The Film Freak Review Page

American Sniper - 8/10 - The worlds of war and home life have never been as close as it has in the newest film from Director Clint Eastwood. Chris Kyle (Bradley Cooper) is the most lethal sniper in U.S. military history. U.S. Kyle is sent to Iraq with only one mission: to protect his brothers in arms. His pinpoint accuracy saves countless lives on the battlefield and, as stories of his courageous exploits spread, he earns the nickname "Legend." However, his reputation is also growing behind enemy lines, putting a price on his head and making him a prime target of enemy elite. Despite the danger, as well as the mental toll on his family at home, Chris serves through four harrowing tours of duty in Iraq, becoming a shining example of the SEAL creed to "leave no man behind." But upon returning home, Chris finds that it is the war he can't leave behind. "American Sniper" is definitely Eastwood's return to glory, but if there is one thing that this film will be remembered for, it's the heart pounding intensity of Bradley Cooper's performance of the toughest shoes he ever filled on camera. As an executive producer of the film, the dedication Cooper has to the film is present. It's incredible to see his on screen transformation, from the southern accent, to the 40 pounds of muscle that Cooper put on to accurately represent the physically intimidating Kyle. Cooper has definitely done his homework on the subject, and it's clear why he may be one of the biggest stars currently in pictures. He wears so many of his emotions on his face, that the audience never needs to be beaten over the head with what is going on inside. Instead, Eastwood lets his characters tell their own stories emotionally. One thing i found quite interesting about the film is the risks that Eastwood took that actually paid off. There is little to no musical score in the film, and my personal interpretation is that Eastwood thinks war is intense enough without adding a soundtrack to the violence. It's a daring move that actually pays off, as many of the gunshots sound and feel more intense to the audience that spends over two hours with it. The second risk, is in the form of the strange editing style that Eastwood took with the movie. There are times when a battle scene is taking place, and without notice, we are following Kyle back at home with his trouble adapting to life. I can understand the kind of trouble people would have with this, but to me it felt like Eastwood was merging the two worlds going on in Kyle's life by blurring them even closer than they seem to the audience. Time feels like it goes by too quick in the film, and that is because time is flying by for Kyle in his time away from home. During his second trip home, we come to realize that Kyle has a second child coming without any notice what so ever. Do you see what i mean by time going fast? My only lone complaint to the film is that it would've been nice to see more of the effects at home. Some of those times feel rushed compared to the 80% war film that this is. I get that during those four tours that he spent more time in war than at home, but i sometimes felt like the film was getting too repetitive with the cause and effect happening from Chris's point of view. Once again, this could just be a way to metaphorically look at Chris's time at home going too quick, but it does weigh down a little bit on the overall pacing of the film. The cinematography is breathtaking, and more colorfully of what we have come to know as a signature Eastwood style. I feel like Clint shoots a war film better than anyone going today, and that is reflective from his major set pieces, and impactiful POV camera angles where the violence hits the hardest. Eastwood could easily do a lot of short takes for his fight scenes, but he slows it down and lets every situation from every angle sink in. I appreciated this a lot, as there are a lot of characters other than Chris to keep track of. Overall, i felt the movie is clearly the early January front runner for film of the year. I would recommend it to everyone, but especially to veterans, and war film lovers alike. There have been several movies before this film to tackle psychological effects post war, but none have done it as practical to showcase the little twitches quite like this one. "American Sniper" is a film great enough to tell the story of one of the biggest weapons in American forces history. That weapon had a heart of gold, and a never quitting attitude when it came to the mission he put forth. Thank you Chris.
A Most Violent Year - 9/10 - Writer and director, J.C Chandor takes us back to a more dangerous time for New York City in his newest film starring Academy Award Nominees, Oscar Isaac, and Jessica Chastain. Set during the winter of 1981,statistically one of the most crime-ridden of New York City's history, "A Most Violent Year" is a crime drama following the lives of Abel (Isaac) and his family as they attempt to capitalize on the American Dream, while the rampant violence, decay, and corruption of the day drag them in and threaten to destroy all they have built. Simply put, this is a film based on dynamic performances from two of the world's most powerful actors. Isaac and Chastain set the silver screen on fire with the portrayal of a couple with very dark backstories. It's those backstories that are slowly peeled off, but never fully revealed. We get a taste of the kind of sinister deeds that these two have had to undertake to get to this point, and we understand why they are perfect for each other in that regard. Most crime genre films tend to focus on only the male character and his motivations for such decisions. It's in Chandor's film, that this history ends with Chastain stealing the show in every single scene she's in. Jessica can pack a punch with the powerful emotions she displays without ever making the scenes feel like actors acting. Her portrayal of Anna in this film far outweighs even the best of performances from her at this point in her career. Isaac is quickly perfecting his craft with the charisma and passion of a young Pacino in his prime. I don't think it's a coincidence that his name is Abel considering he is fighting himself with two different sides throughout the whole film. There is the business man who wants the American dream, and tries to keep his cool in the face of other sabotaging his business. Then, there is the gangster with a violent history who works as a problem solver. Unfortunately, the ladder is more of what appeals to his wife. She tells Abel that without conflict, there can be no resolution. Perhaps the most compelling character is that of the actual setting, New York City. With the underlining tones of a beautiful composition by Chandor favorite, Alex Ebert, the on screen transformation for a setting 34 years ago is a successful one. Chandor uses gritty and dream broken streets to tell a story of how hard it is to make it during the city's most turbulent decade. I couldn't find any contradictions to the year that would take me out of the film, and that's a testament to the eye for detail that Chandor and staff have. The movie generally feels like you are watching a picture from the early age of VHS cinema. The soft lighting is very limited, but reflective in the shadows are the backstories from these tested characters that we don't know much about. When watching the film, notice how much the blurry takes up the framing of the film. Like the characters are the only thing that stands out in world's they've made figuratively and literally dark. If i had one small problem with the film, i only wish the intro would've educated the viewer more on some of the problems with NYC and what made it the most violent year to date. With little knowledge unless knowledgeable about the city, the viewer is left to wonder what made this era so threatening to those still hungry for their dreams. I think a black background scene with text displaying the crime and murder rate could've gone a long way in setting the mood for the next two hours. We're watching the beginning of a great American filmmaker in Chandor. His originality when it comes to set production is on the very brink of a composer ready to write his memorable masterpiece. It's hard to imagine where J.C will go, but he has certainly made a fan out of this critic. "A Most Violent Year" is a welcomed flashback to the time where we were still learning what true depths it took to reach for that brass ring. It's a gritty, savvy, and brilliantly structured. Impactful even without the very violence that typecasts the title.
Blackhat - 3/10 - I have always believed that Michael Mann is overrated as an action genre director. That's not to say that there aren't notable exceptions, like "Heat", "Manhunter", or "Ali". Those three films i mentioned are my favorites from Mann, and two of them aren't considered action genre movies. His latest effort is titled "Blackhat", a film about the threat of global cybercrime. The film follows a furloughed convict (Chris Hemsworth) and his American and Chinese partners as they hunt a high-level cybercrime network from Chicago to Los Angeles to Hong Kong to Jakarta with a stolen bank account of over 700 million dollars. "Blackhat" had the possibility of being a social commentary for today's threat in online activity. The film should've educated the audience with the mission of educating, not alienating. Where the film suffers the ladder is in it's hard to understand Cyber world language. Not everyone who watches this film is going to be a highly educated master of internet terminology. The film is hard enough to follow through a first act, but it's made nearly impossible with the terrible delivery of action camera framing. For a movie full of action in it's trailer, it sure lacked anything in the two hours and five minute run time that we have to suffer through. I was a little worried going into this film because i knew most of this film would take place at a computer screen. Not exactly the most action oriented of activities. When the action does come, it's sound editing is done notably enough, but the camera work leaves the long wait totally unsatisfying. We experience more of the shaky camera effect that we have come to know from post "Saving Private Ryan" action films. Two years ago, i wrote about how terrible the camera work was in the action sequences of "A Good Day to Die Hard". "Blackhat" may have surpassed it with not only terrible framing work that has the actors falling out of many shots, but some excellent sounding action scenes that are missed because the shaking camera is too quick for us to ever register what is going on. Luckily, the film's final action scene is mostly on the street and in one shot, but it's over too quick to ever change the damage done by the previous efforts. Like any Mann effort, the film has to have an outrageously cheesy 90's sex scene, and this one doesn't disappoint. Chris Hemsworth suddenly has feelings for his best friend's sister after fifteen minutes of being on screen. The film doesn't hint at any lost chemistry time between them due to Hemsworth's jail stint, so this literally comes out of nowhere. If it's not enough for a fast placing of the film's on screen duo, they have sex on a rooftop for the entire Tokyo skyline to see. This isn't a huge deal breaker for me, but it does set a silly tone in the film that tells me it's writer didn't believe in the film, so why should i? "Blackhat" is very tedious and boring, but the perfect kind of film for the usual January dumping ground. If the film focused more on educating it's audience about online terrors and more detail to pacing issues that plagued the film, the movie wouldn't have been nearly as bad as it's finished product. Stay away from this one. It's a mess of epic proportions
Black or White - 5/10 - The interesting thing about Mike Binder's newest film, is how little it has to do with it's racially motivated title and setup. After seeing the trailer for this movie, i thought it was an appropriate time for such a commentary on racism in modern day America. What we're left with is instead a ploy to get people into the seats. "Black or White" is the story of a grandfather (Kevin Costner) who is suddenly left to care for his beloved African American granddaughter. When her paternal grandmother (Octavia Spencer) seeks custody with the help of her lawyer brother (Anthony Mackie), the little girl is torn between two families who love her deeply. With the best intentions at heart, both families fight for what they feel is right and are soon forced to confront their true feelings about race, forgiveness, and understanding. The script simply downplays the racial tensions, or they just don't exist. This film (for me) felt like more about Costner's alcholism, and his lack of dealing with the death of his wife, seen in the film's opening minutes. This movie should've been more about social commentary on how both sides view the hateful issue, but as it stands, the movie tiptoes around content more serious than the tone of the movie. There are some good laughs in the movie, and the performances lift a flawed script to as high as it could go. Costner is playing his deepest role since 1999's "For Love of The Game". In Elliot Anderson, we see that speculation is everything when it comes to the reasons he has nothing to do with his granddaughter's other side of the family. However, with each passing scene, we learn more about his motivations, and it's in these reveals that we understand where the guy is coming from. Spencer could still make a role feel important even if this script does absolutely nothing to make her look good, or support an argument for her side against Costner. It's like the movie forgot to add reasons why we as an audience would believe that this little girl would be better with the grandmother and her family. The banter between Costner and Spencer is when the movie shines the most, and i would've liked a little more of that. I was close to giving this movie a 6/10, but the film's final ten minutes feel so uninspired and unbelievable that it left a bad taste in my mouth leaving the theater. The verdict of the court case isn't as important as the scene before it involving Costner and the little girl's father. It's like they took a film about family and how important it is, and turned it completely upside down into a suspenseful thriller. I don't want to spoil anything, but it's so hard to believe that any of these characters can remain civil after the events of that scene. Overall, i enjoyed "Black or White", but i feel no need to ever see it again. I got everything that i'm ever going to learn from the film, and i think the film is a little too long for me to ever put that much into it again. The movie's trailer and title suggest that decisions like the one the little girl faces in this movie are very complicated, but the movie has a tidy way of closing every storyline by third act. I think it's a good film to see at a local dollar theater, but i don't think anything is being missed by letting this one fade into obscurity in three weeks. For a film about racial tensions with a splash of humor, check out "Dear White People". It had more bravery for the tense subject it was relating to it's audience.
Black Sea - 7/10
Dear Kevin Mcdonald : My name is The Film Freak, i am an amateur film critic in Akron, Ohio. I am writing you to thank you for not only congratulatory purposes on your newest film, "Black Sea", but to thank you for restoring my faith in films released in January. This month is usually a dumping ground for the worst in film. There are many reasons why many people don't look forward to January, and no one knows that better than me. In the last two weeks, i have encountered seven different films that made me question not only my sanity, but my ability in writing. There are only so many different ways you can explain the same thing wrong with a film. Luckily, your film came along as a dark horse to pick me up out of the gutter. The film's plot is enough to intrigue anyone who (like me) is a fan of 90's slow burn action films. Jude Law starring as a recently released submarine captain who puts together a team of misfit british and russian submarine workers to go after a rumored deep sea Nazi ship with forty million in gold bar treasure. From that premise alone, one could think there wouldn't be much to "Black Sea" to understand, but it's quite the contrary. Your film uses it's first hour of the movie quite well to teach us everything it can about every character on this ship in a short amount of time. You feel like you know everything about these men because of subtle dropped hints just below the surface when a lightbulb goes off in one of their heads. The men know not everyone is going to make it out of this thing alive, and the suspense shifts to ten when the team realizes their shares will increase every time a man dies. Law was as usual the strings that tied the film together. His slow transition into a madman whose only focus is putting this gold above his and the lives of his own crew, is quite haunting. For me, it was Ben Mendelsohn's performance as the loose cannon of the ship that always kept things interesting. Ben is slowly becoming one of my favorite supporting character actors of the last ten years, and i think he made the most of every scene in "Black Sea". You knew the moments when this man was going to snap because we the audience were already in his head from what we were told at the beginning of the film. He was our wild card, and the madness that follows actually makes sense when you consider this is a thinking man's villain. What's great about your film even beyond this is that one would think the arc of the story into the third act would get down to Law Vs Mendelsohn, but it's not. The movie has a couple different swerves to really keep your audience guessing, and i commend you deeply for it. One such swerve changed the entire landscape of the film, and it's from that moment on that we must rethink everything that our protagonists gone through. Kevin, i have followed your film path for a long time, but your camera work in this film is among the very best you have ever done. For action films in 2015, it has become a cliche to shoot camera angles up close and in the faces of the characters in each movie. I never really support that style unless it makes sense, and this film shows us why. The ship is claustrophobic and full of a 16 man crew with very little privacy. It's in these shots that i felt every little bump in the ship, or every little obstacle that stands in the path of this old rickety ship. The lighting is so thick that it almost feels like were gasping for air every time the red comes on. Miles underneath the Black Sea is the darkest parts of the world, and it's that setting that will remind the audience just how alone these characters are. In the same way that Ridley Scott terrified a nation with space, no one will hear you scream at the bottom of a sea bed. My lone problem in the film comes where so many great scripts have fallen lately; the ending. The final shots and result of the film are fine, but it's the minutes leading up to the final resolution that left me scratching my head. Up until the final fifteen minutes, characters were dying off slowly to make their deaths feel more meaningful. The problem with this is that it left eight men alive during these final minutes, and it becomes a free for all of goodbyes that feels a little too rushed. The result of the gold was also very unbelievable to me. The movie definitely doesn't lack guts, but it does lack a little logic in the final scenes, and it's something that bothered me a little when sent home on that note. Don't get me wrong, "Black Sea" is a continuing victory road in a prestigious director whose accolades include "The Last King of Scotland", and "State of Play". It's an honest reminder on the perils of greed, and the consequences that follow as a result. I plan on recommending your film to anyone who likes script directors. Those are the directors who put a script first, and let the situations play out from great character actors like Law and Mendelsohn. Thank you Kevin for putting me back on the right track. Bad films come and go, but it's movies like "Black Sea" that remind me of the very pleasures why this has been a dream of mine since i was a little boy. Thank You.
