its death into a vat of acid, destroying its body, and the only other man to see the Creature, Victor’s former tutor turned assistant, Paul Krempe, lied to the authorities and said there was no Creature, to make sure that Victor paid the ultimate price for the atrocities he caused. So, contrary to what Hans said here, the world shouldn’t have known about Frankenstein’s Creature.

THE REVENGE OF FRANKENSTEIN actually has a better budget and a more creative story than THE CURSE OF FRANKENSTEIN, but it’s nowhere near as scary, and probably the biggest problem among fans is that the monster in this one is rather wimpy, as Michael Gwynne is no Christopher Lee. Sure, Lee’s Creature is intensely frightening. But the “monster” in this film is completely consistent with the movie’s plot. He’s less frightening because Victor Frankenstein has done a better job this time. It’s a very sympathetic performance by Michael Gwynne as the Monster, but unfortunately, it’s not what movie audiences wanted.

As always, Peter Cushing is terrific as Baron Frankenstein. He does a nice job of balancing the Baron’s heroic and villainous sides in this one, and he tends to be more of a hero this time around.

It’s Peter Cushing’s birthday this month, on May 26. He would have turned 101 this year. Wow.

Enjoy the photo!

And thanks for reading!

—Michael

 

 

 

 

 

GODZILLA (2014) – Preview

0

Godzilla 2014 posterGODZILLA (2014) – Preview
By Michael Arruda

GODZILLA (2014) opens in theaters today, Thursday, May 15.

Here’s a preview:

Let’s start with the cast.

With Bryan Cranston fresh off the extremely popular BREAKING BAD TV series, GODZILLA has at its center an actor who can easily anchor a story. If you’ve seen BREAKING BAD, you know what I’m talking about. He’s also lent fine support to many movies as well, so having him in the cast of GODZILLA is a huge plus.

GODZILLA also stars Aaron Taylor-Johnson who played Kick-Ass in the hit movie KICK-ASS (2010) and in its sequel KICK-ASS 2 (2013). He also starred in the Oliver Stone thriller SAVAGES (2012), a film that wasn’t that well received, but I liked it a lot. Taylor-Johnson was especially good in it.

Then there’s Elizabeth Olsen, who I enjoyed in the otherwise awful horror movie SILENT HOUSE (2011). The film stunk, but Olsen was good. Rounding out the cast are Juliette Binoche and David Strathairn. The movie definitely has a talented cast.

It’s directed by Gareth Edwards, who also directed MONSTERS (2010), a film I wasn’t crazy about because the titled monsters didn’t really appear in the movie all that much. That being said, it was a very stylish movie, so I’m looking forward to seeing what Edwards will do with GODZILLA.

Max Borenstein wrote the screenplay, with music by Alexandre Desplat, who’s written a ton of music scores including the scores for THE MONUMENTS MEN (2014), ARGO (2012) and THE KING’S SPEECH (2010).

I have high hopes for the special effects since there are enough people on the Visual Effects team to fill a dictionary.

So, the talent is there.

The trailers have looked great, and Godzilla in the brief times we’ve seen him in the trailers looks impressive.  GODZILLA has the potential to be one of the best films in the series.

The only thing now is for the actual movie to be released.  And that happens today.

Welcome back, Godzilla!

—Michael

 

Matthew McConaughey’s Dynamic Performance Drives THE LINCOLN LAWYER (2011)

0

The Lincoln Lawyer posterBlu-ray Review: THE LINCOLN LAWYER (2011)
By
Michael Arruda

Matthew McConaughey won the Best Actor Oscar this year for his performance in DALLAS BUYERS CLUB (2013), and if you haven’t been paying attention, you might not have noticed that McConaughey has been steadily working his way through some pretty decent roles the past few years.

Take his role in THE LINCOLN LAWYER (2011), for example, where he plays Mick Haller, a smooth talking cooler-than-ice defense attorney who becomes the victim of an even smoother criminal.

I caught THE LINCOLN LAWYER on Blu-ray the other day, and I enjoyed it quite a lot. I especially enjoyed McConaughey’s dynamic performance as the indefatigable Mick Haller. McConaughey easily carries this movie from beginning to end.

In THE LINCOLN LAWYER, defense attorney Mick Haller (Matthew McConaughey) never met a client he didn’t like, or wouldn’t accept payment from, and he operates out of the back seat of his Lincoln town car, thus the film’s title, THE LINCOLN LAWYER. He’s none too popular with the local police department since he has a strong record of keeping even the most guilty-seeming clients out of jail.

