Tag Archives: movie review

REVIEW: “THE FLOWERS OF WAR” (2011)

by

2

“The Flowers of War” is a Chinese war drama based on the Nanjing Massacre during the Second Sino-Japanese War. The stylish and sometimes brutal depiction of the scarring conflict and atrocities was made with a budget of almost $100 million making it the most expensive Chinese film ever made. Director Zhang Yimou’s respectful but straightforward approach to the story gives it quite a powerful punch even though it employs a few conventions that we’ve seen in several other films.

Christian Bale plays John Miller, a boozing American mortician who is hired to bury a priest at a convent in war-ravaged Nanjing. He arrives as the Japanese army is storming the streets catching and executing civilians and the small pockets of the Chinese forces struggling to survive. He narrowly makes it to the convent and performs his duties but we quickly find out that he’s a pretty despicable man. After being told they can’t pay him, he begins rummaging through the church in search of money and later gets drunk after finding the communion wine. But the horrors of the war outside the walls of the church find their way in which sets the table for John’s own personal salvation.  He’s faced with the choice of a self-seeking escape, leaving everyone else behind or staying and doing everything in his power to protect and save the young girls of the convent. 

John isn’t as shallow of a character as the material occasionally makes him look. Sure, he’s a drunken self-centered loser whose redemption is inevitable, but we later find out that there is more to him and his past. We understand his connection to the girls and why he feels the need to stay and protect them. He sees it as his chance to do something right for a change but it also touches on some deep inner feelings that are connected to his past. I really enjoyed watching Bale transform his character on-screen. Bale’s performance is strong, both as the obnoxious jerk and as the new man he becomes. I also bought into his relationship with the girls despite a few inexperienced performances from the young actresses.

Things grow more complicated at the convent when a group of colorful prostitutes bust into the church seeking shelter from the rape and murder going on throughout the city at the hands of the Japanese soldiers. John gives them refuge in the cellar. But the young girls from the convent don’t like them and the prostitutes are almost as self-seeking as John is at first. But we also see the relationship between the two groups go in several different directions which gives us some of the film’s more moving moments. Much like John, the prostitutes aren’t as shallow as they seem and in many ways they seek the same personal redemption that he does. Ni Ni gives a very good performance as Yu Mo, the leader of the prostitutes for lack of a better word. She’s a tough and confident woman who instantly catches John’s eye. One of the remarkable things about Ni Ni is that this is her first film role. Director Yimou wanted someone from Nanjing and Ni Ni won the part.

Yimou’s direction is so good and his visual style permeates every scene. Not only has he directed 20 films but he’s also been involved in cinematography and that certainly contributes to his cleverness with the camera and impressive staging of shots. He also creates a believable gritty and bloody war-torn environment. The shells of the city’s buildings,the debris and rubble, and the gruesome images of corpses lined along the streets all contribute to convey the magnitude of the carnage and destruction to the audience. Yimou also doesn’t shy away from showing the savagery of the Japanese soldiers. There is a brutal rape scene that is truly hard to watch and an attempted mass rape scene that is equally difficult. Yimou kept everything in bounds but it still left me unnerved and shaken. There are also several scenes of war violence that are very well served by his stylistic flare. Now I did feel there were a couple of scenes where the bloodshed was unquestionably gratuitous, but overall it felt perfectly in place.

While the war and the atrocities are a big part of this movie, it’s not the main focus. Yimou has said that love, salvation, and sacrifice were some of the key things he wanted audiences to take from the film. The war was the backdrop which simply revealed the evil side of humanity. But there is good and there is love and that’s what we get as the story unfolds.  The story runs us through an emotional wringer and there are some gut punches along the way. While I concede that there are moments that feel a little contrived and the dialogue sometimes seems artificial and strictly intended to evoke emotion from the viewer, I have to say that the movie worked for me. I recognize its flaws, but I was drawn into this rather unfamiliar territory for me and the interesting dynamics and high stakes kept me enthralled throughout. 

Roger Ebert’s biggest complaint about the movie seemed to be that the story revolved around a white American as the priest. He ends his review by asking “Can you think of any reason the character John Miller is needed to tell his story? Was any consideration given to the possibility of a Chinese priest? Would that be asking for too much?”. I found this to be one of the oddest criticisms hurled at a film in a while. First, the Chinese filmmaking team had a good grasp on the story they wanted to tell and their film was based on a novel which set many of the characters up for them. Second, the fact that John was an American gave him a limited immunity from the Japanese aggression. We see this play a big role in the film on several occasions. So Ebert’s criticism is either grounded in something else or he simply overlooked these key facts.