Cake - 5/10 - The battle back from a life changing event can be a long and torturing one. Director Daniel Barnez (Beastly) newest film is the story of pain pill addict, Claire Simmons (Jennifer Aniston). Claire is left picking up the pieces after her best friend in her support group, Nina, (Anna Kendrick) has committed suicide. Claire's look into Nina's life makes her take a step back and reflect on the life altering event that destroyed her life in a flash. "Cake" is certainly Barnez best effort to date, but it's not an unblemished one. While this cake does have many layers, the film peters out by the third act leaving a bad taste in your mouth, and never wanting seconds. One aspect that did impress me was the performance of Aniston. She is at the point in her career where her characters seem to blend together, but in Claire she gets to finally unleash some of the typecast anger that she has been stuck in for decades. Claire isn't the most morally structured woman, but there is something about her story that you feel drawn in to learn why her life is the way it is. Slowly, the pieces start to unravel the kinds of things she lost, and that feeling played emotionally well of never being able to recover. I do think this is Aniston's best performance to date. I only wish that she had a script that knew the kind of reaction it wanted to grasp from it's audience. For one, the film never really decides whether it's a dark comedy or a dramatic frailty piece. There are many scenes where the ghost of Anna Kendrick is haunting Jennifer, and it feels silly and out of place with the kind of material these characters are dealing with. A film i can compare this to is the 2002 film, "28 Days" starring Sandra Bullock. That movie's comedy worked because the film started off silly to begin with, and never had to mature to it's subject in the field of alcoholism. In "Cake", the comedic tones are there, but they just aren't funny when matched with suicide, drug abuse, and even manslaughter. Kendrick is charming as usual, but her character just doesn't fit a film like this. The title of the film is another thing that bothers me. Cake is shown twice in the movie, that's it. We don't learn that the protagonist has an addiction to it, or even anything out of the ordinary, it's just there. It would be like making a film that shows a front yard a couple of times and calling the film "Grass". I think Barnez could've tried a little harder with an overall effort to match that of the breakthrough performance his leading lady casts. The ending didn't do much for me. There were several storylines that didn't get wrapped up. One particular storyline featured William H Macy for three minutes, and then we never see him again. I can't reveal much for spoiler purposes, but it would've been nice to receive some closure for Claire on that front. When the screen fades to black, it feels like one of those endings where the writer had a nice idea, but didn't know where to end it. Overall, "Cake" is nothing above a rental. I could understand people wanting to see it, and they will be rewarded with a different layer (Pardon the pun) to Aniston as an actress. If you like Jen, i would say give it a shot. Otherwise, it's easily forgettable mess that never takes any chances with the serious material it presents.
Chappie - 5/10 - Artificial intelligence for law and order is at the center of controversy in 2016 Johannesburg, South Africa. The site of acclaimed director Neil Blomkamp's newest action thriller, "Chappie". Mechanical police force has taken over the world, and now, the people are fighting back. A defunct police droid is stolen and given new intelligence. He becomes the first robot with the ability to think and feel for himself. As powerful, destructive forces start to see Chappie as a danger to mankind and order, they will stop at nothing to maintain the status quo and ensure that Chappie is the last of his kind. With real life commentary in films like "Elysium", and "District 9", Blomkamp has become an instructor of sorts for an original vision when it comes to a post apocalyptic landscape of sorts, and "Chappie" is no different. It packs a punch with an electronic soundtrack (Mostly done by the film's stars Die Attwood), and metaphorical meanings to compare Chappie to that of a little child whose mind soaks up the language and violent matter of the people he considers parents. When asked how i felt about this film, it's kind of hard to say. I would say that the film's scientific reach is exceeded by it's factual group on how any of this is possible. In short, the movie has narrative flaws the size of France, and that is no evident than in the final half hour of the movie. Between how easy it seems to hijack these systems and databases, to SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS the transfer of human presence VIA hard drives. With a more thought out ending, the film would've easily been a 6/10 for me, and recommended. As it stands, this movie had arguably the worst and most far fetched ending that i have seen in 2015. An even bigger problem is that there isn't just one bad ending, but several false finish endings that only drags the film deeper and deeper into a negative hole that is too late to ever crawl out of. It's also never really explained how Chappie's computer program intelligence enhances when his programming rests on what others teach him. He has trouble understanding the difference between life and death, but we are somehow supposed to believe that he can hack into a computer system and easily rework different computer software? The characters are mostly hateable. Leading to the film's climax, i was hoping for terrible things to happen to a couple of characters in particular, and it was about 50% satisfaction. I understand that these characters have to be this way to get across how dangerous a world it is how there for someone with the intelligence of a five year old, but this didn't make it any easier on my focus for the film. I know it sounds like i have only trashed the film from here, but i promise that there are some things that gave "Chappie" a near passing grade. The structure of it's title character brought me fully invested in the terrible world he was encountering. Sharlto Copley does a wonderful job combining childish wonder and sadness to his tones while voicing the robot. It's interesting that the look and actions of Chappie are completely CGI done, because Copley does such a great job that i found myself getting lost several times in thinking he was a man behind the costume. The supporting cast also does a great job, even if i found myself hating their actions in the screenplay. Hugh Jackman portrays the film's central antagonist, and he makes the most out of a character who visually looks like he should be hosting a show on Animal Planet. His interractions with Dev Patel feel like the only solid human contact in the film, as Die Attwood's acting is mostly laughable. I understand why they were chosen for these roles, but i would've much rather preferred two actors, and let Die Attwood supply the futuristic beat infused score that brought out the most in it's action scenes. The fight scenes are done very well with lots of explosions done up close to the camera. It puts the audience in Chappie's situation, as we feel like this whole violence thing feels foreign to him. Overall, i did like the film, but i wouldn't say it was great, or even good. It's length (Nearly two hours) is weighed down by several time filling scenes that should've been left on the editing floor. I really wish that ending would've been changed. It hurt so much from a good war scene that satisfied all of the build from the previous 90 minutes. If you are dying to see this one, i recommend a DVD rental. For me, "Chappie" hit closer to "Elysium" than that of the 2009 breakout hit "District 9". Blomkamp has shown that he has some great ideas that may be ahead of their time, but narrative explanations are never grounded enough for the viewer to fully put two and two together.
Cinderella - 6/10 - Beautifully stylish, but narratively safe. Director Kenneth Branagh's (Jack Ryan : Shadow Recruit) take on the original classic is sure to please fans of the original tale, while offering up a modern look at wardrobe that paints beautiful magic. For those of you living under a rock, "Cinderella" is the story of a princess named Ella (Lily James). After the tragic deaths of both of her parents, Ella is forced to live with her wicked stepmother (Cate Blanchett) and her two shallow daughters. Never one to give up hope, Ella's fortunes begin to change after meeting a dashing stranger, who turns out to be a Prince (Richard Madden) looking for love. There is a lot to enjoy about this new take, but there isn't enough risks taken to ever justify it's release. By now, there are no fewer than twenty Cinderella visions in film. Everyone knows the story, so a story so famously told needs tweaks and alternate storytelling to always keep it fresh. What 2014's "Maleficient" did was breathe new life into a tale as old as time by turning everything you knew about "Sleeping Beauty" and turning it upside down. "Cinderella" would be fortunate for some of these ideas. The live remake serves as a 90% shot for shot remake, with no serious changes done to the outline of the story. What this does is take away the intrigue of a story, thus giving the fans no shock or awe. The acting is done mostly well. Madden is surprisingly charming despite playing against visual stereotype. He is responsible for many of the emotional investments that the audience makes to the story, as he is an experienced English actor well versed in emotional dramas since his childhood. He never comes off as arrogant portraying the prince. It's something that makes him more relatable as opposed to other actors cast in similar Disney roles. Blanchett is a little cartoonish at times, but her turn as the wicked stepmother was made for her. Blanchett is one of the best actresses in the world, and she knows how to flip the switch of a scene's setting with just one look. James was honestly the only problem i had with the casting. She has the visual appearance of a big star in the making, but her emotional depth comes off as a little corny, and even non existent at times. I noticed many scenes when she was supposed to be crying, but lacked tears. She has tears in one total scene, and that's after a couple of short edits in between. This allows the actor time to be sprayed in the eyes if they can't find the motivation for waterworks. Cinderella is a character who is innocent and always sees the best in people, but she comes off as naive for her current situation. Too much innocence had me rolling my eyes, and i wish they would've given her character a little more motivation. The costumes are absolutely marvelous, and deserve nothing less than an Academy Award. The most extreme of colors are used to stand out for our main characters, and Cinderella's re-envisioning ball gown is a must see for any fan of the animated film. It's great to see Disney spared no cost in accentuating the sparkle that surrounds it's main character. The distance shots are all painting done, but they are breathtakingly beautiful as a taste of this fairytale land. Castles are the heart of a land filled with fields and forrest as far as the eye can see. One thing i hoped for a little bit was more songs. The film surprisingly only has one song that is barely hinted at. It's brought up twice during the film, but other than that, we get no musical mentions. Overall, "Cinderella" might not be the home run that Disney was hinting at in it's trailers dating back as far as a year ago, but it does pack a meaningful punch with the sentimental feelings attached to when we were children during our first telling of this tale. It's a story that continues to be passed down to generations of children, and that is perhaps the only meaning it needs as to why it has stood the test of time.
Fifty Shades of Grey - 4/10 - E.L. James' kinky best-seller gets the big screen treatment with this Universal Pictures/Focus Features co-production. The steamy tale details a masochistic relationship between a college student and a businessman, whose desires for extreme intimacy pen from secrets in his past. The plot i have just told you is EXTREMELY stretched for sure. When you consider that most of the conflict in this film (If there is any) stems from Anastasia (Dakota Johnson) stuck in a decision of signing her life over to the mysterious Christian Grey (Jamie Dornan), i found myself perplexed by their decisions to explore bondage multiple times even before the contract is ever signed. There are some things that i did enjoy about this film, and i will get to them later. The biggest problem facing this movie is the fact that it has two second acts. The non-existent third act pushes us into an ending that is uneventful, and feels like Director Sam Taylor-Johnson didn't pick the right spot to end this first of a proposed trilogy coming in the next few years. The audience i sat with felt very puzzled as the movie ends without solving it's conflict, or even advancing our characters beyond a few short reveals. The film's first act to me was intriguing enough to get me remotely interested in the backstories of the rich and puzzling Grey. It's in that aspect that the film succeeds to it's highest level, but fails at it's highest expectation. We don't learn a lot about Christian except for why he is a dominant. I'm sure the books do a better job at explaining it, but i have to grade this film alone, and on that aspect, it's very tight lipped. I also enjoyed that the movie seems to have some comedic underlying tones, and doesn't take itself too seriously. I talked greatly in my review for "Jupiter Ascending" about films that take their gutsy premises too seriously, but i'm glad that this movie didn't venture down that path. Some of the line deliveries from Johnson are intended to be humorous. I think this is a first big step in her career, but i wish the overall effort around her was more memorable. Dornan just didn't make a believer out of me, and i'm someone who has never read the books. His line deliveries seem more like an actor reading a script and not necessarily someone with a problem ripping him at the seams. Dornan could do a lot more if he wasn't so monotonous to the point that it only does his character a disservice for anyone in the audience to root for him. Christian Grey is the single toughest protagonist to ever get behind. He's abusive (Yes i know there is a contract, but it doesn't make it right), he's pushy to an overbearing ordering personality, and he's a HUGE stalker when it comes to Anastasia being his property. I ask what woman would be fine with their best friend being with a man like this if he didn't have millions and millions of dollars, and that is the biggest misunderstanding i had with the movie. What exactly does the women demographic get from this film? The sex? It's mostly female nudity. Johnson has so many tedious and repetitive sex scenes that it almost seems pointless for her to wear clothes by the final act. There are too many sex scenes even for this type of movie. To cram Six sex scenes in a two hour film only slows it down when it's trying to progress it's character arc's, and to be honest, it's the part of the film i could've done without. The scenes feel like a porno in the sense that if you have watched one, you've watched them all. Luckily, the movie knows this and rushes the final two sex scenes (In a five minute span) along in a chopped and edited fast forward. Are the women in this for the female empowerment? Steele is forced into a toxic relationship by being showered with gifts such as a new car and laptop. Seriously, every time there is a conflict, Steele is presented with a new gift. It gets to the point of laughable absurdity. So i am puzzled at what any woman sees in Grey or this story alike. Anastasia is yet another female character who requires a man to be happy, and it's a trait in Hollywood films that i am absolutely sick of. I would think that in 2015 that we have come a long way in presenting the empowerment of a woman's prowess and how she uses her beauty as a weapon, but i guess we haven't come far enough. The film is based off of "Twilight" fan fiction, and it's clear to see the comparisons. For one, there is a small love triangle present with Anastasia's friend, Jose. He might as well be called Jacob in this scenario because he reeks of it. The film's premise is also in Seattle. Sound familiar? Christian takes Anastasia flying and it's a scene similar to when Edward put Bella on his shoulders while climbing the tree. I could go on forever with the similarities, but i'd rather not. I went into the movie giving it a fair chance, and with the exception of the positives i have already mentioned, there are a couple more. The film is stylishly shot. It's very well lit with wonderful camera photography. If Vogue Magazine made a film, the visuals would come close to "Fifty Shades of Grey". I also enjoyed the soundtrack to the film. I'm not a huge Beyonce fan, but her additions for "Haunted" and "Crazy in Love (Remix)" were welcome additions when the toys come out. I also am digging on the newest track by Ellie Goulding, "Love Me Like You Do". Overall, "Fifty Shades of Grey" isn't an effort that is going to make me jump at the other sequels that will come out. It gave some surprising artistic directions, but the film's overall effort left me limp with disappointment at the flacid plot and character development. It doesn't matter what i say because women are going to see it, so go see it and have the fun that i only did when i laughed at it.
Focus - 6/10 - Will Smith's welcome home party to the roles that made him at one time the biggest star in Hollywood. Nicky (Will Smith) is an experienced con artist who has created a way of life from the unsuspecting victims he robs, every day. When Nicky meets Jess (Margot Robbie), he takes her under his wing because of a will to learn, and an instant attraction that he has for the blonde bombshell. These feelings could mean the difference between life and death, as Nicky is set up for the biggest payday of his career scaming an Indy 500 race. Director John Requa's (Crazy Stupid Love) latest film which clocks in at 98 minutes, is a road filled with twists and turns that is guaranteed to overwhelm the viewer by closing credits. The final ten minutes of the film created a huge hole not only in the logic of the scams that Nicky has planted, but in the suspense balloon that builds and builds until it hits a very anti-climatic pop. It's no surprise that a film about the tricks and trades of the con world comes with a huge suspension of disbelief, but "Focus" makes 2012's "Now You See Me" look like a real life biopic. The main problem comes in the explanations in the scams themselves. Nicky explains to Jess (as well as the audience) that a big scam comes in getting someone's focus and keeping it. Nicky adds that people can't possibly multi task with their brains at one time, so these tricks seem easy as pie. Wallets are one thing, but when the characters are stealing double snapped watches, the film's believability took a back seat for me. I honestly think that the problem is that the movie does try to explain itself too much. By showing the audience the sizzle, we don't always have to know how the steak is made. When it starts explaining itself, that's when the holes are miles deep. So why the 6/10 rating? The film is carried by two great lead performances that showcases an intimate chemistry from the future Suicide Squad stars. The film is very old school in it's approach, in that it's largely following the romantic spark between the film's two stars in a way that's reminiscent of 60's heist/caper flicks. Robbie is definitely given more to do than her cardboard role in 2013's "The Wolf of Wall Street", and as Jess the movie's focus shifts to our ability (as well as Nicky's) to trust her. She becomes the biggest part to the movie, even if the ending totally forgets that setup. Smith is playing easily his best role in ten years, and that's because the freedom the script gave for him to flex a charm that is second to none. You couldn't picture anyone other than Smith playing this role, and it's a stamp that leaves a shadow bigger than the lasting positive impression the film gave me. "Focus" is also very well shot, with cinematography reminiscent of a director who has done his homework in Barry Sonnenfield films. The stylish neon nightlife scenes of France are very eye appealing, and shed a mystic light on the wrongdoings of our protagonists. The score has a lot of 60's Rat Pack, combined with a soft tiptoe across the dance floor of songs that play during any tango. There are a lot of twists in the movie. Some predictable, and some not. I think that the number of them got the audience opening their minds up more to possibilities, and that's not good in a film that is reaching for the shock and awe. "Focus" isn't as appealing as it's trailer leads you to believe, but it is a fun time that fans of Smith will praise to keep him away from his melodramatic roles of the past decade. Like it's set rules, it shows us something going on in one hand, while doing something completely different in another. The end result like any con or magic trick, isn't as appealing once you know how it works. I would wait for DVD on this one.
