Step Brothers (2008)

After a day of non-stop walking, I still had some energy left to watch a movie so I decided to watch something light. It took me 30 minutes to pick one and eventually went with Step Brothers because it had been on my list for ages and it was about time for me to watch it. 

The story follows Brennan Huff (Will Ferrell) and Dale Doback (John C. Reilly), two unemployed, nearly 40-year-old slackers who still live with their parents. When Brennen's mother, Nancy (Mary Steenburgen), marries Dale's father, Robert (Richard Jenkins), Brennan and Dale are forced to share a room. Despite their personalities being so alike, they don't get along very well, but when Brennan's successful young brother, Derek (Adam Scott), the two begin to bond. 

Step Brothers's plot is not thin, it's non-existent as the film is mostly a vehicle/excuse for Will Ferrell and John C. Reilly to do crude sketches. While that exactly something one would expect from a movie with those two, the absolutely ridiculous story, the fact that almost everything happens by chance, that there are subplots that only make the story more dreadful, and that overall it feels like an improvisation after another, not even good ones, these things still bothered me. 

Not as much as the characters did though. Not only they are incredibly stupid and unbelievable — I mean, the two main characters are two adults who behave like two retarded kids —, but they also are very unlikeable and quite irritating, and the only reason I sided with them was because Brennan's brother, Derek, was an asshole, with a capital aitch. 

The performances aren't much better as they are dull, unbelievable and uninspired. Mary Steenburgen and Richard Jenkins both do a good job though as the parents, the only two responsible characters in the entire film, and Kathryn Hahn, who gets the chance to go nuts in the role of Derek's sexually repressed wife, is quite funny. 

Columbia Pictures

I wouldn't have given a damn about the script and the terrible acting though if Step Brothers was a funny movie. Unfortunately, neither the comedy works. I'm not sure what's the issue here, maybe the fact that Adam McKay didn't want to make a comedy but a drama, the thing is that the comedy just falls flat. I smiled when Brennan and Dale turned their single beds into a bunk bed and it collapsed, and the job interview sequence was quite something, but everything else just didn't work for me. Ferrell and Reilly try to be funny but the funny jokes and gags are just not a part of the script.

The Little Hours (2017)

I added The Little Hours on my watchlist ages ago because of the cast, specifically Aubrey Plaza and Dave Franco, but because of the characters, which are mostly nuns, I kept putting it off. I would have checked it earlier though if I had bothered reading the storyline. 

The film is based on the first tale of the third day of Giovanni Boccaccio's Decameron —which I'm yet to read—, and mainly follows three nuns, Sister Fernanda (Aubrey Plaza), Sister Ginevra (Kate Micucci), and Sister Alessandra (Alison Brie), who lives at a convent in the countryside. When a young, handsome servant (Dave Franco) fleeing from his master (Nick Offerman) takes refuge in the convent, the sexually-repressed nuns find ways to escape from their tedious lives. 

If a plot is what you are looking for then you should probably stay away from The Little Hours as it really lacks in that department and rather than a story it feels like watching a series of more or less connected Saturday Night Live sketches. That said, the story is still interesting enough to hold your attention and be enjoyable. 

The characters aren't very thought through either as they are pretty much walking stereotypes with very little characterization and no development at all, and some of them are nothing but plot devices —that's not very accurate though since you need a plot for that. This being said, each character has his/her own dose of crazy, especially Aubrey Plaza's, and for this reason they make quite memorable characters. 

As for the acting, there may not be award-worthy performances here but the cast does a pretty good job as most of them nail their characters and give humorous performances, the standouts being Aubrey Plaza and Kate Micucci, the first really delivering that contemporary dialogues and attitudes. 

Gunpowder & Sky

All of that being said, The Little Hours is still far from being a great, or good film. The problem is not the unnecessary nudity and vulgarity —it's not like you can't expect it from a movie like this—, but the fact that Dave Franco is criminally underused, the pacing is too slow and as a result, the film feels dragged in several places, a lot of the jokes fall flat, and if feels like director Jeff Baena always went with the first take so of course many scenes aren't as good as they could have been. 

Ralph Breaks the Internet (2018)

I avoided Wreck-It Ralph for years because I thought it would be a dumb movie for kids. When I finally watched it, I was amazed by how entertaining and enjoyable it was. That said, I still didn't care much for Ralph Breaks the Internet, and I checked it out just now because of the Oscar nomination. 

Set six years after the events of the first film, the story follows Ralph (voiced by John C. Reilly) and Vanellope (voiced by Sarah Silverman) as they travel to the internet to search for a replacement part for Vanellope's arcade game, Sugar Rush, which was broken because of Ralph and left the game's characters homeless. 

