- 22 Jump Street - 7/10 - Some would look at my rating for 22 Jump Street and think i liked it, but didn't think it was amazing. That is true to a certain degree. I did enjoy this movie and thought it was a more than capable sequel. One thing that might surprise you however, is that i thought the film was very smart in the aspects of the way it mocks the first film and the Hollywood sequel in general. 22 Jump Street returns us to the world of two best friend cops (Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum) who go undercover at a college this time. It's a sequel that is told to pack more of a punch because those are the rules that Hollywood instills. It pokes fun in many aspects like the natural progression of the script and how there are many things the same as the first film. If a movie is smart enough to realize that it is putting out the same movie and acknowledge it, then i believe that makes that movie acceptable to be a copy. I shouldn't really use the word copy because there are a few differences in the sequel that make for fun entertainment. In this film, Tatum is the popular one of the duo, Jonah Hill is the one struggling in his police work, and the most obvious answer in the mystery isn't the right one. The ladder is one of the things i liked the most about this film. It's not just a bromance comedy, but a great mystery that had me guessing for a lot of the film. It all culminates in an amazing fast paced action chase scene that makes the last half hour of the film the best part of the movie by far. In fact, if the film didn't have a slow and terribly paced opening forty minutes, 22 Jump Street would be closer to a 7.5 or an 8. It almost feels like two different directors took the helm of this movie and that makes sense because the co-directors were Phil Lord and Chris Miller. I personally think that the co-honors shows in the different tones and pacing between the first and second acts. It is in the 2nd act where the chemistry of Hill and Tatum return to the glory of the first film. We see their ability to play this duo that have basically become brothers, and the reason why no other relationship in their lives ever seems to fit. There is one shocking reveal in the middle of the movie that involves Ice Cube that absolutely gives the film the adrenaline shot that it needed. Speaking of Cube, he is the best part of the movie. On the surface it may seem like he is playing the typical angry man Ice Cube character that he always plays, but the mystery reveal will take his character in a whole new direction and help the viewer in relating to a character who we didn't get much time with in the original film. The performances are hit and miss. Jonah Hill is a miss because his character doesn't grow in the same kind of transformation that Tatum's character has. Tatum does some parkour routines that make his character the same kind of guy he played in last year's White House Down. 22 Jump Street even pokes fun at that movie in a scene where the two male leads are practically winking at the audience. I do like Hill in comedies, but i would like to see him get back to his straight roles more often. The guy has some deep acting chops, so i don't think he needs to always be held down with the same comedic schtick. I could write a two page review on the end credits alone because they are among the best i have ever seen. I don't want to spoil too much, but it pokes fun at anyone who goes to see the same movie over and over again (Like The Hangover films). It is so brilliant and so funny that no person will want to leave their seats because they will want to see how far this will go. There are some excellent cameos in that credits scene that will make every fan and non fan of the TV show happy they stuck around. Overall, 22 Jump Street is a more than worthy sequel that is definitely worth a look for anyone who liked the first film. I would be interested to know where people think it stands compared to the original. For me, it fell a little short, but 22 Jump Street is a welcome edition to a sequel world that is 50/50 at best.
- 3 Days to Kill - 6.5/10 - Kevin Costner returns to the silver screen in
his first lead role since 2008's Swing Vote. Luckily, this film is
heading in a better direction than a lot of his recent films. Let it be
known that i am a Kevin Costner fan. I think the guy puts a lot of heart
into the roles he chooses. He is responsible for some of my favorite
films of all time. Costner stars as a small time Hit man who is
approached by Amber Heard (A CIA agent) about killing "The Wolf", a
contract killer who has alluded authorities for decades. While this is
the film that the trailer presents, it is a completely different film
that is presented to us the audience. Costner finds out he has less than
2 months to live as he has stage 4 cancer. He uses the remaining time
left to form a relationship with the wife and daughter he left behind.
It is in the second plot of the film that i found the most enjoyment.
The action was fast paced with a lot of well choreographed fight scenes,
but the majority of the 112 minute film revolves around the time that
is running out. This is the kind of film that i wish Crank would have
been if it wasn't so goofy with the sequel, Crank 2. When watching the
movie, i told myself that Costner doesn't seem right for the action side
of this movie. He isn't terrible, but you just don't see him as a Jason
Statham or Liam Neeson kind of role actor. He more than makes up for it
with the emotional story he tells while trying to bond with his
daughter Zoey (Played by Hailee Steinfeld). The script is a little
sloppy at times as it plays a three way tug of war game with deciding
what direction the film should take. On one side, there is the fast
paced action chaser, and on another side there is the sweet family movie
that tries to tell us love conquers all, and finally a comedic side
that takes the steam out of anything mentioned before. Director Mc G has
proven before that he can direct his characters to great heights, and
it's kind of felt here as Amber Heard is seductively dangerous as CIA
agent Vivi Delay. The villains of the film are a little James Bond-ish
with almost laughable personalities. I am OK with the fact that Mc G
doesn't focus a lot on the villain side of the movie, and saves the big
battle for the final 15 minutes of the film. The end is done in two
parts which makes it kind of drag on at times, but it's in those final
minutes that Costner realizes what gives his life importance. Overall, i
was really amazed with how deep at times this film went. It's more than
a typical shoot em up kind of action flick. It's nice to see a back
story inserted that will put you emotionally invested in the characters
and not just the violence. I recommend the film for action lovers, but i
think it can wait till dollar theater.
Side note - Kevin Costner is from Pittsburgh in this film and talks about being a Steelers fan. I wonder if he is the first guy in Hollywood to play a Steelers fan and Browns GM (Draft Day) in the same year.
- 300: Rise of an Empire - 8/10 - The battle for Greece continues in this war epic to the 2007 original. Right off of the bat, i will say possibly the most blasphemous sentence to ever be said on this website. This film is better than the original. Rise of an Empire plays off better as an actual movie with a revenge plot storyline that the audience will eat up. In return, the characters are written with more depth and more humanity in this film. The main character is named Thermistocles, and he is an Athenian politician and general. At the same time Leonidas led the 300 spartans, Thermistocles is leading his naval army against the Persians who threaten to take over Greece. I enjoyed that they were showing both armies as they traveled at the same time to fight different sides of the Persian army. The film stars Sullivan Stapleton (Thermistocles), Eva Green and the returning wife of Leonidas, Lena Heady. Green in particular is the best part of this movie. The camera gives her the most screen time, and it is through this that we learn of her very disgusting past. She is after the Greeks for a reason, and will stop at nothing to achieve glory. Green's dialogue and demeanor show nothing but her having the time of her life in this role. She is sexy, funny and VERY dangerous. It is her sex appeal that makes her at her most dangerous. She's easy on the eyes, but bad for your health. There is one thing i can say in this review that i have never said and that is that this film has the greatest sex scene in a movie that i have ever seen. Not trying to sound perverted here, but it's filled with so much passion and aggression that you can see so much of their war emotions coming out on screen. I did see the film in 3D and i have to say that this is one of the only times that i will say it is definitely worth it. My eyes had so much to focus on from falling ash to hundreds of daggers being pushed right in your face. The 3D is also big on pushing a movie that is twice as violent as the original. This movie is not afraid to show buckets of blood, and that is a good and bad thing. It's good because these films should be brutal. Wars in films should never be PG-13 because of what our soldiers went through. They should be honored in a 100% honest telling. It's bad though because most of the blood is CGI in this film and it looks horrible. My friend Ryan had an interesting thought. He wondered if the blood looked so bad because we had 3D glasses on and those are like magnifying glasses. I don't know the answer to his question, but i do think the blood was one of the lone weak spots in the movie. The film also has it's differences from what actually happened, but i am not going to get into that argument. After everything i said, i still haven't mentioned the best thing with the film. The two 300 films have some of the best cinematography i have ever seen. Zach Snyder perfected it with the original, but director Noam Murro pushes it to the limit with beautiful sky shots, as well as far and away shots of the naval war scenes that really capture the bloodshed that is present. 300: Rise of an Empire isn't the best movie i have seen in the first three months of 2014, but it is the most fun i have had at a movie. I think a lot of the problem with these reviewers is that they don't give sequels a chance to succeed because sequels are mostly a money plot. I think any movie deserves a shot to shine, and if you give Rise of an Empire a chance, it will dazzle you with 100 minutes of powerful battles and characters fighting for the state of civilization. See this film at all costs in theaters and in 3D
- About Last Night - 6.5/10 - Possibly the early favorite for surprise of the year for me. I really enjoyed this remake of the 1986 story starring Demi Moore and Jim Belushi. In this version, Kevin Hart, Regina Hall, Michael Ealy and Joy Bryant star as two couples whose stories and growth intertwine. This film has a realism to relationships that i haven't seen since 2006's "The Break Up". It's harsh and realistic when it needs to be, and i appreciate that in a film. We have all been down the same roads that these people have been down. From the changing of who we are as people to pregnancy scares to being the idiot who says the wrong thing at the wrong time. Hart and Hall are amazing as an onscreen item. I think Hollywood has finally found someone who can match Hart pound for pound on the comedy that he drops to the audience. Hall is someone who takes every comedic punch that Hart gives her and throws it right back in his face. I actually thought she was the best part of this film. Ealy and Bryant are supposed to be the main characters of this story, but it just doesn't work out that way. The audience will be more interested in Hart/Hall because they provide the film with it's comedic tones. While on that subject, the film does have it's comedy, but i was very surprised at how serious it became midway through. It has that perfect mix of humor and intelligence that you just don't see in the romance department anymore. Christopher Mcdonald (Yes Shooter Mcgavin) even cameos in this film to give us a kind of father figure bar owner to Michael Ealy's character. My only real critique about this film is that it has weird camera edits. It seems the scenes cut before the characters are finished talking. This leads me to believe that a lot of the film was probably improved with someone as comically gifted as Kevin Hart. There is also a weird scene midway through that reveals Mcdonald's bar being financially in trouble and then nothing. It's like it changes into a good fortune without telling us how he paid off that debt. About Last Night dives into a deeper territory by testing the limits of friendships and the responsibilities of finally growing up. Out of all the films i saw this weekend, i think it is the perfect date movie. I would recommend it to any couple who are in the mood for laughs, emotional roller coasters and surprisingly spirited performances. Kevin Hart fans will think this is one of his best roles to date, and they would be correct.
- A Dolphin's Tale 2 - 5.5/10 - Director and writer Charles Martin Smith continues his telling of the real life story of an injured dolphin named Winter whose incredible rescue events were well documented in the 2011 original film. A Dolphin's Tale 2 is a pretty safe bet when it comes to children and animal enthusiasts alike. Adults will find the film a little too safe and predictable to mix with the uneventful tone throughout this sequel. I personally have not seen the first film in this series, but i do know of the story and could understand why they thought to turn it into a major motion picture. A Dolphin's Tale 2 feels like an unnecessary continuance of characters that have no conflict equal or greater to it's predecessor. For the first 65 of 97 minutes during the film, it feels like a blending of nutty daily events that happen at the aquarium. It isn't until the final half hour of the movie that we are faced with some kind of challenge for our characters, but because of a trailer that is very revealing we already know the outcome. The trailer itself makes it feel like the challenge of getting Winter to accept a new dolphin (Hope) is in the very beginning of the film, but it ends up being our final scenes for characters who feel untested by the adversity of a sequel trying to pinch it's last few dollars. The dialogue is cheesy and corny with most of the film being concentrated on the characters i really didn't care about. Morgan Freeman, Ashley Judd, and Kris Kristofferson feel completely wasted as they are given camera time when a scene needs cheesy side commentary to make the audience giggle. Freeman in particular appears and disappears for long stretches of time, and it makes it entirely obvious when he isn't there to offer any kind of charm to the film. Not all of the performances were ignored however as Harry Connick JR was great as the operator of the aquarium. He is given the time to make his character feel like more than just another A list actor trying to accept a paycheck. The relationship between he and his daughter (Played by Cozi Zuehlsorf) is a genuine one with a girl ready to step out of the big shadow cast by her father. One of the things that the film does have going for it is the brilliant point of view camera shots from Winter's angle. I think a POV is a thing of beauty in a film like this trying to communicate the responses between humans and wild animals. The underwater stunts by the dolphins are most authentic with very little CGI. It's kind of impressive when you think about how unpredictable these animals really are. I give Smith credit for the patience and one of a kind documentation of time with his non human characters. Most films don't treat animals with the kind of respect and screen time that Smith does, and if one thing is clear it's that he is an absolute animal lover. There is a hint at a small romance between the two teenage characters, but it's never capitalized upon. It's almost like they laid the groundwork to open the eyes of each of these characters and then the ending completely changes everything. Exploring this relationship would've made our human characters even remotely as interesting as the animals that the film focuses it's majority time on. As i said before, the film played off just a little too safe for me which is why it receives a grade in the middle. It wasn't as bad as i was expecting it to be, but it failed to produce anything out of me that would warrant a second screening. I would only recommend this film during a family screening. It's a safe bet to give your children enough smiles to leave a theater with. A Dolphin's Tale 2 has good intentions with a lot of heart, but it feels too uninspired when compared to the original story that was a lot edgier than anything this sequel had to offer. The ending credits show the real camera documentary done on the real life rescue of these animals, and i wish this film would've rather been this documentary. I feel that the story itself was good enough to be shown from this pure angle, and didn't need bland characters and situations to only drag it down. I think a DVD screeining is acceptable, but i don't think i can even recommend a matinee showing of this.
- Adult World - 4.5/10 A tale of growing up and letting our dreams go is told in this drama starring Emma Roberts, John Cusack and Evan Peters. Roberts stars as an aspiring poet who hunts down Cusack (who is a famous poet) to work under him and learn more. At the same time, Roberts runs away from home because her parents are tired of supporting a hobby that isn't going anywhere. She needs a job quick to pay for her new apartment, so she starts at a porn shop because it's her only option. The film does have a great premise, and one that hits especially close to home for me. It's execution though, is forgettable at best. Roberts is good as a whiny and mopey teenager, but she doesn't grow into much more by the film's end. When the credits show at the 89 minute mark, we are left with the same suicidal teenager we started with. Cusack is outstanding as always. I like that he is taking on more outside of the box roles with his independent films. Last year, he showed a menacing side as a serial killer in The Frozen Ground, and now he shows a phobic snob in Adult World. He serves as a father figure who is constantly rolling his eyes at a young generation that he doesn't understand. As i said before, the film doesn't execute in the way it should. This could easily be a good movie, but it's slow in it's search for excitement, it has an attention seeking main character and it's got an abrupt ending. Overall, Adult World is something that should only be seen if you are a fan of Cusack's work. He is the only good thing about the film. I would say it's good for a Redbox rental, but nothing more.
- A Good Marriage - 4/10 When her husband, Bob (Anthony LaPaglia) of more than twenty years is away on one of his business trips, Darcy Anderson (Joan Allen) looks for batteries in the garage. Instead, she discovers the stranger inside her husband who she never knew. It's a horrifying discovery, that turns Darcy's world upside down. A Good Marriage is the newest Stephen King adaptation that is directed by Peter Askin. Askin does some things right in this film, but he does so much wrong to render it completely empty of any heart pounding drama or artsy violence. That is the biggest problem that i found with this film; it struggles to find an identity in 97 minutes of screen time. The first act is set up well enough with the shocking discovery, but the movie sputters out over the middle act when it doesn't seem to know where to take our main characters. Darcy plays alright with the notion that her husband is a killer which is extremely absurd because he isn't blackmailing her or keeping her there for any reason. The only link they have together is the three children who are all grown up, and have left the nest. The final act starts to pick up some of that good storytelling in the opening 20 minutes, but we are fed a showdown that is neither satisfying nor progressive. The point of no return is over before any of the audience can even enjoy it. This gives it a rushed kind of feeling that i didn't see coming in a film that is barely an hour and a half. The acting is done about as well as can be asked considering the characters are written like blank pieces of paper. Allen in particular continues her longstanding history of powerful female characters who find the strengths they didn't know they had. There was a second in the film when i was hoping Bob would find out the same thing about Darcy as she did about him, but it never materializes. I think a horror themed "Mr and Mrs Smith" would make for a great film with king of weird writing Stephen King at the helm. It certainly would've made for a better film than the one we got. After the showdown, the film still has 20 long minutes with so many false endings that it gets put back on the shelf of mediocrity. It's a shame too. The camera work is done brilliantly for many shadow shots. There is also great shading inside of the house that just begs for that shade of red that we never see. No blood in a Stephen King writing is like no buildings falling down in a Michael Bay film. That is the central problem with calling this film a "Horror movie". There is no blood, little violence, and nothing to ever make us hate Bob's character enough to cheer Darcy on to get out of it. The movie never really feels like a Stephen King movie because it's missing his touch. Lapaglia is a great method actor, and i think he would've been great in a role similar to "Mr Brooks", but that isn't what he is given here. He plays a killer more generic than a Lifetime Television movie of the week. I begged for a dominant twist in his actions when the shoe drops that he is a killer, but i was sadly disappointed. It's simple to write off A Good Marriage as a boring film, but that isn't quite the case. There is a good idea here with a good film just begging to be let out. I wish King would've been more hands on with this film, as i feel he knows better than anyone what gives his audience goosebumps as the master of suspense. The lack of that last word is what inevitably dooms this straight to DVD film to a lifetime of dull emptiness. If you are a HUGE Stephen King fan, then maybe you won't mind spending a dollar on this at the local Redbox. I don't think there is any harm in it, but you won't find anything special when comparing it to other films that King let someone else helm the director's chair. A Good Marriage offers great on screen chemistry from Lapaglia and Allen, but it's story is much thinner than i expected after watching the trailer.
- A Haunted House 2 - 2/10 - In 2013, i posted a review about A Haunted House that trashed the film for basically being an 80 minute sex joke. I called it crude, humorless and completely pointless. I would now like to personally apologize for everything i said about that film. A Haunted House is still a tasteless chud, but it's sequel is where the real evil exists. Marlon Wayans returns as Malcolm Johnson. A man who is being plagued by evil spirits through two different girlfriends. This film acts as a spoof on such horror movies as Sinister, Paranormal Activity, Insidious and The Conjuring. I only enjoyed three of those films, but i can safely say that all four are better than A Haunted House 2. As to where sex jokes were the film's premise in the first film, racism appears to be the schtick with this movie. Racism is everywhere and everything, it's apparently supposed to be hilarious and i had no idea. Gabriel Iglesias shows up as a neighbor who is Mexican. I mention his heritage because the movie certainly does every 2 minutes. I am not someone who is a big Iglesias fan. Every joke in his arsenal is about him being Mexican or him being fat. It's that simple. So when you hear he is in this film, it should come as no surprise that the person and the character are one and the same. Lets not stop there though because there are more sex jokes as well. Remember that amazing scene from the first film where Marlon Wayans is having nasty sex with a stuffed animal? You get to relive that whole scene times two with the doll from The Conjuring. He has sex with this thing for no reason what so ever. Somewhere in planet bizarre this is funny. All you have to know about this film is that it's the rudest, crudest movie to come out this year.......BY FAR. I am all about a good comedy that is a little juvenile, but this is completely beyond the limit. On top of this, there are cussing children, scenes that don't connect well with the scene that is directly after it, and THE MOST ANNOYING CHARACTER that i have seen in a long time. For those of you who thought Leonardo Dicaprio said "Old Sport" too much in 2013's The Great Gatsby, i laugh at your comment. Affion Crockett plays Malcolm's cousin Ray-Ray, and he says the word "Cuz" no fewer than 90 times. I AM NOT KIDDING IN THE SLIGHTEST. I turned to my friend and said i would punch the screen if he said it one more time, and sure enough he did it in that exact second. The character is like nails on a chalkboard. Like Kenny Crumpton doing the weather for your funeral. Like Nickelback on repeat 24 hours a day. The camera always on thing doesn't work as well for this movie because in scenes where it looks like a camera is on, there is no possible way a camera can be there. Cameras appear and disappear in character's hands. I searched my mind to find even the slightest thing i liked about this film, and i could find nothing. The house they shot in looked nice. Does that count? The credits were error free in typing. How about that? A Haunted House 2 is on par with A Winter's Tale for the absolute biggest disgrace i have seen this year. Time will tell by December 31st when we find out which one is worse, but for now i want to go to a very quiet place and rock back and forth. A Haunted House 2 is AWFUL. It doesn't even deserve the 6% on Rotten Tomatoes. If you see it, you are only wasting your own money. The Film Freak warns all.
- Alexander and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day - 5.5/10 - Judith Viorst's 20 page book comes to life in this adaptation by Walt Disney Studios. "Alexander and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day"follows the exploits of 11-year-old Alexander (Ed Oxenbould) as he experiences the most terrible and horrible day every day of his young life, followed by one calamity after another. But when Alexander tells his upbeat family about the misadventures of his disastrous day, he finds little sympathy and begins to wonder if bad things only happen to him. He soon learns that he's not alone when his mom (Jennifer Garner), dad (Steve Carell), brother (Dylan Minnette) and sister (Kerris Dorsey) all find themselves living through their own versions of a bad day. "Alexander" isn't a film that people will remember as a classic for years, but it's enough entertainment to justify a family sitting, as many peoplr can relate to what this family is going through. They don't have a last name in the film, and i think that is personally so the film can be relatable to the audience watching and laughing at the very same things that they have gone through. The acting is decent enough, led by Steve Carrell's wacky schtick. His dry sense of humor provides moviegoers and Carrell fans the same kind of on screen magic that he always gives in any role he undertakes. Oxenbould plays our title character well, but the direction of the movie places him in the background in a film about him. He never feels like a main character because most of this bad stuff isn't happening to him. For a book that is 20 pages long, i knew they would have to stretch a 75 minute film VERY wide. The movie is too short to ever lag, but 25 minutews into the film, you feel like you have already seen the whole movie, and you have. It just doesn't feel like Disney panned out much of a script to go with a novel that many of us consider legendary from our childhoods. One scene in particular displays the single worst green screen moment i have ever seen. If you go to see this movie, please keep a look out for all of the driving scenes, but the ones with the drivers door knocked off in particular. I found myself laughing at this part even when the rest of the theater was quiet around me. The film is directed by "Cedar Rapids" director Miguel Arteta, and his direction works on such a film with a sarcastic undertone. The things this family goes through is bad enough to make the audience laugh, but nothing too harmful in the long run. Overall, i enjoyed this film, but it's too repetitive for me to give a passing grade to. I am still going to recommend the film, but only for a family sitting. I think there are enough comedic elements combined with family unity to give children and grown ups a fun night out away from the kinds of bad days we are all known for having. "Alexander" is a pleasing film without ever trying to be anything more.
- A Million Ways to Die in the West - 5.5/10 - Director and star of the movie Seth Macfarlane returns to the silver screen with the anticipated follow up to his 2011 smash hit, Ted. The most surprising thing about A Million Ways to Die in the West is the fact that it's not a very funny movie. It has it's cheap laughs, but my biggest problem with Macfarlane's comedy has always been that his jokes are too drawn out.....FOR WAY TOO LONG. Macfarlane stars as Albert, a sheephearder living in the wild west of Arizona in 1898. Macfarlane is dumped by his girlfriend, Louise (Amanda Seyfried), but falls head over heels for new girl, Anna (Charlize Theron). The problem? Anna has a husband who is the most famous gunslinger in the west, Clinch (Liam Neeson). As i said before, jokes feel drawn out for way too long ruining some legitimately good laughs. The kind of fast paced talking smart man schtick with jokes also doesn't mix well with the visual slop usually seen in Adam Sandler movies. In this one, there is a vicious diarrhea scene, fecal matter on a child's pillow, and even being urinated on the face by a sheep. The biggest sin with the laughs that actually work is the fact that they are rendered powerless by a nearly 2 hour run time. By the time the final 20 minutes hit, these jokes feel overused and even exhausting by this point. Macfarlane himself isn't the kind of guy we can get behind. The underdog story is a good one to use in a old west setting, but Macfarlane is very unlikable and at times annoying. He is the kind of guy who has commentary for everything going on in the town, but has no desire to change any of it. The more a character complains, the more the viewer will roll their eyes. Thank God for his co-stars though, because there are some good performances to recognize. Liam Neeson is by far the best part of this movie. He plays a villain that doesn't play for jokes once. Neeson is the best when he is himself, and that is exactly who he plays as Clinch. He is every bit the man you see hunting for his family in the Taken films. Neil Patrick Harris is very charasmatic as the rebound man for Macfarlane's ex-girlfriend. He has a musical number at the saloon that is about moustaches that will be stuck in your head for days. Harris is cocky, but knows how to always look through the screen at the viewer and wink for a smile out of us. Giovanni Ribisi also hands in a buzzworthy performance as Macfarlane's best friend, Edward. It's the little things that Ribisi does that has us chuckling. Things like playing a comedic straight man to Macfarlane's comedic banter. He brings out the best in every scene that he is in. It's just unfortunate that there aren't more of those scenes to go around. There is a beautiful score by Joel Mcneely that really takes you back to westerns like Blazing Saddles and The Good, The Bad and The Ugly. He does his magic behind these long shots of beautiful mountains that play to twangy guitars and rusty violins. The setting and wardrobe are very complimentary, so no complaints there. It's a shame that a movie like this didn't fully deliver with a trailer that was very well done. I saw this trailer almost every time i went to the movies and was so psyched to see it. It's not nearly one of the worst movies of the year, but i can't give a pass to this one. As great as Ted was, A Million Ways to Die in the West will always be known as Macfarlane's clunker. At times, it tries to be Blazing Saddles with creating the kind of racist and degrading religious jokes that would be taboo 40 years ago, but don't carry the same weight in a Family Guy society that has already explored that avenue. Saddles was a film that at it's time was so shocking because it was a white and black male leads that were going nose to nose with slander jabs that didn't often make it to the big screen. It's a different age in a different era, and A Million Ways to Die in the West is a long joke about how it sucked to live in the wild west.....A very long joke.
- A Most Wanted Man - 5/10 - Do you ever feel like you are an X in a world of O's when you watch a film? I felt that was after watching Phillip Seymour Hoffman's final starring role before his untimely death. The reviews for this movie has been insane and include a 90% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. I saw the trailer rarely for this film, but for the first time about 3 months ago. I wasn't impressed by what i saw mainly because the trailer had a difficult time explaining what the film was about. After watching the movie, i can say that director Anton Corbijn doesn't have the slightest clue on how to communicate the story he is trying to tell. It's about a russian immigrant who turns up in Hamburg to lay claim to his father's riches. However, there is speculation as to whether this man is an oppressed victim or a hell bent terrorist extremist. If this story doesn't sound that appealing to you it's because it has been done about 100 times since 9/11. Based on the novel by John Le Carre, A Most Wanted Man is a slowburn adaptation that does no favors to capture the tension in Carre's books. The first hour feels completely compressed as it is trying to tell many angles from characters who we learn nothing about. Hoffman gives another amazing performance while smoking more cigarettes than any actor i have ever seen. In an era with laughable accents by American actors, Hoffman sounds like a student of the game who has studied hours for a Russian accent. The problem is that we don't really know if we are supposed to be cheering for him and his government team because we don't know much about him or the supposed terrorist he is chasing. The characters in this film are stuck in a moral stand still maze with below the surface doubts on how they really feel about their methods. They use every dirty trick short of entrapment to get this man to admit to something, and it doesn't bring out the best in the people that we spend the most time with. The camera style is impressive, but unchallenged by anything riveting. There are no high speed chases, no fight scenes, and no heartbeating ending to even try to push the angles to do more. Aside from Hoffman, Rachel MCadams hands in a notworthy performance. She plays the lawyer of the rumored terrorist in question. MCAdams isn't the only female character in the film, but she is the only one who is invested in writing time, and not just another faceless personality similar to action films in 2014. There in lies the biggest problem with A Most Wanted Man; what is it's genre? One would say an espionage film, but that's not it's own drama in the video stores of today. Drama is probably the closest and safest bet to file this in even though there are no scenes that pull for tears or fears (There's an 80's joke in there somewhere). It does start to pick up during the 2nd hour, but is killed by an ending that is unforgivable for the worst. When the credits roll at the end of 2 very long hours, you feel like you tried to invest in something that had no appeal to you what so ever. The final scene makes it feel like the camera was left on for too long, and that is a perfect telling of the movie in general. It's too long, too ambiguous, and too dull for anyone to enjoy. I will go on a limb here and say that it will be very difficult for any of my readers to enjoy this film. I usually will sometimes recommend a film even if i didn't enjoy it because i know some of you will. I just can't see anyone pulling anything from this morally colorless film. It's so dry that i reached for the water every 2 minutes and ran out about 40 minutes in. 90 minutes into "A Most Wanted Man," a CIA officer asks, "What are we trying to achieve here?" Viewers can be forgiven for replying, "If you don't know, why should we?" Not recommended.
- Annabelle - 3/10 - A couple begin to experience terrifying supernatural occurrences involving a vintage doll shortly after their home is invaded by a satanic cult. Annabelle is the prequel to 2013's The Conjuring based on the backstory of the most terrifying gag of that film, a demon possessed doll named Annabelle. "The Conjuring" was probably my favorite horror film easily of the last five years because it affected it's audience psychologically instead of the cheap jump scares that Hollywood horror films have been famous for over the past two decades. "Annabelle" goes back on all of the greatness that it's predecessor has created. It's a dull, uninspired, and lazily acted film that adds nothing to the genre, and makes you wish you were watching something better from the films it steals it's inspirations from. "Child's Play" came out in 1988, and it's a film that has one of those premises that is hard to rip it off without people seeing that you legitimately stole from that film. This movie is the exact same premise, possession, and goal of the doll as it's 1988 counterpart. What i liked about the doll in "The Conjuring" was that she was mysterious and even a little believable in the way that Annabelle never moved or winked or said a word. Her charms were in her abilities to look at a camera and have the audience shriek at the eyes of a demon that she possesses. That is the first thing that this movie does wrong; it gives away her origins for a story that isn't very interesting. My biggest question coming out of this film is how this doll isn't classified as police evidence when the authorities arrive at the doorstep of our main protagonists. It's logic like that which will make the watchers at home roll their eyes. But what makes the viewer really lose their interest in this film is the lack of delivery from how the camera never knows when to cut. There were scenes that lasted 5-10 minutes with beautiful suspenseful music playing to almost ear shattering levels when the scene just ends. I kind of compare this film's problems to that of "Godzilla" this year, in which it never delivered on the things it was teasing the whole film. We got so many looks from Annabelle that you were just waiting for her terror to be unleashed at any moment. Things eventually start happening towards the end of the film, and it concludes with a brutally nauseating ending that makes you wonder how that was supposed to solve the problem to begin with. I mentioned before that the acting was awful, and boy do i mean it. The actors resemble hardcore pornography actors, and their acting only supports my theory. These two (Played by Annabelle Wallis and Ward Horton) are more wooden than the damn doll is. How is it that the depth of a character who barely moves and doesn't talk is more emotionally gifted than that of two characters who soak up all of the 93 minute run time? The musical score of the film did give me a little enjoyment with the classic violen infamously known in James Wan films. There is also one scene that i legitimately liked involving an elevator not going to the floor that Wallis needs. I have been getting some recommendations on how i feel about kids seeing the films that i see. I don't think Annabelle has anything terribly bad in it when it comes to gore. There are some bloody scenes, but nothing crazy. It's more about the cheesy imagery of the demons that it presents as nightmare candy. With that said, i wouldn't recommend the film to anyone under the age of 10 years old. The language is clean, the sex is non existent, but the imagery might make the wrong impression on a little one who doesn't quite know that this is only a movie. "Annabelle" presents characters and situations that easily sets itself up for mocking by the awful "Scary Movie" franchise. The sixth version of that franchise will have enough gags and jokes from "Annabelle" to give the audience another torturing 90 minute film. If that isn't enough to make you truly hate this movie, then i don't know what is. I would only recommend "Annabelle" as a rental, but even that is pushing it.
- And So It Goes - 5/10 - Rob Reiner returns to the directors chair in this film about Michael Douglas and Diane Keaton playing bickering neighbors who are forced to see their mutual connection when Douglas's son goes to jail leaving his 10 year old daughter at Douglas's doorstep. As romantic comedies go, this one isn't terrible but it has problems displaying what kind of film it really wants to be. There are points in the movie that are filtered with dramatic turns from the point of view of Keaton and Douglas conveniently both losing a significant other. Then there are points with raunchy comedy including fecal matter jokes from a dog, Douglas complaining about seeing a child's private parts, and a baby delivery that seems like it was something out of an Adam Sandler film. And So It Goes would be a much better film if it decided up front what it wanted to be, and didn't see "How it goes". Douglas is still charming enough to play a role that really colors him out to be a bastard. He says some of the absolute rudest things, but because of Michael's ability to wink at the camera, you are left smiling at the once powerful leading man. Keaton isn't anything spectacular from roles she has played before in The First Wives Club, Something's Gotta Give, or Father of the Bride. She plays the role pretty safe and never pushes her character to anything more than the voice of reason. It would be nice to see her in a role that isn't typcast for her, but "So It Goes". The pacing of the story doesn't do anyone favors as the movie feels unintentionally like the actors are definitely reading from a script. The two leads are legendary actors of film, and Reiner should've given them the reigns to show a different version of themselves than the one that this boring script calls for. It's predictability at it's absolute shameless as you pretty much see where the film is going to go 15 minutes into it. The best reason to see the film lies in the performance of good old Frances Sternhagen. Her smokey delivery really is priceless. Most people won't recognize the name, but if you have seen films like The Mist, Julie and Julia, or Misery, you will remember the magic and show stealing variety that she is famous for. Films like these really make me think back to the times when Nora Ephron birthed the genre known as the rom-com and the different kind of sub genres that it has spawned as a result to careless screenwriting. What surprises me most is that Rob Reiner was at one time one of the top directors in Hollywood, but his film career over the last ten years has been shoddy at best when you consider that the guy acts in better films than he directs. When the credits role after 91 minutes of screen time, you will feel yourself wondering how this film is any different than the tons of John Cusack rom-coms that never hit movie theaters. What is the justification that gives this movie any reason why it had a wide theatrical release? Overall, it's not going to be one of the worst films of the year in my book, just one of the most forgotten. It's sad to see such high scale actors settling for this kind of mud. Douglas in particular needs a movie to showcase that he is still a strong presence. In my opinion, his best was always thrillers and smart comedies. And So It Goes is only a movie that i would recommend to the absolute biggest Michael Douglas fans. I think many will balk when they see the trailer, but there are some decent enough laughs and heartfelt moments for you to spend a dollar on this at the local Redbox. As far as theaters go? And so it BLOWS.
- Angry Video Game Nerd Movie - 7/10 - Youtube's favorite celebrity makes his big screen debut in a film about him hunting down the real life dump site of the E.T game for atari that some dub as the worst video game of all time. For those who don't know, The Angry Video Game Nerd (Played by James Rolfe) is a character who reviews the worst in old school video games. I became a fan of the nerd in 2005. About a year after he debuted, and i have loved his videos ever sense. He plays the games that plagued my childhood, so there is always that feeling of relating to him. Now, if you have never heard of this character, then this film and the comedy that follows will be very hard to recommend to you. I do think you kind of have to know what you are getting into before watching a film that reaches the most extreme levels even for a man who has had appearances in his videos from Bugs Bunny to The Cowardly Lion to Jesus Christ himself. The film took eight years for James to make because he was the one making it from the get go. His fans are such a loyal fanbase that they paid the budget for the film entirely. That's pretty impressive when you think about that fact alone. I thoroughly enjoyed the film not just because i am a fan of the character. I will get to what i enjoy a little later on, but i will go ahead and say that i didn't even like the story of the film and i still gave it a high rating. I felt the story was done on a level a little big for a Youtube celebrity. I know that is supposed to be the point of a feature film, but i would've enjoyed a dialogue driven movie with The Nerd and his friends a little more than a full scale monster wars shoot em up that the movie becomes by the end of it. The story is really the only thing about the movie i didn't enjoy. It's hard to grade this film on the same scale as other films because it's all amateurly done. These are people who have never done anything behind the camera on such a grand scale as this, but they pull it off. It's the same reason why i have never and will never review the Sharknado films. They can't be taken as serious films, so i can't review them as such. Angry Video Game Nerd Movie is a lot better than those films though because the crew invested eight years into a film they very much believe in. One thing that made me insanely happy was the practical effects work. The crew could've saved money and time from going with basic CGI effects that are the fad today, but instead this is a love letter to such effect guru's like Ray Harryhausen. It does look cheesy at times, but when you think about the hard work that went into it, you will appreciate it more for work ethic it gives. It was also great to see so many of The Nerd's closest friends make cameos in the film. People like Mike Matei, The Nostalgia Critic, Keith Appercarry, and Pat The NES Punk come along for the ride, and you wish they would've had bigger parts. New comers Jeremy Suarez and Sarah Glendening give the film the acting credits that it needs. They play James closest friends in the film who follow him to the New Mexico desert to find the E.T game and get him to finally review it as it's plagued his dreams since he was a child. Glendening in particular shows great comedic timing across from a man who freestyles curse words like they are going out of fashion. It was nice to see this film finally reach the finish line as it was supposed to be done four years ago. It shows that any film maker big or small can reach for the biggest dreams and still make them come true. Angry Video Game Nerd Movie is a calling card to the games of yesterday that were left behind for bigger and bolder systems. It's a film that reminds us we wouldn't be anywhere today without the triumphs and tragedies of the games that brought us here. I recommend the film to fans of the nerd only. Everyone else will be lost. A side recommendation would be his 15 minute Youtube documentary called "Dragon in my Dreams".
- Annie - 5.5/10 - Director Will Gluck adapts the famous stage play to the big screen in this remake to the 1982 original. Quvenzhané Wallis (Beasts of the Southern Wild) stars as Annie, a young, enthusiastic foster kid who's on a search to figure out the mystery that has plagued her entire life. Originally left by her parents as a baby with the promise that they'd be back for her someday, it's been a hard knock life ever since with her mean foster mom Miss Hannigan (Cameron Diaz). Things change when the hard-nosed tycoon and New York mayoral candidate Will Stacks (Jamie Foxx) advised by his brilliant VP, Grace (Rose Byrne) and his shrewd and scheming campaign advisor, manager (Bobby Cannavale) - makes a thinly-veiled campaign move and takes her in. Stacks believes he's her guardian angel, and quickly finds that the two need each other equally. "Annie" has never been a play/film that has been one of my favorites, but i feel like this adaptation with please fans of the original. The reasons i wasn't swayed by the film is that it doesn't really add much to an already overtold story. The film plays it safe and doesn't change much for the outline of the script. The cast is full of a-listers who all lent their vocals to the films memorable score. Aside from the obvious main cast who i will get to in a second, the film features surprise cameos from Rihanna, Michael J Fox, and a spoof movie that our characters watch featuring one of Hollywood's most prominent couples. Jamie Foxx is a well polished R&B singer in real life, so that casting was fairly obvious. He is by far the best part of the movie, as his transition never feels forced or phony. He plays William Stacks with the same kind of gentle gleam in his eyes that Albert Finney did with the 1982 original for Daddy Warbucks. The chemistry between Foxx and Wallis cannot be praised enough, as it's their unity that carries this film through some of the more roll-your-eyes kind of moments. I had concerns about Wallis filling this role, but she has become a young force in Hollywood. She received an Oscar nomination this year, for her growing up quick role in "Beasts of the Southern Wild", but it's in "Annie" where she gets to open up more of her shining personality. We find out that the girl has a legitimate decent singing voice that is more than enough proof why she won this role. Cameron Diaz is by far the most uninspiring character of the year. I don't just say this as her being the villain of the film, but she plays the role completely over the top to the level where she is legitametly smiling on screen as she is yelling at these children. If you looked up the hokiest of villains in the dictionary, Diaz's picture would be there with with a snarl. Her singing is absolutely attrocious, and the movie suffers greatly anytime she appears on screen. The setting is given an upgrade with today's technology and rough streets in a post 9/11 New York City. Something that bothered me about these upgrades was Will Stacks being the owner of his own Cell Phone company. He flat out reveals that they can use his technology to not only monitor criminal activity with the "Obama phones" he hands out as part of his campaign, but they can also locate where any person is at any time. If this doesn't bother the viewer at home, then clearly nothing will bother you about this movie. Another thing i found odd about the movie is that there is a tasteless hurricane Sandy joke in a film shot in New York City. When Stacks first meets Annie, he is frowning because she comes with a dog. The dog runs by him quickly in his house to which Stacks replies "That dog is a hurricane". Annie replies with "Yeah, his name is Sandy". It just feels like a tasteless joke with a payoff of bad memories for people legitimately hurt in the events of Hurricane Sandy. There is no doubt that the film works the best during it's musical numbers. The acting feels forced or corny at times. I would recommend this film to fans of the original, but i definitely don't think it's worth a theater viewing. The kids will love the musical score, but the characters feel too wooden to ever lift "Annie" to breathtaking heights.
- As Above So Below - 3.5/10 - A team of explorers search for a lost rock beneath the catacombs of Paris, France in the newest found footage film designed to give you nightmares. As Above So Below is the worst kind of film that you could possibly encounter for an array of reasons. The first is that the plot is actually intriguing enough to get your curriosity flowing. I did a report on the Paris Catacombs in high school, and the caves in them are just begging for a scary movie to be made down there. You get sucked in and then you immediatly regret the decision to spend money on it when you see the presentation. Even for found footage movies, the camera work in this film is awful. Most of the time, you find yourself confused on what you are looking at. It is even more aggravating when a character will say "Look at that" and you can't tell for one second what is present in front of the camera. It moves around too much and that hurts a film that relies on scary visuals. I won't say it's pointless because for once it actually makes sense why everything is being recorded. The main character of the film (Perdita Weeks) is being interviewed for a documentary about her uncovering some great mysteries in the catacombs. Each character is equipped with a helmet camera and it makes sense. What sucks is that we get the feel of constant quick reactions every time a character is scared or hears something. Another thing that annoyed me about the film was just how conveniently these characters figured out mysteries that are a thousand years old. Like i'm sure no one else figured out to touch a tombstone a certain way to get the wall to move, or no one else could figure out the verbal clues given on the walls all around the catacombs. Our characters figure things out like they are sharing the same brain, and it's aggravating because unless you study alchemy or ancient scriptures, it will all be greek to you. I found myself still stuck on the start of the sentence when these characters have already figured out what moves walls. I mentioned Alchemy before because it's interesting how much of this film is more about that than Hell and the Devil. I was led to believe that this was a movie about the gates of Hell, but it turns out that it's more about rocks and the powers that they behold. The film is only 88 minutes and the first 50 or so establishes nothing with no death scenes and not much backstory for the characters. When the film has about 20 minutes left, it starts killing off characters because the movie needs to end soon and we haven't done much with the threats of this cave. It's just utterly sloppy. The ending is so frustrating because it's more of the "Love conquers all" kind of thing. It's crazy because you wouldn't expect anything like that in a movie like this. It seriously made me angry the way that this film ends because it's unlike anything you would ever dream up. I found myself asking how this ending couldn't have been done 40 minutes prior to this. I won't give much away, but it's a solution that was right in front of our characters eyes the whole time. The lone thing i enjoyed about this film was the setting of the actual catacombs. I appreciate that this film was shot mostly in the Paris caves as it shows more on camera than you are used to seeing in documentaries. I just wish the setting had a better story to capitalize on what could've been the scariest film of the year. I definitely cannot recommend this film to anyone as it is one of the worst films i have seen in 2014. In closing, if above is anything like below, then leave it as well as this film buried with Paris's terrible past. The Catacombs hold the remains of about six million people. Hopefully the film won't affect as many people.
- August : Osage County - 5/10 - Osage County is perhaps one of the most overrated films i have ever come across. For all of the Oscar buzz and critical praise that this film received, it really is quite disappointing. The story which is based on a play of the same name is about a dysfunctional family dealing with the loss of the father of the household and the secrets that follow. This 2 hour run time really has nothing to fill in the blanks with but childish arguments. Sure, it is an honest look at a real American family, but the big events in this film happen few and far between. Meryl Streep is definitely Oscar nomination worthy in her portrayal as Violet Weston. She is the same Streep who brings tears of cinematic virtue to every role she plays. Her character struggles with drug abuse, and it's clear she is ripping apart at the seams. Julia Roberts is ok, but i didn't feel she deserved an Oscar nomination. She practically plays the same character in every film (my opinion), and i think this film is cluttered with too many characters for it to be a memorable role for her. Two other bright spots in the film are Chris Cooper and Margo Martindale as the brother and sister of Violet. They have amazing chemistry as a couple who have been married far too long, and bring the best comedic chops to the film. It is the great acting performances like this that even give this movie this high of a grade. It tries so hard to be this generation's Friend Green Tomatoes, but it just doesn't have the articulate pacing of that film. The characters are so unlikable that by the end of the film we are left with a closing that doesn't touch our hearts like it should. Overall, i would say that maybe this film will appeal to some female movie goers, but that's about it. My advice to those fans who want to see it is to wait till a dollar theater or DVD rental. August : Osage County shows brief moments of excellence, but it's the long waits in between that kill the momentum of this Oscar favorite.
- A Walk Among the Tombstones - 7.5/10 - The novel by the same name from author Lawrence Block is given the big screen treatment in this thriller about a private investigator hunting a group of men who kidnap women for ransom and then kill them after they get the cash. The film stars Liam Neeson as the investigator, Matt Scudder. He quits the New York Police Department after a ricochet bullet in a shootout kills a child. An attention troubling person would watch this movie and compare it to Neeson's action roles in the 'Taken' films or this year's 'Non Stop', but they would be selling his compelling performance as Scudder short. It's a shame too because the wrong reviewer could lead the audience away from this film dismissing it as another action film. That is where 'Tombstones' is completely against typecast because while the film is classified as an action film, i look at is as a crime drama that offers something more than the same story we have been offered hundreds of times in a film similar to this one. It has a deeper character for Neeson to play, and it's in the alcoholic Scudder that we get a defeated character that Neeson has to rise above with to give his life the meaning it needs. Neeson's Scudder feels human as opposed to the 'Taken' films where he is nearly unstoppable. He is also given villains that are extremely capable of giving the audience the ammo to get behind Neeson. It's rare anymore that a film will get me to care enough for the main characters that i clap when something bad happens to the villains, but A Walk Among the Tombstones more than filled me with this emotion thanks to two very derranged and intelligent dialogue driven kidnappers (Played by David Harbour and Eric Nelson). Harbour in particular is a man who knows how to punch the buttons of our male lead so well that it takes us back to the days of Gary Sinise and Mel Gibson in 1995's 'Ransom'. He is the brains of the operation and knows what to say to get what he wants. As i said before, this film is based off of a novel that takes place in the middle of a series of books. The film doesn't seem to mention anything from the other books, and it never quite hurts the film from standing on it's own. This story and the brutal nature in which it is presented more than makes up for any questions that Scudder would feel rushed by not hearing much about his past. I feel he is a character that doesn't need the whole story told, just the important facts that shape his life from being a fraction of the man he once was during his time in the NYPD. The film isn't without it's problems, and i can respect if these things might bother some people or steer them away from seeing the film. It's kind of a slow build with very few explosive scenes leading up to the pulse driving finale. The movie mostly relies on it's flashbacks with the abductions of several women. The film also has an anti climatic ending that poorly orchestrates the pace of the final shootout. With a movie so strongly built 3/4 of the film, it seemed like the ending was rushed and underwhelming. The point might have been to make our characters pay for their sins, but i felt that more could've been done to put our protagonists at danger. The other problem i had with the film was the unnecessary setting of 1999 as the film. The movie mentions the Y2K problem as well as band posters that were famous at that time hanging up on teenage girl's walls. The problem is that this film doesn't use any of this setting or events to ever pay a point in the plot of the film. It's just kind of there for the audience to think about what life was like in 1999. Honestly, this film could've taken place in 2014 or 1974 and it wouldn't have mattered a difference. The issues i mentioned may steer some moviegoers away from this film, but i urge you to stand against the normal on this one and give it a chance. I think most people will appreciate 'Tombstones' for the blending of mixed personalities, revenge driven plot, and the performance of a male lead who even at the age of 62 finds new things to add to the roles he takes on. A Walk Among the Tombstones is an early fall treat to challenge other films that it will need more than just a good story to beat this one.
- A Winter's Tale - 1/10 - Oh Good Lord, where do i start? This film is by far one of the ten worst films i have EVER seen. There is so much for me to explain that i don't know if i will get it done in one review. Colin Ferrell stars as a thief in 1914 New York who breaks into the house of a dying young red haired woman to steal her jewels, but ends up stealing her heart instead. Ferrell has been told his whole life to look out for a red head and that he will be her savior. So of course, there is only one red haired woman in the whole world, so it has to be her. STUPID. The acting in this film is severely awful and even comedic at times. Russell Crowe is the villain in this film as a demon thief who was once Ferrell's boss. He is after Ferrell for reasons we never find out. He is a demon for reasons we never find out. That is one of the biggest problems with this awful narrative; it is nearly 2 hours long and we never find anything out. In my opinion, Crowe is a very overrated actor and that doesn't shine more than this film. His accent alone couldn't keep the theater from breaking out into loud laughter. (Spoilers) The woman ends up dying and Ferrell ends up getting beaten down by Crowe and his band of thugs. They dump him in the river and Ferrell ends up waking up in 2014 New York. The only explanation ever given for this is that sometimes miracles happen. This is by far some of the worst storytelling i have ever seen in my life. The only thing that can make something like this even worse is that it's a deep obnoxious bore. As i said before, the movie is nearly 2 hours and you feel every single minute of it as it drags into a new year. I seriously thought it was 2015 by the time i left the theater. IT'S THAT BAD. The cinematography is something out of a 13 year old's Mac computer. There are scenes with a flying horse (Whose name is actually Horse) that will make you think you dived into The Neverending Story or something similar. The dialogue is so bad that you will be bored out of the film by the 15th minute. It's slow and just doesn't work well with the story it is trying to tell. Everything i have told you is just build up to the actual worst part of this movie. What i am going to tell you is so bad that it has to be witnessed to see it. WILL SMITH CAMEOS AS SATAN. I am not lying at all. He stars as Satan with a filled in deep dark voice as his speech. It is by far the funniest thing i have seen in a long time. I literally couldn't stop laughing in the theater which was garnering mean looks from the other watchers. Will Smith is possibly the last guy you would ever cast as Satan. I have to ask a serious question, what was the casting director thinking? It's great to go for a big star, but i can name a million big stars that would be cast better than Smith in that role. I even like Will Smith, but not as Lucifer. AWFUL AWFUL AWFUL. Believe it or not, there are two good things to this movie (Besides laughter). It has a beautiful snow covered setting that really sets the mood for an old school eastern tale. It also has great wardrobe. The clothing is a perfect line for 1914, so kudos goes to costume designer Michael Kaplan for his beautiful vision. I couldn't believe people were leaving the theater talking about how much they liked the movie. Art in general (Film, books, paintings) are based on opinion and i can respect that. I just don't see how anyone could come out of this saying it's a good film. That has to be the type who have never hated a film in their lives. To those people i say, hate a film, it will feel great. Shakespeare would be turning in his grave at this adaptation of his writing. I can't possibly recommend this film to anyone. I guess it would be OK if you were in the presence of friends while having some drinks. It would be a fun film to sit down and just massacre. Winters Tale is one of the biggest disasters i have seen since "The Last Airbender". Last year's "Escape From Tomorrow" was bad, but i think Winters Tale is worse because it had a budget of 46 million dollars. Not recommended, but instead i will recommend an episode of Dawson's Creek called "A Winter's Tale", it's much better. I apologize for this review being outside of my typical fashion. I promise the next review will be much better. Apologies to my readers.
- Bad Words - 7.5/10 - Jason Bateman stars and directs in a film about a 35 year old man who catches a flaw in a children's spelling bee competition and decides to exploit it. He enters the tournament and goes all the way to the finals in LA with every parent and the tournament director breathing down his neck. This film was very funny with it's dark humor that makes you think to laugh. It's not the typical fart jokes that Hollywood has become accustomed to, and that is why i have always been a Bateman fan. Bateman is joined by 10 year old actor Rohan Chand. Chand is adorable and very down to earth as Bateman's biggest competition who he befriends. The chemistry between the two characters hits closer to home than the relationship between the man and boy in Bad Santa. The reason i make that comparison is that there was a lot in this film that reminded me of Bad Santa. The way it's shot with it's dark shade in every shot, as well as the dark humor between an adult hiding a past secret and a boy who only wants a friend. I do think this film is just a little better than that film however, as Bateman knows how to direct his actors to get the most out of every comedic joke. He also shoots the spelling bee creatively, as we the viewers are watching it like it's on our own TV sets. Complete with commentator intros and side scrolling designs to show us the words that the competitors are spelling, it feels like more than a movie to us. What i appreciated out of this story more than anything is that Bateman has a reason for doing the things he does, and it's totally warranted. Granted, you have to suspend disbelief for the thought of a 35 year old man being in a spelling bee, but once you do you find there is more beneath the surface. It's in the final act that the film takes a serious tone about us owning our pasts VS our pasts owning us. It's also about friendship and how far those relationships go to changing who we are. Bad Words did have a bit of a predictable ending, but not completely. It does take flash some surprises along the way to get to that ending, and that was greatly appreciated. The only thing i would have changed is to have the other children get more screen time. They don't seem like genuine competition to us, and that will always make for predictability. Overall, i definitely recommend this film where you can find it. It's unfortunate that it doesn't have a wide release because it is the funniest film i have seen this year
- Before i Go To Sleep - 5.5/10 - The world of sleep is the most dangerous consequence in this adaptation of the best selling novel by S.J Watson, and directed by Roman Jaffe. "Before i Go To Sleep" is the story of a woman (Nicole Kidman) who wakes up every day with no memory as the result of a traumatic accident in her past. One day, terrifying new truths begin to emerge that make her question everything she thinks she knows about her life as well as everyone in it, including her doctor (Mark Strong) and even her husband (Colin Firth). This film suffered a lot for me from plot conveniences as well as many plot holes in the memory loss of Kidman. The film is incredibly well acted, and even offers some new sides of actors that we aren't accustomed to in that role. The film's run time of 87 minutes is a smooth scene to scene transition that never drags, and that with the psychological thriller of a tone makes this film at least entertaining if nothing else. There are two MAJOR plot twists that happen within the final twenty minutes of the film. The first one, i can safely say i saw coming, but i was all for it just to see the kind of on screen magic that would materialize as a result of it. The second bombshell is the one that will really leave the audience stunned and give "Sleep" the kind of pulse it needs before it drifts off into comatose. I mentioned before about the great acting. This is a result of the great on screen chemistry between Kidman and Firth. They stared in an earlier 2014 film called "The Railway Man", and while this film isn't nearly as memorable as that one was, it does show two powerful actors in the prime of their careers bouncing off the other incredibly. They take this sloppy plot and take it to places that the film probably wouldn't go with 90% of other Hollywood actors/actresses. In Firth, you feel a man at his wits end with having to explain everything day after day to his memory challenged wife. It's so believably portrayed, that you learn to love and hate Colin while he is playing one of his most perplexing roles to date. The plot holes do a huge number on this film. One scenario in particular is how Kidman can remember her best friend from two decades ago, but can't remember other key members of her life. I won't reveal much more beyond that for spoiler territory, but it's just implausable that Jaffe picks key moments for his actress to remember that will tie everything together. I also could've done without the several cheap jump scares that the movie displays. It almost ventures into territory of feeling like a horror movie because of the unnecessary blood complete with violent imagery. I understand that it was part of the story, but when mixed with the mood of the rest of the film, it feels like we are getting two films for the price of one, and sadly that isn't a good thing in this scenario. "Sleep" felt a lot like a combination between "50 First Dates" and "Memento". The former always leaving me with a bad taste in my mouth because the ending scares the hell out of me. This film is a lot like that terror in the back of my mind after every showing of "50 First Dates". This woman is at the mercy of her memories, and that will no doubt intrigue anyone enough to check this film out. I recommend waiting till DVD if you are interested in it. If you spend ten bucks on this film, you will go to sleep hoping you develop a condition like Kidman's.
- Begin Again - 8.5/10 - A very smart movie about life, love, and the music business. Begin Again stars Keira Knightley as the music partner and girlfriend of a famous musician (appropriatly played by Adam Levine). Their worlds get turned upside down when they move to New York to record Levine's first album, and he ends up cheating on Knightley. She spirals out of control and plans to move back to her home in England when she meets a down on his luck music executive (Mark Ruffalo) looking for one big move to put him back on top of the game. He realizes one night at a bar that Knightley could be that move. This film for me was so irresistably charming and enjoying that it is by far my favorite romantic comedy of the year so far. Director John Carney returns to the silver screen to direct his first music movie since 2007's smash hit, Once. I personally feel that Begin Again is the man's best film to date and a lot of that has to do with the flawed but realistic characters he creates in this film. Knightley in particular is a one woman wrecking ball having to play emotions ranging from one extreme to the next in a short instance. She finds her voice in herself to pick up the pieces and conquer the music business by using her own morals. She is absolutely a beautiful down to earth character as Gretta James. I will get to her performances as a singer later on. Ruffalo continues his taking of challenging roles after playing a sex addict in 2013's Thanks For Sharing and now an alcoholic music executive on the edge of losing his wife in Begin Again. Ruffalo has always been someone to play a contributing supporting character, but not much on lead performance. I am glad that is starting to change, and i can't wait to see where Hollywood takes him. First time actor Maroon 5's Adam Levine is the perfect choice for rising musician Dave Kohle. Levine plays it soft spoken and very personable with a hint of arrogance just under the surface. This does wonders for the females in the audience to fall for him in the beginning and then feel what Knightley is feeling when we learn the truth. The movie clearly has done it's studying on the music business because it paints executives in the lights of always wanting to change their clients. What's refreshing about Gretta James is that she never changes who she is from start to finish. She educates the viewer on plenty of instances how the music world is flawed and makes us ask the question why the artist only gets $1 for every 10 made. The location of New York is practical but perfect for a movie about people with dreams. The backdrop of landmark places in the city plays perfectly as Gretta records a song for her record at these places in the city. Whatever happens while she plays happens. She decides to leave it all on the record. The music itself is absolutely the best thing about this film. I was very surprised to read that Knightley did her own singing for this film. Levine also plays a couple tracks that are moderately different from his normal Maroon 5 Schtick. Fellow Levine Voice mate Cee Lo Green also makes a brief appearance in this film and supplies a track for the soundtrack that i wish was heard in the movie. Recommendations if you are in the mood for a good listen are Lost Stars by Levine, A Step You Can't Take Back by Knightley, and my personal favorite of the soundtrack, Like a Fool By Knightley. By the end of the film, you feel that there are three possible directions the movie could take and i'm not entirely pleased or depressed that it took the 2nd best road. It is if anything the only flaw i see in the movie. Begin Again is funny, romantic, and uplifting. It's one of those films that gives you the passion to get back up and jam to the music that life brings you.
- Belle - 7.5/10 - An Oscar worthy performance, a self conscious period piece, and a story about multiple predjudices are the culmination of Amma Ansante's feature about the true story of Dido Elizabeth Belle. Belle (Gugu Mbatha-Raw) is a mixed race daughter of Admiral John Lindsay (Matthew Goode). Lindsay passes away in war, so Belle is Raised by her aristocratic great-uncle Lord Mansfield (Tom Wilkinson) and his wife (Emily Watson), Belle's lineage affords her certain privileges, yet her status prevents her from the traditions of noble social standing. I felt this movie did a lot of things right considering it's a period piece and i don't get into those too often. Raw deserves an early Oscar nomination for the way her character goes through prejudices of not just outsiders, but her family as well. She takes a script that can be very vague with the emotions it is trying to convey and steals every scene with the kind of talent that a movie like this would be lost without. That's not to say everything else about Belle isn't enjoyable. It's got a great cast led by Wilkinson, Watson, and one of my favorite actors Matthew Goode. It's sad that Goode wasn't in this movie longer than 10 minutes as it's his readings with a young Belle that make for some of the most touching scenes of the movie. While watching this film, i was quite surprised to discover that this film isn't just about racial discrimination but gender discrimination as well. England in the 1700's became the catalyst for slave trading between many of the Admirals. For a movie like Belle to explore this early in slave history is something that is refreshing for once. I think last year's 12 Years a Slave was the absolute pinnacle of what a racial prejudice movie could be about, but Belle does it in a way that is factual without being overdone. It's true, there are no long shots of violence towards Belle or anything that makes us feel great terror for the character, but her situation still has us getting behind her because of the performance of Raw as i listed above. Belle is very polite considering the premise, and that is one thing i wish it could've explored deeper. Not every film about race has to be brutal, but it's important to explore the kinds of hells that our characters go through, so that the payoff means even more at the end. The wardrobe is definitely the best i have seen this year, but i felt the wig designs could have been done a little better. It may be nitpicking, but i felt many of the wigs were giving away the real hair underneath of the actors and actresses. It took me out of a couple scenes where the suspension of disbelief is important. The dialogue was read very well ,and there are many scenes that i would love to go back and look at again on DVD. I think a film like this has great 2nd watch ability as there are many things that could be lost by the viewer in translational dialogue. The score is subtle, but make for enhancements to some of the best and worst moments of our main character. It's light classical music that might be boring listening to it alone, but it fits so perfectly in a movie like this. Belle is a film that is average in most aspects, but it's the performances that make this film a front runner in early Oscar favorites. Hard to recommend unless you are interested after watching the trailer. Many people aren't into period pieces, but this one makes room at the top of the list.
- Beyond The Lights - 7/10 - Sometimes those of us sitting on the highest of mountains have the furthest to fall before hitting rock bottom. As is such in the life of a famous pop star named Noni (Guga Mbatha-Raw), a musician just about to hit it big with her first album when she has had enough being something that she isn't underneath the hair extensions and makeup. She meets Kaz (Nate Parker), a young cop and aspiring politician who's been assigned to her detail. Drawn to each other, Noni and Kaz fall fast and hard, despite the protests of those around them who urge them to put their career ambitions ahead of their romance. But it is ultimately Kaz's love that gives Noni the courage to find her own voice and break free to become the artist she was always wanted to be. I enjoyed this movie surprisingly more than i thought i would. The script is very plain and filled with some genre cliches that almost slips this film back into the mediocre pile, but it's the performances of the two main characters that gives the movie the wings to fly over some dangering problems in that script. Mbatha-Raw impressed me earlier this year in "Belle", and she plays Noni equally as impressive. Make no mistake that Raw IS this character, and has clearly done her homework when it comes to the way pop stars act in front of the camera. Everything from her dance choreography, to her sexual magnetism, to the style of her wardrobe is done to relate to many of today's pop stars. I saw Rihanna and Beyonce mostly in this character, but that is up for debate depending on the viewers opinions. What is great about her transformation throughout this film is that it's not just the clothes and the hair, it's everything about Noni to get her back to the little girl she was when we first saw her during the film's opening scene. It's impressively shot, and we feel like a parent that is seeing their daughter for the first time in a long time. The music was also very well done with a mix between hip hop and unplugged folk singer style. If that sounds like two genres that don't mix, it somehow is pulled off very well in this film. Early in her career, Noni is dating a major rap artist (Played by Machine Gun Kelly), and it's during this time where it feels like Director and writer Gina Prince-Bythewood is giving a commentary on today's musical starlets and the prices they pay to get to the top. Many female singers are treated like strippers at awards shows and concerts that the musical talent falls to second in level of importance. "Beyond The Lights" does a great job at spotlighting this problem. The film doesn't have too many problems outside of the minor cliches in the script, but there were some things that bothered me. First of all, short and sweet, Machine Gun Kelly CANNOT act. I know the guy has his fans out there, but he is essentially playing himself in the movie, and the lights he is cast under doesn't do him any favors to change his image for old school hip hop fans like myself. The only other problem was that the film was a little too long clocking in at 111 minutes. I felt like there is a lot of scenes leading into the third act that could've easily been trimmed to give this a smooth transitional 1 hour and 40 minute run time. The film doesn't drag too much as a result, but it ended right before the viewer started feeling that run time. These problems aren't a major deal though, as the on screen chemistry between Raw and Parker is believable as both bring out the best in the other. Kaz saves her life, but we never feel like he is done over the top with a "Prince Charming" kind of feel. He is just an everyday hero whose life changed when he reached his arm out over that balcony. You cheer for these two throughout the movie because of the magic they bring to their characters. There is something that just cannot be explained when you see two characters perfectly cast for their roles, and that is the case here. It was also nice to see supporting roles by Minnie Driver and Danny Glover. Driver in particular has been out of the limelight for a while, but she played the mother of Noni very well. She drives her daughter almost to the point of death, but there is a caring side somewhere under there that even the audience hates to admit. I recommend this movie as a matinee movie. I do think it's a good date movie, but i wouldn't recommend it full price at the same time. If you have to see it in theaters, check it out before the price goes up for the night, otherwise just wait till DVD. "Beyond The Lights" is romantic, patient, and real. Three things that are rarely together in any romantic tear jerker in 2014. It's often to get one or two but never all three, and that is where this movie succeeds as being just too charming to not enjoy.
- Big Eyes - 8/10 - The latest from Tim Burton is his greatest film easily since "The Nightmare Before Christmas (1993)" for combining amazing acting from first timers to the Burton club, and a very well written biopic that stands alone as commentary for women's rights in the 50's and 60's. "Big Eyes" is based on the true story of Walter Keane (Christoph Waltz), who was one of the most successful painters of the 1950s and early 1960s. The truth was hidden from the public however, as Keane's art was actually not created by him at all, but by his wife, Margaret (Amy Adams). The true story of this dark spot in modern art is a fascinating tale about how having all the riches still won't make you happy if you lived a lie to get it. Margaret is torn apart for having her paintings yanked from her for someone else to take credit for, let alone her husband. I personally felt that Burton was the perfect choice for this script, and it's nice to see some refreshing steps by Tim about the approach of this film. For one, the film neither has Johnny Depp or his soon to be ex-wife, Helena Bonham Carter. The movie's color scheme and cinematography is also reminiscent of his early 90's work in such films such as "Edward Scissorhands" or "Pee Wee's Big Adventure". As a product of Burbank, California, Burton has a distinct eye for the colorful houses that popped during The Flower Power era. His impressive landscaping adds a complimentary touch to the already beautiful art work represented in Margaret's paintings. There's a special kind of stylistic choice made here with subtle Burton touches that peak at just the right moments. The acting work lifts this film high above a made for TV biopic, as Waltz and Adams are both outstanding. Waltz steals the film with such a sneaky portrayal of Keane that you can't help but smile at his deceit. Waltz is one of those actors who can act his way out of a paper bag, but it helps his dedication even more when he portrays a villain role. His antagonist not only brings out the best in his abilities, but Adams as well. Amy has a difficult task in this film that she pulls off effortlessly. She has to display an array of emotions while biting her lip knowing she could lose it all if this secret got out. I could definitely see an Oscar nomination coming for Adams, and if the academy is going for emotional acting alone, she could take home the top prize. I wish the film's final act could've went a little deeper for the story of the divorce proceedings for Walter and Margaret. There was a lot left out of the seperation and court room scenes that could've furthered the psychological impact of Margaret finally stepping out and raising her daughter on her own for once. In regards to those final scenes, i felt the movie ended at just the right time before it tiptoed the line of cartoonish. I get that every Burton film has a sense of humor to it, but this film is best when it's message stays focused on the handicaps that women faced during such a male dominated era. Overall, i thoroughly enjoyed this film. It's easy to recommend it to Burton fans, but i think that everyone will enjoy the story of artistic plagiarism as it slowly reveals Walter's intentions. Much like the artwork displayed in the film, sometimes you have to look closer for the real charms in a film this special.