Hot Tub Time Machine 2 - 3/10 - John Cusack is missed very much. That's not just a statement coming from a critic/audience member, but the sequel to the 2010 hit original misses just as much. The sequel (if you can call it that) has a weird way of mentioning his character several times, as where most sequels would try to forget he ever existed in the first place. This reminder that Cusack (Who hasn't passed on much) isn't in the film, only adds to one of the most painful comedy sequels i have ever sat through. It's a constant whispering of how much better the original film was with Cusack playing the voice of reason. Without that voice, the children are free to tastelessly binge. The film picks up ten years after the events of the first film, with the assassination of the world's richest man (Rob Coddry), and his friends (Clark Duke, Craig Robinson) attempt to save his life. I found it revolting how much i really hated this film. I knew that it was going to be a failure going in. Granted, the first film looked terrible by it's trailer, but it ended up a pleasant surprise. What makes part two so painful is that it follows the same roads a lot of other comedy sequel failures travel down. For one, the characters are amped up to eleven. Coddry's character was trashy in the original, but his portrayal is a character i hated so so much. From sleeping with his friend's wives, to being morally shallow, this character shouldn't be the main protagonist in any film. The film also explores some of the exact jokes and punchlines that were presented in the original. It seems like script writers always have this belief that the same joke can be played off just as funny the second time, and they were really wrong on this one. The blatant look to the camera when the words "Hot Tub Time Machine, Too" are uttered, is just further proof that this script was constructed in a short amount of time. Just look at the poster. It's so mindlessly dull that it serves as a representation of the trouble anyone is getting into with this offering. The characters and their time travels just don't work here. In the first film, we cheered for them because their lives were kind of pathetic, and they longed to change the things they regretted. This film's traveling is the staple of an assassination sniper mystery that could've been prevented to begin with. We figure out the assailent by film's end, and this ending completely makes zero sense to anyone with even half a brain. The events and situations have so many holes in them that even with a wide open ending, the film's cast wouldn't even dare flirt with a third film in the series. Most of the film would get a pass if it were funny, but it's not. I laughed one time in the whole movie, and it was during a scene when one of our main characters is getting sexually assaulted. Do you see how low i've sunk? Overall, "Hot Tub Time Machine 2" is a slap across the face to an already ridiculous premise. At 88 minutes, it is the bare minimum of effort that should only increase the DVD sales of the first movie. On that aspect, maybe it's genius.
Inherent Vice - 5/10 - The newest film from acclaimed director Paul Thomas Anderson is a tough film to recommend to people. This might be one of those cases where i didn't like or hate the film based on my first time seeing it, and might require another viewing. There have been films like this before. The one that comes to mind is 2006's "Southland Tales", in which i hated it the first time i saw it, but then grew to enjoy it when i started solving the metaphorical mysteries of the film. "Inherent Vice" is the big screen adaptation of the Thomas Pyncheon novel of the same name. It follows a private eye named Doc Sportello (Joaquin Phoenix) living in 1969 Southern California. Sportello's ex-old lady suddenly out of nowhere shows up with a story about her current billionaire land developer boyfriend whom she just happens to be in love with, and a plot by his wife and her boyfriend to kidnap that billionaire and throw him in a looney bin. If this plot is enough to have you shaking your head, it's only one of the many developing plots and characters that the film has to offer. With a running time of 2 hours and 23 minutes, Vice feels too crowded and often times stretched out. With the exception of a ten minute scene during the third act, the movie is mostly long scene expositional dialogue, and if that isn't your kind of film, this is NOT the movie for you. Don't be rushed to judge this film just based on my rating however, the movie does a lot of things well. For anyone familiar with Anderson's films, the man is a guru when it comes to stylized shots. His framing work in particular in this film is what gives it the PTA signature touch with trippy lighting, and a soundtrack that is a tribute to mid 60's pop wave B-sides. The acting is done exceptionally well with Phoenix leading the way. When it comes to character acting, there are very few actors today who give everything to a role like Joaquin. His stoner vibes give this movie the right touches of comedy to keep the audience from ever getting bored. I think the film warrants a second viewing based on the background facial reactions of him, alone. Many accolades also go to Josh Brolin, Katherine Waterston, and even Martin Short. The film's entire cast ensemble is miles long, and this kind of works to the film's disadvantage with many characters disappearing for the better part of 90 minutes before reappearing. My biggest problem with the film would probably be in the story itself. My issues are pretty subjective, but i found myself very un-invested during the first act of the film. There was nothing that dragged me in and got me to care about the characters, and there were too many interlocking storylines to keep me informed at where the story was at. It was a little disjointed, but i feel that it was set up that way. I'm not too pretentious of a film critic to even pretend like i knew everything that was going on in the film. I think Anderson's idea was to create a tribute to 1960's stoner paranoia with everything from Law tampering to interchanging lovers. It's just one of those famous Oscar bait films that i feel has too much praise. Is it a great film? NO. Is it an OK film? Yes. I just wish there was more memorable about a movie with such a huge time investment. Some storylines get wrapped up, but some are left hanging to wonder how long the Director's Cut of this film was. Maybe if i read the novel, i would feel more in on the inside joke feel that i was left with by the credits. Overall, i will recommend the film to Anderson fans, but i would wait until it comes out on DVD. There just isn't enough here to warrant paying $10 at the theater.
Insurgent - 5/10 - Shailene Woodley and Theo James return to this post apocalyptic Chicago setting, in the sequel to the 2014 young adult novel adaptation. "Insurgent" continues five days after the events of "Divergent". In this film, Tris (Woodley) and Four (James) are now fugitives on the run, hunted by Jeanine (Kate Winslet), the leader of the power-hungry Erudite elite. Racing against time, they must find out what Tris's family sacrificed their lives to protect, and why the Erudite leaders will do anything to stop them. Haunted by her past choices but desperate to protect the ones she loves, Tris, with Four at her side, faces one impossible challenge after another as they unlock the truth about the past and ultimately the future of their world. The film for me was a tale of two halves. The first fifty minutes of the film severely impacts the pacing of the film with tired exposition that we have already been through in the first film. I understand helping the viewer who didn't see the first film, but maybe a video review in the opening scene of the movie could satisfy all parties. I don't feel like we need to retrace every single step of the over two hour original film. Nothing new is really presented until the final fifty minutes of the film, and that is where the film greatly improved for me. Truth be told, i have never read the novels, but i think the ending to this film could be satisfactory to closing everything up nicely. I can't imagine what the third film will do, but i worry that after a fan friendly ending in this film, it has everything to lose and not much to gain. I saw the film in 3D, and i can safely say it was one of the biggest wastes in 3D venturing that i've ever done. With the exception of some light pixels flying at your face, the 3D is only used as a shading for our characters to pop out in front of a destroyed Chicago backdrop. The action for the most part is nicely done, but it's structured so unevenly that a majority of it comes during that great third act i was talking about. When you saunter through the expositional reviewing scenes of the first act, you more than welcome the fast paced differences that the third act involves. What's that? didn't hear a second act from me? That's because there isn't one. The film reviews the current problems, and then shifts our protagonists back to the mission of trying to conquer the powerful regime. The acting is shot very well with a lot of long takes, and no shaky camera work, and that really made me happy. Only two people really stood out for the acting. Everyone else felt very wooden and two dimensional. Woodley as usual makes the most of any role she undertakes. As Tris, we feel a young woman transforming, a lot like Woodley in front of our very eyes. She's perfect for the role, and has no problem reaching for the tears when the emotional scenes call for it. It was great to see Miles Teller get some more screen time in the sequel. He is getting a little too big for such a small role after his great turn in 2014's "Whiplash", but it's his dry personality that creates for the best line readings of the movie. His interaction with Woodley feels like a brother and sister bickering, and with how straight forward the other scenes are, we welcome such immaturity. Theo James continues to do nothing for me. His one note male protagonist doesn't bring anything to the character that we haven't seen in other Young Adult novel adaptations, and there just isn't enough romantic chemistry between he and Woodley to make the audience care. When comparing this to the original, i would have to say "Divergent" is a better made film, but if the final act of "Insurgent" is the peak for this series as a whole. My biggest problem with the film comes in a convoluted plot that feels very jumbled at times. There's a lot going on, and the movie never really focuses enough time on the long list of problems it has accumulated for itself. After speaking with some fans of the novels, they told me that a lot happens in this film that wasn't in the book. I'm curious to know how others accept these new changes. Overall, i don't think my review will do anything to steer fans of the novel away from checking out the film and enjoying it. More times than not, people will enjoy a franchise in which they have invested so many of their precious hours into. For me, "Insurgent" was decent, but it just can't compete (in my opinion) with it's other YA competitors like "The Hunger Games", or "The Maze Runner". Those other films have a political commentary that i just can't grasp from The Divergent Series. Either way, i'm curious to see what more they can add to a third film, but i really pray they don't "Twilight" it with two films for the final part. Don't drag this out any further than it needs to be. If you see it, do it without the 3D. Not worth it at all.
Jupiter Ascending - 4/10 - When all is said and done, the biggest question concerning this film will be how The Wachowski Siblings managed to take Warner Brothers Studios for 175 million dollars to produce this mess. That's not to say that the money isn't used wisely, quite the contrary. "Jupiter Ascending" is among a very elite list for the most beautiful cinematography i have ever seen in a motion picture. If i was grading this film on style direction and fight choreography, the movie would be an 8/10, but it's the important things that make a film that flaunter in making this anything more than just a visual memory. The film is about Jupiter Jones (Mila Kunis), a young adult woman who was born under a night sky, with signs predicting she was destined for great things.Jupiter dreams of the stars but wakes up to the cold reality of a job cleaning other people's houses and an endless run of bad breaks. Only when Caine (Channing Tatum), a genetically engineered ex-military hunter, arrives on Earth to track her down does Jupiter begin to glimpse the fate that has been waiting for her all along her genetic signature marks her as next in line for an extraordinary inheritance that could alter the balance of the planets. It's easy to look at a poster of the film and easily realize where this film did wrong. Casting two big time A-listers in roles that they aren't usually accustomed to, and let that be the gravitating force pushing tweeners to see it. While neither are terrible in the film, Kunis doesn't feel cast appropriatly for a role too big for her emotional depth. Tatum is surprisingly well, and i can see a decent future as an action star for the rugged handsome lead. The chemistry between the two in the film is plagued by romantic dialogue that is laughable at best, and a romance to begin with that feels like it comes out of nowhere. I get that no woman would be able to resist Tatum saving their life, but it seems like these two talk for a couple of minutes during the scene, and Kunis suddenly remembers that she has to express her interest in Tatum. All of that pales in comparison to the most over the top acting job i have seen since Cameron Diaz in 2014's "Annie"; Eddie Redmayne playing one of many villains. The movie has a problem to begin with when it comes to picking which villain should shine the most, but Redmayne is the choice by film's end. Because of this choice, we are treated to some of the most laughable dialogue readings i have ever seen. Redmayne is an impressive long ranged actor, but there was something about this movie that ruined all of that charasmatic charm. He talks with two voices that both brought laughs out of me in every scene. One, a low raspy whisper that would normally sound like a dying character talking in any other movie, and two, a loud roaring yell when he commands the respect he doesn't seem to be getting. This role is so bad that i would understand the academy having second thoughts about his Oscar nomination for Stephen Hawking in "The Theory of Everything". I appreciated the ideas to get across some new sci-fi ideas to the audience, but the reach of the movie seems to always exceed it's grasp. The film has no fewer than five subplots next to the main plot i have already told you in this review, and most of them aren't needed. One aspect of the story showed many scenes involving Jupiter's on Earth family bickering and getting as much of their personality on screen as we the audience can handle. It's muddled and pointless dialogue like this that will have the audience reaching for their cell phones to find out how long this movie has been running. It's a two hour film that feels like three as a result of these unnecessary plot devices. I did manage to see this movie in 3D, and there are some aspects where it feels justified to pay extra, but i would say that the movie is beautiful enough to see in 2D to still grasp the long shots of space. The 3D is only really useful during the fighting scenes when colorful blasts of lazers are shooting at your face. One thing The Wachowski's have always done well in their films with comparing their ideas to problems facing our very own world, and "Jupiter" is no different. The movie talks a lot about social commentary including higher ups hiding disease curing drugs from the public, and the use of lands to harvest other bigger agendas with foreign policy. Anyone who keeps news headlines close to them will appreciate the similarities on more than one occasion that this movie seems to shine a mirror on. Overall, the movie was not as bad as i was expecting, but it's nowhere near a 175 million dollar space opera. The film has trouble during a lack of second act, and instead using two third acts to finish the film. By the end of the movie, you will feel completely worn out by many scenes in the final half hour that are similar in build and execution. The movie is worth a look to see the beautiful , crisp style of two directors who know how to capitalize on ambitious lighting effects. If you really need to see the film, i would recommend a local dollar theater. It's well justified as seeing on screen. Infact, that's the only way i would recommend it. But i wouldn't pay $9-13 to see this in theaters. "Jupiter Ascending" is stylishly engaging, but it's overcooking of mythology combined with endless expositional dialogue scenes, makes this the first big blockbuster bomb of 2015.
Little Accidents - 4/10 - First time director, Sara Colangelo, clashes the lives of two families who have more in common than either of them could imagine. "Little Accidents" is a melodrama about two different events that shook a small mining town to it's core. The first is a mining accident that killed several union cave workers in a controversial cover up. One man, Amos, (Boyd Hollbrook) is the only man to come out of the cave alive, and is left to testify against the company that employs a majority of the townspeople. Amos's son, Owen (Jacob Lofland) is involved with the second part of the film. The boy accidentally murders another teenage boy while playing in the woods one day. No one is around, and Owen covers up any traces that link him to the crime. These two big clashing stories are happening at the same time while a grieving mother and father (Elisabeth Banks and Josh Lucas) mourn the disappearance of their son. What i enjoyed about the idea of Colangelo's inagural efforts is that she puts these characters on a race track knowing full well that we the audience can see a crash coming from a mile away. The two co-storylines is a great idea that is choreographed very well up the final ten minutes of the big reveal. This movie had the ability to present Banks and Lucas as emotional heavyweights in the drama genre, but instead it leaves us with an ending that isn't work 98 minutes of investment from it's audience. The film tested my patience in more ways than one with the muddled lack of emotional depth from it's cast. These parents find out their child is murdered, so don't tell me that they wouldn't be violent with the boy standing in front of them revealing his big mistake. The film also doesn't show any kind of consequence or what happens when Owen reveals the truth to his father who is conveniently having an affair with Elisabeth Banks. The town is a small one, but the coincidences are mind shattering. I also don't understand how i am supposed to register that Banks is a good person to invest in, or that she is even affected by the loss of her son after having an affair with Holbrook. It seems to me like Sara wanted to make these characters feel human, and i totally understand that. What doesn't work is when conflict is created just to twist the plot even further. There has to be a big payoff or emotional release for any of these things to work. Lucas knows his wife is having an affair, but never approaches Holbrook. It's like these people are reactionless zombies satisfied with a mediocre life full of disappointments. The camera direction shows a lot of promise from a young filmmaker getting her feet wet for the first time. The foggy camera backgrounds are chilling, the story is intriguing, but the performances she directs from her cast destroys any hope of a personal reward for such a durable investment. With a stronger cast and reactions that we could hear instead of just see, "Little Accidents" could've been a needle in the haystack for an evergrowing field of video on demand melodramas. You definitely see the train coming from a mile away with this town sitting on the tracks, but you never get to feel the boom of the explosion. Pass on bland offerings.