When a young man Louis Roulet (Ryan Phillippe) accused of beating up a hooker personally asks for Haller to defend him, Mick thinks nothing of it, even though his friend and investigator-partner Frank (William H. Macy) tells him something about the guy rubs him the wrong way. But Mick is used to out-talking and outwitting everybody, so he takes on the case without fear, although he does wonder why Louis would ask for him when his mother Mary Windsor (Frances Fisher) is exceedingly rich and powerful and has an entire legal team at her disposal.

Mick prepares his defense with the argument that Louis is the victim of a scam by the hooker and an accomplice intent on setting up Louis for the crime so they could reap the benefits of an enormous settlement.

Things play out as planned until Frank uncovers some unsavory information about Louis that connects him to one of Mick’s prior cases, and suddenly Mick realizes why Louis chose him as his defense attorney, but this realization comes too late, as Mick’s family and friends are threatened, and Mick finds himself having to defend a man he knows is guilty not only of this charge but of a far more serious one.

THE LINCOLN LAWYER is a fun thriller with a likable character at its center. Attorney Mick Haller might not seem like the most likeable guy, but his energy is infectious, and he oozes confidence and charisma. As such, you can’t help but like the guy, and so when he’s targeted and double-crossed by another sly character, one who’s far more sinister than himself, you’re definitely rooting for him to succeed, and you want to see how he’s going to outsmart his adversary.

McConaughey imbues this guy with charisma and charm. His Mick is not a jerk or a weasel. He’s simply a player in the legal system, and he believes that all clients deserve to be defended. He just happens to be very good at what he does.

Taken as a whole, the film is somewhat uneven, as in addition to its main plot, which is good, it throws in a less than believable subplot involving Mick’s ex-wife Maggie (Marisa Tomei) who works for the District Attorney’s office. No, they don’t face each other in court. In fact, they’re hardly adversaries at all, and tend to get along splendidly as they work together to raise their young daughter. They work together so well it makes you wonder how they got divorced in the first place.

Tomei is fine in the role, although ultimately she doesn’t have a lot to do, and is saddled with some awful lines of dialogue, like when she looks at her sleeping daughter and turns to Mick and says, “At least we did one thing right.” No, by all accounts you two do a lot of things right. Why aren’t you still together?

Ryan Phillippe is icy cold as the defendant Louis Roulet who tries to outsmart his attorney Mick, but he’s a much more one-dimensional character than Mick and nowhere near as satisfying. The more the story goes along, the more we realize Louis is no match for Mick and it’s only a matter of time before his plan blows up in his face.

Even colder than Phillipe is Frances Fisher as Mary Windsor, Louis’ powerful and manipulative mother. I wish she had been in the movie more.

William H. Macy is very good as Mick’s friend and investigator, Frank, and Macy delivers his usual strong performance. Laurence Mason is also very good as Mick’s driver Earl, who helps Mick with more than just driving.

The film also features decent performances by Josh Lucas as the prosecuting attorney who’s in way over his head taking on Mick, John Leguizamo as Val, the bondsman who introduces Mick to Louis, Michael Pena as Jesus Martinez, the former client of Mick’s who is now in jail in spite of his claims of innocence, and Bob Gunton as Cecil Dobbs, the head of Mary Windsor’s legal team.

Strangely, only Bryan Cranston fails to impress, as he’s stuck in a brief throwaway role as police detective Lankford. It’s the first time I’ve seen Cranston in a movie without being wowed, but this has less to do with his performance than with the brevity of the role.

For the most part, the screenplay by John Romano, based on the novel by Michael Connelly, succeeds. Its main story is very good, as the battle of wits between Mick and Louis is compelling.

Director Brad Furman does a nice job at the helm, making this one as slick and as polished as Mick’s Lincoln. Furman would go on to direct RUNNER, RUNNER (2013), starring Ben Affleck, and I found both films very similar in terms of quality.

Matthew McConaughey is the best part of THE LINCOLN LAWYER. While the rest of the film is a mixed bag, its talented cast and decent story make this one a more satisfying “mixed bag” than most.

—END—

 

THE HORROR JAR: TOHO GODZILLA Series

0
The "friendly" Godzilla from the 1960s-70s.

The “friendly” Godzilla from the 1960s-70s.

THE HORROR JAR: TOHO GODZILLA Series
By Michael Arruda

The new GODZILLA (2014) movie opens in theaters, on Friday May 16, 2014. To help celebrate the occasion, here’s a look back at the entire Godzilla series.