- Big Hero 6 - 8.5/10 - Disney and Marvel team up to soar to exhilarating heights with the most unlikely of heroes in this part comedy, part wholesome family animated feature. "Big Hero 6" delivers on all kinds of levels by leaping off the pages of the Marvel Comic Strip to give the audience something to give them loads of hope when it comes to future Marvel/Disney collaborations. It follows robotics engineer prodigy Hiro Hamada, a 14 year old kid who learns to harness his genius thanks to his brilliant brother Tadashi and their like-minded friends. This group of lovable characters includes adrenaline junkie Go Go Tamago, neatnik Wasabi, chemistry whiz Honey Lemon and fanboy Fred. When a devastating turn of events catapults them into the midst of a dangerous plot unfolding in the streets of San Fransokyo (Yes, you read that correctly), Hiro turns to his closest companion,a robot named Baymax and transforms the group into a band of high-tech heroes determined to solve the mystery. This movie officially knocks "The Lego Movie" off the map to become my favorite animated film of 2014 so far. It does this by structuring individual traits in each of it's characters to make them stand out. Not only that, but the movie has a lot of heart and tearjerking moments that you don't often see in kids movies today. I feel wrong describing this film as a "Kids movie" because i feel adults will even find a lot to relate to this film. There are tales of love and bitter loss, tales of finding the potential deep inside of us to be brilliant, as well as tales of strong friendship. I absolutely fell in love with Hiro and Baymax so much that i wanted to be a part of their friendship. The relationship between them is structured very carefully. They become best friends because Hiro realizes this robot may be the only friend he has in the entire world watching his back. The animation is another noteworthy feature with plenty of jaw dropping backgrounds that has the best of San Francisco and Tokyo, Japan. With a lot of beautifully crafted chase scenes, you will be begging to buy this DVD just to capture all of the hidden Easter Eggs within the town's banners and neon electronic signs. Speaking of hidden gems, Stan Lee does make his usual Marvel movie cameo. I won't spoil where it is, but if you find it please leave some feedback below If the film did hit any sour notes for me, it's in the 3rd act where too much feels stuffed in the final 20 minutes. There are a lot of twists and turns with the mystery behind a mask wearing evildoer. The mystery shouldn't be too hard to figure out for anyone paying even remote attention, but my problem lies in how back and forth they push this character. There are times when our protagonists want him dead, but others when they want to help him. It almost decreases the importance of the mission in front of them. The ending works, but the outlining of it should've happened a little earlier in the film. Last but not least is the great voice work from a well experienced cast of Hollywood's comedic best. Maya Rudolph, Damon Wayans JR, and Alan Tudyk all have important roles that add to the shaping of Baymax's emotions, but if there is one person who stands out more than others, it's TJ Miller. Miller was cast in another great animated feature this year, "How To Train Your Dragon 2", but i think his role in this film as Fred is his best vocally to this day. There is something that feels academically challenged and yet a genius with his character at the same time. He is responsible for a majority of the comedy within the film, but he never feels like he is taking the movie hostage, and as a result, there is a nice medium between laughter and those heartfelt moments of loss. I strongly urge everyone to see this film. There is a lot that comic fans can appreciate, but i think this film speaks volumes to all filmgoers respectively. There isn't a film currently out that speaks to every member of the family equally more than this one, and i think it's a perfect alternative to leaving behind the nasty weather outside. "Big Hero 6" is beautifully illustrated, and wholesomely engaging. It's a real coming of age story that you will find yourself relating to and even cheering for.
- Birdman - 9/10 - Director Alejandro Inarritu presents a film even more ambitious than his previous efforts "Babel" and "Biutiful". "Birdman" is a black comedy that tells the story of an actor (Michael Keaton) famous for portraying an iconic superhero as he struggles to create a Broadway play. In the days leading up to opening night, he battles his ego and attempts to recover his family, his career, and himself. This film is an absolute smash hit, and i would go as far to say that it is not only one of the five best films i have seen this year, but by far the best technical film of 2014. The score works beautifully considering it's only drums throughout the whole film. Nothing complicated, and the beat gets faster when Keaton's character has a blood rushing scene for either anger or humiliation. The lighting is absolutely gorgeous with that stage coloring similar to 2008's "Black Swan". There are a lot of neon backgrounds perfectly complimenting New York City, the film's setting. The best part of the technical aspect is the camera work. It's Oscar worthy. The film is presented in a continuous shot to give the impression that the nearly 2 hour film is done in one shot, but it's obviously not. If you are someone who watches a lot of films, you can spot where a few of the cuts come, but i generally found myself amazed how they edited some scenes together, especially during long dialogue expositions. This gives the film a definite plug for second and third viewings if you are like me when it comes to looking for these edits. The acting is totally brilliant with Keaton leading the charge for his best starring role ever. He is joined by A-listers like Edward Norton, Naomi Watts, Emma Stone, Zach Galifanakis, and Lindsay Duncan. Norton is phenominal in the role of a play actor who is clearly better than the play he is starring in. Norton and Keaton's interraction is so dualy time dedicated that you often find yourself being lost in the plot of the film, and feeling like either character could infact be the main protagonist. Keaton is easily the lead during the first act of the film, but we find more screen time being dedicated to Norton during the second act, and it all comes full circle in the play that Keaton directs when Norton takes charge of it. It all feels like art immitating life, and it's all incredible considering it's being written by first time writer Alexander Dinelaris. The film has a pitch to give to the audience to ask the question if Keaton is insane or if he really has become this Birdman character that made him famous over twenty years ago. Keaton is no doubt the only choice for a role like this. Besides the obvious comparisons to Batman (1989), Keaton's longevity in film has taken the same twists and turns as his character in this movie. It feels like both the actor and the character are getting their long awaited big break, and the irony couldn't be sweeter. There are a lot of parts in the film that are very surreal with the Birdman character, but my reading into these scenes is that they serve more as a life being breathed back into the dead soul. For instance, Keaton moves things with his mind in the beginning of the film. This serves as a light breather that the Birdman is still inside of him just dying to get out. When Keaton starts flying around New York City, the Birdman inside of him has taken over. He's not really flying because he imagines himself flying to the theater when a Taxi driver stops him inside to ask him for the money he owes. It was obvious to me that he wasn't literally flying, but instead these scenes represented what was going on inside. It's reasons like this why it's hard for me to recommend this film to the casual film fan. They won't understand a lot of the metaphors, and will come to that the film is too weird for them. I definitely recommend the movie to anyone willing to get lost in character dialogue and good psychological building. There is a man being ripped apart at the seams here, and each little object in the road is building towards something bigger. I wanted to give this film a 10/10, and the only reason i didn't is because the last ten minutes aren't as good as the previous 104. I won't spoil the ending, but i was pulling for the original ending that the film presented and seemed to be moving towards. With the ending going an opposite direction, i felt it ruined a perfect film. I loved that the film seemed to be poking fun at a lot of people in Hollywood, but film critics in particular. There seems to be a dark comedy commentary going on with the actors finally getting to leash out at some of their real life haters. The film making of this movie went above and beyond my expectations and left me transfixed from movement to movement among the character.
- Blended - 5/10 - Adam Sandler's latest off screen vacation shows him making a movie in the setting of Africa. Sandler stars as a widowed father to three girls while trying to step back into the dating world. Drew Barrymore is his first date, and she carries two boys of her own. When you get past the obvious Brady Bunch kind of storyline that this film has to it, there is a lot of positives and negatives to talk about. After coming out of it, i have to say that i didn't hate the movie as much as i thought i would. With that said, it's still not a good film at all. It just has a lot to appreciate. One of those things is that it's not as terrible as three of his latest efforts in Grown Ups 2, That's My Boy and the painfully awful Jack and Jill. Blended is a two headed dragon that is trying to be two kinds of films at once and only succeeding at one. It fails as a comedy for a lot of the typical reasons Sandler films do these days. It's childish, slapstick, and loses any kind of moral compass by the opening frame in a toilet (appropriate eh?), or the scene an hour in when rhino's are having sex. There are many convenient openings for jokes that will make the clear headed viewer roll their eyes. One scene in particular has a character named Dick dating Drew Barrymore's best friend, Jen (Wendy Mclendon-Covey). Adam Sandler comes across an online rumor of Barrymore and Covey being lesbian lovers, and the joke comes when Jen tells Barrymore "I am done with dick". Get it? it's funny because Sandler just called her a lesbian two minutes ago.Every joke just feels like it was written in a board room with the most juvenile setup. I also don't understand how Sandler and Barrymore are able to take their family of 7 on Sandler's bosses trip to Africa when his reservation was only for 6 total people. A Sandler fan will say "Well it's easy to make those reservations change". And while that may be true for a plane ride, the WHOLE TRIP has already been planned. I am talking hotel, activities and even chairs at the dinner table. I laughed about 5 times total throughout the whole movie and those were light chuckles. Most of the laughs come from Terry Crewes as the entertainer in Africa who follows the families everywhere they go on the trip blending his african music with comedic lyrics. Other than Crewes who is always electric, the kids of the families provide the other laughs. It's cute little kid laughs that add to the second head of this beast. More on that later. The one part that gave me a legit laugh was a cameo by Allen Covert as Ten Second Tom. For those of you who remember 50 First Dates, that character makes a funny cameo that sort of draws the two films worlds together.. That second head that i referred to is the one that succeeds as a family movie. I knew the film was rated PG-13 coming into my screening, but i was very surprised with how tame this movie was considering all of the crude parts were used for the trailer. Underneath the crude, there is a genuine heart felt story just dying to be told. Barrymore carries the load for this genre as she has a deep bonding with Sandler's kids. Even Sandler's backstory with his wife's passing puts the pieces in place for you to root for these two characters to get together by the end. There are two things that ruin this. One is that Sandler is still a jerk as he is in all of his movies. He once again insults family, friends and anyone else in order to be the hip guy of the film. It makes the viewer wonder why someone as great as Barrymore would ever get with him. The second problem is the chemistry of Sandler and Barrymore. Plenty of Sandler-holics will tell me that the chemistry of the two leads are still there and it was just as good as 50 First Dates and The Wedding Singer. To that, i say they are correct......kind of. The chemistry is definitely there, but it feels like more of a friendship chemistry than a romantic one. I understand that these characters don't really like each other when they go on the trip, but they don't even kiss till the final 10 seconds of the movie. Drew is leagues above Adam in the romantic family genre, and if she had a leading man who could give her the performance that makes that relationship believable, then Blended would be a 6 or a 6.5. I promise you that i am not being picky about this movie at all. I go into every film with open eyes even if i don't want to see it. I expected the world out of Godzilla and that kind of disappointed me. This is kind of the opposite. I expected the absolute worst out of Blended, but it actually was a lot better than i thought. As it stands, it's nowhere close to my 20 worst films of the year. Blended is a film that any Sandler fan will think is a great movie. If you don't mind tasting the same food for 15 years in a row, then it will always taste the way it did on day one. But if you go into Blended with a clear mind, you will think it's an easily forgettable movie, and that is kind of sad. It's sad that movies like Jack and Jill will be remembered more because of how bad they are ,and Blended with all of it's heartfelt family sentiments will be forgotten because it's only in the middle of Sandler's filmography. Blended is two styles of movie that can never really fully commit one way or the other. recommended for Sandler fans, but everyone else can wait for DVD.
- Blue Ruin - 8.5/10 - Revenge is a young person's game that extends generations in this smart thriller by Director Jeremy Saulnier (Murder Party). Dwight (Macon Blair) is a homeless 30 something man living the most simple of lives. He sleeps in an abandoned car, he eats trash scraps, and survives on a couple dollars a day. His quiet life is turned upside down when he returns to his childhood home to carry out an act of vengeance. Proving himself an amateur assassin, he winds up in a brutal fight to protect his estranged family. On the surface, "Blue Ruin" is a story about payback that actually has a lot more to offer under the surface. What i took and what i loved about this film is that it serves as an ANTI-revenge film. Most people who watch these kind of films can always get behind the protagonist and support their cause no matter how grizzly the retort. What this film does differently is show the art of revenge as a childish act of "Can you top this?", and it shows that the punishments really are a never ending road of back and forth until no one is left. Saulnier wrote a script that completely blew my mind for how simple, yet multilayered it became. The script has a Cormac McCarthy feel to it with very little dialogue, or positive reinforcement of the actions of Dwight. This man clearly isn't presented in the light of a hero. He is the victim of misinformation when it comes to those he punishes. He takes the law into his own hands, and this film presents that as a never win option. To see it from this angle, shows how truly refreshing this film is. The acting is extraordinary. Blair hasn't done many films, but i feel like his career is about to take off as a result of his Dwight performance. His sister Sam (Amy Hargreaves) captures him in a perfect quote. She says "I would forgive you if you were crazy, but you're not. You're weak". With each little swerve we learn about Dwight, we find out that he is human, and that might be his greatest fault. The action and violence is brutal, but it all avoids the bloodshed. The focus is more on how horrific it is to take a life, and make us reflect wondering how our characters ever got to this point. We find those things out in many swerves and reveals about Dwight's family, and the family he is going after. We don't know the starting point of this bloodfeud until the end of the movie, but it's each unwrapped layer that adds a stroke to a beautifully painted picture. The camera shots are mesmerizing of a blue hills southern landscape represented as the loneliness that the revenge game casts Dwight out in. He is alone in his quest, and it's because of that it could all end at any time. This film is already out on DVD, and i couldn't recommend it more. This is a film that didn't get a theatrical release, but it is definitely well deserved of such screenings. If people don't see this movie, it is a tragedy. With a run time of 85 minutes, i could've easily sat through another half hour of just basic dialogue. My only problem with the film is the logic of some of the events that go into place. For instance, a cop finds Dwight asleep in his car on the beach to tell him about the man who killed his parents is getting out of jail. I find it hard to believe that they would hunt down a homeless man and know he is the man they are looking for to tell him this. A simple fix could've seen Dwight walking by a newstand and seeing an article in the paper about him getting out. The man is in there for a double murder, so it certainly has the story to make the press. These logic points aren't a huge problem, as "Blue Ruin" is the best kept secret of 2014.
- Boyhood - 10/10 - Richard Linklater has created something that tops his already impressive resume of film with his newest movie, Boyhood. It's a never before done way of shooting a movie over a 12 year span. It's a story through the lives of two children who live with their single mother and deal with the stresses and situations of such an age. Boyhood is seriously unlike anything i have ever seen in my life. It's impressive to think that these actors signed up for a 12 year shooting schedule that takes them on a transformation much deeper than just character. The children are of course the biggest transformation as watching them grow is literally like watching family video tapes from a young age. It reflects the characterization in a way that makes you question if we are really watching actors playing characters or a legit team that became a family in 12 years of shooting. There is a scene towards the end of the film where the mother (played by Patricia Arquette) cries after her son finally moves out on his own. You feel her tears because this is literally like watching a real life child of hers move out on her. It's that kind of chemistry that you won't find in any other film ever. Think about it, what movie ever took twelve years to make while it's constantly shooting scenes? The pacing is absolutely genius. It is such a coming of age story about growing up and the awkwardness and bittersweet moments that we go through on our journey of adolescence. The awkward scenes are great because usually in a movie you will get an awkward scene for it to go somewhere later in the film, but in Boyhood it's done just to reflect the lives we once lived in that era. It's not to set up any kind of storyline, and i really appreciate that. It keeps me on the edge of my seat when the movie is less predictable. The cast is perfectly crafted with Ethan Hawke and Patricia Arquette being the only big time movie stars in the film. The children (Coltrane Ellar and Lorelai Linklater) don't ever feel like actors, and maybe that is for the best. It's really a gamble to know if these kids who become adults are going to be good actors when they get that age because they are cast as an 8 year old. So i appreciated even more that director Linklater took a chance on a film for twelve years because it epically paid off. One of the other unique aspects of the movie is that of the soundtrack. During the year it is in, the movie will play only hit songs from that year. It's a musical scrapbook of songs from the last decade that will have you trying to pick the song from the tip of your tongue as you listen in the backseat with the children. I can also imagine that it probably cost a lot of money to not only license the songs, but license them from bands who are really among the biggest in the world. Linklater spared no expense on his baby of a film, and it's clear to see why. It's also pretty cool to see the gadgets like Nintendo 64 and older model cell phones being used for the respective year they were popular. I am curious to know if it really is product placement when the film they are showing these gadgets off is done many years after they have already been discontinued. I found myself laughing when the kids got to be teenagers and the boy talks about wanting to delete his Facebook page because of ongoing drama. It's situations like this that makes Linklater a master of studying today's youth. John Hughes used to get credit as knowing teenagers better than anyone, but i think Richard deserves equal the amount of respect for having to learn about real situations in three different decades for our young stars. The only slight problem i had with the movie was the transitioning scenes where the kids would age a year or two. It happens without warning, and some of the past is never fully explained with relationships or what happened to characters who played an important role five minutes ago. I know it's not Linklater's style, but i would've preferred to see some small text revealing to us how much time has passed before we see the character with a different look. I think this is done so that he can tell us that sometimes our own children grow before our very eyes. That's the way i interpreted it anyway. That's why i didn't get too mad at the long critique i had for the film. For anyone who has seen Linklater's earlier work, you know the man is a guru with dialogue dominated films. It doesn't work better than it does in Boyhood because you already know that these kids will grow up and move on someday. That dialogue shows us the viewer in so many words the subtle nature of these characters. You know that Ethan Hawke is a good, but struggling father to relate to his kids because of the way he stutters to find out anything new in their lives. You know that one of Patricia Arquette's boyfriends are an abusive alcoholic because of random trips to the liquor store between playing father of the year. It gives you subtle hints at these characters without beating you over the head with it. The running time is just shy of 3 hours long, but it never ever dragged for me. I was well invested in these characters because i felt i grew up with them as a viewer of their growth. I sat through the film in one sitting and it never ever felt like 3 hours to me. I would like to say so much more, but i feel i got into spoiler territory towards the end of this review, and i don't want to ruin it for anyone. I abso-freaking lutely recommend this film to every single one of my readers. Linklater's satire is monumental in technical direction, but breathtaking in character transition to the eye. Adjectives won't ever do this film justice because Boyhood is a cinematic masterpiece 12 years in the making. Thank you Mr Linklater for inspiring me to believe in films in 2014.
- Brick Mansions - 5.5/10 - It's always the easiest for me when the movie writes the review for me. What i mean by that is this movie has so many problems that keep it from being more than just a good action flick, and the problems are very evident. Paul Walker stars in one of his final films before his death as Damien Collier, a Detroit police officer who is sent into an apartment complex for criminals called Brick Mansions to defuse a bomb and rescue his partner's girlfriend. This is a remake of the 2004 french film District 13, even taking the star of that film (David Belle) and making him Collier's criminal partner Lino Dupree. The chemistry between the two characters is decent enough to keep the film entertaining, but their screen time is very uneven in the direction you wouldn't think. Walker gets the first billing in this movie because he is the biggest star in it, but i saw Dupree being the main character of the film. The movie starts with him and has it's best moments with him. It's sad that this will be one of Walker's last films because he isn't really a big enough factor to make a difference for the mediocrity of Brick Mansions.RZA really is the best part of the movie as the mayor of Brick Mansions, Tremaine Alexander. RZA has really come a long way from his laughable performance in The Man With the Iron Fists. As Alexander, he has a soft spoken but dangerous way of running his gang.Another positive, It lives up to it's promise of being a ruthless hard hitting action film for most of the 85 minute run time. It has beautifully choreographed fight scenes with some very dangerous criminal characters.The setting of Detroit has been almost comical this year for films like Only Lovers Left Alive and Robocop that need a rundown city that represents the beating America has taken.Unlike Robocop though, Brick Mansions isn't afraid to show the true atmosphere of Detroit. This film also has a nice little twist at the end that would totally save the movie if it wasn't for the absolute craziness of it all, but more on that later. Some of Mansions biggest problems are the thinkers problems of every movie. It's the people who are smart enough to ask how in the world they rounded up all of these criminals and got them to cooperate to living in a fenced in community. Better yet, what were the rules for qualifying for this place? Does any small crime like store theft or breaking and entering count? Seems very silly to shack these people with murders and drug dealers. As i mentioned before, the ending is nice because it's something completely different than what you would expect. SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS - Tremaine is found to be innocent, and the whole gated community is a setup by the mayor of Detroit. At the end Walker, Belle and RZA all come together to stop the corruption of the city. They succeed in exposing the mayor, but it's what comes next that is truly laughable. Alexander runs for mayor of Detroit now that apparently his sins of murder, drug dealing and prostitution of women (all of which is seen in this film) has been forgiven. I know it's Detroit, but COME ON!!! Also, all of the criminals are apparently good guys now with smiles, and accompanied by a new children's school that opens up in Brick Mansions. Because who wouldn't want their children growing up next to this kind of crowd? If you think i have mentioned the worst of it, you are wrong, my friend. They saved the last kick in the pants for the last minute of the movie when they show Walker being congratulated by his on screen father. During this scene, The Man by Aloe Blacc plays, and you guys know how much i am crazy about that song It just all left me with a bad taste in my mouth. Overall, i really wish Walker was given a better send off. If people are going to spend their hard earned money to see Walker, i would say save it and rent the film Hours (2013). That movie is 95% Paul Walker because it is mostly a one man cast. There have been better films for Walker than Hours, but that is his single best performance. Save Mansions for DVD. It might be worth a dollar Redbox rental.......MAYBE
- Captain America : The Winter Soldier - 8/10 - Steve Rogers is back as the first avenger, Captain America. This time the man donning the red white and blue battles a soldier created by Hydra who carries a dark secret of his own. The sequel to 2011's Captain America packs an original punch with Marvel's feature films. It feels very much like an espionage film straight out of a Jack Ryan movie. It gives every fan of the superhero something to appreciate, as it goes much further ...than a typical superhero movie. This film is completely different from the first film and i think that is what keeps Captain America so fresh. Other series like Thor are set in the same kind of setting and era, but Captain America goes from the 40's to the current day, and it never misses a beat. Truth be told, i did enjoy this film a little more than the first one because it's cool to see how the main character interacts with today's technology and today's problems like cyber hacking. He feels like he is in more trouble in a world he isn't quite familiar with. The action is nonstop, and produces the best fight scenes of any Marvel film i have seen in a long time. In particular, the fight between Rogers and Georges Batroc (MMA's George St-Pierre) has some amazing choreography that feels very authentic. Batroc isn't on the screen for long, so you will be craving for a rematch between he and Captain America. The 3D wasn't anything special, and i definitely wouldn't recommend it when catching this at the theater. With the exception of some shield tosses at the screen, there is nothing to write home about to make it worth $12-14. The only other slight criticism i have is about the time. 2 hours and 10 minutes feels a little long for a film that we already know the back stories of these characters. I want to also mention the makeup design of Haley Atwell. She played the love interest of Captain America in the first film, but she has aged 60 years here. They show her in a hospital bed complete with makeup, and it actually looks great. Prometheus should write down on a piece of paper what to do and what not to do with makeup. It should be subtle and not stick out in the scene. Overall, Captain America : The Winter Soldier is a breath of fresh air in a genre that is getting overcrowded. It is my favorite story saga of the Avengers characters because it doesn't limit itself to just one era. Looking for something to do with the family? Check out Captain America : The Winter Soldier. It's well worth the price of admission. Just leave the 3D on the side.
- Cesar Chavez - 6/10 - Director Diego Luna presents us with a look at the Mexican revolutionary who fought for the rights of his people by building the National Farm Workers Association. Cesar Chavez was always someone who was soft spoken and non violent with the issues that plagued his people. It is because of that i think Michael Pena is both good and bad for the role. He definitely gives us the caring side of Chavez with workers and his family, but we don't get to see much of what makes the character tick by peaking behind the curtain. Luna plays this film very safe and only includes the most important of situations by the title character. This is the kind of film in which you use 2 full hours to tell the story of his past, present and future. The film only gives us a brief rundown of the family Chavez came from, and the fact that they lost their land very early in his life. I really wish they could've used an extra 15 minutes to run down that history and show some of the struggles that his parents went through. The reason why i was against Pena is because the performance he gives is nothing special. It all seems like a very safe film that was played close to the script, and i like to see some breakout when an actor plays a historical character. I absolutely loved Forrest Whitaker In The Last King of Scotland as Idi Amin. It's good because he makes the character his own, something Pena never does. The rest of the cast is kind of forgettable as well. America Ferrera is good as Helen Febela, Cesar's wife, but she isn't given enough talking time to make it memorable. Rosario Dawson, Wes Bentley and John Malkovich also all suffer from the same problem. I did however enjoy the cut scenes showing the black and white footage of the real Cesar Chavez. It was great to see what kind of demeanor he always presented himself in when around the people who worshiped him like a god. It's kind of funny to see him praised by so many with the problems he faced with his own family at home. He and his wife fought for so many and this forced the kids at home to grow up a lot quicker. The relationship with his oldest son is one of the most time consuming that the film concentrates on, and that is a good thing. By the end of the film, his son has moved out and has no relationship with his father. I like to see side plots like that because it's something different compared to the original reason why i wanted to see the film. Chavez passed on in 1993, but i think this film shows the kind of legacy that he passed on in so many of the businesses today. After watching this film, i can say that i think the higher ups of Wal Mart could take 100 minutes out of their schedule by watching a film about workers rights. Cesar Chavez is recommended for the historical buffs, but if you chose to skip it, you won't miss much. I would much rather you watch an actual documentary on Chavez. I recommend Chicano! it's a PBS documentary that is currently on Youtube.
- Chef - 8.5/10 - A deliciously welcome addition to the world of comedy. Chef's charming cast and sharp, funny script add enough spice to make this feel-good comedy a flavorful treat. Jon Favreau dives in again as the star and director of this story about a chef who has a passion to cook who loses his job after getting canned by a food critic (Oliver Platt). Chef is a lot deeper than a story about food. It is just table dressing for the main course with Favreau being a less than stellar father to his child. Infact, it's in the 2nd half of the film that the movie takes a more serious turn with our lead going out on the road with his best friend (John Leguizamo) and son (Emjay Anthony). He finds himself finally getting the relationship with his son that he never had all of these years. The cast is totally a work of art when you think about how many a-listers they packed into this movie. Besides Favreau, Leguizamo and Platt, there is Scarlett Johansson as receptionist and Favreau's girlfriend, Sofia Vergara as Favreau's ex-wife, Robert Downey JR as a business associate, and Dustin Hoffman as a jerk of a boss who fires Favreau. All of these characters are mixed together to create a delicious stew of feel good moments. Ok, i promise that is the final food reference i make in this review I will say that this is not the movie to go into if you are hungry. This movie is like pornography for your stomach with the way it presents the delicious trays of food that he places right in front of the camera. The only minor problem i had with this movie is that it is about 15 minutes too long. There are a couple of scenes that didn't necessarily need cut, but rather shortened. The chemistry is definitely there with the characters, so i understand why there are long takes in the editing. It's just something i felt could only hurt the film. I will say that there is nothing wrong with the ending, but the movie did end just as the movie was starting to lose some of it's steam with the predictable direction it was heading. With everything said, Chef is definitely one of the best feel good movies of the year. It's one of those movies that just puts you in a good reason every time you watch it. It's in that aspect why i feel Favreau is a terrific film maker. You can always relate to the characters he plays, but i would like to see more of what he could offer as the man behind the scenes. I am sure people would be surprised to realize how many good films Favreau has directed. The first two Iron Man's, Elf, Made and Chef show that this is a guy with a reputable past, and i look forward to seeing more from him. The setting of California and Miami were two great choices for the film. It's in those atmospheres where food thrives with mostly cuban dishes. The soundtrack was also something that was fun and trivial at times. Every song featured in the film is given kind of a cuban spice to it, so it's not always recognizable. When the lyrics finally hit, it's fun to see the crowd say "Hey, that's Sexual Healing". It compliments the scenary of the movie well, and takes our characters across the country with some of the best moments of the movie. Leguizamo has always been one of my favorite actors, so it was nice to see him at the top of his game again. Too many of his films lately haven't let him shine as the diamond actor he is. Chef is a movie that will give you no choice but to put you in a great mood. I can also predict that many people will eat within an hour of the credits hitting the screen. Well recommended.
- CitizenFour - 9/10 - Edward Snowden's eye opening reveals about the invasion of privacies that our very government takes is front and center in this documentary that is presented as more of a real life movie unfolding before our very eyes. In January 2013, Director Laura Poitras was most of the way into making a film about surveillance in the post-9/11 era when she started receiving encrypted e-mails from someone identifying himself as "citizen four," who was ready to blow the whistle on the massive covert surveillance programs run by the NSA and other intelligence agencies. In June 2013, she and investigative journalist Glenn Greenwald flew to Hong Kong for the first of many meetings with the man who turned out to be Snowden. She brought her camera with her. The film that resulted from this series of tense encounters is one hundred percent breaking news in the history of cinema. As someone who read plenty about the Snowden saga of last year, i found enough in "CitizenFour" to feel like i never heard anything about the story. Poitras has an agenda for the truth, and it's spellbounding the events she was lucky enough to capture when the camera was running. What was originally refreshing for this documentary as opposed to others, is that Poitras doesn't need side by side interviews to narrate the story. She lets the lens do the talking, and the reveals are incredible even for someone who knows how dirty this regime can be. I don't think there is a film this year or this decade that will open your eyes more about the freedoms we are losing. Events like 9/11 made it possible for these higher ups to succeed in getting these laws passed to invade the privacies of e-mail, cell phones, and any form of electronic communication. I won't ruin the film for those of you interested in checking it out, but i left the theater feeling a little tense, and it's in that respect that the film is scarier than anything a horror film could ever bring you. Whether you consider Snowden a traitor or hero or something in between, it's not relevant. The movie is impactful in its immediacy of action needed, and terrifying in its implications. It took a ton of bravery for Snowden to come forward with this information, and the films ending foreshadows that this might only be the beginning. The impact of a movie like "CitizenFour" i believe will last for decades. It's a film that will never allow you to going back to living with your eyes closed. I commend Poitras and Greenwald for continuing forward in their search for the truth when the walls around them are coming down. The camera work is sharp, the sound is perfect, and the editing deserves a noteworthy praise of it's own. The e-mails exchanged between Poitras and Snowden are shown during the film and are narrated by Laura herself. The text is shown while different spy agency locations are shown in the background. This gives the audience a feel for how big empowering this problem really is. It would be easy enough to tell us about these places, but Poitras does her homework and shows us that this is one nightmare that extends beyond someone's dreams. "CitizenFour" is every bit alarming as it is informative. It's the tip of the iceburg in a discussion about what else might be going on behind closed doors.
- Clouds of Sils Maria - 3/10 - The worlds of art and life immitate each other in this story about a celebrated actress who accepts a different role in a play she starred in 20 years earlier. Juliette Binoche is Maria, she picks and chooses the roles she accepts very carefully, and shows she stands for something with the projects she undertakes. She is traveling with her personal assistant Valentine (Kristen Stewart) to accept a lifetime achievement award for the playwright and director who launched her career. On the way, they learn that the celebrated director has passed away. At the gala, an up and coming director offers Maria the chance to star in a reboot of the play that made her famous, this time portraying the part of the older woman that the young woman in the play seduces and destroys. Maria reluctantly accepts, and as she attempts to find her way into the other character, she learns more about her new young co-star Jo-Ann (Chloe Grace Moretz), a talented but troubled teen the tabloids have made a fixture for her tantrums and bad behavior. "Clouds of Sils Maria" is a film that has been getting a lot of critical praise on review websites like Rotten Tomatoes (90%), and IMDB (4.8/5). After watching it, i can say that i am in the minority of those figures, as i felt the film that was stylistically shot lacked anything in terms of emotional substance or release. A huge problem facing this film is that we are left with more questions leaving the film than we were going in. Binoche was good as Maria, and it was quite interesting to see her play a dominantly english speaking role, as i have only seen her in French films. Her character hides a lot inside mostly due to her life in the public eye. For instance, it's clearly obvious that she has legitimate feelings for Valentine, but the movie never explores this possible romance between the women even though it's staring us in the face the entire movie. SPOILERS - Valentine disappears with twenty minutes left in the movie, and we never find out what happened to her. Did she quit as Maria's assistant because she couldn't have her romantically? Did she fall off a trail ledge and die? NOTHING IS GIVEN. Stewart is OK in this role, but once again i had trouble believing anything she said. I think she has the ability to be a great actress, but she has to get lost in the roles she takes on. Most of the scenes are Binoche and Stewart practicing lines to this play that we never get to see the entire film, and it's in those pulse draining moments that we learn absolutely nothing about these characters except the feelings they have for each other. It's funny because i watched Binoche for over two hours and still felt i knew nothing about her personally, and everything about her as an actress. If that's what director Olivier Assayas was going for then fine, but it doesn't make for an exciting movie when 80% of it is stage preperation. Chloe Moretz is in the movie for maybe a total of ten minutes, THAT'S IT!!! Considering the dependancy of this play relies on her negativity to stay out of the tabloids, i expected we would get more from her. She plays a character similar to Lindsay Lohan or Amanda Bynes, and there was one scene that made me want to stop the movie despite having an hour left. Moretz is being interviewed at a podium over some recent DUI problems she had and her answers are making the press laugh with every one given. The laugh track used in post production is absolutely terrifying, and this film loses any seriousness it gained with the beautiful landscape shots of the Sils Maria mountainside. The biggest cavity this film has is a scene when it is mocking the superhero genre of Hollywood. This scene seems to be nothing, but pretentious commentary from the director as to say these movies are a stain on Hollywood. They show a clip with Chloe Moretz portrayinng one of these superheroes, and it's terrible even for parody standards. The clip shows Moretz with a leather suit and red wig, and ZERO special effects. Is Assayas foolish enough to believe for a second that The Avengers or X Men looked even remotely this bad? Don't get me wrong, i'm not a backer for superhero films. I have more than had my fair share of problems with the genre in the last five years, but if you say the genre stinks and your parody is worse than what does that say about your movie? Even worse, these scenes feel like they come out of nowhere and don't meche anywhere close to the first hour of the movie. The plot of this movie is contrived and nonsensical, and i have no desire to recommend this film to anyone. 90%? 90%? 90%? I respect others opinions, but how did a movie this amateur seem acceptable to so many people? This was easily one of the worst films i have seen in 2014, and if my words mean anything to you, you distance yourself from it like a plague
- Cold In July - 8/10 - A fast paced shoot em up Texas sized crime noir. Cold in July is the film adaptation of Joe Lansdale's novel about a family who encounter a burglar in the middle of the night with the father (Michael C Hall) shooting and killing the robber. What happens next is what turns the first half of the film into a revenge plot by the burglar's father (Sam Sheppard). Sheppard stalks Hall's family and makes light threats to give the police something to look into. I was very surprised where the film ended up considering the way the trailer was treated, as well as the first 35 minutes of the movie. During the second half of the movie, it turns into a crime story shoot em up that keeps the film from ever getting stale. I personally loved the hell out of this film for it's sharp turns, edgy performances, and incredible lighting that keeps each scene tense and on the edge of your seat. On the subject of performances, the three male leads are all great in their own ways. Hall continues to show that he has a bright future after playing the title character in Dexter. He carries normal traits to the character of Richard Dane that makes him vulnerable and always at risk. Too many of these films feature a main character who is always a badass, and i don't think you can relate as well to those types of characters. Sheppard shows his wide range in characters with finally playing a role that isn't a positive supporting type. There are times when it seems like this man is hanging on by the edge of sanity, but it is his facial expressions that create a silent but deadly trait in him. Don Johnson is also in this film, and i have to say that he is the best part of the movie. He plays a bounty hunter who inherits the charms of past Johnson roles. He gives the movie the comedic undertones that it needs to keep it from being just another action mystery. He gives the characters the logic they need to face any challenge in front of them. The lighting of this film is just pure visual art. Some colors represent different actions from the characters, and i have always been a fan of that kind of emotional symbolism in film. What i mean is that you will notice the walls turn completely red when bloodshed is spilled. You will notice a green background when fear is present with something our character is going through. It sort of adds a three dimensional feel that takes it one step higher with the direction of Jim Mickle. Jim did a zombie film in 2011 called Stake Land that i felt was terribly underrated. Cold in July shows that he can indulge in an already established screenplay by including violence with a purpose. He shoots it for honesty and something that is needed in a plot like the one that the characters encounter in this movie. The score is a mixture between synth electronica and southern rock. Two genres that would almost be comical to mix together, but it works perfectly for this movie. The electronic music is used during the long night shots with the characters driving through the landscapes of Houston, Texas. It's similar to the synth pop used in the 2010 film, Drive. Cold In July is a tough tale of crime and revenge that seduces with the Lone Star lore of guns and killing. It's got down to earth characters that always keeps us worrying for the next shoe to drop. The movie is currently playing On Demand for Pay Per View, and is totally well worth the $7 ordering price. With that order, you can watch it for 48 hours over and over again. If you enjoy it like i did, you will find yourself waiting for the next showing just to enjoy this feature for a second time. The best paced movie of the year that never slows down
- Dawn of the Planet of the Apes - 7.5/10 - A growing army of genetically evolved apes led by Caesar is threatened by a band of human survivors bent on taking back their planet in this sequel to 2011's Rise of the Planet of the Apes. I did enjoy this film more than it's original. It's full of emotionally charged dialogue as well as a dark and destroyed setting that is made even more terrifying with the beautiful score by composer Michael Giacchino. The aforementioned does not mean however that Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is a perfect film or even one worthy of it's 91% rating currently on Rotten Tomatoes. There is a lot that could've been done in this film to not only make it one of the year's best, but create a legacy for the Apes films that no other has done. My first problem comes in the form of predictability. Cesar is the head of the Ape army and in this film he has a wife and child. His wife is sick from the opening bell and you can just sense that a human will come along and cure her of this. Otherwise, what would be the point of her dying from such a rare disease that no one but a human can save her? My second problem is the feel by the ending credits. You literally watch a lot happen from many fight scenes, betrayal actions from human and ape characters alike, and all out war in which everyone's life is on the line. Yet you don't feel like much has happened after 2 hours of this film. We are no further in the storyline than we were at the end of the first movie. Some more humans have died, but the film has virtually the same ending as the first movie, and that might not bother the rest of the audience but it felt pointless to me. As i said before, the emotions are great and the CGI is remotely better in this film with the Ape designs. It's still looks a little ridiculous when an ape is standing next to a human and a human is obviously looking in the wrong direction. It sounds like i hated this film, but i promise you that a film's setting and feel of the end of civilization has never been better. There is something almost Romero-esque from the world that director Matt Reeves shows us. One scene in particular shows us an abandoned gas station in which nature has reclaimed from the slabs of concrete now cracked. Gary Oldman is also a welcome addition alongside of actors like Keri Russell and the film's lead, Jason Clark. Oldman is one of Hollywood's most dependable actors even if he is only in a film for 15 total minutes. I really wish his role was bigger in a film that showcases him as a ruthless leader of the human race. Clark is pretty well, but doesn't quite channel the same kind of relationship and chemistry that James Franco had with Ceaser. I haven't heard much for the future of this series, but i hope that a 3rd film will actually showcase no human characters. It will be tough to keep it entertaining from that aspect, but it would be hard to believe that many humans are living after the actions of this sequel. 'Dawn of the Planet of the Apes' is an intelligent war movie with themes of politics, leadership, trust and betrayal. It's best moments are those that hit the closest to home that tells us to get it together before we lose our world to a stronger cause. One of the most entertaining big budget films of the summer for sure
- Dear White People - 7.5/10 - An eye opening and refreshing exposition of race relations in America during the Obama age. Writer/director Justin Simien follows a group of African American students as they experience campus life and racial politics at a predominantly white college. This is Simien's film debut to the silver screen, and i think he has set the bar high for whatever the next film is that he chooses to direct. I loved Dear White People in so many ways. As a caucasian myself, i never once found anything in the film offensive or defying to all white citizens in general. I think the movie says more about how far we have come from racism, but it's a marathon, not a sprint. The film is wonderfully acted by a fresh young cast that includes Tessa Thompson. I remember watching her in 666 Park Avenue, but she never had a lot to do with her role. It's nice to see her finally get a role that puts her at the forefront as a narrator of sorts for Dear White People. She is the DJ of a college radio show with the same name, and her dry unapologetic commentary is what finds her at the helm of a lot of trouble by the dean of the college. Tessa never comes off as menacing when she points out the facts of racism, despite her friends arguably being a cult of Black Panthers in the making. Her character is the one in the film that is supposed to be the one walking the line without ever crossing into one territory or the other. I loved the camera work of Simien's direction. There are a lot of wide shots to represent the black character in the scene as being alone in a big campus. The character is shown as such a small percentage in an otherwise large background, and the symbolism was never missed by your truly. I also loved the musical score. There are a lot of classical songs like Mozart and Beethoven that give the movie a feel of a play during a certain act. This is proven even further because each scene is treated as the fuse to a huge firework that goes off in the racially charged finale. I don't want to spoil too much of the end of the movie, as i do recommend all of you see this very enlightening film. The only thing i will say is that the setting is so chilling that it almost changes the feel of the movie all together. Make sure you totally stay for the credits afterwords as there are a lot more facts to show you this isn't just a movie. If i had one minor critique towards the film it would be that most of these characters don't have anything to do but be around for the four main protagonists of the film. It feels like many scenes are repeated because of this, and just slows down the impact that the finale plans ahead for us. Simien doesn't come off with the badgering of a Spike Lee directed effort, but instead he uses humor to showcase the arguments for both sides of the racially driving issues of this campus. Dear White People is one of this season's can't miss films. It thrives on an issue that is uncomfortable, but never steers away from driving the indifference home. It's bold in every bit as it is honest.
- Deliver Us From Evil - 3.5/10 - One of the things i hate the most about reviewing films is when i feel like i have watched the same movie for the 34th time. This is a result of watching the latest possession film directed by The Exorcism of Emily Rose's own Scott Derrickson. The film stars Eric Bana in the real life story of New York Police officer, Ralph Sarchie. Ralph works in the paranormal crimes unit fielding calls to the darkest and most satanic of New York's citizens. He himself does not believe in God and this what blinds him from his work being brought home to him. Soon, his wife and child experience paranormal activity going on in the house that includes toys coming to life (Poltergeist) and children's voices being heard in Ralph's head (An American Haunting). That is the biggest problem that makes this film one of my least favorite of the year, it has no original direction. There are some cool albeit laughable effects that happen with the makeup and props department, but none of it feels like anything we haven't already seen 100 times. Just in the last couple years alone we have had The Quiet Ones, Paranormal Activity films, Sinister, Insidious one and two, The Conjuring, and Devil's Due. This genre is being completely overrun and as a result it is making every film worst than the last. This film is full of goodies when the Scary Movie franchise wants to make their 14th film in that series. You can't even be legitimately scared anymore of any of these gags because they set themselves up for an easy parody. Deliver Us From Evil is terribly over acted, and that is sad because Bana is a decent actor in a film that suits his style of acting. This definitely isn't it. Olivia Munn is in the film for about five total minutes, and that is a shame because i feel like the relationship between husband and wife would've impacted how we as the viewers cared about them when they got in trouble. Edgar Ramirez plays possibly the worst priest i have ever seen in my life. He drinks, he smokes, he has sex, and he curses often. I get that the bad ass priest routine is 2014, but there is nothing about this guy that makes me believe for a second that he is a priest or that he studied for this role. The only character i even remotely enjoyed was the goofball of the film, Butler played by Joel Mchale. He almost stops to look at the screen to laugh with the audience on how ridiculous some of these scenes really are, and nobody does sarcastic humor better than Mchale. The atmospheres are well done, but the pacing of the scares ruin any kind of momentum denying the audience to ever remotely scream out in terror. The story itself is also easy to get lost in. I followed pretty thorougly and there were still parts that i had to go back and remember about because so much gets thrown on you at once. By the time the ending hit, i was so bored out of my mind that i could care less what happened with the ending. The ending though is something we need to talk about. SPOILERS SPOILERS!!!!! So in the final 20 minutes of the film, Sarchie's wife and daughter are kidnapped by the possessed guy Sarchie is hunting with the priest side by side. They arrest the possessed man and are asking him questions while he is still possessed. There are two stupid things with this scenario. 1. Do you really think a man supposedly under the possession of Satan is going to just hand over the woman and the girl? And 2. Why would a man possessed who has killed everyone he has encountered up to this point keep these two alive? I didn't realize that possession was all about kidnapping and stupid setups for the convenient ending of Sarchie finding them. Perhaps the worst thing about this movie isn't even anything i mentioned above but the film ruins the music of The Doors for me. It is played throughout the movie to the same effect that Quiet Riot plays in The Quiet Ones or The Rolling Stones play in Fallen. DAMMIT!!! That's two more possession movies that this film rips off. Deliver Us From Evil suffers from the purest of all evils; evil script, evil acting, and an evil 109 minutes that i will never ever get back.
- Devil's Due - 4/10 - This is probably going to be the most credit that i ever give to a film that i rated 4/10. Devil's Due brings us back to the same tired and predictable genre of found footage. It is a modern day version of Rosemary's Baby without all of the memorable scares.The film is about a couple that gets married and goes on their honeymoon to Mexico. The two encounter trouble late one night while agreeing to go to an underground party. This film does have it's chilling images that make you want to take a look for a second longer, but because of the POV camera style you will miss those shots and never get to soak in the true terror. One of my biggest problems with these films are that there is never a good reason as to why the camera is always rolling. In Paranormal Activity : The Marked Ones, a gang walks up to a kid who is obviously filming them. WHY WOULD THIS HAPPEN? What gang is stupid enough to show their faces on camera? Devil's Due actually gives us a reason for the over 20 different cameras used in the film, and i think it is acceptable. There are cheap scares with loud noises that come out of nowhere, but not as many as other franchises rely on. My favorite part of the movie is the wonderful effects done during the possession scenes. There is a shot in the woods where three stranger teenagers go flying up in the air and one of the kids is taping the whole thing on his smart phone. It's a shot that truly warrants watching just for how impressive it is. Easy in execution, but it goes a long way with true cinema buffs like myself. After this, it's all downhill. A film like this will always suffer from meaningless characters because the camera isn't on them long enough for us to learn anything about their backgrounds. They will simply always be actors to us for this reason. Also, for those of you who were upset about 2012's The Devil Inside not having an ending, you will be disappointed in this film as well. The ending is basically just pushing repeat on your DVD menu with the opening 2 minutes of the film. Devil's Due shows a lot of heart in a genre that truly should fade out fast. If it can get past some of the weaknesses i mentioned in this review, there might be a chance for a passing grade for one of these films someday. Or maybe i am just tired from a long day at the theater
- Devil's Knot - 4/10 - So much wasted potential on a film with a great cast and one of America's most perplexing court cases for the sake of revealing all the facts. Devil's Knot is the story about the trial of The West Memphis Three. They were three teenagers who were accused of killing three little boys in the woods. The police department and the courts are using the boys as scapegoats because they are satanic living in a very religious town. I was very intrigued with the op...ening 20 minutes of this film. The way it is presented as a murder mystery really made me think they were going to explore more than just the three teenagers who were accused of this tragedy. Instead, it becomes a story about religion wars with both sides coming off as ridiculous. Both sides are in a tug of war battle to make the other one seem same, and that is what is the hardest thing to understand with why they made this film. It all just seems very pointless to me with so many better educated documentaries out there. It all is shot and played out like a movie of the week special. It makes me wonder how Director Atom Egoyan ever got such big name actors as Reese Witherspoon, Colin Firth and Mirelle Enos to be in this movie. Each of their performances are among the lone bright spots of this 103 minute film. Witherspoon in particular gives one of her top 5 performances of all time as a wounded mother of one of the three deceased children. It's a shame that all of her hard work and prep in making this mother come to life is wasted on a movie that is earnest and cautious when it comes to it's revealing of the town and it's people.Firth is forced to sit and watch from the sidelines. It's something that really decreases the effect of his character and the film at a time when it needs a saving performance the most. I think Egoyan had a shot to really make this movie into something that doesn't echo that information already told by the documentaries and thousands of news reports. What we are presented is a film that is entirely pointless. Is it meant as a reminder of the events? There are much better explanations of this tragedy (See Paradise Lost on Youtube) that don't dull down the events to compliment a boring movie. We learn nothing about the three men who were put through hell because of the different things they believe in. I would have liked some of that time to be shown on the things the men were doing the night of the murders. Devil's Knot is something i wouldn't recommend, and will totally never see again. It has no replay value because these are events i already knew before the film. I am not even sure if there was one time watch value now that i think about it.
- Divergent - 6/10 - I liked this film a lot more than i thought i was going to. The Dystopian genre is really taking off in Hollywood, but this one stands out more than a couple dystopian films that are coming out this year. Divergent stars Shailene Woodley as Tris, a teenage girl who has to choose her future aspiration in a future world controlled by a brainwashing regime. The film is 2 hours and 15 minutes long, and i can safely say that i was entertained for the first 2 hours of it. It's in the last 15 minutes that the film loses a little bit of it's steam with a cliche outcome. The ending was weird to me because it almost seems like they went with an ending that could work whether this film gets a sequel or doesn't do good at all and ends here. Either way, it works. Woodley is excellent in this role. She is young enough to capture a typical 18 year old's emotions, but she is a good enough actress to channel adult like transformation. She really does transform before our eyes from a weak duckling to a full on fighting machine. Kate Winslet is also outstanding as the lady in charge, Jeanine Matthews. You can tell that Winslet is having a great time as a villain for once. She gets under your skin with smiles and soft speaking. Theo James is a little bland to me as Tobias Eaton, but i think the ladies will love him just fine. They give him the yawning scene of him taking his shirt off showing his tattoo so he and Tris can hook up yada yada yada. He just doesn't do a good job displaying the emotions of the terrible situation that these people are under. I did enjoy some beautiful scenery which included a capture the flag game at night with the army training. The colors of this dystopian future really work with the wardrobe and emotional symbolism. What i found the most interesting about this film is that it kept me entertained for 2 hours with just building these kids into the soldiers they are born to become. It's the training and the transformation of Tris that is the best parts of this film. I asked two teenage girls who were sitting 2 rows behind me if the film was a good adaptation, and they said they got just about everything right. They can't speak for everyone, but that is a good sign for you the readers. Divergent is a film that isn't as good as Hunger Games (My opinion), but it gives you better character building than that film ever could. I wish a lot of success for this film as i wouldn't be against seeing the sequels. I just hope they keep out the cliche love dialogue at home. I realize it's needed because it's in the books, but i can't watch those scenes without rolling my eyes. Divergent is recommended to anyone who is into this kind of genre. If you aren't into books like these, wait till the dollar theater. It's not essential to see it. Overall verdict - In the middle of the pack for the 33 films i have seen this year.
- Dom Hemingway - 5/10 - Jude Law stars in the role he was born to play. He plays Dom Hemingway, a mob worker who is jailed for 12 years after taking the rep for a drug deal gone wrong. While in prison, he abandons his daughter and wife, the ladder dies from cancer. When he gets out, it's about a man on the verge of redemption. Law is absolutely amazing as Hemingway. He plays him as a loser who is always looking for the easy way out, but we cheer for him during all 90 minutes of this movie. Dom is an alcoholic, a womanizer, and a guy who has clearly not learned a lot from the 12 years he lost. He picks right up with a drunken three way with two prostitutes paid for by his mob boss. Law is very fast talking with brash English cursing to everyone he ever comes across. It is a role that is easy to like even with his flaws. The movie doesn't do much beyond that to keep the attention of it's audience. The film suffers greatly whenever Law isn't on screen because everyone else is boring compared to our protagonist. The film does have some well shot scenes, but it almost feels like they don't go on long enough for us to get the background of these other characters. The relationship between Dom and his daughter is presented, but we don't have a heart to heart between them until the final 10 minutes. By then it is too late to ever get any clarity from this relationship, and that is a shame. This is the biggest probelem with this film; it goes nowhere. The main character really is no better by the end of the film because he is riddled in one bad luck scenario after another. Overall, i wish the film was more along the spark that it kicked off with in the first 20 minutes. It is there that we see so much promise for the journey ahead. By the 87th minute, Dom feels so defeated that there is nothing to look forward to at that point. If you see the trailer and feel like you really have to see this film, get it on DVD. It will be hard to find in theaters in a couple weeks, and i certainly don't think it's worth the journey to find it.
- Dracula Untold - 4/10 - Luke Evans stars as Vlad The Impaler, a legend on the battlefield just looking for the peace of his Transylvania town during the invasion of the Turkish Army. His only hope is the power of master vampire (Played by Charles Dance) to give Vlad superhuman powers to defeat the army at the cost of becoming a monster. It's the epic story of one of the most well known Universal Studios monsters of all time given a new side of a classic tale. The film is told from the point of view as Dracula himself which makes this film feel along the same lines as 2014's "Maleficient" as that film is also told from the point of the historical villain. The film however is a disappointment as it's so bad on so many scales that it channels similar vibes of failures like "Van Helsing" or "I Frankenstein" just on it's cinematography alone. The whole film feels like a studio controlled mandate at every turn of the movie with the lack of execution for a human lead character that feels like a superhero cliche even before he is given his powers. By presenting Vlad's history, it takes away the mysterious nature of the character. I feel that all monsters need that realm of mystery because it adds the suspense of dealing with an enemy you know nothing about. I get that the point of the film was to tell the origins story of Vlad, but i felt that too much was revealed that takes away his powerful presence later on. That's not to say that Luke Evans isn't good in this role. I personally agreed with his casting, but the character never feels like Vlad The Impaler even when the best of his legend is being told. I think a straight shot Dracula story would've done him better instead of the origins story that we are presented. Most of his problem is in a script that tries to make a character nicknamed "The Impaler" a likeable character and a menace at the same time. Both sides don't play well off the other, and instead the traits of both end up cancelling each other out. It just doesn't work for me because the character is described as "Genocidal" killing hundreds of people. Dance is by far the best part of this film. His presence gives the movie the theater like overacting shot in the arm that it needs even when the film is trailing off at the 20 minute mark. Dominic Cooper is cast as the villain (SHOCKER), and the head of the Turkish Army that Dracula is put against. Cooper's villain turn in this year's "Need For Speed" was bad, but his role in this film might be worse. Complete with a Borat sounding Turkish accent, and less than ten minutes of screen time that is nowhere close enough to make a lasting impression. The PG-13 rating is also a blunder. It is brutalizing on a character known for his violent tones and appetite of the human flesh. In the end, it all feels too watered down to be a real Dracula telling, and doesn't hold up well to the Bela Lugosi films of the 20th century. When i think of a vampire film, i think of the color red. In this film, none of it is present because the film is held in shackles to it's pitiful rating. Complete with a 90 minute run time, Dracula Untold feels like a cash grab that is less interested in paying attention to it's horror backgrounds, and more interested in CGI gags for cheap thrills. The effects like a Dracula formation in the form of hundreds of bats is quite impressive, but there isn't enough of these visual effects to leave a lasting memory on the audience 24 hours after they have left the theater. I mentioned before that i had a problem with the time, and that is because there is so much that Director Gary Shore is trying to convey in such a little time frame. By the time the final epic battle takes place on camera, the film feels rushed in a way that feels like a major scene explaining everything was deleted along the way. I wouldn't recommend this film beyond a rental at Redbox. I can assure you of one thing though. If your child is interested in this film, it's safe to take them because "Dracula Untold" is a watered down colorless muck that is a story better left untold.
- Draft Day - 7/10 - Jennifer Garner's character in this film says the quote "Some roads are filled with misery, and those are the right roads". This quote has said so much for the history of the Cleveland Browns franchise. They have always been on the opposing side of winning. So naturally, a studio has to make a film about them someday. Draft Day tells the story of Sonny Weaver JR (Kevin Costner) who is the GM for the Cleveland Browns. He is given news that this will probably be his final season with the team, so he has to put all of his chips in on this season to be a winner. I personally enjoyed Draft Day. It's not one of the best sports films of all time, but it does leave a lasting impression on any Browns fan or Ohio resident. It's a film that goes way beyond football. Director Ivan Reitman takes a lot of long exclusive shots of the city of Cleveland edited with the history of the Browns history. I personally appreciate a film that isn't afraid to show a city that isn't LA or New York. There are plenty of Browns fans ironies in the film that i won't spoil for you here. These are the lines that are bound to leave a laugh or giggle among anyone who is well versed in this team's history. This film also did something i have never seen with the editing features. With this film taking place on the day of the draft, there is naturally a lot of phone calls in the film. When this happens, you get the typical side by side split screen shot, but there is something more to this. One guy can step into another guy's half of the screen and it makes it seem like they are in the same room together. I thought this feature was really cool, and required several double takes when you first see it. The cinematography is a little amateur as it sometimes seems like you are watching a cheaply made indie film. For anyone who has seen the Akron Soap Box Derby film "22 Hill", you will understand completely what i mean. The cast takes each role about as far as you can go. Jennifer Garner plays the financial worker for the team as well as Costner's love interest. Frank Langella is good as the owner of the team who doesn't always know what is best for them. Terry Crewes and P Diddy also show up to make some well cast cameos. Diddy in particular is in the role he was born to play as a fast talking agent of the biggest star in the draft. Denis Leary totally stole the film though as the know it all head coach who coached the Dallas Cowboys to a super bowl win 2 years prior. His chemistry with Costner keeps the audience on their toes at the right moments when the movie almost drifts off. The draft itself is written unpredictably, but it's just so far fetched. Some of the deals done by the other teams in the film would have them losing their jobs in a matter of days. If the draft happened that way, then everyone would be a winner. In my eyes, it is redeemed by the end because (Minor spoilers) they don't show what happens with the Browns on the next season. So it's left totally up to the viewers mind if these moves paid off. Some people might have a problem with that but i don't. It's no secret that new teams need chemistry to gel together, so there is a chance this team didn't get it done after all of these moves. Overall, Draft Day is a welcomed experience for Northeast Ohio patrons. It gives us our day in the sun, and that sun should shine the brightest for those fans who spend their hard earned dollars on a team that isn't always rewarding. This is your day Browns fans. This film is a love letter to you for your dedication to being the best fans in sports, and that is from a Cowboys fan
- Dumb and Dumber To - 3.5/10 - Twice the rude, twice the crude, and twice the unoriginality plague the latest film that is a sequel to the 1994 smash hit, "Dumb and Dumber". Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels reprise their signature roles as Lloyd and Harry 20 years later with Lloyd being in a mental hospital after the events of the first film. The original film's directors, Peter and Bobby Farrelly take Lloyd and Harry on a road trip to find a child Harry never knew he had and the responsibility neither should ever, ever be given. The first movie was mindless, but it had the kind of charms and sarcastic wit dialogue that made you do a double take when hearing the punchline. This movie feels like a complete remake of the first film with many scenes and jokes being recreated. For as many people who said "The Hangover 2" was a remake of the first film, this film is every bit the same to it's original telling. The film's protagonists are still dumb, but they are even worse in the sense that this movie does neither of them any favors. Lloyd (Carrey) is a complete jerk in this film. The things he did in the first film made you feel sorry for him because he still had a heart for his best friend. A kind of child like innocence if you will. In this movie, he does horrible things and mocks people, and it gives his character an understanding why no one wants anything to do with him. Harry (Daniels) doesn't have enough meaningful dialogue in this film to compete with Carrey for on screen time. The first film makes both characters feel equal in screen time, and equal in hilarious moments. This movie is clearly the Jim Carrey show. New actors to the film include Kathleen Turner as the infamous "Fraida Felcher", Rob Riggle playing two roles as twin brothers, Laurie Holden as the film's main antagonist, and the big screen introduction to Rachel Melvin as Fraida's daughter, Penny. Melvin in particular is a welcome addition as she feels a lot like the stupid innocence characters of the first film. How nice it would be to have someone equally as charming for her to bounce off of. The comedy is at many times disgusting with no real punch line for a laugh out loud moment. That's the biggest problem with this film; no moments that will have the audience clutching their stomachs in laughter. There are a handful of moments that gave me the quick giggle, but nothing that will ever be nearly as memorable as it's predecessor. I almost feel like they waited too long to make a movie like this. Then again, the original is a movie that didn't need a sequel to begin with. It's all a big cash grab for an actor (Carrey) who said he would never be in a sequel to one of his original movies again. After seeing this, i wish he had the strength to hold on to his original morals. "Dumb and Dumber Too" is awful by even sequel standards. The movie knows how paper thin it is by even showing scenes from the first movie in a side by side with a similar scene from the sequel during the post movie credits. If there is one good thing from this film, it makes you want to run home and watch the original movie to have the laughs you waited 105 minutes for during this snorefest. Some people will enjoy this film. I'm not foolish enough for a minute to think there isn't an audience for this somewhere. I just don't think anyone on this planet will ever have to think even for a second when they are asked which film is better. I don't recommend this movie. Instead, i say stick with the original. No matter how many times you watch it, that movie will never feel as paper thin as this pointless sequel.
- Earth To Echo - 5.5/10 - Three friends find a mysterious object in the Nevada desert that gives them the adventure of a lifetime before they move and split up forever. There are many problems i had with this movie, and i will get to them later in the review, but this film was nowhere near the mess i was worried about. First of all, the film does have it's comparisons to E.T. Most notably by adult viewers who will be taking their children to see this film. I definitely think this film works better for the 12 and under crowd but there is enough in the movie to keep adults semi interested. What i loved about this movie is that it's more about friendship underneath the surface of this story about a robot crashing. These are three boys with a lot of charisma, especially that of a boy named Reginald. He is probably the best written child character that i have seen in a long time. Hollywood seems to think that people shouldn't care about child characters as long as it's a fun enough story. That is not the case in Earth To Echo as these three boys each play an important role in the history of their friendship. Sadly, this is one of the only good things about this movie. There are some nice effects when it comes to the look of the robot, and the cinematography was good enough to warrant a passing grade. However, the CGI effects look terrible, especially when they are slowed down for the audience to fully enjoy. If you look close enough, you can almost perfectly see the green screens behind the action in question. The big problem suffering in Earth To Echo is the robot story itself. It's totally not necessary. Yes, i understand that is the main premise of the movie, but i feel that there is enough of a storyline between the kids being forced out of their homes from the construction of a freeway that i don't feel Echo was ever needed. The chemistry and passion of the boys would've been enough to carry this into a friendship film along the likes of Stand By Me. The point of my rambling is that this movie suffers the most when it's slowed down during those robot moments. The robot doesn't talk and barely makes any communication with his handlers. The parts that did have any kind of momentum with the robot was too similar to 2011's Super 8. The movie just felt completely unoriginal when it didn't have to be. Another big problem with this movie is the ongoing awful phase of "shot on video" style. It's totally useless and not needed at all. One will argue that the main boy named Tuck is filming his whole life for his Youtube channel, but it's just not necessary. The camera angles are too close from people who obviously don't know how to hold or use a camera, and they action is too quick for a style like this. There were many times when i had trouble understanding what was going on because someone wasn't told to zoom out when they zoom in. I am more curious in the children who watch this movie, and what they took away from it. E.T was one of my favorite childhood movies, so it's tough for me to watch a movie that gives you that kind of return to memory lane, but the things that were there before are now torn down. The film could've warranted a 6 or possible 7 out of 10 if they made it a little longer (85 minutes only) or focusing more on what these boys need to do to stay together. Earth To Echo shows a lot of sparks, but never fully gives the audience enough to be inspired. It's a worn out cliche of post 2000 kids adventure movies and never finds it's own voice to make the audience care. Skip it.
- Edge of Tomorrow - 8.5/10 - Tom Cruise and Emily Blunt star as two soldiers dying over and over again while living through the same day in Warner Brothers newest sci fi smash, Edge of Tomorrow.I really enjoyed this film. It was clever, funny (For the right reasons), and surprisingly very well acted. Cruise returns to top form playing a character that is different than anything he has played in 15 years. He plays Major William Cage, a soldier who has risen the ranks without ever actually getting his hands dirty. It's in that aspect that gives Cruise the vulnerability to show the fear of the soldiers going into this war. Many war films only show the soldiers acting like emotionless machines while going into battle. In Edge of Tomorrow, it's our main character who is the most afraid. We feel sorry for this man as he doesn't even know how to remove the safety from one of his weapons. For anyone who has seen the trailer, we know Cruise dies over and over, but what makes seeing the movie special is the comedic undertones of the way every death is played. There were some points in the movie where i got some legitimate laughs that i haven't gotten from most comedies this year. It's in that kind of screenplay that Christopher Mcquarrie can bounce all kind of ideas that a film with a similar premise like Groundhog Day only began to touch on. The deaths themselves aren't played for laughs like Groundhog Day, but rather the situation and the fact that Cage has to memorize every single little thing about his day or he will end up in the same place. Once he has gone so far and dies, we feel the pain of the character because we went through it with him, and we can't help but smile. Emily Blunt is absolutely the best part of this movie. She plays war machine, Rita Vrataski. She acts as kind of a symbol for the human revolt against the machines that have laid claim to foreign countries. It's nice to see a woman engage as the toughest character of the film. As Rita, Blunt stands tall and trains Cruise to be the kind of soldier they need him to be to win the war. Her turn in 2012's Looper showed her range of acting, but it's in Edge of Tomorrow that Emily shows she has great ability to do her own stunt work. Her performance alone should inspire any female moviegoer who is on the edge of seeing this film to see it. Bill Paxton also hands in a great performance as a tough jerk general who is always the first person to greet Cruise day after day. One of the things i really enjoyed about the movie was the robot creatures. There are some real original takes on the designs of the robots from razor sharp teeth to the way they move around. The moving alone of the creatures kept every fight scene from ever tiring out. I can watch these fight scenes over and over again because i tried to keep my eyes peeled for a new robot every time. The design of the armor suits that the soldiers wear were also very futuristic and original for a motion picture. It did remind me a lot of the Titanfall game and it's armor, but it's nice to see it come to life in an actual suit, and not played off as CGI. The pacing of the movie is well done for at least the first 90 minutes. It's in the final 20 minutes that the movie starts to drag on a little long. By this point in the movie, you know where it's heading so the surprises are already long gone. The ending was one of the only things i had a tiny problem with and that is because it's not fully explained all the way. I am not going to spoil it for you the readers, but i wish they would've stuck with the ending and the way things appeared to be going. When compared to the Japanese Manga, the movie is completely different. The only similarities are Rita's name and character, and the premise of the war repeating day after day. Other than that, it's a completely original screnplay. I can't really decide on the book or the movie being better because i think they both have their place because they aren't exactly one in the same. I did like the ending in the book better, so i kind of give it the edge on that front. It was great to see these powerful war battles come to life on screen from the beautiful pages of Hiroshi Sakurazaka's novel. Edge of Tomorrow is refreshing for it's comedic tones and not having to rely on action movie cliches that most of Cruise's last 15 years has relied on. It's easily his best starring movie since 1996's Jerry Maguire. I thoroughly enjoyed it, and i definitely recommend it to everyone who watched the trailer and was even remotely interrested. It doesn't disappoint.