Maps To The Stars - 3/10 - Critically Acclaimed Director, David Cronenberg presents his first feature film in three years, as he takes us through the very dark and secretive world of the Hollywood backdrop. "Maps To The Stars" follows four different characters through intertwining stories, in which they all share very horrifying secrets about their dark pasts. Stafford Weiss (John Cusack) is a famed TV self-help therapist with an A-list celebrity clientele. Meanwhile, Cristina Weiss (Olivia Williams) has her work cut out managing the career of their disaffected child-star son, Benjie (Evan Bird), a fresh graduate of rehab at age 13. Yet unbeknownst to them, another member of the Weiss family has arrived in town, mysteriously scarred and tormented Agatha (Mia Wasikowska), just released from a psych ward and ready to start again. She soon works her way into a friendship with a limo driver (Robert Pattinson) and becomes personal assistant to unraveling actress Havana Segrand (Julianne Moore), who is beset by the ghost of her legendary mother, Clarice (Sarah Gadon). Agatha is on a quest for redemption and she's determined to find it, no matter what it takes. Cronenberg has always been one to never be held down by any particular genre title, but it's hard to classify his latest film based on a lack of setting tone, or bland narrative direction from characters revealed one to be worse than the other. The movie lacks any defining structure in it's story. The main goal (If you can call it that) centers on Agatha's journey to redemption for a troubling past, but we don't grasp until the final shot of the film that her story is not that of an honorable one. The point of the film feels to me like almost a parody of A-list life, and to show that these celebrities are every bit as human as the people who look up to them. The acting isn't what i would call decent even by the furthest stretch of the imagination. The movie has a great cast of actors, but i never felt like they connected to the roles they were playing. Instead of getting lost in their portrayals, i instead only saw A-list actors playing a role. The one solid performance throughout the film is that of Moore. The Best Actress winner at this year's Oscars is playing a spoiled and bitchy character, which is so much different from anything she has ever played. There were many points in the movie where i wanted bad things to happen to this character, so job well done. The problem with Moore's performance, as well as a stylish direction, is that the movie is marred by some very unintentionally hilarious scenes. There are a few scenes in the film where ghosts haunt our protagonists, and i didn't have a problem with this until it became tedious and repetitive every ten minutes. If the film added something more to these scenes as the film progressed, then i wouldn't have felt my time was being wasted for something that could've easily been explained in one lone scene. Sound editing/mixing is another big problem i had with the film. Once again, another movie has exemplified unbelievable scenes with it's surrounding distractions. There is one scene that takes place in a loud bar with live music, but we hear the characters like they are in a paded room. One scene has our characters standing on the busiest road in Hollywood, and yet we only hear faint distortions of passing cars. It's a scene that was obviously edited for sound, and it made me lose my focus on more than one account. I saved the best for last, in which there is one scene where a character is burned alive, and the CGI composition is among the very worst i have ever seen. For a film about the rich, and luxurious (Albeit spoiled) lifestyles of the people who inhabit it's city, it's hilarious to see a film with "Birdemic" like effects when it comes to a very important scene during the third act. The commentary on celebrity's is certainly a refreshing idea, but it could've used something other than obvious rumored cliches like picking out a certain color of M&M, or bratty child stars. I'm not saying this cliche isn't true, but it feels outdated with how far we have come on such a subject. Overall, it's best to stay away from this one. Art house filmgoers like myself will even have a tough time trying to follow such a lack in narrative plot, especially with a payoff that had me asking more questions coming out of the film than i had during any other point of watching it. "Maps To The Stars" travels down a road creatively unpaved, and then goes off road on a detour on insane logic. Consider this map outdated.
Mcfarland USA - 5/10 - The latest in Disney's "Zero to hero" line, stars Kevin Costner as a high school football coach fired from his job after some violent circumstances leave his legacy tarnished. He and his family move to Mcfarland, a poor, mexican demographic community with a prison and a high school.....next door to each other. Costner is hired as the first ever cross country coach with no experience to boot. As time goes on, he finds that there is a lot more to these kids that meets the eye. Disney has attempted this road with many different films before. Sadly, there isn't really anything that makes "Mcfarland" different, or even memorable. The film's two hour and four minute run time disects many characters that we are introduced to over that time, but never really feel like we truly know. The problem with having so many characters and not dedicating any time to them, is that when the time comes for them to do something truly miraculous to the plot, we're never fully invested into that character's triumphs. There is a lot of lag time to the structure of a pretty thin and tired plot to begin with. The movie really starts to feel it's time around the one hour mark, and it's in this second act that i wish the film would've given us that background depositional time for each character. When the end credits flashed, it hit me that i know nothing about these kids schooling, or how intelligent they are outside of picking fruits and vegetables in the field. We are shown Costner sitting in a classroom a couple of times, but for the life of me i can't figure out why. Make no mistake about it, this is a SPORTS FILM ONLY. There are some shots of the landscape of Mcfarland, and how dangerous and out of touch the city is with any of it's California counterparts. But the scenes with trouble or violence are so few and far in between that they feel like they literally come out of nowhere when our characters ride an emotional high. There is a lot i did enjoy about the film. The Disney underdog story is certainly not a new one, but they always knew how to write good situations for their characters to overcome. They have also always been great at casting the lead for these roles. Costner has been having his best two years since the prime of his acting career. He has managed to take more roles in 2014 and 2015 than any other single year in his career, and "Mcfarland" shows the heart of such a crafty veteran. There are many throw away lines or reactions in the film that Costner turns to gold. He comes from an old generation of actors where one look tells you so much about the character you are trying to understand. He also has some great help with supporting actors, Maria Bello (His wife in the film), John Ortiz, and sadly, a wasted effort by long time film villain, Chris Ellis. The film also flirts heavily with it's Disney friendly PG rating. It's got a bloody shootout, gang activity, and more than one racially insensitive comment. The movie certainly toes the line for such a kid friendly production company. Overall, "Mcfarland USA" is going to have it's fans, but it doesn't offer anything new to an old pair of shoes. Director Niki Caro (North Country) has certainly shown a directoral depth when it comes to her young film career. There's a lot she plays safe in this film, and i think it certainly deserved more chances. With big risks, comes big rewards. "Mcfarland USA" is an OK film, but it could've been great with that risk.
Mortdecai - 3/10 - What happens when Johnny Depp runs out of accents and cooky accents to give his fans? Will he return to glorious roles that makes him one of Hollywood's most recognizable stars? We won't find out anytime soon with his latest garbage role as the title character in "Mortdecai". Director David Koepp reunites with Depp for the first time since their 2004 collaborative effort on "Rear Window". Charlie Mortdecai is a suave art dealer with a demanding wife (Gwyneth Paltrow), and a full time bodyguard (Paul Bettany). He is caught in the middle of angry Russians, the British MI5, and a thirst to get out of his inevitable debt. He is recruited to obtain a stolen painting rumored to contain the code to a lost bank account filled with Nazi gold. Where this film ultimately fails completely is in the fact that this movie is about Depp's trials and tribulations, and not his much more interesting and morally structured bodyguard. I think a movie about Jacque (Bettany) would've not only been a much more intriguing picture, but it would've had a lot more comedy than the four or five lines that made me laugh in this film. Most of those are from Bettany's impeccable comedic timing and facial reactions to some bizzare reactions to his male protagonist counterpart. Depp's character doesn't work at all in this film. We are supposed to support a character who can't fight his own battles (EVER), or has zero charm despite being played by arguably Hollywood's most charasmatic actor. To be frankly honest, the character reminded me a lot of Sacha Baron Cohen playing Borat. The awful accent is a mixture between Steve Martin's dreadful french accent in "The Pink Panther", and a touch of Borat's Khazikstan. If this is supposed to sound British, it certainly doesn't. The movie has much bigger problems though than just it's character performances. The movie zooms by scene by scene, yet does the impossible by making the film feel dragged out. Charlie travels all over the world in and out of many countries. While the landscape transition scenes are very stylishly edited, it's the timing of only a couple minutes in every country feel like many movies rushed into a 97 minute run time. I think if the movie took the time to slow down and let it's audience comprehend every line and action by it's characters, then the film won't feel like just a collection of scenes trying to pass as one film. I can see even the strongest of Depp fanboys (err girls) having their patience tested on this one. A new Depp movie with a new Depp voice comes along every year, so what makes this one so special that you should even attempt to see it on DVD? Nothing that has anything to do with Depp anyway. The film is easily forgettable by an inability to decide if it's satire or spoof. What we are left with feels like an inside joke that only the film's cast is in on. Mortdecai is mortifying....or should i say Mortdifying?
Paddington - 7/10 - "Paddington" is the family film event of the season. The cold weather that makes it's presence felt this time of the year will feel harmless with the heartwarming moral compass of a message so strong. "Paddington" is the feature film adaptation from the best selling children's books written by Michael Bond. It tells the story of the comic misadventures of a young Peruvian bear (voiced by Ben Whishaw) who travels to the city in search of a home. Finding himself lost and alone, he begins to realize that city life is not all he had imagined, until he meets the open armed Brown family who read the label around his neck that says "Please look after this bear. Thank you,". They offer him a temporary home, and it looks as though his luck has changed until this rarest of bears catches the eye of a museum taxidermist (Nicole Kidman) who is hot on his trail. All plots aside, "Paddington" is a story about finding your own place in a world that always seems bigger when you leave your safe zone. One of the purest things i found refreshing about this film was that this English city treats Paddington like one of them. He is never frowned upon for being a bear living amongst humans, nor do they ever question his failures to adapt to such a place. The reaction and setting of England is something that feels like a love letter to it's colorful location. There is a certain look about this film that feels like it's ripped from the pages of a children's novel perhaps better than i have ever seen before. It's not as over the top as "The Cat in the Hat", or "The Grinch Stole Christmas", but more classy on a level of less is more. It's rare that i come out of a children's movie anymore feeling that lesson that this film makes the world a better place, but this one sent that message to me loud and clear. The cast is excellently led by Whishaw's voicework. Colin Firth was originally cast as the voice, but soaring production costs and a busy schedule for Colin led him to turn down the project. When i heard of such troubles, i was worried on who would pick up the ball with the audio charm of Firth. I knew Wishaw from 2012's "Skyfall", but i didn't know how he would do with such an opposite voicing role to that of Q. Within the film's opening minutes, that concern became non existent. The best kind of voice work is always transforming yourself into the character who you undertake, and Wishaw hit the mark tenfold. His best work in my opinion is that of the grunting and groaning of Paddington while learning about American culture. The famous bathroom scene played in the trailers had me laughing even though i have seen it around 50 times. The magic of Hugh Bonneville and Sally Hawkins give an authentic banter as a married husband and wife duo who serve as pro and anti Paddington supporters. Bonneville's comedic timing is a product of over two decades in English acting. It's in those comedic talents that Hugh turns in his best performance. He plays off of the CGI bear with a straight man routine that gives fresh reactions to an old conflict between two such characters. Whenever i watch a movie where the central character has to be added post production, i always run into one of two problems. The human actor is either too over the top, or plays second fiddle to the CGI character. I am relieved that "Paddington" didn't fall under such a curse. Kidman is a little over the top as the movie's central antagonist, but when the big reveal sheds light on her motivations during the third act, her emotional distance is perhaps a little more understood. I don't feel like this film absolutely needed a villain character, but it's easily Kidman's best ACTING work in five years. The design of Paddington's CGI design is something that is done subtly exceptional. It's best to make a character like this feel like he is blending in with the real life actors he is interacting with, and that ability is well represented. The emotional response from Paddington is something i felt on every level with every emotion being well represented. I laughed, i hurt, and even almost cried at certain scenes where you feel Paddington unaware of such big surroundings around him. The script is written and directed by long time director, Paul King, who turns in his first directing work in five years. His passion towards the subject is definitely showcased in a script that stays faithful to fans of the books, while also giving the character a modern twist that never disappoints. The film is only 83 minutes long, but i think any longer would've started to break open the flaws of the film (Not many) within the direction of the film with two much happening too soon. Pehaps the film's best trait is the childhood innocence of anyone who has ever had a Teddy Bear and an imagination to create such stories. "Paddington" is the first surprise for a loaded 2015 that has some of my most anticipated films of the decade. Even eleven months later when i am counting down my best films of the year, this one will be remembered for the melting of icicles it did for a critic that has dismissed so many children's book adaptations. "Paddington" is a triumph that should be celebrated by the whole family.
Project Almanac - 3/10 - This is the maddest i have been in quite sometime. For the record, it doesn't mean "Project Almanac" is the worst film i have seen in this early 2015, but it means that it lowered even my already low expectations. I knew that this film was originally scheduled to be released in August of 2014, but it got pushed back after the studios canned the original version. I can only imagine how bad THAT movie was if this is the one that got through to a wide release. "Project Almanac" is about a brilliant high school student and his friends uncovering blueprints for a mysterious device created by his father. It's a time machine that enables them to go back to the past and change what they don't like most about their lives. As with any time traveling film, the group realizes the damage they create every time they go back. This review is going to be a long one, because there are countless errors that i found in the film that shouldn't be given a passing grade by anyone who watches. Getting the worst out of the way first, the sound mixing/editing is among the very worst that i have ever heard. There are many scenes at a party or a concert where we hear our characters crystal clear without any muffling or "What's?" used at all. It's also quite humorous to see two characters walk away from the camera only for us to hear their conversation perfectly when the camera is closed up. Closing up on someone doesn't mean i will hear their conversation better. If i attempted the same fate with people on the other side of the road from me, i would be laughed out of a conversation like a moron. I don't see why this accounts as believable by anyone who watches a film like this. When i see a scene at a club or a concert, it's the first thing that hits my mind. This leads to my next problem and possibly the biggest handicap facing this film; the tired "Shot on Video" genre. This movie has ABSOLUTELY NO REASON to be shot on a handheld camera. It's an overused cliche in 2015 that is hurting a movie a lot more than helping it. I think this film would've been fine without this gimmick. The script has some decent ideas when it comes to time travel that no other movie before it has explored, but we are literally kept in this bubble when a wide shot would be greatly appreciated to understand the impact of what is around the time travel areas. There are so many scenes that you wonder why the characters are filming this, or even who is doing it. Midway through the film, the main character tries to justify this by telling his sister to film everything from this point forward. That's all fine and dandy, but what was the point of filming scenes before this point that included her brother looking in the attic, or filming her friends at school with witless banter? Lets try to pretend this isn't a movie for a minute. What is the point of capturing these things on camera? Try not to be so desperate when trying to succeed in your 100 minute movie minimum. I also felt this movie screamed to be in 3D, but because of it's craptastic idea to shoot this on a handheld, the movie wouldn't do justice to the random objects floating around our characters when they travel through. One of the funniest aspects of movies shot like this is the effect of putting your hand on the camera lens to signal that the camera is being cut. Is the audience really this stupid to not understand that a simple edit splice couldn't signify for them that the camera has been cut? Is there a button on the camera lens that shuts the camera off that i didn't know about? For a movie about time travel, they certainly take their sweet time before getting to it. I appreciate that the movie tried to explain it's silly premise with trying to explain to the audience how the machine works, but did the first forty minutes of the film really have to be about how many times they screwed up the formula? There is seriously an hour left in the movie when they travel for the first time, and even that is only an hour into the past. Most movies can pass if they get off to a sharp start, but this movie is in the negative column before we get a taste of it's notable premise. In regards to explanations, "The Butterfly Effect" knew too that it had a silly concept, but it didn't waste time explaining to the viewer why it worked. It told you the conditions of it's main character, and let the interesting transition scenes guide the movie. For the record, that is a much better film than this meager effort by director Dean Isrealite. This is Dean's first film, and it could be because of the hilarious alias name that he used so this film wouldn't follow his career. Either way, his effort shows. The movie also has a lot of trouble following it's own rules, as their are many scenes that contradict the rules that it put out in front of us. For example, there are two scenes in which a time paradox is created when the current version of characters run into their younger selves. When this happens, the travel is immediatly over, and our characters can disappear without ever existing to begin with. During the final scene, our main character has to attend the 8th birthday of his younger self. He is literally ten feet in front of this little boy, and not even so much as a flicker happens to let us know a paradox is being created. This movie makes me tired just thinking about it. Speaking of that party, it's in a video of this birthday party where our main character finds the hints that his father created some sort of time machine. He gathers this by seeing a reflection of his older self in the mirror. How is this possible if he never traveled before? Wouldn't there be multiple David's walking around as a result of an older one already traveling back in time? If the movie is attempting to tell us that this might not be the first time that David has traveled back in time, then it needs to be fair with it's audience and clue us into that aspect. We can only go with the timeline that we have been presented in the film. How are we supposed to know things that technically didn't exist in front of our eyes? The movie is complimented with a nice young cast who are very charasmatic, and make the most out of error plagued script they are given. I was closely following their characters even if it was hard for me to take David seriously as a nerd character. I mean really, the guy looks like he is one year shy of a Calvin Klein ad. Overall, "Project Almanac" CAN NOT be the choice of movie that you see this weekend. There are much better films currently out, and much better time traveling movies already on DVD. The movie left me with not only a bad taste in my mouth, but a headache. Whether it was from the time travel rules it set for itself or the horrible camera work, you be the judge.