I’d like to thank my teen sons Lucas and Jonny, the Godzilla scholars in my household, for their help with this article. Their knowledge of all things Godzilla far outweighs my own. Thanks guys!

So here it is, in order, the list of the TOHO GODZILLA movies:

GODZILLA (1954)
Directed by Ishiro Honda
Original is still scary even by today’s standards.

GODZILLA RAIDS AGAIN (1955)
Directed by Motoyoshi Oda
Guest Monster: Anguirus
Neat sequel

KING KONG VS. GODZILLA (1962)
Directed by Ishiro Honda
Guest Monsters: King Kong, Giant Octopus
My favorite Godzilla movie from the 1960s, with a rousing climactic battle between King Kong and Godzilla.

GODZILLA VS. MOTHRA (1964)
Directed by Ishiro Honda
Guest Monster: Mothra
Hello Mothra, welcome fairies!

GHIDORAH, THE THREE-HEADED MONSTER (1964)
Directed by Ishiro Honda
Guest Monsters: King Ghidorah, Mothra, Rodan
A nemesis is introduced with King Ghidorah.

GODZILLA VS. MONSTER ZERO (1965)
Directed by Ishiro Honda
Guest Monsters: King Ghidorah, Rodan
Nick Adams stars in this one.

GODZILLA VS. THE SEA MONSTER (1966)
Directed by Jun Fukuda
Guest Monsters: Ebirah, Mothra, Giant Condor
This one actually has a neat plot featuring a reformed jewel thief and some teenagers taking on some bad guys on an island. Godzilla shows up to help out.

SON OF GODZILLA (1967)
Directed by Jun Fukuda
Guest Monsters: Kamacuras, Kumonga, Minilla
Who knew Godzilla was a daddy?

DESTROY ALL MONSTERS (1968)
Directed by Ishiro Honda
Guest Monsters: Anguirus, Baragon, Gorosaurus, King Ghidorah, Kumonga, Manda, Minilla, Mothra, Rodan, Varan
All out monster bash.

GODZILLA’S REVENGE (1969)
Directed by Ishiro Honda
Guest Monsters: Anguirus, Ebirah, Gabara, Gorosaurus, Kamacarus, Kumonga, Minilla,
It’s HOME ALONE Meets Godzilla.

GODZILLA VS. HEDORAH (SMOG MONSTER) (1971)
Directed by Teruyoshi Nakano)
Guest Monsters: Hedorah
Godzilla goes green.

GODZILLA VS. GIGAN (1972)
Directed by Jun Fukuda
Guest Monsters: Anguirus, Gigan, King Ghidorah
My favorite Godzilla movie from the 1970s. One of the best climactic battles in the entire series.

GODZILLA VS. MEGALON (1973)
Directed by Jun Fukuda
Guest Monsters: Gigan, Jet Jaguar, Megalon
Least favorite film of the entire series.

GODZILLA VS. MECHAGODZILLA (1974)
Directed by Jun Fukuda
Guest Monsters: Anguirus, King Caesar, MechaGodzilla,
MechaGodzilla bursts onto the scene.

TERROR OF MECHAGODZILLA (1975)
Directed by Ishiro Honda
Guest Monsters: MechaGodzilla, Titanosaurus
More MechaGodzilla

GODZILLA 1985 (1985)
Directed by Koji Hashimoto
Lots of hype, not much of a movie

GODZILLA VS. BIOLLANTE (1989)
Directed by Kazuki Omori
Guest Monster: Biollante
Excellent Godzilla movie

GODZILLA VS. KING GHIDORAH (1991)
Directed by Kazuki Omori
Guest Monsters: King Ghidorah, Mecha-King Ghidorah
Includes neat Godzilla origin story

GODZILLA VS. MOTHRA – BATTLE FOR THE EARTH (1992)
Directed by Takao Okawara
Guest Monsters: Battra, Mothra
Mothra and the little fairies again

GODZILLA VS. MECHAGODZILLA II (1993)
Directed by Takao Okawara
Guest Monsters: Baby Godzilla, Rodan, MechaGodzilla, Mecha-King Ghidorah
MechaGodzilla is back.