- Endless Love - 3/10 - This remake of the 1981 deranged love story is anything but a remake. The 2014 version of Endless Love takes us on a completely different road than the original or it's literature origins. Infact, the only thing similar to those two things is the title and two very small scenes. Everything else is a Dawson's Creek style re-imagining of what is supposed to be a crazy story. Jade and David are two teenagers who meet during graduation, and David reveals that he has always had a crush on Jade. The two characters are about as emotionless as possible for a story of this magnitude. Jade is the most spoiled and defiant teenager towards her parents that i have ever seen. So much so that it makes it hard to believe this girl is going to school to become a doctor. David has no personality at all. He seems to be stuck between this blank face and a 360 turn in emotions which i will get to later. Every other character though, feels like a model of who they are supposed to represent. There is the snob father of Jade (Played by Bruce Greenwood), the rugged and rough father of David (Played by Robert Patrick) and even the rich mayflower setting. Don't get me wrong, the setting is one of the only things i liked about this film. The background mixes with a nice folk rock score that perfectly sets the mood for the tale it is telling. Kudos also to the camera people in this film for beautiful shots and shading to represent the moods the characters are going through. The lighting alone is enough to raise the review up one point. The only problem with this setting is that we don't relate well to the characters. Even David doesn't seem like one of us. They have different morals and living than the typical viewer seeing this film. So it ends up giving us an anatomy of a stranger. One of the biggest things i look for in a film is my ability to relate to the characters. After seeing the trailer, i was very surprised with the kind of movie i got. I figured it was a remake of the 81 original, so we would get a story similar to 1994's "Fear". Instead, this story is a mushy bore that follows into the genre without ever giving us anything new. Midway through the story, the characters change without any warning. The father of Jade becomes a psychopath, and David becomes an emotionally damaged soul based on a frightening past. This happens without any warning what so ever. A couple of things happen towards the end of the film that turn it into an ABC Family movie of the week. The setups and outcomes are predictable and that is the most annoying part of the ending. You feel like you could have predicted what happened in this film just by watching the trailer. The women will probably want to see this movie, and that is fine. What i tell the female readers is that this film doesn't add anything special. If you have seen one of these films, you have seen them all. I can't recommend this film as a whole. It's a book with a lot daring new ground turned into a Nicolas Sparks film. Thank God this love isn't endless, and only goes 105 minutes.
- Enemy - 8/10 - I really enjoyed this film about Jake Gyllenhaal playing a school teacher who discovers that he has a twin in the film business. Gyllenhaal once again teams up with Prisoners director Denis Villeneuve to bring a colorless and claustrophobic look at a man who is figuratively being pulled from the inside. I get the feeling that a lot of people who watched Prisoners will feel alienated by this film because it doesn't lay the answers out as easy as Prisoners. This... is a film that will slowly present you piece by piece of the puzzle, and they won't all come together until the very last shot of the movie. This clearly isn't a film for everyone, but i think everyone should give it a look because there is a lot of praise to be done in this 88 minute feature.I say that this film isn't for everyone because it does have it's moments that have to be left up to interpretation. The tone and soundtrack to this film are not only eerie and intense, but very unique. The twin storyline is something that has been done before, but in Enemy it is done differently. In past films of this genre, the two characters are made to be so different that they're clearly obvious which one is which when on camera. In Enemy, Gyllenhaal plays two characters that are very much one and the same with the exception of their careers. The shooting of the face to face scenes is done well because it never shows both of their faces at the same time. I think if it did this, it would look hokey and the audience would have a tougher time taking it seriously.I also enjoyed the very bleak California setting. The colors to represent the backgrounds in each shot are given a kind of foggy feel to go with the moods of each doppelganger. It feels very much like a late 90's David Cronenberg film based on it's colorful textures alone. I do have a theory for how this whole story pieces together, but i won't ruin it for those of you who want to check it out. I ordered it on Directv Pay Per View and that certainly helped with the theories i was gathering myself while watching the movie. It presents us with a 10 minute interview with Gylenhaal and Villeneuve after the feature is over. If you are going to check it out, i recommend this as the only way to go. It isn't currently playing in any theaters, and i don't know if the DVD will give you the kinds of clues and hints that the DirecTv version will. Enemy brought out everything i liked about independent features. Solid performances, heart pounding situations, and the option to always make you think.
- Exodus : Gods and Kings - 5.5/10 - The latest in a string of religious films given the A-List treatment is Director Ridley Scott's attempt at making the material relatable. "Exodus : Gods and Kings" is the story of one man's daring courage to take on a 400 year reign of an empire. Using state of the art visual effects and 3D immersion, Scott brings new life to the story of the defiant leader Moses (Christian Bale) as he rises up against the Egyptian Pharaoh Ramses (Joel Edgerton), setting 600,000 slaves on a monumental journey of escape from Egypt and its terrifying cycle of deadly plagues. This film has gotten a terrible reputation from disappointed film critics this weekend, and while i can say that the film does have a lot of problems, it's not quite the terrible attrocity that it's been made out to be. "Exodus" has it's problems (mostly in the technical aspect), but Scott has always been a master of the cinematography arts in his films, and this one is no exception. The long shots of a developing Egypt 400 years into a tyranical reign of slavery is breathtaking. A lot of the land in the film's forefront is deserts for miles and miles, and Scott has a skill for detail of that era. I only wish he cared as much about the look of the actors he cast for the roles. Truth be told, this film has gotten a lot of flack for casting caucasian Hollywood A-listers, and to a certain point i get the argument. Bale has always been one of my favorite actors, but he looks no different than he would stepping out of the Batman suit. Meanwhile, Edgerton is put through makeup hell to establish the look of Ramses. Between he and John Turturo, they look about ten pounds of pancake makeup over the limit to be cast in an 80's Van Halen music video. Turturo is possibly the funniest casting of the film. Many of the slaves are jewish, so it made me kind of laugh when they cast a Jewish actor as the father of Ramses. Did Scott not do his homework on his actors? This might not bother someone else, but i find the irony to be hilarious. Sigourney Weaver plays the wife of Turturo, and i still wonder why. She has two lines of dialogue throughout the film, and is never treated as an important part of the script. This is interesting because no single actor or actress has played a bigger part in the Ridley Scott film franchise. Her lack of scenes could be accredited to a director's cut that might exist beyond the awful editing work done in this one. More on that later. The best acting job in this film belongs to a child playing God. Soak that in for a minute. This boy's parts of the film had my eyes glued to the screen, as there is such a presence that you don't see in most child actors. It might seem ridiculous, but i don't know if God has ever been cast better than he has in this film. As i mentioned before, the editing of the final cut is one of the worst i have seen of the year. The film is nearly two and a half hours long for no reason what so ever. It is an epic of a story, but an easy 20 minutes of this film could've been left on the cutting room floor. If you didn't budge from this film's long run time, maybe you could substitute those meaningless 20 minutes for some scenes with some answers for the time jumps this film surprises the viewers with. One of these scenes shows Moses walking into a small village where he meets a woman. The two talk for two minutes, and LITERALLY the very next scene shows them getting married. No on screen text to tell us how much time has passed, or even a reason for us to believe this union because we didn't see their chemistry at all on screen. Another such scene happens about five minutes after the former one. Once again, no on screen text to support the fact that Moses all of a sudden has two children. I had a similar problem to this when i reviewed "Jersey Boys" in June. The kids part will have you scratching your head if you are trying to keep up with how much time has passed, or where in history we are at during this time. It's all a big mess. "Exodus" had an estimated 140 million dollar budget, but none of that matters if the production crew didn't care enough to make this presentable. Every year, a 100 something million dollar bomb happens, and this seems to be the likely nominee for 2014. The film wasn't as terrible as i was led to believe, but i can't recommend this movie for anyone. The exciting moments happen few and far between pacing problems that will put any viewer to sleep. It has some admirable qualities, but "Exodus: Gods and Kings" is unfaithful to the material, and doesn't even make it ridiculously entertaining like in "Noah". No need to see this one. Don't call me Moses, but i led you out of the darkness on this one.
- Fed Up - 8.5/10 - A gritty and disturbing look into the American food distribution system and the negative results that follow in a descensitized society. Fed Up is a documentary that looks into the FDA and slides aside the curtain to corruption involving bribery from major snack companies, surgery for overweight children who haven't even hit their teenage years yet, and the things hidden in these junk foods that aren't always revealed on the label. To me, Fed Up opened my eyes to the horrors of processed foods like Super Size Me did for the fast food industry. It was really impactful to see the kinds of stacked decks that we as people have of living healthy. Director Stephanie Soetchtig and narrator Katie Couric state the facts on sugars and salts that hurt our body through each individual portion, and what they do over a ten year span. I enjoyed Fed Up for how feeble minded they made our food government administration look. The same group who characterized pizza as a vegetable are clearly guilty for not having done enough to give us better choices in the real world, and safer choices for our children in schools across the country. I do believe that Fed Up is one of those films that needs to be shown in schools to act as a backlash against the brainwashing that TV does to young minds who see colorful characters like Ronald Mcdonald or Captain Crunch and don't have anything to oppose this with because these big name corporations have so much money and time invested in the products they present. The narration by Couric was outstanding and reflects decades upon decades that she has studied on this particular issue. The facts are presented with graphic animations that are made easily enough for anyone to understand and receive an education to the horrors that we are putting into our bodies everyday. I also thoroughly enjoyed the dancing around the issue approaches to these administration executives who were asked questions on what they have done to eliminate sugars from their products. They come across as big wigs who have absolutely zero involvement of presenting a healthy option to their customers and are only interested in loading their wallets even fatter. One thing that did surprise me about this film that i never really took the time to think about was the effects this will have on our military soldiers over the next fifty years. One out of every three children now face obesity and where will that leave the men and women fighting for our country who don't have the right genes to combat a disease as powerful as obesity? The lone problem i had with Fed Up is that it gives some decent minor arguments on what we can do to combat these processed foods as to bringing them into our own homes, but it never really has a bigger picture plan. The documentary profiles how popular cigarettes were in the 60's and 70's and how countries came together and took a stand against what they called "Cancer Sticks". Instead of offering a commentary for how we can fight this juggernaut, Couric rather states that it's impossible to take down something so huge. Sure, there are dietary suggestions that the closing credits offer, but i left this documentary feeling like it's a losing battle that will only get greater as 60% of our country now suffers from diabetes. That is a bigger figure than ever before. Even with that in mind, Fed Up is the single greatest look at the single greatest terror driving up our death rates. Obesity is greater than cancer now, and it's time we woke to treat these corporations the same way we do the alcohol and tobacco corporations. I absolutely recommend Fed Up to every one. I guarantee you that everyone will learn at least one thing in this documentary that they didn't know before. After you watch this film, you will fear the many colorful aisles of a grocery store in the same way you fear looking at your own tombstone before you ever die.
- Foxcatcher - 8/10 - Obsession to win comes with a cost even if the best advantages are at your fingertips. "Foxcatcher" tells the story of Olympic Gold Medal winning wrestler Mark Schultz (Channing Tatum), who sees a way out from the shadow of his more celebrated wrestling brother Dave (Mark Ruffalo) and a life of poverty when he is summoned by eccentric multi-millionaire John du Pont (Steve Carell) to move onto his estate and train for the 1988 Seoul Olympics. Desperate to gain the respect of his disapproving mother, du Pont begins to fund a world-class athletic team and, in the process, lures Mark into dangerous habits, breaks his confidence and drives him into a self-destructive spiral. When reading about the backstory of this real life tragedy, i found that a lot of the biggest questions have been left unanswered, so i was quite interested in Director Bennett Miller's (Moneyball) depiction of the events. What i witnessed, is a respectable debate for the best male performances of 2014. Steve Carell in particular is haunting as the quietly disturbed du Pont. With outstanding props work, the film manages to transform Carell before our very eyes as the rich entrepreneur. From contacts, to nose prosthetics, to a greying hair job, it shows that a lot of great detail went into Carell pulling off this character. The setting of the Foxcatcher farm as well as Carell tells the audience that something is kept secret about this too good to be true deal of a lifetime for Mark. Carell should no less be nominated for an Oscar when the ballots are handed in, and his dedication to John shows that he has a bright future in serious acting. Tatum is perhaps the biggest surprise of the film, as he commands a quiet storm that keeps building underneath his surface. Tatum was perfect casting, as his body build is the obvious for him being chosen for such a role. I can however tell you that it was his choreography inside and out of the wrestling ring that made the role perfect for him. Watching this film with a competitive wrestler, he told me that Tatum's movements when he is walking is perfect even for any wrestler's smallest nitpick. Tatum shows in this film that he has some legit acting underneath the macho romantic genre dominated films that he has been known for. His cauliflower ears tell the story of a character who has done nothing but wrestling for his whole life. Technical accolades belong to the set team for creating such an uneasy atmosphere at Foxcatcher farm. I mentioned earlier that something feels wrong here, and that is mostly evident due to a family owned property with lots of trophies, and an attitude to never settle for second place. The film's lone problems are in a script that feels repetitive and stretched at times. I know Miller is basing his script off of real life events, but i felt too many of the scenes in the second act were unnecessary for a film that builds and builds and builds, and then doesn't give a payoff until the final ten minutes. I appreciate that Miller invests a lot into his characters and doesn't care about the running time (2 hours, 10 minutes), but the movie will start to drag for anyone waiting for the big climax. The only other problem came with the movie's lack of time explanation. The film flash forwards a couple of times during Mark's training for the Olympics, and we are never told how much time has passed. One scene in particular has Mark with longer blonde highlighted hair as opposed to the shaved buzz cut he started his Foxcatcher training with. With that kind of hair growth, we could expect that two months has passed, but in the next scene we see that only a couple weeks has passed based on how many days till the Olympics is on the chalkboard. Most biographical films have a great detail for the event dates, and "Foxcatcher" definitely could've used a better outlook on this. Overall, i would definitely recommend this film to everyone if you don't mind a slowburn. The movie has a lot of big statements about class distinctions and the problems that money bring to it, and it's in that commentary that "Foxcatcher" feels like something more. Very few movies in the last decade have written psychological distress like this one has. It's masterfully crafted and hauntingly cold with a taste of tragedy for Shakespearian proportions.
- Fury - 8.5/10 - When 2014 ends in a couple months, Fury will be the film that impacts me the most. Fury is produced and stars Brad Pitt as a soldier during World War 2 who leads a tank team (Shia Lebouf, Logan Lerman, Jon Bernthal, Michael Pena) against a more advanced and growing German army. Fury is not only one of the greatest war movies i have ever seen, but it is among the year's best for many reasons. Ahead of this list is beautiful production sites and heart pounding sound editing that never holds off for one second to leave the audience on the edge of their seats. I was really surprised with the brutality of this film, even for a war film. I don't want to spoil too much, but there were several scenes that had me clutching my face in horror. Another thing i loved about Fury was that it took a premise popular in 90's war movies of building great characters and let their actions tell the drama that unfolds around them. As i mentioned before, the film has a great cast, but it's a little surprising just how deep it goes. We all know Pitt can act, and he is perfect in this role. He serves as that middle line between human and war machine who sees the line blurring with each passing battle. What really surprised me about this cast was the young talent. Logan Lerman was my favorite thing about "The Perks of Being a Wallflower", and he is probably my favorite thing about Fury as well. His character is pushed into a position that he has no business being in, and his fear is amplified when he is put in battle for the first time. He starts off as a character who wants nothing to do with killing the Germans, but by film's end he has clearly been changed by war. One scene in particular shows Lerman and Pitt sharing an apartment with two German women. What i loved about this scene is that they are trying to act as normal as their pasts before they left for war. Their fantasies soon get squashed as they realize that their lives can never be the same. What's great about this scene is that the audience actually enjoy this 20 minute scene because we are seeing the backstories of two of it's main characters. When the next scene takes them back to the war field, you actually wish you could've gotten more of the normalcy, and the fact that a film can relate that and make you almost feel like the characters, it's quite impressive. The only thing i had a slight problem with was the CGI effects of the cannon shots from the tank. It's not a major problem, but i am someone who appreciates more practical effects, as i feel they show more creativity. The explosion reactions are almost laughable as they almost look like a "Star Wars" lightsaber shadowing. I don't think it's something that the audience will notice, but i see it all the time as i am not a fan of CGI work. That kind of stuff doesn't get to me as much though, because there is so much more to enjoy about the movie itself. Consider that this is a war film that does most of it's human deposition INSIDE the tank and not on the battlefield. That premise could get tired and dry awful quickly, but these five men feel like a family who love and hate each other at the same time. One thing is for sure, they have spent way too much time together. In a fall that has already started off lackluster, Fury restores our hopes for a sleeper classic just around the corner. It's gritty, emotionally charged drama that never runs out of ammo. Definitely recommended.
- Get On Up - 7/10 - The latest musical biopic takes us inside the story of the most accomplished soul singer or all time, James Brown. First of all, Chadwick Boseman is the only guy who could've done the iconic singer any kind of justice in playing him. There are parts in this film that would come off comical if any other actor played him, but Boseman does the kind of preparation for a role that makes you think you are actually watching the deceased singer. Boseman did great in last year's biopic on baseball player Jackie Robinson, but i think he turns in a more dramatic performance as Brown. The movie doesn't make James Brown out to be a hero and i greatly appreciate that. They paint the whole story including some of the terrible decisions he made along the way with cutting band members pay, drug abuse, and spousal abuse that doesn't ever hide away from what he put her through. Besides the performance of Boseman, there is a great ensemble cast of Dan Akroyd, Viola Davis, Octavia Spencer, and Lennie James handing in a heartfelt performance as James best friend who always stood by him. The musical numbers that were really sung by Boseman are complete with a great list of Brown's best in his catalog. This is one of those films almost where the music takes center stage and everything else comes second. In a running time of 2 hours and 10 minutes, i would say that musical performances account for an estimated 30 minutes of this movie. That is shocking because usually you only get short clips here and there of the actual singing. That is the one thing i wish Walk The Line would've done a little more exclusively. The makeup work is excellent during all stages of James Brown's age. It's almost eerie towards the end of the film when Brown is older because you swear this footage had to be taken from actual James Brown concerts. Tate Taylor's film isn't as concerned with narrative and more concerned with the life of sin and glory of Brown's telling. There are some weird parts with the narration that didn't seem to make sense. The story goes forward and backwards without ever really staying set on one particular era. It's done in a way i have never seen, and i think it could've been done with a little more explanation. The problem with this type of shooting is that you get invested in one timeframe only to have it skimmed over before moving on to something else without explanation. Brown also starts breaking the 4th wall by looking and talking to the camera midway through the movie. This happens without explanation and is something i didn't care for or understand with how the films pacing had already been set. This is of course the only problem i had with the film as i felt the overall cinematography was done very well with excellent shooting locations, great costume work, and dialogue that finally made sense in a musical biopic. The thing i really feel bad for with this movie is that it came out on the same weekend as the biggest movie of the summer, Guardians of the Galaxy. It's unfortunate because i feel that both films should be seen by the public. It's hard enough to get one good film in a weekend, but to have two great films can push for the audience to spend a little more for a powerful double feature. Overall, Get On Up packs more drama than Jersey Boys and as great of a single performance as Jamie Foxx's in Ray. That alone should be worth a viewing, but it's the toe tapping electric feel good energy of the film's soundtrack that will put the soul back into everyone's Ipod's. Get on Up is can't miss.
- God's Pocket - 5/10 - Great acting in a movie can often save it. The performances given by these actors have saved some films from becoming some of the worst of the year. Unfortunatly, the same can't be said for God's Pocket. I am thankful that i saw this film on Pay Per View and not at the theater because i would've been upset if i wasted gas mileage on this stink. Phillip Seymour Hoffman stars and produces in his 2nd to last film before his death. He plays a man who is dating a mother (Christina Hendricks) who is at her wits end with life. They receive some bad news when they find out that their son has been killed while working. His death is covered up as just an accident by his co-workers, but his Mom knows more is at play. There are a lot of problems with this film that i will try to address. The characters are so unlikable and it gives us no one to get behind. Christina Hendricks is a loose cannon that cheats on her husband, John Turtoro is a loser who is always borrowing and losing money from his friends, Phillip Seymour Hoffman is decent, but he is given such a bland role that he can never lift it to a decent portrayal. It's like the writers took no time what so ever to invest some of the 88 minute run time into making these characters more sympathetic. That's another problem i have with the film, it's too short. This could be the main reason for all of the problems i will mention in this review. With 20 more minutes of screen time, the story could be better developed and some of the terribly edited shots can offer more clarity with a long cut. The editing is seriously so awful that i had to rewind what i was watching a couple times just to grasp what happened. The tone of the movie took a page from last year's Out of the Furnace by trying to show this just outside Philadelphia town for the hard working but unintelligent kind that roam it's streets. Richard Jenkins is cast as the city's newspaper editor. He writes about the city and it's negatives through no anger from the people living there. They treat him as a celebrity even though he trashes them for thousands to read. It's not until the end of the movie do these people catch on and give him what he deserves. But once again, the editing is so terrible that we aren't given an answer as to what his fate is. I usually love Richard Jenkins, but this movie figured out a way to make me even hate him. I appreciate a sleeze ball character as much as anyone, but his character is crude for no reason at all. He doesn't care who he steps on because he can. He is left to stew in an alcoholic slumber for most of his scenes. For the first 45 minutes, his storyline is treated as a side storyline with as little to do as any extra roaming the set. This story arc as well as another with John Turtoro feel like they are examples of ideas being thrown against a wall that don't stick with the rest of the movie. The storyline with the son dying is dark and should be treated as a serious manner, but it's the other stories that get in the way and confuse what kind of film we are watching. Is it dark comedy? or is it a crime mystery? We never really figure it out. SPOILER ALERT - The people who kill the son are never brought to justice or really presented anything more than just simple questioning. The movie ends this way and we are supposed to be OK with it. Hoffman is cheated on and losing thousands of dollars for the death of his girlfriend's son and we are supposed to be OK with it. The movie comes in and out and makes us feel like we wasted 88 minutes of our life.........and we are supposed to be OK with it. In the end, God's Pocket is an awkward blend of comedy and tragedy in a movie that doesn't do either with enough conviction. Pass on this one.
- Godzilla - 6/10 - Looking at the movies i have been anticipating for a long time, this one is near the top of the list. The most famous mega monster in cinema history is back with a reboot on a genuine classic. This Godzilla stars Aaron Taylor Johnson and Bryan Cranston as a son and father who suffer tragedy in 1999 during the biggest radiation readings in Japan's history. 15 years later, they return to the spot of the disaster to encounter a new kind of terror. Before i begin with my review, i will say that i liked this film. I liked it, but i didn't love it. Many people call it a tribute to the Toho Godzilla films, but i politely disagree. I see this as a new breed completely when it comes to the Godzilla. There are other Monsters in the film besides Godzilla, and that is a welcome call back to the past. But when it comes to the film as a whole, Godzilla movies have never been this monetarily invested in. It's a Godzilla on a whole new scale. I do think it was done well and a hell of a lot better than the 1998 version (THANK GOD), but this is a film with it's big problems. The biggest of those problems come in the form of the cut away edits. Every time Godzilla was about to fight a monster, the camera cut to a less interesting character with this storyline. I didn't mind it the first time, but by the 4th time they did it, i was getting angry. Possibly a ploy by the director to get people so excited for when they finally do fight, but i didn't view it that way. It makes your audience angry when you tease with them too much and don't deliver. This movie doesn't deliver on fight scenes until the final 20 minutes of a 2 hour movie. The fight scenes are great, i won't lie on that. They definitely delivered through an unneccesary wait. It was kind of weird to see the take that this film had on Godzilla. There have been many times in past Godzilla films when Godzilla is the one people root for, but he has never been referred to as "Our Hero" like he was in this film. The lizard is looked at as kind of a protector to us in this film and i don't know if i necessarily agree with that. As a protector, he has still killed hundreds of people and completely leveled the state of Hawaii and city of Oakland. Another comical part to me was when the creatures were treated like they were little children sneaking up on you in a hallway. I mean come on, these creatures are 300 feet tall and weight over 2 tons and you are surprised when they come out of nowhere? These characters couldn't hear them coming? I didn't have a problem with the look of Godzilla like some people did. I felt that to get the point across of how threatening this creature is that they have to make him bigger and stronger than ever. The other two creatures are great when it comes to the threat the present the cities and Godzilla. There are two of them and they team up as a male/female combo that puts Godzilla through a tough fight. I loved that Director Gareth Edwards is faithful in the fire power that Godzilla possesses. The coils on his back are still there to let you know when terror is right around the corner, and that was one of the brightest spots for me. Another thing i didn't like was the stupidity of some of the armies used in the film. THey go through buildings with the intention of seeing if the creatures have struck their yet and used some of their chemicals, but then are surprised when there is a big hole in a building implying they were already there. Couldn't they see this hole from the outside? Is there any reason other than filler to use these kinds of scenes? The chemicals are talked about and never mentioned again. The film is riddled with the same typical end of the world movie cliches, but they didn't bother me as much. There is the cliche of a man trying to get back to his wife and kid, the cliche of the big character dying and it affecting the main character forcing him to fight back harder, and the cliche of the wide open ending. The score is excellent and really sets the tone when building the terror and destruction around the people. The acting was also very passable as Bryan Cranston is by far the best part of the movie. He is the stabilizing force that is this movie. When he goes, the film's logic goes with it. I know i am talking logic in a movie with a 300 foot lizard, but i can only review what i am given. For once, it made sense to have a buff and macho type as the main character (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) because he is a trained soldier. His acting is typical, but he never really gets to show the kind of emotion that we need to get behind him. I know most of this review sounds like i am trashing the movie, but i am not. I can say i liked it and was disappointed by it at the same time. I think i am disappointed because my expectations were so high for it, and the hype was just as big as the monsters. I was expecting to maybe come out of the theater with a 7.5 or an 8 out of 10, so that is where i am disappointed. The movie does deliver on what you would expect, but it takes some pointless detours along the way. I would like to see another Godzilla movie of this stature, but i hope there is more fighting in the movie. For a film called Godzilla, i think his total screen time was under 10 minutes. I would like more Godzilla and more monster fighting in the next movie. Sparing Godzilla from getting stale is one thing, but abandoning the character is a whole other dish Even if the CGI is cheesy, people know what they are getting into with a movie called "GODZILLA". Overall, i recommend the movie, but not for the full 10 bucks. If you can catch a before 5 PM showing of this film, i would recommend it. I think most people will like it, but find the same bloated problems with the build that i did. I think the movie ended at the right time just before it was about to fall apart. Thumbs up to Edwards, but as a fan of the old Toho Godzilla films, i do expect more. Good but not great.
- Gone Girl - 9/10 - The pages of Gillian Flynn's novel comes to life as Ben Affleck stars as Nick Dunne, a married man whose wife is kidnapped the morning of their 5th anniversary. Nick is the prime suspect in the trial, and the film has bombshell reveals that really make you question his character. Gone Girl is my favorite novel that i have ever read. I find it's twists and turns so original and eye opening, and it's always great to see an author who writes characters with human traits. The film is no disappointment. There are a lot of things that director David Fincher does to make this one of the best films of 2014. First of all, the cast is absolutely perfect. I was a little worried about Ben Affleck as the main protagonist when this film was first developed, but i honestly couldn't see anyone else playing him. Nick experiences a love/hate relationship with the media, and i don't think anyone knows that better than Affleck. With all of the critiques about his upcoming role as Batman in 2015, Affleck knows fine and well the beatings that a man in the spotlight can take. Another pleasant surprise is Tyler Perry as Nick's lawyer, Tanner Bolt. Perry is finally working off of a script that isn't his, and Fincher gives him great direction as a hot shot think fast lawyer. Perry exherts so much charisma, and even delivers the best line of the movie for me. Carrie Coon and Kim Dickens are also very noteworthy as Nick's sister Margo, and Detective Boney respectively. For a while, it seems like this film will easily be Dickens for the taking, but that changes with the casting of Roseamund Pike as Amy Dunne, the woman who is taken. I am not embellishing even slightly when i say that Pike deserves an Oscar nomination for her portrayal of Amy. There are so many emotions that this character has to display, and i knew she would knock it out of the park. She gives you so many goosebumps in just a stare. It really is impressive to see her with a role that brings out her absolute best. This is a role that people will remember her for the rest of her life. The sound editing/mixing was also top notch once again for a Fincher film. David always does sound better than anyone in Hollywood because he takes a situation at a club or a public area and make it a little drowned out to hear our characters. This is great because people are always heard perfectly in films whenever they are at a bar or club. The lighting is also given that Fincher treatment with plenty of pale tones to echo the moods of the story. The eggshell coloring of the Dunne's house inside makes the house feel empty even when our characters inhabit it. The film's score is again brilliantly done by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross. The reflections of our characters actions are played to dark and ominous tones that are reminiscent of early 90's Twin Peaks instrumentals. When i compare the film to the book, i feel that they both have a place. People who read the book and enjoyed it will enjoy the film, and people who haven't read the book will enjoy the film for the smart, sleek nature of the story it reveals. The narration of Amy's journal is very welcome with the pacing of the story, and the flashback scenes that they describe. There are some differences with the film from the book and that is much expected. The absences of a couple key characters hit home a little bit for me. Nick's Dad is in the film, but his role is greatly devalued. I would've liked to have seen his backstory involved a little more as he is a prominent suspect in the book. If i have one critique with the film, it's that some areas of the story aren't told to the full value that they were in the book. One example is the reveal of the objects in the shed and their sentimental meaning. It's not a big deal, but those kind of things meant more in the book. The big reveal is done about an hour into the 2 hour and 20 minute film, and i thought this would be took quick while watching the film. I was totally wrong because it allows enough time to show how derranged the film gets, and explain every single step in the kidnapping. I definitely recommend this film to anyone over the age of 16. There is nudity, language, and surprisingly a lot of graphic violence. Gone Girl twists and turns through a maze of emotions and character shifts, but it's ending is unlike anything you have ever seen, and it's for that reason why Gone Girl is can't miss.
- Good People - 3/10 - Young American couple Tom and Anna Reed (James Franco and Kate Hudson) fall into severe debt while renovating Anna's family home in London. As the couple faces the loss of their dream to have a house and start a family, they discover that the tenant in the apartment below them has been murdered and he left behind a stash of cash-$400,000 worth. Though initially hesitant, Tom and Anna decide that the plan is simple: all they have to do is quietly take the money and use only what's necessary to get them out of debt. But when they start spending the money and can't seem to stop, they find themselves the targets of a gang who stole the money. I found Good People to be one of the most ridiculously cliche and boring films of the year. The first thing wrong with the film is the terrible casting job of Franco and Hudson. This film is a shoot em up action style chase movie reminiscent of Luc Besson films, so what made the casting director ever think James Franco was the perfect person for this style? The good news is that he doesn't play the role as comedic James Franco, but the bad news is that it's a step back from his role as the villain in 2013's "Homefront". This feels like a paycheck collector for both Franco and Hudson as their personalities are practically muted and the two feel like shells of their former characteristics. Besides the casting, the movie is just too slow paced. The action is done pretty well and explosively, but it takes the film 43 minutes of it's 82 minute run time to get started. I get that a film has to build it's plot, but it's SO SLOW within that opening first act. Tom Wilkinson gives the film what little charge it has playing an FBI agent tracking down the stolen money. It's funny to see Tom's reactions to our two protagonists explaining their reasons for stealing the money because he looks at them like idiots. That right there is the biggest problem within the film; our main characters are completely stupid. As the title suggests, i don't doubt that these are good people, but they also are not the smartest people on the block. A man gets murdered in his apartment and their first instinct is to collect cash that they find is obviously hidden. Maybe it's just because i have watched so many of these films before, but with the house trashed it's obvious the murderers were looking for something. With Franco and Hudson living upstairs, who do you think is the first door that this gang will knock on? SPOILERS SPOILERS - If this isn't enough, the ending is by far the most hilarious part of this film. Our couple meets with the gang at Anna's childhood home to give them the money. It's an obvious set up that is put together by Wilkinson, but the gang doesn't know this. When they get there, it's traps gallore. One guy falls through a floor and is impaled onto spikes, one guy two nail gun shots in the feet, and much more. My first instinct was that this was a rated R version of Home Alone, and by then i was seriously as done with this film as i was ever going to be. In the end, the couple live and are being treated in a hospital when Tom Wilkinson comes by to visit them. He gives them some of the "Lost cash" for them to keep. The moral here boys and girls is that you should always steal cash that isn't yours. More moral backbone from a film that is too predictable and doesn't add anything to the genre. I definitely do not recommend this film. Even if you are an action film buff, there isn't enough of the good stuff here to keep anyone interested. In closing, sometimes good people do bad things, and sometimes they make bad movies. I'm calling out director Henrik Ruben Genz on this one. Terrible film.
- Guardians of the Galaxy (In 3D) - 9/10 - The sure fire hit of the summer from Marvel Studios has hit, and the comic world on the big screen will never be the same. Guardians of the Galaxy stars Chris Pratt, Zoe Saldana, Dave Bautista, and voice work from Bradley Cooper and Vin Diesel. They are known as the title characters in question, and are assembled when all are arrested during a raid for an ancient orb that has powerful gifts that come with it. I absolutely loved everything about this movie. When the credits hit, there was only one thing i had a problem with, but it's so small in detail and contains spoilers so i'm not going to get into it. Instead, this will serve as a love fest for one of the best films of 2014. The performances are so good in plenty that it's hard to only mention a select few. Pratt has the charisma of a 1950's movie star and brings out so much of his personality in Jason "Starlord" Quill. He gives the movie it's comedy which is hilarious well past the cute one liners you hear in most Marvel movies. Bautista is very surprising as Drax The Destroyer. We all know Dave can play action scenes well from his time in professional wrestling, but Bautista gives Drax a sensitive undertone from the death of his family that we can relate to such a maniac in devastating fashion. The absolute best part of the movie for me was played by a CGI raccoon known as Rocket (Voiced by Cooper). The things Bradley Cooper did with this character with only a voice are purely out of this world. It sounds nothing like Cooper and that is the most impressive thing when anyone does voice work. It's hard to get lost in a character that you didn't actually portray, but Bradley Cooper is the best part of this movie. In a group of tough individuals, it is Rocket Raccoon that is perhaps the most unstable with his "Never enough" kind of attitude. The makeup work and costumes are absolutely brilliant for this movie. Oscar worthy even because they bring to life the pages of a comic book that is over 30 years old. The special effects and CGI work are what give the movie it's sparkle. Lots of wide shots at the beautiful planets that these characters invade are eye candy to anyone who appreciates places that we may not see in our daily lives, like me. The 3D did something different with it's effects that i really enjoyed. Instead of throwing things at the camera like most films do, the 3D in Guardians of the Galaxy served more as a template for the beautiful colors and imagery that the movie had to offer. There were fireflies that were passing in front of our very eyes, as well as the ashes from constant heart pounding fight scenes that our main characters went through. I don't often rave about 3D, but if you see one 3D film this year, it has to be this one. The soundtrack and score alike are the very best that film has to offer in 2014. The movie is kind of a calling card to the 70's and 80's music trends that Jason Quill grew up in. Everything from Southern rock to club beats of the pre MC 80's era is to be heard through the headphones of a Sony Walkman. As the viewer, you will actually feel like it is you who is listening with the headphones, and it makes it easier to get lost in the story around you. The overall attitude of the movie is what really took this leaps and bounds above anything Marvel has ever created. It's a movie that doesn't take itself too seriously, and i think that is needed. How many times can you see a smart or tough superhero go through the same similar story to the same results? Guardians has the most likeable and relatable characters (Minus Iron Man) that you will ever see. What's most amazing about that is there are a couple of people in this group who can be deemed "Psychopaths", so to make the character enjoyable without tiring the audience shows Marvel really took their time with this one, and it paid off huge. The movie also has some really enjoyable cameos that i am not going to spoil for you. I managed to catch most of them, but if i didn't it only leaves the door open for 2nd and 3rd watchings in the future. The action and fight scenes are brilliant with lots of fancy gadgets that we aren't used to in the comic big screen world because most stories take place on Earth. Overall, i think Marvel waited till the perfect time to release this movie. It's the best Marvel movie ever (My opinion), but it wouldn't have been as good with the technology of 1998 or 2002. I am strongly waiting for the sequel to this movie, and i absolutely recommend that you go all out and see it in 3D. Your eyes will thank you for the visual treat in front of you. Guardians of the Galaxy is the most fun you will have at the movie theater this Summer. The schedulers definitely saved the best for last, and it's the most fun you have had in space since the original three Star Wars movies.
- Heaven is For Real - 4/10 - When you see a decent actor like Greg Kinnear in a film that doesn't quite live up to his talents, you start wondering if his best days are behind him. Kinnear stars as the father of a boy who ends up in the hospital with a burst appendix. After his recovery, he mentions to his father that he was briefly in heaven when he was under the knife. This story is an adaptation from the New York Times #1 Bestseller, and while i haven't read that book, i can say that the film is a big waste of time. There is so much wrong with this film that i hope i can get it all out in a basic review. When i compared this film to Son of God, i realized that this film does come off better as a motion picture. It has enough to keep the viewer interested in it's questions, but fails when we are served the answers to those questions.Beyond this, the kind of film it comes off as is something that you would see on the Hallmark Channel. Son of God is an overall better film though. The reason being, it wasn't afraid to take a chance with graphic violence that didn't quite cater to the audience it was intended for. What i find interesting about Heaven is For Real is that we are led to believe that Greg Kinnear and his family are 30 thousand dollars in the hole when he works as a 1. Preacher, 2. Fireman, 3. Parts installer. He also has a nice countryside house which makes it hard to believe this guy is borderline poor. Another cute ongoing storyline is when word gets out of the little boy's journey through Heaven and the townspeople find it uncomfortable that this is being talked about. Keep in mind that this is a religious community and all of the people who don't believe him ARE THE PEOPLE SITTING IN THE CHURCH PEWS!!!! I have only been a Catholic for 23 years, but i thought believing in Heaven and God was kind of like the status quo for this group. The first half hour speeds a little too quickly when we are trying to learn the quirks and ticks of what makes this family. Because it speeds by, these people come off as lunatics when we see the way they act at church and softball games. The ladder, being one of the corniest scenes i have seen this year. Director Randall Wallace definitely tries to make this religious film something more that every kind of fan can relate to. Even to go so far as to add a big bad wicked rock anthem like "We Will Rock You" to the film. It's cute because the little boy wants nothing to do with religious hymns, and instead sings Queen. It all seems so desperate. Which brings me to the little boy who plays Colton (Connor Corum). He is cute, and i am sure will win the award for "Child actor who every woman wants to pinch his cheeks", but he is the single strangest child actor i have ever seen. He makes these faces that make him seem like he is hearing voices, and i don't mean the religious kind. A scene when he vomits in the toilet is one of the funniest things i have seen this year. Not that there is an art to something so disgusting, but his noises are so imitated and made even better when the camera pans up to show nothing in the toilet. This film is just an absolute sloppy mess. I am ready for the backlash that comes with me hating this film because it rightfully deserves every word that i have made clear. The biggest shame with this film is the wasted star power of Margo Martindale and Thomas Haden Church. Two of Hollywood's best role actors who are on sleep mode because this script would rather show you the cameos and not give them anything to earn that screen time. Heaven is For Real isn't the worst film i have seen this year, but it's pretty close. I can now add one more reason to why i left Catholic schooling after nine years; i didn't want to turn out like the Burpo family in Heaven is For Real. The Burpo family, what an appropriate name. This film made me Burpo for 95 long minutes. Not recommended
- Hector and the Search For Happiness - 6.5/10 - Based on the best selling novel of the same name, the film stars Hector (Simon Pegg) as a psychiatrist lacking inspiration who has become increasingly tired of his humdrum life. As he tells his girlfriend, Clara (Rosamund Pike), he needs a change in his daily routine: he hasn't really tasted life, and yet he's offering advice to patients who are just not getting any happier. Armed with buckets of courage and child-like curiosity, he embarks on a global quest in hopes of uncovering the elusive secret formula for true happiness. Thus begins a larger than life adventure with innocently funny results. "Hector" may not be one of the best films of the year, but it's one that will give your spent money enough entertainment to warrant a trip to the theater. Going into this film, it reminded me a lot of 2013's "The Secret Life of Walter Mitty", but where "Hector" branches off is in the definitive answer as to what gives him his happiness. The result was a little more muddled in "Mitty" because of a series of false daydreams. Pegg is his usual charming self. He can do so much in just a smile that many comedic talents don't learn in a lifetime. As Hector, he flexes acting chops that have never been shown by him. Simon shows in this film that he is a lot deeper than just another comedic actor. That is one thing that worried me heading into this film; i felt it would be too funny and muddle the deeper meaning to the message. I was happy to be proven wrong in the shining example. The quirky and romantic chemistry between Pegg and Pike reflects that of this being the 2nd film that these two have been together in. The journey across the world forces them to react to handicaps in their relationship that they have never addressed before. The movie also has brilliantly talented short cameos by Jean Reno, Toni Collete, Christopher Plummer, and the european treasure known as Stellen Skaarsgaard. Each one of these actors aren't in the movie long, but they all leave their mark in different ways at different parts of the world. The movie is split into three parts represented by his journey in Tokyo, Africa, and Los Angeles. The first and third acts are where the movie thrives at it's most substantial. It's in that middle 45 minutes in Africa where the movie is spoiled by character transformations for the worst, and a homosexual character that is played for giggles by the audience. That is the lone problem that keeps this film from being one of the top of the year. It lacks the maturity to ever go all the way with a serious storyline by adding childish gags along the way. I am glad the movie wasn't punished too much by these roll your eyes moments, and the journey's final answer feels very pleasing with how much more appreciative our protagionist has become with his life. The camera work is done very exceptional with lots of colorful backgrounds representing the lands they explore. In Tokyo, there are lots of neon lights, in Africa, there are lots of yellow and orange shots to represent the sun shining down on the safari's. Beautiful cinematography is accompanied by a catchy background jingle that will have you always tapping your feet. "Hector and the Search For Happiness" is a pleasant treat that no doubt makes us reflect on the pleasantries of our own lives and cherish them. Not everyone has happiness, but everyone is entitled to it, and any film that spreads that message is alright with me. The film is currently hard to find, but i would definitely recommend it when it hits DVD.
- Her - 8.5/10 - Spike Jonze latest film is his greatest accomplishment to date. Her is a dramatic piece about the depths of loneliness and the things we look to for comfort in an aching wound. I saw the film even a little different from the description that i just typed. I saw it as a piece that warns us about the rise of technological advances, and how the need for human life is slowly getting phased out. Juaquin Phoenix stars as Theodore Twombley, a man who is emotionally scared to open up to the world after the divorce from his wife (Rooney Mara). He buys a new operating system which gives the effect of an actual person in the room with him. What follows becomes the most emotionally invested relationship of Twombley's life. Phoenix is absolutely breathtaking in this film. It sounds bad when i say this is a one man show, but he is definitely a step above the rest. That doesn't mean that this amazing ensemble doesn't do their parts. Led by Amy Adams, Chris Pratt, Olivia Wilde and the voice herself, Scarlett Johansson. These characters give Phoenix all he needs to play through a series of emotions. The film for me was more sad than anything else. When you think about where we are today in our own technological world, it hits a lot closer to home than people might think. Problems quickly arise in the relationship when the voice lacks personal touch, and i think it is done in a manor that the audience will fully invest in. I wouldn't be doing my job if i didn't talk about the phenomenal cinematography. This is the most beautifully shot film that i have seen in a long time. The angles and close ups on characters faces that represent what they are going through is a Jonze classic in his arsenal. It works best in a film like this that plays off nothing but emotional depth. The use of light in the outside shots are like the beautiful path that Twombley is walking on his journey out of solitude. The dialogue does get a little cheesy at times, but the premise itself is kind of cheesy when you think about it. It honestly didn't bother me as much as it might some other people. The only thing that worries me about a film like this is that it might be too artsy and slow at times for people to enjoy. I think the real lovers of film will truly enjoy this film because it's everything that is great about Hollywood. Sometimes you only need a great actor like Phoenix to hit with such a powerful piece of cinema gold. The people who are expecting huge things to happen in this film will be set up for disappointment. The big things are there, but they come in the form of character growth. The original cut of this film was 150 minutes, and i would certainly be interested in checking out some of that deleted footage. In the end, this film shows us that the line between human interaction is being cut thinner with time. But if we are willing to accept help from the most unlikely sources, maybe we too can change for the better.
- Hercules - 7/10 - Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson stars in the dream role he always wanted to play; Hercules. The second version of Hercules in 2014 is much better than the Remy Harlan version by leaps and bounds. The biggest problem with Brett Ratner's version of Hercules is that it plays it a little too safe with little risks for the audience to enjoy an original telling of the tale. That's not to say that Hercules isn't entertaining because it is. It has lots of fast paced action scenes, great characters who i will get to later, beautiful cinematography, and a lead star that can make any role charasmatic. The best thing about Hercules may be how well it meets its goals. It's not the definitive look at ancient Greek demigods, but it is smart, exciting escapist tale that won't disappoint Johnson's fans. It's very nice to see that The Rock isn't alone in making this movie a success. There is a supporting cast that the audience can really get behind. Newcomer Rebecca Ferguson is not only gorgeous as the arrow shooting Ergenia, but she is also a female that little girls can watch the movie and believe in. She is sexy, smart and dangerous. I would take her in any battle ever. Ian Mcshane is absolutely the best character in the film bar none. He steals Hercules with his blend of smooth talking humor and the motivation for Hercules to always fight at his strongest. I will go as far as to say Mcshane's role as Amphiarus is one of my favorite of the 2014 movie year. He is just that good. The only minor problems i had with the movie aside from it being played safe, is the pacing issues and the backstory of Hercules 12 challenges. The pacing begins to show especially towards the middle of the movie when we have already seen two heart pounding war scenes. It slows down with dialogue that does nothing except paint the legacy of Hercules even more. The backstory is the problem i really had with this film. It talks of the 12 challenges that Hercules had to go through for his freedom, and tells us how he met every one of his men and women he fights with in these challenges. The problem is that we see him fighting and doing these challenges, but we never see where these soldiers come in. The audience is left to paint the picture of trying to figure out how these people helped Hercules gain his freedom. These are really minor problems in an otherwise entertaining tale of one of the most storied characters in the fantasy genre. I did catch the movie in 3D, and i can say that there are many reasons to pay the extra to catch this one in 3rd dimension. I am usually not a supporter of 3D film because i feel like it is a waste of money for a couple of in your face objects. Hercules uses old school 3D tricks to not only put you in the action, but cast you as throwing the spears. If weapons in your face isn't enough, the surrounding of falling ash and dirt clouds are enough to really make you do a 2nd take. There are two ways i can really recommend this film. If you have the money and want to have fun watching a movie without using a lot of your brain, catch this and catch it in 3D. It's totally well worth it. But if you have your doubts and can't bring yourself to spend that much money on this film, i would definitely rent it when it comes out to DVD. If it's between this and the January The Legend of Hercules, i say you go open arms into this one, and leave Remy Harlan's in the trash where it belongs. Dwayne Johnson's portrayal of Hercules isn't great cinema, but the movie is "rock" solid (pun intended).
- Horns - 5.5/10 - Based on the novel by Joe Hill, Horns is the story of Iggy Parish (Daniel Radcliffe), the main suspect in the violent rape and murder of his childhood sweetheart girlfriend, Merrin (Juno Temple). Iggy awakens after a long night of drinking to find that he has grown horns on his head that give him the power to drag peoples dirtiest secrets out. The film itself begins as a dark comedy, but then transitions the 2nd and 3rd acts into a fantasy psychological thriller of a murder mystery whodunnit? Lately, there have been a slew of murder mystery films about couple gone wrong. So what makes Horns any different? It's wickedly dark humor combined with the performance of Radcliffe as an ever growing actor among Hollywood's best. Daniel takes on a role in this film that he has never done before, and that can be very refreshing. The film satisfies a lot of genre fans from Horror, comedy, romance, and Mystery. The horror fans in particular will love the film for it's sparse, but gruesome violence that rivals any horror film this year. Personally, i thought the film worked best when it stuck to the moments of the mystery itself and the various flashbacks made possible by Iggy's powers. The horns are never explained to the audience as to why or how they got there, but it personally didn't matter to me. The story itself is something fresh and that is always nice to see for this genre. The things i didn't enjoy about Horns was the switching back and forth as the film tried desperately to find it's identity. Many films can pull genre switches during a film, but this one does it so often that it feels jokingly when it's supposed to be serious, and vice versa. I also felt that the mystery itself wasn't too hard to predict once your mind opens up to the situation of Merrin's final night, and the characters that surround her. The film also goes on for about twenty minutes too long after the disappointing reveal of Merrin's murderer. I think the movie could've done well enough if the reveal was followed by the big fight scene, and then the credits. It goes on for too long at the very minute when the film starts dragging. That's not to say that there isn't something deeper about Horns. It's got an independent charm to it mainly because of the director of such B-List horror films like The Hills Have Eyes Remake, Maniac, and Piranha 3D, Alexandre Aja. What Aja does better than a lot of his B-Movie counterparts is that he takes a movie that sounds prepostorous by description, but makes it work casting an actor like Radcliffe who we never expected to dance like the devil. He also adds a beautifully chosen soundtrack to give the film many smiles during certain scenes. The sounds of 'Where is my Mind' by The Pixies plays perfectly during childhood innocence, and there is always room for 'Heroes' by Alesso when Iggy feels like he is the only believer that he has walking the Earth. It's a perfectly sounding musical narration of musical trivia for anyone who feels music plays an important part in film. There is a good movie under all of this sillyness somewhere. Horns is a failure, but it's a beautiful one at that. The camera work is exceptional, and the dark comedy is funnier than anything i have seen in a film with religious tones since 1998's "Dogma". The difference with that Kevin Smith film is that he was comfortable in the controversial story he was dancing on. Horns is an OK movie that could be better with a better defined ideal of where Aja wanted to go. I think it's harmless for a rental at the local Redbox, but anything beyond that is pushing it. See it if only for Radcliffe's performance, brutal violence, and if a murder mystery is your cup of tea
- Horrible Bosses 2 - 6/10 - The worlds of three working stiffs get turned upside down once again in this sequel to the 2011 smash comedy. After Nick (Jason Bateman), Dale (Charlie Day), and Kurt (Jason Sudeikis) decide to launch their own business, Burt Hanson (Christoph Waltz), a savvy investor, appears to take them down. With no other viable option in sight, the trio decide to kidnap Hanson's son Rex (Chris Pine) in order to put up a ransom to take back their business. If fans of the original film are expecting the same kind of laughs, they are sorely in for disappointment. That doesn't mean that "Horrible Bosses 2" doesn't stand on it's own two legs. Infact, i was quite surprised to see the kind of negativity that this film has received from reviewers because it's honestly not that terrible. The film is nowhere near as funny or tells as compelling as a story as that of it's predecessor, but it does include the on par comedic timing of our three protagonists. Their characters do include a big change in the department of Sudeikis taking a bigger backseat to Bateman and Day, and all three of the characters reaching asinine levels of stupidity. As to where "Boy Meets World" made Eric Matthews dumber as the seasons went on, so to does "Horrible Bosses 2" for it's main cast. The arguing between them does ruin a lot of laughs, as it feels like you are listening to your children going back and forth in the backseat. Some of our favorites from the original film do make enjoyable returns even if their presence feels unnecessary. Jennifer Anniston owns the movie once again as the sex crazed Julia Harris, Kevin Spacey makes two appearances from prison that don't last more than 5 minutes total, and Jamie Foxx returns as (Expletive) Jones. Foxx feels more like a team member in this film, as he has a bigger role in this sequel. It feels like he legitimately cares about these three knuckleheads beyond just a payday. Pine is by far the best part of the movie. He seems to bring a lot of the charm taken from the absent Colin Ferrell that made him stand out in the first film. I would like to see Pine experiment more with villain roles, as It felt like he was having the time of his life in this role. The storyline certainly could've used a re-draft as it's just not viable that people are fighting tooth and nail for this product that is basically just a typical showerhead. It's even more of a stretch that these three idiots who couldn't agree on a shopping list, let alone an actual kidnapping can create a multi million dollar company and run it successfully. The character change is probably the only true thing that i hated about this film. Sudeikis just feels wasted, as i feel he has the most comedic potential of the three men. Surprisingly, one thing i found noteworthy about the film was the soundtrack. Other than Katy Perry's "Roar" which is played up for laughs, the film is shot with adrenaline from the plan devising moments of The Heavy's "How You Like Me Now" to the fast paced car chase scenes of Timbaland's "Throw It On Me". If director Sean Anders does one thing right, it's the perfect complimentary toe tapping tunes to match his scenes. Overall, i think "Horrible Bosses 2" is an acceptable sequel to a film that is clearly much better. It's nothing extraordinary and will probably be forgettable in a couple of years, the comedy does take risks that payoff without being as dark as the original. I recommend it for a nice night at home.
- How To Train Your Dragon 2 - 8.5/10 - One of the best all around animated films that i have ever seen. This might come off as a boring review because i simply have nothing bad to say about the film. Beautifully animated, powefully in depth characters, and war scenes that remind me of Lord of the Rings. I will explain more within the review. How To Train Your Dragon 2 picks up where the 2010 original left off with dragons and humans living in perfect harmony. Hiccup (Voiced by Jay Baruchel) and Toothless are best friends flying through the land side by side when the dragon population is threatened by Drago (Possibly the best voice casting of DJimon Hounsou), a vicious ship master who befriends the Alpha Dragon who commands the other dragons telepathically. Drago is absolutely the most menacing villain that i have ever seen in a Dreamworks film. His actions are never limited, and he shows no fear what so ever when dealing with his enemies. He is the perfect villain to go toe to toe with the viking community. It's not often where you get a villain who you can't wait to see them get what they deserve, but Drago takes us back to the characters that terrorized our childhoods. The rest of the voicing is casted perfectly with performances by Gerard Butler, Jonah Hill, and the newest addition, Cate Blanchett as Hiccup's mother, Valka. It was perfect to introduce a character like Valka because it showed us more of the backstory from our main character, but also introduced us to a romance that is so beautifully written between her and Stoick that it will make romance genre films in 2014 weak by comparison. I never thought i would be talking about chemistry in a voiced only film, but the magic between Butler and Blanchett carries the movie into a war scene that carries the pace perfectly. In those war scenes, the camera shots are dominated by artfully colored dragons that stretch as far as the eye can see. However, it's the little things that amazed me the most about Dreamworks latest masterpiece in the world of animation. The things like the volume of a characters beard, movement of water, and distinguishing marks on a characters skin. It's impressive to see how far we have come from the days of Shrek. I can only imagine the future of Dreamworks in 5 years. I mentioned before how i don't have much negatively to say about this film and that is because everything clicks on all cylinders. It's clear to see that they didn't make a movie too quick (Planes, Cars) and actually took 4 long years before making a sequel that could live up to the great original. In my opinion, not only does this film live up to the original, but it soars a lot higher. It's no secret that i am not a big fan of animated sequels, but this film actually has a great chance to match up against Toy Story for the best animated trilogy of all time. It's that good, and director Dean Deblois is the perfect person for the job if there was a 3rd film. Besides the Dragon films, he made Mulan which is one of my all time favorite Disney films. Dean's masterpiece (in my opinion) comes in the form of Dragon 2 though. He has taken animated characters and dragons that rarely ever say anything and made them relatable. It shows movies like Cars and Planes that you don't have to make these material things human for people to relate to them. Rely on emotion and the crowd will come to the theater in dozens. The last three weeks have been amazing for movies. It's rare that we have a time where 80% of the films out are at least good or better. This really is a good time to get to the movies, and if you have a family then this is the film for you. It's got something that even the adults will find well produced. I hope the kids will enjoy it because for once they aren't treated like idiots. They are getting a look at real characters that we meet in our everyday lives, and that is what pays off the most for How to Train Your Dragon 2. A very inspiring piece of escapism that is among the year's best not only in animated, but in film in general.
- If I Stay - 5/10 - Chloe Moretz is a teenage girl stuck at a crisis between life or death after a car wreck severely injures her and kills the rest of her family. Her choice is to live to stay with her grandparents and boyfriend or die and never go through any of the pain of being alone. If I Stay is full of good stand alone performances most notably from Moretz. This is the role that gives her the biggest transformation in her young career.The problem is that the performances aren't enough to support a script that is full of situations and characters who are hard to relate to. That alone can ruin such deep performances. The option of living or dying didn't seem that tough to me even for her whole family passing. Mia (Moretz) isn't suicidal, she is a Juliard accepted Cello player, and she has a boyfriend who she is madly in love with. What does death solve in this question? Why is this decision so hard? The relationship with her boyfriend (Jamie Blackley) is another problem i had with the film. A female viewer might view things differently, but i found Adam to be controlling and unsupportive. He seemed to only care about himself which came across as arrogant even for a teenager. Their relationship doesn't cast the best light for their chemistry, and every dialogue scene is met with extreme awkwardness. Going back to what i said about the question, i feel like this film would've been better if Moretz was suicidal or very depressed. She is a character who hasn't lived life outside of Portland, so i can't imagine why we are put through 100 dull and repetitive minutes just to come to an answer that never feels satisfying. Speaking of unsatisfying, the ending is ever bit of it. Just after the result is revealed, the movie just ends. We get no feedback from the other characters or no reaction....it just ends. What is most frustrating about this is that the character feels dead no matter what the result (No spoiler there). Some bright spots in the film were the supporting characters. Stacy Keach in particular is the best part of this movie. He plays Mia's grandfather who is literally on the heels of losing everyone he loves in one accident. You feel Keach's pain because he is a student of the acting game who knows what kind of looks it takes to get through to the audience. One of the toughest things to accept from these characters is that they live in Portland, but they talk like a Nicolas Sparks novel. No teenager ever talks like the ones in this movie. Also, very nice to see Mirelle Enos and Joshua Leonard as Mia's parents. They are very down to earth because they are the same people that Adam is. I wish we got more camera time with these characters and their close relationship to Mia, and it would hit us a lot harder when these characters die. Instead, we are left to fill in the blanks through scenes that would rather focus on her relationship with Adam. The soundtrack is good and bad. The good comes from cover songs done in a creative accoustic way like "Today" by The Smashing Pumpkins, or "Halo" by Beyonce. The negative from the soundtrack comes from the tone deaf original songs played by Adam's band. They play no less than four songs, and i wanted to hear a screaming baby rather than their awful tones throughout the film. When comparing this film to The Fault in Our Stars, i look at this as the weaker film because TFIOS knew what buttons to push to jerk the tears. It shows a relationship and only needs to focus on the strong performances to translate the real pain. I don't doubt that the ladies will enjoy this movie. I expect a lot of backlash from the female audience, and that is why i am going to recommend it to them. I have no doubt that this film was meant for them and only them. The male audience will get nothing from this. If you are going to see the film, i would wait till dollar theater showings. If i could say one summary for If I Stay, it would be that the film is just good enough for anyone who likes a tearjerker, but not good enough for anyone who doesn't like these movies to not cry out in boredom.
-
I, Frankenstein - 5/10 - This movie had the ability to be so much better than it was. Aaron Eckhart's latest role puts him as the creature himself from the famous legend. First of all, i had no idea Eckhart was actually playing the creature. I was led to believe he was Dr. Frankenstein. It is this casting alone that has a lot to do with what is wrong in I,Frankenstein. From anyone who has read the Frankenstein novels to anyone who has seen the countless number of films, they know what the creature is supposed to represent. He's a tall, slow and practically brain dead science experiment that returns from the grave. The character that Eckhart plays is the EXACT opposite of those things. He's quick, intelligent and even a master swordsman. This Frankenstein can do it all, ladies and gentlemen. Don't get me wrong, i love Aaron Eckhart but the man clearly doesn't belong in this role. For those of you who say this is a new take on an old tale, you would be wrong. They even talk about the events of the past films/books at the beginning of this movie.This film just picks what it liked about the Frankenstein story and leaves out the rest. Besides this, the film has cheesy CGI and laughable death scenes that haven't been seen since Van Helsing. Frankenstein is in the middle of a modern day war between gargoyles and demons. When a demon dies, they float to hell on a fire streak. Ya know, because fire represent bad. When a gargoyle dies, they float to heaven on a beautiful blue streak. Because blue equal good guy. I hope i came off sounding like a moron in those last sentences, it was intended. That's not to say that this film doesn't have good ideas. The story of the creature in the middle of this war had the ability to be a great after story, but because it never feels like Frankenstein we are never fully invested. The scenery is something straight out of an Underworld movie. There is nothing wrong with that, as i always felt Underworld had some beautiful landscapes with great shading. The fighting choreography is also beautiful in sync. They definitely had great intensity with every fight from countless amounts of gargoyle and demon armies. The ending is laughable (Unintended) and takes away from any creative buildup that the movie gains in the first 80 minutes. Coming into this film, i wasn't expecting much from it. I was a little wrong in that regards. I, Frankenstein is a film that isn't quite the monster that critics have dismissed it to be. There is a little something there behind the dead eyes of a nonsensical script. With the right casting and a little less overbearing CGI, this film could have been near the top of the list for January releases. I would recommend this film to a very small audience, and that is the people who have seen and loved every Underworld movie. I think you will get a kick out of this movie. If it's your intention to see I,Frankenstein, wait until the dollar theaters. - In Fear - 7/10 - In Fear grips like a full speed thrill ride even as the tension threatens to spin out of control. I was curious to check out this film if only for the 100% rating it currently has on Rotten Tomatoes, and it didn't disappoint.......completely. This film is the happiest i have been with an original thriller in a good couple of years. It stars two young adults who have only known each other a couple weeks and are on their way to a festival when they decide to get a hotel room for the night. Just miles from the hotel, they encounter a maze on the way to getting there. They take different ways at different times to get there but end up at the same place they started. I really enjoyed some of the chilling themes of this movie like being stuck in isolation in the woods. Make no mistake, setting is VERY important in a film like this. It's obvious that not a lot of money was involved in making this picture, so you have to hit the audience with ideas that can make the experience memorable. Alice Englert stars as female lead Lucy. It is in Lucy that we feel her pain as being stuck in the woods with someone she doesn't fully know or understand. When you really think about it, that can be frightening for anyone. The sound editing/mixing is also something that should be complimented in this film. The suspenseful score starts the engine, but it is the amplified sound that compliment the high speed chases the most. I felt like i was getting the most i possibly could out of a movie with three characters and a car. The last British thriller that i saw was The Descent films, and i think this movie is sooooo much better than those. As the film's 85 minute run time goes on, it is the darkness that plays the biggest role. Our characters sense a feel of panic and time running out with a car's gas tank. It's those little things that sneak up to the audience and hit you hard when you realize what is coming. The only problems i had with the film were a couple of the things the couple encounter during the movie. (Minor spoiler) With only one villain, it's hard to imagine how all of this stuff was accomplished. I also felt the ending wasn't entirely satisfying. It did give me a sense of pleasure, but not worth what these characters entailed. Overall, In Fear is a straight to DVD film (March 11th) that is definitely worth a look. If you like 80's style suspense that is almost complimentary to the John Carpenter feel, this is a good film for you. I don't know if today's audience will be completely satisfied with the film, but it will be refreshing compared to today's standards of shot on video (Or shot on shitteo, as i refer to them) films that are plaguing the genre.
- Interstellar - 7.5/10 - Christopher Nolan writes and directs perhaps his most ambitious film to date. With our time on Earth coming to an end, a team of explorers undertakes the most important mission in human history; traveling beyond this galaxy to discover whether mankind has a future among the stars. The film stars Matthew Mchonaghey and Anne Hathaway among the best cast of actors in a film this year. The film is a 2 hour and 45 minute epic that opens up the thought process on anything you have ever thought about when it comes to space travel. I personally enjoyed the movie......well, the first two hours of it. The film tackles every negative aspect about space travel from the theory of relativity and aging, to the vast temperature changes in different planets. Before i get to what bothered me about the final 45 minutes of the film, i will tell you about the things i thought were done well. First of all, the cinematography is bar none the absolute best that i have seen this year. The wide shots of the planets compared to a very small ship make the audience feel small in their problems even if they are facing extinction. Nolan has a way of shooting where every small morcel of color plays an even bigger part in the overall presentation of an eye popping shot. This was evident in his 2008 film "Inception", as he bent the way the human mind accepts a film. The sound editing is so crippling and heart pounding that i found myself getting lost in the characters struggles, and saw myself in the ship. There were many times when i had to remind myself that i was just a viewer in a movie theater watching these men and women with no guarantee they will ever return home. The score is a beautiful suspense builder, even if it is a bit repetitive at times. I also loved the realistic look at a bleak future Earth. A lot of films go over the top with gimmick products and imagery for future scenes, but not "Interstellar". It's explained some of the programs and institutions retired because of the current state of Earth and it's believable because some of our own agencies are facing these problems in real life. Meaningless Spoiler - It was pretty funny to see Major League Baseball still being played but in a little league ballpark. It's that kind of shock humor that points this film in the right direction. The acting is also top notch. Mchonaghey is definitely in the prime of his acting career after "Dallas Buyers Club" and the TV smash hit "True Detective". There is no stopping this guy right now, and this film kept his acting charms present while adding that family man we knew and loved with earlier films in his catalog. Hathaway bounces well off of him as the two have remarkable chemistry especially when dealing with the conflict of two planets to visit and only enough fuel for one. The movie also features Jessica Chastain, Wes Bentley, Topher Grace, John Lithgow, Michael Caine, Casey Affleck, and a surprise cameo that i will not ruin for you the reader. The acting is definitely there even if there are plenty of roll your eyes scenes with some of the dialogue. Some of the cheesiness felt more like those late 90's- early 2000's space films like "Armageddon" or "The Core" when it came to the lines that just weren't needed. The first two hours does everything i listed well, and it's during that time that the film's pacing is remarkable considering how long the run time is. So what goes wrong in the last 45 minutes? IT'S TERRIBLE. Not only does the film completely go back on a lot of the rules they established with time comparisons to Earth time, but there are so many confusing layers to a story that already has us barely hanging on. The movie takes on a goofy kind of tone breaking all of the rules set by previous scenes that were done better and explained well to catch us up on the Earth and the backstories to what got it to this point. I am not going to spoil a lot, but there was no age transformation on the faces of our main characters, but there was on other members of the crew. How is this possible? It's a huge age gap too because there is one scene where they spend 23 years (Earth Time) on a planet, yet Mchonaghey and Hathaway still look as young as they did when they started this mission. Another thing i despised was a robot character who follows the crew on this mission. I am sure i will be alone here, but i felt this character was so meaningless in the plot and ruined so much of the tension building scenes early on with humor one liners, or bouncing jokes off of Mchonaghey. It just wasn't needed, and felt more of a distraction to me than anything else. I saw an ending in the final twenty minutes that had me completely scratching my head. One thing i wondered throughout this whole movie was why none of the other planets were mentioned in the movie. In real life, it's been established that Mars is livable and would be the next best option if we ever had to leave Earth. Considering it's next door to Earth, i didn't understand why that wasn't the first option as opposed to a wormhole that is literally years away. Overall, i enjoyed the film and i can't say that i hated it, but there is too much wrong in the final act of the movie for me to politely ignore it. Some people will see it and think it's genius, but that is reflective of the two groups of people who will either really love this movie or really hate it. If i graded the first two hours, the film would be a 9/10 for me, but that is how bad the final act drags this movie down for me. If i were watching it again on DVD, i would stop right before the surprise cameo that happens. After that, it's all down hill. My final thoughts are very weird because i do recommend this film. I think it's a beautiful piece of cinema history that shouldn't be missed for the experience it is. However, i recommend you see it in IMAX or XD so you can enjoy the best of many technical aspects from film in 2014. This film should have a couple Oscars coming to it just from that alone. There is a chance you will hate this movie, and i do apologize. But i don't think anyone will be upset by the gorgeous spectacle in front of your eyes. The film is good, but can't compare to Nolan's best like "Inception", "The Dark Knight", or "The Prestige". "Interstellar" gives us the best in what has made Christopher Nolan one of the most demanded directors today. Even it's intellectual goals exceeds it's reach, "Interstellar" is a lot like it's director; one of a kind.