Run All Night - 7/10 - Gritty, stylish, and action packed. Liam Neeson is back on a mission to "Run All Night". Mobster hit man Jimmy Conlon (Neeson) has one night to figure out where his loyalties lie, with his estranged son, Mike (Joel Kinnamon), whose relationship has always been rocky, or his longtime best friend, mob boss Shawn Maguire (Ed Harris), who wants to pay Jimmy back for the death of his own son. "Run All Night" is a breath of fresh air from the sloppy offering of "Taken 3", and it restores Neeson to top notch form in the action genre. It was great to see a character Neeson portray supply some personality to understand who this character is when he isn't kicking butt. Jimmy is kind of a loser, but he has always done everything for his family. His time away has been to make money to pay the bills, and mob work is the only road he knows. The film's acting presence is in the form of longtime actor, Harris. Ed's backstory is what makes the movie interesting. He isn't your typical cartoonish villain known to grace Neeson action films, but instead we understand why Harris has such a vendetta against a man he has stuck up for when everyone else told him to kick him to the curb, and THAT is what makes the presence grab you from the opening minute. It's two guys who are best friends in the wrong place at the wrong time. In addition to two great lead performances, Common makes a noteworthy appearance as a hit man contracted by Harris to kill Neeson. His work here is nothing short of Terminator-like. From his movements, to his very quiet demeanor when hunting his prey. Common turns in a silent but deadly performance that commands more screen time in every scene he steals. The film's camera work and cinematography is also very praise worthy. There is a narration of a hockey game being played in the beginning of the film between the New York Rangers, and the New Jersey Devils. We know that subtely the Rangers represent Harris, as he possesses a Rangers jersey hung up on his office wall. That would mean that Neeson represents the Devils, a quite appropriate analogy considering Neeson reflects upon the very demons that cost him the most important relationships in his life. As the game progresses, we find out the score reflects the reactions of each side. For instance, when Neeson kills two dirty police officers hired by Harris, The Devils go up in the game 3-2. It's subtle storytelling like this that i always dig in a film, and gives something hidden beneath the surface to showcase symbolism in a film that you wouldn't think it would be present in. New York has always been the best location for Neeson films, and the city portrays it's own kind of character in this film. Make no mistake about it, Director Jaume Collet (Non Stop) has written a loveletter for The Big Apple. The movie beholds many close to the street insert shots of random everyday occurances in the big city. Whether it's noise from rush hour traffic, or homeless people tucking in for the night, the film's biggest voice comes from a city with a troubling backstory similar to the film's characters. If i had a problem with the film, it comes in two sections. The first, is the cliche foreshadowing that is unfortunately happening a lot more in film these days. The opening scene reveals events that we know will be in the closing minutes of the film, and i hate this because it always serves as a spoiler. We know how much damage our protagonists have taken, as well as how much trouble they are in when everything comes full circle. I wish a film would just show some subtle foreshadowing instead of giving the whole meal away on a silver platter. Perhaps a couple of bullet shells laying on the ground of the final shoot out, or some blood against a tree. Don't show us the characters or where they end up. My second problem is that the film is a little too long. It's nothing that does any serious damage to the film, but the movie's narration does start to drag and feel repetitive towards the beginning of a third act. It's in those minutes that we already know everything about Neeson's past, so the big meeting with Harris couldn't come quick enough. I'm not saying a serious cut needs to be done, but maybe just ten minutes of filler that serves as nothing but a slowdown period between the in your face action fights. I definitely recommend this film to any Neeson fan, as well as someone looking for a solid antagonist turn by Harris. It's nice to see two characters built equally for once when you know one of them is destined for death. "Run All Night" packs a solid punch to it's audience thanks to a crime-noir style that never feels limited like Neeson's earlier 2015 offering.
Selma - 9/10 - There has been no better time for a film centering around peaceful protest. The film chronicles the troubling three month period in 1965, when Dr. Martin Luther King Jr led a dangerous campaign to acheive equal voting rights in the face of violent opposition. The epic march from Selma to Montgomery culminated in President Johnson (Tom Wilkinson) signing the Voting Rights Act of 1965, one of the most significant victories for the civil rights movement. Director Ava DuVernays SELMA tells the real story of how the revered leader and visionary Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. (David Oyelowo) and his brothers and sisters in the movement prompted change that forever altered history. Something i found that made this film different from recent biopics is that the film is called "Selma", so it's not so much a telling of King's life story, but instead about the tribulations facing a city stuck in the past. It's rare that such a great film is released in January, and i could definitely see this one being at the top of my list come the end of 2015. Oyelowo is a sure fire Oscar contender. His portrayal of King is so real, that i often wondered if the film was positioning real life historical footage into certain scenes. The voice, the accent, the look, and the soft spoken but powerful demeanor completes Oyelowo's transition into one of history's most important figures. One amazing thing to me is finding out David is a British born actor, and his accent never once popped during the film. There are many films when i notice even the smallest of accents peaking out, and it completely takes me out of the moment. This was not the case with the film's lead. The rest of the cast is exceptionally valuable to a script that was important to a lot of celebrities. Tim Roth was so despicable, but never over the line as Governor George Wallace. There are many times where you feel Wallace is so close to saying something he will ultimately regret. It was refreshing to see Roth as a villain in a film, and i think that the film would be lost without his antagonist to the revolution. Tom Wilkinson also gives a very eye opening performance as president Lyndon Johnson. The film does no favors to Johnson in regards to the pressures he faced from both sides of the argument. Wilkinson is a master of on screen psychology, and i wouldn't be surprised to see a supporting actor nomination for him come Oscar time. Another thing i enjoyed immensly was the script by writer and director Ava DuVerney. Ava has done a couple of films before this one. Sadly, nothing i have ever seen, but i like the directional inspirations that she added to such an inspirational story. The camera angles are very close and in your face to make you feel like you are walking next to King supporters, or even standing against them in their faces. There were a couple scenes in the film that added slow motion touches to the disgusting violent scenes shown in the film, and i thought it was hit and miss. The motion does get a little repetitive after the fourth or fifth time this happens, but i see the point. DuVerney is subtely letting the viewer soak in the wrong the same way Steve McQueen did with 2013's "12 Years a Slave". The violence is shocking, but is never anything that even the youngest viewer couldn't witness. I think it takes more talent to shoot violence effectively without the gore, and make it leave an impression on the viewer. It's safe to say that DuVerney accomplishes this feat without doing too much harm to the pacing of the film. Her lighting touches are also very effective in a story like this. Most of the film is done at night with a lot of darkness and shadows around our protagonists. Shadows usually signify something being hidden in films, and you never know when King's opposers could strike in such a scary setting. It's nice to see a script that doesn't treat the viewer like an idiot. We already know who King is, so we don't need his whole life story. This film is about his biggest cause and effect. It's nice to see a film capture the psychological reasonings for some of the decisions King made that even his biggest of supporters sometimes didn't understand. The private moments with his wife are there, and it's in those intimacies that we learn more about King than we ever could in protest. "Selma" was a film that is powerful and inspiring in it's message. It's amazing to look at a film's whose setting was over 50 years ago, and to see just how little has changed. It's a film that everyone should see, even if it's only for it's historical significance. I definitely recommend it to everyone, and i think this is one that is worthy of it's Oscar contention.
Seventh Son - 3/10 - The cure for insomnia has been gift wrapped to the audience, in Director Sergei Bodrov's newest film "Seventh Son". A 95 minute mixtape of some of the fantasy genre's greatest cliches. Most of which are predictably bland, and all of which are easily done better in better films. The story is about witch hunter Master Gregory (Jeff Bridges). A knight who had imprisoned the violently powerful witch leader, Mother Malkin (Julianne Moore), centuries ago. She escapes in present day,and is seeking vengeance. Summoning her followers of every size, Mother Malkin is preparing to unleash her terrible wrath on an unsuspecting world. Only one thing stands in her way: Master Gregory. In a deadly reunion, Gregory comes face to face with the evil he always feared would someday return. He has only until the next full moon to do what usually takes years: train his new apprentice, Tom Ward (Ben Barnes) to fight a dark magic unlike any other. Man's only hope lies in the seventh son of a seventh son. The premise would seem very important to Barnes character, but for a film that is based off of a novel, the role of Tom feels very forced in the film. To me, it almost feels like the film didn't need this character, as Gregory was not only well versed in defending himself against large armies, but also quick on his feet for an alcoholic aging veteran. Barnes is easily my least favorite part of the story. Every time he is on screen, the movie slows down to it's weakest halts. He not only seems too old for the part of Tom, but his on screen chemistry with Bridges is virtually non existent. This kind of thing was done much better in a weaker film in 2011's "The Sorcerer's Apprentice". In that film, the tandem of Nicolas Cage and Jay Baruchel at least felt entertaining with a dark humor to match the action. This film's comedy is sadly absent, and it leaves us with a dry taste combo as a result of multiple boring history lessons, and fight scenes that are over before they begin. The whole effort by Bodrov just feels too rushed, and i for one hope there is a director's copy to fix some of the vital slicing that the script took as a result. For those who don't know, the movie has been on the shelf for two years to the month because of rising production costs. It's amazing that this is the finished result because the CGI costs had to be outstanding. The monsters look silly even for a fantasy film, and i mean that in the movements of the creatures themselves. I know that the creatures are morphing human beings, but that doesn't give the right for a tiger to walk like a human. It's silly to think about an hour after the film, but even worse in a quiet theater where everyone around you is intrigued by such fascinating designs. Two huge problems i had with the film are going to really test the patience of my readers, but this is something that seriously bothered me. I will get the silly one out of the way first. The mother of the seven kids is played by long time film veteran, Olivia Williams. A woman who in real life is nearly 50, but doesn't look a day over 35. She is also quite a petite actress. Now i'm not saying there was no way for a woman to lose the weight in the dark ages, but she looks damn good for having seven children. Especially when the youngest of which doesn't look more than ten years younger than her. When did these births begin? Did she have quintuplets at one point? I personally would've cast an actress more believable physically for the audience to grasp that this woman has given birth seven times. My second problem is a huge one when it comes to Hollywood violence: the dreaded PG-13 rating, and it's effects on a violent movie. The film feels like it directs R rated violence with PG gore. When i see someone in a film (or real life for that matter) get stabbed in the face by a spear and killed, i expect that at least a little blood will spill as a result of it. Most people can overlook this because the film is PG-13, but i ask why you would have such violence in a film if you can't go all the way with it? It's a cheap reaction, and it makes the movie suffer GREATLY because of it. Did Bodrov think it was a better idea to pretend blood doesn't exist to begin with? Do you know how ridiculous that sounds? Overall, this film is every bit the silly and boring affair i thought it would be. It was great to see such big actors like Jeff Bridges and Julianne Moore (Both Oscar nominated) give their all to script dialogue that they were honestly way too good for. Moore gives the role her absolute most, and it's a reflection of her constant professionalism. This film is going to do her zero favors as she takes home the Oscar this year for her role in "Still Alice", but i don't think she pictured it would be released two years after she participated in it. I think it will be tough for even the most dedicated of fantasy buffs to enjoy this film. It's laughable dialogue combined with amateur CGI creature designs reeked of 2014's "The Legend of Hercules". Both movies felt like a SY-FY movie of the week following Sharknado. "Seventh Son" is a payday that the A-list actors would like to forget. It's the kind of film that actors who go bankrupt refuse to make. At $9 a ticket, it's $9 too much.
Still Alice - 7/10 - When Julianne Moore won the Golden Globe for her turn in this film, i knew i had to check it out. What i found is a film elevated by Moore's outstanding performance, and an educative look at the disease of alzheimer's. "Still Alice" shows our title character, Alice Howland, a married woman with three grown children, and a career as an influential linguistics professor. When Alice receives a diagnosis of rare Early-Onset Alzheimer's Disease, Alice and her family find their bonds thoroughly tested. Her struggle to stay connected to who she once was is frightening, heartbreaking, and inspiring. As a film, i found "Still Alice" to be very close to home with a woman close to my life. My Step Mother has been currently battling a disease similar to Alzheimer's for years, and Moore's portrayal was a mirrored look at everything you need to know about the condition. The film's script is a little thin when observed outside of the obvious plot content. That's not necessarily a bad thing, as the movie serves as a reminder to the depressing clarity that every one in three faces with such a scary disease. Julianne's deterioration never seems forced or over the top. The film's beautiful pacing is complimented well by Moore's top notch portrayal stepping up more and more the deeper the film goes. The gutting of this legitimately beautiful and inspiring person is one of the toughest thing's i've had to sit through on the silver screen in the last decade. Kristen Stewart surprisingly also hands in what is easily her greatest performance to date. She plays one of Alice's children, and it's clear that she has the closest attachment to her mother. The sorrow in Stewart's eyes shows that she was perfectly cast. To anyone who knows anything about Alzheimer's, you know i am not spoiling anything by saying the final ten minutes of this film are absolutely heartbreaking. The relationship by Stewart and Moore helps that bittersweet note feel like the appropriate one chosen. Love is the last thing remaining when all else is lost, and i found the moral of that to be smile worthy. The only thing about the cast as well as the film that i didn't enjoy was the casting of Alec Baldwin as Alice's husband. Don't get me wrong, i enjoy Alec Baldwin, and think there is a serious side to his acting that a lot of his fans don't get to enjoy often. In this film however, Baldwin is a little over the top. I get that he is dealing with a new found condition for he and his family, but he is the most insensitive pig, and i don't think 100% of that was written that way. During the film's opening ten minutes, i made a prediction to myself that Baldwin would be cheating on her. I was wrong about that prediction, but i called this because there is something about his performance that just doesn't gel with a man married to a woman he's loved for over 30 years. If he does one thing well, his disappearing act every five minutes makes you feel even more sad for everything Moore is going through. Overall, the film is consistent in it's tear jerking approach. There are moments when the layers in the plot start to wear a little thin, but "Still Alice" is an good film turned into a great film by Julianne Moore. She is acting supremacy at it's finest, and is a shoe in to take home the Oscar in March. That is something none of us could ever forget.
Strange Magic - 2/10 - There is no film title in 2015 that will make more sense than that of "Strange Magic". While the film tends to have trouble with the later part of that title, the movie is by far and away one of the strangest offerings i have ever seen from the Disney name. The film has it's little charms, mostly in the animation aspect itself by George Lucas's LucasFilm studio. However, this is the first truly terrible film of 2015, and i can see this one standing the test of time in that aspect. The movie, a chaotic fairy tale musical inspired by "A Midsummer Night's Dream." Two different neighboring worlds tell the story of Fairies, Goblins, and elves as they search for life's greatest wish; love. I watched this film in complete amazement because i couldn't believe this warranted a big screen release. Far and away, the movie's biggest problem is in the form of it's paper thin plot. It feels like someone wrote a twenty minute outline for a film about ugly creatures with a moral of "Looks aren't everything". The moral is great, the execution stretches the moral to ripping shreds. As i mentioned, the film is a musical, and it's in that genre that this film commits the biggest sins for the reason i despise the genre. If a character says they are in love, you can expect to hear "I can't Help Falling In Love" five seconds after hearing that declaration. If a character is evil and menacing, you will hear "Trouble". It's more examples of how animated films today mostly treat children like idiots, and how everything has to be spelled out for them. The movie seriously has no fewer than 30 performances. I know because i started counting them midway through the film. Musical numbers would be OK if it weren't for two big problems that it had on the film. 1) The singing is terrible. Kristen Chenoweth stars in the film, and is usually one for on key performances. But there is something about her singing in "Strange Magic" that makes my ears bleed. Even the creatures in the film hilariously grabbed their ears in agony for the only true emotional bond i have with this movie. 2) The overbearing amount of musical numbers serve as a pause button for any character development or storyline progression going on. There were times where i forgot where we were with the characters because the movie couldn't go five minutes without stopping for some moronic character to howl about their emotions. The musical numbers aren't original pieces at all, and that's not really a big problem, but it leaves no memorable note for the audience to carry long after they leave the theater. One of the biggest things that made "Frozen" such a box office success, was the beautifully lyrical original score. Think about it, what is the first thing people remember about that film? THE MUSIC. That is the problem with "Strange Magic" being a karaoke night of awful top 40 love songs. Thank God for Lucas's animation touch because the film would fall even further if it wasn't for the stunning design. The characters all have detailed structures to the creatures they convey. The landscape of the forests is a wonderous dream of beautiful backdrops. There were times where the film's setting reminded me of a "Fern Gully" 2015 reboot. The cast of the movie is alright if they aren't singing. Any film with "Strange" in the title has to star Alan Cumming, and he is good as The Goblin King. Evan Rachel Wood, Kristen Chenoweth, and Maya Rudolph round out a supporting cast that do good voice work, but nothing to ever take it to the next level. They are all easily recognizable with their signature voices. "Strange Magic" is a film that tells it's audience that looks don't matter, and it's true. Looks don't matter, but plot, musical quotas, and character development certainly do. The movie should've been focused more on these things, but it's end result will make for a forgettable film in a 2015 that will have more than it's share of creative and magical animated offerings.