GODZILLA VS. SPACE GODZILLA (1994)
Directed by Kensho Yamashita
Guest Monsters: Little Godzilla, Moguera, Space Godzilla
Space Godzilla is born

GODZILLA VS. DESTROYAH (1995)
Directed by Takao Okawara
Guest Monsters: Destroyah, Godzilla Jr.
Film ends with memorable meltdown

GODZILLA 2000 (2000)
Directed by Takao Okawara
Guest Monster: Orga
Caught this one on the big screen

GODZILLA VS. MEGAGUIRUS (2000)
Directed by Masaaki Tezuka
Guest Monsters: Meganulon, Meganula, Megaguirus
Interesting creatures in this one.

GODZILLA, MOTHRA, KING GHIDORAH – GIANT MONSTERS ALL OUT ATTACK (2001)
Directed by Shusuke Kaneko
Guest Monsters: Baragon, King Ghidorah, Mothra
My favorite of the 2000s Godzillas. One of the best in the series.

GODZILLA AGAINST MECHAGODZILLA (2002)
Directed by Masaaki Tezuka
Guest Monster: MechaGodzilla
Incorporates elements from the original 1954 movie into its story.

GODZILLA TOKYO S.O.S. (2003)
Directed by Masaaki Tezuka
Guest Monsters: MechaGodzilla, Mothra, Kamoebas
Godzilla and MechaGodzilla are at it again.

GODZILLA FINAL WARS (2004)
Directed by Ryuhei Kitamura
Guest Monsters: Anguirus, Ebirah, Gigan, Hedorah, King Ghidorah, Kamacuras, King Caesar, Kumonga, Manda, Minilla, Monster X, Mothra, Rodan, Zilla
Disappointing finale to the Toho series

Thanks for reading!

—Michael

IN THE SPOOKLIGHT: THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA (1962)

0

Phantom of the Opera 1962 - posterThis is my latest IN THE SPOOKLIGHT column, on the Hammer Films version of THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA (1962), up now in the May 2014 edition of The Horror Writers Association Newsletter.

Remember, if you enjoy this column, my IN THE SPOOKLIGHT book, a collection of 115 In The Spooklight columns, is available as an EBook at http://www.neconebooks.com, and as a print edition at https://www.createspace.com/4293038.

—Michael

 

IN THE SPOOKLIGHT

BY

MICHAEL ARRUDA

 

Hammer Films’ remake of THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA (1962) starring Herbert Lom as the Phantom is not my favorite version of the Gaston Leroux tale. That honor goes to the Lon Chaney silent classic from 1925, followed by Universal’s elaborate and colorful remake from 1943 with Claude Rains.

And while Hammer struck gold with their Frankenstein and Dracula remakes, their version of THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA was not a commercial success when it was released in 1962.

That being said, it’s not a bad film. It’s just an uneven one.

THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA gets off to a great start. The first half of this film is extremely well-done, and had the entire film played like the first half, Hammer would have had another classic on its hands.

The film starts with the Phantom already at large, already wreaking havoc at the opera, which is a return to how the story was told in the Lon Chaney version. In the Claude Rains remake, the emphasis was on drama and the musical numbers, not horror, and Rains’ sympathetic character doesn’t become the “phantom” until well into the movie.

Here, the menace begins immediately. There are some stylish murder scenes, showing off director Terence Fisher’s considerable talents, including a hanging body swinging onto the stage, and later, a chilling sequence involving an encounter with a rat catcher, played by Patrick Troughton. The Phantom’s first appearance is also well-done, with a very dramatic and eerie first entrance at the top of a staircase.

The music is also very effective here, with a low disturbing hum whenever the Phantom is on screen. It’s a fine score by Edwin Astley.

In this version, while the mysterious Phantom (Herbert Lom) is terrorizing the opera, he’s also keen on helping young Christine (Heather Sears) sing the lead role, but she’s shunned by the villainous and sexist producer Lord Ambrose d’Arcy (Michael Gough) who intends to sabotage her career because she refused to sleep with him. The opera’s director, the young and dashing Harry Hunter (Edward de Souza) is a much fairer man, and when he steps in to help Christine, he too is fired by Lord Ambrose.

What’s a recently unemployed opera director to do? Why, investigate the Phantom of course!

And it’s here, in the film’s second half, where it loses steam.

Whereas in the first half of the movie the Phantom appears to be a menacing and frightening figure, once Hunter begins his investigation into the Phantom’s past, a sympathetic figure emerges, and we learn that the true villain in this movie is the pompous blowhard Lord Ambrose. In fact, by the time things are all said and done, this Phantom becomes even more sympathetic than the Claude Rains’ Phantom, becoming a respectable and even heroic figure by the film’s conclusion. Sadly, this doesn’t quite work.