- Into The Storm - 4/10 - Tornadoes break all of the rules of nature and logic in this movie about a group of storm chasers who invade a small Oklahoma town on the brink of complete disaster. Into The Storm is a movie for anyone who thought Twister had too much of a star studded cast or too complicated of a storyline. It's another found footage failure of a gimmicky natural disaster film that fails to provide logical scenarios or impactful human drama. If i was from Oklahoma, i would be absolutely pissed after seeing this movie. It showcases OK's finest as redneck hillbillies who search for dumb things to do on the daily, and yet are so stupid that a tornado can sneak up on them. How is this possible at all? When we see the tornadoes appear, they come out of nowhere to surprise our characters when they are the ones with doppler radar to begin with. One of my biggest problems with the movie is the found footage gimmick because as usual it doesn't work. There are several scenes where you wonder who shot the scene with everyone holding on to something to not get sucked away from the tornado. You also wonder where they got such an amazing boom mic for a handheld camera that picks up absolutely no static from a tornado less than a mile away. We hear the characters dialogue perfectly like we are standing right next to them. This only adds to the logic of a movie that creates a fire tornado. Yes that's right, this movie plays off like one of Syfy Channel or Asylum's finest. No need for Asylum films to make a spoof of Into The Storm because this movie is a spoof. I am someone who shamefully liked 1995's Twister, but i'm not naive enough to think the film passed for good acting or good dialogue. However, it did have Bill Paxton, Helen Hunt, and a future Oscar winner in Phillip Seymour Hoffman. Into The Storm has Matt Walsh, the guy who was the paramedic for 2 minutes in The Hangover. As i said before, the action is the one thing worth anyting positive in this film. There is some major destruction scenes where they spare no expense destroying this town. I did have one problem while watching these beautiful action scenes though, and it's the one i go back to what i said 3 weeks ago. WHY ISN'T THIS MOVIE IN 3D???? Seriously now, a 3D film has never or rarely ever been done with a weather disaster movie. This would've been the perfect 3D film with all of the stuff flying by the camera in front of our very eyes. How cool it could've been to see a couple tornado's in front of us in the theater. I think the 3D and the well documented action scenes could've saved this movie enough to where i possibly gave it a 6/10. Without one or the other, this movie is as it stands at a putrid 4/10. I still enjoyed this film a lot more than The Day After Tomorrow because there are no characters outrunning cold in this movie. I feel like i am already paying this movie too many compliments. The pacing is laughable because the first half of the movie is about the teenagers in the story, but quickly moves to the adults because the kids are too stupid to figure their way out of any tough situation. The movie is not even long enough to leave a lasting impression even on the negative side. At a meager 85 minutes, Into The Storm is over quicker than some of the tornado's were in the movie. Overall, i totally do not recommend this. If there was ever a way for this film to be put in 3D on Blu Ray, then count me in for a 2nd sitting. If there is one thing that Into The Storm taught me it's that the Summer is close to being over, and this is where the hangover begins. The Verdict - IT SUCKS!!! Pun intended.
- Into The Woods - 8/10 - The woods is a place in fairytales where all things are possible, and that magic is reminded to the viewers every step of the way in Walt Disney's latest Christmas day release. "Into the Woods" is a modern twist on a few of the beloved Brothers Grimm fairy tales, intertwining the plots of a few choice stories and exploring the consequences of the characters wishes. This humorous and heartfelt musical follows the classic tales of Cinderella (Anna Kendrick), Little Red Riding Hood (Lilla Crawford), Jack and the Beanstalk (Daniel Huttlestone), and Rapunzel (MacKenzie Mauzy) all tied together by a fresh original story involving a baker and his wife (James Corden & Emily Blunt) and their wish to begin a family while working with a witch's (Meryl Streep) demands to break a curse to bear child. Not being a fan of musicals, i can say that "Into The Woods" touched even the darkest spots of my heart for the genre. There is plenty in this film by Director Rob Marshall (Chicago) to appreciate for even the biggest of haters. For starters, the set pieces and wardrobe were wonderfully lifted from the pages of bedtime stories we were told as children. The woods serves as a character on it's own in this film, and it's in that character that we learn of the temptations and terrors of an outside the village world. The Woods is easily comparable to our own real world where we all eventually take our biggest steps. The film has a couple of stage children in it (Crawford, Huttlestone) who may not be considered the main stars of the film, but between their impressive vocal talents, and the message of the film centering around staying a child as long as you can, more than gives them enough front and center attention. Streep is her usual film stealing self. The witch is haunted by a spell of her own, and this makes her relatable in the way she responds to other characters. Streep shows that whether it's the silver screen or the stage, there will always be a place in this world for her. Kendrick was also pleasantly surprising as Cinderella. When i first heard she was cast as the girl with the silver slipper, i had my doubts. However, Kendrick thrives on a sweet innocence opposite of a Prince Charming (Chris Pine) who is entirely her opposite. That brings me to one of my favorite things about the film. It takes those tales we know about and gives them their own twists and turns. Charming for instance, is written as more three dimensional than the "Perfect guy" that the animated features cast him as. Pine says a quote that is quite definining for his character. He says "I was taught to be charming, not noble". That line tells us more about his character than any other previous Cinderella story had for this blank character. Pine plays this cockiness marvelously too. Once i knew what Marshall was going for with this prince adaptation, i had no problems with the goofiness and albeit overacting that Pine inserted. I wouldn't be giving an accurate review without mentioning some of the musical numbers that kept my toes tapping. The music serves as the narration for story and characters that are always changing. Despite the film having a lot of characters and musical numbers, i never felt that either were too crowded. Some of my favorite numbers were "Agony" by Chris Pine, "Your Fault" by Corden, Kendrick, Crawford, and Huttlestone, and my personal favorite "Children Will Listen" by Corden. From start to finish, it is a must own soundtrack that never feels corny or repetitive by Disney standards. I only had a couple of critiques about the film, and they are mostly on the technical side of the production. The first is the sound mixing/editing. There were many scenes where characters voices were heard with no mouths moving. When it happened once, i ignored it, but this becomes more and more repetitive during the second act. Another problem came with the casting of Johnny Depp as The Big Bad Wolf. I don't so much mind the performance he gave, mostly because he is only in the movie for five minutes. My problem came with the overall design of the wolf. I get that a human being is playing an animal character, but could Disney at least make Depp look remotely like an animal and not a high school drama department who glued some fur to it's villain character? Depp looks ridiculous, and his dialogue comes off as a little too creepy for this tone of film. My other two problems happened in a third act that was less pleasing as it's previous near perfect first two acts. There is a death for one of the main characters, and instead of showing it, we get nothing. The only reason we know about this death is because another character says they saw them laying at the bottom of a cliff. The problem with this explanation is we never got a death scene, or a scene where this character ran into this cast member. We learn of this death out of nowhere, and it's quite a shock considering how much camera time and storyline was dedicated to this person. The third act goes on for far too long. The last 40 minutes of the film takes place after a spot that would be perfect to end the film on, but instead we are treated to the battle of Jack Vs The Giant. I'm fine with including this in the story, as it would be stupid to have a movie with Jack and no giant. My problem is in the fact that there is too much build to a showdown that barely lasts ten minutes. Some of the third act could've easily been trimmed to make this 1 hour 55 minute film closer to the 100 minute mark, and it wouldn't have hurt this film in the least. As it stands, those are the only reason this film got as low as it did. "Into The Woods" is a treat that the whole family will enjoy. I recommend it for even the non musical fans as long as they give it a fair shot and don't try to play the macho card. I loved it, and the soundtrack is currently playing in The Film Freak's house.
- I Origins - 6/10 - Director/Writer Mike Cahill returns with his most ambitious project to date with "I Origins". Dr. Ian Gray (Michael Pitt) is a molecular biologist studying the evolution of the eye. He finds his work reflecting his life after a brief encounter with an exotic young woman (Astrid Bergès-Frisbey) who slips away from him. As his research continues years later with his lab partner Karen (Brit Marling), they make a stunning scientific discovery that has far reaching implications and complicates both his scientific and spiritual beliefs. Traveling half way around the world, he risks everything he has ever known to validate his theory. With all of that said, there isn't a lot about this film that i can say without journeying into spoiler territory. I did enjoy the film and the original idea for the plot that never felt too out of grasp for the viewer. The topic of every person having different eyes is a theory that has rarely been opposed, but it's certainly a theory to think what if? I will always give an original and thought provoking film like this extra credit, but i also find this film hard to recommend at times. For instance, the movie changes tone twice throughout the film. It starts out as a sentimental love story, then does a complete 180 into a psychological thriller, then back to the same sentiments that started the film. The second of these acts isn't really needed, as nothing ever comes in the form of punishment to the doctors who may be recreating human eyes. At times it feels like the movie may have been subject to vicious rewrites and editing with an ending that sort of just happens without a satisfying climax. I was led on an everchanging journey of twists and turns with the plot, and it would've been nice to have an ending that justified the means of such a controversial topic. The material is thought provoking, but does involve a small measure of the suspending of disbelief. If you can get past it, "I Origins" might be the smartest film of 2014. Michael Pitt is always an actor who i felt deserved a lot more than the reflection of his filmography. As funny as it sounds, there is a kind of art to the small guy he possesses in all of his films. His character in this film is someone who loses everything, and then has his scientific beliefs challenged before his very eyes (Pardon the pun). It was also nice to see The Walking Dead's Steven Yuen in a small role playing Pitt's best friend and lab partner. The movie is very beautifully produced with pacing that always leaves the viewer glued regardless of the shift in tones. If the eyes are the windows to the soul, this film gives us a split second glance at a film that was good, but was one rewrite away from being great.
-
Jack Ryan : Shadow Recruit - 6.5/10 - Tom Clancy's latest adaptation stars Chris Pine as the one and only Jack Ryan. Jack has been a staple of Clancy novels and films like The Sum of All Fears, The Fugitive and The Hunt For Red October. The film also stars Kevin Costner as a CIA agent who acts as a mentor to Ryan. Costner is electric in this role that gives him an action star edge. With his future films coming, it seems Costner has decided to take a different direction in the films he does. Pine is great as Ryan. It is nice to see Jack Ryan portrayed as a younger fresh faced person coming out of college. Pine is the combination of intelligence and ignorance to play the Ryan character at it's all time most human. The film itself is decent. There is a lot going on in this film that people might not be able to comprehend with the quick talking wit of the movie's characters. If you are understanding when it comes to world currencies and foreign banking, you will pick up on this film with no problems. The action itself is fast paced with lots of high stakes on the line. Towards the end of the film, we learn that there are two missions for Ryan to solve. One in Russia and another on American soil. The Russia storyline is by far the best part of the movie. It is there when we really get to see the CIA at it's very best in solving terrorism plots. The 2nd mission is the one that kind of brings this film down from a possible 7 or 7.5. It relies a lot more on chances that will make the viewer roll their eyes and the amazing coincidences. The villains are a little overdone like all Clancy novels, but we don't spend a lot of time getting to know them. Ryan is definitely the main focus here with quick moves and a relationship with a beautiful woman (Keira Knightley) that is hanging in the balance. He is torn between doing his job and telling her what he does for a living. Shadow Recruit is a great film for anyone who enjoys Clancy's novels or the fast paced American action film. Anyone else will feel left out when it comes to what is really at stake in this film. I enjoyed it, but i feel it can wait until rental.
- Jersey Boys - 7.5/10 - Clint Eastwood directs this big screen adaptation of the Tony Award winning musical that tells the story of four friend musicians who came together to form the smash 60's group The Four Seasons. This movie was everything and more to a viewer like me who doesn't know much about The Four Seasons other than their music catalog. It's not afraid to get dirty with the behind the scenes problems of guitar player and band founder, Tommy Devito. The thing i find the most impressive about Jersey Boys is that it takes the actors from the Broadway stage and puts them in the film. To me, Broadway acting and film acting are two different spectrums, so to have this great cast of John Lloyd Young, Erich Bergen, Michael Lomenda and Vincent Piazza really hit it out of the park, it's extraordinary. These men were born to play these characters from the enchanted musical numbers to the attitudes that every member brings to the stage. Piazza in particular really impressed me as Tommy Devito, a man whose borrowing problems really put the band in an awkward situation that would normally kill other bands. Young is also outstanding as Frankie Valli. Some of his parts are a little corny with the dialogue, but i realize that in the 50's and 60's that was the times. It's even more impressive that these actors recorded their own versions to classic hits like Big Girls Don't cry, Sherrie, and Rag Doll. They sound very beautiful being restored to perfect crisp audio with today's sound technology. The story itself is told very well with the narrative feel of the four characters. It never gets overdone with the way they look into the camera because that was one of the selling points of the original play. It's each character telling their side of the story. One of the things that always brings me down about musicals is when the song is performed in an unlikely situation. Take Grease for instance. 10 badass guys in a group singing about summer love at the top of their lungs on a set of bleachers. Jersey Boys doesn't have this problem as every musical number is set during a stage performance. The cinematography is done well, but it's the wardrobe that really gives this movie the 60's feel. Everyone is dressed accordingly with old button up suits for the guys, and long dresses for the ladies.. It almost feels like a Scorsese film with it's glossy kind of look complete with wide shots of wet streets. The very few criticisms i have of the movie are so small that it didn't really take much away for me. The running time is a little long. During the last 20 minutes i felt like i learned everything there is to know about these characters, and just kind of waited for the film to end. Another thing is that i would've liked to know more of the backstory friendship between Devito and Valli. The film starts off with them doing odd mob jobs and playing in this band. We don't really know anything about them, and then are thrown into this right away. The story is about the band, but some background to fill in the blanks is always good to know. I also had a problem with the jump forward in time without explanation. One second we see Frankie marrying his wife and then 20 minutes later he has three teenage daughters. Some simple on screen text displaying "Fifteen years later" could accomplish this. There were times I was struggling to keep up with the age of the musicians at certain points, but it didn't completely tear me away from the film. The ending credits were also something noteworthy. They feature the entire cast coming out for one big musical number Broadway style that acts as a final bow to the audience watching. It really ties it together to where it feels like you just sat through a 2 hour play. Eastwood has shown that his place behind the camera to tell a good story is exactly what you get with him. With films like J Edgar, Invictus and Letters from Iwo Jima under his belt, Eastwood continues to fully grasp the kinds of characters he is presented with. The man does his homework and spares no shame in showing his characters at their best and worst. Something i really appreciate in a director. In closing, i recommend this film to everyone. I have heard that some people who saw the stage show first were a little disappointed in the way some of the magic didn't carry over to screen, but i honestly couldn't tell you either way. If this is the first time around in the Jersey Boys experience, this film does a good enough job to not only get the facts right, but also have a lot of fun musical numbers with it's audience. Jersey Boys is a B+ for me.
- Jessabelle - 4/10 - The most amazing thing about Director Kevin Greutart's newest film isn't the fact that he made just a terribly uninspiring film. It's the fact that this guy has made so many bad movies that they still allow him to hold a camera. "George of the Jungle 2", "Saw 6", "Saw 7", and now the generically flat "Jessabelle". The latest in the horror possession genre is about a girl named Jessabelle (Sarah Snook) Returning to her childhood home in Louisiana to recuper...ate from a horrific car accident. She comes face to face with a long-tormented spirit that has been seeking her return and has no intention of letting her escape. The film does have some good things going for it. The idea of a possession theme story that has touches of voodoo in it is perfect. I always thought that Louisiana bayou setting is a creepy one to perfectly set the mood. Some of the imagery is also shrieking in the same way that "The Grudge" did it. The compliments will stop there however, as the acting is thin, the mystery is bad, and the 3rd act is absolutely dreadful. We live in an age where 3rd acts in horror movies are used to being refund worthy. So what makes "Jessabelle" stand out with some of the worst? We feel like nothing has been solved and we just wasted 85 minutes on a film that had no particular directional decision when it comes to our protagonist. Snook has the ability to be a decent actress, but this role and it's laughable dialogue puts her front and center of the blame. Characters seem to change long before they become possessed, and we are never given the full details why. I feel like the producers of this film were banking on a sequel to tell the rest of the story, but i can't imagine anyone will take anything positive from this with the exception of goosebump imagery. On top of it, this is another film that calls itself "Horror", but showcases no blood and little violence to counteract such labeling. The next instinct would be to not call this a horror film, but a suspence film. The problem with that is the movie doesn't have many suspenceful moments, and the ones it does can be telegraphed from a mile away. It never feels like it's trying to be anything than another decision on bad movie night. I feel like i have seen this movie seven or eight different times this year alone. These movies continue to keep borrowing off of others, and lack or originality will never earn you points in this film freak. I can't recommend this movie at all. Even for a dollar at the Redbox, it feels too expensive. There are plenty of better and ACTUAL horror movies that you could be watching. No answers equals no thrills for this mountain of a bore.
- Jimi : All is By My Side - 6.5/10 - During the toughest times for becoming a star in rock music, one man outshined the rest with his poetic stage presence, and guitar skills that were second to none. OutKast's Andre Benjamin stars as Jimi Hendrix in this revealing biopic from Academy Award-winning writer-director John Ridley (12 Years A Slave). Covering a year in Hendrix's life from 1966-67 as an unknown backup guitarist playing New York's Cheetah Club to making his mark in London's music scene up until his Monterey Pop triumph, the film presents an intimate portrait of the sensitive young musician on the verge of becoming a rock legend. The film is a bit of a let down compared to my 2nd place choice for 2013's film of the year in 12 Years a Slave, but there are certain aspects where this film succeeds; mainly in the cinematography. With Oscar season right around the corner, there is no better choice for film editing or production setting in the field this year. I have never seen a film done after 1985 that captures the essence of the 60's as well as this movie did. From the colorful wardrobe choices of bellbottoms and go go dresses complete with boots, to the smoke filled bars of England's loudest pubs. All Is By My Side takes us on a history lesson during a time when everything was right about music, and passion was heard in the music. The acting is alright in doses. I understand why Benjamin is all the fuss with his portrayal of the late musician, but i felt he was only visually excelling. To hear Benjamin sing classic Hendrix songs, lets you know that there is nobody better for this role. However, it's during his dialogue off the stage where the character sounded just shy of a Dr. Seuss character. Benjamin compliments Hendrix with this ridiculous rich snob voice that i can never quite understand where he picked it up. Truth be told, Benjamin isn't even the best part of this movie. Imogen Poots continues to keep accepting better roles since her awful 2014 debut in "That Awkard Moment". She plays the girl responsible for discovering Hendrix in a New York club, and Keith Richards ex girlfriend, Linda. Poots explores her acting versatility in a role that is perfect for her brand of spunky. The problem with her situation is that right when her character is about to take off, we don't see her again until the final twenty minutes of the movie. Another problem i had with the film was the storytelling itself. I am OK with a movie that wants to focus more on the pre celebrity of Hendrix, but his biggest struggles came after he hit it big, and that is really what the film is missing. That shot of adrenaline that could really float this film into an Oscar heavyweight is missing. There are hints at a shattered childhood complete with an emotionally long distance relationship with Jimi's father, but the movie never expores it. Going through this storyline would've brought out more than just a charasmatic smile for Benjamin, and might have launched him into the stratosphere as a music to movie crossover star. Instead, Jimi : All Is By My Side is an alright film that has us begging for the story to continue on even further. When the credits roll, we feel like we have watched a good film, but not a great one. That might be the biggest tragedy in the story of one of rock music's greatest legends. I would recommend it on DVD for anyone who is a Hendrix fan. Anyone else won't find much magic in this telling.
- John Wick - 7/10 - Keanu Reeves gives a triumphant return to the genre that made him a star in the early 90's. John Wick is the story of An ex-hitman coming out of retirement to track down the gangsters that took everything from him. Aside from a very detailed back story, the film is stylishly violent with a lot of beautifully choreographed fight scenes. Reeves gives arguably his most impressive performance since The Matrix Trilogy as the title character in question. Reeves has the history of sleeping through movie roles that could take that particular film to a higher place. Luckily, this isn't the problem in this film. He legitimately gives some great line reads in a heart pounding acting performance. He was born to play a character like Wick because subliminally he can relate to a character who lost everything and retired from the genre that he was known for. It's not just a comeback for the character, but for Reeves as well. One thing that does worry me about this film aside from it's movie title (See Jack Reacher), is that i worry enough people won't see the movie to change their opinions on Keanu. John Leguizamo also stops by to make a five minute paycheck. His role is that of a guidance counselor to open the eyes of the consequences coming to the gangsters who just messed with the wrong man. John Wick is a story that anyone can get behind because it's a revenge tale. We all like to see those characters so bad to the bone that it makes you grit your teeth whenever they are on film. We also like to see them get served, and served they do. Over the course of this 94 minute film, Wick avenges himself with loud gun play, and some of the best fight scenes i have seen in 2014. One thing in particular that I really found original about the movie was it shows what happens AFTER the fight scenes. You always see this violence in films and wonder who has to clean those bodies and blood splats up. Well, in this one, there is an all black wearing crew who get it done. There is a montage scene dedicated to their cleanup, and I found something very different and refreshing about it. There were two things that i had a problem with in the movie. The first deals with suspension of disbelief. For those of you who have seen the trailer, you know that one of the gangsters wants to buy Reeves car. Keanu says no, and this is apparently enough for these men to break into Wick's house and take his car anyway. Wick is thought of as a hero for this gangster family, and not only do i think the car is a dumb reason to break into a house and risk your identity, but i also find it hard to believe that no one in this family told this kid who John Wick was before he and his four men broke into the house. The only other problem i had with the film was most of the second act turning into a comedy act. The first act is overwhelmingly a dark shoot em up story. It's grittyness in stylish violent nature is what makes you take this film seriously. During the second act however, that changes. They decide to use this time for some comedic banter between Wick and the people hired to assassinate him. Most people won't have a problem with this area, but i just don't feel that comedy works in a film with such a dark plot. Luckily, the 3rd and final act takes the movie back to where it belonged with an unapologetic finale. I recommend this movie for anyone who is a Keanu Reeves fan, and is dying for him to get back into action films. John Wick won't leave any kind of lasting impression one year from now, but it's mysterious and legendary presence for it's main character is what sets a beautiful tone for a Reeves comeback a long time in the making.
- Kids For Cash - 9.5/10 - Ladies and gentlemen, i give you an early favorite for film of the year. It's very rare that a documentary will hit me in such a way that Kids For Cash does. That's not to say that i don't enjoy documentaries, but when compared to the year's best screenplay films, it never adds up. I think that is about to change with this enraging documentary about the 2007 Kids For Cash scandal that saw many innocent kids under the age of 18 go to jail for minor offenses. The film explores the huge holes in the American legal system and how we are one of the only countries to have no revisions to our original juvenile legal system. This is a film that i feel every parent should watch because it's about those times when being our children's protectors is taken from us due to corruption and greed. The story focuses mostly on two judges from Pennsylvania who accepted a 2.2 million dollar bribe from a prison owner to fill his prison in order to get a new prison built and more funding coming through the doors. The judges in question are Mark Ciavarella and Michael Conahan. One thing that really impresses me about the story that director Robert May tries to tell is that he tells it with both sides debating their points. Ciavarella and Conahan are each given their time to explain why they accepted the bribes that they did, and the only small points that they did wrong. It's interesting that they take no blame what so ever in sending these kids away and ruining their lives for small things like a stolen bike that the child had no idea was stolen property, a girl creating a fake Myspace page, and a kid getting in a fight at school. While watching this film, you will absolutely despise these two judges and there is no way around that. Without spoiling too much, i can say that one result of a child in particular will get you to the point that you feel like you are this boy's parent and fighting and yelling against Ciavarella. I am getting off topic, but i promise you that the film itself is very stylishly shot. Screen text throughout the film will always keep the reader side by side with where the story is headed even if you don't fully understand the legal mumbo jumbo of the lawyers and judges, respectively. There are lots of legal information about ours and other countries around the world when discussing child punishment laws. It paints the picture that even though we are one of the most lucrative countries in the world, and one of the most powerful, we are still years behind on a perfect system. The zero tolerance policy is not a system that will ever work well for children because you can't compare them to adult criminals. The film goes as far as to explain that the teenage mind will never be fully developed when a child makes a terrible choice. They are literally still being molded into the people they will become one day, and grouping them with murderers and rapists probably isn't the most logical choice. The background score is done very beautifully as well with lots of mellow tones to accomodate the parents when they tell the horrors of what their children went through. The ending credits are played off to a child choir singing Creep by Radionhead. This is quite appropriate for two reasons. The first is the sad tone coming from the choir voices, and the second is that it's during that song we learn the fate of the two judges. In his directoral debut, Robert May examines hard hitting details as a result of over a decade of interviews. This is a film that wasn't made in a year and you have to respect that with how fast films are thrown at the public in the course of a year. Kids for Cash does what any great advocacy doc does: give you the cold hard facts to get you angry and make you want to pay attention so that something like this never happens again. It's a cruel look at a crime that will never happen again, but baffle you that it ever happened in the first place. No parent can miss Kids For Cash. I am glad that after a 5 month wait i was finally able to catch this film on Amazon Instant Video. INCREDIBLE.
- Kill The Messenger - 7/10 - If there was ever a title more suited for a movie this year, then i don't know it. Kill The Messenger is unapologetic in not only the education it serves, but also the consequences for our main character. Jeremy Renner ("The Bourne Legacy") leads an all-star cast in a dramatic thriller based on the remarkable true story of Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Gary Webb. Webb stumbles onto a story which leads to the shady origins of the men who started the crack epidemic on the nation's streets...and further alleges that the CIA was aware of major dealers who were smuggling cocaine into the U.S., and using the profits to arm rebels fighting in Nicaragua. Despite warnings from drug kingpins and CIA operatives to stop his investigation, Webb keeps digging to uncover a conspiracy with explosive implications. Renner continues to show why he is a two time Academy Award nominee with another intense performance as Webb. It's an interesting role because it's not just about the triumphs of Gary, but the tragedies as well. Each act of this film is served into different territories of the story. The first act educates the audience into foreign policy with drug trafficking and the events of our own higher ups during the Nixon Administration. The second act reveals the consequences of Webb's actions to shining a light on the war going on in our own urban streets. The third act fizzles the story out a little bit as this feels like a film that doesn't quite know where to start it's ending credits. I was very thankful for the real life documentary style footage not only used during the film, but for the impact that Webb had on the African American community after dropping the bomb. This felt like the perfect time to reveal a film like this, and i'm kind of discouraged that it's only playing in one theater in my county. I compare the film a lot to Oliver Stone's "JFK" for many reasons, but one big difference is that i left JFK feeling like this was just the beginning in the war against corruption. In Kill The Messenger, i felt like there was a lot of evidence placed on the table by Webb, but no one was interested in picking up the pieces because of the consequences of standing against such a powerful entity. We all know there is more to the men and women who supposedly have our best interests at heart, and that is why i love films like this. Gary is fighting a big war ahead of him, and to expect the typical happy ending would be underestimating the methods of the same men he is trying to expose. The film had a lot of great editing mainly in the areas of supplying media coverage of the real life Webb story. Many scenes play like a documentary and not like you are watching a feature film. There were many times when i was taken out of the theater and placed next to Webb wanting him to find the next clue in blowing this case open. The movie also has a great cast even though not all of them get valued on screen time. Mary Elisabeth Winstead, Oliver Platt, Barry Pepper, Andy Garcia, Rosemarie Dewitt, Ray Liotta supply a star studded cast that goes on and on. Kill The Messenger will not be the most exciting movie that you have seen this year, but it presents a great American scandal in a light that were not quite used to. It gives you the answer first, and then makes you find the information for the proper question. I would recommend the film to anyone interested in education not only with the drug trade, but war supply in general. It's a real life narrative that explains the things we don't know may indeed kill us.
- Kirk Cameron's Saving Christmas - 0.5/10 - Perhaps a lump of coal isn't the worst thing you will receive in your stockings this year, as director Kirk Cameron tells us the story about the real Christmas and some of the symbolic meanings behind those objects. Corrupt with a world of commercialism, Cameron tries to give us back the spirit that should be inside all of us for such a joyous season. This shouldn't surprise anyone, but i absolutely hated this film. As i said before, i am not poking fun at any religious groups, but instead reviewing what i didn't like about the film, mainly everything. I don't even know if i can call this movie a film as it is presented in the same way a History Channel biography would. For instance, the film had an antagonist to go against Cameron who explains why Christmas is so evil, and what does the true christianity Christmas have to do with Christmas trees, Santa Claus, and Snow globes. They truly couldn't pick a more uneducated moron to fill this void of the outsider who hates these cultures. The guy has no argument to combat Cameron and instead chooses to accept every story that Kirk tells with no debate. What is crazy is that this guy leaves his own Christmas party in his OWN HOUSE to go outside and sit the rest of the night in his car. Cameron soon joins him and explains why he has to change and why he should go back inside and apologize to his wife and everyone. Keep in mind that this guy has done nothing to ruin everyone else's Christmas spirit, as they are all celebrating like a bunch of nuns with their first bottle of Jose Cuervo. It's Cameron who is being the jerk by telling this guy to change in his own house at his own party where he is bothering NO ONE. By the end of the film, we are supposed to see Cameron as this prophet who has restored the Christmas cheer back into the viewer. As i said before, the film just doesn't feel like any movie i have seen this year, and that's not a good thing. It has a run time of 70 minutes, and that is only because the last twenty minutes are so unbelievably stretched out. The debate between Cameron and Antagonist moron finishes up about fifty minutes into the movie, so what do they do with the other twenty minutes? Why have a hip hop christian music video with all of the zombie guests at the party. Seriously, these actors were so terrible that i was waiting for a ransom note to fly out of Cameron's back pocket. After the corniest dance off i have ever seen in my life, we get the final ten minutes of Cameron reiterating EVERYTHING we have already been through in the whole movie. He does this a few more times in the last scenes so the studio can be happy with a real movie run time instead of the 48-50 minutes this movie should've been. The camera work is absolutely hysterical. Not since the Sears air conditioner infomercials of the 90's have i seen such cardboard and even creepy shots. There are many close ups in the movie that make you feel like you are sharing breath with Cameron and all of his sweater shepherds. I thought it was weird enough to have Cameron in the faces of all of these people he is talking to, but even creepier when we are put in the camera angle of such recipients. The Christmas music is nice for those of you who like that sort of thing, but it becomes irrelevant when Cameron's narrations exceed the volume of the music. If this isn't enough, we get a black stereotype character, and it's the worst one i have ever seen. This guy spits such holy slang that you will find yourself yelling "SHUT UP!!!!!" and not knowing or remembering that you did it. I found one scene hilarious after the hip hop dance party. There are obviously 50-100 people at this party, but then most of them disappear when food is about to be served. There is only one table present in any shots of the dining room, and only about 15 people at this table. Where did the rest of them go? We dance you around like a jackass and then tell you to go home? The weirdest thing about this film is that Cameron is talking one second about how commercialized the holiday has become, and then supporting it by films end. He explains that giving presents are OK because that is what the three wisemen did during the birth of Christ. It's like the movie with the highest religious tones supports materialism, greed, and gluttony. I feel terrible after watching films like this for you Christians. As a catholic, i can relate to criticisms, but these are the kind of films you wish would never be made. Kirk Cameron is not casting that religion in the brightest of lights with such an unbelievably bad film. Someone should tell Kirk that Christmas doesn't need saving. It's whatever you decide to make it in your own home, and doesn't have an agenda. Some people have told me that they are waiting for this film to come to the dollar theater, and to that i say you would be spending a dollar too much. This film should be forgotten about without any DVD release. The world could be making much more important DVD uses like "Richard Simmons sweats to Lady Gaga" or "Bad to the Bone: Linoleum tiles". There is nothing redeeming about it for a second. Continue celebrating the holiday like you normally do. The worst idea you could possibly have is to let this has-been "Save" your Christmas. I find it funny that any guy who tells women that they have a role in the kitchen during Christmas time on CNN, can tell anyone they can save Christmas.
- Labor Day - 7/10 - I was very surprised in this film starring Kate Winslet as a mother who has her home invaded by a convict murderer (Josh Brolin) and the adaptations they face during this unpredictable event. Brolin is powerful in a role like this because he can show so much emotion without yelling. I really enjoyed the chemistry between him and Winslet. They are two people who long for each other after years of different loneliness. Director Jason Reitman shoots some beautiful hands-on shots when showing what is going through each character's mind. I think a film like this could even work as a silent picture because Reitman is great at communicating with his audience. The film also takes place in a beautifully transformed 1987 Boston suburb. The film remains very truthful to the kinds of technology and food labels that were around in 1987, and no one appreciates that more than me. A movie can lose it's focus for me if it has a cola can in the 1980's when it wasn't invented until 1995. Labor Day clocks in at 1 Hour and 50 minutes which might seem long to someone who knows the basic story, but it's needed to show the advancement of relationships between Brolin and Winslet, but also Brolin and the little boy. Some problems i had with the film were few and far between. For one, there is tension in the final 15 minutes just because. From police officers getting a little too nosey for no reason to bank tellers asking Winslet what she is planning on doing with money she is taking out. It just makes the audience roll their eyes because there is no reason given for these things to happen. I also found it hard to believe that the police wouldn't look at the cameras from the grocery store. On a news report, they say they knew Brolin was in the store, so why do they not look at the camera tapes to see who he left with? Wouldn't the police watch those tapes and then find Winslet's address? I also found it very far fetched that this movie and the relationships formed in 4 days. Loneliness is a frightening thing, but for a murderer who kidnaps Winslet and her son, this just doesn't seem feasible to me. This may sound like i am complaining a lot about the film, but i promise that it's better than 90% of the cliche romance pictures i normally watch. The ladies will love Labor Day, but i think even the guys will appreciate the powerful story being told here. Give Labor Day a shot. At the least, it's a good date movie based on the relationship to root for in the film.
- Laggies - 6.5/10 - An innocently rich and predictable gem from up and coming director Lynn Shelton. "Laggies" is one part romantic comedy, one part slick comedy that keeps the audienced entertained enough for 95 minutes, even if we know where the story is going since it hinges on familiar territory. Overeducated and directionless, Megan (Keira Knightley) is in the midst of a quarterlife crisis. Rushed into adulthood with no career prospects, no particular motivation to think ...about her future and no one to relate to, Megan is comfortable lagging a few steps behind while her friends check off milestones and celebrate their new grown-up status. When her high-school sweetheart (Mark Webber) proposes, Megan panics and- given an unexpected opportunity to escape for a week - hides out in home of her new friend, 16-year old Annika (Chloë Grace Moretz) and Annika's world-weary single dad Craig (Sam Rockwell). What really works in this movie is the quick witted humor between Knightley and Rockwell. Sam has always been one of the most charasmatic actors in Hollywood, so he can make even the dryest of characters work. It's better when he has someone to bounce that charm off of. Knightley gives the kind of performance that makes you roll your eyes at her ignorance at first, but then fall in love with her by credits end. We've all been at that position in our lives when we feel like things can or they have passed us by, and the next step is always the most impactful. The comedy in the film works without ever having to prove why it's Rated R. To be honest, i still have no idea why this film garnered that rating considering there is no nudity and barely any language. Moretz is kind of wasted in the film, as this role feels to little a part for her to be cast in at this stage of her life. One thing that did bother me was everyone treating Knightley and Moretz like there was a 20 or 30 year age difference between the two girls. Knightley doesn't look old enough to be positioned in this way, so i feel like writer Andrea Seigel must've had someone else in mind when casting this role. When seeing trailers for this film, i found myself curious as to where this story was going to go since it didn't seem Knightley and Rockwell had many scenes together. I now see that the trailer was very misleading, and the film slipped into easy places as to what guy she will end up choosing in the end. That's all not to say that i didn't enjoy "Laggies". I think if the movie was ever on TV i would watch it just to remember some great lines from an actor like Rockwell who actually feels like a real parent. I recommend the film to fans of the romantic comedy genre. I think it's good, but i wouldn't spend money to see this at an actual theater, so wait for Red Box. "Laggies" is a post Halloween treat full of healthy subjects with a sweet touch of mentoring to give the audience an entertaining view to remind us that high school were the best years of our lives.
- Left Behind - 2.5/10 - A pilot and father of two (Nicolas Cage) plans on a getaway rendezvous with an airplane stewardess he works with. He is a pilot on a flight to London when the rapture hits the world, and millions of people vanish without a trace. Left Behind is the newest in religious propoganda films that is by far the worst of this film genre that i have seen this year. Before i begin, this review might be offensive to some who shutter any time i mention religious films not turning out good, and if you don't want an honest review, leave now. There are so many things wrong with this film that i worry i will forget about something. First of all, the positives. Nicolas Cage is far too good of an actor to do a film like this. He feels asleep during the film, and it seems like more of a paycheck collect for someone who had tax evasion problems with the government last year. He doesn't even feel like the main character in this film as a majority of screen time is spent on his daughter, Chloe (Cassi Thomson) and Chad Michael Murray. Murray is the lone good thing about this film. He plays a news journalist who rides shotgun opposite of Cage in the plane when half of the passengers disappear. Murray tries his hardest with his role, and it feels like he is happy just to be cast. The problem with him however is that he doesn't have anyone else to bounce off of to create good drama in a film that never can get off the ground. The acting isn't terrible, but there are many lines that scream out that this film will lead the film world in Razzie nominations this year. The action sequences visually look like something out of Sharknado with terrible green screen animation. There are points during the rapture where the people running on the street don't look real.I even laughed at a couple of parts because the same running scene played over and over. I could tell because it was a wide shot where the same man carrying a big screen TV grabbed a woman and ripped her out of her car so he could steal it. Another big problem with the film is that it brings out the worst not only in religious people, but atheists as well. The religious people in the film come off as psychotics who are pushing their beliefs on the non-believers, and the atheists come off as heartless jerks who can never just respect others beliefs. So who do you root for in the movie? What do you look forward to in a film that has no antagonist, so therefore no conflict? Sure, the film has the rapture (A terrible tacky one at that), but what happens after that? What is left for the remaining hour that makes you even care about this film? The remainder of the film is about landing the plane that has been hit by another plane and supposedly has no severe damage other than a clipped wing. I can't say enough about how unbelievable the ending is except that i am not stupid enough to believe even for a second that it's plausible. SPOILERS SPOILERS - Cage and Murray need a mile long stretch to land the plane, but they don't have enough fuel to get to an airport. The last hour of the film shows the two men trying to get ahold of Chloe their cell phones are getting no signal. Then, when Chloe is about to commit suicide, the phones magically work out of nowhere. Gee, that was convenient. Happy to hear from her father, she clears a construction zone road full of cones, trucks, and oil barrels. Cage can't see the road, so Chloe has to light a fire to create runway lights. This is stupid for two reasons. The first is obviously that a plane leaking fuel and flying into fire is probably not a good idea for the passengers on board. The second is the eight or nine oil barrels surrounding the construction area that Chloe has already set on fire. It's thinking like this that makes me think director Vic Armstrong didn't care how much sense it made because he knew the religious crowds would see any movie about preserving your faith. You people are much smarter than this. There have been tons of films like this in 2014, and they will keep coming if you can overlook huge plotholes and faults in a film that features Jesus tones. The biggest hole to me is the fact that the film mentions all of the children of the world disappearing. So i guess this means even the evil ones huh? Oh forget about them? You know, the ones who kill their parents or accidentally drown animals. I guess they are forgiven. So if they are forgiven, why not the adults? I'm not going to pretend for a second that i enjoyed any of the Kirk Cameron Left Behind films, but they were a hell of a lot better than this dark day in October. The only part believable in Left Behind is the praying. Not for the safety of the passengers, but for the actors who wanted out of this film or to be "Left Behind". Not recommended in any form.
- Legends of Oz - 4/10 - If i used two words to describe Legends of Oz, it would be "Uninspiring" and "Lazy". This animation film serves as a sequel to the original classic that transformed color movies on film. That is probably the only similarity that Legends of Oz has with the Judy Garland classic, it's beautiful to look at. Dorothy (Lea Michele) returns to Oz to save her friends from a derranged clown known as The Jester (Martin Short). Besides this being the first animated Oz film, it just doesn't feel like an Oz film based on it's whacky tone of comedy. Just because a film is animated it doesn't mean that the movie has to be absolutely goofy. One thing i loved about every Oz film so far is that there was that mysterious creepiness involved with every one. Last year's "OZ:The Great and Powerful" had it in the form of the sister witches casting their spells on OZ with creepy smoke filled visuals. In "The Wizard of Oz", it had creepy woods filled with an already terrifying Margaret Hamilton as The Witch. Return to OZ.......Well........the whole movie was creepy. None of that is present with this film. It feels like we are watching a basic animated feature that came out this year. There simply is no charm. Lea Michele did a great job as Dorothy, and her voice is all any casting director should look for when casting the main character hero. She plays through such beautiful songs as "Work With Me", "One Day" and my personal favorite, "When the World". The songs are lyrically beautiful giving the film it's only sense of adventure with the movie. One of my biggest problems with the film is that the Scarecrow, Lion and Tin Man are such huge characters in the first 20 minutes of the film, but then left on the shelf with the final hour. It's almost like their characters have to take a backseat to the new Dorothy sidekicks. Those sidekicks include a bird named "Wise", a china doll named "China Princess", and an army commander named "Marshall Mallow". The new characters don't seem to fit in to the characters we have known and loved. We wish Dorothy would join her original friends, but that time is never seen on camera. My biggest problem with this film is that i question whether Director Dan St-Pierre ever watched the original Wizard of Oz. Toto is a completely different kind of dog and differently colored, Uncle Henry and Aunt EM look NOTHING like the way they did. The funniest thing to me though is that this film is supposed to take place five years after The Wizard of OZ, yet there are fast driving cars and Dorothy hasn't aged one day. If anything, she looks younger than the teenager that was in The Wizard of Oz. It just all feels too sloppy. I feel bad for fans of a film that becomes as big as The Wizard of Oz did. It means that over a span of 100 years that you will get at least 5 or 6 remakes/sequels and nothing will ever come close to that original magic. I did enjoy last year's OZ:The Great and Powerful. It restored some of the magic back for Oz fans, but Legends of Oz took that one step forward and added two steps back. When fans of these movies are faced with the choice of staying in or seeing Legends of OZ, most will be forced to conclude that there is no place like home. Not recommended.
- Lets Be Cops - 3.5/10 - Two friends unsatisfied with the way their lives are going decide to take matters into their own hands portraying Los Angeles police officers when they are anything but. The movie stars New Girl Tv stars Damon Wayans JR and Jake Johnson as the comic duo. Lets Be Cops does nothing for their comedic chemistry that is shown on their TV show. Not much comes out in their portrayals of Justin and Ryan. The film itself wasn't funny, terribly paced, and completely didn't make any kind of sense in even the furthest stretched minds. For instance, Ryan was a college football star quarterback for Purdue University (Located in Indiana) yet they have a college reunion in LA. Did everyone decide to fly across the country for a college reunion or is this movie stupid enough to think it or we believe that Purdue is in California? That is just the tip of the iceburg with the absence of reality in this movie. Another factor is that if you can get by the fact that these two can portray cops and not get caught, they respond to every operator mission without calling it in. The cops never run into them while they are at the scene or the real L.A.P.D never stops to ask themselves how this call got answered when it wasn't radio responded to begin with. The film was 100 minutes long, and that was way too long for a story that is entirely too easy to begin with. The movie's awful pacing tells us everything that we need to know about our characters, the story, and the villains within the first half hour. The other 70 minutes drag without anything that remotely resembles a laugh in the slightest way. It's sad that this is the debut of these two stars who have made such an impact in the TV world. Wayans in particular deserved a much better script with a title that is anything but generic. The one positive that i took from this movie was the performance of Rob Riggle. He is an actor who usually sticks pretty close to the same loud comdedic schtick in all of his movie, but Lets Be Cops saw him take on the role of a 90's action star. It was such a fresh look for a character who makes you smile every time you see him on screen. You smile because you are used to getting ready to laugh for anything that comes out of this guy's mouth. In this movie, they let him play the straight man without demeaning his character in the slightest way. Because our two main characters are annoying and fearful, Riggle is actually the guy we find ourselves cheering for. The rave reviews stop there however because Lets Be Cops is just a terrible movie. What frightens me the most about this film is that New Girl enthusiasts will see the movie and even enjoy the movie because Coach and Nick Miller are in it. I challenge you the viewer to demand more out of a comedy that had every chance to be enjoyable and just wasn't. If you are paying attention, you the viewer will see lots of hilarious setups and payoffs that you have already thought of in your head. What happens is opposite of what you think, and it's a lot less humorous of a result. The ending is terribly predictable mainly because we have seen this kind of zero to hero movie played out hundreds of times. There are some cameos that add a drip of comedic water for an audience already thirsty beyond it's needs. Overall, i don't recommend this movie at all. As i said before, New Girl fans will watch it and like it for it's stars, but it's just not a good movie at all. It's sloppily made and just too long to push a genric story that comes off more as an action movie because it certainly isn't funny. Instead of being cops, Wayans and Johnson should've aimed to be entertaining. Maybe then it wouldn't have been one of the worst comedies of 2014.
- Life Itself - 7.5/10 - Film critic Roger Ebert lives again in this part documentary part biography about the life of a man who forever changed the film critic career. First of all, i am not a fan of Ebert's for unjust things he did while giving his reviews for a couple of films on television for the whole world to see. What he did wasn't important, but it's just proof that sometimes we as film critics can go over the line when it comes to hating a movie. I am not foolish for even a second though when it comes to giving respect where it's due. If it wasn't for him, i am not sure i would even know or care what a film critic was by the age of 15. Along with his partner Gene Siskel, Ebert became big after winning the pulitzer prize for his work in the Chicago Sun Newspaper and going mainstream with the duo's TV show. What i really liked about this documentary is a couple of things that you won't always get from most biographies. For one, the story is told in the present during the final days of Roger Ebert's life. He pushed through a lot of painful days after losing his jaw and facing several surgeries for Thyroid Cancer. This film by director Steve James is a view from a fan's perspective. That could usually get old quick, but James spares no expense at the hands of his idol by telling the viewers the whole story. Ebert was at times an ego shovanist who would pout until he got his way at a lot in his life. They also show the outtakes of the pure rivalry between he and Siskel, and those clips alone are worth giving this film a look. I can always look at a biography about a deceased person with interest, but i think it takes a lot more guts to give the whole story even when that person is gone. I also dig how the film will show a clip of a movie he reviewed and then show in text his exact words towards that film. It gives viewers some insight on the films he likes and dislikes and explains to you why. I also learned a lot myself that i didn't know to begin with including his marriage to a black woman and being welcome into a black family. It was cool to get that perspective from his wife, Chaz and hearing the opinions from the point of view of her family. Ebert served as the first positive white influence for not only Chaz, but her sisters as well. Life Itself is the title of Ebert's autobiography, and that's appopriate because the film has on screen chapter wording that take quotes directly from his book. One of those quotes and the sole reason for naming it Life Itself is because he always felt that he was the director, writer and star of the film that was his life. He said he never knew how he got casted for such a big role, but it was the perfect one for him. Life Itself certainly opens up my perspectives about the huge influence he had on not only his readers, but Hollywood elite. Sit down interviews are given by Martin Scorcese, Werner Herzog and Rahmin Bahrani. They paint the picture of a 1960's film reviewer who was always ahead of his time describing the emotions that he felt when he reviewed a motion picture. Herzog even dedicated one of his films to Ebert's memory. This is funny because there were numerous times when Ebert openly trashed Herzog as a director, but somehow the two were good friends. Scorsese even states that Ebert knew him better as a director than Martin even knew himself. As if you can't tell, i definitely recommend this film to not only fans of Ebert but fans of film in general. I think there is a story here that needs to be heard about standing by principles when the big money comes knocking, and appreciating what you have before it's gone. Life Itself doesn't just focus on a man's career. It is a full circle portrait of the way Roger Ebert lived his life, with thumbs up.
- Locke - 9/10 - Ladies and gentlemen, Tom Hardy has become a star. Locke is the story of a car ride with concrete boss, Ivan Locke (Tom Hardy). He is on a trip that requires him to leave his job and family for one night because everything will inevitably change. Rather than telling you why Locke is taking this trip, i will instead try to review this film without giving anything away, because the surprises are the best thing about this movie. There is only one actor in the whole film who we see, so i will just review Hardy's acting. He truly does give the best performance of his career and one of the best performances of 2014. Ivan is a man who has made some terrible decisions in his life, but he does what has to for them to be made right. He specifically says that he doesn't care if people love him or hate him, he has to do what has to be done. Hardy plays him to an effect of the crowd feeling every kind of emotion for him. We love him, hate him, feel sorry for him and scream at him all in the short 85 minute run time. He is clearly carrying some extra baggage underneath the hood (metaphor not for real) and is haunted by figures of his past. As i said, the film is very short, but i think any longer and it would drag on. There is only so much you can do when your movie takes place in the same place for the whole span, but Director Steven Knight pushes the envelope even further than i ever expected. Hardy is certainly a one man wrecking crew in this film and shows that he is very comfortable with the pressure and camera being put squarely on him. There was something similar to this with 2010's "Buried". In that film, Ryan Reynolds was in a coffin underground for 90 minutes. I loved Buried very much, but i think Tom Hardy is even more talented in the fact that he doesn't need to yell or panic for us to see the blood boiling underneath. For most of the film, he plays it very cool despite dealing with some decisions that will totally wreck any semblence of a life. The camera work doesn't seem like much since it takes place in a car, but i think it gets very creative with the way it shoots Hardy from every angle. The camera shakes when we the viewer know the lid is about to blow from everything Locke goes through. There is also a very excellent shot of the backseat when Locke is talking to someone who doesn't exist. The pieces are slowly coming off of this man's sanity, but instead of it being just another piece to a man's insanity in a film, Knight plays it to learn even more about the character's backstory. I always love a movie that reveals a piece of the puzzle one bit at a time. When we first enter the car with Locke, we only know that he is a man who works at a concrete business. Other than that, we have to learn the rest by phone conversations that take place in the car. That is why Locke is absolutely brilliant. It doesn't need millions of dollars to make a movie that leaves the viewer glued to the edge of their seat. What worries me about this film is that people won't like it because it's nothing other than phone call conversations in a car. To that i say you have to look deeper and reflect on how the pressure is built and built until you wonder what the outcome will be with this man. You have to appreciate how difficult it is to keep a movie exciting when there is only a one room shot. If people have a problem with the ending, i will say that i agree halfway. I think the ending is OK, but it is a little anti climatic. The answer we are given almost feels too easy in the first place to be accepted considering how much our protagonist has been through. Other than that, Locke is a masterpiece of a film that is already one of 2014's best. It is a must see for anyone who appreciates great performances with films that don't need the big budget or the crazy explosions.
- Lone Survivor - 8/10 - Director Peter Berg's love letter to the men and women who fight for our country is a tale of survival and courage in the fight for freedom. Lone Survivor is the story about Operation Red Wings, a navy seals unit stationed in Afghanistan. This movie focuses on Marcus Luttrell who was the lone survivor in the horrifying real life events that took place. This film doesn't beat around the bush when it comes to the survivor. From the title alone, you know only one person survives this mission, and they reveal who it is in the opening minutes. Instead, it chooses to use it's 2 hours to focus on the characters and their back stories so you care more when they lose their lives. The problem i have with a lot of war movies is that we don't find out a lot about the characters that the cameras follow. That leaves me with a sense of not fully invested in them if something bad happens. Peter Berg has definitely done his homework as this is one of the greatest war movies i have ever seen. Led by a tremendous cast of Mark Wahlberg, Emile Hirsch, Eric Bana, Taylor Kitsch and the always great Ben Foster. The shooting is deep in impact as it chooses to give us an up close look at the damage and rounds being fired. I was happy that Luttrell served as a producer on the film as he helps the actors really grasp the feeling of being soldiers. It is this reason alone why i wasn't 100% behind 2012's Zero Dark Thirty. The actors in the film never quite feel like soldiers to me because of the little things. My only lone criticism of this film was there being no subtitles with the Taliban soldiers. I think it's obvious that it needs to be revealed what is being said between them when they encounter American resistance. I have no idea why this wasn't included, but it needed to be. Lone Survivor is the best survival film i have ever seen, and i think everyone will enjoy this film. It has characters that you can really feel for, and that is something that any good war film definitely needs. It will be in theaters next week, so check it out.
- Lucy - 5/10 - Director Luc Besson is notorious for some terrible movies that he has either directed, produced, or written. His newest film Lucy is possibly the worst from a director always trying to make an artsy commentary about the human race. One of the biggest reasons Lucy is a terrible film is that for a scale so big, it will easily be forgettable in 2 years. Scarlett Johansson stars as the character in title. She is a woman who gets drugged after a gang deal gone wrong, and the drug allows her to use more than the normal 10% of humans. Lucy borrows a lot from the 2011 film Limitless. A film i liked one hundred times more than this horrible mess. The thing i liked most about Limitless as opposed to Lucy is that it's an original idea, and it makes that idea relatable by doing things that we would do if we could unlock more of our brain. Lucy becomes sort of a superhero of sorts with the most insane of visuals. Everything from erasing life around her to controlling other human beings to becoming a computer system. I have watched films with far fetched ideas, but Lucy presents it to where it's funny for all the wrong reasons due to vicious overacting. Johansson in particular i felt was miscast in this role. A lot of people will disagree with me here, but she only ever has one reaction to everything and that is her "I'm smarter than you, so i can treat you like an idiot" look. This makes the character hard for the audience to get a read on. Should we cheer for her because she is held prisoner in this drug? or should we go against her because there could be some very dangerous consequences to her using 100% of her brain? Besson never gives us a definitive answer, and like most art pieces he leaves it in the hands of the viewers. The cinematography and action scenes were done very well. Lots of CGI visuals that will make you feel like the first time you watched slowshot camera work in The Matrix. The way everything is shot is very eye popping, and that is why i feel like Besson has the ability to be a decent director. I get that he took a risk with a script that he really believed in, but he didn't do himself any favors by giving us the motto "Humans are wasting their time in their lives". I felt this way while i was watching this boring piece of slop. It's a film that is part philosophical, part action movie that goes from mayhem to boredom and to insanity in an instant. 82 minutes clearly isn't long enough to give the audience enough time to soak in what they are witnessing. It's of course new ground to all of us, but we are never given scientific logic as to how she can do these things just because she unlocks more of her brain. We are supposed to just believe because hey it's unfamiliar to us. I didn't have a lot of faith going into this film because i sensed it as one of those trying to enlighten the audience into the ways we are negatively living our own life. The problem with that is even if i could unlock more of my brain, i would live more like Bradley Cooper in Limitless than i would Scarlett Johansson in Lucy. It's amazing that Besson figures out a way to take one of the most popular female action stars currently and make her so unlikable in a script that doesn't show off her best side. It's not even the fact that Scarlett can't do weird independent films because Under the Skin was a riveting watch. She was impactful in that film without barely ever talking. Don't see Lucy in theaters, but if you feel like giving it a shot when it comes to DVD, then by all means. It currently holds a 50% on Rotten Tomatoes and i don't think there is a better grade for it. You are either going to think this story is innovative or very hard to sit through. Lucy is a movie that pretends to be smarter than it really is. Frustrating and far from intellectually engaging
- Magic in the Moonlight - 6.5/10 - Woody Allen is back behind the camera directing and writing in his newest film about a magician (Colin Firth) who takes on a mission to try to debunk a supposed psychic medium (Emma Stone) as a phony. Magic in the Moonlight sizzles during a first hour that builds the mystery to the audience as to whether Stone really is a psychic or not. This question is interesting to us because of the wonderful chemistry between Firth and Stone. They are so well playing against the grain of how obvious Woody Allen builds romantic interests. There was a point in this film where i really wondered if these two become romantically involved because the first two acts of the movie focus on their rivalry instead of what they have in common. I am totally for this, and if the film had a better final act, it would've been a favorite for romantic film of the year. As it finishes, Allen gives us too many false finishes with turn after turn that makes the movie feel almost unfamiliar from the quirky and cute magical scenes between our two protagonists. The ending is done in a feel good way that only Woody Allen could do, but it's too predictable. The movie plagues itself into that kind of inevitable ending because there is no possible opposite direction it could go. All of that aside, Magic in the Moonlight is every bit the charming fairy tale that asks the question if it's possible to give in to belief over reason. The shooting locations are absolutely breathtaking and serve as the perfect transformation into 1928 French Riviera. It's in that atmosphere where Allen creates the real magic of an eternal time machine through the lens of the camera. The setting makes this film feel like if it were black and white that it could actually be a Fred Astaire or Clark Gable film. Firth certainly casts the charm to compete with such Hollywood icons. He's one of my five favorite actors today because he continues to show that there isn't anything he can't do. This film shows off more of his comedic touch which is something he began his film career with, but hasn't had many opportunities to lately. He is extremely arrogant in this film, and only an actor like Firth can pull off a character with such crass and have us enjoying every minute he is on camera. Aside from Firth and Stone, the movie has a veteran cast of who's who in film history. Marcia Gay Harden plays Stone's mother, and pulls off another snobby upper class sneak. Eileen Atkins plays Firth's aunt and hasn't missed a step at all since The Hours and Gosford Park. The movie clocks in at 92 minutes, and doesn't drag until the series of false finishes. It's no secret here that the best parts of the movie are the scenes in which Firth and Stone are at opposites and try to one up the other. Allen's peak has always been to write stories that are just barely interesting enough, and let the character performances push it even further. Magic in the Moonlight is nothing different. Mostly thanks to the intoxicating scenery and the natural-light cinematography that flourishes in the French countryside, Magic in the Moonlight does weave itself a spell. It's a romantic charmer perfect for anyone who enjoys films of the past generation. I recommend it for a wonderful date movie for two people who appreciate style over monetary substance. Magic in the Moonlight is far from Allen's best, but it's the best punch he has packed in a very long time
- Maleficent - 7/10 - Angelina Jolie has given the performance of her life as the title character in a re-imagining of Disney's 1959 animated feature, Sleeping Beauty. Maleficent is narrated by the sleeping beauty in question, Aurora. It is from that point of view that kind of makes me question some things. The first is how she knew about everything that went down before she was born and even when she was a baby. How does she know these things? The common answer is that she was told them by other people, and to that i ask if we know that even this story can be true. That is one thing that is a blessing and a curse with these two films; you never really know which one to believe. It's nice to leave it completely up to interpretation, but for my money i think Sleeping Beauty is the better and more logical film. As a film by itself, Maleficent is a solid film that has a lot going for it. Lets get it out of the way first, Jolie is was and will always be the best person to play the queen of Disney villains. She gives us a performance that makes us yearn for her whenever she isn't on screen, and gives us some great one liners with her sinister smile to compliment. God forbid, when Jolie leaves this mortal coil, this will be the film that people will remember her for the most. It's easily her best performance since 1998's Gia. The direction of the film is also done well by first time director Roger Stromberg. Stromberg shows a lot of promise considering he has never stood behind the camera. The characters are all pretty well written by Linda Woolverton, and she has a lot of room to stretch these characters beyond their original means because this is a re-imagining. The CGI is something that i loved and hated. I loved it for reasons like the scenary and long shots of the beautiful enchanted forrest. The colors of fairies and lightning bugs give many shots of the characters a beautiful glow that particularly brings out the green in the eyes of Maleficent. The one thing i didn't like about the CGI is when it's pointless. You have many CGI animals in the form of a raven and a pack of wolves that could've easily been real. Wolves are hard to train, and i undertstand that, but i feel that too much CGI will take a viewer out of the movie and make the humans in the film feel like the only real effect of the movie. I also wasn't fond of shrinking actresses down to play the three fairies that watch over Aurora. It's a similar effect that they did in the 2006 bomb Alice In Wonderland. What makes little sense to me is that the ferries can also be full human size. The three are good in their roles when they play it in human form, but look almost too wooden like to be taken seriously as the ferries. I get that it's a Disney movie, but the ferries look like dolls when they are small but normal human beings when they are big. It didn't ruin the experience for me, but i wouldn't be opposed to more creativity when it comes to the look of the film. The movie is nearly perfectly casted with lots of noteworthy performances. Sharlto Coplay plays King Stefan drunk with power and a touch of fear for everything Maleficent opposes him with. Of any character, this is definitely the biggest 360 turn in direction. Sam Riley plays Maleficent's sidekick Diaval with loyalty to his commander. There is nothing he won't do for the person who saved him, and i can't wait to see more from Riley as i feel he has a bright future. Elle Fanning as Aurora was probably the only slight problem i had with the casting. It's not that she did a terrible job with the character, but the writers of the film did her no favors in getting her across as lovable to the crowd. She did about the best that she could have with the material written for her character, but i would've liked to have seen Jaimie King step into the role. She is an actress with a little more emotional depth to bring to a character who learns that her world falls around her at the mercy of a curse. The idea of having the movie shown from the perspective of the villain is something that i would like to see a lot more of from other Disney villains. When i compare it to Sleeping Beauty, i think i appreciate Maleficent more as the villain because of her actions and the personality that she shows. Even in this movie, she was still a very ruthless character when it came to disliking babies, smacking ferries and silencing anyone who gets on her nerves. I give a lot of respect to the writing of the plot with the only scene being similar to Sleeping Beauty was the cursed cristening. They literally wrote a completely new film that deserves a lot more respect than being called a remake. With some tightening of characters, and a little less CGI work, the film could be one of Disney's best live action features of the 21st century. I would recommend the movie even for Jolie's performance alone. If you have seen the actress at her worst, it's time you see her at her best. Maleficient is a story about the mistakes that people make and the guilt that plagues them after those mistakes. Recommended for a matinee showing, but i don't think it's worth a full $11 showing.
- Men, Women, and Children - 4.5/10 - Is better, faster, smarter technology what is best for us? This film tries to answer that question with some overbearing tones, and irresponsibility from characters who can never quite own up to their own faults. Men, Women and Children follows the story of a group of high school teenagers and their parents as they attempt to navigate the many ways the internet has changed their relationships, their communication, their self-image, and their love lives. The film attempts to stare down social issues such as video game culture, anorexia, infidelity, fame hunting, and the sharing of illicit material on the internet. As each character and each relationship is tested, we are shown the variety of roads people choose. Some tragic, some hopeful as it becomes clear that no one is immune to this rapid social change that has come through our phones, our tablets, and our computers. When i saw the trailer for this film, i was excited because there has never been a better time to expose the flaws to having such genius technology. What ruined director Jason Reitman's film for me was the ridiculous situations that he blames on such technology. I am all for pointing out the flaws in any system that has such a vast following in our world, but the movie wants to give the problems that the characters have with themselves and blame it on their cell phones or computers. An example of this is that one sophomore cheerleader decides to sleep with an older boy, which leads to an abortion that she never fully recovers from. Not sure what the phone did wrong in this scenario. If that's not enough for you, take the fact that each character in this film has the most ridiculous sexual fetishes that tries to showcase that every teenager is sex-only interested while he is having sex with a football. That last sentence wasn't me making anything up. There is a scene in the film where a boy drills a hole into a Nerf Football and goes to town on it with his bed. Another thing blamed on cell phones is the infidelity of a marriage. Adam Sandler and Rosemarie Dewitt are the married couple in question in this film, and their reason for cheating on the other one is because of how far they have grown apart. I don't have a problem with this overused storyline, but what is it doing in a movie referencing the horrors of technology? The film also doesn't have much of a score or soundtrack. Instead it casts these hollow piano notes whenever someone is going through something rough. It makes the presentation a very dry one that quickly dulls out. The film is nearly two hours long, and there was certainly enough here to believe that they could've pulled that time off without any serious pacing problems. The cast is certainly there. In addition to Sandler and Dewitt, Dean Norris, Judy Greer, Ansel Elgort, Jennifer Garner, JK Simmons, and Dennis Haysbert round out a cast that always feel more like character stereotypes of who they are supposed to play. Garner for instance is a mother who severely invades the privacy of her daughter. She hacks her Facebook pages, she tracks her cell phone at all times, and tells her who she can and can't hang out with. I think her role in particular is done with some brash severity, and it doesn't do anything to support the argument that the technology is the bad thing when compared to a mother who is mentally psychotic. If the film could've stuck more to the morals of teenagers underestimating the uses of their technology, it could've been a front runner for the best social message of the year. Instead, we get a film that feels like an after school special with a lesson that leaves people asking more questions leaving the theater than they had coming in. I can't recommend this film. If you have children, this film treats them like they are complete morons. Kids make mistakes, but the ones in this film are utterly ridiculous.
- Million Dollar Arm - 6.5/10 - Disney's latest attempt at the sports world is one that gives us a lot of great innings, but can't quite complete the full game. Jon Hamm Stars as JB Bernstein, a sports agent who is broke due to a lack of clientel. He comes up with a great idea to tap into India to find the next big bankable star after watching a cricket game. This is based on the true story of Rinku and Dinesh who became pitchers for the Pittsburgh Pirates. That however is not the most interesting part of the story, it's their struggle to adapt to a game they have never seen, and live in a land they have only dreamed about. Surhaj Sharmar and Madhur Mattal were great as the two ball players. They show the fear in their faces long before they ever even utter a single word. They have the perfect look of two kids who only have each other against a country that expects results quickly out of their sports athletes. The film itself has a typical Disney script with very little surprises. I am glad that aspect didn't ruin the movie for me though. It's the performances of Hamm, Alan Arkin and Bill Paxton that show the kind of fun that they had while working on this film. On top of it, we as an audience learn a lot about the way India views baseball. At first, the sports of baseball and cricket seem so similar, but there is a lot more to the psychology that Bernstein must learn along the way. Throwing a 90 MPH fastball is the easy part when it comes to what these kids are facing. For it being a Disney movie, it did take a lot of risks with alcohol, party life and even a little pillow talk. There are parts of this movie where it doesn't always feel like Disney is dipping their finger in the Kool-Aid, and i appreciated that the most. It seems like they let Director Craig Gillespie make the movie he wanted to make. His shots are done very well with capturing the work of the players. I am not kidding when i say that some sports movies do not know how to shoot the action, and the shots almost spring too fast at times. That is not the case with Million Dollar Arm as there are a lot of beautiful, crisp shots that follow the ball perfectly. I only really had a couple problems with the movie and they are very small. The first is that we are shown Jon Hamm to be a pretty decent human being for the first half hour of the movie, but then without the flick of the light switch, becomes a bit of a jerk by the time the players come to America. I get that Bernstein is going through a lot of pressure as he is broke and quickly losing everything he has, but it just doesn't feel like the character we have come to know. This is obviously added to create a storyline of him overcoming himself, but it's not needed at all. Another problem i had was the chemistry between Bernstein and his good looking next door neighbor (Lake Bell). It's is mentioned twice that these two never even talked before he left for India, but then a couple scenes into his time away we see them Skype chatting almost every night. This seems like a bit of a stretch for someone who didn't give this woman the time of day. Is she stalking him? If so, that might be another movie Disney might consider exploring. Oh the possibilities. The movie also loses a little steam by the 3rd act as we have already been through every kind of emotional rollercoaster with these characters. We feel spent as a crowd with nothing more to give. The ending is satisfying, but predictable. It's a bit of a shame that once you get through the journey of these players coming to America, you virtually have nothing else to experience. You know what is coming, and that is the true big weakness that Million Dollar Arm suffers from. Overall, it's not a bad little film. It did manage to keep my attention considering i knew what was coming next. I would recommend it to sports movie fans. I don't think it is as good as last month's Draft Day, but it's certainly a hell of a lot more believable. If you have an interest to see it, catch a matinee. Not quite worth the full price. Million Dollar Arm is a feel good tale, and it's proud of it.