Taken 3 - 4/10 - I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but "Taken 3" is by far the worst of the series. The biggest shame about this film is that it does harm to the two films before it. For anyone who has seen the trailer even once, the film is the continuing story of former FBI agent, Brian Mills (Liam Neeson). His reconciliation with his ex-wife is tragically cut short when she is brutally murdered. Consumed with rage, and framed for the crime, he goes on the run to evade the relentless pursuit of the CIA, FBI and the police. For one last time, Mills must use his "particular set of skills," to track down the real killers, exact his unique brand of justice, and protect the only thing that matters to him now his daughter. Based on that synopsis, you would think Mills would always be looking over his shoulder, however, the only people chasing him are the LAPD, and even they seem far too stupid to be persuers. There were so many moments during the film where i scratched my head wondering about the leads of these officers, and how they were always conveniently one step behind Mills. I can forgive terrible cliche character traits if the film is artfully crafted. It's a shame those two words will never have anything to do with this film. While i am only three movies into the new year, i can say that "Taken 3" will be one of the most poorly edited films of 2015. There are scenes in this movie that feel like they go on for far too long and don't add anything to the ongoing series of events. Then, there are those films that start to give us a piece of character motivation or background for a new character to the series, and it cuts away without the audience any wiser about the intention of said scene. This editing problem hits it's hardest during two huge parts for the film, Brian's sidesteps with death, and the ending of the movie. I don't plan on spoiling anything about the ladder, but the movie kind of just ends without any rhyme or reason. I get the feeling that Director Luc Besson saw that his film was an hour and forty minutes and decided he better end it. There's no high note or memorable line to end it on, hell, there isn't even closure among our characters. The scenes involving Brian escaping death are shown without him escaping them, or having any possible way out. Then, a scene later he is shown walking away without any explanation what so ever. I'm not going to pretend for a second that the first film was the logical film of the decade, but at least they always keyed the viewer in on how Mills could escape such a fate. The film pits him in these impossible to escape situations and then expects us to believe it when we see him 2 minutes later. This film has been marketed as the finale in the trilogy, but it's certainly possible for a sequel to come from the anti climatic ending we are served up. Another huge problem with the film comes in the tame nature of it's PG-13 rating. The first two films were also rated the same, but there is something about "Taken 3" that almost feels watered down. In fact, if your kid can take violence, i would say that this film is something the whole family can be.........SERIOUSLY. There is no language, and more importantly, no blood in this movie anywhere. Characters get shot with a clear view of their wound, and there is absolutely not one drop of blood sprouting from it. One scene even had Mills poke a wound with his gun, and still nothing. I get it's a PG-13 film, but don't have gunshots if you treat the viewer like they are too stupid to understand the consequences of gun violence. Overall, i just can't recommend this film for anyone. I know people are going to see it because they saw the first two, but trust me when i say that no matter how bad "Taken 2" was to you, it's the ending we all deserved. The poster slogan says "It Ends Here". Lets hope for what little credibility there is for this series, that is the truth. If you want a good Neeson film lately, check out "A Walk Among the Tombstones".
The Boy Next Door - 4/10 - The newest stalker thriller from Rob Cohen hits moments of subtle suspense, but it ultimately fails from a lack of unpredictability, and riddles itself in tired cliches. Claire Simmons (Jennifer Lopez) is a high school english teacher who is starting over with her teenage son after her husband is caught cheating on her. She meets the grandson of her next door neighbor, Noah, a twenty year old attractive guy who instantly has an attraction to Claire. One night of passion leads to a lifetime of regrets, as Noah blackmails Claire into the kind of relationship that will ruin her career and her family. "The Boy Next Door" is more of what we have come to expect from these films. It feels like a glorified Lifetime Channel movie that was talked into the big screen treatment as long as we cast a Hollywood A-lister getting down and dirty. The film is trash, but i can at least say it was entertaining trash along the lines of the "So bad it's good" films. The movie is rated R, and it doesn't use those limits until a third act which turns the film into a borderline horror film. The last scene of the film does kind of end anti-climatically, but if anything, it goes against the grain of showing the tired "Three weeks later" shot. The acting is what ultimately drives this film to the bottom of the early year list. Noah is a good villain with some creative lines to drive the audience angry. The problem is that the acting of Ryan Guzman just isn't experienced enough to make his psychotic turn feel warranted. With the wrong actor, a turn like this can push the second half of the film to laughable heights, and that's sadly the result of this one. Lopez is OK enough, but it just feels like JLO in a movie we've seen her in hundreds of times. Her wardrobe in particular is nothing any mother with good taste would wear around other people. Her pajamas alone looked like something off of a Danielle Steele cover. Lopez did serve as a co-producer on the film, and the script feels like a victim of a couple rewrites. The movie warrants Claire's decision to sleep with this boy by making several things awfully convenient for the audience. Noah is twenty years old, so he's not technically a minor. Her husband cheated on her, so it's OK that she slept with another man. If this film had any guts, it would've written Lopez just as guilty and wanting as her male counterpart. "The night" never feels like it's done anything negative to her except when Noah is blackmailing her. She gets over everything quite easily. There is also nudity by everyone except Lopez, but it's OK for the film to show an obscene scene with Noah "Using his hands". It's like the movie didn't one to explore one thing, and then did something just as bad. Another big problem comes in the form of obvious foreshadowing. We see Noah as a car expert. Gee, i wonder if this will come in handy later?? We see Claire's son Kevin as a teenager with heart problems. Gee, i wonder if this will come in handy later? We hear about Noah's parents dying in a fiery crash. We know from the film's trailer that Noah is a little out there, so gee i wonder if this will come in handy later? Overall, the movie is silly. I don't think anyone associated with the movie doesn't know that. The good news is that the silly tones mixed with the edge of your seats suspense creates a third act that is at least worthy of sitting through the previous predictable first seventy minutes. I wouldn't say this movie is anything more than a girls night in with a couple of drinks. Save your cash and wait a couple months. "The Boy Next Door" is not a good film by any standards. It did however give me something that "Blackhat", "Mortdecai", and "Taken 3" did not; an entertaining enough pace from a director who knew the very identity of the movie he was making.
The Cobbler - 3/10 - Adam Sandler dives back in to the world of drama, as he stars in "The Cobbler". Max Simken (Sandler) repairs shoes in the same New York shop that his family has owned for generations. Unhappy with the personal struggles in his daily life, Max stumbles upon a family machine that allows him to become the customers shoes he repairs with the machine. While walking in someone else's shoes, Max finds out the true person underneath. “The Cobbler” stumbles in the genre of two separate film genres. It’s not an intriguing comedy because of it’s lack of funny punchlines, and it’s not a drama because it’s characters are so unlikable that we never feel interested by the stories they tell. It fails at either attempt, and only leaves the movie struggling for a proper art direction. I personally was looking forward to Sandler’s return to drama. After successful turns in “Reign Over Me”, and “Punch Drunk Love”, Sandler has shown some decent acting talent hidden away under decades of torturous comedy. But “The Cobbler” feels like the “Jack and Jill” of drama movies. It’s plot is ridiculous even for cartoon standards, and the movie never feels charming even with it’s many celebrity cameos. Method Man, Steve Buscemi, and even Dustin Hoffman squander away any decent acting with a script that limits them to goofy subplots. If there is anything that works for this film, it’s the fact that it’s short enough (92 minutes) to never be anything memorable. The editing is poorly structured with many scenes running on for too long, and many script lines taking too long to reach their point. What i am interested in is how Sandler comedic fans will feel about such an effort, More than likely, it will come and go without much recognition due to it’s straight to DVD release. At the worst, it’s forgetful, but at it’s best, it’s a Twilight Zone style plot that cobbles up the viewer’s intelligence (Pun intended). Short and sweet, there just isn't enough here to demand a must see to any of the audience. Even the most united of Sandler fans will have trouble keeping the DVD in play, while maintaining conscious. Avoid this one. It's not even worth a dollar rental.
The Duff - 6/10 - I am professional enough of a critic to admit when i am wrong. "The Duff" proved me wrong as a whole on a film that i couldn't possibly imagine as more than a 4/10 judging by it's trailer. In all fairness, the trailer is terrible, and showcases the worst scenes of the entire movie. After viewing this film, i can say that this is a good film that has a great film and powerful message hiding within a re-write. The story is an adaptation of a teen novel about Bianca (Mae Whitman), a relaxed high school senior whose world is shattered when she learns the student body knows her as 'The D.U.F.F' (Designated Ugly Fat Friend) to her prettier, more popular friends (Skyler Samuels & Bianca Santos). Now, despite the words of caution from her favorite teacher (Ken Jeong), she puts aside the potential distraction of her crush, Toby (Nick Eversman), and enlists Wesley (Robbie Amell), her oldest friend, neighbor, and popular jock to reinvent herself. The movie boosts Whitman into the stratosphere with a performance that is easy to get behind. Whitman isn't necessarily an ugly girl, but her sense of style is what makes her negatively stand out as opposed to other girls in her school. One thing i instantly found beautiful about her is a sense of humor that had me chuckling during many scenes. The film overall, has a great sense of humor that is a blessing as well as a curse. To me, the best parts of the film were the serious undertones taken from the pages of the book. There is a strong presence of cyberbullying done better than any film i have seen, to date. Between that, and this discovery of how the world views Bianca, it's very relatable to any teenager growing up in today's era. There are a lot more movies that i would rather kids not watch than this one, and i can stand for any movie that makes you feel comfortable in your own skin without sounding like an infomercial. The movie is predictable, and i could do without some of the one dimensional characters who are clearly playing a high school stereotype, but it's easy to look past when you see the real meat and potatoes of the film; Bianca and Wesley's on screen chemistry. There is an "Inside joke" kind of feel that gets across that these two really did have playdates during their childhood years. It's almost like a brother and sister kind of feel at first. I knew these characters would become romantically involved with each other, but the movie cared more about making them friends first. One big error that i found in the film was that the setting takes place in a city in Georgia, but nobody talks with a southern accent. Might not seem like a big deal to the casual viewer, but little things like this do take me out of the movie. I do give credit to a film's director (Ari Sandel) who seems to accomplish the same kinds of alienations and coming of age problems that plague teens during the growing up stages. Between this and 2014's "The Fault in Our Stars", i feel like Hollywood might be getting back to being successful at writing modern day teenagers. If nothing else, check out the movie for the shining performance of Whitman in a role that she felt comfortable enough opening herself to. "The Duff" is a capable enough movie that values it's audience enough to never have to spell out the message it's trying to convey. We could all use a little more confidence in a generation that is constantly judging us more and more everyday.
The Gunman - 4/10 - Sean Penn is just too good for this mess. That sentence is a reflection of his newest film titled "The Gunman", in which he co-wrote and starred in. Penn (who just turned 50) is the latest to up the machismo and show the world that he (Like Neeson, Brosnon, Costner, Fill in the blank) too can be a gun holder for the "Over 50 action genre". The film from Director Pierre Morel (Taken), is about a sniper (Penn) on a mercenary assassination team, who kills the minister of the mines of Congo. The assassin's successful kill shot forces him into hiding. After Returning to the Congo years later, he becomes the target of a hit squad himself, who are hell bent on revenge. The film's uninspired plot is just a fraction of the real problems facing this nearly two hour bore. The movie has solid action sequences, as well as great sound editing/mixing, but that is expected of such a genre. It never goes above and beyond to etch it's name in an overcrowded genre. Instead, settling for mediocrity in the form of silly plot convenience, as well as laughable dialogue and line readings. The film also stars Javier Bardem, and Idris Elba. Both of which are wasted. Elba is in two scenes as an Interpol special forces agent, and the role feels like a last minute addition to carry a little star power. Bardem totally felt uninterested by this film. He (Like Penn) knows he should be working on much better material, and it shows in his lackluster line readings. There were plenty of times during the movie where his actions brought a giggle or two to my experience. For instance, Bardem ends up marrying a woman who Penn leaves behind when he goes into hiding. When Penn returns, he is pissed with Penn over leaving her, but why not arrange to have a dinner meeting between them. This of course leads to them sleeping together, but the real gem is that this happens on the very same night they reunite. She apparently held no ill will feelings towards Penn completely forgetting about her. It's logic like this that kept me from every feeling fully intrigued by the film. The structure itself, i thought made for a worthwhile story. Complete with Penn inserting some real life footage of Congo citizens being forced out of their homes due to violent revoking of their rights. But the movie's subplots are what really weighs the rhythm of the storytelling down. The film goes from a political thriller, to a love triangle, to small angles that were inserted earlier in the film. Penn's character suffers from brain trauma, and this causes him to have blackouts and dizzyness in spots. This is mentioned once during the first ten minutes of the film, and never again until it's convenient for the plot. It's the same when we find out who the person is in charge of having Penn killed. It's treated like it's supposed to be a big mystery, but we only saw this person literally for one minute during the opening of the film. By this point in the film, i knew it wasn't going to get any better, and this film was doomed to a lifetime similar to a crumbled up piece of paper in a wastebasket of scripts that never should've been given the time of day. "The Gunman" is a misfire of blanks that never comes close to hitting it's target. Many early 2015 films should be forgotten, and this is among them.
The Humbling - 5/10 - In any other year, "The Humbling" would be a genius execution in filmmaking. The reason it doesn't fully work in 2015 is because it takes a premise about an A-list actor in the twilight of his career, and slowly slipping into insanity. Sound familiar? The movie has a lot of similarities with last year's "Birdman", and while it does some things as well, it never does anything better than that piece. "The Humbling" is about an Over the hill stage actor named Simon Axler (Al Pacino) who struggles to find his passion for life again. Near his breaking point, he finds motivation in the form of a young and lustful lesbian Pegeen (Greta Gerwig), but as their relationship heats up, Simon has a hard time keeping up with the youthful Pegeen. As i mentioned already, the film will have a lot of comparisons with it's Best Picture nominated similar piece, "Birdman". Those comparisons, while unfair, are mainly because this film takes a lot of concepts from that film and gives them a blurred vision. Pacino is certainly excellent, and this film does serve as a highlight in the later part of his film career. It's just unfortunate that the themes here are so bizarre and unwelcoming. From a sexual relationship with Axler's goddaughter, to some of Pegeen's lesbian lovers coming back to make her life hell. It's all not necessary, and feels like it's a story that was forced in there to give it a modern touch. The film does well enough when it's focusing on the stripping of Axler's pride from a once prominent actor. His work at the beginning of the film in an empty theater with people on their cell phones during his performance, to a hair plugs commercial that seems to be the only offer coming his way. This all feels very natural to the actors who give us magic that we someday may forget about. I would've rather the film focused more on this aspect. Of course, the whole sexual atmosphere may be a figment in Axler's deteriorating mind. The movie reveals during an informative third act that all of these images and life changing events could be Axler's very own mind playing tricks on him. It's never really revealed on a 100% basis what is real and what is fake, but i think that feels natural to the audience who are watching a man's sanity literally waste away. Director Barry Levinson has always been someone's work who i closely follow. I do feel that his film work is secondary to his documentary offerings, but "The Humbling" is an effort from him that feels like it has that Levinson touch. The film takes on dark subject matter, but is always cloaked in a dark comedy blanket that earns it's laughs subtly. Levinson's biggest problem is that too many of his scenes seem to drown on with soft speaking Pacino acting without flare. It's a very dialogue driven film, and that is why it's hard to recommend this piece. The artistic vision is certainly there with lots of Pacino narrating over scenes that seem to be overlapping one after another. This is to represent Axler's life blurring together and forgetting the little things in between. Pacino is at his best when he is playing off of subject matter that is a little ahead of the generation that he comes from. His interraction off of Gerwig is OK, even if i don't feel like she perfectly fits in this particular feel of film. It's also always nice to see some of Hollywood's most charasmatic actors from Dianne West, to Charles Grodin, to Mandy Patinkin. "The Humbling" is too mellow to really ever grab the audience and make them care. It's a missed opportunity that muddles the talents of a stacked cast and tests the audience's patience and care for its uninteresting characters for too long.