The biggest issue with Ralph Breaks the Internet is that it seems like the writers forgot they were writing a movie, and instead wrote the "Internet for Dummies" book —the movie does go through the dangers of the internet such as online gaming, viruses, spam and such, which is good for kids, but it keeps portraying the internet has a dark place and the message is constantly shoved down our throats— and plenty of ads to show off Disney's empire —Star Wars, Disney Princesses, Marvel, even Stan Lee makes an appearance. There's simply not enough plot to fill the 110-minute running time —while the first part is quite solid and engaging, the second part is dragged garbage with a horrible ending. Not to mention the friendship message the film tries to deliver but gets completely lost. 

The characters aren't that good either. The once-cute and adorable Vanellope is nothing but annoying in here, Ralph is no longer the misfit you root for as he's just the idiot who makes a mess after another, and the relationship between them isn't that fleshed out. They are not as bad as the new characters, forgettable being more than a compliment for them. The only redeeming character? Shank, a badass racer voiced by Gal Gadot. The character is bad but Gadot makes you remember her —I think I have a crush on her voice. 

Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures

As for the comedy, it is a bit too dark for kids at times, the internet puns fall flat as they are too dumb for adult and kids will probably not understand them, and the references the film is filled with aren't always that funny. Don't get me wrong, there still are some funny moments —only in the first part though as the second is pretty dark— but there's not enough of them for Ralph Breaks the Internet to be enjoyable. 

The animation is probably the only really good aspect of the film, the only one without a negative side. It's very beautiful, the way the internet is portrayed is very creative and interesting, and overall it's very rich in texture and colours. 

Gangs of New York (2002)

I finally watched Lars von Trier's Dogville last week and I loved it, so I figured it was about time to watch another of those movies I've been putting off for years because of its length, Martin Scorsese's Gangs of New York. 

It is set in 1863 when gangs ran the streets of New York and the government couldn't or wouldn't gain control of the city, and it mainly focuses on Amsterdam Vallon (Leonardo DiCaprio), a young man whose father (Liam Neeson) was killed sixteen years before by Bill "the Butcher" Cutting (Daniel Day-Lewis), the leader of the most powerful gang in New York, and is now seeking revenge. 

Scorsese's intention is pretty clear, he wanted to make a realistic, historically accurate movie about the story of New York. The problem is that he chose a revenge plot that isn't of the most compelling as it is entirely predictable and with a resolution and could and should have come a lot earlier. As for the history of New York, specifically of lower Manhattan, it is quite messy and confusing because there's too much going on —abolitionism, immigration, racism, to name a few of the topics— and not enough time to address all these issues properly. The story did start out interesting, but eventually, it lost my interest completely. 

The characters aren't very helpful either. Amsterdam Vallon has to be one of the weakest leading characters ever. He's more of a supporting character in his own story than anything else as he lacks characterization and development. He is not interesting and you just don't care about his fate. Leonardo DiCaprio is quite dreadful in the role as he lacks the presence requested by such a role. Bill "the Butcher" Cutting is one of the most cartoonish villains out there and yet he is way more charming and interesting than the guy we are supposed to root for, and the credits entirely go to Daniel Day-Lewis who yet again, despite the script, gives a strong performance and makes quite a threatening villain and ends up being the only compelling thing in Gangs of New York. The rest of the characters and cast are just mediocre, Cameron Diaz and her Jenny Everdeane being the worst of them all as her performance is terrible as always and her character exists for no reason whatsoever.

Miramax Films

It's the direction, however, the most disappointing aspect of the film. Gangs of New York looks amateurish at its best —some shots are so ugly they make your eyes hurt—, the editing is choppy, the action isn't exciting and the humour not only doesn't add anything to the film, but it makes it look cheap. The scenery is quite beautiful and the costumes are well done but overall I think Gangs of New York is quite an overrated film. If I didn't know it, I would have never guessed Martin Scorsese was behind this.

Tale of Tales (2015)

It doesn't happen every day that an Italian filmmaker works with international actors so I was very interested in seeing Matteo Garrone's Tale of Tales when it was released. Unfortunately (or fortunately considering how I felt about the film), it wasn't screened nearby and I eventually forgot about it. 

Inspired by a collection of tales from Giambattista Basile's Pentamerone, the film tells there intertwining stories: the tale of a queen (Salma Hayek) so obsessed with having a child that she is willing to whatever it takes; the tale of two elderly sisters, Imma (Shirley Henderson) and Dora (Hayley Carmichael), one of which reduces the king (Vincent Cassel) with her voice; and the tale of a princess (Bebe Cave) whose fate is in the hands of her  neglecting father (Toby Jones). 

