Charlize Theron and Seth Rogen make for appealing candidates, romantic comedy-wise, in “Long Shot,” an oftentimes funny, sometimes heartfelt, sometimes preachy and sometimes gross-out tale set amid the wishy-washy world of United States politics.
Theron plays U.S. Secretary of State Charlotte Field, a rising political star who plans on announcing her candidacy for the 2020 presidential election after a whirlwind, worldwide tour touting her global environmental initiative. Working with image and message consultants to bolster her appeal, Charlotte realizes she could use help interjecting a bit of comedy into her speeches, so he hires on a whim controversial journalist Fred Flarsky (Rogen) with a penchant for flying off the cuff. Even though his behavior, temperament and rage against the government and corporate machines make Fred a risk, Charlotte trusts her instincts because as a teenage girl, she used to babysit Fred as an adolescent.
For as odd a couple as Charlotte and Fred seem, Theron and Rogen have a surprisingly good chemistry, both comedically and romantically in “Long Shot.” The big issue is that while Theron continues to prove to her talents in different genres, Rogen, while funny, seems to play the same role of the stoner bud once again.
For a film about politics, “Long Shot” manages to mostly steer clear of the scumbaggery that pollutes today’s political climate, creating an almost idyllic world where politicians almost act like civil human beings. That’s not to say director Jonathan Levine doesn’t make the GOP a punching bag time and again throughout the film – or at least the party’s cable news supporter, Fox News (thinly veiled here as The Wembley Network). On the flip side, however, “Long Shot” introduces a positive Republican character with Christian values who puts a far-left extremist in his place — who effectively argues that Democrats and Republicans simply need to learn how to compromise to manifest the ideal notion of politicians actually getting work done on behalf of the people that elected them.
With a semi-fresh approach to the way politics are presented (Charlotte is not a complete idealist – she knows the system is deeply flawed if not outright crooked, and full-realizes that she needs to play the game in order to see her vision through), the story on which the foundation of “Long Shot” rests – the romance – is hopelessly predictable. “Long Shot” is an enjoyable film to be sure, it’s just doesn’t rise to anything special in the sea of cookie-cutter plots that have populated the romantic comedy genre for decades.
Levine, Rogan and Theron (who also serve as producers on the film) certainly give it their best to separate itself from other romantic comedies, particularly with the interjection of reckless drug use and graphic sexual humor into the third act, a move that ultimately causes “Long Shot” to lose any shred of believability as the film wraps up.
True, the scenes in the third act are very funny, but for a film that focuses on the serious matter of the long-overdue election of female president, you would have thought the filmmakers would have found a much more dignified way of going about it instead of hinging the endgame on a crude sex gag. As such, “Long Shot” gives the term “dirty politics” a whole new meaning, even if that wasn’t the film’s intention.
Lammometer: 7 (out of 10)
Tim Lammers reviews movies weekly for The KQ92 Morning Show,” “KARE 11 News at 11” (NBC), WCCO Radio, WJON-AM, KLZZ-FM, “The Tom Barnard Podcast” and “The BS Show” with Bob Sansevere.
In May 2011, I had the opportunity to talk with a relative newcomer to Hollywood, a nice Aussie actor named Chris Hemsworth, who would go on to star in one of the most successful film franchises of all-time in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. In celebration of the release of “Avengers: Endgame,” here’s that interview:
Although his appearance in “Star Trek” was brief, Chris Hemsworth’s emotionally-charged turn as Captain George Kirk in the 2009 blockbuster certainly made people take notice — including director Kenneth Branagh, who was looking for a star to anchor his film about the Norse God of Thunder.
“‘Star Trek’ actually came out when I was auditioning for ‘Thor’ — and Ken has said he had seen the film and was impressed,” Hemsworth said in a recent interview. “It was perfect timing.”
Oddly enough, Hemsworth, an Australian native, had precious little time to prepare for small, but pivotal role as the father of the iconic James T. Kirk.
“I was cast on Friday night at (director) J.J. Abrams’ office. He said ‘You got the job — you start Monday,'” Hemsworth recalled with a laugh. “I didn’t know much about what I was doing, but I left myself open and available to what I was doing and tried to find the truth in it. It was a lot of fun.”
While George Kirk was captain of his ship for 12 minutes, “Thor” definitely puts Hemsworth in command of the whole film, opening in theaters nationwide on Friday. The major difference is, while Kirk was a selfless individual who sacrificed himself for 800 others, Thor, when we first meet him, is the complete opposite: arrogant, selfish and hot-headed.
Lucky for Hemsworth, Thor’s attitude only represented his beginnings in an eventful character arc.
“That was the big incentive for me in wanting to get the part — I prefer, personally, a part that presents a lot of contrast,” Hemsworth said. “I wanted to get a part that was unpredictable because as people we’re unpredictable. You want to surprise an audience, and challenge their interpretation or views on who they think the character is. It makes the character certainly more interesting to watch, and certainly the script allowed for room to do that.”