The Kingsman : Secret Service - 8/10 - Valentine's weekend of 2015 had an offering for the women in the form of "Fifty Shades of Grey". This time, it's the men's turn with "The Kingsmen". Director Matthew Vaughn (X-Men : Days of Futures Past, Kick-Ass) presents his latest opus, as he pays tribute to the spy films of the 60's and 70's that many of it's audience grew up on. "The Kingsmen : Secret Service" lifts it's story from the best selling comic book of the same name. It follows Eggsy (Taron Egerton), a troublesome early adult male searching for the truth with the loss of his father as a child. His father worked for a super-secret spy organization that recruits Eggsy into the agency's super competitive training program just as a global threat emerges from a twisted tech genius (Samuel L Jackson). Eggsy's protege is a soft spoken battle trained veteran (Colin Firth) who sees potential in the boy. "The Kingsmen" is the most fun i have had in a theater in a very long time. There are movies that are better, but when it comes to a fun, visually pleasing to the eye shoot em up, look no further. You won't find better. The movie is a roller coaster thrill ride that you never want to get off of. First and above anything else in this film, the action has an art direction that is stylishly choreographed. The fights are slowed down, but i wouldn't say it's slow motion. The camera angles instead slow everything down around the fast paced action following our protagonist to show his next move. I found the fight scenes similar to a chess game, in which the player must see his next move coming sixteen moves ahead. On top of this magic touch, the violence is the most brutal i have seen since 2014's "The Raid : Redemption". There isn't a lot of blood in the movie. I like this directing decision because it chooses another route for leaving an impression. Vaughn would instead rather please the audience with heart pounding free falls that speak for themselves. The film pays tribute to a lot of spy films like "Alfie", "James Bond", and many others, but it creates a name for it's own by breaking the very rules that it's genre created decades ago. There are a couple of twists and turns in the film that i didn't see coming, and it keeps the film's structure wonderfully paced during a second hour that may have started to lag without it. Make no mistake though, i never found this movie dull at any point. It's just nice that not all of it's secrets were given away in the first hour. On top of the bombshells (which i cannot divulge), the movie casts Eggsy with a female character in his class. Normal film history would tell you that these two will be romantically involved, but i loved the opposite direction it took with them. It's also nice to see a movie where the villain's devious plan is executed even when the clock countdown hits zero from The Kingsmen trying to stop it. The cast is truly a pleasure, and cast well in their respective roles. Firth is one of my current favorite actors, and this movie is eye opening when it comes to his action abilities. He did all of his stunts for the film, which is quite incredible when you see how fast paced and crisp the fighting looks. This is only the second film for the young Egerton, but he has a bright future ahead of him. The boy is full of charisma reminiscent of an a veteran actor who has owned his craft for decades. Jackson is hilarious as the lisp mouthed antagonist of the film. With a sharp steel legged female bodyguard in tow, his ridiculousness is reflective of the James Bond villains i grew up with. Everything just works with this movie, and with the exception of some minor sound mixing issues that i had with the shooting scenes, there isn't anything i can say that i truly didn't enjoy about this film. "The Kingsmen" is a lone diamond in one of the roughest months of film i have ever dealt with. It's an over the top pleasure that simply can not be missed by action genre nuts like myself.
The Lazarus Effect - 2/10 - The line between life and death is blurred dramatically, in this newest psychological horror thriller from Director, David Geib (Reawakening). Frank (Mark Duplass) and Zoe (Olivia Wilde) are college scientists who have achieved the unthinkable: bringing the dead back to life. After a successful, yet unsanctioned trial on a newly deceased animal, the team is ready to unveil their breakthrough to the world. When the dean of their university learns of their underground experiments, their project is unexpectedly shut down and their materials confiscated. During a late night break in, Zoe is killed in a freak accident, and brought back to life using the team's dangerous serum. The results prove that once a person is gone, they can never be the same. Blumhouse Productions are known for their mind numbing efforts when it comes to B-Grade horror films, but "The Lazarus Effect" takes the spoiled cake. It's an absolute mess of a film that is rushed on run time (78 Minutes), and lacking on definition for creative kills (PG-13 rating). The movie takes a pretty decent cast with supporting turns by Evan Peters, Sarah Bolger, and mainstream rapper Donald Glover (Better known as Childish Gambino), and wastes their talents with very little about their backstories. The film puts us in a position where we are supposed to care for four scientists who are trying to play God by forcing life upon helpless animals (one of which shows dangerous side effect when being brought back), and feel for them when they are to stupid to throw in the towel. The movie's sloppy production comes full circle with two scenes i counted that were repeated for other scenes. One in particular displays a wide shot of the college campus with two extras having the most awkward silenced background conversation i have ever seen. Because these extras made me laugh upon the first time i saw them, it wasn't hard to recognize them wearing the same clothing, and making the exact same hand gestures that they did in a different scene only five minutes prior. Did they really think nobody would notice this? There is a guard on the floor who occasionally checks in on the team, but he disappears during the second half of the film when all of these overwhelmingly audible events should make him curious. Nope, he's gone forever once the team outsmart him by hiding. The film does supply some creepy imagery, but nothing ever sticks out from a limited rating that always pulls the camera away when someone is about to bite the dust. I wasn't expecting to go into this movie yearning for a descriptive explanation on how everything works, but the film takes pages from 2014's "Lucy" when it explains that Zoe can now use 100% of her brain as a result of this serum. The explanation is presented with scientific gibberish that the directors hope the audience is too stupid to understand. Nothing needs explained when it comes to the dead tissue that a brain suffers when life has been taken. I guess the serum just fixes these dead cells, but you would never know it because the movie doesn't care to explain it. Everything is rushed along so much so that the film gets down to it's final twenty five minutes, and we realize no one has been killed. What follows are jump scare deaths that never quite earn the jump. For those of you who know me, you know i hate jump scares in horror movie. Not because they scare me, but because they are the cheapest method of terror psychology. A true director will create an eerie setting and rely more on the performances of it's actors to translate the terror to the audience. 2014's "The Babadook" is a great example of such methods. The ending of "The Lazarus Effect" did nothing to lift a fast dropping rating. The movie just ends without that last scream, or shock that makes us feel like we spent our money wisely. What is it with horror movies in the 21st century where 90% of them don't know how to end their films? Instead of the idea first, think about an ending that gives the crowd something they have to see, then build it going backwards. It sounds weird, but you have to know where you're going before you know how to get there. Overall, avoid this one like the plague. I suppose the film hits it's target because it couldn't possibly aim any lower. It's redemption is in it's short run time, but this film (Like the corpse) are dead from the opening bell.
The Loft - 2/10 - Director Erik Van Looy takes the helm of the 2011 original Sweedish film titled "Loft". In the remake, Karl Urban and James Marsden star in the story of five guys who conspire to secretly share a penthouse loft in the city--a place where they can indulge in their deepest fantasies. But the fantasy becomes a nightmare when they discover the dead body of an unknown woman in the loft, and they realize one of the group must be involved. Paranoia seizes them as everyone begins to suspect one another. Friendships are tested, loyalties are questioned and marriages crumble as one bombshell after another drops. Not many things can be said in the positive department for "The Loft". It currently holds a 0% on Rotten Tomatoes, but i think the film is a little better deserving than that. There is a slight feel of a Hitchcock thriller hiding deep below the surface. Looy takes a script full of swerves, but many of them are painfully obvious for a dedicated viewer during the first act. This movie shows pieces of the ending to kick off the film. The problem with this in any movie, is that you know the subtle clues to look for when figuring it all out. For instance, there is a man laying on a car dead for the film's first shot. We notice he has on gloves, and you only have to keep that in mind when thinking where the ending direction of this film is headed. Many of the surprises are like that. I found myself accurately predicting about 80% of the big twists in this movie, with the other 20% being completely unnecessary. These twists themselves are so hard to believe to anyone with even half of a brain to understand how impossible it would be for these characters to be in these places in the given explanations. On the subject of the acting/character work, that is the true weakness of the film. Marsden and Urban try their hardest with script dialogue that feels like something out of a Lifetime Network TV show. In fact, this whole movie feels like three thinly stretched half hour episodes of a hip young adult drama. The repetitive monotonous tones of the score play slowly and reach higher lengths right as we find out a big bombshell that feels like the end of an episode. It never feels like a movie because it's a story that lacks total structure. Nothing is ever built for the long term to let the viewer truly soak every new piece of information in. Instead, we are given the next bombshell dropped before we can ever enjoy the last one. The film had good pacing during the first act, but i feel like there are too many things to reveal in the second and third to make it feel overcrowded. It was great to see Prison Break's Wentworth Miller in an eye opening role even if the film is garbage. His work in the movie is among the very few bright spots i took away from it. The biggest problem with the men around Miller is the inability to believe that these guys were ever friends in the first place. Modern Family's Eric Stonestreet is one of the friends in the groups, and he spouts these awful lines that are so degrading to women that even the most dedicated of groups would have trouble considering this guy for a spot in their wedding. Maybe his spot is acceptable because every single one of these five protagonists (if you can call them that) are pigheaded and lack a single redeeming quality to ever make you care about them. I feel like this film has done for men what Gone Girl has done for women. If you are on a date night, i would steer clear of this one. Overall, "The Loft" is as bizarre as it is silly. It's storytelling is as subtle as an atom bomb drop in a highly populated city. It's unpleasant people doing unpleasant things, and there is nothing "Must See" about that.
The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel - 6/10 - Friends turned family return in this sequel to the 2012 original that outshines the former despite it's condescending title. The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel is the biggest thing in India. Co-managers Muriel Donnelly (Maggie Smith) and Sonny Kapoor (Dev Patel) have a dream of expansion, and they've found just the place: The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel. With plans underway, Evelyn and Douglas (Judi Dench and Bill Nighy) venture into the workforce, with each of them supporting feelings for the other. Meanwhile, Norman and Carol (Ronald Pickup and Diana Hardcastle) navigate the swirling waters of an exclusive relationship, as Madge (Celia Imrie) juggles two very eligible suitors, and recent arrival Guy Chambers (Richard Gere) finds a muse in Sonny's mother, Mrs. Kapoor (Lillete Dubey) for his next novel. As his marriage to Sunaina (Tina Desai), the love of his life quickly approaches, Sonny finds his plans for the new hotel making more claims on his time than he has available. Sonny is put through the ringer with his relationship to his girlfriend crumbling, as well as the threat of a childhood rival nipping at his business heels. What this sequel lacks in originality, and stretched storylines, it more than makes up for in great performances by arguably the most complete list of British actors ever, and an improved tone that infuses some much needed comedy during a first act that really kicks the film off positively. It's not a perfect film by any means. One thing that the first film did better was juggling many storylines, but it being self aware by knowing which ones to spend the most time on. This sequel has a problem investing it's time into the unnecessary, mainly from Norman and Carol's monogomous relationship, to Madge's search for love. Both rely on false perception cliches that are found in any romance genre film, and it robs the spotlight away from where it deserves to be. Mainly, that light should be focused on the ever blossoming love of Evelyn and Douglas, and the deteriorating health of Muriel. Maggie Smith has always been my favorite thing about these films, and her comedic timing is better at playing a straight woman than any goofy or silly character who you will see in slapstick comedy. She has a soft spoken wit that commands respect and laughter from any moviegoer. She paints an awkward picture in a look that explains more than a ten minute deposition scene. Dench and Nighy sport great chemistry as well. We root for their romantic success, as we know the troubling backstories of each of these characters better than anyone else in this star studded cast. I wish the film could've focused more on these characters, and less on the ones that slow down the pace during a spiraling second act. The movie has a way of getting it's audience pleasantly lost in the colorful sets and rich traditions of an Indian wedding ceremony. The finale completes itself with a full on Bollywood dance number with the beautiful neons radiating against a starry night sky. If there is one thing that takes "Second Best" above and beyond, it's the real aspect of knowing one of these characters could be gone at any moment. These films have always had a great narrative on the war with time, and how it affects the way they live their twilight days. We care about these characters, and in turn, the final scenes of the movie nearly brought me to tears with a perfect goodbye not only to the audience, but to the people most important to this character. Overall, i would say that whatever your reaction was to the first film, it will be the same for this sequel. I enjoyed both films for the feel good tones that Director John Madden demands from his audience. If you enjoyed the first film, i demand you check out the sequel that is better paced, and a film that centers urgency every bit as importantly as it did in the first film. "The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel" is the feel good hit of the late Winter season. Plenty of heartwarming here to melt whatever is left of your icy weather blues.
These Final Hours - 7/10 - Director Zak Hilditch's on screen debut is a promising Australian apocalyptic drama piece.James (Nathan Phillips) is a troubled young man on a mission. He's desperate to join his girlfriend Vicky at the 'party to end all parties' and numb any feelings as the world comes to an end. On his journey however, James is greeted by a lawless and chaotic city, facing a cataclysmic event that will end life on the planet, and he discovers that getting to where he needs to be will not be easy. Along the way, he saves the life of a girl named Rose, frantically searching for her father. Out of options, James invites Rose to join him. Together they discover how they would truly like to spend their last moments on Earth in this world gone mad. What i loved most about this film, is the believability that i was watching a legitimate "End of the world" film. The effects are solid for amateur CGI, the acting is very emotional, and the setting never feels overdone by the madness around it. In regards to the ladder, the extras in the film are legitimately doing things that i believe you would see if these people were told they had less than twelve hours to live. From drug induced orgies, to Russian roulette tournaments, to the horrifying images of suicidal bodies in the street, this film does a lot with such a little budget (2 million). Phillips has been a staple of Australian acting for a long time. He cut his acting teeth in 2005's "Wolf Creek", and he makes the most in this film being the prime antagonist, and the person we see for 95% of the film. It never feels like the pacing gets stale. The cause is there with adrenaline fueled panic led by Hilditch's very own narration as a radio DJ counting down the final hours. The effect feels worthwhile, with a final scene that is beautiful on the eyes, as well as unforgiving to the characters we have followed to this point. I remember enjoying a similar British film from 1998 called "Last Night". What intrigued me more about Hilditch's script is the essence of awareness. These characters know what's coming, and they never try to ignore it with poetic lines, or in the way subplots that ignores the countdown clock. The characters (Minus Phillips) were crazy, and that's the way it should be. There's not a lot of musical score, and i appreciated that, as it made the film feel like it was point of view without the cheesy overdone effect. The ending credits come and go in complete silence, and it's all metaphorical for this being the end. To be honest, i would've been fine without them even showing the credits to add even more to such an effect. If there was one problem with the film, it's way too short. Clocking in at 75 minutes, it's the bare minimum of a film, and it feels like a solid idea stretched way too far. I would've appreciated more character back story. We are shown that James cheats on his girlfriend, and has a lack of relationship with his Mother, but we never really find out much to it. I think ten more minutes of solid character building could've helped with more emotional investment from the viewer, and yet keep the pace moving along during the doomsday countdown. I would definitely recommend this film to everyone. It's been on the developmental shelf since 2013, so it's nice to see it get it's rightful release. Many films lack that heartfelt sentiment in a world gone wrong, but "These Final Hours" has a tragedy to it that asks what could've been? The film pulls no punches with it's graphic imagery, so be warned.
The Spongebob Squarepants Movie - 6/10 - Director Paul Tibbett takes the underwater world of the infamous Nickelodeon characters, and gives them a fresh spin with their first appearances on land. The second version of a Spongebob Squarepants movie is a more ambitious one than it's previous efforts. It's narrated by a pirate (Antonio Banderas) who steals a secret book on a booby trapped island. The book has magical powers, and serves as a genie of sorts to anyone who dons the pen and writes on it's pages. This greedy pirate steals the secret of the crabby pattie from Spongebob and his friends, and they go on a brave mission to get it back. "The Spongebob Squarepants Movie" doesn't do much to win over the crowds who are either 50/50 on the TV show, or simply don't like it. It does however take the popular show with it's legion of fans, and takes it to the next biggest level. As someone who is in the middle, i found that there was a lot to enjoy with Tibbett's feature continuing the very characters he invented. The film of course has it's cheeky comedy, but it's in the fact that it's PG rating is used to give the adults in the audience something to enjoy. One thing that always kind of bothered me with the show, is that it's dominated by kid friendly humor that doesn't always expand well to it's older audience who need something more than silly laughter and goofy antics. What this film gave me was thinker's humor where the punchline wasn't so obvious. There were many jokes when i had to think twice to make sure i got the movie, and as it hit me, it made it even funnier. I respect any kids movie that takes the time to make a family experience even more entertaining by reaching through to every age group in the theater. The art direction is very welcoming, considering we only know these characters in a 2D animated setting. Their time above water was probably my favorite part of the film, and it's a shame we only see this for the last 25 minutes of the 83 minute feature. The characters look fresh and updated with an almost claymation showcase design. I think the book is left wide open, and if Nickelodeon ever wanted to take these characters and put them in that setting full time; they could. I give respect to Tibbett for many things, but the biggest is how he decided to stick with a voice acting cast exlusively, and not go celebrity with it for shock value. The 2005 original traveled this route with A-list actors like Alec Baldwin and Scarlett Johansson lending their vocals to some new characters. I think the long time voice actors on the show are enough to keep this film entertaining. They are the bread and butter, and it shows that talent can still outweigh A-list perception. Overall, i recommend this film to any fans of the show. I don't think there is enough there to convert many haters over, so i will just keep it with the former as to who i think should see this film. Tom Kenny still has it as the voice of our central protagonist, and the newest feature serves as a great mixtape for the many talents he has to entertain the younger audience. "Spongebob" is a pleasant surprise in an always frightful movie month.