I can see where this film could be too gruesome for some and too depressing for others. I can see arguments against the movie’s occasional gratuitous violence, the few instances of sub-par acting particularly from the children, and some of the movie’s emotional moments that seem generated solely to get a response from the audience. But I have to admit, while these issues kept “The Flowers of War” from being a great, great movie, they didn’t hinder it from being a very good film that touched me on numerous occasions. The stylistic visuals, Bale’s strong lead performance, and the many heart-wrenching moments that I responded to help make this a very satisfying movie. It’s not easy to watch at times but it’s still good storytelling and one I would have no problem seeing again soon.

VERDICT – 4 STARS

“CASA DE MI PADRE” – 2.5 STARS

by

6

“Casa de Mi Padre” is yet another potentially funny but underachieving comedy starring Will Ferrell.  This bizarre low-budget Spanish language movie spoofs everything from spaghetti westerns to Mexican telenovelas and plays it all with a straight face. Now while I don’t know if there is a big audience for spoofs of Mexican soap opera westerns, it is quirky enough that, when combined with the puzzling adoration for Ferrell, it will attract some curious movie fans. As someone who’s not a big Ferrell guy, I went in with very tepid expectations but hope that I would be surprised. It certainly has its moments and certain gags work well, but in the end it felt like a haphazard Saturday Night Live skit stretched out to feature film length.

This may come as a surprise to you but in “Casa de Mi Padre”, Ferrell plays a simple-minded dolt.  His name is Armando Álvarez (which he reminds us of throughout the picture) and he has grown up working on his father’s struggling ranch. Soon his brother and favorite son of his father Raúl (Diego Luna) returns from making a name for himself in the business community. He’s accompanied by his beautiful fiancée Sonia (Genesis Rodriguez) and their return marks what the family thinks will be the end of their financial woes. But it turns out that Raúl is actually a drug dealer who has pushed into the territory of a powerful drug lord known as Onza (García Bernal). As you can imagine, this throws the family in the middle of an all out drug war, something that is quite pleasing to a dirty DEA agent (Nick Offerman) watching from a distance.

Reading the synopsis of the story doesn’t make you automatically think comedy. And as I was writing the synopsis it was really hard relating it to the way this movie is presented. The telenovela style is almost immediately identified. The melodramatic and stilted dialogue along with the actor’s serious deliveries and exaggerated mannerisms give the movie a uniquely goofy tone. And regardless of how cleverly absurd the concept is, frankly I begin to grow tired of it at the halfway mark. I’m not completely discrediting it because there are some genuinely funny moments, but there aren’t enough funny lines and funny gags to keep the movie going. And then there’s the dialogue itself – sometimes funny, but most of the time consisting of dull, repetitive, and drawn out conversations that almost seem more like filler than substance. Then there are the injections of several wacky musical interludes intended to be outrageous but I could have done without them.

But the movie doesn’t just play around with Mexican soap operas. It also spoofs sloppy, cheap filmmaking and this was when the movie was at its funniest. There are several hysterical intentional “mistakes” scattered throughout the film such as a phone conversation where one party hangs up, we see the other party still talking in the next shot, then we see the first party talking on the phone as if they had never put the receiver down. Then you have a man clearly shot one time then we see him stagger around with two profound bullet wounds in his chest. There are little “goofs” like these hidden all through the movie and I laughed each time I found one. Then there was the glaring, deliberately cheap production design. Several scenes feature obvious mannequin body doubles. Then there are the poorly painted backgrounds, horrible tiger puppets, and a couple of clearly fake horseback riding sequences. There’s even a bigger intentional hiccup midway through the film but I’ll leave it to be discovered. These were hilarious moments that had me laughing whenever they popped up.

The movie also has its share of Tarantino-styled violence. There are numerous slow-motion action takes and bloody gun battles. You can also see the movie takes from spaghetti westerns through a couple of showdowns as well as some of the conversations between Armando and his compadres. But everything is done within the context of comedy. It’s just not done well enough to make “Casa de Mi Padre” anything more than a mediocre diversion. While it is a bit tamer that most of Ferrell’s other films, it still has enough of him and his humor to partially satisfy his fans. But even though it has a good concept and it does do some things really well, there’s just wasn’t enough material here to keep me interested.