- Mr Peabody and Sherman - 7/10 - The re-visioning of the 1960's side cartoon on Rocky and Bullwinkle sees our main protagonists in trouble traveling back through time to get back home. The voice acting of Ty Burrell (Mr Peabody) and 10 year old Max Charles (Sherman) is done really well, and the perfect choice to compliment old school fans of the cartoon. Peabody is a dog who is the adoptive father of Sherman. He is a very intelligent canine who tries to teach his son about world history through a time machine. Sherman disobeys his father when he takes the time machine out and gets stuck in ancient Egypt. The animation of the film looked very crisp and beautifully textured. Dreamworks once again scores on a beautiful cinematography that really updates the cartoon. One of the biggest benefits to showing this film over another animated feature is that kids will get a history lesson from this film. It makes learning fun by taking our two characters back through some of the world's biggest events and listing the time and place for those events. Many such historical figures are even brought to life to help the duo get back home. People like George Washington, Marie Antoinette, Da Vinci and even King Tut are given plenty of screen time to represent their respective era's. There were two things that i thought weren't necessarily problems but were very interesting about the film. The first is that the film really has no antagonist. I am sure some people will fire back with Mrs Grunion (The Children's services worker) being the villain, but she doesn't have enough screen time and isn't dark inside enough to pull it off. It's weird to watch a children's film nowadays that doesn't have an antagonist. The other thing was that for a film that was marketed as a comedy, it's not a very funny movie. There is some comedy in the film that will make you chuckle and that is mostly adult comedy. It's kind of sad to say that the comedy in this film really doesn't represent children very well. I could be wrong with different kids seeing this, but the children in my theater barely ever laughed. I think all of this is OK because it is still a good and educative film, but it's just weird that they marketed to kids and it didn't really do anything for them. I saw this film with my friend who is almost 40 and we both had a couple good laughs when the entire rest of the theater was dead silent. I think that has to do with the comedy that is present being too descriptive for a 5 or 6 year old to understand. Overall, Mr Peabody and Sherman is a delightful ride through the past. It's a story about our children growing up and having to let go so they can spread their metaphorical wings. It's also a story about being different and being OK with that. I would recommend waiting till DVD or if you can catch a dollar theater showing of it. It's a good film, but it can wait.
- Muppets : Most Wanted - 7.5/10 - During the first musical number of the film, Kermit sings about how sequels are never as good as the originals. While this wouldn't apply to the 2011 Muppets film since that one is the 6th and this is the 7th of the Muppets films, this one nearly comes close to topping the 2011 Muppets. Most Wanted has most of the Jim Henson charms going for it. Creative lyrics with beautiful melodies that are composed by Christophe Beck. One thing you can always count on in Muppets films is that the songs will have you singing them for days and days. A couple of my early favorites are "I'm Number One" and "Stick With Me". The films puppetry is also quite impressive again. The muppets are each given their own time to shine from the main story involving a kidnapping of Kermit to Walter, Fozzie and Animal figuring out a way to get him back. The storyline itself is enough to keep you intrigued while still giving you the subtle winks every time the outcome seems predictable. That is what makes Muppets films so entertaining; they aren't your typical children's films. I am 29 years old and have been a Muppets fan my whole life. Even as i get older, i find that these films still earn the $10 ticket worth. They are very minor reasons, but there are two things that keep this from equaling the magic of the 2011 film. The first is that i didn't laugh as much during this film. I think there is nothing really wrong with that, but this film was filled more with it's sentimental moments. When i watch The Muppets, i am in it to laugh. Most Wanted has it's moments that will have you repeating the lines in laughter. I can just remember the first film being more quotable. The other reason is that the on screen charisma of Jason Segal, Amy Adams and Chris Cooper just can't be matched by anyone in this film. Sure, Ty Burrell was born to be in a Muppets film, and Tina Fey is a welcome contribution even with a silly russian accent. But Segal was a fan, and you could feel that about that film. Burrell's buddy cop moments with Sam the Eagle were by far my favorite parts of the film, and i would more than welcome a spin off film with just those two. Muppets Most Wanted is definitely a recommended film for an audience of any age. There is humor, colorful characters and touching moments. It's a can't miss for any fan who grew up watching the shows/films.
- Need For Speed - 5.5/10 - (SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS) With the exception of Fast Six, this is the most i have ever had to suspend disbelief in a "Speed movie". Need For Speed is the latest in a film genre about the machines men love and wish they had.It is an adaptation of the popular video game series. Aaron Paul stars as Tobey Marshall, a mechanic and driver who is given the opportunity to save his shop by racing against his arch rival for a boat load of cash. Aaron's best friend is killed in the race, and he is to blame. He serves 2 years in prison for something that i honestly don't understand how they pieced the blame on him. That's exactly what ruins this film though, the fact that it has to brake every ten minutes for some other bombshell in disbelief. There were a couple of big problems that i had with the film that i will share at the bottom. If you don't want to be spoiled, i suggest you don't read it. Drive and Rush should have taught us that it is possible for this genre to produce good films. Those two show that the racing can be secondary as long as it has a great story to fall back on. In Need For Speed, the story is easily forgettable as we see beautifully shot chase scenes that will make the viewer feel the power of these muscle cars. The film also delivers two good performances by Aaron Paul and Michael Keaton. I had no idea Keaton was even in this film (Why has Hollywood been doing this with their trailers lately?), but he has the absolute time of his life as the organizer of the big race who hosts his own radio show. Keaton is quite literally off of his rocker in this role and i loved every minute of it. This film also had a pretty wide variety of cover songs that really set the mood for each scene. The best of all is a mellow cover of "All Along the Watchtower". Beyond this, the film is lost in 2 hours of mediocrity. It has no chemistry between Paul and his female counterpart, it has a lot of awkward scenes just for the hell of it, and it is possibly the biggest insult to law enforcement. Overall, Paul has always had great dramatic chops, but he wastes it in terrible film choices like this. I hope his choices are better in the future. It will be hard to get out of the Jesse Pinkman typecast. Recommended to car buffs, but no one else.
Problems i had
1. While doing over 100 MPH on the freeway, a friend of Paul's comes by with a gas truck. He fills up the car while they are driving at full speed. UMMMMM NO!!!! A car is already dangerous when it's turned on while filling up. Multiply that danger by 50 when it's going over 100 MPH.
2. The villain makes a threat to Aaron Paul on the radio show where he tells the world that he will give them 7 million dollars to make sure Paul doesn't race in the final race. An issued threat would probably mean jail time for a death threat.
3. Aaron Paul has a friend in the film who steals 3 helicopters. He goes to jail for these acts and then manages to convince the guard to let him watch the final race on an IPAD. I can't make this up people
4. (BIG TIME SPOILERS) The ending has Paul going to jail for 6 months for illegal racing. I guess they forgot eluding the officers multiple times, destruction of property, disturbing the peace, auto theft and assault during the final race. Smells like more than 6 months to me
- Neighbors - 7/10 - Seth Rogen and Zack Efron star as neighbors feuding in this new comedy directed by Nicholas Stoller. Efron brings his fraternity to a nice neighborhood that Rogen is living in with his wife, Rose Byrne. The chemistry between Rogen and Efron is incredible considering they have never done a film together. I feel like Efron has finally found his perfect role as a cocky fraternity leader. He is everything that you hate about crude college guys, and I don't thin...k the role could be better casted. The movie itself I didn't find very funny, but the movie works as a good story by itself. The comedy doesn't work because a lot of it are skits thrown against a wall to see what sticks for laughs. There were a couple scenes that had me cracking up, but it's Rogen's usual schtick. I worry a lot that Rogen may be turning into the next Vince Vaughn in the fact that he plays the same role in every movie. The comedy is ok, the characters are great, but this movie earns it's positive rating from a great supporting cast led by Dave Franco and Mad TV's own Ike Berenholtz. Franco and Efron could easily be brothers with their comedic timing bouncing off one another. One scene in particular has the two bouncing different names for "Bro's before ho's" off of each other that every man in existence will be quoting for the next ten years. The movie only comes in at an hour and a half, but it's clear to see that some scenes were deleted. There are two scenes in particular from the trailers that weren't present in the film, so there should be tons of DVD extras. One thing I didn't understand about the film is how the rest of the neighbors wouldn't have a problem with the loud music and debauchery. They briefly address it with the frat brothers helping out around the neighborhood, but that would never ever be enough for people losing sleep. I would recommend this movie for any type of crowd. I think this is a film that people are targeting with or without my review, and that's ok. I think that this film is going to mostly be universally loved considering the comedic scene has been more than absent in 2014 so far. Neighbors isn't the funny comedic joy ride that it was promised in the trailers. Mainly because all of the good scenes happen in the trailers. But it's a story that anyone with an obnoxious neighbor can relate to. That is the key to any film; relatable content. Neighbors has that in spades.
- Night at the Museum : Secret of the Tomb - 5/10 - The Hobbit series isn't the only trilogy completing this weekend, as Ben Stiller returns for more adventures inside New York's Metropolitan Arts Museum. Night time security guard Larry (Stiller) is on a world wide journey for the secret of the tomb that brings to life the famous historical figures in his museum nightly. It becomes a race against time when the lives of his friends are on the line, as the magic of the tomb is beginning to run out. "Secret of the Tomb" isn't without some memorable scenes (mainly in an ending that i will get to later), but it's lackluster comedic timing feels phoned in from a cast who knows they should be doing better things. I have only seen the first film in the series, but i can feel between the two films that the loss of magic from the tomb feels more like a metaphor from a series that at times has trouble deciding what kind of film it wants to be in the third installment. My feeling is that this film felt more like a kids movie, and that is the crowd that will enjoy it. The toilet humor, annoying noises from pointlessly coo characters, and character tirades that seem to go off on their own script. With the ladder, i mostly refer to Owen Wilson as Jedidiah the Cowboy. Truth be told, i have never been a fan of Wilson's work, but he is absolutely dreadful in this film. His over the top corny dialogue will make any parent chaperone add extra chores onto their child's daily take for making them sit through it. His portrayal of a cowboy is over the top for Fievel Mousekowitz. Other than Wilson, there isn't really anything too offensive with this film; just boredom. If you have seen the trailer, you not only have seen 90% of the movie, but you have gotten most of the bad parts out of the way. This leaves an ending that nearly brought me to tears. If there is one thing that this film does better than it's trilogy opponent this weekend, it has an ending worthy of an emotional send off. Robin Williams stars as a wonderful Teddy Roosevelt portrayal in his final film role before his untimely passing. I realized while watching the goodbye between he and Larry that it has a lot more to do with his goodbye to his legions of fans who remember the gentle smile of a comedy giant. Williams unfortunatly splits a lot of time with a cast that feels too crowded at times, but he makes the most of the scenes he is given. This film would've left me with a high note if it stayed with this original ending, however there is a second ending that ruins any kind of emotional grip that Director Shawn Levy casts on the audience. It contradicts all of the ground work laid by beautiful goodbyes for humor that is neither funny nor meaningful. "Night at the Museum : Secret of the Tomb" isn't anywhere near the kind of horrors that i have had to deal with this year. It's charm is in it's unity for a group of misfits that came together as a family. If Levy focused more on that element and less on puppet noises, this film could've been something above my expectations.
- Nightcrawler - 8/10 - The pressures to succeed are deep inside all of us, but no greater pressure than that of living under the stars of Los Angeles at night. Meet Louis Bloom (Jake Gyllenhaal), a passionatly driven young man hungry for work who discovers the high-speed world of nightcrawlers. Their job is that of a freelance camera crew who film crashes, fires, murder and other mayhem, Lou muscles into the fast paced, dangerous realm of the troubles plaguing the richest neighborhoods of LA's suburbia. Lou takes this profession one step further. Bluring the lines of truth for millions to watch. Nightcrawler satisfied every yearning inside of me for a scary tale this Halloween weeekend without featuring an unstoppable monster back from the dead. The monster here is every bit human and commits human sins. His drives are money, power, and recognition. Making the film's main character this relatable is a brilliant idea by director Dan Gilroy. The film paints those of us who watch these kind of blood wrapped stories day after day as the true nightcrawlers without ever truly feeling preachy. It's a sort of satire on those who perpetuate the kind of fear mongering by news stations to instill panic in their viewers for cheap ratings. Gilroy is surprisingly a first time director, but has such a presence behind the camera with LA itself playing a character in this film much like it did in 2006's "Drive". The fact that 90% of the film is shot at night isn't an accident, as it feels like that is when the true ugly comes out for the nightcrawlers to feast on. Gyllenhaal lost 25 pounds for the role, and i think the subtle meaning of his appearance does wonders for the backstory of his character. He looks pale and ghostly, and this gives him a hunger not only for a job, but to show that this character is living hungry in his day to day life to stay afloat. In my opinion, this is Gyllenhaal's best role ever (yes i said it). As Bloom, he is a fast talking businessman who is always processing new facts about the job he has chosen, and even becomes smart enough to use it against the same people who hired him. He spits facts at them to paint a picture that they let the beast in, and now they are stuck with him. Some of those door openers include a richly experienced cast like Bill Paxton, Anne Cusack, and the yin to Gyllenhaal's yang, Rene Russo. Russo serves as a love interest and boss to Bloom, and this makes for more than one brilliantly written exchanges between the two. I think the movie excels at it's best when the two are discussing deals with all of their cards laid out on the table. Russo has the biggest character change in the film, and it's interesting to see the difference on the moral battlegrounds that she started the film with, and then changes her tune by film's end when it comes to her survival as a program manager. The audience may have a problem with some of the footage that they use because it may seem a little too violent for TV, but there is more of a political commentary going on here from Gilroy presenting the blurred line of television journalism that keeps getting thinner and thinner. If he didn't use this footage, the message wouldn't be as strong when we see what our protagonist/antagonist does to get to the top. That is another great thing about this film; the good guy and the bad guy are that of the same character. This is represented almost in an "American Psycho" kind of feel to it. We know what Bloom is doing is wrong, but we can't stop rooting for him. I definitely recommend this film to everyone who gets to a theater this holiday weekend. "Nightcrawler" is stylish, thought provoking, and smart in the world it presents. It's one of the most brutally honest American rags to riches stories that i have ever seen.
- Night Moves - 6/10 - Director Kelly Reichardt returns with another social commentary on life. This time, it's about the damage being done to the environment so we can continue down a road of being spoiled at the hands of damaged wildlife and waters. Night Moves is a story about fighting for a cause and just how far you are willing to take that fight. Despite the poor grade i gave this film, i found it to be a decent film that had some problems filling in the blanks. Jesse Eisenberg, Peter Saarsgaard, and Dakota Fanning as three environmentalists who have the idea to blow up a dam to make a protest towards the energy sucking dam. I personally felt that all three brought something to characters that on paper could've been played by just about anyone. Eisenberg in paricular has a fire growing below that quiet exterior. He continues to impress on serious roles that bring so many dimensions to his skills as an actor. Fanning is alright. I will say that she has become more tolerable than her roles as a child, so that is a plus. Saarsgaard is one of my favorite actors in film today, and serves as a kind of leader for this group as a former Iraq war soldier who knows a lot from his time overseas. The tone of tension building for the film is absolutely perfect even if it never quite pays off. The film has enough during it's first act and into the second to leave you shading an outline for the trouble that this trio has in front of them that they have not quite realized yet. I think the locations of a foggy and dreary wildlife park and surrounding areas of an agricultural harvest farm inject a spreading of melancholy for the wildlife that we take advantage of every day. The film does have some good points and keeps the viewer well informed from the decrease of fish population over the next 30 years to the percentage of dirty air that will surround the trees that breathe natural oxygen. In that aspect, the film feels like a documentary more than a film at times. The third act is where the film (like most in 2014) got ruined for me. It's basically the reaction from the madness that these characters have caused, and i just don't buy it. The characters are of course expected to make stupid mistakes and act consciously, and that isn't my problem with it. My problem stems from the complete 360 that these characters do when the pressure gets too hot. I won't spoil anything for you the reader, but it's hard to see these actions happening when they were very cautious planning it out, and almost scared to follow through with the act. The final scene is kind of left to the viewer in terms of where these viewers are going, and a movie like that can be very dangerous because it rarely ever works. We are the viewer and you are the director, so we look to you for the answers and not vice versa. The viewer will feel ripped off by the lack of ending that Reichardt gives us, and that is why it's hard for me to recommend this film. I did enjoy it for the little things that i mentioned as well as a chilling musical score by Jeff Grace, but Night Moves feels like a half effort from a director whose message in 2001's The Unbelievable Truth cut straight to the point and did it for less than a quarter of the budget. I don't believe that Reichardt's best days are behind her, but i think Kelly would be best to give us more substance with the environmental facts next time. Night Moves is a thorough examination of guilt based on ideals, and how far we are willing to go to define the moment before the moment defines us. With an ending as powerful as it's first two acts, this film could've been at the top of the list for suspense films in 2014. If you want a film that challenges you and forces you to search for the right answer, look for it on DVD next week.
- Noah - 5/10 - WOW!!! So that just happened. After sitting through 2 hours and 15 minutes of Director Darren Aronofsky's latest film, i can clearly say that this is the most extreme interpretation of any story in any book ever. I hate to say that i can kind of understand why the Catholics are so upset with this film. That's not to say that i agree with them, but i get why they are mad. This film is INSANE. It's like mixing the bible with the film Apocalypse Now. For those of you who thought Baz Luhrman's Romeo and Juliet was an extreme adaptation, you now have no room to talk. Noah is the tale of Noah's Ark and the end of the world. Noah (Russell Crowe) gets his family and all of the animals into this wooden ark and Noah is told to do this to survive the massive flood. In this film, Noah is a murderer, a bible obsessive to the point of pure insanity, and threatens to kill his son's 2 newborn daughters. He even gets to the point of running through the Ark with a knife about to kill those babies. On top of all of this is the hypocritical point of view that Noah is doing all of this from the word of God, but yet lets thousands of people die in the storm because they supposedly ruined the world. Getting into a religion debate is the LAST thing i want to do in this world, but doesn't it say something in the bible about forgiving? Apparently not because Noah and God are quite vengeful in this film to the point of water knocking off people hanging on cliffs. There are also rock people in this film that protect Noah's family by blocking the people getting to the ark. The CGI on the rock people is absolutely terrible. It makes the movie seem comical at times when it's not supposed to be. This is weird because the CGI for the animals in the ark actually isn't too bad. They mostly use wide shots for these animals, and that is the right way to go about it. Already halfway through this review, i can tell you that there are just too many crazy things in this film. I might have to do an hour long video review someday Some things i did enjoy about the film was the fact that they did dare to do something different and entertaining for once. I just think they failed at the aspect of making it anything but comical. I also thought the cinematography was beautiful. Especially with the scenary and some amazing editing done during the symbolism shots. Noah occasionally has these shots when he is sleeping and hearing the word of God. The acting isn't terrible either. I think Emma Watson and Jennifer Connolly are good without having to be the main focus of the film. Crowe is about the craziest choice you could have possibly have had from a guy who isn't named Nicolas Cage. The film does start off kind of slow, but it's in the 2nd hour that it really picks up. Funny enough, the ark takes off with about an hour left of the film, so you kind of wonder what they could do with that time. That is when all of the craziness erupts with six people stuck on a boat all turning on each other. The pacing of their actions made me feel like i was watching an HBO show because we are predicting what these characters will do before they even know it.The ending is weak because they go back on all of the insanity they have created for a cliche ending. Overall, this is the craziest thing i have ever seen for an adaptation. I think a majority of the good reviews is because it's a story that people definitely weren't expecting.To me, it's very hard to take seriously because of the mind blowing events on screen. I would recommend this film only because there will not be anything like this for a LONG time. Wait till DVD though. If i have one big regret about this film, it's that i didn't have the option of having a rewind button to enjoy the laughter of the madness unfolding around me. Overall verdict - Better than Son of God, but only because it wasn't boring.
- No Good Deed - 5/10 - Idris Elba plays a murderous escaped convict who invades the home of Taraji P Henson and her two children in this edge of the seat thriller directed by Sam Miller. Miller does some things well in No Good Deed, but his efforts are ultimately a failing one that relies too much on things we have already seen in the "Don't answer the front door" genre. The movie being uninspiring is the least of it's worries however as the film clocks in at a measly 79 minutes. The run time serves as a double edge sword however, as it being short hurts the film from ever exploring the options that could make this film different. Yet, if it were any longer the film would drag from the rushed storytelling and out of nowhere twist ending that just isn't enough to save it. Elba is absolutely incredible as Colin. He is someone who always brings a presence in his roles that take a character much further than they could ever go with a second choice. His dialogue is one that builds the tension between he and the person in front of him. There are times when i swear he looked at the camera and winked from the amount of fun he is having in this role. Elba himself is a tall and well built man, so he serves as an almost unstoppable antagonist to the much smaller Henson. She is alright as Terri, but nothing that shows us that spark that she has had in such films as Hustle and Flow and Smokin Aces. Her character is too naive in these sitations that it's hard for the audience to ever relate to her let alone cheer for her. I wish her character would've struggled more against Elba, but it's because of the extremely short run time that these scenes and the back and forth that goes on between them feel too rushed. Back on the subject of dialogue, the film suffers from roll your eyes moments that make you wonder if a 5th grader wrote it. Elba is a female abuser, but they give him this childish dialogue that will always give you a laugh first, fear second kind of attitude. The creepiness of Elba to the other people is laid on a little too thick. It made me exhaust in frustration every time this guy would say something that should've easily been a warning sign and these opposites went about their day like he isn't to be taken too seriously. It's sad to think that the bimbo of the movie (Played by Leslie Bibb) is the one who sees through the lies and terrifying nature of this character because it shows that she is possibly the smartest person in the film. I wasn't NOT entertained in this film, but there was too much wrong in it and that is what will ultimately lead to it's fate of being never remembered two months down the line. The logic is just too dumbfounding for me to be anything but disappointed. Why did she let this man in her house? Why is there a board of officers even thinking about letting this man out after he murdered three different women for two different stints in jail? It did keep my attention, but that was most entirely to Idris Elba and the thought of what he will do next. The score is done average but appropriately for those jumps and screams out of nowhere. I can't recommend this film as anything but a DVD rental. But even with you giving these actors and actresses some of your money, "No Good Deed" will ever go unpunished when it comes to the way you feel by the film's end. In a society where The Fast and Furious movies are constantly breaking box office numbers, No Good Deed is far too unbelievable for a society that breeds the impossible.
- Non Stop - 7.5/10 - Liam Neeson stars in this thriller about a hijacked flight to London. Neeson plays a U.S Air Marshall whose cell phone is hacked by the person who threatens to kill a passenger every 20 minutes. First of all, this film combines two things that i enjoy. I have become a HUGE Liam Neeson fan. Pretty much to the point that anything the man comes out with, i will see it. I also enjoy the airplane genre (If there is one). Films like Flightplan, Passenger 57, Air Force One and Snakes on a Plane are ones i have always enjoyed. What makes Non Stop better than any of the films i mentioned is that it gives us characters that we can get behind and care what happens to them. It gives us an easy enough plot of a whodunnit with a surprise behind every corner. The ending will surprise 90% of the audience as even i got the prediction wrong (This means both of us Amy Stewart). The twist gives us a back story that makes sense with our villain. It's smart and most importantly, it's human. The camera work is also something that is very attractive to this film. It's very claustrophobic in which it gives us up close and tight shots that make us feel like we are stuck in a cock pit with Neeson. Those close camera shots also make the guessing game a lot harder for the audience as we get a lot of suspicious faces from the passengers on board. Julianne Moore is the lead female for the film, but i don't think she is a huge presence here. Her performance is kind of on sleep mode as her character doesn't have a lot to do. I was particularly fond of Michelle Dockery as the flight attendant, Nancy. For those of you Downton Abbey fans, you know her very well as Lady Crawley. This is the first thing i have ever seen her in, and i think she plays to the drama of a scene very well. She has the kind of eyes that really make you feel her pain. It also doesn't hurt that i kind of have a crush on her (wink wink). The only problem i really had with the film was some of the things that the villain was able to accomplish. Make no mistake, there are things you will have to look the other way for in this film, but it's nothing too drastic. I would have a couple of scenario questions for director Juame Collet Serra if i had the chance, but it's just the critic in me nitpicking. Non Stop is a slow build Hitchcock-like suspense piece. It's movement is a lot like the plain in which it's gaining more height with each passing minute. It's one of those films that will grab your attention and keep it as you want to figure out the big reveal before the ending. I definitely recommend it to everyone.
- Obvious Child - 6/10 - Former SNL castmember Jenny Slate makes her feature film debut as Donna Stern, a New York City comedian. Donna is dumped by her boyfriend and loses her job in a 24 hour period. She soon meets Max (Jake Lacy) and after a long night of drinking and debauchery she gets pregnant. She decides to not tell him, and instead opts for an abortion. Obvious Child is an exposition on the effects of making such a decision that impacts another life. The loneliness of Donna is well documented by Slate as she sputters out of control in every facet of her life while trying to keep the news away from Max. I enjoyed the film, but i think it's far from perfect. Slate is absolutely adorable in this role. She is a raspy dark haired vixen who serves as kind of an 'anti-female' that you normally see in a role like this. The film honestly felt like a Woody Allen comedy pre 1990's. It's written like a drama, but performed like a comedy, and it's a very rich blend that turns into a romantic piece by the film's end. The opening act of about 25 minutes or so starts very slow, and that is the weakest point for the film. The film shows a lot of scenes with Donna doing her stand up act, and it's not even funny material, so the crowd in the bar feels very manufactured which took me out of the movie instantly. Luckily, the 2nd and 3rd acts of the film pick up the momentum with the dropping of the big news for our main protagonist. In addition to Slate's charms, Lacy is every bit the powerhouse for a romantic comedy. His gentle graces were just begging to be put into a film of this type, and it's a script that reflects very well for his character. The ladies will enjoy him for being the obvious choice for Donna, and they will be begging for these two to get together. Gaby Hoffman is a strong female supportive best friend. She is the type of woman who has been burned too many times by men. She is a strong and independent woman who serves as the voice of reason for Donna and the crumbling of her world around her. Other cameos include Richard Kind, Polly Draper, and a very awkward appearance by David Cross. The camera work is done excellent with that independent New York feel with a cold setting that sets the mood for the tough souls living in such a city. A pretty standard musical score that includes songs by LEGS, Rare Child, and Paul Simon. Considering the film was only 84 minutes, they really made the most use out of the songs used in the score. The film's running time does bother me a little bit because in addition to the comedy club scenes, there are a couple of scenes that feel wasted. Had director Gillian Robespierre utilized the cracks in Donna's armor a little more, and trimmed the dull pacing of the pointless scenes in between, this film would easily have cracked my top twenty films of the year. As it stands, Obvious Child is a very tough look at how one decision can impact not only you, but the supporting cast of characters in your life. It's about standing up and being independent in a life that has been one punchline after another up to this point. I am really looking forward to seeing Slate in more films. There is no doubt that this is her coming out party after being notoriously dumped by Saturday Night Live in 2012. She is a force to be reckoned with when she gets a script that brings out the best. I would like to see another collaboration between her and Robespierre. Obvious Child will be on DVD in early October, and for those of you who like a dark comedy with just a slice of romantic emotion, i would say to give it a chance. It's a very easy sit from a short run time, and is worth it alone from the firecracker that Slate will one day be from the spring this film gave her. Abortion is a scary topic when presented on film, but Robespierre has shown that the women who go through it have a story to tell. It's a tale about feminism in the 21st century that promotes laughter as the best medicine
- Oculus - 7/10 - When you think of WWE films, you think of awful movies that don't have the budgets or the writing to compete with Hollywood's finest. Oculus will go down as an exception to that rule, but it's a shame that the last five minutes of this film ruins what could have easily been an 8/10. Oculus is about a possessed mirror that has killed every family it has been around for the last 100 years. We pick up in current day when a brother and sister are recalling the eve...nts that went down 12 years prior. First of all, i really enjoyed the back and forth shots between present day and 1998 with the siblings being younger. We are told the end result of 1998 in the first 15 minutes of the film, but there are still a lot of shocks along the way. Another thing i really loved is that this film didn't settle for cheap scares. Most horror movies today go for that shock when a character pops up on screen out of nowhere to scare the audience, but this film doesn't need it. Oculus uses terrifying images to really rip at it's viewers. I can't really say the film is scary, but it does have enough intense moments that will stay with you long after the credits roll. The best part of the film for me was actually caring about characters in a horror film for once. So many writers have no idea how to get the crowd away from rooting for the serial killer, but Director/Writer Mike Flannagan gets it correct. I found myself feeling so bad for the terror that is unwinding in this family's loving family. Flannagan isn't afraid to aim for the throat on his main characters, and it's greatly appreciated. As i said before, the last five minutes fall into a cliche mess of a famously bad late 90's horror film that i won't mention. If i say the film, it will automatically give away the ending. They are one in the same, and that is a shame because Oculus (Unlike that 90's film) deserves a lot better.Honestly, this is the only problem i had with the film. This ending is so tragic because this film goes from suspenseful and original to mediocre on this list of 2014 films. Karen Gillan, Rory Cochrane and Katee Sackoff give performances that stay away from the cheesy of what every horror film this century has done. They are great facial actors, and what i mean by that is that they know how to get into the heads of their viewers when the closeup shot is shown. Sackhoff especially has eyes that are perfect when that chilling piano music starts to play. Oculus is arguably the biggest surprise so far of 2014. If we can go back and rewrite the last five minutes, it's one of the best horror/suspense films of the 2000's. It's a perfect date night film for any couple who gives the time of day for awful horror films. If you gave those a chance, this definitely deserves a chance. In the era of 40 Paranormal Activity and ripoffs to that franchise, Oculus is a terrifying gasp of fresh air.
- Only Lovers Left Alive - 7.5/10 - Dreamy and mesmerizing are the best
words used to describe this film starring Tom Hiddleston and Tilda
Swinton as two vampires roaming the earth, and the love story between
them that follows. The two lead actors play vampires better than anyone i
have seen since John Carpenter's Vampires (1998). They hate the
existence that they live in, but they make the most of every situation.
Swinton is very intelligent as she has read thousands of books,
and Hiddleston is a 18th century musician who collects vintage
instruments. He also uses the Tesla way of running energy through his
house.The love story between the two protagonists is something that
feels eternal. Their love has lasted for centuries and it shows. They
seem incomplete without each other.
I have to speak of the two best things about this movie because they both play IMPORTANT parts in this film. The first is the score. This is a movie that feels like the music never stops. It is mostly instrumental, but it comes in the form of these dark but beautiful pieces that echo off the walls of every scene. I don't know if a soundtrack has ever been this perfect for a film in terms of generating the kind of feeling that the actors are going for. The second thing is the setting of Detroit. This is absolutely brilliant. It is in Detroit that these characters can go unnoticed and live in silence.The long shots of downtown Detroit play so well with the mood already set by the soundtrack and the characters. As for the vampires, they aren't violent and there is something i like about that. The film only shows them attack their prey one time, and i am fine with that. It's expected in too many films that vampires are violent, so it's nice to go against the cliche. If i have one problem with this film, it's the pacing. The slow and uneventful periods are what might take someone out of this film. I think to fix this problem they could've cut down about 15 minutes in some random script time. A lot of that cut time would be in the beginning because it does get off to a slow start. In comparison to some of the other vampire film lately, this is a beautiful breath of fresh air. Director Jim Jarmusch has created some great characters with his 2005 hit Broken Flowers, but this film i feel is even better than that one. Only Lovers Left Alive shows him venturing into territory that he hasn't been used to since his mid 90's days. It's nice to see the director still has it with a film that pushes characters first and actions second. I recommend this film for anyone who doesn't mind a slow build. You have to appreciate this film for the relationship and not so much the kinds of actions you are used to seeing in the Vampire genre. Hiddleston and Swinton carry this film to one of the year's best so far - Ouija - 3/10 - The world's of the silver screen and the board game collide in this possession haunt. Ouija tells the story of a group of friends who must confront their most terrifying fears when they awaken the dark powers of an ancient spirit board. There isn't much of a surprise when Ouija comes up mostly empty in the 85 minute run time it tries to stretch out. The film feels double of this run time mainly because it's pacing is terribly misconstrued in a PG-13 rating that suffers even further because of it. The film stars Bates Motel's Olivia Cooke, and this is an actress who is MUCH better than the roles she chooses. This film isn't as bad as her earlier 2014 film, The Signal, but this film isn't doing her any favors. It's a role that is too generic for someone like her to take on. The strange thing is that the movie doesn't even really do anything terribly wrong, it's just an antagonizingly boring effort. The visuals that the movie does conjure up certainly is not anything we haven't seen from better films in the last two years. The dialogue is something on the line of early 90's teenage shows like "Saved By The Bell", and it just makes you care less and less about these characters and their survival. The movie's ending is unforgiving to even the couple of people who are interested enough to stick around for nearly an hour and a half. There was a group of teenagers a couple rows ahead of me, and they enjoyed the film until the ending when i heard one yell "THAT'S IT?". Even though i hated the film, i was kind of surprised along the same lines. First of all, the evil spirit haunting the group of friends is easily defeated to where any pee brain could figure it out. Lets put it like this, the person who dies second or third in a Friday the 13th film, would breeze through the villain in this movie. Once the spirit is defeated, the film continues on for ten more minutes for absolutely no reason what so ever. The camera cuts to black because it feels like we ran out of film rather than produce a real ending. It's not as bad as 2012's "The Devil Inside", but it gives the whole presentation a pointless film. What's the saddest about a movie like this is that it will still make a ton of money and inspire ten other films just like it. I think that is the biggest problem with horror films today; they have no reason to strive for better because they have an easily pleasable teenage audience just itching for the next one. Ouija by all accounts is a boring game that (SURPRISE SURPRISE) crosses over to a boring film. I would only recommend it if you absolutely need to catch up on sleep that you have been depraved of. If i want real Halloween scares, i will settle for a heart pounding game of Candy Land. Ouija is shamelessly.......BORING.
- Paranormal Activity : The Marked Ones - 3/10 - What can you say about this film that hasn't already been said about the previous four Paranormal Activity films? Every time i write a review for one of these, i feel like i am just copying and pasting myself over and over again. The Marked Ones is the 5th film in the franchise. In this film, a boy named Jessie has graduated high school, but finds himself going through some frightening changes before his 18th birthday. After the death of his neighbor, he finds out some eerie things about his past. Lets get the good things out of the way. There are some better characters in this film compared to the other four films. That doesn't mean 1. They make smart choices or 2. that you care about their survival. These films after all are the cheapest and most satisfying way to make a movie. They cost about 2 million dollars to make, but always see at least 20x the payback because they know cheap horror fans will see them. I also felt the ending had a decent concept but a terribly flawed execution. I won't spoil much more about this film except that their is time travel. What is going on lately with horror films and time travel? After 2013's Insidious Part 2 did a similar concept, i guess i can now look forward to Jason traveling back to 1974 to kill the Super Bowl Champion Pittsburgh Steelers. Wait, that actually doesn't sound like a bad idea (wink wink). Anyway, The Marked Ones has all of the favorites that are included in these cheap movies; terrible acting, awful dialogue and the worst decisions made throughout this whole series. The film does connect decently with the past films, but it's not enough to make me care. I am someone who actually did enjoy the first Paranormal Activity, but ever since it's been a cheap knockoff of that one with small tweaks for originality. I wish horror movies would get back to the old days when a scene was built and built for a big payoff,not just jump scares. Don't buy a ticket to Paranormal Activity : The Marked Ones. Lets show the studio that they have to quit making a cheap effort to satisfy smarter fans. In closing, if you liked the other Paranormal Activities, you will enjoy this one. Everyone else? You aren't missing anything
- Penguins of Madagascar - 6/10 - The best part of the Madagascar trilogy is back in this prequel animated action film telling the origins of the spy penguins. Skipper, Kowalski, Rico and Private are the birds in question. They travel the world in search of an evil scientist names Dr. Brine (John Malkovich). Brine is secretly trying to rid the world of cute penguins because of a haunting history dealing with such birds. The penguins are joined up with the elite forces of a chic undercover organization, The North Wind. Led by handsome and husky Agent Classified (Benedict Cumberbatch). "Penguins of Madagascar" certainly isn't the best of the four films, but there is enough here for an enjoyably entertaining family experience at the movies this Thanksgiving. What lights the fuse on this splendid humor is the notable voice work. Some really solid Hollywood heavyweights are lending their solid vocal work to the film. Malkovich was completely unnoticable until i saw the credits. I was really impressed with the kind of methods he used to hide his noticable audio. Cumberbatch's personality definitely lends itself to this secret agent character that is a refreshing welcome to the tired cliche characters this trilogy is known for. There are times in the movie where you question his morals on the plans he thinks up, but it's entertaining to see the way his conversations bounce off each of the penguins. The penguins themselves had many funny moments that kept me chuckling. While i am not a big fan of puns in children's movies, i can say that this movie had a very original way of presenting them. The penguins talk to other captured penguins in the film by using real life actor names and turning those names into puns. For example, Rico voices one line "Halle, Bury him", or "Nicolas, Cage him". It becomes very impressive when he commands about ten of these as fast as he can in the final fight of the movie. I think puns are the easiest form of comedy just under toilet humor, but i have to give credit where it's deserved with this movie. The animation is solid, but not as in depth as some of my other animated favorites this year like "The Lego Movie", "The Box Trolls", or "Big Hero 6". There are some subtle real life shots used as backgrounds of scenes that are drawn up close. Many people might miss seeing a real life New York park in the background as the penguins battle Dr. Brine. It's really impressive to include real life trees and buildings to compliment the penguins moving about the city. The film is a quick 82 minute sit, and i think it's good that it didn't go longer than that. The idea of these characters with their own film is a good one, but there just isn't enough in this script to push it to an hour and a half. The film's final fight sequence did go a little overboard and started to drag the movie down as it hit the 20 minute mark. The movie ended just before it really started exposing some of the problems with the way the pacing was constructed. Overall, "Penguins of Madagascar" is a welcome sequel/prequel that is certainly the best one since the impressive debut of the original. There's not a lot here to make it memorable five years from now to anyone but penguin lovers, but i think a matinee showing with the family is justified. The Penguins don't have the high points of other animated films, but they can't match it in one specific area: chaotic comedy craziness right with whacky, lovable characters to warm your heart this holiday season.
- Planes : Fire and Rescue - 5/10 - The sequel to last year's Planes is an overall better movie than it's predecessor, but the story is too weak, the characters are too many, and the time is too short for anyone to get any kind of good feeling from this film. Dusty Cropduster is back as the top Airplane racer in the world. When he suffers an injury that limits his performance on the track, he finds himself in the middle of a new dream that includes him becoming a firefighter of sorts. The convenient plot with the Fireman gimmick is that there is a fire every 5 minutes in the woods. Whether this is true or not, this is the thing that will bother you the least during the 73 minute run time. Yes, you heard that right. 73 MINUTES!!! What is the most amazing out of the run time is just how boring it is. Believe me when i say i don't have a short attention span. The movie is terribly boring because we never get to really know the characters due to the short screen time we have to establish their backstories. It's also boring because Planes is a movie that really didn't need a sequel. It was one of the worst animated films i have seen of the 21st century, and that doesn't set the bar high for this sequel. The story feels very rushed and that's understandable considering they waited a whole 11 months to release Fire and Rescue. That's bad for Paranormal Activity pacing. The comedy in this had me laughing a couple times, but one of the things i despise the most about kids movies are overdone puns. Kids movies are supposed to have these, but not every single line. One of the characters is named Boat Reynolds, and i have to admit that had me chuckling. I also enjoyed a spoof on the 70's TV show CHIPS with a show called CHOPS. In fact, i would've been completely OK with that movie instead of the one we got. It certainly had a better storyline. As i said before, the amount of characters are outrageous. There are no fewer than 30 characters between the two films, and for anyone to remember four of their names at this point would be amazing. The new characters are nothing great. They are voiced by John Michael Higgins, Regina Hall, and Ed Harris along with many others. Ed's character is decent, but we don't get more than a minute of screen time with anyone else. This movie could've easily been another 15 minutes or so to build on the character development, and it would've done nothing but improved it. Among the things i liked about this film, the 3D is done beautifully with lots of fly by shots, as well as a beautiful ending scene that takes place with the entire forrest in a beautiful auburn blaze. The fire shots really pile on the eye candy of a beautiful 3D presentation. I wouldn't say the 3D is completely worth it, but if there is a way for you to watch it on DVD in 3D, then by all means go for it. The regular animation is done a little better too with lots of wide angle scenic shots. Most of Planes was done up in the sky near the clouds, and it all got old fast. The score for this film was also noteworthy for a Disney film. AC/DC's Thunderstruck plays during the first rescue mission, and it sets the heart pounding mission ablaze. There is also a song made just for the movie that is one of my favorite music numbers of the year for film. It's called "Still i Fly" by Spencer Lee. It's a beautiful mid 90's motivational ballad that gives us a point of view from Dusty's perspective. Kind of Kenny Wayne Sheppard meets Goo Goo Dolls. If Disney would've spent more time establishing their characters and building a plot that will keep a child from moving around in their seats, Planes Fire and Rescue could've really taken flight. As it remains, Planes Fire and Rescue is a mess of a film of an uninspired sequel to an already uninspired propeller-driven Cars spinoff. Planes is 0/2, and i hope it's the end of Dusty and his personality-less friends.
- Pompeii - 6/10 - It's always a rare happening when you pay the full $13 for a 3D film and see the movie in 2D. That is the problem i ran into tonight at the Chapel Hill Regal Cinemas. Midway through Pompeii, the crowd began to talk to each other as we all realized the screen wasn't blurry when we took off our 3D glasses. One of the ladies ran out to the lobby to inform the manager. They did do the right thing and rewarded everyone with a free future 3D showing of any movie. Props to Regal Cinemas for doing the right thing, but i won't be seeing a film i saw again just to get the 3D experience. As for the film, it was a lot better than i thought it was going to be. The story (For those who don't know) is about the volcano explosion in Pompeii in the year AD 79. Kit Harrington plays a slave turned fighter who watched his Irish family die at the hands of Senator Corvus's (Kiefer Sutherland) army when Kit was a child. Harrington is excellent as the main character of this film. He registers the proper emotions to show us that revenge is the only thing on his mind. That changes when he meets Princess Cassia (Emily Browning). Cassia and her family rule Pompeii and are doing business with Corvus so that he can invest in a new territory. The film is perfectly cast from Browning as a naive but powerful princess to Carrie Anne-Moss as her mother. Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje is by far the best part of the film though. He plays a slave who is the champion of the battle league that goes on between the prisoners. When the explosion happens, he turns into the biggest bad ass that i have seen in a long time. Adewale has been in some amazing roles, but i think this is his deepest one yet. His rivalry turned friendship with Harrington is what really gives the film a relating premise. The only problem with the casting i had was Sutherland. This just isn't the right role for him. He does play the villain well as evidenced by his filmography, but his terrible accent mixed with his 2014 look just doesn't fit. I feel they could have given the man some makeup or at least a wig to pull off the look a little better. The explosion itself happens with a half hour left of the 95 minute playtime, and it is easily the best part of the film. The first hour is ok, but it does kind of drag on with the business side of Pompeii's community. The thing with these historical films is that you wait the most for what you already know is going to happen. This film had a ton of comparisons to the 1997 film "Titanic" that i won't bore you with, but i was almost laughing by the time the corny ending hit. That is one thing i didn't like about the film; the ending will make you role your eyes with this kind of film. Some of the impacting positives were the beautiful visuals and sets throughout the film. Director Paul Anderson really makes Pompeii the beautiful place it once was with colorful buildings and green pastures as far as the eyes can see. The fighting scenes were also nothing short of energetic. A film like this can take you out if the battles don't do justice of ancient times, but Pompeii definitely brings it. Pompeii is a film that i recommend to the history buffs who like this sort of film. It's not as good as 300, but it sure as hell is a lot better than this year's Hercules. I apologize that i can't comment on the 3D, but if you see it you are more than welcome to review it for me.
- Predestination - 7.5/10 - The Spierig Brothers take us on the most thought provoking sci fi film of the last ten years. "Predestination" chronicles the life of a Temporal Agent (Ethan Hawke) sent on an intricate series of time-travel journeys designed to prevent future killers from committing their crimes. Now, on his final assignment, the Agent must stop the one criminal that has eluded him throughout time and prevent a devastating attack in which thousands of lives will be lost. Where this film benefits the most is in it's original look and feel of time travel in an era where films of the such are a little overdone. "Predestination" uses scientific theory combined with great plot twists and turns to make this film a can't miss for any sci-fi fan. The film does have some minor problems communicating the full message of it's bombshell deliveries, but i think the viewer will be ultimately satisfied by this movie. Even if things aren't fully understood in the first watch, i think the film warrants a second one for the viewer to fully grasp some of the things they originally missed. What is most incredible about the twists and turns is that the film really only has three actors, but it's the way the story was told that make these surprises even more impressive. Picture a horror movie with three people in it, and you still manage to be surprised when you find out who the killer is. The Spierig Brothers are certainly no strangers to the sci fi world with 2005's "Undead", and 2010's "Daybreakers". However, "Predestination" feels like a perfect fit for the kind of stories they are always trying to tell. You feel these two have watched more than their fair share of time exploration films, and it's impact is left on the movements of the two main characters. Ethan Hawke is charming while not revealing a lot of his personal traits. What's interesting is how he is cast as the main character of the film, but his character feels second string to Sarah Snook's incredible performance. Snook plays two roles in the film, and for fear of spoilers i will not reveal much more than that. She is certainly given a lot more room to act than the wheel chair character that physically and actingly limitted her in 2014's "Jessebelle". With the difficulty of acting as two different people, Snook nails it with personalities completely opposite for both of those she plays. I can't talk about this movie without recognizing the makeup work. Between the brutality of an explosion 5 minutes into the movie and some great work to make Snook look unlike her other character, this film is among the very best in makeup work that i have seen in 2014. It's a lot easier to suspend any disbelief you have about such characters when visual enhancements of this calibur are being made. There were a couple of continuity problems i had with the film, but nothing that ruined it overall for me. The movie clocks in at a fast 87 minutes, but it never feels rushed. The script is wonderfully paced with enough shock and awe in all three acts to never leave the viewer hanging. The film's first 40 minutes are told in a flashback about Snook's character, but that time is needed to set up the pieces for what finishes as one of the most talked about endings this year. I definitely recommend this film to sci fi lovers. I do expect some confusion with the way some things are revealed, but i think this movie more than warrants the topic of discussion. "Predestination" is entrancing, slick, and edge of your seat madness that shows The Spierig Brothers have landed
- Ride Along - 6/10 - The latest film in the buddy cop genre pits the rough and tough exterior of Ice Cube with the comedic bumbling of Kevin Hart. Those things mix together pretty well, as both men have great chemistry with one another. It is however the lack of material that wastes away two decent performances with a flawed script. Ice Cube is a cop in Atlanta when he hears news that Kevin Hart has just got accepted to the academy. Cube's biggest problem with Hart is that he plans on marrying his sister. The film has moments where it goes through an identity crisis, and doesn't know if it wants to be a bad to the bone action film or a corny comedy. The parts that really feel the most natural to Ride Along are the parts that make it feel like it is a borderline rated R. When i found out this film was PG-13, i could only scratch my head and ask why. You have the biggest comedian currently in the world mixed with a guy who has some pretty good comedic turns in films like Friday, Barbershop and 21 Jump Street. Let these two loose on a script that neuters both of their performances. There were some excellent supporting roles in the work of John Leguizamo and Lawrence Fishbourne. They both seem like they are too big to be in a film like this with supporting roles, but they give it their all. A big twist happens midway through the film that is pretty obvious to anyone who is paying attention. I am happy to say that i totally saw it coming because i have seen enough of these buddy cop movies to know what to expect. Ride Along is a movie that is recommended because people love Kevin Hart regardless of what he does. It's those fans that are going to make this movie #1 this weekend. It's not personally the funniest thing i have ever seen him in, but it's ok. You get about 70% of his funniest things in the trailer that most of you have already seen. I would catch a daily screening of this film. It's just not worth the full price
- Robocop - 7/10 - Is it better to have a conscience when being a police officer, or is a blank slate the best way to go? This question is the focus of the newest Hollywood remake, Robocop. First of all, there isn't going to be a lot of critique with this review. The Robocop franchise is ridiculous and possibly the furthest thing from realistic. It's like reviewing The Fast and Furious films for realism. There are a couple of things i didn't like about this film, but i will get to that later. Joel Kinnaman stars as Alex Murphy, a Detroit police officer who is left with damage to 95% of his body in a set up explosion. A corporate big shot (Michael Keaton) and a scientist (Gary Oldman) come up with an idea to put Murphy back on the streets with a robot suit that controls his actions. Kinnaman is decent as Murphy, but he isn't given the proper development that Peter Weller had in the 1987 original. Kinnaman is a good enough actor to make us care what happens to Murphy, but it would be better if we learned more about who he is and what his actions are as a cop for arguably the most dangerous city in the country. The filming of Detroit is one of my biggest problems with the film. I understand that 90% of movies aren't filmed in the cities they are portrayed in, but Detroit is one that is hard to fake. Everyone knows what you are in for when you travel there, so to see it as a beautiful lighted up town is almost comical. The movie was filmed mostly in Vancouver and that is understandable as it is one of the cheaper places to film a movie. Two amazing performances come in the hands of Keaton and Oldman. Keaton's character change is the biggest one of the movie as we learn what his true priorities are. There is a calm storm to his actions on the exterior, but you know it's all just waiting to blow. Gary Oldman is the best part of the movie for me. He is such a veteran of film that he can do roles like this in his sleep. The role he plays as Dr. Dennett Norton is written very one dimensional, but Gary puts a caring sense of Dr. Frankenstein in the object he has created. He cares for Murphy's health, and that gives him more definition than the characters he is surrounded by.Samuel L Jackson cameos as a talk show host who comes close to stealing the spotlight at times. He knows more than the viewers he talks to, but relates to them as he only wants the best for America. The action in this film is top notch. There are a lot of fast pace chase scenes with vibrating camera shots to replicate machine gun fire. The new black suit is really cool, but i hope they revert to the old school silver if they make a sequel. The black is supposed to represent the modernization of the Robocop character itself. Overall, i would definitely recommend this film to Robocop fans and action lovers alike. I think it is only passed by the original Robocop (barely), but it far exceeds parts 2 and 3 by a mile. It's a fun, action packed extravaganza that takes the best parts of 80's action and 2014 cinematography and creates a hybrid worthy of the Robocop name. Well done Director Jose Padihla.
- Rio 2 - 5/10 - The effort is on a higher scale in this sequel to the 2011 animated feature that i wasn't a fan of. I will say that Rio 2 is a better film than it's predecessor, but it is completely riddled in problems. Blue and the family are back with the mission to move the family to his girlfriend's (Jewel) homeland of the amazon. Blue runs into some tough adjustments along the way, and he has to prove to Jewel that he has what it takes to rough it in the jungle. This film... felt very tedious and overstuffed to me. There are too many characters with too many storylines, and only 95 minutes of screen time to wrap everything up. The characters are so hard to distinguish because a lot of them look the same. It's a rough animated film when you have to memorize every celebrity (Over 20 of them) just to know who is standing in what scene. Beyond this, the characters and their journeys just aren't that exciting. One thing that films like Despicable Me and Frozen does well is that they give us characters that we learn so much about in such a small bit of dialogue. I felt like i knew everything about the sisters after i watched Frozen, and that is because that is storytelling done well. The animation is absolutely breathtaking with far away shots of Rio and the amazon. There is definitely nothing to complain about in the graphic department of coloring and shading. I did not see this film in 3D, but i can imagine that you won't need it to fully enjoy the scenery that compliments the colorful feathers of each bird. I also felt that the songs were done a lot better than the first film. One scene in particular is where the villain of the film, Nigel is singing about how he plans to poop on the party of the main characters. It's cheap laughs for the kiddies, but that doesn't mean i didn't catch myself laughing at it as well. The soundtrack is definitely the highlight of this film, but those tracks are few and far between. Jesse Eisenberg, Anne Hathaway, Jamie Foxx, Tracy Morgan and Bruno Mars to name a few, really do a great job for their characters. Their voices don't necessarily stick out in a scene and that is perfect when doing voice work. It should be about the film and not the actors playing the animation. Overall, i know there are a lot of Rio fans out there, but i would wait till DVD on this one if you absolutely have to see it. I can just hope that this series will stop here because these characters have already squeezed every drop of this less than stellar franchise. Rio 2 is a bust.
- Rosewater - 7.5/10 - First time writer/director Jon Stewart presents us with a first hand look of policies and rising tensions in Iran in 2009. On the eve of the biggest election in Iran's history, Rosewater is based on The New York Times best-selling memoir "Then They Came for Me: A Family's Story of Love, Captivity, and Survival," written by Maziar Bahari. . Rosewater follows the Tehran-born Bahari (Gael Garcia Bernal), a broadcast journalist with Canadian citizenship. In June 2009, Bahari returned to Iran to interview Mir-Hossein Mousavi, who was the prime challenger to president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. As Mousavi's supporters rose up to protest Ahmadinejad's victory declaration hours before the polls closed, Bahari endured personal risk by sending footage of the street riots to the BBC. Bahari was arrested by police, led by a man identifying himself only as "Rosewater," who tortured and interrogated him over the next 118 days. Stewart does a lot of things correctly here. For his directorial debut, "Rosewater" shows his interest in telling this story that somewhat began thanks to Stewart. Bahari was a guest on "The Daily Show", and the Iran counterparts saw this and believed him to be an American spy. Stewart has definitely done his homework on Bahari, complimenting his story with POV camera angles, and powerful acting that lifts the film right off the pages. Between the editing and camera work, this film could certainly use a couple of Oscar nods for the on the ground action going on in front of us. The viewer feels like they are in the streets when the corruption regarding the election hits. Bernal also deserves a word of mention as the main protagonist. He plays Bahari with such innocence and fragility that we feel for what this character is going through. With time going on in the film, i actually witnessed Bernal physically becomming Bahari. Many times i had to remind myself that this was an actor playing the role, he was just that good. For a lot of the film, i felt this was a strong 8/10 and could even venture into my top twenty films of the year list, but when looking back, i saw some amateur mistakes on the part of Stewart. The first was that the film had a blatant undertone of comedy. Now, i don't mind the way the comedy was used during the first act because it's supposed to show how ridiculous Iran's accusations and questioning of Bahari are. My problem was during the third act of the film when the comedy is used for no reason other than to make his time in the prison go by smoother. An example of this is a sex crazed officer questioning Bahari about all of the women in his cell phone. He starts to accuse Bahari of being unfaithful to his wife, so Bahari gets the idea to lie about some sexual conquests he has as a result of these phone numbers. I get that it's supposed to make his questioning easier, but as the final twenty minutes ends the film, i find out this has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with anything in the story. If it helped him with an escape, i could understand that. Even worse, the comedy ruins the heart pounding pace that the film had built itself up on to that moment. You can't help but laugh during this scene, and this film should never even dare flirt with a comedic side for such a serious story. The other thing that bothered me was lack of information from what's going on outside of the prison. We get one news piece on CNN of Hilary Clinton establishing a mission to rescue Bahari, but up until that point we are left in the dark. How did anyone find out about Bahari's capture? What was the reaction like on American soil? These are the questions that deserved to be answered, but seem unimportant in Stewart's script. Overall, i think it's a great first effort for The Daily Show's own anchor, and i would be interested in seeing future films from him. He clearly has an original presence behind the camera, and with time he will fix some of the mistakes that plagued this film. "Rosewater" is definitely recommended for the liberties that we take for granted everyday with our choices never having consequences unless they are illegal. For all that people complain about, we are the lucky ones to be here in this day and age. Bahari showed us that freedom still has a long way to go in other parts of the world.
- Sabotage - 8/10 - This review thing is so much easier when you get a film that you can't stop talking about. Arnold Schwarzenegger is back as a DEA agent who leads a team to a routine drug bust that goes wrong when 10 million dollars ends up missing. The team is blamed for stealing the money, and we are led on a fast paced action packed whodunnit? This movie surprised me in so many ways that it's hard to get out in such a small review space. You knew the action was going to be good in an Arnold movie, but it hasn't been this good since Terminator 2. That should tell you how serious i am. This film is better than anything released by Arnold lately (Expendables films included). The things that do surprise you though are the things you will be remembering when the credits roll. The first is that this script is pretty easy to follow, and will never leave you confused. The clues are all put on the table, and when the taker is revealed, you will understand how it was done. The film also has a ton of beautiful camera angles to go with the vicious violence that it presents. If gore and property damage are your thing, there hasn't been a movie better made for you in the last ten years. Arnold is Arnold in the film, but i think it is Mirielle Enos (The Killing) who steals the show. She is on a riot of insanity and under the table drug use that casts the actress in a light that we have never seen. She not only carries the script, but she makes the other actors around her even better. Joe Manganello is pretty solid, Sam Worthington jumps outside of his usual comfort zone. But it's Terrence Howard that was one of the lone dull spots for me in the film. He is the most acclaimed actor in the film, and isn't given much to do. He easily plays this role asleep and that is kind of a shame. The ending is something i wish i could talk more about, but i don't want to give away spoilers. To me, it ends in a perfect way that is a little unexpected for an expert in the action genre. Sabotage comes in at a fast paced 100 minutes and i think even that is a good choice for it not to drag. I recommend this film to Arnold and action fans alike. Sadly, a lot of people will wait till DVD to see this film, but i think it definitely deserves your 8-10 bucks. Sabotage is a chaotic violent dream.
- See No Evil 2 - 6/10 - WWE Films reprises the horror film from eight years ago that is arguably their best film to date. See No Evil 2 revives the nightmare of the first film when Jacob Goodnight (Kane) rises from the dead in the city morgue after his killing spree at the Blackwell hotel. In this ominous, underground locker for the dead, a group of medical students fight to survive as this deranged psychopath once again starts to pick them apart one by one and make them pay for their supposed sins. As a fan of old school horror films, i found the first "See No Evil" to be violently refreshing in an era where horror films settle for cheap jump scares or lack of character build. I can pleasantly declare that "See No Evil 2" is just as patietnly written as it's predecessor. The first act of this film takes it's time with a couple characters back stories. They aren't your typical strong and heroic bunch, but it's because of that you will no doubt support these characters and their well being. The second act brings the violence and action full force with many fast paced chase scenes down a dark corridor of an abandoned hopital. Horror film fans will recognize some great casting choices in Danielle Harris (Halloween franchise) and Katherine Isabelle (Ginger Snaps) to the cast. Isabelle in particular always plays a character that pushes her psychological depth, and this movie is no exception. What comes off at first as "Just another bimbo", is played with perfect execution. I believe there are few horror actresses in the game today that play a helpless girl being chased better than Katherine. Without it, many horror movies fail at making it's audience believe the terror that they are trying to convey. Kane is perfect for this role, as just looking at him makes you think of the strong bodied killers like Michael Myers or Jason Voorhees. He is believable in the role even if his character isn't written with the most intriguing of backstories. I relate Jacob Goodnight to the overall way i felt about both of these films. Good enough ideas, but not something i would necessarily care to see drawn out into four or five films. I think this franchise is acceptable enough at two films, and i hope they leave it that way. The blood/gore level is exceptionally well for such a small budgeted horror film. The way The Soska Siblings shoot the film is stylishly terrifying, and gives them a young, fresh voice in a dying art (Both figuratively and literally). There is some faily obvious foreshadowing in the film that i would've stayed away from, but it's a small criticism in an otherwise bloody treat. I think horror films is something WWE Films should stick with (Leprechaun excluded). The wrestling world is filled with big bodies, and if the scripts are as honorable to 80's horror films as this one is, then i am all for it. "See No Evil 2" won't win any end of the year awards from me for best film, but i can safely recommend it above "Ouija", "Exists", "Annabelle", or "Tusk". It's a movie that knows how to do horror well, and sometimes it comes from the most unlikely of places.
- Serena - 5/10 - Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence co-star on the big screen for a 3rd time in this American Dream romance film set in 1929 North Carolina. "Serena" is a story adapted from the novel of the same name by Ron Rash. The film by director Susanne Bier tells the story of the deteriorating relationship between North Carolina timber George Pemberton (Bradley Cooper) and his fiercely independent, entrepreneurial-minded wife Serena (Jennifer Lawrence) following a devastating tragedy. A woman who isn't afraid to speak her mind and relishes the opportunity for manual labor in the forest, the enigmatic Serena subsequently grows intensely jealous of the woman who previously bore her husband a son, and quickly begins to unravel over suspicions that Pemberton is sheltering his illegitimate family. What starts off as a romantic melodrama, quickly fades out to a terribly edited and flat film that is every bit as dull as the timber they are cutting. What ruined "Serena" for me mostly fell at the feet of a relationship between the film's main stars that isn't believable or heart felt to me. The marriage is rushed by in the opening ten minutes without even so much as a flashback of how they came to be known as married to begin with. One second Cooper hunts Lawrence for her heart, and the next second they are arriving in North Carolina, married, and controlling a business together. How do you take arguably the two hottest stars currently in the world and make their chemistry feel as artificial as a cardboard stand up? You would never guess that this is the same two actors whose union easily carried my #2 film of 2012, "Silver Linings Playbook". For starters, they are both so unlikable as two self centered millionaires whose only interest is advancing in life no matter who it hurts. They are both terribly constructed, and are easily forgettable in the extensive careers of both actors. The supporting cast is wasted with veterans like Rhys Ifans and David Dencik not given enough back story for us to care during the limited time they are on screen. Toby Jones is the only performance that i got any enjoyment out of. He plays a police detective who is hot on the heels of our two protagonists. Jones has always been one of Hollywood's best kept secrets to me, and i'm glad that he makes the most out of his scenes in this opportunity. I only wish Jones could've been given a better script to possibly push his performance into a possible Supporting Actor nominee at the Oscars. Behind the scenes stories have said that this film has been on the shelves since early 2013, and suffered three different versions of the film with each being edited their own way. The sloppiness of this third draft is certainly present as many plot points pop up without ever being introduced prior in the film. For instance, Lawrence has some burn scars on her back to which she asks Cooper "Do my scars bother you". As the viewer, we know Lawrence lost her family in a fire because of a brief explanation in the opening minutes of the film, but we never find out anything about damage done in the fire, so when it pops up out of nowhere it feels like we maybe missed a scene along the way. Two things that did drive the score up for me were the wardrobe and the amazing set pieces. The nostalgic feel of 1929 really does feel evident in a country that is going through it's worst of times with men accepting jobs beneath the wealth they would like. The forrest scenes are done wonderfully with a time machine feel before these trees were ever knocked down in favor of housing or condos. The community among these wood workers is very well constructed. The wardrobe couldn't be better, as it was the only thing that made me get lost in the actors portraying real people of this era. The ending was terribly anti climatic, and had me wondering if Bier was aiming for a Bonnie and Clyde feel between the movie's main stars. The problem is that with no chemistry built on screen, we don't care about the consequences that await either of these two characters. This film isn't coming out in theaters until March of 2015, which at that point will be two and a half years after production wrapped up, and it's easy to see why this one was left on the shelf for so long. "Serena" is too boring for any theater experience, and even fans of Cooper and Lawrence will find very little to enjoy about a film that failed to bring out the charisma from two of Hollywood's finest.
- Sex Tape - 4.5/10 - After getting finished with Sex Tape, i couldn't help but compare the film to that of an actual porno movie. No, not for the charming reasons you are probably thinking, but because it's like after you watch one scene you feel like you have seen them all. Jason Segal and Cameron Diaz try to rekindle the kind of chemistry they shared on Bad Teacher in Director Jake Kasden's newest film. Kasden also directed Bad Teacher, so it's completely understandable why he cast Diaz and Segal as his main characters in this film that is neither funny nor intelligent. I am not an idiot to think that a movie called "Sex Tape" is going to have much going for it at all, but the biggest problem i had with the title is that the movie is very tame. There has been a lot of commotion for seeing Diaz's butt in this film and it didn't really give me anything that i felt was noteworthy. Compared to what we see on our own TV's nowadays, a naked butt hardly turns the gears. The couple in question make a sex tape to spice up their boring marriage. They find out the next day that they send the tape out to other people because it is synched into Segal's Ipad and all of his friends have his former Ipads, so it sinks to them as well. This concept alone is a little far fetched, but it's the things that are right under your nose that make you really scratch your head. For starters, how could he give his friends all of these devices and yet still not un-sync the things that connect to his own Ipad? How does he afford all these Ipads when he either doesn't have a job or doesn't work many hours? Either way, the film never tells us what he does. Another question is how he knows all of this about technology and about the Ipad itself, but doesn't know that you can erase the file from going to other synched pads by erasing it from the master Ipad? It's logic like this that made a film with terrible acting (another porn cliche) and awkward dialogue even worse. I would say that the film is dirty enough that no kid under the age of 16 should be watching it. One thing that completely took me out of enjoying the film any time i tried to get into it was the constant advertisement for Apple and their products. For those of you who read my reviews often, you know i absolutely hate when a movie whores out it's products just to make a quick buck. This movie is absolutely no exception because it gives us times where the plot freezes to describe what the new Ipad does. One line in particular is Segal talking to Diaz saying "The new Ipad's have amazing cameras, and the options are so versatile". This film rivals only Spider-Man 2 as the film with the most shameless plugs of the year. One thing that will always find me on the negative side of a review. If there was one thing i enjoyed about the film it's Rob Lowe. Lowe is cast as Diaz's squeaky clean boss, but when they have to go to his home to get his Ipad they find that there is more to him under the collar. It's hilarious to see Rob cast as a hardcore rock rebel with paintings of his face hung up around the house based on Walt Disney movies. The scenes with him were the only ones that gave me an honest laugh, and this film definitely could've used more of that. Rob Coddry and Ellie Kemper also appear as best friends of the main couple, but they don't have enough to do, and when they do appear it just feels too forced. On a side note that has absolutely nothing to do with the movie, could someone find out if Jason Segal has botox treatments done? his upper lip looks like he got out of the dentist's chair before the numbness wore off. It bothered the hell out of me watching him talk through the whole movie. The verdict? With neither the dedication to embrace its dirty premise nor enough laughs to function as a worthwhile rom-com, the flaccid Sex Tape suffers from cinematic impotence. Skip it
- Sin City : A Dame to Kill For in 3D - 5.5/10 - Frank Miller and Robert Rodriguez return for a sequel of the 2005 original that satisfied eyes with a beautiful art background straight out of Miller's comics of the same name. A Dame to Kill For is at best a film that was made too late to capitalize on the Sin City lure, and just doesn't pack the brutal punch that the first film did. I did enjoy Sin City 2, so don't be too fooled by my rating, but i did feel like there was a lot of time wasted in a movie that will have arguably the best cast of the year. The good things are definitely there in the best cinematography of the year again. Frank Miller gives a comic book feel to the silver screen better than anyone i have ever seen. He knows how his stories are supposed to be translated and he gets the camera work done perfectly. The negative to this is that for those of you who pay extra for the 3D are going to be let down. Sin City are films that are beautiful enough to begin with, so the 3D does nothing extra to show off black and white tones straight out of the noir genre. Back in the cast are Jessica Alba, Mickey Rourke, Rosario Dawson, and Bruce Willis playing a small role as his character died in the first film. Rourke in particular shows us everything we love about Sin City. He is an anti hero who has seen the nasty side of life one too many times. He works as a rescuer of sorts, but always seems like he is in a rut despite being the lone person who acts to save the city at times. Alba wasn't much different. Her character gets a lethal makeover, but her acting hasn't improved to bring her character to the next level. We are supposed to believe that this beautiful woman who destroys her face is now ugly, but the look is anything but. Newcomers to the film are Josh Brolin, Powers Boothe, Dennis Haysbert, Joseph Gordon Levitt, and the sexy sultress Eva Green. Green once again steals a film like she did 300 : Rise of an Empire earlier this year. She uses her sexuality to tear apart every man in Sin City, and she is so good at the task that even our biggest of heroes have trouble doubting her capabilities. She is the perfect person for a role of this calling, and was one of the lone bright spots in 3 different dull stories told in Sin City 2. Gordon-Levitt had the best of the three tales in my opinion, but his story ends without much closure. He had a good presence playing off of Boothe in an eye to eye poker game where the winner is anything but a winner. The first act of the film involves this poker game, and that is where this film is at it's very peak. The story lasts about 25 minutes before we are shown the second story and bulk of the movie in Josh Brolin being used by Eva Green to do terrible things. This story is overwhelmingly long and clocks in around the 50 minute mark. Towards the end of the second story, Christopher Meloni and Jeremy Piven are thrown in at a point where the story is getting very repetitive. Their characters feel rushed and almost thrown in at the last minute. The third story is Jessica Alba getting revenge on Boothe for the death of detective John Hartigan (Bruce Willis) in the first film. This story is way too short because of the overlapping of the second story, so there isn't much time for the audience to get behind this revenge tale which on paper would've had the best following from the audience who saw the first film. The violence is still in this film, but one thing in particular bothers me about it's presentation. Any time blood is splattered, it's a white streak across the film. I think this would be the perfect time to flash some red in a color starved black and white background. The white almost makes the violence come off cartoon like even with it coming from the pages of a comic book. The biggest problem with the violence in this film is that it doesn't pack the same punch of the first film because we have already been introduced to the worst that Sin City has to offer. The first Sin City was revolutionary because no one had ever seen anything like it, and it's animation to brutality was ahead of it's time. The second Sin City just feels like a rehashing that is done too late. A decent film, but not a good one. For those of you who have flat screen TV's, i would just wait till DVD. The 3D is useless, so there is no point in going the extra mile to see this one on the silver screen. If you have a dollar theater in your area, that would be a good time to see it if you are hell bent on the silver screen. In closing, Sin City : A Dame To Kill For is very stylish, dirty, and sexy, but it lacks character in a movie that is full of them. This film struggles to find it's identity unlike the first film, and that's why i can't give it a passing grade. Disappointing.