This particular interpretation of the Phantom makes sense when you realize who Hammer originally had in mind to portray their Phantom. With neither of their two stars, Peter Cushing and Christopher Lee, involved with this project, Hammer intended to turn to another even more famous star to anchor their latest production: Cary Grant.

Grant had even signed a contract with Hammer to play the Phantom, but backed out at the last minute when he wasn’t satisfied with the script, a script Anthony Hinds had written with Grant in mind for the lead role, leaving Hammer scrambling to fill the part, which they did when they hired Herbert Lom. But the film was intended to be a vehicle for Cary Grant, which explains the more heroic interpretation of the Phantom.

Herbert Lom is an OK Phantom, although he doesn’t come close to Lon Chaney or Claude Rains. He fares better early in the film where he’s seen fleetingly in scenes that seem to be setting up the Phantom to be like Lon Chaney’s violent psychotic interpretation, but unfortunately, this doesn’t turn out to be the case.

The rest of the cast runs hot and cold. Heather Sears is rather dull as Christine, and while Edward de Souza fares slightly better as the gallant Harry Hunter, at the end of the day, he’s a rather uninteresting character as well.

Only Michael Gough stands out as the vile Lord Ambrose. It’s nothing we haven’t seen Gough do before, but he’s very good at this sort of thing.

The film does have a nice cast of supporting actors who probably do a better job in this movie than the film’s leads. You have Thorley Walters as Lattimer, Lord Ambrose’s assistant, who is forced to bite his tongue at Ambrose’s constant shenanigans. Patrick Troughton is a rat catcher, and appears in one of the movie’s scariest segments, and Hammer favorites Harold Goodwin [FRANKENSTEIN MUST BE DESTROYED (1969)], Miles Malleson, and Michael Ripper are also on hand, with Malleson and Ripper each playing a cabbie.

Roy Ashton’s Phantom make-up is disappointing to say the least. It’s as tepid as it gets, and it’s even less chilling than the make-up on Claude Rains. And just like in the Rains’ version, we don’t see the Phantom’s face until the very end, and all too briefly. Blink and you’ll miss it.

Unlike the Chaney film where we see the Phantom’s face throughout, and the famous unmasking scene happens in the middle of the movie, not the end, the unmasking doesn’t happen here until the final scene, as it does in the Rains version, which in both cases is too little too late.

The Phantom’s mask in this Hammer version is actually pretty decent. I’ve always preferred the mask in the Claude Rains’ movie, but my reason for this preference is how it’s used in the film, rather than the actual mask. It’s just a white mask, but it’s the defining characteristic of Rains’ Phantom, and is used to such effect that it’s one of the most memorable parts of that movie. The mask that Herbert Lom wears, by contrast, is actually a bit more sinister looking, but it’s not used as effectively as the mask in the Rains’ film.

The movie also ends way too abruptly. The story should have gone on beyond the unmasking of the Phantom, with perhaps a final act where the Phantom, upon seeing Christine nearly killed on stage, snaps, whisking her off to the “safety” of his underground lair.

Terence Fisher, Hammer’s top director, was largely blamed by the studio when the film flopped, which is too bad, because it really isn’t his fault. The film’s script is the problem, not Fisher’s direction, which, during the first half of THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA is on par with his finest work. In fact, the first half of this movie ranks with Hammer’s best horror. Unfortunately the movie doesn’t sustain this high quality through to the end.

Hammer’s THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA scores below the two versions of the Phantom story which came before it, but taken as a whole all these years later, it remains better than any rendition made since.

—END—

 

 

THE OTHER WOMAN (2014) Chooses Romance Over Laughs

1

the-other-woman posterMovie Review: THE OTHER WOMAN (2014)
By
Michael Arruda

So I sit down in the theater to watch THE OTHER WOMAN, the new comedy starring Cameron Diaz and Leslie Mann, and I realize in this relatively small gathering, that I’m the only guy in the audience. I’m surrounded by women.

Neat!

In THE OTHER WOMAN, Carly Whitten (Cameron Diaz) is a successful New York City lawyer whose hot and heavy relationship with her boyfriend Mark (Nikolaj Coster-Waldau) takes a hit when she discovers that he’s married, and Carly doesn’t date married men. She makes this discovery when she attempts to surprise him at his Connecticut home but instead finds his wife Kate (Leslie Mann) there.

When wife Kate learns that her husband has been having an affair with Carly, she oddly visits Carly because she “has no one else to talk to” about this situation. Really? There’s no one better to talk to than the woman your husband has been sleeping with?