Based on the legendary Marvel comic book series created by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby, “Thor” chronicles the character’s exploits in epic fashion: from his reckless ways as a powerful but petulant warrior in the mystical realm of Asgard, to his banishment to Earth by his father, King Odin (Anthony Hopkins). It’s there where Thor meets research scientist Jane Foster (Natalie Portman), and must adapt from prince to pauper if he is to live among the humans and ultimately learn humility. And it’s where he will eventually have to face the dark forces sent from his world to protect the innocent of his new home.
Chris Hemsworth and Anthony Hopkins in “Thor”
The Shakespearean factor
While there were concerns expressed by the comic book’s faithful fans with the selection of a Shakespearean director in to helm “Thor,” Hemsworth said he never had a doubt in his mind that Branagh — who’s film adaptations include The Bard’s “Hamlet,” “Henry V,” “Much Ado About Nothing” and “As You Like It” — was more than suited for the job.
“He’s kind of perfect if you think about it, with his Shakespearean background, because there’s an old English feel to this film and he knows that feel better than anyone,” Hemsworth observed. “Odin, Thor and that world pretty much represents the Royal Family with kings and queens. Thor’s journey is pretty much like ‘Henry V,’ which he did an Academy Award-nominated version of. For me, he was perfect — a resource of knowledge of the regality of that world.”
The bonus, Branagh offered in a separate interview, is that the tale of “Thor” has inherent Shakespearean qualities.
“The Marvel treatment of the Norse myth to attain, achieve and aspire to a god-like quality in themselves, whatever that might be — piece of mind or generosity of spirit — and reassessing what that means,” Branagh said. “That dichotomy, that paradox, that tension — between god and man, man aspiring to be god-like, and gods dealing to be human-like — is a kind of tension and exploration of the inner-life of a character that is very Shakespearean. ”
“I think in both cases, with a Shakespeare play like ‘Henry V’ and with a tale like ‘Thor,’ all of that is wrapped up adventure tale,” Branagh added. “That’s where those two intersect.”
Building the perfect Thor
While Hemsworth said he benefited from being in the company of Branagh, as well as such acting stalwarts as Hopkins, Portman, Stellan Skarsgard and Tom Hiddleston (who plays Thor’s conniving brother, Loki), it was entirely up to 6-foot-3 performer to when it came to building Thor’s massive, sculpted body.
“It took a good five or sixth months of force-feeding myself buckets of protein, and then spending six or seven days a week in the gym,” Hemsworth said. “I’ve always been pretty active and played a lot of sports, but I’ve never lifted weights, so this was a whole new thing for me. My body didn’t set well with that weight, eating tons and tons.”
And, as Hemsworth found, the regimen didn’t stop when filming began. After all, he had to be ripped when it came time for removing his shirt (and see Portman’s and co-star Kat Dennings’ jaws drop collectively).
“I had to keep up with it because the shirtless scene was about three-quarters through the shoot,” Hemsworth said. “It meant at the end of a 16-hour day, I’d have to get into the gym. It was very exhausting. It was a good thing that I was prepared for it all.”
Chris Hemsworth in “Thor”
For the time being, Hemsworth, 27, said the workouts will continue, thanks to his role in writer-director Joss Whedon’s Marvel superhero ensemble extravaganza “The Avengers,” which is set for a May 4, 2012, release. Thor and Loki will be featured in the film, along with several other Marvel legends including Ironman (Robert Downey Jr.), Captain America (Chris Evans), Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson), Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson), Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner) and Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo)/The Incredible Hulk (voice of Lou Ferrigno).
Hemsworth, naturally, couldn’t provide any plot details of the film, but assured his turn in the film will be much more than a cameo.
“The film certainly is the next step for Thor, and I was impressed how Joss managed to bring all these characters together and give them and equal sort of story and time,” Hemsworth said. “It’s going to be quite an iconic moment to see all those superheroes on screen together.”
Plus, being on the film will give Hemsworth another chance to snag Thor’s thunderous hammer — formally known as his Mjolnir — since he didn’t get to keep the prop from the first time around.
“They didn’t offer me one so I had every intention of just stealing it — so I missed my opportunity, unfortunately and came away hammerless,” Hemsworth joked. “In ‘The Avengers’ I’ll try getting another one.”
If they see Hemsworth driving off with a weighed down trunk, though, he’s sure to get busted.
“Security will strip me down and take it back,” Hemsworth said, laughing.
But hey, at least he’ll get to embarrass them with his ripped body.
Tim Lammers reviews movies weekly for The KQ92 Morning Show,” “KARE 11 News at 11” (NBC), WCCO Radio, WJON-AM, KLZZ-FM, “The Tom Barnard Podcast” and “The BS Show” with Bob Sansevere.
VIDEO: Tim reviews “Avengers: Endgame” with Adrienne Broaddus on “KARE 11 News at 11.”
“Avengers: End Game” (PG-13)
The end is here at last for the first sprawling saga in the Marvel Cinematic Universe with “Avengers: Endgame,” an exhilarating and emotionally charged wrap-up of the 22-film saga that began with Robert Downey Jr. and “Iron Man” in 2008.