- Snowpiercer - 8/10 - Chris Evans puts away his Captain America shield to play one of the world's last surviving 1% in the post apocalyptic sci fi film. Evans plays Curtis, a man who decides to lead a revolt against the authority of a train run by the upper class remainder of society. Right off the bat, i enjoyed this film a lot because of the originality of the storyline and the feeling of there being nowhere to run on a train. I also dig movies that really make the viewer think and search to find the hidden meanings in a film. Snowpiercer is full of these kind of such things from the political class treating lower class people like the plague, or the hazzards of eating the foods that they are served. This is very reflective of the kinds of foods that we eat in real life that are full of all kinds of chemicals and hormones that most of the population has no idea about. My favorite scene of the movie involves a brainwashing of children to believe that the leader of the train is a revolutionary and not a blood thirsty maniac who lives by the standards of "my way or death". Director Joon Ho-Bong hits another home run after having another great political sci fi thriller in The Host. No, not that awful Stephanie Meyer movie that stole half of the mind power from the people who had to sit through it. Bong tells a story that he doesn't want to be sensitive to anyone, and i dig that about him. He inserts twists of dark humor to add to a story that is already depressing enough, but shows you the up close camera shots of the faces of the lower class citizens to show that they have been fighting through lives of war long before this revolt ever happens. An example of this humor is during one fight scene the two sides stop to acknowledge the new year by passing through this huge bridge that only happens when it's January 1st. That might not seem like a big deal to you the readers, but i think it's hilarious that even at the end of the world these people are still trying to hold on to that last piece of normalcy. The only problem i had with the execution of the film is that the shakey cam kind of ruins some of the fighting scenes between the upper class army and the citizens leading the revolt next to Curtis. There were times when i had trouble keeping my eyes on the screen to the point that it even hurt because of how many quick edits there were between fight scenes. It's a little hard to keep up with the action, and i'm sure it was meant that way, but i would prefer that the camera shots not having to be as heartpounding as the fighting itself. Other than that, Snowpiercer is a perfectly executed film. I wanted to talk abou the performances because there is lots that are noteworthy. Chris Evans is fantastic as the lead of this story. He really has stepped up as one of the best action stars in America, and i am glad because there was a point i was really worried that Evans was being terribly miscast in movies that were totally under him. Octavia Spencer makes a surprising appearance in a film that is completely opposite of anything she has ever done, and she is decent. She plays a mother who gets her child taken from her, but she is joining in the revolt to make the higher ups pay. I think it's her character who the audience can relate to the most, and that's not an easy thing in a film where everyone feels like shadows of their former selves. Spencer gives us that last shred of humanity for the audience to hold on to. Tilda Swinton is by far the best part of the movie as the 2nd in command on the train. She gets under your teeth like the stickiest of candies that you just want to pull off. I absolutely hated her and loved her in this role at the same time. This is a prime example of her ranking as one of the best transformational actresses in the world today. There is a surprise with who is the leader of the train named Wilford, but i won't spoil it for you. The ending is a little open to interpretation, but i don't take it as very positive with the final solution. I don't mind it at all when a film does that because it's certainly a lot better than drilling a Texas sized asteroid to save the world because it's honest. I definitely recommend this movie for Sci-Fi fans and anyone who is in the mood for an original idea. Snowpiercer is violent, smart, shocking and everything the American Sci-Fi film should be. It's a long, cold ride that that you never want to get off of.
- Son of God - 5.5/10 - The spirit is there for an above expectations film, but the execution is a little underwhelming. Son of God is the latest Jesus bio flick about his presence in Rome with the apostles who he inspires. These kind of films aren't my kind of taste in film, so i apologize for the review ahead of time. I will say that Son of God is probably the best holy movie i have seen since The Ten Commandments. It has a well performing cast, heart stopping imagery and a phenomenal score written by the great Hans Zimmer. With the imagery, there is no holding back in the camera shots of this film. They give you the kind of shots that will make you feel completely uncomfortable if you have any relationship to Jesus or religion. The biggest problem with the film? The first hour is INSANELY BORING. It just moves soooo slow, and it kills any motivation that the film has to bring in an audience that wants nothing to do with it. The second hour of the film is where the film starts to pick up, but it is a little late by that point. I once again explain that this will hurt the people with no interest in this film other than curiosity. The religious movie goer will feel inspired by every bit of this 2 hour and 15 minute run time. The villains are a little over the top with what sounds like 90's bully lines. One line in particular was when Jesus was crucified and one of the soldiers said "Hey Jesus, i bet you can see your holy temple from up there". Keep in mind that these soldiers are holy crusaders to begin with, so it's kind of against their religion to make that kind of joke, but i digress. It's lines like this and some of the acting that gives this film a stamp of corny. With some of the dialogue, it almost seemed like they were making two different films. Son of God is a film that i can recommend to the religious crowd. If you do not apply to this and want to see it, i suggest you wait till DVD. The theater experience was a little awkward at times for a guy like me. I was also amazed at how many trailers there were for holy films coming out. I knew about "Noah" and "Heaven is for Real", but there were two other films coming out with similar premises. Hell, one even stars the Duck Dynasty guy who got kicked off the show. I can't make this stuff up guys. I wait for Hollywood to approach me with a movie deal someday. My final stamp of approval, i can't recommend Son of God since it was half good/half bad for me.
- Step Up All In - 5.5/10 (Or 7.5/10) - The next chapter of the longest dance series ever shows most of the stars returning from the previous Step Up movies to form a super team to compete for a 3 year show in Las Vegas. Step Up All In is only the 2nd film of the Step Up Franchise that i have actually seen, and i have to say that it at least did a good job of keeping me well entertained. The reason i gave this movie two ratings is because the first one is if you rank it as an overall movie, and the second one is to rate it as a dance movie only. As a dance film, it absolutely succeeds with the best dancing i have ever seen. The finale match between our protagonists known as Elementrix facing off against the antagonists, The Grim Reapers, makes for the best dance battle i have ever seen in a film. I did enjoy You Got Served a little more than this one, but a close second isn't bad for a genre that i feel like i have seen too much in. The stages and sets are also very well done, and that has to do with the lights of Las Vegas being a beautiful setting for such a film. The storyline isn't anything very different from what you see in other Step Up films and i think that is what really hurts it. If the next Step Up film could make a story different from a crew facing off against a villain crew for a prize, they could really take the whole series in a different direction. I know it seems hard to do this as there are only so many avenues you can go with the dance genre, but i think the most creative stories always come from that extra push. The acting isn't anything amazing as you would expect it to be for this film. It's really just a bunch of real life dancers playing themselves for the camera. The cliche moments of breaking out into dance in public places is laughable for all the wrong reasons. On top of it, you get the corniest dialogue that makes it sound like the two people competing are about to do a knife or gun fight. One credit i will give Channing Tatum is that he at least brought the feel of a superstar who brought some fraction of emotion to a ridiculous plot. Without Channing Tatum, the appeal of this faltering franchise fades, except for the dance sequences. That is something that the Step Up Franchise will always have. It's kind of nice to see a series where the main characters return as most (Tatum included) usually run for the hills whenever they hit it big. The running time of 1 hour and 45 minutes was a little long for a plot that you can pretty much predict how it will roll in the first ten minutes. One thing that kept it interesting especially during the dragging second half was the steamy romantic chemistry between the two main stars, Ryan Guzman and Briana Evigan. Their powerful emotion on the dance floor but dry emotion in script reading show two things. The first is that these two are definitely world trained dancers, and that area is where they feel the most comfortable. They say so much in an up close face to face shot on the dance floor that they had trouble communicating during an awkward 105 minutes. I did not see the movie in 3D, and i don't think there were enough cool shots by watching it to really think it mattered. There were some old school 3D in your face shots with sand and confetti, but i think they are few and far between for paying an extra $4. Overall, Step Up All In isn't as horrible a film as i originally thought i was in for. It's not a good film by any means, but it's not a bad sit if you are in the theater for a date night. If you really have to see it, i recommend just waiting till dollar theater. The big screen is a good experience for this kind of film, but there is no need to drop a ten dollar bill to see the same movie you have seen four times already. You don't go to a Step Up film to see Oscar winning performances. You go to see remarkable dance moves and beats that always keep your toes tapping. In that perspective, Step Up All In delivers time after time.
- St Vincent - 8/10 - A couple times a year Hollywood will bring us a film with a solid script, but with amazing performances that pushes the movie even further than it was possibly intended. That's not to say that writer Ted Milfi didn't do a superb job of writing good scenarios for his characters to play out, but it's just that the actors really had a fun time making this film, and it shows with memorable performances from everyone around the table. St Vincent is the story of Maggie (Melissa McCarthy), a single mother who moves into a new home in Brooklyn with her 12-year old son, Oliver (Jude Lieberher). Maggie works long hours, and she has no choice but to leave Oliver in the care of their new neighbor, Vincent (Murray), a retired freeloader with a penchant for alcohol and gambling. An odd friendship soon blossoms between the improbable pair. Together with a pregnant stripper named Daka (Naomi Watts), Vincent brings Oliver along on all the stops that make up his daily routine - the race track, a strip club, and the local dive bar. Vincent helps Oliver grow to become a man, while Oliver begins to see in Vincent something that no one else is able to: a misunderstood man with a good heart. I absolutely fell in love with this film, and there is so much to talk about. Murray should at least be considered for an Oscar nomination for the real emotions that he brings out in his jerk of a character. There are times when this film is a legitimate tearjerker, and that is thanks in part to Murray's ability to bring out any emotion in his audience with just a facial expression. McCarthy actually portrays a different role for once, and this reviewer was pleasantly surprised with her depth for real dramatic acting. Sure, she has her comedy, but she never goes the desperate direction that she usually does in dragging out a joke. Maggie feels like a real struggling mother, and that is in part to a real actor that Melissa can be. Without a doubt though, the best part of this movie is that of Lieberher. This little kid has such a future in any form of entertainment that he takes on. There are times when he feels like more of a grown up than the two adults in his life, and it makes for some real comedic touches to spice up the movie when it reaches levels of over seriousness. That is probably the only lone problem that i had with the film. There are times when it can't equally play out a comedy and a drama at the same time, but it surely tries. There are times in the film where it needs to be JUST comedy or JUST drama. By the film's end, it comes off the ground nicely, but does suffer the occasional moment where you don't know to laugh or take what is going on seriously. This movie completely kept my attention, and had me generally worried about the future wellbeing of these characters, and i feel that is a sign of any good direction and/or performances. The movie is definitely recommended for everyone. I would definitely say to go into it expecting more than just a comedy that you gathered after watching the trailer. There is a bigger message present in St Vincent, and i believe it's that we should be aware of the everyday heroes who walk among us. The ones who like Murray, give us a reason to smile in our toughest times.
- Tammy - 5/10 - After finishing the newest comedy starring Melissa McCarthy, i have some good news and some bad news. The good news is that the movie actually had possibilities of being a decent film with an emotional hard hitting back story. The bad news is that the execution of that chance is swallowed whole by slapstick comedy and the obnoxious traits of our main characted. Tammy (McCarthy) is a woman who can never win in life. She is fired from her job at a fast food joint, she finds out her husband is cheating on her, and her car is totaled after an accident with wildlife. She goes on a road trip with her grandmother (Susan Sarandon) after feeling like both characters have nothing left to lose of their lives. It's a kind of Thelma and Louise story which is ironic considering Sarandon is in it. She is absolutely the best part of this film playing an alcoholic almost senile grandmother who is responsible for a lot of the comedic tones of the movie. I was completely wrong about McCarthy playing the same character because this one is slightly different from her roles in The Heat or Identity Thief. She exerts a bottled up sadness that shows she is just too good for screenwriter Ben Falcone's script with help from McCarthy herself. Falcone cameos in the film as Tammy's boss who fires her. If i had advice for both of them it's to stick to acting. Falcone did write 2011's Bridesmaids which i felt was one of the best films that year, but in Tammy it shows that he still has a long way to go. The scenes almost feel pointless in the first hour of the film with Tammy being put in a different scenario to draw out the cheapest of laughs. The movie gave me two total laughs in the whole film and that is mostly because there are too many tired jokes aimed at Melissa McCarthy's weight. The parts that did make me giggle dealt with the great comedic timing of Melissa McCarthy and some of her stupid responses to people calling her out on her issues. I do like Melissa, but i am looking more and more forward to her drama role with Bill Murray in Saint Vincent later this year. I think it's time she advanced her career a little further than the roles that don't do her justice. This movie has one of the best casts of the year, but i can't for the life of me figure out why they are all wasted. It's like Falcone invited them all on screen to make you point and smile, but not take too much away from his genius writing (Eye roll). Dan Akroyd, Kathy Bates, Sandra Oh, Toni Collete, Alison Janney and Gary Cole are all table dressing for a story that could've given them something to do with only 92 minutes of running time. Collete in particular only has one line in the film. How could this happen? It's just pure sloppyness. I really feel like this movie would've worked better as one of those female ensamble dramas like Fried Green Tomatoes or August : Osage County. When the boiling issues of our characters hit hard in the final half hour, you wish you got a film like that because it certainly would've pushed the audience a lot further. I think the biggest problem with Tammy though is the fact that any audience who isn't brainwashed by liking anything McCarthy comes out with will find that they can't relate to her character at all. In fact, from what i gathered The movie's principal intention is to make you laugh at a loser, and revel in scenes from which polite people would instinctively turn away. It's annoying when it tries to be funny, and a rambling attempt to cash in on McCarthy's fame. I don't recommend this film at all except maybe a Red box rental. Melissa McCarthy gives her all in every performance she is given. Even if those roles aren't written well at all. Isn't it time she gets a script that puts her in a leading role that she deserves?
- Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles - 5.5/10 - The heroes in a half shell are back with yet another origins story that comes full circle with a battle against their arch nemesis, The Shredder. Michael Bay's producer credits in this felt more like a directorial shadow as many of his cliche's are seen throughout the film. TMNT isn't a perfect film by any means what so ever. It's not even close to being the best of the Turtles series, but it's far from being the worst as well. Considering the reviews that this film has been getting, it could've been a lot worse. The film stars Megan Fox (Michael Bay's apparent #1 crush) as April O Neill as she exposes Shredder's Foot Clan prompting the Turtles to rise from the sewers and into the public light. I absolutely hated the casting of Megan Fox in this film, and it is as bad as i thought it was going to be. Her terrible capturing for human emotion is what really weighs the film down. April is a character who is smart, but also knows how to handle herself. Megan Fox plays the character almost as a frightened child who is there only as eye candy for the audience. I personally would've cast Amy Adams as April, but that's a discussion for another day. Another problem i had with the film was the origins story in general. After 5 Turtles films, i don't think the world needs another origins story. They should've just went with a basic Turtles story without going through all of the basics that even the youngest fans already know from the TV show. The problem also with telling the origins story is that in this case it is so much different from anything we know about these characters from the comics, to the TV show, to the feature films. Many plot holes make this version scarce from anything else in the series that makes sense. The characters are played off well enough, but they seem to be trapped in a movie that has nothing to do with getting to know them closer. If the movie would just stop and slow down for a minute, it could build some great character chemistry. That's one thing i loved about the 90's films; they built the friendship between April and the turtles. In this film, it seems like they are put together for the common enemy. I also didn't care too much about the voice acting most notably from Johnny Knoxville and Tony Shaloub. When you voice act, it's best to try to use a voice that fans don't recognize you with. Take for instance Bradley Cooper in Guardians of the Galaxy. In TMNT, these voices aren't that of teenage boys, they are those of grown Hollywood actors who make no effort what so ever to earn the paychecks they are cashing. The look of the Shredder was pretty cool, but was i the only person under the impression that William Fichtner was playing him? He doesn't, infact for those of you who like Batman Returns, Fichtner plays a character similar to that of Max Schreck. With all of this said, you may be asking what i liked about this movie to even give it a 5.5 out of 10. The movie is a fun sit with great comedic timing from Michaelangelo. You won't be bored by watching this film, but you might not enjoy it at the same time. I also enjoyed some of the eye popping CGI that i felt improved on what was started in the TMNT animated movie in 2007. The turtles are a little big and overpowering at times, but i can accept that since this is a new telling of a childhood favorite. The fighting scenes are good, but the quick edits ruin this film like it did the latest Die Hard movie that was released last year. It's all too quick to register who is fighting who and what is happening. Overall, i actually would recommend this film to Turtles fans who are even remotely curious about it. I think it's the faithful fans who have to see it for themselves to make an opinion. What is mine you ask? Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles is far from the best movie in the Turtles series, but it's far from the worst as well. It stays on the safe side of reboots and i can at least remotely appreciate that.
- That Awkward Moment - 4.5/10 - Who says you can't grow up to be a child? Zac Efron sure doesn't. Efron plays the biggest jerk i have seen in a film in a long time. This is seriously the best they had as a main character? This is the guy we are supposed to root for? Three friends (Efron, Miles Teller, Michael B Jordan) make a pact to stay single when Jordan finds out his wife has cheated on him. What follows is a fast talking waste of 94 minutes. The first problem comes in the form of the fast talking itself. The film tries to be a hip indie dialogue driven film, but the problem is that NO ADULT TALKS LIKE THIS. These are like grown babies who dress up in adult clothes. The only character that is worth anything is Jordan's. His character is given plenty of time (Unlike Teller) and isn't a complete jerk to every female he meets (Unlike Efron). You actually feel for this character, so you get invested into his rises and falls when he gets back with his wife. For those of you wondering, NO!!! The women do not add anything to the film. The have low self esteem insides which pushes them to be with guys like this in the first place. Efron calls his girl a hooker FOR CRYING OUT LOUD!!!! Other than the Jordan storyline, i didn't find a lot else to enjoy. The film is lost between trying to be a comedy and an emotional drama. It tells us to laugh at one crude joke after another, and then forces us to try to feel bad when a character gets drunk at Thanksgiving in front of all of their families.It literally adds nothing to the romantic comedy genre. Don't waste your time on a film this bad. Even for DVD, this is asking too much. The Efron fans will fall for every word he spews, hook line and sinker. I am sure Labor Day isn't going to be amazing, but i will be glad to get this terrible taste out of my mouth that Director Tom Gormican has left me
- The Amazing Spider-Man 2 - 6/10 - The title doesn't quite match the result in this sequel to the 2012 original. The Amazing Spider-Man 2 has a lot of things that could possibly make it a great movie, but it's the negatives that leave it as a disappointment when compared to the first film. First of all, I will say that this is nowhere close to the terrible film that was Sam Raimi's Spider-Man 3. This is actually a good film. Good not great. Some of the things I really enjoyed about this film were done at the top of their game, and it's those reasons why I saw the film in the first place, so I didn't go home too unhappy. The 3D is very well done. This is a film that will be in my top 5 current 3D films of all time. For once, it's not just a blending in background. It offers a lot of in your face effects with the lightning of Electro coming at you, and the beautiful popping out building shots that are around Spider-Man when he webs across New York City. It is for that reason alone why I will recommend this film before the review is even over. 3D is probably the only way to see this film. I also really enjoyed the beautiful cinematography. If I were in charge of next year's Oscars, this film would get a nomination in that department for the beautiful colors that radiate off of the fight scenes of Spider-Man and Electro. Colorfully, it can only be matched by Watchmen in the super hero genre, and for those of you who know me, that is a great thing indeed. The chemistry between Andrew Garfield (Spider-Man, Peter Parker) and Emma Stone (Gwen Stacy) is present once again with lots of cute couple dialogue to go with it. These two are together in real life, so it's no surprise that they know how to play a scene for all of the romantic jitterbugs in the audience. There was even a point when this movie kind of felt like a romantic comedy to me that was taking place in a super hero movie. When grading the acting of Garfield and Stone, the Spider-Man character isn't even needed. I would enjoy a film with those two without gimmicks. The scenes between Sally Field (Aunt May) and Andrew Garfield are also very heartfelt. Field has always been on e of Hollywood's most underrated actresses, and she shows that she is definitely the big dog on this set. She brings a feeling to Aunt May in this film that she has worked hard for Peter even when she hasn't always had help. One of my current favorite actors (Dane Dehann) plays Harry Osbourne. A kid supposedly supposed to be Norman's best friend from childhood. Dehann plays Harry incredibly with giving him a calm madness hiding just below the surface. He suffers from a lack of love from his father, so he tries to do things bigger and better than he ever did. There are a lot of things I didn't like about the film, but I will go into them in detail. I loved Jamie Foxx as Electro and felt that he played a character with extreme loneliness very convincing. There are however times where he plays this character a little over the top for a science nerd working as Oscorp. His performance reminded me a lot of Jim Carrey as Edward Nigma in Batman Forever. Instead of breaking ground, he falls for too many of the nerd character clichés that never make him feel even on the same level as Spider-Man. I also felt it was a step back for this film to not include point of view shots like it did in it's predecessor. Spider-Man is definitely a film franchise that could do revolutionary things with the camera work, and they explored this by letting the crowd see through Spider-Man's eyes in the first film. Without it here, it just feels like we revert back to the Sam Raimi Spider-Man with nothing new to grow on. I was completely disappointed with how bad they hurt the Rhino character. I know he wasn't supposed to be a big part of this film, but if I were a fan of that character in the comics, I would be pissed. Paul Giamatti is a great actor, but they give him this awful Russian accent (Yes I know the character is Russian) and he is unintentionally funny every time he pops up on screen. Giamatti and Rhino deserved much better. There were also some scenes that the logic had me laughing. I will try to keep the spoilers to a minimum here, but I need some to tell my point. There is a store scene where Parker is sick and is buying medicine. A robber comes in and tries to steal the money from the register, but is stopped by Spider-Man. If the worker really wanted to, he could look at the camera in the store and see that Parker (While wearing the mask) walks out with the exact same medicine that Parker had in his hands one minute ago. This could easily be fixable with a 1 minute scene where Spider-Man destroys the cameras, but we need to include a cute scene where people laugh because Spider-Man is sick while leaving the store Another scene shows Jamie Foxx becoming Electro while being electrocuted. It shows the gap in his teeth remarkably become fixed. I don't have a problem with comic book logic, but what point does that have? Is it to make it hard for Peter and Gwen to recognize him? That is another thing that bothers me. Gwen is the one who realizes that Electro is a man named Max who is a scientist in her lab because Spider-Man refers to him as Max during their first encounter. Ya know, because no one else in New York City is named Max. When Electro rises, the logic becomes even funnier. There is a scene where he shuts off all of the cars in New York's electricity but 50 feet from that everyone is using their cell phones without problems. What kind of electricity drains the cars, but not the cell phones? The friendship between Peter and Harry bothered me as well. We are supposed to believe that these two are childhood friends after not hearing about Harry for an entire first film. I know he left to go to the academy, but this friendship would mean more to the audience if we even heard Harry's name once during the first film. It feels rushed and convenient that he returns now to add more adversity to Peter Parker. When Raimi wrote the friendship in the first series, it was beautifully constructed between three films before they ever struck fists. In this, it is rushed and never quite given the fight scene it deserves. The movie didn't suffer as bad from overcrowding as i originally worried, but the final 20 minutes definitely feel rushed with three fight scenes between three different villains. Next, there is a scene where Peter Parker goes to find his Dad's lost lab which is actually a train underground. Even if you can swallow that nobody found this train on ground radar and even if you can get past the fact that how Peter finds it is a true shot in the dark, you can't get by the fact that everything in the train is 2014 technology that has no dust or spider webs in the train. It's like the train has never been touched. I know this is starting to sound like a negative review of the film, but i really did enjoy it. I am trying to show why the film went from a possible 8/10 to a 6/10. The two worst areas of the film i saved for last because it makes me cringe even thinking about it. Sony owns the writes to Spider-Man, but did this movie have to be a big 2 hour and 20 minute commercial for Sony Products? I am not kidding when i say that there are 3, Sony Laptop shots, 3 Sony Cell phone models being used, and a big Sony desktop monitor. Keep in mind, this is all that i caught and that it's possible that there are more out there. It just feels like a comedic spoof whenever this kind of thing comes on and takes you totally out of the feelings for the movie. The Sony thing is peanuts though compared to the worst musical score/soundtrack i have heard this year. Every pop/folk song like "For You" by Phillip Phillips is used to distinguish some kind of emotion because the director thinks the crowd is too stupid to pick up on emotions for themselves. If Peter is sad, you must play a song with sad lyrics in them. If Peter won't quit, you must play a song that describes never giving up. Those emotion jams are nothing compared to the score that plays when Electro invades New York City. It's some kind of awful dubstep song that has a male voice whispering words from Electro's point of view. Words like "He lied to me", "He forgot about me", "SPIDER MAN SPIDER MAN SPIDER MAN" "DIe Spider Man". It is single handedly the worst music i have heard in film this year. I get that Electro was a cheap reason to use dubstep in your movies because kids are hip to that music today, but it is so ear bleeding that i want to cover my ears even to risk missing plot dialogue. The ending is also kind of unsatisfying. There are technically two of them, and if they would've settled for the first one, it would have been awesome. Instead, they add on ten more minutes to film another fight scene that doesn't even end. Seriously, they begin fighting and the camera goes to black. One will write this off as build up for the 3rd film, but i saw this final shot in the trailers, and when you see that shot in trailers it is supposed to get you psyched up to see the full fight, not wait another 2 years for another film so that we can maybe see the ending to that fight. The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is a decent effort by director Marc Webb (Webb, how cute?) but it is riddled in the kinds of negatives that made the first Spider-Man series feel old by the 3rd film. I really hope they can pick it up for the 3rd movie as the groundwork is set for an amazing confrontation. Lets just hope it stylistically resembles the first film more. The Amazing Spider-Man 2 is recommended because the super hero era is still very big, but challenge yourself to not accept everything you see just because it's a super hero movie. We don't have to agree, but i don't give any movie favoritism just because it's a genre i enjoy.
- The Babadook - 7/10 - "You can't hide from The Babadook". "The Babadook" is the story of Amelia (Essie Davis) and the struggles to discipline her 'out of control' 6 year-old, Samuel (Noah Wiseman), a son she finds at times impossible to love. Samuel's dreams are plagued by a monster he believes is coming to kill them both. When a disturbing storybook called 'The Babadook' turns up at their house, Samuel is convinced that the Babadook is the creature he's been dreaming about. His hallucinations spiral out of control, he becomes more unpredictable and violent. Amelia, genuinely frightened by her son's behaviour, is forced to medicate him. But when Amelia begins to see glimpses of a sinister presence all around her, it slowly dawns on her that the thing Samuel has been warning her about may be real. I recently red a lot of positive reviews about this Australian horror film from actress turned director, Jennifer Kent. It currently holds a 96% of Rotten Tomatoes, and as a horror film that is huge. After checking it out, i can say that the percentage rating might be slightly exaggerated, but "The Babadook" sets a prime example for where horror films in America fail. For starters, it uses genuine horror to intrigue it's audience. The cheap scares and pop up gags are left at home in favor of an eerie setting and haunting visuals that will leave clutching for cover. At my age, it's hard for anything to actually scare me, but this film certainly made the most of it's cheap budget. Davis and Wiseman mostly dominate 90% of the film's 89 minute run time, and it's clearly deserved. They are two characters that we actually feel for and care about their well being. This is an art often lost in today's world of horror. In Davis, we see a woman clutching and the end of her psychological rope not knowing how to help her child who is growing more and more out of control. She is clearly walking in unfamiliar territory with this monster invading her home, and the subtle progression of her slip into insanity is one of the most riveting things about the film. Wiseman can be a little annoying, but incredibly charming when he needs to be. Compared to other creepy children in these kinds of films, Wiseman stands out above the rest because he is tough enough to fight back, plus he has a great back story reminiscent of Haley Joel Osment in "The Sixth Sense". The design of The Babadook is also pretty three dimensional with animation that plays to the dark coldness of the house. The monster is creepy without us ever getting a real good shot into his face. The film's first act does go a little slow when setting up the start of the film, but i think it's the second act that will really grab the viewer into seeing where this story goes. The two big problems i had with the film were that of the ending, and The Babadook's back story. Of the ladder, we are really told nothing about the origins of this monster, and i wish we could've gotten a brief history lesson even if those seem cliche in all horror films today. With the ending, i just felt it was very anti-climatic with the build of a powerful performance from Davis. I expected more out of the battle, and it all ended before i even got to appreciate it. As endings go, this one is a little far fetched, but it's not horrible. I do recommend it, as it's currently playing on pay per view and DVD. It's definitely worth a look to show the viewer how cheated we have been in horror films (especially in 2014). "The Babadook" gave me an appreciation again for my favorite genre of film. It showed me that real horror does still exist even if you have to travel across the world for it.
- The Bag Man - 4.5/10 - Somebody should tell director David Grobic that he has obviously watched a lot of David Lynch films. The problem is that he seems to not have taken anything from watching those films except a mysterious setting and characters that don't add up to personable. John Cusack stars as a down on his luck kind of guy who is hired by Robert De Niro to deliver a bag. He is told not to look in the bag, but to just deliver it. If that setting sounds familiar it is because it has happened a thousand times. The film adds nothing to a premise that is growing literally by the minute. It's sad that Cusack and De Niro have been demoted to these straight to DVD films because they can be two of Hollywood's best with the right script. If there is one positive that i took from this film it is that it does indeed keep you guessing what is in the bag. It gives you an answer that is pretty basic with a finale that does up the rating a little bit with a swerve. The film also has Dominic Purcell who stars as a crooked cop. For those of you who know me, you know i love Prison Break, and it was great to see Lincoln Burrows and John Cusack go head to head. The biggest negatives i took away was a sloppy script, too long of a run time (108 minutes) and (Surprisingly) bad acting. Cusack and De Niro are obviously doing this for a paycheck and that makes sense because they are both on sleep mode. I appreciate Grobic's attempts at a Lynch-like film, but he doesn't have the intrigue or the dedication from his actors to pull off a Blue Velvet or Mullholland Drive. Pass on The Bag Man.
- The Best of Me - 4/10 - If the ladies are crying and the guys are dying, it must be Nicolas Sparks newest film. The Best of Me is the best selling adaptation of the book written by Sparks, and it's about Dawson and Amanda, two former high school sweethearts who find themselves reunited after 20 years apart, when they return to their small town for the funeral of a beloved friend. Their bittersweet reunion reignites the love they've never forgotten, but soon they discover the forces that drove them apart twenty years ago live on, posing even more serious threats in the current day. This film didn't do anything to change my mind about Sparks film adaptations. To be fair, i have never read any of his books, and only grade his scale on his film adaptations alone. The film isn't as bad as some of the worst films i have seen of 2014, but it's not a very good one either. There are so many problems that i had with this film, but i am not shallow enough to not appreciate the good things as well. An easy writing would be to dismiss this film simply because i am playing my "Man Card", but i like to think that you the reader have more faith in your favorite film reviewer than that. First of all, the casting is decent at best. As Amanda, we get two performances from Michelle Monaghan and Liana Liberto. Liberto is definitely the better of the two as the younger version of our female protagonist. I didn't mind Monaghan much, but she never does enough to make her personality anything memorable in the role. Every time i saw flashbacks during Liberto's scenes, i couldn't help but feel Ellen Pompeo would've been a better choice visually to compare to Liberto's teenage face. This leads to the big problem i had with the casting of Dawson, LUKE BRACEY LOOKS NOTHING LIKE JAMES MARSDEN. Even to squint your eyes and defy everything you know about genes, this casting is completely opposite. Both are good in this role, but Bracey is not only taller, but he is more built. This would all be easy to dismiss except that Dawson towers over Amanda when they are teenagers, and then he is about two inches smaller than her when they hit adulthood. That is one hell of a growth spurt. One thing enjoyable about the film was the flashbacks to 1992, and the music that followed. I didn't notice anything that really took me out of the scenes they were presenting, and the soundtrack was quite the audio scrapbook that i needed to take me back to some of my childhood favorites. Mainly, the biggest problems that i had with this film (Outside of tired romantic genre cliches) was the logical problems that take me out of any movie. I will be getting into spoiler territory here, so turn away now. During the first scene of the film, Dawson is blown into water by a huge oil explosion on a charter that he works at. He manages to land in the cleanest spot of water so we can perfetly see him in the water despite all of this oil spilling out around them. The back and forth transition of time era's is something noticeably bad because it's very confusing during the final scenes of the film. There is a scene in which Amanda's son is in a car wreck and needs a heart operation. We learn the a donor has already been cleared and he is getting ready for surgery. It ends up that Dawson is the donor, but this announcement happens five minutes before Dawson is killed on screen. I know the viewer can say that Dawson could've died before the announcement due to the sloppy nature of the editing, but it's still too soon and would take too long to rush a dead Dawson to the hospital to save this boy. I personally think the movie should've been told from a straight through viewing of young to old. The film doesn't need any of the back and forth stuff, and it only confuses the audience. Another thing a little unsettling for me was the setting of this film in the south, and yet no one spoke with a southern accent with the exception of one character. Am i being picky? That's up to your opinion. I have always felt that a film will take me out with these sloppy productions that were obviously never addressed. Sparks isn't the director of the film, so i'm not even going to blame him. I blame director Michael Hoffman for his sloppy and uninspired choices. It seems Hoffman doesn't care to address these issues because he knows his female audience will show up to support the movie no matter what, and to a certain degree he is right. The female audience of my showing ate this movie up, and loved every minute of it. To that degree, The Best of Me succeeds. I think a film like this will say so much more though if it can take moviegoers not known for liking films like this and convince them of some stellar film making. Instead, what we get is a crowded, cliche ridden, predictable rush of a film that crams in too much too fast for just under two hours. I will recomend this for the female audience only, and that's because i am not foolish enough to believe for a second that they care about the things i mentioned in this review. The Best of Me was a little better than i thought it was going to be, but it's story dooms a mediocre film into ever becoming something more. Not terrible, but not good either.
- The Book of Life - 7/10 - Give 20th Century Fox credit for finding a holiday that has never been presented on film. The Book of Life tells the legend of Manolo (Diego Luna), a conflicted hero and dreamer who sets off on an epic quest through magical, mythical and wondrous worlds in order to rescue his one true love and defend his village. The film's first act is dedicated to a love triangle between Manolo, his best friend Joaquin (Channing Tatum), and Maria (Zoe Saldana). It plays for laughs, but is quite predictable within minutes of the film who Maria will choose. Luckily, this isn't all the film is about. I found myself not only charmed by the laughter, but by the romance and family values that the film represents. The most impressive aspect is that the film manages to pack so much in 85 minutes, which only adds to how impressive it is. With the exception of How To Train Your Dragon 2, i think The Book of Life makes an argument for best animated film of 2014. The animation is breathtakingly beautiful. I compared it to an early Tim Burton animation with lots of skeletons and curses/hex traditions. I didn't see this film in 3D, but i can imagine that it will make the beautiful multi colored landscape and buildings in the background pop out even that much more. The voice work is average, but it's never terrible. My grading scale for voicework has always been based on an actor sounding like anyone but themselves. Everyone is pretty noticable in this film, but that's not a problem. Tatum plays the cocky character, Luna plays the romantic swooner, and Saldana plays the babe. Far stretching these roles are not. One of the most impressive aspects of the film to me was the soundtrack. There are many pop/rock songs played in the film to Mariachi music in the background. The songs are played to a romantic ballad kind of feel, and each one works every time. One song in particular was "Creep" by Radiohead which was magically reworked so beautifully that it took me a minute to figure out what song it was. I would mention more, but i honestly don't want to spoil it for you the audience. If the DVD of this film came with the soundtrack, you better believe that is a pack definitely worth the extra cash. This film is also unapologetic about the non stop energy that it promotes within it's magical characters. The film always feels like it's running in full speed (A good thing), and you have to keep your eyes peeled not to miss anything in the beautiful worlds presented. I think a feature like this definitely warrants future watches because animated films are always known for their hidden Easter eggs. Overall, i would definitely recommend The Book of Life for the whole family. The kids will love the comedy, and the parents will enjoy it for a wonderful date night.
- The Boxtrolls (3D) - 6/10 - Laika Productions latest animated feature takes us underground to the world of The Boxtrolls. They are a group of mischievious creatures who adopt a human boy and raise him as one of their own. When a town maniac is driven to get rid of The Boxtrolls to serve his own political agenda, the creatures find themselves with their backs against the wall to get the truth out to the townspeople. I did enjoy this film, but nowhere near on the level of other Laika features "Coraline" and "Paranorman", and because of that i consider a disappointment of sorts. That's not to say that The Boxtrolls isn't a good movie. It excells highly on the things it does do well. One of those things is outstanding voice acting. I have always said that a voice actor does their best work when you cannot recognize who is voicing the character. In this film, Ben Kingsley carries the reigns as he adds to a resume that is already stacked to the ceiling. He plays the villain, Archibald Snatcher (Not making that up). I seriously thought Eric Idle was playing this role when i heard the voice, and couldn't believe my eyes when i saw it was "The Sir" himself. Nick Frost is also great playing one of Archibald's henchmen. Frost co stars in this with his long time business partner and collaborator, Simon Pegg. So i guess we can consider The Boxtrolls another Pegg/Frost production even if they aren't at the forefront. As with the tradition with Laika films, the animation is the best in children's films. I fell in love with The Boxtrolls characters even if they served as supporting characters in a film named after them. The design and production that went into creating not only these trolls, but the town which they inhabit is breathtaking. There is a featurette on Youtube that is a making of, and i recommend everyone see it before seeing this film. It's why i prefer a film like this over a typical animated cartoon any day of the week. There is so much detail that goes into every clay character they create. From wrinkled skin to veins in their eyeballs, you have to admire the time and skill that goes into their craft. One problem i did have with the visual was that of the 3D. There is no reason what so ever for this film to be in 3D. With the exception of some light background effects with sparks or smoke, i saw no point for it. I am thankful that i had a free 3D movie ticket in my pocket because i would've been very upset with what was arguably my most pointless 3D sitting ever. Besides the 3D which is only a problem if you opt to pay more, i had a problem with the comedy and dry first act of the film. The first act is always the most important in a film because it represents the audience's interest in the film from the opening line. This film had a lot of problems early on deciding how much of the film was going to be dominated by our title characters. With The Boxtrolls speaking their own language, it's hard to get any satisfaction out of their exchanges, and the first half hour is riddled in this. I also mentioned before how the comedy wasn't as great in this film. In "Paranorman", i found myself constantly chuckling at not only the manneurisms of the character traits, but the hidden classic horror movie winks they were giving to the crowd. The Boxtrolls does improve comedically by the final 40 minutes, but by then it's too late. This movie needed a better comedic start to get it off the ground to the satisfying climax it received during film's end. Even with all of that said, The Boxtrolls is entertaining for children and adults alike because it gives a style and design that is completely different from anything Disney or Pixar can do. I always prefer Laika Studios when it comes to animated features, and i hope they can keep the ball rolling. The Boxtrolls is a passing effort in my opinion, but the bar was set too high from the previous two Laika films to keep this from being a slight disappointment
- The Captive - 6/10 - After watching the newest film from Oscar nominated director and writer Atom Egoyan, I can safely conclude that he saw the 2013 film "Prisoners" and didn't like the ending. "The Captive" is the story about the kidnapping of a pre teen daughter, Cassandra from her parents Matthew and Tina (Ryan Reynolds and Mirielle Enos) without a trace. Eight years later, detectives Nicole (Rosario Dawson) and Jeffrey (Scott Speedman) are investigating online activity by pedophiles when they discover recent images of Cassandra. Convinced this is proof positive his daughter is still alive, desperate father Matthew vows to ensure her safe return even if it means risking his own life. Besides the obvious plot similarities, this film has a lot in common with The Captive, but some subtle differences. I enjoyed the original moments more than the things it tried to do better than it's predecessor. Make no mistake, this film is nowhere in the same league as "Prisoners", but it certainly has enough right about it to stand on two legs. The first of these is a more relatable male lead character in Reynolds. He feels more logical as a parent and doesn't seem to fly off the handle as much as Hugh Jackman in "Prisoners". Even when all signs point to him as the culprit, he continues on the road to find his daughter. Reynolds and Enos are just the tip of the iceburg in a star studded cast. The film also stars Rosario Dawson, Bruce Greenwood, and Scott Speedman. I will get to the ladder later on in the review. The movie doesn't waste it's 105 minute run time with any spare parts that weigh the film down into boring territory. People who hated the ending to "Prisoners" will more than enjoy the satisfying climax of the film's end. It's a little silly how we get to that moment, but we more than appreciate the all questions being answered approach by Egoyan. He clearly believes in this script, and without the brush of originality and touches of goofiness during script twists, the film could've been memorable enough to get the big screen treatment. The problems i had with the film seem like a lot, but they are very easy to fix. First of all, those similarities to "Prisoners" are blatantly obvious. The grim and cold setting, the set up, and even the harsh detective (Speedman) who is being a little too hard on the father of the child. I admit that Speedman takes it to such ridiculous lengths that Jake Gyllenhaal would never be foolish enough to touch, but their characters certainly feel interlockable. I really did despise Speedman's character because he felt so stupid in some of his assumptions that even his co-workers gave him strange looks. I think his character is written a little overboard for someone whose first interest is to help find this child. The clues for the parents to think their child is still alive is also too far fetched for our characters to grasp as solid evidence. One scene in particular shows Reynolds delivering some trees to a construction facility. He has to stay overnight in a hotel because of bad weather, and gets a surprise when he wakes up the next morning. His trees were taken out of his truck and spread out down different parts of the freeway. He decides to follow the trees and takes this as a trail to his daughter. Who wouldn't take this as a prank from some crazy locals? It just seems very annoying considering he has no reason to accept this has anything remotely to do with his daughter. Another thing that i could've done without in this film was the reveal of the mystery taker within the first 20 minutes of the film. It sort of feels like the wind is let out of our sails as this no longer is a mystery. And oh is that villain the absolute worst part of this movie. The villain is so absolutely cartoonish that we feel like we are watching a TV show on Fox with his moves. His sudden change of intelligence midway through the movie is also unexplainable. One second, he outsmarts the authorities at every turn and then he is turning just sloppy enough before the end of the run time. You would never believe that this guy has been abducting girls for at least eight years when you see the sloppiness of operation. I just don't buy it. The only other thing that bothered me was some back and forth foreshadowing that the film does at the end. The movie cuts back and forth between the day of the abduction, the week that follows, and eight years later. It takes us a minute between each of these cuts to understand where we are in the timeline. Some on screen text explaining when this scene is taking place would be beneficial for the viewer, as well as feel more like a crime drama with knowing the dates and places. While it sounds like i had a lot of problems with the film, i can safely say i was more than enough entertained to give this film a passing grade. I think if i saw it in theaters, i would be a little upset to pay the full price for a movie not nearly as satisfying as a similar and much better film that has been out on DVD for almost a year. But since this film is currently on DVD and On Demand, i can say it's worth a rental. I think people who liked "Prisoners" will enjoy this movie, but they will understand the difference between good script writing and great script writing.
- The Double - 8.5/10 - Director Richard Ayoade's latest film is one of the most original and dark stories that I have seen in quite some time. Jesse Eisenberg stars as a man who has had his life completely turned upside down by a twin. His work life is unappreciative, his romantic life is non existent, and his home life is a nightmare. When the twin comes along, he is treated like he doesn't exist in the first place, and finds himself in a quest to get it all back. The Double... is a harrowing look at we as human beings making the changes that we need to make to become the person we want to be. Eisenberg shines in his best role to date. He has been in better films, but he hasn't displayed such emotional acting chops as he did in this film. He shows an emotional claustrophobia that really makes us relate to a character who is losing it all. Ayoade does many things the best that I have seen this year. The lighting plays every bit an important part of this film as the cast does. The dark tones and background are reflective of the alienation that Eisenberg is experiencing. The shadows display beautifully how he feels like a stranger in his own life. Also, the sound editing deserves an Oscar. From quick edit shots to the beautifully written score, we are kept on the edge of our seats to the heart pounding finale. The ending was one of the only problems I had with the film as it is one of those left to interpretation. I don't usually have a problem with endings like that, but The Double deserves the answers by the end that we aren't given during the 92 minute build up. I felt that a little more explanation would have made this film even more memorable. As it stands, The Double is one of the best films I have seen this year. To recommend it though is a tough thing. If you are into artsy films or thinking films, then you will definitely enjoy this film. I think the hard thing will be for people to enjoy a move that is so original that it's different from anything they have ever seen. I do think this film is easier to understand than this year's Enemy. They are two films that have similar plots with The Double being the better film between the two. If you are a Jesse Eisenberg fan, I would recommend this to you. I am personally hoping he does more independent films to show off more than just great comedic timing. It's the boldly uncompromising approach that makes The Double such enjoyably smart satire.
- The Drop - 7/10 - This weekend's film winner is one that is once again seen in the fewest screens but tells the best natural story with impactful performances. Tom Hardy stars as Bob, a former gangster turned bartender at his cousin Marv's (James Gandolfini) bar. Bob handles what is known as the drop bar. Every night, Marv's Bar is the forefront for the city's dirty money exchange far away from the eyes of any law enforcement. When five thousand dollars gets stolen by two masked criminals, things take a dangerous and gritty turn with the mob coming to collect their cash. The Drop is similar to a lot of other New York crime dramas, but what pushes it over the edge is the brilliant on screen duo of Hardy and Gandolfini, as well as a script which pays off due to many chances that it takes. Hardy is still one of my favorite actors working today. As Bob, there is a nervous twitch with a soft spoken tone that makes you want to love this guy and not necessarily fear him. There is more brewing underneath the surface, but it's a quiet storm that no one ever sees coming. Gandolfini presents his most honest supporting role in his final film before his untimely death. He has a lot of connections and isn't afraid to use them no matter who it hurts. Aside from these two, the film also includes John Ortiz and the always powerful Noomi Rapace. It's a cast that plays well with with characters that have seen and been through too much, but always strive for a greater good. What is fascinating to me is that director Michael Roskam takes a tale of lost souls and heartless thugs and makes the outcome feel hopeful. The setting of New York City in the winter time is perfect for a story that is at times very cold and brutal. The pacing of good unpredictability is what earns screenwriter Dennis Lehane the highest praise i have given in months. He creates good surprises not quickly, but instead lets them develop into an ending climax that gives a complete 180 to the characters we thought we knew and supported over 102 minutes. It's a twist that i should've seen coming from miles away, but because of how many different stories this film tells, it never had time to materialize in my mind. The dialogue is very slowburned, but charming with lots of dark humor. The best of it comes anytime our two male leads are on camera together. This is a very worthy last hurrah for the great James Gandolfini, and i am glad because i don't think any single actor did more for the crime genre in the last twenty years. It's tough to recommend a film like this because we are in an age where people want results right away, but The Drop is a slowburn that would rather take the time to tell a great story with characters who always have something more to hide. I would recommend this film on the basis alone that i enjoyed it because it felt like something fresh in a decade where crime dramas (Minus The Iceman) have pretty much been one and the same. The Drop is more than all of that because it proves that good acting can elevate a good script much higher than we could ever expect. Hardy has always been destined for the big time, and it's roles like this and Locke that he shines the brightest. I can never understand how a man from Hammersmith, London can make a Brooklyn accent sound so authentic. It reflects the kind of charasmatic ambiance that Hardy has used to take the roles that only he wants to take. Kudos to good film making and good acting. The Drop is the best movie to come out this weekend, and should be seen by more people.
- The Equalizer - 8/10 - Denzel Washington plays Robert Mccall, a former Special Ops soldier who lives a simple life in Boston. Everything changes one night when a friend of his (Chloe Moretz) is assaulted and put in the hospital by her russian pimp employers. Mccall decides that it's time to open up some of his past demons to get revenge on those who do harm to others. The Equalizer kind of felt like a violent rated R superhero film at times with Washington playing his most physical role to date. What the film lacks in believability, it more than makes up for in stylish violence reminiscent of a Sin City film. The violence and fighting scenes are among the best i have seen in 2014, and are sure to satisfy any action buff looking for the genre's best. What i really loved about this film however is that it takes it's time building the tension. For anyone who lacks patience in a script and wants results fast, this isn't the movie for you. It clocks in at 2 hours and 8 minutes, but it never felt like it lagged. Most of that is due to the incredible tension created between Mccall and the Russian mob boss, Teddy (Martin Csoskas). Csokas is menacing, and never fully shows his anger to his enemies. He likes to torture to always get the answers that he seeks. Between a scene at Mccall's apartment and a scene with the two males sitting down in a restaurant, the tension was highly stacked for a showdown of epic proportions, and i can gladly say that it didn't disappoint. The finale takes place with the whole russian mob hunting down Mccall in his place of business, a Home Depot esque rip off of a home and gardening business. Thank God for Sony Pictures that they had time to pimp their laptop products shamelessly like they do in other Sony Pictures movies, but they didn't have enough of a budget to represent the Home Depot name. It's a pointless nitpick, but i always have an inside joke with the people i talk movies to about how Sony makes sure to always get their products in front of the camera. The movie has an all around great cast besides Washington and Csoskas. Chloe Moretz, the great David Harbour, Melissa Leo, and even Bill Pullman all make appearances with some of them working and some of them not. In fact, one of my only lone problems with the film was the screen time of Chloe Moretz. She appears during the opening 15 minutes quite frequently and then we don't see her again till the end of the film. Because of that time lapse in between, i feel like she was just too good of an actress to play this role, and they could've gotten anyone to fill it. I was personally satisfied when Sony hired Antoine Fiqua to direct this thriller. For those of you who don't know, Fiqua directed Denzel in his Oscar winning role as detective Alonzo Harris. In that film, Washington took a role on that he made his own by smart one liners and harrowing realism to the sides of the streets that most people aren't familiar with. The Equalizer is very similar in that regards to me. He plays a man we can all relate to, but we will fight our hardest when we are protecting the people we care about. Fiqua directs that very well, and his films serve as a social commentary for the events going on in the ghettos that the news stations are afraid to show us. I definitely recommend this film not only to action fans, but to everyone in general. If you love Denzel, you cannot afford to miss out on this film. This is one of those rare occasions where i justify a full price showing even if only for the heart pounding sound editing coming from hundreds of shots being fired. The Equalizer is a game of revenge, and even at the age of 59 years old, he shows that he is still one of the best that Hollywood has to offer.
- The Expendables 3 - 7.5/10 - The crew of action A-listers are back in the 3rd movie of the series that is definitely the most entertaining one by far. The Expendables 3 packs a stronger punch than the first two films because for the first time this actually feels like a real movie and not a spoof on 80's action cliches. For one, the story is the best it has ever been with Mel Gibson playing the villain as a former Expendable turned rogue who shoots down one of The Expendables early in the film. This forces Sylvester Stallone, Jason Statham, and the rest of the boys to hunt Gibson down with a challenge greater than anything they have previously faced. Gibson is absolutely amazing playing opposite of Stallone's do it by the book style. It's fun to see this guy in a serious villain role (Machete Returns not counting) as he looks like he is having the time of his life. New additions like Wesley Snipes, Ronda Rousey, and Kellen Lutz are much appreciated. Rousey in particular gives The Expendables a female perspective and it is a good one as she proves to be sexy, but menacing. This is arguably the best role ever for Lutz as he plays a kind of younger version to Stallone. With these new kids, it's easy to see where the future is headed for this band of misfits, and the future is very bright. The action is non stop from start to finish. The loud explosions mixed with the constant destruction of buildings and land around will have any action movie buff's heart pounding. The fight choreography is the best of the year by far. Lots of beautifully painful styled street fighting complete with some MMA moves for good measure by Rousey and Victor Ortiz. The only small problem i had with the fighting is that by the 3rd film it's quite easy to know none of these Expendables are going to lose, but it would be a lot better if they were fighting a star opposite of them. For instance, in the first film, Steve Austin and Eric Roberts were two bad guys who The Expendables were constantly fighting. You believed there was a chance that one or two of these good guys might not make it out alive. In the second film, Jean Claude Van Damme was opposite of Sylvester Stallone and it made for the greatest fight of the entire series (my opinion). So my point is that it would be nice to see some other action stars play a minor villain role and fight off against Jason Statham or Randy Couture. It creates suspense and suspense is especially needed in an action film as fast paced as this. The only slight problem i had with the 3rd installment is the fact that they are still afraid to kill off some of their stars. There are plenty to last if you wanted to make another three films, so why not shock the audience and toss a couple bodies? I will say that they have trimmed down most of the unbelievable stuff and made the action a little more realistic, but with no fears of main characters losing their lives, this movie stays dumbfounded when tons of missiles and ammo are being fired at our characters. It's a minor problem that might not bother some people, but by the 3rd film with only two Expendables killed, it makes it a little stale. Overall, The Expendables 3 is a nominee for best action film of the summer. It's intense, humorous, and full of great performances from characters that the academy may have claimed a long time ago are "Past their peak". Sly and the gang are back, and worth every dollar you will spend at the box office. Grab some popcorn, sit back, and enjoy the explosion of the summer. Recommended.
- The Fault in Our Stars - 7.5/10 - Every once in a while there will come a film in the romance department that a man and a woman can equally enjoy and it not be a one sided occasion. The Fault in Our Stars is that film for this decade. It stars Shailene Woodley as a cancer patient struggling for a reason to live. She meets Augustus Waters (Ansel Egort) who becomes romantically interested in the girl, and gives her life for the first time in a long time. On the surface, Stars is one of those films that is just another romantic teenager movie about self loathing and love being the only key to happiness. But it takes a deeper look into the 2 hour film to understand that this film is about living for today because tomorrow might not be there. I really enjoyed this film for it's superior acting, brilliant soundtrack and it's heartbreaking attitudes without resorting to too much exploitation of the genre. I am happy to say that i did successfully predict the ending of the film, but that didn't take too much away from it. Stars has something that everyone can enjoy, and a lot of that resorts to Egort who is absolutely fantastic as Augustus. He gives the film the charm and the life it needs from what would otherwise be a depressing teenage tale. This is only the first film i have seen him in, but i think he is a young actor with a bright future. Some actors can just give you a look to make you smile back at the screen, and Egort is one of those lucky few. This review would be pointless if i didn't talk about how good Woodley is in it as well. I kind of didn't have an opinion on her before this movie. I liked Divergent, but didn't think she needed to be a strong actor to play that part. She was good in The Spectacular Now, but was outshined by Miles Teller. Stars is finally her movie. She proves that she can provide the viewer a scope of a character that they can hope the best for without 100% feeling sorry for her. She is very witty as Hazel Lancaster, and speaks and acts in a way that all teenage and young adult females can relate to. Examples even as small as waiting for the boy you like to call you early on in the relationship, or not having that confidence in yourself until someone else makes you see it. Woodley captures superbly the awkwardness of being a teenager and the never say die attitude in being a cancer patient. The only slight problem i had with the acting was Laura Dern as Hazel's mother. Most people will watch the film and think i was nitpicking, but i just didn't feel she was cast right for the role. I have never been a fan of Dern's and i don't feel this movie did her any favors as well. Her scenes feel so fake whenever she delivers a very important role. It slows down the movie and makes us remember that we are just a viewer in a story and not actually there with the characters. The only other problem i had with the movie was it's pacing. The first hour is one of the best opening hours in film in 2014 because there is so much packed into that hour. Once we get to the halfway point, we feel like we have been watching the movie for 90 minutes, but that is where the movie starts to show some of it's problems. The second hour is good, but by that point you know where the film is heading, so it's hard to stay as excited for a movie that already has a set direction. If the first hour of the film could've withheld some of those events and saved them for the early part of the 2nd hour, i think it would've made for a smooth transistion into the tearjerking 2nd hour. Speaking of tears, the ladies were absolutely bawling during my showing. I heard several sniffs during the emotional scenes, and plenty of reaches for the tissues. It's in that area where Stars delivers at it's best. You know you are coming into a sad movie, and this one never fails to deliver on that promise. I mentioned before that the soundtrack was something very noteworthy. It's hip, but gives a different kind of feel for everyone from electro pop to indie rock to beautifully constructed piano backgrounds that greatly compliment the struggles that our characters go through. The Fault in Our Stars is one of the biggest surprises of the year for your favorite film critic. The thing i liked the most about it is that it shows that you don't always need vampires and factions to show teens in all of their angst driven journeys that cultivate into hopeful glory. Well recommended for a good date night. It's nice to see a weekend that comes out with two can't miss choices in this and Edge of Tomorrow.
- The Gambler - 6.5/10 - The stakes are high for a man with a gambling addiction who doesn't know when to quit in this remake of the 1974 original starring James Caan. Mark Wahlberg stars as Jim Bennett, a college english professor by day, and a high stakes gambler by night. Bennett bets it all when he borrows from a gangster (Michael Kenneth Williams) and gets in over his head. Always one step ahead, Bennett pits his creditor against the operator of a gambling ring (Alvin Ing) and leaves his dysfunctional relationship with his wealthy mother (Jessica Lange) in his wake. He plays both sides, immersing himself in a gritty, underground world while garnering the attention of Frank (John Goodman), a loan shark with a paternal interest in Bennett's future. As his relationship with a student (Brie Larson) deepens, Bennett must take the ultimate risk for a second chance. I found a lot of things charming about "The Gambler", even if it doesn't hold the charms or powerful message of the film's original. This movie has a lot of great pieces that keep it from falling completely apart from a dull lead character who is clearly phoning it in. I am usually a fan of Wahlberg, but there is something about this role that never feels his. Bennett is clearly a suicidal individual who doesn't care about who he hurts or how much damage he does on the way out. We are shown glimpses of his past, but never shown his backstory. Essentially, this stranger is presented as a loser the whole film, and it's always hard to have hope for such a character. His moral compass is dropped on more than one occasion even outside of the casino's. The supporting cast is some of the best i have seen all year. Lange is great, but her storyline is literally dropped during the second half of the film. With no explanation or no additional scenes, the audience is left to fill in the blanks for itself as to what happened with her and her son. Goodman is always having the time of his life when he acts on the silver screen. This loan shark has the perfect Goodman charms that always speaks softly but carries a big stick kind of attitude. Williams is possibly the very best part of the film. He is a veteran of Hollywood supporting roles, but i can't ever remember a movie where he receives so much talking screen time. He has a perfect voice to play the opposite antagonist of Wahlberg, and there is something chilling about the threats he makes with said voice. The film is wonderfully shot with a lot of dark camera shots similar to a Barry Sonnenfield movie. The soundtrack has Pink Floyd covers done in a reggae style. It doesn't seem to fit with the overall attitude of the movie, and i think the original Floyd would've been soothing enough to get the vibe of trouble across to the viewer. I did enjoy the ending even if it seemed a little too convenient with obvious foreshadowing coming together. My problem with it however is where the movie decides to end. It continues a Hollywood cliche of ending right before the scene that ties it all together sending the audience home happy. It's like Director Rupert Wyatt (Rise of the Planet of the Apes) shot where the movie is headed but then ran out of film right before it's about to happen. The movie fades to black with a collective exhaust from everyone in the theater. It sent me home on a negative note, and that only hurt a film that i found pretty enjoyable (minus the lead) up to that point. "The Gambler" will make you just that if you see it in theaters. It's not something i can promise that everyone will enjoy, but i think it's harmless as a rental. The film's 1 hour and 45 minute run time are enough to keep the pace rolling with how Bennett will ever come out of this alive. Overall, it's a movie that just didn't need to happen mainly because it adds nothing to such a classic original. A decent enough movie, but not worth the gamble of $10-12.
- The Giver - 5/10 - The adaptation of the best selling novel is about an 18 year old named Jonas who is chosen to be the keeper of memories for a town that is without feelings or emotions or memories of any kind of past. The trouble he encounters when he learns the horrific truth is what leaves the boy with the task of trying to change the establishment for the better. The Giver is visually a post George Orwell apocalyptic dream. It has some beautiful cinematography that is enough to keep the viewer interested until the lackluster final scene. Unfortunately, this movie doesn't have much more on the positive side of translation from the novel. The performances are good in the adult form from Jeff Bridges and Meryl Streep. It's great to see Streep in particular cast in such a role that is opposite of anything she has portrayed in the last decade. She makes you despise her just enough, but makes you understand her reasoning of the way things are the way they are. The young adult performances were as boring as the black and white scenes that happened in the film. Brenton Thwaites is on a fast track to being forgotten with bad performances this year in The Giver and The Signal. He just doesn't come across as smart enough or threatening enough to play Jonas with any belief that this kid could take down authority. His best friend and love interest (Odeya Rush) isn't much better as Fiona. She plays the character so well in the world of lacking emotions, but it's done a little too well because it keeps her in sleep mode when her character is asked to visually get the horrors of this world across her blank stare. The main characters are so boring and it does no favors to a script that already has problems communicating the story it is trying to translate. At 87 minutes long, i feel like The Giver was just too short to fully explain everything that worked with The Giver's novel. It's in that rushed presentation that leaves the movie with a lot of unanswered questions. The ending alone will leave you feeling like you were prepared for a steak dinner and left with appetizer bread. It's unsatisfying because it solves none of the problems occuring in the bleak world. Besides the ending, there are lots of questions that i had for the film that were not explained. Keep in mind that if you know the answers from the book, i am not reviewing the book. My review is strictly for the film, and the film did an awful job explaining things. My first question is why the townspeople worry so much about a word like "Love" when they don't know what that word means to begin with? Katie Holmes is one of the higher ups in the film, and when her daughter learns that word she starts freaking out. What does it really matter if Katie Holmes herself doesn't know the meaning of the word. Love is an emotion, but these people wouldn't know that anyway because their minds are whiped clean from anything emotional. My second question (and much more important) is why would they keep someone like Jeff Bridges around anyway? Bridges is The Giver who is being replaced by Jonas to carry all of the memories of the former world. Why is this needed at all? If i were Meryl Streep, i would want Bridges killed immediatly so word doesn't get out of how things used to be. Keeping him alive is only causing stress for the way you currently run things. I did mention that the cinematography was one of the only things i liked about this film, and the camera work in particular gives me enough interest to see what Director Phillip Noyce could do with an independent film. The colorless shots in particular are done so creatively that it really impressed me with how smart it came across. Jonas is the narrator of the film, so everything is coming from his point of view. He is the only character who can see color, so when he is in a scene it's full of color. Yet when he is out of the shot, the scenes quickly resort back to black and white. I really enjoyed this and it made sense creatively when trying to tell a story about characters who have literally been robbed of everything. I haven't read the book since 3rd grade, but i remember the novel being a lot more action packed than this, and it just feels like another thing they skimped out on. The Giver isn't a terrible movie. With the right run time and communication, a remake of this film ten years down the line could succeed. It's a visual dream, but a translation nightmare filled with carbon performances. Wait till DVD.
- The Good Lie - 8/10 - If you are looking for the feel good warm hearted story of the year, look no further than the newest film from Director Shawn Linden. Three brothers who fought to survive the Sudaneese attacks were known simply as "The Lost Boys." Orphaned by the brutal Civil war in Sudan that began in 1983, these young victims traveled as many as a thousand miles on foot in search of safety. Fifteen years later, a humanitarian effort would bring 3600 lost boys and girls to America. These young men were given a reset button for a life of violence and hunger day after day. "The Good Lie" felt like it would be another cliche heartstrings movie like 2009's "The Blind Side". Where it succeeds differently is the in depth detailing of the backstory for this village in Sudan that was always on the run from these soldiers gunning down their homes. That detailing is what i really loved about this story the most. For the better part of the first 35 minutes, it's all about their journey to America where most movies would cut a quick 5-10 minute opening to give the viewer just enough of this life before the cutesy moments with American culture. Linden makes sure the viewer knows exactly what these boys have been through, and gives time for that story before showing our main character (Played by Reese Witherspoon). Witherspoon is fantastic in this role, and feels more invested into these characters than Bullock did in 2009. Her character changes rapidly because she learns of conditions in their home country, and the unbearable task of living in a culture they know absolutely nothing about. Her best moments shine as a mentor to these boys that she met by a twist of fate. The script is beautifully constructed without ever feeling too cheesy. It's clear that a film like this is all about those moments when you rely on family to get through anything, but the film lets these men develop their own personalities by giving them their own traits that make them tick. I was emotionally invested into their story not just for the handicaps they faced in America, but because no character felt bigger than the other. These are three brothers who are given meaningful camera time, and that's the only way to do it. If i had one lone problem in this film, it was the obvious foreshadowing of future events. I would've preferred some scenes to be cut so the end result doesn't feel so easily predictable. If i were suprised more without being clubbed over the head by obvious unsubtle spots, then i could've easily seen this as one of the best films of 2014. With that said, "The Good Lie" will warm even the coldest of hearts in a blizzard of Winter. Witherspoon is the Hollywood star of the film, but the movie's shimmer comes from three actors new to the big screen (Arnold Oceng, Ger Duany, Emmanuel Jai). Come for the memorable story complete with heart racing visuals, and stay for the authentic performances from three male leads whose scars tell the story of the hell these real life refugees endured day after day. "The Good Lie" will stay with you long after the credits roll, and that isn't no lie.
