Mad Max Review
Grand Total: 5
Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior Review
Grand Total: 7 ¼
Technical
Watchable 4
Suspenseful +1
Total: 5
Overall impression
Mad Max is a post-apocalyptic movie about a policeman named Max and his journey toward becoming “mad”. The beginning of this movie is a little confusing in that it kind of throws you into the mix of things and expects you to catch on from the sparse dialogue that is given as exposition. Basically, Max is a cop who is at the top of his game. He stops a certain cop-killing criminal and now that criminal’s biker gang is after Max. That’s particularly unfortunate for Max because, despite living in this disgusting (it really is) post-apocalyptic world, Max has a wife and a son. Once the movie starts to focus on Max and not on the slew of other characters that either have one scene or die quickly, it becomes a decent movie. I saw decent with a little grain of salt though, because this is a film on a micro-budget. What’s impressive is that despite this apparent lack of visuals, the film makes up for it with a ton of practical effects, most of which involve flipping cars and crashing motorcycles. The stunts look fairly decent, but I just wish the camerawork was more fluid so it could have captured them to full effect. Another result of the low-budget is that whenever there is a scene of gore, the film only gives you about a second to look at it before the camera pans out. This is most likely so that viewers don’t see how bad the prosthetics are. The chase scenes are similarly filmed where, right as something bad is about to happen, the camera pans away so that we don’t see it happening. Now, this could be for two reasons. One is that the filmmakers didn’t want something graphic to occur so as to avoid a harsh rating by the MPAA. The other is because the filmmakers didn’t have the means to actually show anything happening. Given that this movie was already rated R, you can see which of these ended up being the case. One positive I do have for the film is that the entire runtime is filled with a sense of dread and unease. You feel like this world is a terrible place to live in where you have people like Max, who are trying to keep things safe, and you have people like the biker gang, who want to steal, rape, and murder all of those Max cares about. Apart from that, there really isn’t a lot to say about the film. Parts are disgusting (I guess that is a good thing if you’re talking about setting up the world) and parts are boring. The first half, especially, is confusing and all over the place. The second half, once the movie starts focusing on Max, works much better and allows us to fully realize why Max becomes Mad. With a bigger budget and more time to make this movie, I’d be willing to bet that Mad Max would actually be a pretty good movie.
Total: 5
Technical
Engaging 6
Suspenseful +1
Great performance/character (Emil Minty as the wild child) + ½
Total: 7 ½
Overall impression
Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior is the sequel to the micro - budget hit Mad Max that takes place an untold number of years afterwards and stars the same character Max. This film is about Max's return to humanity as he helps a group of people surviving and protecting an oil rig escape to safety with their cargo: an oil tanker and many people who just want to live their lives in peace. Who is threatening their safety? A group of ruthless and disgusting bikers far worse than the people shown in the first Mad Max film. In a world where oil is as valuable as life, and where the bikers practically live off oil and would kill in a heartbeat to get it, you can see why this mission is of such dire importance. The movie even shows what happens to certain members of this group of people when some of them try to escape on their own. The film is about Max finding it within himself to help these people. What I liked about this movie more than I liked about the first Mad Max movie is that it had a coherent story and simple plot that was easy to follow as opposed to just a lot of introductory images introducing you to this world. I also liked that it took the practical stunts of the first film and raised the bar about tenfold because this film is ridiculously crazy. The stunt work and practical effects in this film are some of the best I've ever seen and what's so fantastic about it is that they're all really happening. When somebody jumps from a car onto an oil tanker while they're all traveling at breakneck speed, it's really happening. This isn't the type of movie that is made anymore, and serious credit has to be given to that. Unfortunately, that also means that a lot of the camerawork is done from a passing car or a car behind the main action, which means that the camera is often shaky. Sometimes that makes the footage seem realistic but it often just makes things more confusing. The music in this movie was a little confusing to me as well because it was almost always there, regardless of whether or not it was appropriate; sometimes it fit and sometimes it was just loud and annoying. In the end, I realized that this movie, unlike the first one, had little to no character in it. Well, it had little to no character development for Max anyway, which is a shame because this movie is trying really hard to show why Max finds his humanity again and, to be honest, it just doesn’t work very well. There is a kid in this film, the only kid so far introduced in this post-apocalyptic universe Max lives in, that was definitely there to develop Max and show why he ends up finding his humanity. I was more interested in what it would be like to grow up in this terrible world and in these terrible circumstances. What impressed me most is that I got quite a lot out of this kid who actually has no lines of dialogue at all in the film. However, character is definitely not what I will take away from this film the most. The stunts and the action are what I will take away from this film and they are some of the best I’ve seen just because of how impressive it was to perform all of what these stunt workers did.