Of those 21 previous MCU films, three involved the gathering of the Marvel’s mightiest superheroes to form the Avengers – lighter films that took a deathly serious turn with “Avengers: Infinity War” last year. In it, of course, the omnipotent villain Thanos acquired all six Infinity Stones, which together gave him the power to wipe out half the universe’s population with the snap of his fingers.
AUDIO: Hear Tim’s spoiler-free review of “Avengers: Endgame” with Tom Barnard on “The KQ Morning Show” on KQRS-FM.
Now, avoiding spoilers at all costs, it’s safe to say Earth looks holy hell in the wake of Thanos’ purging, and the surviving members have a choice to make: To cut their losses and embrace what little life has left for them — or take a risk and act on a couple glimmers of hope that emerge that will give them a chance to turn the tables on Thanos.
While “Avengers: End Game” is 3 hours and 1 minute long, it surprisingly doesn’t feel any longer than “Infinity War,” which was 2 hours and 29 minutes. The extensive run time allows for “Endgame” a more human story than we’ve seen from “The Avengers” before, and a much larger and yes, very complicated build-up to an inevitable showdown in the film’s third act.
The great thing about “Endgame “is that it doesn’t take the obvious route I thought the film would take assessing the ending of “Infinity War.” Instead, it goes with a much more challenging route, and despite the plot’s complexities, “Endgame” still manages to be extremely entertaining from an action and comedy standpoint before it packs some serious emotional wallop to wrap up the film.
Downey saves his best performance as Iron Man for last, shuttering his wise-ass, billionaire industrialist attitude to become a broken yet grateful man humbled by events of “Infinity War.” Instead, Thor (Chris Hemsworth) and Hulk (Mark Ruffalo) are the scene-stealers this time around from a comedic standpoint, surrounded by familiar faces from the “Avengers” films who keep the story in a proper balance. The film also includes an appearance, naturally, from Captain Marvel (Brie Larson), the latest MCU member who promises to lead future films in the franchise.
Despite the overly ambitious narrative that drives the film (that will no doubt challenge its audiences as they try to unpack it all), fans will no doubt be enamored by “Endgame.” True, some tough creative decisions were made to give this chapter of “The Avengers” some emotional weight, but in the end, they were necessary to serve the story; the culmination of one of the greatest superhero franchises of all time.
Lammometer: 8 (out of 10)
Tim Lammers reviews movies weekly for The KQ92 Morning Show,” “KARE 11 News at 11” (NBC), WCCO Radio, WJON-AM, KLZZ-FM, “The Tom Barnard Podcast” and “The BS Show” with Bob Sansevere.
The Conjuring Universe has added another thrilling new chapter to its already impressive library of films with “The Curse of La Llorona,” a scary good ghost chiller that tells the haunting story of the “Weeping Woman” of Latin American folklore. True, “The Curse of La Llorona” is far from a groundbreaking, but it still importantly maintains the tone and creepy atmosphere of the previous Conjuring Universe films.
For those unfamiliar with the tale, “The Curse of La Llorona” is rooted in a tragedy in the early 1600s, when a young mother drowns her sons as a way of punishing her husband for his cheating ways. Fast-forward to the early 1970s, where the evil spirit of the Weeping Woman attaches herself to a social worker (Linda Cardellini) with two young children who she wants to claim as her own.
AUDIO: Reviewing “The Curse of La Llorona” with Tom Barnard on “The KQ Morning Show” on KQRS-FM.
Much like the previous chapters in producers James Wan and Gary Dauberman’s Conjuring Universe (“The Conjuring and its sequel, “Annabelle” and its sequel, and “The Nun”), “The Curse of La Llorona” expertly employs basic but very effective filmmaking techniques. All of the right elements are there, from tension building up to jump scares to a piss-your-pants scary apparition of the Weeping Woman (Marisol Ramirez) to a very capable cast telling the story – even though the script has the human characters woefully walking into situations most people with common sense would avoid.
Like the other Conjuring Universe entries, “The Curse of La Llorona” includes crossover characters as a way to tie sprawling tale together. Since the scenes involving these crossover characters enter the story in a sensible way, it will be interesting to see how any of the other characters – including an ex-priest-turned-evil-spirit-vanquisher (Raymond Cruz, who effectively brings the film its comic relief) – will come into play in future Conjuring Universe offerings.
Given the fact that “The Curse of La Llorona” is largely set in 1973 (the same time frame as the first “Conjuring” movie) and director Michael Chaves is also set to helm “The Conjuring 3” in 2020, chances seem good that we haven’t seen the last of the Weeping Woman, a menacing spirit who has rightfully earned her place in the inventive halls of horror created by Wan and Dauberman.
Lammometer: 7.5 (out of 10)
AUDIO: Reviewing “The Curse of La Llorona” with Paul Douglas on “Paul and Jordana” on WCCO-AM.
Tim Lammers reviews movies weekly for The KQ92 Morning Show,” “KARE 11 News at 11” (NBC), WCCO Radio, WJON-AM, KLZZ-FM, “The Tom Barnard Podcast” and “The BS Show” with Bob Sansevere.