- The Grand Budapest Hotel - 9/10 - Wes Anderson's latest film is his masterpiece. This film stars Ralph Fienes as the manager of a prestigious hotel in 1928. He has affairs with older rich ladies who rent out the rooms, and he gets in trouble when one of them dies and leaves him a valuable painting. Wes Anderson really hit a home run with this one. Besides it's usual quirkiness, it has absolutely amazing coloring. Possibly the best i have ever seen. Each scene is highlighted with beautiful shades that radiate off the hotel walls. The same Anderson camera angles are there as well. Back with stop motion perfection that makes any fan of his work smile. The film is littered with it's usual list of actors that make the best of every scene, but some aren't given enough time to shine.Bill Murray, Jude Law and F Murray Abraham are only present in a couple of scenes, but you will wish for more as they each give a different sort of charismatic charm to the roles they play. Fienes is absolutely amazing in this role. He has comedic timing that is relevant of the 1940's style of cinema. Adrian Brody and Willam Dafoe also shine as the son and bodyguard of the deceased madam. They are after Fienes because they feel like he slept his way to the riches. Dafoe is silent but dangerous as a man who breaks all the rules to restore happiness to his client. It is in this role that Wes clearly has seen the SNL skit about him (See The Midnight Cotterie of Sinister Intruders). This film starts to have touches of a horror movie midway through with a dead cat, a severed head and a finger slicing scene that will have you wincing by how quick it happens. I like this darker side of Anderson, and wouldn't be against seeing it in more of his films. The storyboard sets are also amazing. Some far away shots of the film are done by plastic castle models made nine feet tall. Anderson knew the audience would know the shot was manufactured, so he went with an old school style of building much like the old Godzilla films did. Many people have criticized this and one other scene in the film for it's practical computer effects, but i think they are just right. They add a cheesy campy feel to the film that adds to the dry comedy. If i have one problem with this film, it is the ending. Characters don't pay the price for some of the crimes they commit, so it's a little odd when everyone ends on good terms. Anderson is always known for his odd endings, but this one just didn't sit right with me. With the exception of that, it's a perfect film. I will definitely be grabbing this one when it hits DVD shelves so i can see all of the things i missed in the wide angle shots. Every Anderson fan has to see this film. I can't recommend it to everyone though since his comedic humor is kind of an acquired taste. I will leave the trailer below at the bottom and you can judge for yourself. Excellent film.
- The Hobbit : The Battle of the Five Armies - 7.5/10 - The final film in this middle aged trilogy serves as a faithful send off to any fan of the Tolkien novels. The 3rd film in this trilogy brings to an epic conclusion the adventures of Bilbo Baggins, Thorin Oakenshield and the Company of Dwarves. Having taken back their homeland from the Dragon Smaug, the dwarves have unwittingly unleashed a deadly force into the world. Enraged, Smaug rains his fiery wrath down upon the defenseless men, women and children of Lake-town. Obsessed above all else with his reclaimed treasure, Thorin sacrifices friendship and honor as Bilbo's frantic attempts to make him see reason drive the Hobbit towards a desperate and dangerous choice. But there are even greater dangers ahead. Unseen by any but the Wizard Gandalf, the great enemy Sauron has sent forth legions of Orcs in a stealth attack upon the Lonely Mountain. As darkness converges on their escalating conflict, the races of Dwarves, Elves and Men must decide to unite or be destroyed. "Five Armies" might not be the best film in Peter Jackson's trilogy. Mainly because it's stretch of three films from two novels does feel a bit forced mainly at the beginning of this film. The fast paced nature of "Desolation of Smaug" seemed to end out of nowhere, and after seeing "Five Armies", i don't quite understand why. I will be one of those people who feel two movies of two and a half hours could've easily told this story exceptionally. However, this film combines some of the best cinematography i have ever seen with 3D that can't be contained by any kind of screen. The result of these custom built 48 frames per second cameras have made this series the most beautifully produced trilogy in fantasy film. There were so many times in the movie where i felt like i was fighting alongside Gandalf or Thorin with many objects flying in my face, and so many jump scares as a result of this. This movie isn't just great effects though, as the acting is top notch again by many of the film's main team. Martin Freeman (Bilbo) has taken the role to new heights as the "rise above fear" mentality leaps off of the pages through the film's main protagonist. Freeman has his least amount of on screen time in this film, but he makes the most of every scene with heart and a comedic timing that gives the fight scenes it's exhale from the nonstop action. If i had a couple problems with the film, it's mainly in the battle scenes for the lonely mountain. When you see this film, count how many times a character is in danger only to be saved by someone else. I know it seems like a common thing you see in every film, but it just takes away from the suspense of this movie by the 10th or 11th time it happens. Many of you know i have never been a Legolas (Orlando Bloom) fan, and this film does nothing new to help me cure that dislike. His character does the most unbelievable things even for the fantasy genre. It's weird to me that a character who wasn't in the novels was given so much screen time in this story. The biggest problem i have with his character is that i don't know why he can't just fight these armies by himself. It's been presented on more than one occasion that he can kill more than one person at a time, so why not? The problems aren't too big of a deal to drag this film down, and i'm sure they will be irrelevant to the fanboys of this franchise. One more notable praise with the film comes from the breathtaking score composed by the master, Howard Shore. The man's filmography reads as a musical yearbook of some of film's best in time. However, it's been his work in all six of the Lord of the Rings/The Hobbit films that lifted him to new heights. The background music overpowers every fight scene or long shot of the cold, lonely landscape. It almost feels like the music never stops playing because it's such an important part of this series and the scenes it engulfs. Overall, this film is definitely recommended. I will do one better that you never hear from me; SEE IT IN 3D. I don't ever recommend 3D viewings, but you just won't be doing this film justice if you see it from a 2D perspective. There are plenty of on screen effects to give you the bang for your buck. For me, the opening fight scene of Smaug reigning terror on the town as a continuance from last film is a visual fantasy for anyone waiting for 3D to finally pay off. "The Battle of the Five Armies" isn't the best possible closure that the fans can receive, but it doesn't have to be. The three Lord of the Rings films will always complete any fan's wishes of this series continuing long beyond the goodbyes of these characters.
- The Homesman - 4.5/10 - When the credits role after this nearly 2 hour dedication to 90's western films, the first thing that comes to mind is the wasted potential of a cast so strong that it makes an argument for the greatest ensemble of 2014. The Homesman is about three women living on the edge of the American frontier that are driven mad by harsh home maker life. the task of saving them falls to the proud, independent-minded Mary Bee Cuddy (Hilary Swank). Transporting the women by covered wagon to Iowa. she soon realizes just how daunting the journey will be, and employs a low-life drifter, George Briggs (Tommy Lee Jones) to join her. While this isn't Jones's first directing duties, it is his first wide release directing effort, and the mediocrity certainly shows. The problem with The Homesman isn't necessarily in it's direction for the settings and scenes that Jones creates, but rather the narration of the story he is trying to tell. The movie clearly casts Swank as a main character who women can get behind. One of the biggest reason many female movie goers cannot get into westerns is simply because they don't have a character who they can relate to. For at least the first half hour of The Homesman, they are finally given this wish come true only to have it ripped from under them halfway into the movie. Swank becomes a shadow of the character she was written as. She becomes weak, complaining, and dependent upon Jones character for his strength and his love. I don't want to cast Jones as a man who wrote this film to serve himself as a hero, but it's hard not to even think about these things when seeing how his character takes charge of the three mental women as well as become the apple to Swank's eye. I mentioned earlier how the film has an impressive resume for the cast. This includes Hailee Steinfield, James Spader, John Lithgow, and the great Meryl Streep. For those of you who have seen the trailer to this film, you would think that the actors i just named are prominent figures in this film, but you would be wrong. Spader and Lithgow are each given one scene for characters that they play very well. Steinfield shows a much needed young presence during a time when the film is spiraling out of control. The problem with her character though is that we learn nothing about her or her past. We are told that her character meant a lot to Cuddy, but we never find out why. Streep is pehaps the biggest mystery though in this whole debacle. She appears in the last 15 minutes of the film, and isn't given any long dialogue or any character trait that makes her role stand out above the rest. For my knowledge, i feel like they cast Streep as a big Hollywood name to bring in more people to this film. Those of you who follow Streep in a dedicated fashion will be disappointed. One thing that made 90's westerns like "Tombstone" and "Unforgiven" such epics is because they kept over 2 hour films very well paced, and endless charisma from their A-list casts. The Homesman seems intent on doing the exact opposite here as there are long periods of silence in a blank country side. The audience will immediatly be reminded of how bored they are every time one of these scenes pop up. One highlight in an otherwise bleak film, is that of the makeup and props department. The wardrobe feels authentic to represent the 1800's western culture that the film was trying to get across. James Spader's character in particular is almost unrecognizable as a pushy hotel owner. If you are a fan of the Westerns genre and are looking for a shoot em up fast paced drama that will make you long for the days when these films were commonplace, this film is not the one for you. Tommy Lee Jones crafts a painters-like scenery, but The Homesman offers nothing of substance to go with the setting. I give it a DVD rental if you find it interesting after watching the trailer.
- The Hundred Foot Journey - 5/10 - Helen Mirren and Om Puri are dueling restaurant owners who are bent on putting the other out of business in the culinary commentary on searching to find happiness far away when it was already at home. Compared to this year's Chef, The Hundred Foot Journey doesn't do anything besides offer table dressing of delicious foods. The movie would be a lot better if it understood just how predictable a story like this will be and get to that point in 90 minutes. What should've been the ending happens with about 25 minutes left of the movie, and the rest of the film after that feels like we have stuffed ourselves on bland and boring. One problem that i had with this film that no doubt no one else will have is the character's pure extacy of eating these foods and then not giving many descriptions to go with those tastes. It sounds like i am being a harsh critic, but in a food film it is those adjectives that paint the picture for the food that we as the audience can even find ourselves tasting at times. Chef did this better than any other food film i have ever seen. One positive is that the performances are definitely there. Mirren could pretty much act in her sleep at this point. She gives "Journey" the remote little spark that it even has playing a take no attitude kind of French woman who is a little possessive when it comes to the areas that she feels are rightfully hers. She doesn't have completely evil intentions when it comes to putting out her competition, but she will do enough to make sure it's her hand that is raised in victory. Puri is also satisfying in his first major American film role. He is a world wide treasure that has been locked away for far too long. I would like to see him in more comedies with a story that isn't quite tame and predictable. Director Lasse Hallstrom has directed some really deep and impactful characters in his time, so i don't quite put the blame on him. Between Chocolat, The Cider House Rules, and What's Eating Gilbert Grape, Lasse shows that he can paint a situation that will glue you to your seat. I can only hope that this is a minority result and not a majority when it comes to the later part of his career. What i wish the film would've explored more was the cultural discrimination between the French and Indian cultures that inhabbited the area. It seems like the producers laid out an outline for this movie to take on dark tones at time, but didn't want to alienate the audience who paid to watch a feel good story. The beautiful shots of France paint a charasmatic culture where these patrons are living for food, and it's in that atmosphere where the movie succeeds during the first 2/3 of the film. The food is there, the story is there, but the ending is dull and a foregone conclusion. The crowd that i saw the movie with was an older crowd, and i think that is where the movie will succeed the most. I can't see a younger 20-30 year old audience getting much pleasure from this movie. Anyone with little patience in a movie will be defeated before it even gets going. I would ask my readers to watch the trailer and see how you feel after you do. If you seem interested, then there might be enough to hold your creative appetite in favor of the colorful dishes and witty banter. The Hundred Foot Journey takes us on a journey much longer than the title's mentioned distance. It's a film that had potential, but should've done like Puri's character mentioned and "Turned the heat up".
- The Hunger Games : Mockingjay Part 1 - 7/10 - The revolt against The Capitol and President Snow is in full swing in the 3rd installment that slices the final book of The Hunger Games series into two parts. The first part is about the aftermath of the Quarter Quell which finds Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) in District 13 after she literally shatters the games forever. Under the leadership of President Coin (Julianne Moore) and the advice of her trusted friends, Katniss spreads her wings as she fights to save Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) and a nation moved by her courage. There was plenty i liked and didn't like about this film. One thing i can say for sure is that it was much better than the novel, which i found sloppily written compared to the first two installments. The film follows the outline of the book, but does the small stuff with different variations. I will not spoil it for the reader, but i felt like this movie was stretched very thin with what little it was given from the book. For a film that is 1 hour and 52 minutes, there is about 30% of the actual novel used in this film, which means the other 70 will be used for the 2015 part 2. That makes this movie just too unimportant with the events that happen compared to the first two Hunger Games. It's the main reason why i don't support a split between these Mockingjay films. Individually, it will be tough for these films to compete with the other two, but if they were together to make one movie, "Mockingjay" could easily make a run for best film of the series. For all the people who had a problem with the first movie, there is one thing you can't deny; it was paced wonderfully with the most impacting moments carefully spread out to never leave a dragging part in the film. Mockingjay Part 1 drags because it's mostly dialogue exposition driven while abandoning it's action scenes that made "Catching Fire" the 2013 powerhouse that it was. We get a lot of sizzle and not a lot of steak when it comes to the invasion by The Capitol's army. The film's producers choose to focus entirely on the impact it has on Katniss and the rest of District 13, and showing none of the explosions or terror happening above them. I know this won't be a big deal to some people, but one thing i enjoyed about the other two films was it's careful build before the bang went off in the actual Hunger Games. There is no games in this film, and nothing that even remotely comes close to that excitement we felt when alliances were being formed, and tributes were running for position. I give "Mockingjay" a lot of credit for the haunting visuals that it casts as a consequence to standing up to those in power. The film has a very deep political tone that we can relate to in our real lives, and it works to show that the biggest rewards cost the biggest repercussions. I was also very pleased with the makeup work of this film. Peeta in particular appears weaker and weaker in every Capitol interview he gives. Even though his words are meant to calm to the watcher, you can tell there is something very wrong beneath the surface here. From the calises underneath the eyes, to the sickly wrinkled skin representing the stress that these captures have endured, the makeup/props work is the very best of the series. The acting was also very noteworthy. Lawrence in particular is given her deepest role since "Winter's Bone". It's clear that she feels this Katniss character, and it's that fire in her eyes that shot goosebumps piercing my skin. Other great turns are Phillip Seymour Hoffman in one of his last roles as Plutarch Havensbee. Hoffman gives his warm smile on top of motivating presence to Katniss and her image to rule a revolt. Elizabeth Banks isn't in the film often, but she gives the darker than normal tone of the film it's few smiles to light the mood. There is simply no one else who could come close to playing Effie like she does. Donald Southerland has always been my favorite part of this series. He doesn't ever have a lot of screen time, but the veteran actor always makes the most of his scenes, and serves as a villain so evil that you can't wait to see him get his. A big problem with the cast is that a lot of them aren't given any sort of meaningful screen time. Between three movies, we know roughly 20-30 characters by this time, and many of them are easily forgotten in a crowded script. Finnick Odaire has always been my favorite character in the books, but i felt he took a HUGE step down in this movie. His character has changed for the worst, and it's much further than just watching people die in the games. This doesn't feel like the same charasmatic gem we got in "Catching Fire". It's unfortunate to see so many characters who have led the way this far take a back seat into obscurity. Overall, "Mockingjay" is a good enough film to entertain the Hunger Games legion of fans. Hardcore fans might be a little disappointed with a movie that feels pointless for being split in two, but this film definitely gets you geared up for the battle and bigger events in the book in part two. It's my least favorite of the three films easily, but it's not terrible at all. "Mockingjay" serves as a bridge between "Catching Fire" and the big finale during the final pages of the novels. It feels unnecessary for it to be it's own movie, but the story is given many new and different layers to pave the way for a part two that will be jam packed.
- The Identical - 2.5/10 - The story of twin brothers seperated at birth because the parents could only afford raising one child. Both children turn out to be amazing singers with one becoming the biggest rock star in the world. The Identical is easily the sloppiest film i have seen in 2014. That doesn't mean it is the worst movie i have seen, but it is pretty damn close. What made this movie a guaranteed failure was the movements of actor Blake Rayne playing both of the brothers as Elvis rip offs. When i first saw the trailer to this film, i thought it was a biopic on Elvis Pressley, but then i heard that the brothers names were Ryan and Drexel, and immediatly i was confused. Why would you make a film with a singer who looks, acts, sounds, and moves like Elvis Pressley and then name him something else and change the story completely. The story isn't good or compelling at all, but i would've had more respect for director Dustin Marcellino if he would've given his musical act an original feel. I can only imagine that they had trouble with the licensing rights from the Pressley family, but that is even defunct when the film mentions Elvis Pressley a couple of times. So we are led to believe that it's ok to live in a world where not one singer looks and sings the same, but three different singers (Elvis included) do it? Ridiculous. I know the pop music haters will come back at me with every singer looks and sounds the same, but consider this movie to be like if Kesha looked like Britney Spears. That is the kind of logic that The Identical uses. The soundtrack is unforgiving with generic Elvis songs because this isn't Elvis's story. The songs feel like B-side Elvis songs that The King passed on to write the stuff he was legendary for. On top of it, there isn't many of these original songs to go around so we get to hear them played over and over again. No one can listen to these songs and tell me that they weren't going for an Elvis impersonator. Think whatever you want about my review writing, but i'm not acceptable to a movie that was this lazy. Why don't we just make a rock star impersonator franchise and put Jimi Hendrix in Ghostbusters 3? The makeup and wig work is laughable for all the wrong reasons. Ryan's hair grows and trims itself without any explanation what so ever. If he is wearing wigs, we certainly don't see it from the awful editing work going on behind the camera. The funniest thing about the makeup to me came in the effect of Ryan's parents played by Ray Liotta and Ashley Judd. Liotta is made to age right along with the decades that pass in the story. He inherits a head of greys and wrinkles on his face that give him the distinction that 30 years has passed. However, Ashley Judd apparently didn't want to wear makeup or they ran out of the budget because she never ages more than a year during the whole film. There was one point towards the end of the film where i had to remember that she was married to Ray Liotta and wasn't his daughter. Liotta is the only performance worth anything as a preacher who is wound a little too tight when it comes to the next generation of teenage interests. He plays the role with enough responsibility and love from a preacher who adopts a child that he wasn't quite in agreeance to. Judd is Judd. Same hollow emotion behind her usual smile. Rayne is alright, but he is basically being Elvis even when he isn't supposed to be. If this is an Elvis film, then yes he played the role perfectly. But since it's not, his performance comes off as simple and uninspiring. The best note about the cast is the terrible miscasting of Seth Green as a groovy drummer and Ryan's best friend. He is so laughable and so eye rolling in the character of Dino that i found myself exhaling as hard as i used to when my Dad would try to rock out to Grunge Music. It just doesn't feel right, and with the exception of Will Smith as Satan (Winter's Tale), this is the worst miscasting of 2014. The film ends after 102 minutes that feel longer because of the terrible pacing and rushed scenes when it's trying to tug at the heart strings of any kind of emotion. The film's end feels like we have watched our main character for nearly 2 hours and yet we still know nothing about what is going on inside. The Identical is sloppy, bland, and devoid of any intentions. It's like they set out to make an Elvis movie and couldn't get the rights halfway into the film, so they just changed the names around. It's a good thing the King has left the building because Elvis would find new meaning to the words "Don't Be Cruel" after slop like this. Not recommended at all.
- The immigrant - 4/10 - How does a film starring Joaquin Phoenix, Marion Cotillard and Jeremy Renner receive the same rating as an Adam Sandler film? Come with me into the wonderful world of film reviewing as i explain to you where The Immigrant went wrong. It's a story of two sisters from Poland who come to America in 1921 seeking the American dream. When they get here, Marion Cotillard is purchased by a man running a whorehouse (Joaquin Phoenix), and her sister is detained because she has lung disease. The Immigrant suffers from two very big problems that will put it towards the bottom of my rankings for the year. The first is that it has absolutely no imagination when thinking up anything that would make us remotely relate to these characters. Jeremy Renner who is usually Mr. Personality is plagued by soft spoken dialogue as a magician who is out to win the heart of Cotillard. We are given no time to explore one anothers feelings to the other person, so scene after scene with Renner is almost pointless. To add on to it, he is given a cruel ending that makes his talents feel even more wasted. The second problem that this film has is it suffers from the worst case of boredom since A Winter's Tale. I can't even imagine how this movie is given so many rave reviews for it's performances and well crafted characters when the movie is dreary scene after dreary scene. This is a New York where the sun never shines, the characters are always depressed, and it all just gets old fast. If there is one positive, it's the wardrobe work. The clothes and backgrounds make us feel like 1921 is brought back to life. The problem is that if this is what is represented for 1921, i will gladly stay in 2014. I understand that we are supposed to feel for this woman as she was forced into a career of slavery and prostitution, but it shows us none of her suffering along the way. It's one quick edit after another if we ever get any scenes of her with the men who pay for her services. Over the course of the film, Cotillard comes up with a plan to save money to rescue her sister and have the two return to Poland. THe film creates a kind of love triangle while this is going on between the three lead characters. It's not very well written and feel soap opera at times, but at least it's something. The reactions of Phoenix as his best girl is being stolen by Renner was something i was looking forward to, and the payoff is over before it even begins. One thing i haven't talked about are the performances. Cotillard is usually a good actor, but i don't think her emotional range is deep enough to pull off that of a character who has had everything ripped from her. Jeremy Renner isn't given enough screen time to make any kind of difference in a sloppy script. Phoenix is the only performance who i would recommend checking out. He plays a character on the borderline of insanity putting up with his business being yanked from him. It's something that Phoenix always does well because that is the actor we know in real life. He gives the movie what little edge and excitment it has with his slipping from reality. The movie finishes with an ending which is very abrupt and doesn't present us with anything we didn't see coming. I know i have been very hard on this film, but i feel very surprised to see it was ranked with an 86% on Rotten Tomatoes. Looking further into it, that number comes from critics while the casual viewer has given it a 57%. When i saw the trailer, i was looking forward to seeing the way it played out. Watching the trailer again, i can say that it doesn't do a good job of presenting the real film. The trailer is filled with beautiful tracks that compliment what appears to be a colorful film with a touching rags to riches story. The viewer will be left sadly disappointed when it's all over. I think this is a movie everyone can skip. Flatlessly written and heartlessly acted is not a movie that we need for story that could've been inspiring
- The Imitation Game - 8.5/10 - The best way to prevent innocent deaths during World War II is to decode the German Enigma machine that they use to communicate attack strategies. "The Imitation Game" tells the real life story of of mathematician, cryptanalyst and war hero Alan Turing (Benedict Cumberbatch) and his team of mathematicians fighting in a race against time during the world's biggest war. What i loved about this film is that it told three different stories at the same time. The film starts in the future of 1952 during a home invasion burglary of Turing. What follows is his arrest for public indecency. A charge that would expose a haunting secret for Alan when his past becomes clear to the authorities. In the span of flashbacks during the exposition in the police department, we learn about his days as a child at an all boys school to his time cracking Enigma. The way the story is told in this film is among the very best with not only communicating above intelligence information, but with building a character backstory for it's main character. Turing is a man who hides a lot during a time when the world wasn't acceptable of certain things. Those secrets actually create a pleasant surprise for this film that i didn't see coming. Going in, i felt that this film was an autobiographical film about ending the war, but the film's three big twists during it's storytelling changes anything you could expect by film's end. I do kind of wish the twists were a little more spread out over the course of the 1 hour and 48 minute run time, but i can't critique it too much as the movie is a real life story. It's also why i didn't fault much for an ending that is tragically hollow. This all happened, so to be disappointed with some events would only be preaching to an already 60 year old choir. My only legitimate problem with the film is a person peeve that i always notice when i watch a film with a time span like this one. The movie takes place over twelve years, but Turing nor any of his counterparts ever age, or show any signs of stress reflection despite holding the lives of millions in their hands. From the start of the film in 1940 to the final documented year of 1952, it seriously doesn't look like Turing ages five minutes let alone twelve years. Getting past this personal nitpick, i found the film to be thoroughly enjoyable with not only a marvelous cast, but an educative briefing on code cracking. The performance mentions begin and end with the great Benedict Cumberbatch. What a year he has already had, but he certainly saved the best for last in this film. The movie's success rests on Cumberbatch's shoulders, and i don't feel like i am even slightly embellishing expecting him to receive an Oscar nomination for his work. Once we start breaking down the walls of his tortured history, we understand what makes Alan tick. Some of that "Sherlock" charm comes out in this film, and it's easy to understand why he will be an Oscar nominee for years to come. Another big scene stealer comes in the form of one of Hollywood's biggest kept secrets, Matthew Goode. I have been a fan of Goode's for a long time with great roles in "Watchmen", and "Stoker", and this film is no exception. His endless charisma moves some scenes along that would otherwise be considered dry. He gives a humor flavoring to "The Imitation Game" that is welcome during it's darkest scenes. The wardrobe and props department also put in some long hours on this film. The overall look of the film jumps you into a time machine for some of the best detailing of World War II that i have ever seen. It was cool to see perhaps some of the first computers ever developed being used to aid and end the war. Perhaps the film's strongest peak comes from the terrifying truth this team faces after the cracking. That is when the twists kick in, and "The Imitation Game" goes from an intelligent war piece to a harrowing reminder of how far we have come in socialogical reflections. Consider the code cracked. "The Imitation Game" is a late year winner that brings every emotion out of it's audience.
- The Interview - 4.5/10 - The most controversial film of the year is finally released to the public on VOD and select theaters. In "The Interview", talk show host Dave Skylark (James Franco) and his producer Aaron Rapoport (Seth Rogen) run the popular celebrity tabloid TV show "Skylark Tonight." When they discover that North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un is a big fan of the show, they land an interview with him in an attempt to legitimize themselves as journalists. As Dave and Aaron prepare to travel to Pyongyang, their plans change when the CIA recruits them, perhaps the two least-qualified men imaginable, to assassinate Kim Jong-un. Without seeing the film, the average moviegoer can expect that this film will definitely be with problems, and it's hard to judge a Seth Rogen film with any journalistic integrity, however i reviewed this film based on it's comedic and entertaining abilities, and those are very few and far between. "The Interview" had some legitimate laughs that set up a fun first act. The problem is that a majority of those jokes are very hit and miss, and the ones that do work, are repeated far too often. As you would expect in a Franco/Rogen effort, the comedy is very tasteless and sophomoric more so than necessary. Most films dictate that one guy usually plays the straight man, and it's Rogen in this film. The problem with that casting is that Rogen works more than Franco in a film with this style of comedy. With Rogen getting little to no laughs based on his opposite straight man casting of Franco, the film suffers through a terribly boring third act. The satire is done pretty well, and at times it feels like a companion piece to 2004's "Team America: World Police". Lizzy Caplan was a long bright spot in this film. As a CIA agent, she felt like someone who took the risky mission in front of these two numbskulls seriously. Caplan thrives the most during a scene involving Rogen hiding a poisonous weapon for Un. You can imagine how this one goes if you have seen the trailer even once. That is another huge problem with "The Interview"; all of it's best parts are in the trailer. The worst part about a joke is when you see the punchline coming from a mile away, and this film brings it tenfold. Regardless of what i or any other critic thinks, this film will go down in history, and i suppose that's what really matters. Due to the recent controversy surrounding the pulling of this film, "The Interview" is expected to make a fortune on VOD sales alone. The real disappointment is going to come in fans expecting anything big out of this film. With the exception of the final five minutes, i didn't feel there was anything in this film to warrant a banning. It's all silly and harmless fun, and if the hackers gave the film a chance before judging it, they would laugh more at the people who had to make it. I still have my theories about the supposed pulling of the film, but i will save that for another day. Overall, "The Interview" is more of what you've come to expect from this duo. This film would've been better if it were never made, not banned. Any film has a right to be shown though, and that should never ever change.
- The Judge - 5/10 - "The Judge" stars Robert Downey Jr as big city lawyer Hank Palmer, who returns to his childhood home where his estranged father, the town's 40 year plus judge (Robert Duvall), is suspected of murder. He sets out to discover the truth and along the way reconnects with the family he walked away from years before. If i were to define this film as just one thing, i would say it's an actor's piece. The performances are definitely the best thing about this film with a powerful cast of Hollywood heavy hitters. The problems that these actors have to face is a mediocre script that can be distracting for all the wrong reasons. The Judge is a dreadful 2 hours and 20 minutes for absolutely no reason what so ever. The film sees many pointless scenes that can easily be trimmed for time and better flow in the movie's direction. In particular, i found a tornado scene one that went on for way too long, and never really establishes anything new that we haven't seen for 90 minutes up to that point. Another scene shows a family movie projector where Duvall's family is sitting around the living room watching these great memories for sentimental feelings. Where this goes into lunacy (along with the rest of the film) is the projector film being spliced with footage from a car accident from Downey's brother (Jeremy Strong) in the film. What family would take film of their sons horrific car accident, let alone keep the footage to watch for years and years? Scenes like this are far from the biggest problems in this movie. There is an uncomfortable incest storyline (Yes you read that well) in this film that has absolutely no bearing or reasoning as to why it was even considered for a courtroom drama. Even worse, the incest is treated for laughs that made me feel awkward as i was the only person in a packed theater not laughing about it. It's awkward for no reason at all, and i was looking at my watch just in hopes this film would end quicker. Finally, how does a movie called "The Judge" have less than 20 minutes of actual courtroom scenes? I was looking for more head to head debating between the two lawyers (Downey and Billy Bob Thornton). Then i really thought about why this was. The case itself isn't exactly a tough one to predict how it will result in. All of the clues are there in the reveals of each new piece of evidence to the case, and it amazed me how quickly into the movie we knew what this verdict was going to be an hour and a half before that reveal. Because you know where it's going, the film suffers greatly in pointless exposition scenes between this crumbling family. I know it sounds like i really hated this film, but "The Judge" has performances which really pull it out of the cellar, and yes they are that good. Downey is the most charasmatic actor in Hollywood bar none. The man can take a mediocre script and give it his all to turn it into gold. Playing a lawyer is the role that Downey was born to play, as his humor is present even in this dry film. His interaction with Duvall sets the tone for the kind of damage that this family has endured for decades. Duvall is still a hard hitting actor who still can generate the tears. Also noteworthy are Thornton and a hard working female lead by Vera Farmiga. The relationship of Farmiga and Downey definitely didn't go where i thought it was going, and the end result should've been more honorably written between the two. I wish i could explain more, but i am not going to spoil it for the people who legitimately want to see this film. "The Judge" might possibly be the best film to come out this weekend, but it's a verdict that is never satisfying enough beyond the performances. It's a film that will easily be forgotten in ten years because there are much better courtroom dramas. I recommend JFK, A Time To Kill, and The Lincoln Lawyer
- The Legend of Hercules - 4/10 -God, this film is bad. How do you screw up a story that is so universally known and embraced? You send in Director Renny Harlan. Kellen Lutz stars as the world's strongest man and his coming of age against a dictator father and brother who want him dead. This film had a lot of problems, but none were bigger than the terrible miscasts. Kellen Lutz should never be the lead in any film, and i say that as a man who is trying to help him. He works much better as a supporting character like he did in the Nightmare on Elm Street remake. They try to show him off with several wet chested out of the water scenes which does nothing but present him as a piece of meat. I am sure the ladies are going to tell me that Hercules is supposed to be presented in that light, but his story is so much more. I get that sex sells, but Kellen Lutz is laughable whenever he reads a line that is supposed to be an important part of the story. He just doesn't believe what he says and therefore cannot become the character. I also felt the CGI was disappointing. Some of the objects are terrible when it comes to the real details, but nothing more than a lion in the beginning of the film. You can almost see the invincible object that Hercules fights against that is supposed to be the lion because he just doesn't put his all into it. This is the only bad fight scene of the film though, as the fighting was one of the only things i enjoyed about the film. The war scenes in particular are done with great design and choreography. It's like this was the one area they definitely had covered before they started writing the film. I also enjoyed the performance of Scott Adkins as King Amphitryon. Adkins is having the time of his life as he throws all cares out the window and gives us a performance that makes us yell "FINALLY, SOMEONE WHO GETS IT". The Legend of Hercules clocks in at 99 minutes, and because of the slow pace it feels even longer. With a slow start mixed with an uncomfortable rape scene, this film is tough to get into from the get go. I do think the 3D would probably make for a better experience. I saw it in 2D, and thought some of the scenes would look impressive in 3D. In particular a chain wielding Hercules fight scene. If you want a cheesy movie that you and your friends will have a good time giving funny commentary, this is the film for you. I don't think even a buff chested Kellen Lutz will be enough for the ladies to like this mess
- The Lego Movie 3D - 9/10 - The most creative movie i have seen in a few years deserves all of the critical praise it has received. The Lego Movie is something out of a childhood dream. It combines incredible animation with comedic humor that is totally unlike anything ever seen in the animation world. I loved the hell out of this movie for so many reasons. The first, it has an amazing cast. Chris Pratt, Elizabeth Banks,Will Arnett, Morgan Freeman, Will Ferrell and the always great Charlie Day bring so much heart to the voices they deliver. Freeman especially brings us so much dry humor as God. It's a role that he has gotten so amazing at playing (Bruce+Evan Almighty) that people start to question if this man actually is God. As i said before, the animation is incredible. I give the designers of this film an Oscar based on how they brought the Lego world to life. I kind of want to watch this film again based on what i missed. The designs go on for miles and miles and it truly is incredible. The comedic timing has something for everyone. The kids will laugh because this is after all a movie for them, but the adults will love it too because it's that kind of humor you can look devilishly at your husband/wife and appreciate. It's also very creative how they tie the movie together at the end. There is a surprise ending that will really melt your heart for those of us who always played with our toys. A love letter to the child in all of us, if you will. I haven't felt this good about leaving a theater in a while. Sure, there have been better movies in the last few years, but The Lego Movie makes you feel something that you thought was buried away with adulthood. It makes us feel like we are looking down on the world we create with our minds. A couple of the cameos are also very cool in the movie. I am not going to spoil them all, but only the couple that have already been seen in commercials (Batman, Superman, Spaceman). The only negative critique i have for this film is so little that it doesn't hurt the movie at all. The 3D is kind of useless. Sure it adds to the coloring and the motion of the animation, but no real big tricks with stuff flying at your face. I think you can see this film without paying extra for 3D and still be amazed. There is also a song in the film titled "Everything is Awesome" that will surely be stuck in my head till the end of time, and that isn't a good thing. The Lego Movie is a film that shouldn't be missed by anyone. Moviegoers of all ages will be struck with the magic that Village Roadshow Pictures have created.
- The Maze Runner - 7/10 - Thomas (Dylan O'Bryen) awakens to find himself and a bunch of other teenage boys trapped in a huge maze with very little chance of ever getting out. Who or what put them there remains the mystery in this young adult film based on the book of the same name. The Maze Runner was a pleasant surprise in an almost overflowing genre of young adult novels making the transition to film these days. If there is one thing that has driven me crazy about other films of this genre it's that they aren't done in brutal fashion. The Hunger Games shows violence, but it never seems like they are fighting for their lives while in the games. Divergent doesn't capitalize enough on this being a post apocalyptic world with very little hope. The people in that film feel like they can make it through whatever as long as they have each other. In this film, these kids are fighting brutally against spider scorpion creatures in the maze, and fighting against each other as most of them lack trust with their pasts a mystery. I loved how the dark tones of this film created a presence where you could actually relate to what these kids are going through. The movie isn't perfect and suffers from a lot of plot holes that become clear with the transition from novel to feature film, but i will get to that more later. Bryen is a really good young actor with a bright future in film. As Thomas, he brings a lot of personality to a character who is a blank slate due to all of the boys memories being wiped. The films mystery in itself as to why these teenagers are in the maze and who is doing it made me very intrigued heading into the movie. There is a decent payoff, but not one that is entirely satisfying. The movie definitely leaves the doors open for all three books to become films, and not everything is answered in this film which can be a good and bad thing. One of the biggest plot hole problems i had with the film is that this is supposed to take place after events of a sun destroying and burning everything including the earth's ecosystem. So how does the maze have grass, trees, and vines if everything in the world around them is burned and sand filled? It is mentioned that they don't climb to the top of the maze because vines don't go up that high, so why not build a wooden ladder? They did this for the club houses they had at their home base, and there is plenty of wood to spare to make something like this. I don't know if the book answers these questions, but the film didn't, and it's just one in the series of unanswered plot holes. That is the lone problem i had in the movie however. The rest of it was very entertaining and enjoyable. The monsters in the actual maze are very creative and original. They play as a spider, but have a robotic metal outer layer to them. The sound editing was also nothing short of brilliant. The background sounds of the maze constantly shifting while the characters don't realize it and are talking to each other is very impressive. It's those kind of small details that usually take me out of a film, but The Maze Runner did it's homework. The action and suspense is also very noteworthy with the question always looming what character is going to die while in the maze. The film isn't afraid to kill off a character regardless of their age, and i greatly appreciated it. This is not a film to be held down by a PG-13 rating. The film overall had kind a feel of three films to me. It felt like 'Lord of the Flies', 'Cube', and 'Resident Evil'. This film takes the best elements of those three films and molds into one that is suspenseful and always darkly entertaining. I definitely recommend this film to everyone. I think even an adult crowd will get enough out of it without nit picking it to death. The Maze Runner is a superior entry in Hollywood's onslaught of adolescents versus future dystopia films. It's interesting, well acted, well directed, and delivers an original and mostly satisfying outcome
- The Monuments Men - 7.5/10 - George Clooney stars and directs in this film about the real life story of the men who rescued and returned millions of stolen art pieces by the Nazi regime. Clooney might not be much of a factor in this film, but he sort of passes the torch to a dynamite cast that brings out the best in every kind of emotion. When i say that, i mean that i was surprised at how much i laughed through this movie. The film does have Bill Murray, John Goodman and Bob Balaban, but i didn't expect that comedy would be at such a forefront in a film set during World War II. Murray is incredible. He isn't given a lot of screen time, but he makes the most of a character that makes us laugh and cry as he feels the pain of being away from his grandchildren. Goodman, Matt Damon and Jean Dujardin are victims of a script that is jam packed with characters. They don't receive enough time to shine, and are kind of backgrounds to the two best characters in the movie, Balaban and the always elegant Cate Blanchett. Blanchett is a victim of the Nazi's when her brother is murdered in cold blood for discovering a couple of the locations where they store the stolen art. This puts Blanchett in a tight spot because she is the secretary (Forcefully) of one of the Nazi generals. Bob Balaban is by far the best thing about the movie. He is bright, bothered and above all else, charming. He brings a nerd quality that makes him stand out above other characters who are either quiet or the typical good looking Hollywood leading man. His sarcasm really brings out the best in scenes with Murray. The two are stationed on their own route together, and it's during these times that you will get the best scenes of the movie. The problem with the characters that fall into the background is the fact that they don't receive character build at the beginning of the screen. They are recruited by Clooney and just thrown into the fray. It would have been nice to know a little more about these people in their home lives. The movie is 1 hour and 50 minutes, but some of that time should be used to make us care more. Which brings me to my other problem with the film; it's riddled in a slow movement. The first 80 minutes of the film move so slow that it will be hard to believe that it redeems itself in the final 30. Believe me, it all works out. The final few scenes will give you goosebumps at the depths that these monsters went to. The Monuments Men isn't an amazing movie, and it doesn't give you the intense warfare of Lone Survivor. The film does however give you an amazing historical insight (Pictures of the actual sights are present) mixed with actors we have known and loved for decades. What might surprise you is that i only recommend it to two types of people; historical buffs or fans of art. I think that anyone outside of these bubbles might get overwhelmed with the slow pacing. If this film sounds like your piece of art, give The Monuments Men a chance.
- The November Man - 6.5/10 - Pierce Brosnan is back as an ex-CIA agent who is lured out of retirement for one last mission against the man who killed his wife. The November Man has enough bone crunching violence and character chemistry to keep it from suffering too much from a generic script and action thriller cliches. It was great to see Brosnan return on the big screen as he has always been my second favorite James Bond. He plays Peter Devereaux who almost feels like a darker James Bond with nothing to lose. The rivalry chemistry between he and Luke Bracey makes for the best scenes when the movie truly needs it the most. They go back and forth with the whole "Young gun VS Old Dog" kind of talk, and it's believable with them because both of their characters are leaders and yet a little arrogant. Bracey is a young actor who has a powerful screen presence. He brings a lot more to a role that is only his 2nd film than a pretty face to look at. The movie has stunning camera work that follows on a lot of fast speed car chases, as well as shooting the violence to hit at such an impact that it will have you holding your mouth in horror. It's a smart CIA movie, but it isn't too smart to leave it's audience behind in a field of misunderstanding. The story sounds like one that has been heard more than a few times for this genre of film. It does border on predictable at times, but i wasn't bothered as much by it because the movie never quite slows down. If there is a pacing problem, it's at the beginning of the film when it tries to establish if this is going to be a Clancy like espionage film or a revenge thriller. I am glad that it settles for the ladder. Brosnan pushes Devereaux to the breaking point with a man who has lost his wife, has minimal time with his daughter, is a constant alcoholic, and is brought to the harrowing truth that he is best at what he does when he is doing a job he isn't necessarily proud of. Minor spoilers - Bracey becomes a protagonist by the end of the film, and i don't feel it was for the better. I think the film's climax ending would've worked a lot better if they let he and Brosnan go at it as two men with nothing left to lose but the job. Devereaux does feel like a James Bond character, but he feels like one who knows when he is in over his head. To make this character more vulnerable means that Brosnan brings out a stronger acting performance than he ever could in the Bond films. Besides the predictability, if i had a problem with this film it is that it will be easily forgettable. As you can tell by my rating, i enjoyed The November Man, but i don't think that it stands out as anything extraordinary. It's a spy vs spy narrative that only appeals to one specific audience member, and it's in that why i think the ratings are so low for this film. The ending is satisfying enough, but it leaves some questions unanswered in the future safety of Brosnan, his daughter, and a victim he is hiding (played by Olga Kurylenko). All loose ends aren't quite wrapped up tightly, and that could be the negative presence that sends people home unhappy. I however thought The November Man was an acceptable film in a genre that is currently spoofing itself to be hip. I wouldn't recommend it as a theater film, but i think it's a perfect DVD movie for a night at home. I am kind of surprised it wasn't released as that to begin with, but Brosnan is still a crowd favorite. Hell, this theater was the most packed i have been in for a movie in easily 5 months. The November Man has it's flaws, but you will come for Brosnan and stay for the fast paced shoot em up style that offers no apologies. If action films are your thing, give it a shot.
- The Nut Job - 3.5/10 - This is the angriest i have been at a film in a long time. The continuing trend of Hollywood studios treating children like they're idiots, continues with The Nut Job. This film is the equivalent to a cheesy joke told at a party with friends. It's an unfunny and uninteresting mess.The film stars a couple squirrels (Will Arnett and Katherine Heigl) who are literally fighting over nuts to feed a park of other animals. The biggest pain in the film is how many times they use the "Nut pun" OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER again. I think the audience understood the first time that nuts is a dirty pun that you can use as a sexual innuendo. It's childish the first time and mind numbing by time 1,456. The voice acting is what gives this film as high of a rating as it is. Liam Neeson is outstanding once again. This time he is a villain who is the park's leader as he is harboring a secret plan to starve them all out. Neeson is one of those actors who doesn't need a face to truly grasp the emotion that he is delivering. Even in a script this stupid, he finds a way to make his character menacing. The 3D is totally useless. There is absolutely no reason that this film had to be in 3D except to make Pixar own even more of your wallet. There is one part in the film that didn't make sense to me, but by the film's end it was put in there just so the bad guy could be defeated. Another villain who is a human is blessed with the ability to hear dog whistles. This talent hurts him as he holds his ears in agony every time it's blown. It's never explained why or how he has this ability but it sure enough shows you why it was put in the film at the end of the movie. If it wasn't for the voice work and Pixar's excellent animation, this film would have been worse than the latest Paranormal Activity. It was THAT bad. I will recommend this film for kids, but even the ten or so kids in the theater i was in were getting bored with it. I caught several glances of them kicking the chairs in front of them. One even played games on his mother's cell phone. The kids will like it, but only the hardest of die hard Pixar adults will like this film. I have yet to even explain the worst part. That is saved in the closing credits of the film. The film's theme is Gagnam Style by Psy, and sure enough he makes an animated appearance dancing on the side of the credits. If 80 minutes of torture won't make you roll your eyes, Psy's 2 year old dance on the side of the screen will. It's great to have a song in a children's movie (yelling) THAT THE CHILDREN CAN'T UNDERSTAND THE LANGUAGE!!!!! Save your money and go see Frozen if you haven't seen that. If you have, see it again. See it 400 times before this.
- The Other Woman - 5.5/10 - Interestingly enough, the film that i had the least interest in was the one that ended up winning the best weekend film. That's not to say that The Other Woman is a great film by any means, but it has it's charms. It stars Cameron Diaz, Leslie Mann and Kate Upton as three women being played by the same guy. Mann in particular gives her best performance in her limited filmography. She plays Kate King with the kind of humorous sadness that this film s...hould've entirely been about. The Other Woman is supposed to be a story about the power of feminism, but it never fully commits to that power to give us the courageous film that we could've gotten. Diaz in particular is such a robotic character that it's hard to ever get any kind of read on her emotions. She goes through the whole film explaining how she doesn't need a man, only to be interested in a new man 5 minutes later. She tries to be the tough, independent female, but she is terribly miscast. Upton is in her 3rd film, but none of that acting lessons are paying off in this film. She brings nothing more to the typical bimbo with breasts, and the movie's 2nd half suffers greatly for it. With all of the issues i just mentioned, you are probably wondering what about his film i enjoyed. It does deliver in comedic schtick. I found myself laughing during this film the most i have in months. Leslie Mann has certainly learned enough about comedic timing from starring in her husband Judd Apatow's flicks. She is the sole reason why this film succeeds in the casting department. I also dug seeing Don Johnson playing the father no one has ever had. He portrays Diaz's father, and specifically gives her some jaw dropping advice when Diaz suspects her boyfriend is cheating on her. He says "To put on something sexy, go over and get laid". What father says this to his daughter at any age? He also has a completely unbelievable hook up by the end of the film, but i am not going to spoile that for you. The Other Woman's first act sets the bar pretty nicely for where the film should go. It's unfortunate that the 2nd half of the film gets gobbled up in too many story lines moving at once. The viewer will often have to stop to reflect on where the characters are at that point. The revenge scene with the boyfriend is severely ridiculous. I wish i could tell you more, but i know a few people who plan on checking this out. I only recommend this film to the ladies who are planning a girls night out. I think they can relate to some of what goes on in the film enough to appreciate it. The men will win because their women will appreciate that their guy isn't like the nimrod in this film. Enjoy it ladies, and remember to thank your favorite film critic
- The Purge : Anarchy - 8/10 - Director James Demonaco shows how much he has grown with his ability to capitalize on the original groundbreaking ideas he had during the original film. In this sequel, Demonaco gives us characters who we care about, haunting images that show us the breakdown of not only the city but hope as well, and non stop action that never really stalls or slows down. I am going to be completely honest, i was looking forward to this film but i didn't think it would be nearly as good as it ended up being. One reason for that could be that i felt this was the best Punnisher movie i have ever seen. No, The Punisher isn't actually in this movie, but Frank Grillo's performance of Sergeant absolutely hints at how great a Frank Castle he would be. Grillo plays the main character of this film and is out for vengeance of his own for the death of his son. Along the way, he rescues and picks up citizens who are being kidnapped so the rich can purge against them. The fact that this film was more from the point of the poverty crowd as compared to the wealthy main characters we got in the original film gives these characters more to relate to. They are fighting for a cause much further than just surviving for 12 hours; they are fighting to show the huge differences in the social classes. That is the hidden message i loved in Anarchy. It shows that The Purge itself might not be the cruelest of events that goes on between the world in the movie and our own. It's a cautionary tale suggestion about a division class system where the lines keep getting thicker and thicker. The characters were definitely written with more humanity in the way they get sucked in to the events of the night. One couple's car is vandalized into breaking down in the most dangerous part of the city. A mom/daughter team is in their house when a Swat team breaks in to take them. Then there is the Sergeant character, and his night of vengeance against a drunk driver. We get behind his character so much because he isn't quite a hero, but he always does the right thing. Some of his action scenes make you wonder why Grillo at the age of 51 is just now getting these starring roles. On top of the movie's heart pounding action, it gives you a lot of well choreographed fight scenes that will leave you on the edge of your seat. One thing that has me thinking while watching these movies is that i wonder if keeping The Purge around is even needed with how many people die every year. Is it all just another reason for the rich to get rid of the lower class? If so, it's completely genius and only adds to the feeling that these poverty level families are at the mercy of the dollar. There is no doubt that this was the film we should've gotten the first time. One of my biggest problems with the first film aside from the ending is that the people made such stupid decisions that put their loved ones at risk every time. If the family from the first film was in the sequel, they would've been dead in the first five minutes of this movie. These five people are out on the streets with nowhere to run and no one to trust. That is the most terrifying thing about The Purge. I sit here so shocked by how good this film was that i think it is the best sequel to a film that sucked. The ending to this film was even done very well. There was a point where i felt it was going to screw the viewers out again like they did in the original, but this one makes up for lost time. The Purge : Anarchy clocks in at 100 minutes, and it never feels like it drags or treats itself as anything less than a dirty, grungy, action filled good time. I totally recommend this film to everyone. Even if you hated the first film, you will be flabbergasted at the difference between the two films.
- The Pyramid - 3/10 - Some of the Earth's greatest wonders were never meant to be uncovered. Some films should remain hidden just the same. A team of U.S. archaeologists gets more than they bargained for when they discover a lost pyramid unlike any other in the Egyptian desert. As they unlock the horrific secrets buried within, they realize they aren't just trapped, they are being hunted. There is so much wrong with Director Gregory Lavasseur's film that i struggle to even know where to begin. As with most horror films this year, "The Pyramid" settles for cheap scares, and acting reminiscent of a Uwe Bowl film. What really perplexes me about this film though, is the inconsistencies among it's own rules. There are many instances in the film when our characters go back on the rules set earlier in the script. In the opening ten minutes, our group is told that they have to leave Egypt because of ongoing riots that are happening in the area as a result of their findings. The group's leader, Holden, gathers up all of his equipment and is telling each of his crew to hit the road against their wishes. The very next scene shows Holden and some of his crew standing around a monitor watching a robot they created enter the pyramid. Did we miss a scene here? What made Holden change his mind? Just a minute ago he was ready to call it quits and now he is leading the charge into the pyramid. Another instance is when our main character tries to use her cell phone in the pyramid and it doesn't work because they are "600 feet under the ground, and the walls are two miles thick". About a half hour later, another character uses a satelite on his robot to stream a connection to the outside world. Guess those walls grew thin all of a sudden, huh? Our characters also enter the pyramid with gas masks to protect them from the poisonous gases encased in the tomb, but these masks seem to vanish a couple of scenes into their voyage. Why could this be? Perhaps to further a plot point of our characters dying later on in the film. Trust me when i say i have seen bad horror films this year, but "The Pyramid" may very well be the worst because the things it does wrong are multiplied when factored in with the goofy imagery and AWFUL CGI work. The creature that is plaguing this pyramid looks like something you would see out of a late 80's Tim Burton animated featurette, and in 2014 this does not give the movie the look Lavasseur probably intended. The actors give terrible green screen body acting to match this creature that ensured lots of laughter from me and the rest of the audience. As i mentioned earlier, the film settles for cheap scares instead of resting on an already creepy setting. Jump scares are something that has always bothered me because i feel they are too cheap to bring out the most of real terror. Anyone can turn up the volume and be frightened by the loud noises they are hearing. It's in that aspect and a few others that this film feels a lot like this summer's "As Above So Below". I bring this up because i felt like i have seen each film twice now. Both films are about uncovering an ancient tomb underneath the ground, both films explore the realm of claustrophobia, both are found footage films that totally don't need to be. The ladder is another HUGE inconsistency with the film. This movie picks and chooses when it wants to be a found footage film and when it wants to feel like an actual movie. It's confusing at times because you wonder what parts of the horror they encounter are going to be seen by the person who eventually watches this tape. My biggest problem with found footage films is when they have absolutely no reason to be that way. This film has a minor reasoning why the cameras are on with the unlocking of the pyramid, but i find it hard to believe that our characters would keep cameras rolling when they are running for their lives. It slows them down too much, and it's just too illogical. "The Pyramid" is an awful exercise in a tired subgenre of horror that has certainly run it's course over the last decade. It's only playing in two theaters in my area, and maybe that was two theaters too many. This film deserved to remain buried.
- The Quiet Ones - 3.5/10 - Hammer Productions return with the latest film in the possession genre, The Quiet Ones. It stars Jared Harris as a college psych professor in the 70's who leads a paranormal study about a supposed possessed woman on if she is really haunted or terrifyingly disturbed. I can't really say this film was a disappointment as i didn't expect much out of it. I can truly say that i didn't think it would be as bad as it was. Director John Pogue definitely brings the Hammer feel with him as this film is beautifully produced with that 70's glossy camera kind of feel. I think that the setting is what people are going to remember the most about this film years from now, and that could be a good thing as most of the other parts of this film are a complete waste of your time. The movie relies on the cheap kind of scares to move it's audience. It's the exact reason why i loved recent horror films like The Conjuring and Sinister. They didn't rely on jump scares with loud frightening sounds out of nowhere to scare the audience. That is one thing that is constantly annoying about this film; the audio is set to 11 on the amplifiers. I worried about going deaf before i even remotely got scared. The film also recites the 2014 horror movie problems with not knowing how to end it's film. The ending we get is the same one we got in Devil's Due, and it's just extremely lazy. What happened to closure (good or bad) in a horror movie? The script itself is very sloppy with random scenes coming out of nowhere to see what sticks. It seems that this film was written with just a series of ideas and not a story to bring them all together.This film has a lot of CGI problems in the form of fire and a Ghostbusters looking creature coming out of a character's throat. When the ladder scene happens, it almost looks like something out of The Thing. The problem is that this is 2014, and computer effects should not be looking that bad. Besides the setting, the only other thing i enjoyed was the lead 3 actors, Harris, Sam Claifin and Olivia Cooke. Harris is just too good for this film. His dialogue is charming, witty and very fast paced. He is years ahead of the writers of this film. Claifin is the character we learn the most about as the movie goes on. He is the one we can relate the most to, and this is because of his pity for this girl who is the subject of no sleep and many brutal tests. Cooke is outstanding as the possessed woman, Jane Harper. She quickly won my respct in Bates Motel, and she puts a lot into a possession victim. That isn't always the easiest role to play, as you are playing a role that is being controlled by an entity that you have no idea how to control. She gives Jane a sweet side that hasn't been emotionally represented this well since Emily Rose. The Quiet Ones is a film that sets itself up like a Frankenstein creature that never comes to life by the final act. It's good for performances, but could be so much better if it had a complete story to go with it. Not recommended.
- The Raid 2 : Berandal - 7.5/10 - This hard hitting sequel to the original has some big shoes to fill. The 2012 original raid is what i consider as the greatest action film of all time. It's fight scenes alone pack such a punch that you feel like you are going through the pain that the characters are. While some things are on a bigger scale with the sequel, the film generally follows this same format with over the top fight scenes that are complimented by shaky camera work that actually has a reason for once. Iko Uwais returns as the protagonist, Rama. He is a cop who survived the carnage of the first film, and is quickly recruited to play a criminal to infiltrate a mob boss. Uwais's experience in martial arts is what really makes each fight scene look amazing. There are some scenes that are really violent when it comes to the consequences of the characters. It's for that reason alone why some people might pass on The Raid series, but i promise you that this isn't one to miss. The Raid 2 was actually given a theatrical run, and it's good to see more foreign films get a look in American cinema. The score is also quite excellent to this film. It builds the suspense and the terror that lurks behind every corner. The Raid 2 needs that score more than it's original because it plays more on emotions in this one. The film clocks in at nearly 2 and a half hours (A little long in my opinion), but it's because everything is bigger in this film. One of the charms about the original Raid was that it took place in an apartment building. Thus creating the claustrophobia that our protagonists are exploring. With The Raid 2, the story is everywhere, so it needs more time to invest in that telling. I mentioned before that it is a little long in time length, but i feel this way because we literally go 40 minutes at one point without any violence what so ever. I understand that you can't make the movie about just one thing, but that is the bread and butter for this franchise, and the action scenes have never slowed down one bit even though we have seen over 20 fight scenes between the two films at this point. The storyline itself gives us a Kill Bill kind of feel with Uwais working his way through the ruthless Jakarta Crime syndicate. He is on a mission to find out which gang members are legit and which are undercover cops like himself. You really feel for this character that Iko portrays because he is doing everything to protect his family. This includes going to prison for two years just to get close to the mob boss's son. The Raid 2 : Berandal is a very worthy sequel to the original. It doesn't leave you with the same feelings that the first one did because at that time that film was original. After watching the sequel, you will undoubtedly compare it to it's predecessor. Something that doesn't give this film as original of a taste as the first. Without question, i urge everyone to rent the original on DVD, and catch this one in theaters. For 145 minutes of solid in your face action, it's a must see.
- The Railway Man - 8/10 - Director Jonathan Tiplizky adapts the best selling autobiography about a British army officer who is tormented as a prisoner of war at a Japanese labor camp during World War 2. If there is one thing i learned while watching this film it's that sometimes we are doomed to repeat the same history that scared us in the first place. Colin Firth stars as the British army officer 30 years after the Japanese army surrendered. He finds himself living with the... brutal memory of the torture he went through while taken captive. Firth gives another great performance. As Eric Lomax, we see the face of an emotionally scared man who has trouble getting past the events that have stayed with him for over three decades. The film takes the first half hour of the run time to explore the quick love at first site relationship between Lomax and his wife (played by Nicole Kidman). The love isn't written out very detailed, but we definitely see how much the love reflects in both of their faces. I thought Kidman was the best part of this movie. It's kind of a shame that she is such a big part of the film in the first half of the film, but left as just a typical side character in the second half. She stands by her husband no matter what she knows he has to do. Stellan Skarsgaard was also impacting as Lomax's best friend and fellow soldier, Finlay. The conversations between he and Kidman are the best parts of the film. It's seen in flashbacks from their conversations the kind of hell that Lomax went through. Besides great cast performances, this film has beautiful scenery in the shots of 1950's Japan and 1980's England. The transformations of the time periods are done very well, and really do well to give us that feel of entering a time machine between era's. If i had one lone criticism for this film, it is that the trailer makes it too predictable. That isn't necessarily a problem with the film, but you see the ending coming from a mile away, so you aren't as on the edge of your seat as you could've been. Some people will find problem with the ending in the terms of it not being fully satisfying, but i think it's just right. Closure is the top thing that we want for these characters, and i think they receive it all the same even if they have to take a different road to get there. If you can find it in theaters near you next weekend, i suggest you give this movie a look. It gives a true life account of what many soldiers called reality in this time period. With a lot of story to tell, the 110 minutes are well directed to give the viewer every kind of emotion while watching.
- The Rover - 4/10 - Guy Pearce and Robert Pattinson star in this film about an Australian society ten years after the fall of civilization. Pearce is a man struggling for a reason to live, but that all changes when his car is stolen by a gang of thieves. The leader of which left his mentally challenged brother (Pattinson) on the side of the road to die. The Rover is blessed to have great performances from it's leading two men. It's just a shame that the film is riddled in little written dialogue and a very slow pacing. Peace is outstanding as Eric. He expresses his actions in every possible way, but spoken word. He is a wise citizen living in this world that has completely crumbled around him. He knows what to expect of people before it is ever done. There are so many looks that Pearce gives to the camera that are so powerful. It's mainly because of him why this film is as high as it is to begin with. Pattinson plays a challenged man pretty well. He is never given a lot of screen time awake to accomplish the same rewards as Pearce, but he is a very welcome addition to bounce off of his co-star. The two men start off as strangers with Pearce wanting to kill Pattinson because of guilt by association, but it's kind of nice to see what their friendship developes into. Other than the performances, the only thing i can really mention in the positives is the beautifully done camera work. The background of the Australian deserts serves as a self storytelling in the viewers eyes. We can see the face of this land that has crumbled around these characters so much, but director David Michod is smart enough to never let us in on too much of what happened here. I think that is very intelligent as no story will ever match what the viewer can come up with in their heads. After what i mentioned, it's sad that the rest of the film cannot follow suit. For one, the journey of our two main leads to go after the gang never feels worth it. Because of the terrible pacing in between long shots of absolute silence, these scenes make us feel like we have been watching their struggles for over two hours when in reality the running time is slightly over an hour and a half. I feel like there are so many shots that didn't need to be as long as they were with plain facial reactions. Shoot the reactions yes, but don't leave the camera on for an unexpected length. A lot of this movie i kept waiting for the scene to end, but a shot would continue to stay on. It sounds like a very nitpicking problem, but i promise you that you will be bored by this film at the halfway point because it never knows when to initiate a successful edit. I mentioned the long journey a couple sentences ago, and how i don't understand how they could be doing this all for a car when you are living in a society where it's just as easy to steal one. Trust me, i fully understand that the car is symbolic for the last peace of the old life that Pearce's character has, but it's just hard for me to think that anyone would care about something so practical in this new world. The score is another thing that starts off decent enough with soft building beats that can be compared to old John Wayne films, but then is corroded by rap songs that have absolutely no place in a story like this. It takes the viewer completely out of the movie because you can't help but laugh at why they would ever add that song in here to begin with. I personally would've stuck with the instrumentals that were perfectly capturing the emotion coming from Pearce when his car is stolen. The ending is done very sloppy as well. It happens quickly and we never feel fully satisfied from what happens. It's more of the same from the last hour that has a good idea, but not enough direction to take The Rover over the dull grasp. The Rover is intentionally dry and shapeless. It doesn't leave much of a lasting presence except for the performances of Pearce and Pattinson. I was hoping for so much more out of a movie that seemed destined to breakthrough from the independent film world.
- The Sacrament - 6/10 - The Sacrament is a movie that will leave you reeling long after the movie is finished. It is the latest in the documentary style horror films that takes us to the fictional community known as Eden Parish. It's a place started by a couple drug rehabbers to get away from the politics, the taxes and racism of America. Three filmmakers head to the community in hopes of rescuing one of the men's sister. What they find is a cult led by a man named Father (Gen...e Jones). First of all, this is one of the rare instances where I feel the shot on video style was very well done. It's not used for scares, but instead for the true horrors of a cult in the woods with nothing to lose. This film took elements from historical massacres like Jonestown and Jim Jones massive cult suicide. The first hour is used as a slow build up to the terror that is unleashed in the final half hour. What is different about this movie is that it's not a usual horror chase movie, but instead, it's the terrifying rules of this cult that make for the hard to watch moments. If you watch this film to be scared, you will sorely be let down. This movie is made to give you a deep impact of how dangerous living with beliefs can be. There isn't much to say about this film stylistically, but I feel it is definitely one of the darkest representations of human life ever portrayed on film. It's decently acted with the visitors acting as logically as anyone of us would who encounter such terror. Gene Jones is very hypnotic as the leader with the mind control over these easily influenced people. He isn't an unstoppable monster, but a man who flourishes the most while convincing his people how dark American life is. If I had one wish, it would be that director Ti West would've given us more build up before the final blow. Many of the minutes in between feel very slow and almost dragged out at a time. However, when compared to other shot on video style horror movies, this one gladly gets the passing grade. It does leave you wondering what outcome is coming by the film's end because it's not your typical "Found footage" movie. We don't necessarily know that the characters are dead at the end of this thing unlike the Paranormal Activity movies, so that is always a positive. I am interested to see what kind of theatrical run this film receives when it comes out in June, but I would recommend seeing it on DVD. I think the ending will leave a bad taste in the viewers mouths, but the idea of the film is that these events happen in real time, so it's the shock of the events, not the feel of the ending itself. Recommended for a DVD viewing of anyone with an appreciation of America's troubling massacre events.
- The Sheik - 6.5/10 - Director Igal Hecht presents to us a documentary on one of professional wrestling's most polarizing figures, The Iron Sheik. For those who don't know, Sheik was a hated wrestler during the 80's for his anti-American character. In these educational 90 minutes, we learn everything from the death threats that the character received to the reasons for his madness in 2014. Sheik is still everywhere in today's news with possibly the most outrageous Twitter page... where he is always saying something with an R rating. I enjoyed this documentary because it is the culmination of 8 years of camera work. The Sheik is followed everywhere from his sad independent wrestling appearances with 100 or so fans to the troubles he had in his own home with family. The arguments with his wife is very tense and at times hard to watch. He suffers through the death of a child and begins down a dark path of drugs that may never find a positive way out. I loved that this wasn't just a wrestling documentary, and it instead chose to focus a majority of it's time on the pain mentally and physically that The Sheik suffers through. The documentary showed me that The Sheik might not be as crazy as we thought, and maybe there is some intelligence to the things he does and say. If I had one criticism to this release, it's the terrible camera work at times. It is a documentary, but a lot of the scenes are very hard to see when following along on the subtitles below. This goes a lot further than out of the room shots because there are scenes where The Sheik is sitting right in front of us and still it's hard to make his face out. There is also a noticeable gap between the years of 1993 and 2006 in the story. I wish we would've learned more about his happenings during this time. Overall, The Sheik is a documentary that is worth a watch for any wrestling fan. I don't think you have to be a Sheik fan to enjoy this documentary. All wrestling fans alike will laugh and worry for the lead of the picture. If you aren't a wrestling fan, sadly I don't see you getting much enjoyment out of this. You have to know the man behind the madness before going in. Otherwise, The Sheik feels like another rambling idiot to you. The Sheik gets a thumbs up from me.
- The Signal - 3.5/10 - Never before has a movie left me with such difficulty to write a review. I absolutely despised this film for so many reasons that i worry i won't get them all out in this writing. The Signal is the story of three college students who are on a road trip across the west when they experience the hacking of a computer genius who reveals that this person already has taken over the cameras on their laptops and is currently watching them. The trio decide to go after him only to find themselves in the middle of an isolated area with alien activity. They are taken to a secret lab that has it's share of hidden agendas, and the students are experimented on there. Beyond that, i can't explain to you much about what i understood about this film, and that is the biggest problem that The Signal suffers from. It's a great and original idea on the surface but it's so poorly executed that director/writer William Eubank probably won't be writing the screenplay in his next movie. So many things are so poorly explained that the viewer will have more questions coming out of the 90 minute run time than they did going in. Another big problem is that this movie lacked the science in the phrase science fiction. We just don't get enough shots or talk in the world of the alien intelligence. How can a film whose trailer was flooded in extraterrestrial talk have so little of it in the movie? The performances sadly are nothing to write home about. Laurence Fishburne is probably the best as a soft spoken scientist named Damon who has many conversations with group leader Nic (Brenton Thwaites). Fishburne is pretty much on sleep mode throughout the whole film and that is a shame. If this film had the great moments from a top leading performance it could've at least broken into territory that this film never had a chance of reaching. Olivia Cooke has stolen my heart since premiering on Bates Motel, but she just doesn't have enough screen time here to make a difference. She was the lone good spot in The Quiet Ones but that is because the director knew where his talent was stacked. It's almost insulting to see her take a back seat to two actors (Thwaites and Beau Knapp) who can never generate a solid emotion from the audience. As for the film's pacing, it's so completely boring. The chase scenes in the laboratories even feel too rushed to ever give us the time to invest in the safety of these characters. It feels very artificial without any kind of intelligence. The big reveals at the end of the film aren't very shocking at all because it doesn't make the viewer feel like they have earned the money they just spent on this trash. The secret of Fishburne's character is something that is so childish and poorly written that it reminded me of the reveal of BENSON (Ben's Son) in I Still Know What You Did Last Summer. Just awful. When my Mother asked me why i didn't like the movie i told her because i couldn't explain what just happened. If i can't explain anything and leave the theater with some legitimately good questions towards the film, how can i ever say i enjoyed it? Besides the idea of the college kids being the gateway from us the humans to the other species, this film builds the tension decent enough, it's just a shame that the payoff is never big enough to warrant the trouble. The lighting is excellent, the camera work is very stellar with lots of excellent editing in the form of flashbacks from the characters mindset. Overall, what really upsets me the most about this film in general is it's wasted potential. More answers and less with the characters on mute could've pushed a winner out of Eubank's script. Instead, we're left abandoned in the desert without any signal of hope.