Total: 7
Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome Review
Grand Total: 1 ½
Technical
Watchable 4
Too long -1
Boring part -½
Uneven tone -½
Bad performance/character (Tina Turner as Aunty Entity) -½
Obvious plothole -½
Total: 1
Overall impression
Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome is another sequel to Mad Max and features quite little of the first two films in that It lacks the same tone and the same characters. Seriously, Max is basically a different person in this film. His best scene was when he was mocking my expression throughout most of this movie. It happens at around the fifty minute mark. Max looks around at the strange and confusing culture that surrounds him with a confused look of wonder as to how this even made its way into his movie. You know a movie is seriously flawed when the entire first half could be removed from the movie with little difference in the quality of the film. Not only is the first half unnecessary but it is also really slow and really boring. Moments of supposed horror become unintentionally comic and I really struggled to understand what Max was doing in this place anyway. I mean, the introduction is so rushed that it feels as if its only purpose was to put Max in this town in which we see Thunderdome. The title “beyond thunderdome” is appropriate because most of the movie takes place beyond what happens in this town. What is unfortunate though is that what takes place is so unrelated to the fifty minutes we just spent in the town that I’m not sure why Thunderdome or the town are even featured in this film. Apart from in a brief but exciting scene toward the end of the film, both Thunderdome and this town Max stayed in are never heard from again. This final scene is actually the only positive thing I can say about the film. It’s a chase scene reminiscent of what the previous two movies and is done with the same flair that I came to appreciate. Unfortunately though, a ten minute sequence does not save a film. This movie neither adds to the character of Max nor adds to the realism of the world he lives in. It is true that we see a functioning town for the first time in this world, but the town’s very existence and survival is so illogical and full of holes that I don’t really think it ought to count. Comparing the first film or even the second film with this one just makes this franchise seem so disjointed, a feeling that can definitely be attributed to the odd tonal shifts of this film. That and a hilariously terrible performance from Tina Turner. Most of her scenes show her staring at the camera and nothing else. At the end of the day, Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome works neither as a standalone film nor as part of the Mad Max film series. A good sequence at the end of the film does help redeem the carnage that was dealt during the first ninety percent, but it was certainly not enough.
Total: 2
Pitch Perfect Review
Grand Total: 7 ¼
Technical
Engaging 6
An amazing scene (final song) +½
Great performance/character (Skylar Astin as Jesse) +½
Great songs +½
Total: 7 ½
Overall impression
Pitch Perfect is a comedy about an a capella college group called the Barden (that’s their college) Bellas. More precisely, it’s about one member, Becca, played by Anna Kendrick, who comes onto campus as a friendless loner who just wants to become a DJ and make her own music. How she becomes a member of the Barden Bellas and where they go makes up the story of this movie. Thank goodness this film has a pretty good story and great music, because it isn’t all that funny. The humor is primarily based around the stereotypical characters in the film, both in and out of the Bellas, with a few touches of raunch here and there and it is pretty tired and not my type of humor. If you like that type of humor, all the power to you; you’ll enjoy this movie even more than I did. That’s because, despite the lack of good comedy, I found this film quite enjoyable for a number of reasons. After a shaky setup that drags, the film begins to hit its stride when it begins to focus on the a capella and not on Becca being a sour stick-in-the-mud. I get that her transformation from “driving people away” to actually having people who she cares about and who care about her is part of the story, but we spend so much of this movie with an unlikable Becca that it makes it hard to relate to her. But this was mostly part of the poorer first third or so, and can be accepted. One character I would like to mention is the character of Jesse, the romantic interest for Becca. He’s the nice guy to Becca’s apathetic persona and is portrayed really well by Skylar Astin. Every time his character went through something, his face perfectly reflected what the audience should be feeling, and he takes a lot of hits in the film. I also like Jesse because he likes movies and wants to score movies. The way he is integrated into the story is also well done as he is far more than just Becca’s love interest but plays quite a role in the story and in the final scene. Bits of the story feel rushed a lot of the time and you can tell that quite a lot of it was unfortunately done for comedy and it didn’t work for me. Might make some of you love this film just that much more but it just didn’t work for me. Apart from that, the singing in this film is fantastic and definitely the strongest aspect of the film. Every single arrangement is done fantastically and all of these tracks could go down as the best pseudo-original soundtrack a film of this nature has ever had. At the end of the day, this film bogged me down a bit in the beginning but won me over with its story and fantastic vocal performances.