REVIEW: “Moonrise Kingdom”

by

14

Going into a Wes Anderson film there are several things you know to expect: a healthy dose of dry and sometimes offbeat humor, a unique visual style, and familiar aesthetics that permeate each of his movies. “Moonrise Kingdom” is no different from other Anderson efforts in terms of it’s storytelling style and visual presentation.  This is his first film since 2009’s Oscar winner “Fantastic Mr. Fox” but it’s clear from the opening credits that his dedication to his style of filmmaking is still as strong as ever.

“Moonrise Kingdom” takes place in a small community on a New England island in 1965. A very Wes Andersonish  narrator sets the table for us and we meet several of the community folks including Scout Master Ward (Edward Norton) the leader of the island’s branch of the Khaki Scouts. While doing morning inspections, he discovers that 12 year-old Sam (Jared Gilman), a picked on, eccentric young boy has run away from the camp. Elsewhere on the island young Suzy Bishop (Kara Hayward) lives at Summer’s End, her home shared with her parents and three young brothers. Suzy is a reserved introvert who has no friends and finds refuge by retreating into her fantasy novels and looking through her binoculars – something that she pretends gives her super powers. It’s through her binoculars that she discovers her mother Laura (Frances McDormand) meeting secretly with the community policeman Captain Sharp (Bruce Willis). Her father Walt (Bill Murray) is impervious to the signs of his wife’s secret fling mainly due to their fractured relationship.

Suzy ends up running away from home and through a flashback we learn that it’s something she and Sam had been planning since they first met at a local church play the year before. The two meet in a meadow then set out on a journey together through the rugged and rainy island terrain. Sam flexes his extensive outdoor knowledge before Suzy by pitching tents, building fires, and catching and cooking fish. Meanwhile, after discovering the kids are gone, the dysfunctional community sets out to find them.

Anderson has several interesting dynamics at work, the first being the relationship between the two kids. It’s easy to see why they are drawn to each other. Both feel detached and out-of-place. There’s a void in their lives and they find solace in the fact that they no longer feel alone in the world. Both Gilman and Hayward are stunningly good especially considering this is the first feature film for both. Anderson’s childlike deadpan dialogue flows naturally from the two characters and he really gives them a believable foundation for the budding adolescent romance. Some have argued that the romance between the two was lacking and never provided the spark to drive the relationship. I argue that there’s no huge passionate spark mainly due to the children’s age and the newness of love and romance. I feel that their attraction to each other is based more on their personal, emotional, and social similitude. Being in each other’s presence fills a substantial emptiness in their lives and let’s them know they aren’t alone. A form of love sprouts up from that and Anderson depicts it with tenderness even amid the laugh out loud moments and the hilarious, straight-faced dialogue.

My biggest problem with the way Anderson handles the children’s relationship is the way he handles his child actors in one particular scene. Intended to show a sexual curiosity and almost unwanted compulsion, there is a brief scene where Gilman and Hayward are asked to engage in something that I have no problem saying I was uncomfortable with. At the time of filming, both actors were 12-years old and the willingness of Anderson to shoot this particular scene is disappointing. It’s certainly not graphic but it’s also not appropriate and that fact that it’s used more for comic effect is even more frustrating.

But while the story of Sam and Suzy drives the main narrative, perhaps the biggest microscope is put on the community and the fact that they are each flawed individuals forced to make important and sometimes redemptive decisions. As you look at each character you see situations unfold that bring them to the point of either doing the right thing and changing the direction of their lives or watching as things crumble in around them. In a very real sense, the disappearance of Sam and Suzy is the catalyst for some pretty real and important character transformations in Captain Sharp, Scout Master Ward, Laura, and Walt. Even Sam’s fellow Khaki Scouts are faced with their own moment of truth.

I talked about Gilman and Hayward’s performances but they’re surrounded by some equally strong work. I was particularly drawn to Bruce Willis who delivers some great laughs but through a very controlled performance that’s perfectly fitting for Wes Anderson material. Willis occasionally gets to show his acting range and this is a good Oscar caliber example of that. And I have to say, as someone who isn’t the biggest Edward Norton fan, that he was a lot of fun here. He’s goofy, nerdy, and his delusion of control that’s evident in some of the early scenes results in some of the films funnier moments. Frances McDormand is perfectly cast and Bill Murray is funny as always. I also thought Anderson favorite Jason Schwartzman was funny running around in full Khaki Scout attire.