Even more bizarre, the two women hit it off and become fast friends. This is supposed to be funny, but I had a hard time laughing when the whole relationship seemed so fake. When these two unlikely friends learn that Mark is cheating on both of them with a young supermodel named Amber (Kate Upton) they befriend her as well— why not, right?— and the three of them conspire against Mark to make him pay for his indiscretions. So, they work to ruin his health, his job, and his affair with yet another woman, although I’m surprised they didn’t make friends with her, too.

In terms of ruining Mark’s career, they don’t have to work too hard because they learn that Mark has been stealing money from his employer, and so their efforts at vengeance turn into a good deed as they expose him as a criminal.

While all this is going on, Carly falls in love with Kate’s handsome architect brother Phil (Taylor Kinney), while Amber falls for Kate’s playboy womanizer father Frank (Don Johnson) who in spite of his multiple marriages to women young enough to be his granddaughter knows how to treat women and so his womanizing is not frowned upon.

THE OTHER WOMAN didn’t really work for me. Its trailers gave away its funniest scenes, and its story came off as forced and contrived. I never completely bought that Kate would seek out a friendship with Carly, and I certainly didn’t buy that a shrewd lawyer like Carly would ever give Kate the time of day.

Stars Cameron Diaz and Leslie Mann share an OK chemistry together, but compared to last summer’s hit THE HEAT (2013) in which Sandra Bullock and Melissa McCarthy clicked instantly, Diaz and Mann don’t. It’s also difficult to laugh at a “buddy” comedy when you don’t believe the two characters could be buddies in the first place.

Cameron Diaz gets top billing, and she’s passable in the lead as Carly, the “other woman” who we’re not supposed to hate because she doesn’t date married men, and as soon as she learns that Mark is married, she wants no part of the relationship anymore. I get this, but then to believe that she’d become friends with the wife of the man who lied to her is a stretch. Diaz was much funnier in BAD TEACHER (2011).

Leslie Mann fares better than Diaz, and her portrayal of the oftentimes ditzy wife Kate is one of the better parts of the movie. I really enjoyed her scenes, and she had some laugh out loud moments. She also has one of the truer moments in the film, when she laments that she can’t date at her age, saying that when she used to date in her twenties, she didn’t even have to think about age since everyone was young, but that’s not the story now. Anyone dating today over 40 knows exactly what she’s talking about.

Kate Upton however is nothing more than some voluptuous eye candy, cast in this movie no doubt to attract some male viewers to this otherwise chick flick comedy. She’s acceptable, but her dumb blonde shtick is nothing we haven’t seen before.

Nikolaj Coster-Waldau from TV’s GAME OF THRONES is Mark, the unfaithful husband who can’t seem to stop seeing multiple women, but he’s portrayed here by Coster-Waldau more as a wimpy weasel than an unlikable creep. As such, watching him get his comeuppance at the hands of these three women is never as satisfying as it should be. I liked Coster-Waldau better in the horror movie MAMA (2013).

Don Johnson enjoys a few brief scenes as Frank, Carly’s think-young Hugh Hefner-like father, and he is a likable character. Taylor Kinney, on the other hand, as Kate’s near-perfect hunk of a brother, is so Prince Charming-like I wanted to throw up whenever he was in a scene.

As the movie goes along, director Nick Cassavetes steers things away from comedy and guides them towards romance, which is too bad because this movie needed to be funnier. Perhaps he missed directing THE NOTEBOOK (2004). At times, Cassavetes seems to be going for the laugh-out-loud raunchy comedy, but with a PG-13 rating the film never comes close to generating these kinds of laughs. The comedy is all very light.

And the film’s climactic moment when Mark finally gets what’s coming to him falls strangely flat, as if there wasn’t much to get excited about in the first place.

The screenplay by Melissa Stack doesn’t do the movie any favors. It presents an implausible situation, two women becoming friends who have no business doing so, puts them in situations that are never as funny as they’re supposed to be, and creates in hubby Mark a character who we never see acting as heinously as he’s purported to be.

There’s also no comic send-off for Mark at the end of the movie. While we learn what happens to the three women, nothing is said of Mark. The film misses its chance to show us what horrible future he has to endure.

THE OTHER WOMAN would have been more satisfying had it been wittier. Instead of honing its comedy it gravitates towards a feel-good silly romance, and neither genre works all that well, as both are mired in a story that isn’t all that believable.

—END—