The Voices - 6/10 - My wish is that Ryan Reynolds will do more independent films. After big budget blockbuster bombs like "R.I.P.D", "Green Lantern", and "X Men Origins:Wolverine", it's roles like the latest from Director Marjane Satrapi that will keep the charasmatic Canadian on his toes, and keeps his filmography respectably intact. Jerry is a seemingly normal man to his co-workers. He tries to succeed in his new job at the Milton Bathtub Factory, and he lives in a normal apartment with his dog, Bosco, and his cat, Mr. Whiskers. Yet something seems off. As the new guy at work, Jerry is asked to help plan the company picnic, and there he meets Fiona, an attractive English girl from accounting. Jerry immediately takes a liking to Fiona and excitedly goes home to tell his pets about her. And surprisingly, they answer. But all this is just the beginning of an bizzare and brutal dark comedy. What "The Voices" lacks in mainstream appeal, it more than makes up for in some of the most deranged images that i have ever seen from a comedy. Props to Reynolds for showing a side of himself that not only succeeds, but shows a degree of depth that we didn't know was there. It's quite interesting to see him cast here as a protagonist and antagonist at the same time. The audience is literally at war with trying to figure out if Jerry is really worth saving. Reynolds plays him with a childish innocence that made me sad for his after work loneliness. We know there is something off about Jerry from the second we meet him, but it's his speak before thinking personality that keeps our eyes glued to the screen. I do think this is Reynolds most reaching performance, as it's a character unlike anything he has ever played before. Credit to Satrapi for the idea to use Reynolds voice as the pets he lives with, in the film. Reynolds uses a Scottish accent to play Mr. Whiskers, and a down south country accent for Bosco. To cast the main actor as the narrations for the animals in the film is certainly an original touch that made me open my eyes to the intelligence this captures. Of course the animals should sound like Jerry if their voices are all in his head to begin with, and that is brilliant. I really dug the movie's bravery to throw in a laugh every once in a while to combat such deranged imagery. I think a black comedy's true test is the ability to make it's audience laugh even when the overall tone of the movie has been flipped upside down. The film is rated R, and that isn't surprising with the grizzly images of everything from severed heads to tupperwear of chopped anatomies. Anything less i feel would fail to garner the same kind of reaction it deserves, and this film would be nothing more than a straight to DVD comedy. If there is one negative to the film, it's the anti-climatic third act. It's not that the ending isn't satisfying, but it all feels rushed and tucked away easily for the damage that has been done. The suspense of Jerry getting away with this or getting caught never really has time to register, and i think ten more minutes of build could've easily worked more at an ending deserving of the first eighty minutes that were wonderfully structured to give you two great genres for the price of one. The film's credits scene is the perfect goodbye with a musical number lip synched by cast members Anna Kendrick, Gemma Atterton, and Ella Smith, in addition to Reynolds. "The Voices" breathes life into the Video on Demand culture. It proves that sometimes the most valuable gems require not even leaving your living room. Check it out for devilishly morbid good time.
The Wedding Ringer - 5/10 - Crude humor loves rude debauchery in this raunchy comedy similar to 2009's "I Love You Man". Doug Harris (Josh Gad) is a loveable but socially awkward groom to be with a problem, he has no best man. With less than two weeks to go until he marries the girl of his dreams (Kaley Cuoco-Sweeting), Doug is referred to Jimmy Callahan (Kevin Hart), owner and CEO of Best Man, Inc., a company that provides affordable best men for socially challenged guys in need. What ensues is a hilarious wedding charade as they try to pull off the big con, and an unexpected bromance between Doug and his fake best man Jimmy. I was pleasantly surprised coming out of this film, as it's not half as bad as i thought it would be with seeing the trailer hundreds of times over the last year. If there is one thing that you are supposed to get out of "The Wedding Ringer", it's laughter from arguably the most popular comedian today, Kevin Hart. There are times when Hart feels a little too good for this film, and it's sophomoric humor, but Hart manages to make it work with great comedic timing. I am about 50/50 when it comes to Hart's comedies, as i feel he is good when he is just being himself and not trying to be a character. There are plenty of both in this film. There are a lot of witty one liners that go by so quick, it may be best to watch this in DVD to catch all of the laughs. If you were grading the film on comedic banter alone, the film would get a recommending nod. However, it's the rushed structure, and the kind of scenes it takes from better films that it rips off. The "I Love You Man" story is already there. That's an easy one. But the film tries to develop an on screen chemistry for Gad and Hart similar to that of Paul Rudd and Jason Segal, and it's just not there. Gad isn't someone that i felt was right for 100% of the things needed from his role as Doug. The relationship with Kaley Cuoco doesn't feel believable, and there is a reason for that revealed by film's end. If it were that problem alone, i could accept Gad's muddled performance. The biggest problem is that he is neither charasmatic or interesting enough to spend camera time on. When the film pans to him in scenes, we wish the focus was back on Hart who is taking a watered script and turning it to wine. In addition to the structure of beginning, middle, and end that this film has, the pacing is also full of problems. I was focused on the film and what it was trying to accomplish until i got to the third act. It's in those final 35 minutes that we feel like the movie has explored every possible road it could take with such an easy plot. The third act deals with not one, but TWO adversities between our two male leads that should've already been conquered well before this point near the wedding. The film slows down because it wants us to focus on a serious storyline of loneliness and dying alone from a movie that was strictly sex, penis jokes, lies, and unintelligible humor up to this point. The ending tried to cram too much into the final ten minutes. There are a lot of loose ends to wrap up for Director Jeremy Garelick, and he takes the shortest roads possible with quick explanations and no consequences for the on screen decisions that are made by Gad. Overall, i would recommend the film as a rental. Some people can watch a film and be fine with it as long as it makes them laugh. That is something that this film definitely provides. THe problems i had with the film aren't necessarily something that everyone is going to have, but i don't think this movie will move people for it to become the next big comic hit. It's a rental at best that provides some well timed laughs. If you watch it with friends, expect a good time from a film that is nothing more than a post "Hangover" era comedy.
The Woman in Black 2 : Angel of Death - 3/10 - Hammer Films return to the silver screen with the sequel to the 2012 original starring Daniel Radcliffe. During World War I, a group of orphaned children are moved to the Marsh House 40 years after the events of the first film. It isn't long before supervisors Eve (Phoebe Fox) and Jean (Helen McCrory) start to sense that this house is not what it appears to be as the children in their care begin to disappear. As their house of safety becomes a house of horrors, Eve enlists the help of a handsome pilot (Jeremy Irvine) to help investigate what is happening. Eve soon discovers that it may not be a coincidence that she has come to reside in the house inhabited by the Woman in Black. When i heard a sequel to the pleasant 2012 surprise was coming, i wasn't happy to hear this news. After seeing the movie, i am not only displeased that a sequel exists, but i feel that the whole thing is entirely pointless. "The Woman in Black 2" has it's charms though. If there is one thing that Hammer Films always does well, it's an eerie setting that the minimal budgets go into. The Marsh House seems to have little to no light in the house, and that is reflective of the house's tragic events. If Director Tom Harper could put a little bit of anticipation in the scares he attempts, then this could've been a sequel to live up to it's name. As it stands, the story (what little there is) is very thin. The film feels very monotonous, and the audience will suffer through a first act that leaves the eyes very heavy. I did appreciate the attempt at something different with the World War I setting, but it's clear that this era is only used to make some of the paranormal events feel not so paranormal. The house shakes at random periods with lights flickering on an off, and this can all be conveniently explained because of the fighter pilots flying over the house. One thing that worked about the original was the emotionally frail acting of Radcliffe. There were bruises beneath the exterior of his protagonist, and it's something that just doesn't feel believable with this sequel. Fox is a decent actress, but there is so much she does wrong as the front and center of this film. Because of her lack of emotional depth, it never feels like she fully understands the events at play. There are scenes where she is terrified, but it never feels like these unbelievable events will ever permanently scar her. Another hilarious on going game i had with myself was to see how often her English accent changed throughout the film. Fox is a British born actress, so i don't understand why some scenes sound American, and some sound like the former. It might not seem like a big deal to the casual viewer, but it's something that distracted me any time the film had a plot it was trying to convey. I mentioned earlier that the jump scares were without anticipation, and a lot of that has to do with this sequel settling for twice the amount of jump scares than it's predecessor. I counted seventeen jump scares throughout the film, and anyone who reads my reviews knows i think it's the cheapest form of horror that you can display. The movie feels like a James Wan film, in that he cranks up the shrieking noises any time someone appears out of nowhere. Films like this are becoming a parody of themself, and i for one would like to see this trend halted. A couple of jump scares a film are OK, but seventeen jump scares average out to one every 5-6 minutes of the film, and that is quite excessive. One thing that i enjoyed about this film more than the original was the ending. Everything feels well tied up in this film compared to the original that left us feeling like there was so much more story to tell about "The Woman in Black". I was hoping this movie would sew up all of these loose ends, and to some degree it did. My compliments towards the ending however, involves an ending worthy enough of the fight that our characters went through. I can't explain much more without spoiling the film, but i was glad to see the picket fence ending for a change. Overall, i can't recommend this film to anyone. The first film is far superior, and i would recommend that to my readers for Radcliffe's haunting performance alone. The strange thing is that this is considered horror, but the blood and language are non existent. If you feel your child could deal with jump scares accordingly, then "The Woman in Black 2" is a safe bet if they really have to see this. It's a sequel to a film that definitely feels like something you would discover at a video store before you ever knew it was made.
To Write Love On Her Arms - 7/10 - A story of redemption chronicled by real life drug addict, Renee Yohe, is presented in this straight to DVD gem by up and coming Director, Nathan Frankowski. She's a a Florida teenager who struggles with addiction and abuse. In a creative blend of artistic fantasy and transitional musical numbers, the film takes us on our protagonist's troubling road to clarity. Renee discovers the value of genuine friendships and embarks on a daunting yet courageous journey towards recovery. There is a lot i enjoyed from this director's first real project, and it's clear that he has a truly innovative style that creates some dreamy, almost fairytale like settings to accomodate Yohe's drug induced imagery. The film is a little over emotional at times, but the pace kept rolling smooth enough that i never felt weighed down with "Just another sob story". Renee is played by Kat Dennings, an actress who i am not a huge fan of, but i have to admit that her role in this film is leaps and bounds above anything else she has ever done. Her performance signifies a girl who lives her life around fairytales, but is forced to grow up quickly. Dennings supplies an innocence to her role that yanks at the emotions of the audience viewing her cloudy situations with concern. It's truly her first ACTING performance, and i would like to see more dramatic roles from the young starlet. Another notable positive is a soundtrack of young indie bands that is an early favorite for soundtrack of the year in my eyes. Artists like Travie McCoy, Civilian, and Between The Trees. Music plays as big of a role in this film as the actors do, because it's that music that supplies the narration during the dream scenes playing out in Renee's mind. I particularly enjoyed McCoy making an appearance during the opening scene of the film walking with Renee and her group of friends down the high school hallway, as they all sport their beats headphones. It's a great way to keep the film modern to the teenage music crowds, but also producing eye candy cinematography for the film lovers of any age. The film would probably be a lot higher if it weren't for some things (Minor and Major) that took me away from the story it was telling. The first is the title. I get why the movie is called this, and understand the story behind it, but it's too long and will be hard to remember for anyone who hasn't followed Renee's story. The film has been in developmental hell since 2012 when it was known as "Day One". I am glad that the movie saw the light of day for those affected by addiction, but i think the original title was more symbolic of the long road ahead. I also felt that the film lacked a backstory for it's main character. Outside of her addiction, i came out of the film feeling like i knew very little more about her than i did before i started the movie. The film is only 95 minutes, so some time could've been dedicated at the beginning of the film to show the motivations Renee had for exploring her curiosities. The movie also explores a love interest between her and her friend, Jamie (Chad Michael Murray). This is hinted at, and then ignored for the rest of the third and final act. I felt letdown that there was no payoff considering the actors had such great on screen chemistry. Overall, "To Write Love On Her Arms" is destined to be a cult favorite among the people who come from such rocky roads. It serves as a voice for the voiceless to anyone scared to seek help, and that is a cause that i can always support. With a release straight to DVD, there is no reason not to check out the film for Dennings emotionally frail portrayal, as well as an accurate account of the tribulations those in recovery deal with every day.
Unfinished Business - 3/10 - The business world is a nasty one filled with rivals and "Unfinished Business". Hard working small business owner, Dan (Vince Vaughn) and his two associates, Tim (Tom Wilkinson), and Mike (Dave Franco) start their own business after being rudely shipped from their jobs on the same day. The trio travel to Europe to close the most important deal of their lives. But what began as a routine business trip goes off the rails in every unimaginable way. "Unfinished Business" is a major let down and proof that even someone of Vince Vaughn's charasmatic charm and stature needs help to get him back on the right track at this point in his career. This childish combination of penis humor (Literally) and obscurity of a plot isn't something we should see from a trio of actors who could do better films in their sleep. At a bare minimum 86 minute film, the movie had me reaching for my cell phone several times as a result of juggled structure, and jokes that are repeated far too many times for even the most dedicated of film viewers. A movie like this should first and foremost be about the comedy, and that's a big problem in this film. 95% of the comedy is shown in the trailer, resulting in a dry toned rest of the film that doesn't blend very well during those extreme moments of penis showing in a men's restroom, or highly offensive language that takes place during client meetings. It just doesn't mix well with what Director Ken Scott (Delivery Man) had in mind. It's funny that Scott directs Vaughn again after their exchange in "Delivery Man" in 2013, because the best parts of both movies are that of a dramatic side plot present in both films. In "Unfinished Business", it's the pressures of bullying that Vaughn's son is going through at school. It pops up out of nowhere, but it was truly the most enjoyable part of the film for me, and i wish the film dedicated more time to a father searching for a solution while constantly away from home, and less about Dave Franco trying out unusual sexual positions on random women he meets. Franco is far and away the single worst part of this film. He plays a character that is explained in few words as "Mentally challenged", and his performance is the first character that made me nearly sick in years. The movie wants you to believe this man is capable of running a lucrative company, while at the same time poking fun at his mental capacity acting like a five year old for seeing breasts for the first time. I'm sure i will come off as a film snob here, but shame on writer Steven Conrad for developing such a tasteless character. At first, i thought he was just a man child, but to find out in the second act that this character has legit problems and we're supposed to laugh at it, made me sick. From worst to best, Tom Wilkinson is a breath of fresh air in this movie. It's true that the longtime veteran actor is going against the grain in this kind of comedy, but he shows great timing while bouncing off of Vaughn's straight man routine. I laughed two times during the film, and both were because of Wilkinson's delivery on such a drebbel of a script. I mentioned the script being a mess before, and that's mainly because it is trying to juggle too much at one time. We are flown back and forth quickly between locations before we can ever really grasp the storylines, or why our characters are in such a predicament. It all feels rushed as a reflection on it's run time, and i think it tried to be something with higher class actors than it got. Relating that sentence is putting Sean Connery in EuroTrip. I'm sure it sounds like a riot, but when you actually have to sit down and watch actors who you grew up adoring fail to even garner a sympathy giggle out of you, then ladies and gentlemen, you have a recipe for the single worst comedy i have seen in 2015 so far. Vaughn enthusiasts will love it all the same, but i can't recommend this film to any respectable reader of mine. If the title had anything to do with the production, then this is some business better left on the shelf and out of the public eye.

The Film Freak Review Page

Sunday, January 4, 2015

Top 200 Films of 2014

Thursday, January 1, 2015

2015 Film Reviews

Blog Archive