“Moonrise Kingdom” is another Wes Anderson picture that’s a side-splitter to some but a head-scratcher to others. I laughed a lot through the film but I was also touched by its tenderness and care in addressing struggling children with feelings of isolation and insecurity. Anderson does get careless and I feel irresponsible in one brief scene but there are still several undercurrents that touch on important themes without fully diving into them. We not only see it with the children but in the community and it really worked for me. “Moonrise Kingdom” may not be for everyone but I loved its full package and stylish presentation. It’s a breath of fresh air in a comedy genre filled with raunchy movies and lazy humor. I’ll take this over them any day.

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS

“TO ROME WITH LOVE” – 2 STARS

by

1

I’ve never been a big Woody Allen fan. But my appreciation for his filmmaking grew with last year’s amazing “Midnight in Paris”, a fantastic film that was wonderfully written, genuinely funny, and purely magical. Allen’s European tour continue’s with “To Rome With Love” yet another romantic comedy taking place in one of Europe’s most beautiful cities. “To Rome With Love” is a collage of individual stories about a number of different people and their relationships, their predicaments, and their quirks. It starts by capturing some of that same magic that made “Midnight in Paris” such a strong film but the second half of the movie runs off the rails and the result is an uneven and ultimately disappointing result.

The different unconnected stories battle for screen time and all start on the right track. In one, Haley (Allison Pill), an American tourist visiting Rome meets, falls in love with, and is soon engaged to a local hunk named Michelangelo (Flavio Parenti). After her parents fly over to meet his parents, her father (Woody Allen), who compares his recent retirement to a premature death, thinks his career is rejuvenated after discovering Michelangelo’s shower singing father (Fabio Armiliato). In another story, Roberto Benigni plays a mundane and predictable husband and father who suddenly becomes the object of immense fame and notoriety over nothing more than what type of underwear he wears and how he likes his toast.

In yet another story Alec Baldwin plays John, a middle-aged architect back in Rome visiting the neighborhood where he once lived as a young man. He bumps into Jack (Jesse Eisenberg), a young architect living in Rome with his girlfriend Sally (Greta Gerwig). Their relationship is strained when her best friend Monica (Ellen Paige) flies in to visit from the states. John follows Jack around everywhere sounding off warnings about his budding relationship with the flakey Monica. And then there are the reserved small-town newlyweds (Alessandro Tiberi and Alessandra Mastronardi) who arrive in Rome where the husband hopes to get a job from his wealthy family. Through several off-the-wall events, the two are separated in the city and each find their love for the other challenged by the people they meet including a  prostitute played by Penelope Cruz. This was easily the weakest story of the four.

These four storylines stay within their own individual walls and they never intersect with each other. As I mentioned they each start strong and Allen packs a lot of good laughs particularly the first half of the movie. At first I really thought Allen was doing something clever and crafty with the four stories. The film addresses an interesting array of issues and the characters are actually quite intriguing up to a point. But things begin to slowly turn sour and not only does Allen’s story fly wildly out of control but many of his characters become pretty pathetic individuals who depict the movie’s warped and cynical view of love, devotion, and relationships. Several of the characters are faced with sexual temptations and ultimately fall prey to them, some with almost no meaningful struggle of conscience. Other storylines become preposterous which is ok if you’re going somewhere with it. And while I definitely laughed at some of the over-the-top gags, keeping my loosely attached interest intact  hinged on the idea that Woody was doing more with these self-indulgent characters and outlandish situations than what we were seeing. As it turns out he really wasn’t.

As I’m sure you noticed, Allen still has a knack for attaching great talent to his productions. There’s not a bad performance in the entire film and the actors almost pull it off even when the material goes south. Woody Allen himself delivers some of the film’s biggest laughs while portraying the same neurotic and pessimistic character as in his other roles. Speaking of neurotic, but on a much smaller scale, I also really enjoyed Eisenberg’s performance as well. But the biggest star of the film may be the city of Rome itself. Allen truly has an affection for Rome and he goes to great lengths to show its history, beauty, and romantic charm. While Rome certainly doesn’t take on main character status as Paris did in “Midnight in Paris”, it’s still a key ingredient in giving the movie the romantic vibe its shooting for. In fact, for me the movie loses most of its sense of romance with the exception of the charming city that’s present in almost every scene. Even when I was growing detached from the stories, Allen’s camera would capture a location in Paris that sucked me back in.