- The Single Mom's Club - 5/10 - I didn't like this movie at all, but i have to say that it is my favorite Tyler Perry movie. This means that this film had the least amount of things that pissed me off. Nia Long, Amy Smart and YES Tyler Perry star in this film about 5 divorced women who go through the struggles of raising children by themselves. I thought it was very honorable of Perry to cast himself in the lead male role opposite of the most beautiful woman (My opinion) in the movie, Nia Long. His acting is nothing less than creepy. This film could have easily been turned into a horror/suspense film because of the weird motions he goes through with trying to be with Long. It's sad to say that he is the least creepiest when he dons a grey wig and women's clothing. If you think i am saying this because i think Perry is a terrible actor, you would be wrong. I also thing he is a terrible writer. My favorite line that he himself utters in the film takes place when Nia Long calls his cell phone and they have a conversation. When it is over, he asks for her phone number. Ummmmmm maybe just look on the phone THAT SHE CALLED YOU ON!!!!!!! With my Perry frustrations out i can now focus on the movie itself. The film is funny because it's very convenient. The characters go through THE EXACT SAME THING at the EXACT SAME TIME. They all find good looking men that like them AT THE EXACT SAME TIME. And what Tyler Perry film would great without racism? This film is weird with that subject though because sometimes it's played for laughs and sometimes it's played as a seriously disturbing subject. You kind of can't play on both sides of the road on this one. You ask your audience to laugh and be angered when racism rears it's ugly head. There are some great characters in the film that are led by Wendi Mclendon-Covey (Bridesmaids) and Cocoa Brown. Covey is given the deepest role as a racist white woman who makes the biggest transformation by the end of the film. She bickers a lot with Brown and it makes for some legitimately funny moments that even made your favorite film critic chuckle. Terry Crewes also cameos with his usual comedic schtick. I don't care what that guy is in, he will always be funny to me. Beyond this, the rest of the characters are on sleep mode. One female even came close to topping Perry's phone number line. She divorced her husband but is still living in a house that her husband funds. She is secretly seeing a guy behind her exes back, but he says that he will cut her off if he finds out she has a man. Cocoa Brown tells her that if he stops funding her that she can receive more money by taking him to court since she has custody of the child. She is completely shocked to find this out. DERRRRRRRRR!!!!!! The film itself clocks in at just shy of 2 hours, but i think that is because it has the deepest message of any Perry film. It's about women who lose everything they know and because of friends they are given the power to stand back up. That message did kind of hit a soft spot with me as my friends have always been my rock. If i had the audacity to make someone sit through a Tyler Perry film, this would be the one i would recommend. For those of you who like his humor, wait till DVD. There is no reason to rush to the theaters when this will be a rental in 2 months........trust me.
- The Skeleton Twins - 8/10 - Bill Hader and Kristen Wiig star as a brother and sister who attempt suicide at the same time sending Hader into the hospital. It marks their first interaction in ten years. The Skeleton Twins was an absolutely fantastic film that takes something as serious as suicide and gives it a comedic brush. It's rare in any film let alone a comedy that two main stars will be pushed equally to such incredibly deep performances, but that is the case here. The film gives both of it's main protagonists equal time within the story to make the audience relate to them, and relate we do. Hader plays Milo, a gay man who returns to the town he grew up in to move in with his sister Maggie (Wiig) and her husband Lance (Luke Wilson). Milo is the kind of guy we can cheer for because he is battling the demons of loneliness trying to fit in with a world that feels like it has already passed him by. Hader is triumphant in showing us the emotion and sadness in this character without even flashing a tear. Wiig is what impressed me the most about this film because her character cheats on Lance with her Scuba instructor and yet we still feel like a friend cheering for the best outcome for her in the end. Kristen definitely delivers her deepest performance to date, and the chemistry between her and her former SNL co-star make for the best exchanges i have ever seen between a brother and sister role. They show that they aren't as strong separated as they are together. They both have problems, but the other one knows that and is there to pick them up. It is the fine example of two performances lifting a film with a so-so script that would normally come off as bland with two actors who do not quite have the chemistry of Hader and Wiig. Where The Skeleton Twins shines the brightest is in those comedic moments right after an exchange in which you think Maggie and Milo are going to kill each other. One scene in particular is the most warm and hilariously timed musical number of the year which shows Milo trying to tell his sister that everything will be Okay. The soundtrack gave us a nice time capsule back to the 80's with arena rock ballads and even the Growing Pains theme song. It's one of the best uses of music in cinema that i have seen this year, and i couldn't stop smiling. You expect a comedy after watching the trailer, but what you get is something deeper that brings out the best not only in comedy, but drama as well. The camera work was also done exceptionally well with up close shots frame by frame whenever a character is talking. It's kind of reminiscent to a Wes Anderson style, but never done quite to the trademark feel that an Anderson film has. The setting around them is of a suburban small town in New York during the fall, and this works perfectly with their Skeleton Twins symbol. The title's meaning comes from the two characters being completely different on the outside, but they are the same person on the inside. When one of them hurts, so does the other one. The film's opening scene of them both committing suicide at the same time felt a little convenient, but i think it's more of a commentary on them growing together even when they are thousands of miles apart. I definitely recommend this film to everyone, but i feel a female audience will get more out of it. The film breaks Hader and Wiig out of their typecast comedy roles and shows that they are dramatic powerhouses to be reckoned with. The Skeleton Twins isn't playing to a wide release currently, but it's one of those rare treasures that you need to seek out for a great theater experience. The Skeleton Twins is funny, touching, and most of all human in it's deposition of a brother and sister that stand hand in hand against a world that isn't always kind.
- The Theory of Everything - 8.5/10 - So many of life's greatest questions have gone ages without being tested or answered. One man's brilliance shined above the rest in answering those questions . The great Stephen Hawking. "The Theory Of Everything" is the extraordinary story of one of the world's greatest living minds, the renowned astrophysicist Stephen Hawking (Eddie Redmayne), who falls deeply in love with fellow Cambridge student Jane Wilde (Felicity Jones). Once a healthy, active young man, Hawking received an earth-shattering diagnosis at 21 years of age. With Jane fighting tirelessly by his side, Stephen embarks on his most ambitious scientific work, studying the very thing he now has precious little of - time. Together, they defy impossible odds, breaking new ground in medicine and science, and achieving more than they could ever have dreamed. This movie already has so much of the early Oscars talk surrounding it that it totally doesn't need my praise, but the film is very well made from director James Marsh. I didn't know a lot about Hawking going into the film, and i found his story to be among the very best i have ever heard. If this review was based on story alone, i would definitely give this film a 10/10. As it stands, the movie does have some problems that i will get to later. The acting in this movie is absolutely spectacular. There is no one walking this planet who should play Hawking other than Redmayne. The actor's charasmatic charm and body language in this film should place him at the forefront of the Best Actor of the year nominees. From the look of Hawking, to the voice tones, to the fact that most of his performance comes without words, this is Redmayne's time to shine above the rest. There were so many times when i came close to tears because of how spiritually moving his performance was. Jones also deserves her praise. As Wilde, she faces her own challenges ahead with loving a man who can't fully give 100% of his touch to her heart. She knows the pressures ahead of living to love Hawking, but she isn't going anywhere. Felicity is quickly building herself as the next big thing in the best actress category for years to come. The film's score is beautifully composed by Johann Johannson. He compliments the film's galaxy shots of the planets and stars with a wonderful score that feels like it's moving along to the stars flashing by in front of our very own eyes. The movie does serve as not only a reflection on Hawking's work, but one of his love life. It resorts in the only thing that personally bothered me about the film. I felt like too much of the movie during the second act is about Hawking's personal life, and not so much about the wonderful work in physics that he has done. I definitely understand that his romantic interests are important in telling the story, and anyone who knows about Hawking knows that there is a story in that aspect alone. I guess i just wanted to see him fighting to prove his theories correctly while battling the physical handicaps to the world's most intelligent mind. It doesn't do anything to really take away from the brilliance of writer Anthony Mccarren's script, as it's clear this guy has truly done his homework on the film's protagonist. Clocking in at just under two hours, the movie perfectly flows before it runs into any major problems with the one negative i listed in this review. The movie won't be widely released until mid December, but it's definitely one that has to be seen when it hits theaters. Some religious crowds might find certain aspects of the film offensive, but i think there is enough scientific evidence to support Hawking's theories, and self respect that he has for anyone who believes otherwise. Overall, i think this film's meat and potatoes are definitely that of the performances from our two main characters. It's in that aspect that this film rises to a height above the highest of stars that Hawking has studied. Truly a moving film for anyone who likes a "Beat the odds" kind of story.
- They Came Together - 7/10 - Paul Rudd and Amy Poehler star in this spoof on romantic comedy films. First of all, Rudd is the perfect choice for the lead role not just because of his smooth comedic timing, but also his experience in many 90's romantic comedies that he himself starred in. Poehler is absolutely adorable in this movie. The chemistry between her and Rudd is what really brings the film higher than it would ever be lifted with two other stars in these roles. That is to say They Came Together hits and misses, but it's the way the film's two leads bounce off of each other that makes it push even further than it ever should have. The comedy in the film is hit and miss at times. I found myself laughing more in the second half of the movie because that is when the film ventured into David Zucker territory with the sight laughs like a pole sticking out of a waiter's butt for more than one scene. Also the quick jabs that you may have to rewind to make sure you heard it properly. It's in those minutes where this film by director David Wain feels more of a movie and less like an NBC sketch show. During the first half of the film, the jokes are weighed down dramatically by Seth Mcfarlane kind of jokes. These are the kind that drag on for way too long and will be having you begging for the next scene. I understand that it's all supposed to be kind of intentional because we are poking fun at the films that do this, but those kind of gags never work and it's best to just leave them in the dust where they belong. One thing that is good about They Came Together is that if you can get past the corniness of the film, the movie does have good replay value. It's only 83 minutes, so it's a very short sit, but this film does pass even for a romantic comedy. I wouldn't say the comedy was gut busting funny, but it was good for a couple of laughs that made you have to do a double take. The camera work is something strictly off of an NBC TV show set like Community or The Office. I wouldn't be surprised if they used the exact same cameras as in Community since the star of the show is Poehler herself. It's a bit of shaky cam work that narrates itself into seeing the punchline of most jokes before they ever hit. I also dug the cast a lot too. I am a big Bill Hader fan, so to see him get some film time was an extra incentive. Max Greenfield plays Rudd's brother perfectly to give them that relationship that feels like these two really did grow up together. I think he has a bright future when New Girl ends, and it would be nice to see him in more romantic comedies like this one. Christopher Meloni gave me possibly the loudest laughs of the movie playing a dimwitted boss of Rudd's character. From Ed Helms to Michael Ian Black to Jack Brayer to Keenan Thompson, it feels like an NBC all star game with many coming out parties from TV favorites. As i said before, the film is very short but i feel that it ends at a point when the movie started to drag anyway, so that didn't bother me. The problem with They Came Together is that what it settles on as the parody-able thing about romantic comedy is how generic it can feel. There were many times when i felt the spoof was a little overused and i wish they would just continue to develop a decent storyline between the relationship of Rudd and Poehler. It's tough for this movie to find a middle ground that feels comfortable between going for the jugular and keeping the gags at PG-13. There is one scene in particular with Rudd's grandmother that was funny but felt like something out of a Farelly Brothers film. That's the only slight problem i had with They Came Together, it lacks a real identity because it's using it's majority minutes to spoof the films before it. Wain works a lot with Paul Rudd, so it's easy to see how Paul can shine in a movie that isn't as polished, but still packs on enough laughs to make you smile everytime he and Poehler are on screen. It's amusing enough summer entertainment with a winning cast and some genuine laughs thanks to the comedic enthusiasm of it's cast. Definitely worth an on demand or red box ordering. If you like NBC humor, check out They Came Together.
- Think Like a Man Too - 5/10 - This sequel to the 2012 original shows you the magic of Hollywood when it cuts up the best parts to put into a trailer and leaves you with a tired premise that is seen in every film about Vegas ever.It all feels like a poor excuse for the cast to splurge in Vegas with non stop celebrity cameos to keep the bored observer interested. Kevin Hart and the gang return to celebrate the wedding of two friends in the group (Regina Hall and Terence Cowrley) by going to Las Vegas and having the ultimate bachelor and bachelorette parties. It was strange to me just how similar this film was to Saved By The Bell : Zach and Kelly's Wedding. As the scenes unfolded, i found myself able to predict each one almost comedically. By this point in his career, Kevin Hart has reached popularity of epic proportions for someone who started off as a quiet side character in many of his earlier films. In Man Too, he doesn't have enough to do after exhausting his usual "Short guy" Schtick. By the time we are done with every possible joke that he has, his performance almost turns dramatic. This year's About Last Night was a good example of what Kevin Hart can do when he is presented with a script that allows him to grow (No pun intended). That film was about a lot more than him flexing his comedic abilities; it showed his audience that this guy can be something more. It's no secret that i am not a big Kevin Hart fan, and it's mainly for roles like Think Like a Man Too. There are too many characters between the two groups which never gives leads like Hart and Regina Hall room to shine. If that wasn't enough, we are treated to another movie with that one white guy in the group who is........wait for it......WEIRD. Between Director Tim Story and other famously terrible director Tyler Perry, i wonder if these guys know how to write white people without being whacky. I am not kidding when i say EVERY SINGLE LINE that comes out of the guy's mouth is the one that keeps the audience shaking it's head in lunacy. I have to give this movie credit though, at least he isn't racist. More craziness happens midway through the film when the female group stops the plot and everything around it to have a Bel Biv Devoe music video. I am dead serious that the movie stops for 5 minutes so the girls can go full R&B star with everything from camera talking to lip synching on a stage with a male dance club as it's background. That scene is appropriate because that is what the whole film summed up felt like. It was just a bunch of scenes thrown together to see what stuck with no attempt at an ending that was shocking or even entertaining. If there was one thing i enjoyed about this film it would be that they at least attempted to give every character a decent storyline, and not lose them completely in the background. It's not executed very well though, as it feels too crowded. By the final 20 minutes, we have been through every kind of emotion loud and desperate that we can't help but look at our watches to see how much time is left. Think Like a Man wasn't a movie i necessarily enjoyed, but it at least had a great almost novel like structure that was creatively done for the way it was telling it's story. In this sequel, everything is thrown together on the same page, and it never feels like a sequel beyond the characters. The famous motto goes "What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas". In the forgettable presentation from this talented cast, lets hope that credo rings true. Avoid it like the plague
- Third Person - 3.5/10 - Paul Haggis writes and directs this film with an array of Hollywood's finest A-listers at his fingertips. When describing the plot of Third Person, i had trouble conjuring up the right words to accurately describe it. The story is spread into three different narratives with the first being a cheating relationship that stars Liam Neeson as an author, Olivia Wilde as his mistress, and Kim Basinger as Neeson's wife. Neeson is writing his latest novel in Rome while seducing Olivia Wilde off of her feet. He uses Wilde as a forefront for his novel without even caring about her feelings. The second story involves Adrien Brody as a con artist business man type who is in Paris to make a big deal. He meets a mysterious woman (Played by Moran Atias) who needs twenty five thousand dollars to get her daughter back. Brody decides to help, but is left in question as to whether this is a scam or not. The third story (And only decent one in my opinion) stars James Franco and Mila Kunis as exes who are fighting for soul custody of their child. Kunis delivers what i feel is the only solid performance in the film playing opposite of anything she has ever done. She is a down on her luck loser who knows her life is spiraling out of control after the death of her daughter. Kunis was the one bright spot in a film with performances that are easily calling it in. The two biggest problems with this film is that it is too long (136 minutes), and the stories with it's characters just aren't interesting enough. You wonder how these stories have anything to do with each other minus some characters passing by one another much like Richard Linklater's Slackers or Haggis's 2004 film, Crash. It's supposed to be a film about love, passion, and betrayal, but it's all just not interesting enough to last over 2 hours. I found myself having problems even supporting any characters because they were all deceitful in some way. Maybe that was the point of the film, but it also leaves your audience not caring about their fate by the time the credits roll. The three stories aren't interesting enough on their own and only drag the movie down when combined. There are some twists that happen during the film, but they come and go without being treated like a big discovery or reveal. How are we supposed to care if the movie obviously doesn't? I have always dug Haggis's style so i have absolutely no idea what went wrong with a movie director who panned Million Dollar Baby, Crash, and Casino Royale. This definitely feels like a Haggis film, but the endless supply of big time celebrities interracting and crossing stories feels used and abused ten years after his Oscar winning film, Crash. Third Person feels like a 20 minute idea with 115 minutes to fill in, and that time is never given that attention. The cinematography and artistic style of the camera angles were done very well with mostly light tones surrounding the locations of Rome, Paris, and New York. The big twist at the end with the three stories being related isn't very well explained, and i hope you like symbolism because otherwise you will not understand the big reveal. It felt very easy to predict for me personally because the trailer was a lot more revealing than it probably should have been. I definitely do not recommend this film. It left me feeling tedious and overwhelmed by a story where i had to look for all the clues. I like a challenge in a film, but sometimes presenting the twists with an easy highlighter is much needed. Third Person is an absolute mess of the film. Even a blockbuster cast cannot save it from a disjointed plot and laughable dialogue. It's a film that tries to be smarter than it really is, and that's what will keep the audience from ever relating to Third Person. It's a complicated mess that is best if you stay away from it.
- This Is Where i Leave You - 6.5/10 - A family gathers after the death of the father/husband for a week in the house they lived in for their whole lives. What ensues is hilariously genuine moments that are both heartwarming and rich. This Is Where i Leave You stars Jason Bateman, Tina Fey, Rose Byrne, and Jane Fonda among many other great and talented cast members. Bateman plays our main character who finds out his wife has been cheating on him with his boss. This forces Bateman to rediscover himself in the place where he grew up. He plays Judd pretty safe in the kinds of traits that we have come to know and love with Bateman. He is sarcastic, soft spoken, and a character we can always get behind because his characters mostly have the best intentions for the ones he loves. The real star of the film for me was Fey as Bateman's sister, Wendy. The interaction between the two of them feels like an authentic brother/sister relationship where they each know their flaws and how to bring out the best and worst in the other one. Fey has really grown as an actress since her days on SNL. I like her in a role like this where she is fighting to hang on to everything in her life even though she knows it might not be the right thing. The comedy is definitely there in this film, but i think it's the tender moments where the family stands together that pushed this beyond more than just another comedy at a funeral type film. The laughs are there when the film needs them, but there were parts of these characters that feel so human with their troubles that had the film tugging at my heart strings. If there is one weakness in this film it's that the ending leaves everything to be tied up perfectly even though the battles will have you thinking otherwise. Everything is conveniently resolved to push this film into predictable territory that you could've seen coming from a mile away. Even with there being little surprises, the film does manage to fly into passing territory based on the strengths of it's characters and comedic timing. It takes all the things that last year's August : Osage County did wrong and spins them to give every character the equal kind of camera time to tell an individual story. The funeral scenes play out down to a perfect tee with characters answering the same questions to family over and over again no matter how much it's killing them. I felt myself very able to relate to this film and the premise of sometimes having to go home to find the answers you seek. The pacing of the film is done good, but not great. There are parts of the film that make it seem a little longer than the 98 minute run time. It wraps itself up before any major damage is done on the lasting impression of the Aultman family that we are left with. This is a family that i could watch two or three films with. They take a premise that has been done a hundred times and somehow manages to make it feel like something new. I would recommend this film at least for a matinee showing. It's something where you can bring the whole family and appreciate the time spent together and relatable events playing out on the screen in front of you. This Is Where i Leave You is overly packed with great talent across the table, but in spite of it all the elements manage to blend together as a family instead of one or two cast mates outshining the others. Family is the most important thing, and there is no greater evidence of that than this film.
- Transcendence - 7/10 - I am amazed when i see sites like Rotten Tomatoes giving this film a 17%, but give Heaven is For Real a 54%. What movies are these people watching? Transcendence isn't a film that everyone is going to like, and i understand that. It is a film though that takes a used plot (See Lawnmower Man), but spices it up to bring a level of terror to a world that relies on technology (sound familiar?). Johnny Depp, Rebecca Hall, Morgan Freeman, Cillian Murphy and Cole Hauser lead a dynamite cast in a film about two artificial intelligence professors (Depp and Hall) who work to create a sentiment machine that combines intelligence of our data systems with human emotion. The idea comes with backlash at the hands of an extremist group who sees the consequences that something like this could lead to. I am going to mention what i didn't like about this film first because it's very few things. First of all, it's a ridiculous thought that something like this would ever be on a blueprint, i understand that. I think the intention of first time director Wally Pfister was to show that our real life situation of everyone's need for technology is getting to dangerous levels. It kind of touches Animal Farm levels when it hints that humans will one day no longer be able to make decisions for themselves. That situation alone is enough to make anyone shriek at the idea of a computer God who now controls everything and everyone.I was impressed with the direction that Pfister crafted in this film. It even reminded me of one of my favorite directors, Christopher Nolan, and there is a reason for this. Wally was the cinematographer for all of Nolan's films. Nolan also works as an executive producer in this film. His influence is easy to spot not only in the camera work, but the cast as well. Hall, Freeman and Murphy have all been staples in Nolan films, and that chemistry reflects in each of their screen time together. Transcendence starts off slow in the first 45 minutes, but then recovers itself with a twist that wasn't even hinted at in the trailer. Seriously, after watching the trailer, i wasn't too impressed going into this film. I think what really won me over was the chemistry of Depp and Hall, and their capability to create a product that most humans can't even begin to understand. Understanding the scientific lingo is something that fans will have trouble fully grasping. In this world, the sky is the limit for these machines and technology, so we have to take that ride with our eyes forward. I also really enjoyed the score by Mychael Danna. He instills a sorrow to future that mankind is creating for itself. The piano notes hit at the most perfect moments when our main characters look across at each other knowing the terrors they have created. The ending is something else i really dug. I enjoy when a film has enough bravery to make an ending that is risky and goes against what might be best for the fans who dig simple cliche endings. It's one of the reasons i am one of the only people who enjoyed Cabin in the Woods. The ending to this doesn't back down, and that is something i will always appreciate. Transcendence is a dark and harrowing tale about the road we may be heading down. Technology is one of human's biggest achievements and possibly biggest downfalls. It's my opinion that technology is always one step above humans. I think that might be why many critics don't understand this film. Recommended but wait till DVD, so you can rewind what you might miss.
- Transformers : Age of Extinction - 5/10 - What can you say about a series of films in which i have disliked every film. Then, director Michael Bay makes his latest effort a 2 hour and 40 minute epic of a film that ruins anything good about this film to begin with. There isn't going to be any great analysis in this review. The reason this movie is bad mainly centers around the amazingly unnecessary length in time.There is absolutely no reason that a Transformers film ever has to be over 2 hours period. The movie had a decent first hour that was making this the closest i have ever enjoyed a Transformers film. Then it screwed it up with convenient scenarios and a dragging war scene that makes us feel exhausted by the time it reaches the credits. Transformers : Age of Extinction stars Mark Wahlberg taking the leading reigns from Shia Lebouf as a Texas father who finds Optimus Prime and is immediatly hunted down by the government. Wahlberg is one of few welcome breaths of fresh air as a father who is just trying to provide better for his ever growing daughter. Wahlberg works mainly because he is ACTUALLY an action star as opposed to the loud and obnoxious Shia Lebouf. One of the major problems with the other three films is that they don't create any characters for you to cheer for or hope for their health. Age of Distinction has a few of these and some are surprising because they are bad people. Stanley Tucci is brilliant as Joshua Joyce, the leader of a robot maker who is out to end the autobots once and for all. Tucci glides across the exceeding entertaining point by giving us hilarious lines in the form of panic from the horrors he has created. TJ Miller is decent in the film, but is only in it for a matter of 30 minutes. The film overall has a darker tone with more gruesome imagery than the previous films. Some death scenes are done in a way that show you that Age of Extinction is treading on territory we haven't seen before. The usual favorites are there that will make you laugh as always. Michael Bay clearly still has no idea how to write real people with real conversations. The boyfriend character of the daughter's in particular really makes you hate the guy no matter how honorable they try to make him. With lines like "I need this mouthwash when i'm making out with your daughter" and "She has the best hands for my clutch", it makes you wonder if Bay himself is an autobot who has never actually been around humans. The action to the film is excellent as usual because if there is one thing Michael Bay does is take the same building that has fallen in three previous movies and knock it over again. The final war scene goes on for the last hour of the movie, and this is long by Saving Private Ryan standards. Many fans and non fans of the series will be reaching for their watches by about the 90 minute point of this film. One thing that made me laugh in particular about this film as opposed to the others is that there is no branch of army anywhere to be found. SERIOUSLY. Remember when Josh Duhamel and Tyreese were soldiers who were fighting for mankind? Well, apparently soldiers in Age of Extinction just let everything get torn to hell and assume the autobots will save us even though every news channel is calling them terrorists. The ending leaves the door open for a sequel of course, and even two more films have already been confirmed. I know the fans of Transformers are going to like this movie because they have to, but how many times can you watch the exact same movie? That is exactly what this is, the exact same movie. You don't really learn anything new to go with the previous three films which makes me even more angry when it comes to the fact that this film was nearly 3 hours. The Wolf of Wall Street was 3 hours long and do you know why? It had amazing performances to match a story that every single bit had to be seen to be believed from the memoirs of Jordan Belfort. The Transformers movies are like a big advertisement for the toys and Chevy vehicles. I can not recommend this movie to anyone except fans of the series. They are going to read my review and say they loved it, and to that i say i am happy that someone enjoyed it. Mark Wahlberg's daughter said a line in the movie that i wanted to share with everyone because i think it would be the perfect ending to this review. "You can't keep spending money on junk to make new junk". Well put Tessa, but you clearly don't understand what it means to be in a Michael Bay film.
- Tusk - 1/10 - Director Kevin Smith has somehow managed to give us a fond memory of his biggest failure known as Jersey Girl after seeing his latest dive into the horror world. This review isn't going to be friendly by any means, so if you can't take me verbally bashing a movie this bad, i suggest you walk away now. I was actually kind of psyched to see Tusk as it shows Kevin Smith growing more and more as a film maker. I wasn't crazy with his last film, Red State, but i could understand if people did enjoy it. Tusk left me completely and utterly speechless and not for the better. It stars Justin Long as the voice of his own podcast. He shares stories with his listeners in an attempt to make them laugh and tune in. He goes to Canada to meet a kid who has a world famous Youtube video, but is left in shambles when the teenager commits suicide. He comes across a posting guaranteeing good stories and follows through to meet a mumbling paralyzed creeper (Played by the great Michael Parks). Long is drugged and when he awakens he finds himself at the mercy of a plot to turn him into a walrus. If the idea of this film isn't crazy enough, the film does no favors to get anyone to stay interested in this snoozefest. The film is dragged down by so much dialogue and story telling even for a Kevin Smith film. The first 30 minutes are very difficult to stay interested in because you find yourself rolling your eyes everytime Parks goes to tell another of his around the world tales. When the action finally does pick up, you will be sorry it did. The movie is guided by terrible acting from everyone outside of Parks, and it just stinks. Tusk Tries to be scary and funny at the same time, but it doesn't succeed with either one. It totally suffers from an identity crisis. The comedy is dragged down because it drags on for too long, and the movies scares don't work because the laughable imagery and ridiculous suspension of disbelief have you comparing it to The Human Centipede. I am sure there will be tons of Kevin Smith fans who will adore this film because they are afraid to stand against their God, but this movie is awful. I get that it was supposed to be a step in the artistic direction, but not all art is good art. I respect that he took a chance, but it's time the master of comedy returns to his bread and butter. I myself am a big Kevin Smith fan, but i'm not going to give the film a passing grade because i feel like his fans and i are misunderstood and only we understand the joke. The film isn't supposed to be taken seriously so how can i ever give it enough serious thought to give it a passing grade. It felt like i was watching something from a Syfy channel movie of the week, and i expect way more from a man who has crafted some of the best movies of the 90's. The positives i pulled from the film began with Michael Parks performance. He is absolutely creepy as the kidnapper. Parks is having the time of his life, and the guy can always make a presence even if he is being smothered by a terribly written script. It's sloppy storytelling of forward and back shots will have the viewer confused for three minutes at a time as to where the story just went. I did enjoy a HUGE cameo that popped up midway through the movie, and the actor did the most he could to add fun to a movie that was spiraling out of control. It all feels like a 97 minute joke that goes on for far too long by the final ridiculous fight scene. I am not kidding when i say that the last ten minutes of Tusk might be among the most speechless i have ever seen. If leaving a lasting impression and leaving your audience speechless was the premise, then you Mr Smith have succeeded wonderfully. I just don't always think that is a good thing. Sure, the film will be remembered for ages, but it will be remembered for being one of the biggest pieces of shit that anyone has ever paid hard earned money for. It's a film based off of a joke on a podcast and if that doesn't sound like a thin thinking idea then i don't know what does. Tusk feels like a film where the audience is laughing at Kevin Smith and not with him. Audacity can only take you so far when you have to write 97 minutes around such a ridiculous idea. With the buzz coming out of the Toronto Film Festival about this film, i think the city has more problems than their crack smoking mayor. Tusk is not only one of my least favorite films of the year, it is one of my least favorite films of all time. The only saving grace i had was that i was sitting next to friends watching it as we laughed and made fun of it. Go ahead and tell me how great this movie was. It's a joke i don't want any part of.
- Unbroken - 6/10 - Have you ever heard the saying "Too much of a good thing can be bad"? That is the problem facing the newest film from actor/director Angelina Jolie. "Unbroken" is a much better improvement from her other directing efforts, but it also shows that she has a long way to go before becoming a master of her craft. "Unbroken" is an war drama that follows the incredible life of Olympian and war hero Louis "Louie" Zamperini (Jack O'Connell) who, along with two other crewmen, survived in a raft for 47 days after a near-fatal plane crash in WWII-only to be caught by the Japanese Navy and sent to a prisoner-of-war camp. I did enjoy this film, but i don't think i could ever put myself through watching it again. At 2 hours and 10 minutes long, the movie touches on one note and plays that note over and over again. Before you call me insensitive, i know this is a real life story, but the story isn't the fault in this movie. The blame of the bland effort by Jolie relies only on some of the worst pacing i have seen this year. 50 minutes of this film takes place in a raft, and it's crippling torture on our protagonist. Then, then next 40 minutes takes place in a Japanese prison with even more torture. By the time you make it to the final five minutes of the movie, the juice just isn't worth the squeeze. The viewer is put through crippling deed after crippling deed, and there is never any decent build or heart to make the viewer feel fully invested. The movie goes backwards in flashbacks of Louie's life of growing up and getting into trouble to becoming a track star in the Olympics. Then, it's dropped without any explanation. We never learn why Louie joined the army because we are never shown back story of him enlisting. This is what I mean by saying Jolie cannot write characters or story. By the end of the second hour, i found myself cheering more for the credits than i did Zamperini's rescue. Jolie cares more about telling the whole story, and to a degree i can respect that. However, there is just too much repetitive nature in this story, and it makes that kind of pacing hard to enjoy. By the time i was done with the film, i felt that i too have been through everything Zamperini deals with. Some could view that as a good thing or a bad thing, but i couldn't be happier to get out of that theater. I am sure my readers are wondering why i have done nothing but trash this film so far and yet still gave it a 6/10. Well, the film does do a lot of things wonderfully. The cinematography and color shading of the film shows Jolie has always been a master of the signature look that she commands. The setting are beautifully articulated by shooting locations and wardrobe that are very reminiscent of the World War era. Little known English actor Jack O'Connell is a fine choice as Louis. Japanese pop star Takamasa "Miyavi" Ishihara shines as "The Bird". Louis' sadistic captor and war criminal in training. There were so many scenes where i wanted Ishihara to get what was coming to him, and that is the mark of any good villain. The very best part of this film came in the props/makeup work. The boat scenes in particular presented us with stress induced vein popping eyes, and sunburn marks that captured the consequences perfectly of Louie's time on the raft. It only gets better from there though, as the makeup team worked overtime to represent the brutal welts and scarring of his time in the Japaneese Prison Camp. It truly is exceptional work, and i wouldn't be surprised in the least by an Academy Award nomination in this department. "Unbroken" isn't good or terrible. If it's to be described in a single word, i would say "Plain", and that is a big tragedy for a movie that had such a compelling story to tell. I think audiences will be split down the line on this film, but i will still recommend it. The older crowds will love it, but i would tell those readers to wait until DVD. A strong message, beautifully made, but a little monotonous on the tone. "Unbroken" needed more logs on the fire to truly keep this film burning.
- Under the Skin - 6/10 - Truly the oddest film of the year i have seen. It's got a lot of disturbing scenes in the form of Scarlett Johansson in the form of an alien who comes to earth to learn more about the humans she hunts. I say "hunt" because this alien attracts men while taking on the form of a beautiful woman. She brings them back to her apartment where they are all killed while under the sexual spell of Johansson. The idea itself behind Under the Skin is great but it suffers from a lot of the same sci fi problems that this month's The Signal did. It has problems explaining itself, and maybe that is meant on purpose. You find out very little about the alien itself and why she is here to study these males. You never find out why these men are disposed of in a way that they are. The reason i kind of feel this is on purpose is because the movie has a couple meanings in the form of symbolism that i took from it. The first is that man is the most dangerous creature walking the earth. He is out for sex and doesn't care who he hurts to get it. I don't think a film like this can really be called feminism because the woman is clearly using the tool herself even if it is for death purposes. The second thing i took in the form of symbolism is that beauty is only skin deep. I can tell that the ladder is the thing this film was really going for, but it never fully commits itself in this direction. There is a scene midway through the film in which the alien picks up a man with a disfigured face. She continues to hit on him and shows more emotion in picking him up than she did any of the more physically attractive men. This is personally what i enjoyed most about the film as i felt it was heading in a direction that was more original and rare by today's standards of good looking men and women in movie. The alien looks like Scarlett for a reason obviously and that is to prove how shallow these animals are. As i said before, it doesn't fully commit itself to this direction and that is unfortunate. The last 30 minutes of the film are a scramble of a film that didn't know quite how to end. It almost feels like the ending does nothing to add to the film's originality because it's the ending we were expecting in the first place. There are a couple other things i enjoyed about the movie. The movie is mostly a silent film with occasional dialogue being thrown in to get across the wants and obvious needs by her male suitors. It's so hard for a movie to get across the points of it's characters when there isn't a lot coming out of their mouths, but Under the Skin made it work. This is by far Johansson's best acting credit to date. In just a deer in the headlights stare, she makes the alien (no name given in the film) so pale and emotionless that we always prepare for the worst. We feel like these men are in for a world of pain that only we can see coming, but it never quite gets that horrific. SPOILERS - Some of the men are killed, but it only feels as bad to us because of Johansson's powerful quiet demeanor. She is never too over the top while playing a character and a genre that she has little to no experience with. The camera shots are absolute beautiful and full of artful color. The fast paced shots of a motorcycle rider who is relative to Johansson's character are done with the road underneath us speeding through quickly. It feels like we are chasing this man on a bike because of the absolutely brilliant and risky shots given. The location of Scotland is absolutely perfect for this kind of movie because of the foggy mist swallowing the forrest landscapes. It gives the area a sense of doom for the unknown that they don't see coming. The direction is really hit and miss. The idea of the film is great, but it's not amazingly executed by director Jonathan Glazer. Upon looking into it, he uses actual real citizens for shots of the alien in the mall and in a restaurant. This is brilliant because the star of the film has to react to the improv going on around her. His direction has pieces of miss because I felt like he had many great ideas, but got lost in some of the symbolism and that kept him from finishing a decent film. If the ending wasn't so bland for me, i would've rated this movie a lot higher. It's only an hour and 40 minutes, but you will be begging for answers by the end of the film, and it's those answers that never materialize. I did enjoy Under the Skin, but i cannot for a second recommend this movie to a mainstream audience. Sadly, many people don't like what they can't understand in today's society, so i can't see this movie getting the world wide praise it kind of deserves. If you are curious for more things besides Scarlett Johansson's nude body, give it a shot for her acting alone. It's going to be unlike anything you have ever seen from her, but i think this film should be the cherry on the sundae for a great acting year for Johansson. Overall, the message of Under the Skin may go unnoticed by some, but the disturbing imagery and a mesmerizing performance from Johansson makes Under the Skin a haunting viewing experience
- Vampire Academy - 3.5/10 - Combine "Clueless" with your typical Vampire genre entry and you will have Vampire Academy. The problem with that comparison is that it doesn't have the memorable lines of Clueless, or the creativity of a 1960's vampire film. What you are left with is a hip and sexy look at one of the oldest genres in cinema history. This film to me tries to even cash in on some of what made the Harry Potter franchise a success. It creates a cool school where the kids are vampires and carry magical powers. It just doesn't work when you are talking about something as dark as vampires. I get what producer Don Murphy was trying to do here. He was taking six books in this genre and picking apart the best parts to grab the teen audience into coming along for a ride the same way Twilight did. I think that is my biggest problem with this film; it lacks originality. Zoey Deutch and Lucy Fry star as two vampire teenagers who run away from their high school only to be dragged back after a year on the road. Deutch and Fry are two actresses who i feel could do a lot better in a straight comedy flick. They are too unbelievable to be in this role. They dress sexy, they say the cool lines and they never once seem like they are in danger. I did appreciate the attempt at classifying multiple vampire groups like the Strigori. I wish they would have explored the different families in that respect more and left the teenage lingo out of it. These girls are teenagers and so are their target audience, but it's just so BORING for anyone outside of that group. The film clocks in at around 100 minutes, and you feel every single minute of it. It's easy to get lost in the explanation of the families and what powers they possess because the stories carry on and on. There was a nice twist near the end of the movie which i thought was by far the best part of the movie. Other than that, the dialogue is laughable, the CGI is terrible and the fight scenes lack dedication. This film currently holds an 11% on Rotten Tomatoes and it's easy to see why. I call out directors in children's movies who treat kids like idiots, so i am calling out the same in teenage genres. I can totally get behind those of you enjoying these books. After skimming through their premises, i can clearly say that they sound like a decent read. But the film dumbs everything that you liked about the books and says sometimes books should just be left alone. I recommend this to the Twilight crowd, but no one else. To those people, i would still wait for DVD.
- Veronica Mars - 6/10 - The weekend's best film is also the one shown in the least amount of theaters. Kristen Bell returns in the role she was born to play. She plays Veronica Mars, a small town daughter of the chief investigator and former Police Captain. As seen in the TV show, she is quite the investigator herself, and she returns to where it all started. Neptune, California has always been a place for drugs, violence and murder. The ladder is the premise for this film as Veronica's best friend Logan is framed for murdering his pop star girlfriend. Veronica stays in town to help Logan in his journey to innocence. First of all, it was the fans of the series that attracted me to this film. The show was canceled prematurely after 3 seasons on the CW and it was the fans who funded the film so that they could finally get a fair ending. I think that is pretty impressive, and wish a couple of my cancelled shows had such a dedicated fan base. The movie itself plays like a CW TV show, so that should please fans of the series. It has all of the hip dialogue and sassy main character that would otherwise be lost in a genre that produces hundreds of these films every decade.It also has the trendy indie rock music that was popular for a show of this kind. I should know, i was a Dawson's Creek and One Tree Hill fan. Every character is back from the TV show, but none are more appreciated than Keith Mars, Veronica's father. The on-screen chemistry is one of the finer points of the film as Keith has always raised her on his own. He has tried to keep her out of the investigative world, but has come to understand that she is quickly following in her father's footsteps.I was also quite surprised with how many celebrity cameos were in the film. Dax Sheppard is expected as he is the husband of Bell, but James Franco, Justin Long, Jamie Lee Curtis and Jerry O Connell are great as scene stealers. Franco in particular is the topic of conversation when he is seen in an internet video trying on tight jeans. The murder itself is studied and pressed quite well as a classic whodunnit? When the culprit is revealed though, it is a little lackluster. There is no chase scene or final fight between our protagonist and antagonist, so you are left wondering how this person could ever get this far with something as serious as murder. It is also tough to relate to some of the characters with their actions, but i do understand the interest here. Veronica Mars has a fan base that is undeniable, and it's great that they got a film that can satisfy the cravings that were left abandoned in 2007. It's just a shame that fans have to resort to a limited showing if they want to see their favorite TV show on the big screen. It is available on pay per view, so that should help some of you. I definitely recommend this film to fans of the show, but i think non fans will enjoy it as well. It does offer a nice 5 minute rundown of everything up to this point, so a guy like me wasn't left scratching his head.
- Video Games The Movie - 5/10 - Director Jeremy Snead takes us on an 8 bit journey with this documentary about the history of video game culture in America. The first half of the film starts off on a high note with a descriptive albeit brief timeline lesson on the past and present of video game history. It's in that aspect that the film would've gotten a passing grade from me. The film is 100 minutes long, so there is plenty of time to be descriptive through every decade of video game culture. Instead, the second half of the film turns into a commercial with Snead being the biggest salesperson. The documentary has the kind of feel where it's Us Vs Them in terms of the lovers and haters of this multimedia. During this time, it feels more like a special on the Game Network and not so much a movie/documentary. There is a lot of focus on the future of gaming, and there is nothing wrong with that. But for me personally, i gave the film a chance because i wanted an in depth learning experience on the gaming systems that i grew up with. The timeline focus of the film is also done very sloppy because instead of going chronologically they go back and forth creating a chopped up revision of history. The whole thing just feels unfocused and repetitive by the time the final scenes hit. I would rather know more about the creation of some of these games and less about the growing popularity of gamers by dismissing the sterotypes of them being nerds. If i were to recommend this to one type of crowd it would be for new gamers who picked up their controls in a dedicated fashion over the last five years. Anyone else, this information won't be anything new or informative to them. This documentary will only give those fans the motivation for them to invest more of their hard earned dollars into a profession that hasn't even reached 1/4 of it's technological potential. The touching up of the 8 bit Nintendo games on this feature makes them look better than ever before. It almost doesn't feel like the same games we used to play with the restoration to the pixelated genre. The narration by actor Sean Astin is done very well with a lot of pie graphs to match his statistics in the opening ten minutes. Astin's job becomes kind of pointless as the film goes on because the documentary is taken over more by interviews with people who work in the gaming industry slinging mud to the opposite side. There are also appearances in interviews by Zach Braff, Wil Wheaton, and Chris Hardwick speaking on their favorite video game memories. Overall, Video Games The Movie is a lot like my experience with games. The nostalgia factor is nice, but i couldn't care less about the future of the new technology. The games that will live on forever are the ones that stepped out on a time when the game world almost died after the Video game crash of 1983. This documentary gets a failing grade from me because it has trouble figuring out it's true identity. I will not leave you the reader going home without a recommendation though. If you can find it, The Discovery Channel released a special a couple years ago called Rise of the Videogame that is leaps and bounds better than this one. Check that out to get a great history on video games that isn't a war between the companies.
- Walk of Shame - 5.5/10 - Elizabeth Banks stars as a news anchor who competes for the job of a lifetime, but goes through an extreme day of hell to get there. Banks goes out on a long night of drinking after she thinks she lost the job to another woman. When she wakes up at a bartender's (James Marsden) house, she encounters a very long day of trying to get back home. Walk of Shame is a movie that I found charming at times with a decent amount of legit comedy. I did find mysel...f laughing at a couple of scenes, and usually that would be enough for a film like this to get a passing grade, but it's slow at times and the encounters are just too convenient to the storyline. Banks is given a yellow dress in the movie that apparently makes her look like prostitute to every person in the film, but to me it just looked like a normal dress that she would wear on the air. It's because of the prostitute thing that a lot of her trouble happens. From running into other prostitutes to encountering drug dealers to being hunted down by the police, this movie has every bad day situation that you can encounter. Besides the comedy, the reason this film does get as far as it does is because of the amazing cast who usually serve as extras in a movie. People like Kevin Nealon, Bill Burr and Lawrence Gillard Jr are given more screen time than they normally would. All three have great comedic timing and were responsible for the best scenes in the movie. Director/writer Steven Brill should just stick to directing because his writing is very flaccid. Each situation breezes by without enough time for the audience to soak in what really happens. I could also see the payoffs to the jokes happening from miles away. This movie is a straight to pay per view film, and it's probably a good thing. It's got enough to make you watch it at home and enjoy a couple good laughs, but it's easily forgettable by the time the credits roll at the 93rd minute. Walk of Shame is one of few occasions when Elizabeth Banks has been the lead, and I hope for her sake it isn't the last. Walk of Shame is a film that she as well as the audience will want to soon forget. Not recommended.
- What If - 6/10 - A man (Daniel Radcliffe) just broken up with his cheating girlfriend meets a girl (Zoe Kazan) at a party, and the two hit it off creating a friendship that develops into more. The catch is that Kazan has a boyfriend, and Radcliffe must keep his crush to a minimum. First of all, we have seen this film a lot, but director Michael Dowse takes What If into territory that keeps it from becoming predictable. Credit is definitely due for the chemistry he creates between Radcliffe and Kazan. Daniel in particular continues to break away from the Harry Potter typecast as an actor who did suspense/horror in The Woman in Black, and now doing comedy in What If. The sharp dialogue between he and Zoe is what keeps the film pushing well beyond a second act that drags a little bit. The film also has a soundtrack that is full of the emotional tones that our characters are going through. It's an instrumental splash of indie rock music mostly conducted from Carl Newman of the rock band The New Pornographers. One track in particular called "Beach Bummer" collides a dreamy piano with an electric guitar that reminds us of looking up at the stars on a warm summer night. What If isn't just about setting the mood with the music in the scenes, but the romantic genre scenes it creates. I admit that some of the cliches are a bit corny at times, but i am happy that the story never goes in the direction it seems like it will. There are many opportunities for our two main characters to hook up, but it never happens. If this were another romantic comedy, you could almost write the script yourself based on seeing any five of these films at any point in your life. What If differs itself from those films because it pushes our characters a little further for a possible hook up. The ground work they lay with their chemistry simply isn't enough to convince these two that they belong together. I always appreciate a movie that is simple enough, but throws serious obstacles at it's characters that leaves you thinking if they will ever be the same. So what is the problem with What If that leaves it with only a 6/10? The tone of this film overall has troubles distinguishing whether it's a romantic comedy or a simple comedy. I would normally think the former, but this movie has some roll your eyes scenes with slapstick comedy reminiscent of a Farelly Brothers movie. It seems completely out of place, and i would be OK with this film being just a romantic comedy. Besides that, it just doesn't seem like Dowse cares about any characters who aren't his protagonists. From the guy who brought us one of the big surprises of 2012 in Take Me Home Tonight, it seems like he still doesn't know how to build his supporting characters for anything other than granting a funny reaction for the main character to look at them like they are alien. They serve as cheap eating silverware for a main course that feels too rich to eat with fork or spoons. What If is one of those films that starts strong during the first act and loses a little steam during the second. It builds a relationship that the audience can get behind and cheer for. Perhaps most importantly, it showcases Radcliffe as the A-list actor he was destined to become. He can't be limited to just one genre, and that is said about only the best of actors. It's a cute film that is easy to forgive on it's biggest of faults, but What If will never have you asking questions on what might have been. It's answers are satisfying enough for a perfect date night. The ladies will love the chemistry, and the men will love the relatable situations to being single and wanting something you just can't have. What If is going on my recommended list. Enjoy
- When The Game Stands Tall - 6/10 - The newest in a field of high school football films is the story of De La Salle high school football coach Bob Ladeuceur (Jim Caviezel) heading the longest winning streak in sports history of 151 straight wins. When the team finally does lose, the school and town find itself at a crossroads between what is right for these kids, and their own selfish ambitions. I thought this film was good, but not great. The biggest problem this film will face is that it will be forgettable to much better films of the genre like Friday Night Lights, Remember the Titans, and Varsity Blues. What makes those films better is that the players all have legit troubles that they must overcome and not just the loss of a football game. That's not to say that i didn't enjoy When The Game Stands Tall because it does communicate to us the sports fan how crazy we get over a child's game. The acting of some of the townspeople is a little over the top at times, but to get a look from the outside is showing just how extreme some people take sports. The film does a great job communicating the meaningful relationship that this coach has with his players. To him, football is just a stepping stone for turning these kids into respectable men. Caviezel plays Bob well and never getting wrapped up in the things he has accomplished in his 15 years at the school. Supporting performances by Michael Chiklis and Laura Dern are also noteworthy. Dern always tends to get a little sappy and sentimental with her performances, but i think she brought out the best parts in Bob's wife as a loving and supportive woman who holds the fort down at home. Chiklis is decent, but i wish he had more screen time and lines. He is the most accomplished actor of the film, but he is reduced to a supporting role as an assistant coach. I didn't have any problems with the running time of 110 minutes as the movie is paced pretty ideally. I personally think the film should've ended 15 minutes earlier because i feel like the better example is cast in the first ending. The last fifteen minutes serve as just another accomplishment by this team in a movie that is full of nothing but them. It ended at exactly the right time because the film was starting to dive into dragging mode. Without question, the films biggest problem is the nagging cliches that films like these always accomplish. Whether it's the fact that there will always be a happy ending, or the unintentionally laughable scenes that make the movie feel like a spoof of itself when it's not trying to be. An example of this is the sappy inspirtational music that plays every time Ladeuceur gives a speech to his team. Scenes like that make it hard to buy into anything for nearly 2 hours. The same goes for a band of misfits who don't get along at the start of the season, but then become an unstoppable machine because they realize that they are all they have in the world. It doesn't ruin the movie, but it keeps it from being the MVP of a story that it is in real life. The camera angles are done well with lots of running down the field shots that are always hard to capture. The camera is right there in the middle of the action when it's heart pounding. I also thought it was pretty cool to see the real life footage of De La Salle High School during the end credits. It always means more when you see that a film's protagonist is really thought of in this light for the things he has done to the community. It all goes a lot further than just football; it's his investment in these kids before he releases them to the world. That is where the game stands the tallest for director Thomas Carter and his cast. When The Game Stands Tall is riddled in cliches and bad dialogue, but it connects in it's audience when it needs to the most. This team might not have the toughest goals to acheive, but you will be cheering for their success by film's end. I recommend it to sports fans only, but it would be fine to wait till DVD.
- Whiplash - 10/10 - Man oh man did this movie exceed my expectations. "Whiplash" is the story about music major Andrew Neyman (Miles Teller) an ambitious young jazz drummer, well intentioned in his pursuit to rise to the top of his elite east coast music conservatory. Plagued by the failed writing career of his father, Andrew hungers day and night to become one of the greats. Terence Fletcher (J.K Simmons), an instructor equally known for his unequaled teaching talents as for his terrifying methods, leads the top jazz ensemble in the country. Fletcher discovers Andrew and transfers the aspiring drummer into his band, forever changing the young man's life. Andrew's passion to achieve perfection quickly spirals into obsession, as his ruthless teacher continues to push him to the brink of both his ability-and his sanity. I don't often give out perfect scores for movies, and there is so much to talk about when it comes to this film as one of the best of 2014. If Simmons doesn't WIN the Oscar for best supporting actor, i will no longer watch the Oscars. Simply put, he is that damn good in this film. His mentoring lessons are very damaging on ones mental psyche, but he has managed some of the greatest musical talents in the country, so there has to be a method to his madness. Simmons pushes the movie to such heart pounding levels of intensity, even to the point of exceeding the very drums he is hearing in the same room. What makes this role so memorable isn't just the dictatorship, but the understanding of the kinds of pressures that someone with his accolades carries as he has to start fresh with a new group year after year. Simmons has always been known for him comedic talents, but it's about time that he gets a dramatic role worthy of him carrying a movie. Teller also proves that he is ahead of the class with the next breed of a-list actors. It's hard to believe this was the same kid who starred in 21 and Over, but he sure has come a long way. You see Andrew coming unglued with each lesson that passes. Every time he takes one step forward with Fletcher, he takes two steps back. The score is easy to talk about because it's much more than just another musical score; it's the whole movie. The smooth jazz is so alluring, and so complimentary to the scenes that you find yourself getting aggitated like his students when Fletcher stops them to give feedback. If you are anything like me when watching this film, you will find your toes always tapping to some impressive numbers. The camera editing is among the very best that i have seen in 2014 with a lot of quick cut drum shots to support the volume increasing moments of the drum solos. The pacing was great considering the film has a plot that isn't anything extraordinary. The movie is very down to earth and knows how to pace every positive and negative with Neyman's life. One scene in particular i found great was a dinner table conversation with some of Andrew's family members. The scene has two college men who play football for a division III school, and it's clear that their family views football as more important than music. It's a very sad but true realism of the way our society views art. I was also happy to see that a movie knows how to do a great 3rd act, as i felt it was one of the best endings to a movie this whole year. So many films have been close 10/10's for me, but ruined by an ending that is either unrealistic, or doesn't mix well with the rest of the movie. I can safely say that "Whiplash" is never dull for a minute. I worry that director and writer Damien Chazelle won't get enough credit for this masterpiece. A movie like this can only be written and executed on camera by a man with a vast musical knowledge, and it's clear Chazelle knows what he's doing. This is the 3rd film he has directed about music, so it's clear that he has a passion for it. It's sad that films like this are only showing at two theaters in Northeast Ohio right now, and yet films like Ouija, The Best of Me, and other boring moaners get a wide release. I have often questioned America's taste when it comes to film, and this movie is evidence of that very question. If you feel like driving a little further, i can promise you it's worth it. Get out and support this movie. It is one of those rare cases where i am 100% positive you will enjoy it. "Whiplash" is a behind the scenes look at the obsession to be great, and the consequences that come with such obsessions.
- White Bird in a Blizzard - 6.5/10 - In 1988, Eve Connor, a mother (Eva Green) and enigmatic house wife goes missing. She leaves behind her 17 year old daughter Kat (Shailene Woodley) and soft spoken husband Brock (Christopher Meloni) in a dull trance as they try to pick up the pieces of her disappearance. White Bird in a Blizzard is the adaptation of the novel from the same name, and the newest film from Director Gregg Araki. Araki is one of those directors who always has a story to tell. Even if 'Blizzard' isn't his story, he is the perfect director for this movie with his crystal clear cinematography complete with beautiful white out shots to represent the dreams going on in Kat's mind. These shots feel like a call back to 'The Lovely Bones' with dreamy sequences representing the mysterious possibilities playing out in Kat's head about the loss of her mother. He also directs Woodley to one of her best performances to date. When all is said and done, Woodley will be remembered for The Fault in Our Stars in 2014, but i think White Bird in a Blizzard takes that growth she acquired in the former film and presents her as a melodrama heavyweight among other young actors in her age group. Woodley wasn't afraid to take her character as far as the novel represented. The teenager breaks out into her newfound sexuality, but is still haunted deep underneath by the disappearance of her mother. Woodley is naive but brilliant in this role. She plays a teenager very well because she has done nothing but dramatic roles to this point. The actress herself is only 22 years old, so portraying a teenager doesn't feel too off target for her audience. If you see this film for one reason alone, make sure it's Eva Green's portrayal as the loose cannon, Eve. Green has done nothing but steal movies that she has starred in since 2008, and this film is no exception. Her portrayal feels like 'Mommy Dearest' before the explosion comes. You feel something boiling underneath in this woman's psyche, and it can never be ignored as a possible reasoning for her disappearance. There is something about the actresses reactions and looks that make her believable to play unstability better than anyone in Hollywood today. The supporting cast is also very noteworthy on paper, but suffer from not really having a lot to do. Angela Basset, Gabourey Sidibe, Thomas Jane, and Sheryl Lee all bring something different to the mystery, but never quite get enough camera time to make the kinds of impact that Woodley or Green make. The film does have a lot of sexuality including the first nude scenes from the young Woodley. I think it works for more than just nudity for the sake of nudity because teenagers are learning a lot faster as time goes on. Even in 1988, they couldn't wait to be adults, so i think the sex scenes are appropriate for such a story. Araki has never been one to be afraid of sexual exploration with his young characters, and might be one of the best coming of age directors going today. The timeline setting of 1988 i felt was done very faithful to the kinds of music that kids were listening to, and places they were going in that era. Araki knows what music represents the generations that he showcases in his films, and this movie is no exception. There are lots of good synth pop new wave styles being represented here, but my favorite selection comes from "Pictures of You" by The Cure. It is one of my all time favorite songs, and will make you feel as nostalgic as Kat does thinking about her mother while this track is playing. The final act of the film does slow the movie's mystery thriller pace down a little bit, but a shocking revelation in the final three minutes more than makes up for this stalling. What is funny about the bombshell is that it has nothing to do with the disappearance, but instead more about one of our main characters. White Bird in a Blizzard is about letting go of life's haunting memories to become your own bird flexing your wings. It's an entertaining enough 90 minutes that you won't regret seeing for the two female protagonists and beautifully bold shooting style of the great Gregg Akari.
- Wild - 9/10 - A woman approaches a fork in the road at the crossroads of her life in this autobiographical tale. With the crumbling status of her marriage and the death of her mother, Cheryl Strayed (Reese Witherspoon) has lost all hope. After years of reckless, destructive behavior, she makes a rash decision. With absolutely no experience, driven only by sheer determination, Cheryl hikes more than a thousand miles of the Pacific Crest Trail, alone. "Wild" was every bit as emotionally moving as it was powerfully intense. There is so much i enjoyed about this film that the review practically writes itself. It is helmed by the best female leading performance i have seen in 2014. Make no mistakes about it, Reese Witherspoon becomes Cheryl in this film. Her character left me spellbound because i didn't receive just one performance from her, i received a couple that hit me in different emotional facets. I loved Cheryl because i saw a determined person's search throughout this long journey to find the woman her mother raised. Her relationship to her mother (Laura Dern) is something i related to so much that it tugged at my heartstrings when Cheryl's life feels worthless without her. I hated Cheryl because of the terrible decisions she made that hurt the only people she had in her life. I felt sorry for Cheryl because the film captures her loneliness on this journey as miniscule when compared to her life at home. This journey is about starting over, and that starts with facing the monster she created in the mirror. Reese gives the rawest performance of her career. It's clear that she did her homework on the frail Strayed as she serves as a producer on the film as well. Many people will view the nudity scenes she does in the film as disappointing, but i think it was important to show just how far her life had fallen. Her sex scenes come across as hard to watch because that is what we as an audience are supposed to feel as she gives herself to several men in the name of infidelity. The camera angles are breathtaking in the film. Many wide angle shots support the statement of just how alone this woman is. That loneliness takes on many forms throughout the film, boredom, pain, fear, and delirium to name a few. It's in each of these emotions that Cheryl grows as a person, and it becomes a clear portrait of a battle tested woman by film's end. My favorite thing about the film however, was the wonderful editing job on so many symbolic flashbacks. The film has two stories to tell in Cheryl's life, past and present, but it never feels like the movie is overcrowded for it's 1 hour and 50 minute run time. Instead, the script takes it's time giving you short flashbacks one at a time and making you search for the ending. Many scenes like this in other films will sometimes beat the viewer over the head with the answer they are trying to convey, but i think some of the events past in "Wild" will require multiple viewings while pushing to get the most from the viewer. I searched and searched for something i didn't like about the film, and with the exception of some events that pop up out of nowhere, i couldn't find anything. Those pop ups gave me a minor bother because they sometimes feel out of place with a previous scene, but i can ignore this because it's based off of real life events from the literary biography. Director Jean-Marc Vallee (Dallas Buyers Club) hits a homerun again with uncut emotional depth and a journey that the viewer takes physically and psychologically with Strayed. "Wild" is a film that can't be missed by anyone. The biggest message of all is perhaps that every obstacle in front of us begins with one foot at a time.
- Wish I Was Here - 6/10 - Zach Braff directs, writes and stars in this heartfelt narrative about taking charge of our lives when we are called upon to do more. Wish I Was Here is definitely speaking an impactful message, but it's presentation gets lost in the shuffle of recycling from Braff's previous directing efforts in Garden State. There is a similar outlook and almost commentary views that comes from Braff's writing. Braff stars as an unemployed actor who is trying to save his family from losing everything when he finds some tragic news out in the form of his father months away from dying. If the movie was simply just about taking charge, it would be a lot better of a film. Make no mistake, i enjoyed Wish i Was Here, but i feel like this film had the ability to be a top twenty film of 2014 for sure. One of the problems that takes away from this is some of the funny imagery that is used in between as meaningless fluff. One scene shows Braff portraying a video game character in his mind, and it comes across as almost laughable for all the wrong reasons when it is supposed to be dramatic. Another completely meaningless part is when Braff's brother (Played by Josh Gad) is trying to hook up with his neighbor. We are introduced to this female character who hates him and then we hear nothing from her until the end of the movie when the two hook up. It's just bad storytelling that is only topped by it's terrible pacing issues and predictability. The pacing in question makes some scenes feel like they are out of order with the way the movie is being presented. It almost feels like a sitcom with some scenes not geling with others to make them feel like a series of segments. The things i did enjoy about the movie other than it's inspiring message was a wonderful cast led by Kate Hudson, Mandy Patinkin, and the ever improving young actress known as Joey King. King is that perfect mix of awkwardness and maturity in her role as Braff's daughter. She has the moments in the film that give you the most goosebumps, and is more suited for a film like this than anything else she has done to this point. Hudson has more to do in this film, and that is good because there is a decent actress under there that can do more than just chick flicks. She is the glue that holds the family together when it feels like they are minutes from being ripped apart. The soundtrack is also arguably one of the best of 2014. New tracks from Coldplay, Bon Iver, and Radical Face highlight a score that is beautifully instrumental as well as sentimental to make us think of our own childhood memories. I must confess that The Shins song "So Now What" is my absolute favorite track in the film. There isn't a song better suited for it's film this year, and That is because The Shins wrote this song specifically for the movie. Another thing i enjoyed was that this film is a loveletter to Los Angeles without showcasing the typical cliches that you would normally see in any film about LA. Braff is clearly someone who loves his home city, and shows it in the small ways like the 60's style homes with children chasing lightning bugs as the ice cream truck is jingling down the street. It's all a painting of Los Angeles that casts it in light that it isn't often given attention to. Wish I Was Here is a meager comedy that feels more like a vanity project than a profound examination of upper-middle class family dynamics. It's a film that should be more dramatic and less punchline. Recommended, but can wait until DVD.
- Wolf Creek 2 - 5.5/10 - Just when you thought it was safe to go back into the Australian Outback, hunter Mick Taylor (John Jarratt) returns in the sequel to the 2005 original that redefined horror. I am kind of in the middle when it comes to how i really felt about this film. It does have it's memorable scenes like a sensitive male anatomy part getting cut off in the most graphic and revealing way possible. It also has a kangaroo massacre scene with several kangaroos being ru...n down by a car with "The Lion Sleeps Tonight" being played in the background. I found myself laughing during these scenes, and i don't know if that's what the filmmakers were going for or if there truly is something wrong with me. Besides that, Wolf Creek 2 offers nothing really new in this sequel. Jarratt is outstanding as usual. He could pretty much play the antagonist role in his sleep at this point. His charm is the only reason i would recommend fans of the first film to see this one. The story structure is practically the same as the first film. You can almost time everything scene by scene, and it's because of that you can predict what is going to happen next. The ending is EXACTLY the same as the first film. It's at the end of this 100 minute film that you realize there was no point at all to making a sequel to this. I mean, we did see more of the hideouts for Taylor than we did in the first film, but we learn nothing more about his character. I can only hope that if they do a Wolf Creek 3 that it's a prequel showing us the origins of Mick Taylor. That is exactly what they should've done with this sequel. Like the original, two backpackers are camping throughout the Australian outback when they come across a psychopath who likes to hunt humans for fun. The protagonists are so unlikable, and i blame that on the fact that unlike the first film, this one doesn't take the time to give us a back story for them. Some people didn't enjoy the first film because the first 40 minutes were built up so slow and only focused on the three protagonists journey to Wolf Creek. I thought it was done right, as you legitimately cared about what happened to those three people. In this film, their deaths mean nothing. The graphic gore has times of sheer genius, but it flakes out in the last act. It truly cannot decide if it wants to be a plain rated R or to really push the boundaries into territory not often seen in the States. The ending is something that is a little confusing and totally doesn't make sense. The door is certainly open for a 3rd film, but i can only hope that they grant my wish, and not give us another plain Jane sequel. Overall, i would only recommend this film to fans of the first movie who are thirsty for more of Jarratt's comedic tones that he brings to his characters. Either way, wait till DVD.
- X Men : Days of Futures Past - 9/10 - This is the X Men film that fans of the comics deserve. I am still amazed 24 hours later at how much I really loved this film. Everything comes together perfectly in the newest X Men film directed by Bryan Singer. In this installment based on the graphic novels, the worlds of our mutants of the past and present collide. First of all, lets get it out of the way that there are some differences from the comics, but I don't personally sweat on something like that. I have said before that if everything was 100% the same, there would be no surprises and no point to see the film. As long as the movie doesn't completely ruin it's origins, it's all done in the brilliant world of creativity, and oh boy does the creativity reign supreme in this film. I am strongly debating if this film succeeds The Dark Knight in terms of my favorite comic book movie of all time. It really is that good. The story requires Wolverine to travel back in time to stop an event that eventually leads to the X-Men's demise. That alone offers all of the opportunities in the world for some great on screen scenes between actors who have never worked together despite being a part of the same story. There are so many good performances that I don't even know where to start. Hugh Jackman has proven that he can play Wolverine in his sleep at this point. I will never be able to imagine anyone else under the roll. He brings out the witty humor of Wolverine while not losing his intimidation factor. James Mcavoy adds a melancholy feel to Charles Xavier that he hasn't quite felt in the on screen adaptations. He has lost so much, but he still believes there is a world out there worth saving. Jennifer Lawrence is really the screen stealer of this film. She flashes a dangerous side that Lawrence hasn't quite gotten a chance to show in any film she has been in. Sexy and intelligent are the two traits that make Mystique the most dangerous weapon in this movie. Peter Dinklage brings a menacing genius to his scientist character that really makes you grit your teeth in hating him. Game of Thrones fans always brag about how great Dinklage is on the show, and I can promise you that you won't be disappointed by his performance here. Evan Peters is absolutely my favorite thing about the movie as a young Quicksilver. He is so young and naïve, but his charisma comes out in spades as he is having the time of his life as this character. I yearned for more only minutes after he left the screen. Some other people have good time shining, but there are those who are left in the dust of supporting character. Halle Berry in particular as Storm is only given two lines, and you forget she exists until the final fight scene. I get that it's a huge cast, but many characters are forgotten in this film. That is one of the only problems I had with the movie. Other than that, the 3D is useless. For one, outside of the opening, there is no reason to have it, and two, the cinematography of a future destroyed New York mixed with the 70's flashbacks offer beautiful eye candy that doesn't need 3D to enhance it. Singer really does his homework when it comes to the country's fears and ideals during the Nixon administration. It's even interesting that some famous events in U.S history are used to compliment X Men storylines. One thing that did surprise me about the film was that it doesn't rely as much on fighting scenes compared to other X Men movies. There are some beautiful action and fight scenes in the movie, but this 2 hours and 10 minutes relies more on a well written script with great face to face confrontations to push it further. I like that. I like that it's not like the other X Men films good and bad. The ending is something that I feel was written perfectly and would've been the best way to end this series. I already know they have plans on making a sequel, but I can't see that one beating this in terms of offering something for a X Men reader to enjoy. There is an after credits scene that clearly shows the direction they are heading in with the time traveling aspect. I am fine with another X Men film, but I wish this was it. X Men : Days of Futures Past is the best film in the X Men franchise BY FAR. Singer elevates the action to delight the fans and newcomers but he delivers a fast-paced emotional storyline that blends in all of the previous films without confusing anyone. Certainly a first rate entertainment among the Marvel films to date. Well recommended, but leave the 3D on the shelf.
No comments:
Post a Comment