Although it's fairy tales we are talking about, the plot is far from being mundane. It indeed takes some dark twists and turns as it mixes fantasy with gore, horror and blood. Unfortunately, it's execution leaves a lot to be desired and, instead of being interesting and compelling, the plot ended up being tremendously boring. And it's a shame because it got off to a very good start --the beginning of the first story is very exciting and gripping; unfortunately, as the second story is introduced, the film loses its grip --not only the other two stories are boring but they are also filled with fairy tale clichés. The first story is still interesting throughout the film but having those other two mediocre stories interrupting the flow of the first really ruined the film for me.

Just like the stories, the most interesting characters are those from the first story. The queen is extremely possessive of her son, she loves him and only him, and she expects the same from him. However, her son becomes inseparable with his identical twin brother from a different mother --she took instructions from a Necromancer to get pregnant and that's the result. She is possessive, overbearing and cruel and Salma Hayek does a wonderful job in conveying that. The rest of them are too one-dimensional and shallow to seem real and it's hard if not impossible to develop some sort of relationship/connection with them.

The rest of the cast is a disappointment too. John C. Reilly plays Hayek's king, a quite unusual role for him and therefore interesting; unfortunately, he dies within the first fifteen minutes. Vincent Cassel is completely wasted as the king who falls for the voice of one of the sisters. And Toby Jones, it seems like he didn't get his character, just like the audience. The rest is not even worth mentioning.

01 Distribution, Le Pacte

Despite the poor writing and consequent poor acting, Tale of Tales isn't a complete failure. The cinematography is indeed very good, the colours are wonderful, the sets are awesome and so are the rich-in-detail costumes and the makeup. Lastly, Alexandre Desplat's musical score is captivating as always.

Chicago (2002)

Though it won Best Picture in 2003, I never bothered watching Chicago for one simple reason, it's a musical and I'm not really into them. Then Birgit picked it for the Blogging From A to Z April Challenge, it sounded fun and decided to watch it. And what can I say, it probably didn't deserve the Oscar but it's a fun musical.

In 1920s Chicago, Roxie Hart (Renée Zellweger), a housewife who dreams of becoming a vaudeville star, kills her lover (Dominic West) after finding out he was never going to make her famous. As he discovers her infidelity, Roxie's husband, Amos (), refuses to take the blame for the murder and Roxie is sent to jail, pending hanging. There she finally meets Velma Kelly (Catherine Zeta-Jones), the vaudeville star she admires the most, who is in for murder her husband and her sister --they were having an affair. Both represented by greasy lawyer Billy Flynn (Richard Gere), who is known for having his clients acquitted and making them famous, the two women start fighting for the fame. 

Based on the Broadway musical of the same name which in turn is based on the true story of Roxie Hart, the plot is pretty thin and stupid --I mean, they try to justify a second degree murder-- and yet it's witty and interesting enough to keep you glued to the screen to know how it will end, even though you predict how it is going to end.

Another interesting aspect of Chicago is its characters. They all are nasty, selfish people, and there's absolutely nothing redeeming about them but you can't help but like them and root for them, and the credits go to the actors. 

Renée Zellweger gives an exquisite performance as Roxie Hart, a scheming, manipulative woman who's always looking for attention. Roxie isn't the kind of character that has development, but the kind that slowly shows who she really is, somewhat of a psychopath, and Zellweger does a wonderful job delivering that. Her portrayal feels genuine, and she manages to be incredibly sweet, sarcastic and sexy too. Her singing and dancing aren't perfect which make her the perfect choice to play a woman who is not a singer nor a dancer but wants to become one. Hers, in my opinion, is the strongest performance of the film. 

Miramax Films

Zellweger gets great support from most of the rest of the cast. Catherine Zeta-Jones gives a pretty good performance as Velma Kelly, the ruthless, self-assured star, and her dancing and singing are on point. Did she deserve the Oscar for Supporting Actress? I'm not sure. Queen Latifah is good too as Mama, the corrupt warden of the women's prison, and John C. Reilly is delightful as Roxie's neglected, suffering husband. Richard Gere, on the other hand, is terrible as the lawyer as he looks like he'd rather be somewhere else. 

The musical numbers are quite entertaining and very well choreographed and yet I had a problem with them. They don't really move the plot forward and they are often interrupted with dialogue which is very annoying. I liked the idea of mixing reality and fantasy but it could have been handled better. They, however, allow us to know things about the characters in a more fun way. 

Visually, Chicago is very beautiful. From cinematography to sets to costumes, it's all great. Still, because of the flaws in the script and the execution, I don't think it should have won Best Picture.