“To Rome With Love” is truly a story of two halves. The first half of the movie was an absolute blast even though some of the four stories were more interesting than others. But in the second half of the movie I sat in the theater noticing that I hadn’t laughed in some time. As I slowly lost interest in the characters I began noticing that Allen really wasn’t going anywhere with the film. There’s no clever or memorable twist. It spits and sputters to its finale and by the end I was asking myself how Allen could have made two halves so totally different. I also wasn’t all that interested in Allen’s seemingly loose ideas of love, fidelity, and trustworthiness and in this case it hollowed out his characters with the exception of those in Haley and Michelangelo’s story. For some, the spectacular location and the number of funny moments will be enough to carry the picture. But for me it was terribly uneven and it ends up tearing down everything it itself creates. In fact, “To Rome With Love” feels like a film that needed another year of writing and production. The rushed results were nothing short of disappointing.

REVIEW: “The Amazing Spider-Man”

by

8

It was 2007 when we last saw Spider-Man on the big screen in the underwhelming and over-blown “Spider-Man 3”. While nowhere near as good as the first two films, “Spider-Man 3” still earned close to $900 million at the box office. In light of that, plans for “Spider-Man 4” immediately took off. But the movie had several problems including creative differences between director Sam Raimi and Sony Pictures which resulted in his departure from the project. The decision was made to scrap “Spider-Man 4” and instead opt for a complete reboot of the popular Marvel Comics franchise. That meant good-bye to Tobey Maguire and hello to Andrew Garfield.

So that brings us to “The Amazing Spider-Man”. Marc Webb takes over the directing duties with James Vanderbilt handling the writing. Vanderbilt goes heavy into the origin of Spider-Man, this time with some new twists but also with the same basic premise. The film starts with Peter Parker’s (Garfield) parents being spooked after their home study is ransacked. In the study, Peter’s father retrieves some secret documents from their hiding place – obviously what the intruders were searching for – then along with Peter’s mother drops Peter off with his Aunt May (Sally Field) and Uncle Ben (Martin Sheen) before hurriedly leaving.

We then skip ahead several years. Peter is the quiet, nerdy teen interested in science, photography, and a beautiful fellow student named Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone). Peter finds out that his father had ties to Dr. Curt Connors (Rhys Ifans), an accomplished scientist working for Oscorp. Connors lost his right arm some time ago and thinks he’s found a solution to his handicap through his cross-species regeneration experiments. After slipping into Connors’ Oscorp lab, Peter begins snooping around and comes across an experiment involving – what else – genetically altered spiders. You know the story – he’s bit which leads to new powers and new responsibilities. Meanwhile events unfold that cause Connors to prematurely try out his regeneration formula on himself and, as I’m sure you guessed, it goes terribly wrong. It transforms him into a super strong, destructive, reptilian creature and Peter, now known as Spider-Man, is the only one who can stop him.

As I mentioned above, the movie spends a lot of time retelling the origin of Spider-Man. It’s certainly not a carbon copy of Sam Raimi’s first Spider-Man picture, in fact it seems to go to great lengths to distant itself from the original three movies. Several key parts of the origin differ greatly not only from the previous films but from the comic book source material as well. But originality isn’t a bad thing as long as the source material is respected and it certainly is here. But the film’s biggest problem is also tied into the decision to go heavy into the origin. While it is well written and stands strong on its own, I never could get over the feeling that it was just too soon for a reboot. Even with the fresh approach it still felt too familiar and at about the 1 hour 15 minute mark I was really ready for the story to move on.

But there are some things that “The Amazing Spider-Man” does better than the previous films. On thing is the relationship between Peter and Gwen. I really responded to their complicated romance and it felt more genuine and real than the Peter/Mary Jane relationship in the first movies ever did. Here it felt authentic and I bought into their emotions and affections. I also think more attention was given to fleshing it out whereas Peter and M.J. from the first films were built around a very simple blueprint and they stuck closely to it.

I also think Andrew Garfield was fantastic and his performance was head and shoulders above Tobey Maguire’s. He played the nerdy, reserved introvert very well and even after he gains his powers, Garfield never overplays his character. He throws out just enough witty banter with the criminals he’s putting away and I never doubted the genuineness of his scenes that required more raw emotion. A lot of that is due to Garfield but a lot is also due to how well Vanderbilt handles the character in his writing. I was also a big fan of Emma Stone’s performance. She’s grounded and believable and she sells her character very well. Sally Field and Martin Sheen are serviceable as Aunt May and Uncle Ben and Denis Leary makes for a pretty decent Captain Stacy, Gwen’s father. But the real stars are Garfield and Stone.

The special effects are quite good particularly during the huge, action-packed finale. The spider-influenced fight choreography is a lot of fun and there are several cool tricks used to give Spider-Man’s New York City swinging a different look than in the previous movies. As far as the Lizard goes, he’s a little of a mixed bag. There are times, especially during the fight sequences, when he looks very good. I also remember a specific scene where the Lizard looks awesome as he was walking around in a ripped Connors lab coat. But there are also a few scenes where the CGI was very noticeable and regardless of the attempts at motion capture, it still looked a little unrealistic. But as a whole the visuals are very good. They’re not overused and for the most part they capture exactly what you would want from a Spider-Man picture.

“The Amazing Spider-Man” can’t quite escape the fact that it just feels too soon to be offering up a rebooted Spider-Man series. In light of that, the first half of the film can drag and it seems a little wasted. The movie definitely creates its own unique beginning but the thrust of the origin is nothing all that new. That aside, Garfield is a solid replacement as Spider-Man and his character is one you can really invest in. Now with the origin out of the way, I’m anxious to see where the series goes next. If they’re able to keep their components in place and avoid the trappings of “Spider-Man 3”, we could be in for a real treat.

VERDICT – 3.5 STARS

REVIEW: “Big Miracle”

by

0

The “incredible true story” of three California gray whales trapped in ice in The Arctic Circle certainly has all the ingredients for a feel-good family film. But as with many of these types of pictures, they are often burdened with shallow characters and even shallower writing. Unfortunately “Big Miracle” falls well short of the potentially good subject matter. It’s yet another case of taking a surefire gimme of a story and completely missing the mark.

“Big Miracle” is a movie with a message but it also tries to play it both ways. Drew Barrymore stars as Rachal Kramer, a rather rabid Greenpeace environmentalist who is immediately drawn to the news story of three whales trapped in ice off the coast of Alaska. The story is reported by Adam Carlson (John Krasinski), a local reporter who hopes to use the story as a way to climb the TV journalism ladder. Rachel and Adam know each other and we learn that they have a history. Her more dogmatic approach to the whales’ plight clashes with his career boosting motivations and, as you will see coming a mile away, he must decide what’s more important, the lives of the whales or his own selfish ambitions.

We also get several stereotypical characters that Hollywood never gets tired of using. We get the blonde reporter who is beautiful but all about the story first. We get evil politicians who, by the film’s depiction, hates the whales and the environment and are only interested in fattening their pockets and increasing their approval ratings. We get a macho National Guardsman who is straight-laced and by the books and even a mean old oil executive. Oh, and throw in some local whale hunters and the obligatory “cute kid” to round things out. All of these people are brought to the light by our compassionate environmentalist heroine.

Now there’s nothing wrong with making a movie with characters who are environmentalists and there is certainly nothing wrong with making movies with a good message about taking care of the environment. Some movies have done it right, others bludgeon you to death with it (see “Avatar”). But in “Big Miracle”, Barrymore’s character is just whiny and grating. Now to be fair, the movie does try to show her as someone who doesn’t quite understand the big picture. The local Inupiat whale hunters make a case that hunting is their way of supporting their families. It provides food and other necessities. The movie uses a couple of scenes that attempts to show both sides of the argument. I don’t know if this was an honest attempt at representing all bodies of opinion or if it was just an attempt to not seem so heavy-handed with their main message. Either way the supposed friction between the two sides feels terribly contrived.

The movie also isn’t helped by some pretty lame dialogue. Rachel is constantly making overly dramatic and at times down right silly statements, my personal favorite being “Ronald Reagan killed the whales!” So many characters speak in ways that are true to the typical caricatures they portray. Throw in several of the gimmicks used with these types of movies and in the end you really don’t have anything that impressive or memorable.

“Big Miracle” does have a pretty amazing story at it’s core and to be fair you do get glimpses of it. The idea of people coming together from different viewpoints both environmentally and politically is certainly a good message. Also the movie does manage to keep you interested in the whales and whether or not they’ll survive their horrible predicament. While the ending offers no real surprise, it’s still fairly successful in packing a little emotional punch.

That being said, “Big Miracle” still has too many flaws to make it worth recommending. It feels like a film dedicated to an overused formula, a formula that quite frankly I’ve grown tired of. It’s also another example of a “family film” that still feels the need to slip in an assortment of profanities and even uses the always annoying ‘kid cursing’ attempt at humor. Throw in the cheesy dialogue, boring caricatures, and uneven direction and you have a movie that fails to execute even with the good story it has to work with.

VERDICT – 2 STARS