Total: 7
Godzilla Review
Grand Total: 7 ½
Armageddon Review
Grand Total: 1 ¼
Technical
Engaging 6
Suspenseful +1
An amazing scene (reactor meltdown) +½
Amazing visuals +½
Great performance/character (Bryan Cranston as Joe Brody) +½
Obvious plothole -½
Total: 8
Overall impression
Godzilla, or more precisely, the monster movie released in 2014 starring Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Bryan Cranston, not the monster-sized stinkpile of a movie with the same name, released in 1998 and starring Matthew Broderick, features more buildup than actual Godzilla action, but still proves to be a far superior film in almost every way. The film opens up with a disaster as Joe Brody, a manager at a nuclear power plant in Japan, loses his wife when the plant melts down and collapses. This scene is probably the best one in the movie and though it is a bit rushed at the beginning and the writing isn’t great, Bryan Cranston’s acting completely sells the scene. Unfortunately, though, Bryan Cranston’s character is not the focus of the movie. Aaron-Taylor Johnson playing Joe Brody’s son is the focus of the movie. He’s pretty boring through a combination of serviceable but not exceptional acting and terrible writing of the character; he’s forced to be the eyes of the audience and is only allowed to say things if they’re necessary exposition, which I found to be a waste. Given that this is a monster movie, you’d be surprised at how matter-of-fact-like the scientists in the film explain Godzilla’s existence. They also explain the existence of two MUTOs (Massive Unidentified Terrestrial Organisms), which Godzilla has to fight. Most of the film has them as the focus actually, as Godzilla doesn’t quite wake up until both of the MUTOs have awakened and are headed toward San Francisco which, by mere chance of course, happens to be where our main character lives. The film is full of conveniences and plot devices that I wasn’t too thrilled with, but I was thrilled by quite a lot of the suspense in this film, which is well done. One particular bridge sequence is noteworthy for how well it was executed. Apart from that, just know that this film focuses on the humans and where they’re going instead of where Godzilla is; Godzilla is only really in the movie for the final twenty minutes or so. Far from being bummed out about it though, I appreciate this because it removes the possibility of Godzilla burnout. Far too often a film hammers in a particular scene for way too long or focuses on something for too long and the audience gets so exhausted that they actually get bored with the thing altogether. By building up to the final Godzilla confrontation, the film gives you enough Godzilla so that you’re satisfied, not overwhelmed. A lot of the setup, though, is forced or boring, especially after the focus is set entirely on Aaron Taylor-Johnson’s character. At that point, a lot of the mystery has been revealed and I just had to wait for more monster action. Overall, the film is pretty satisfying, with a great introduction a bit of a boring middle, and a great finale. Bryan Cranston is great, but once his scenes are over, the film begins to weigh itself down. When the film shines though, boy does it entertain.
Total: 7
Technical
Watchable 4
Too long -1
Terrible writing -½
Obvious plothole -½
Bad performance/character (Liv Tyler as Grace Stamper) -½
Overuse of effects -½
Uneven tone -½
Total: 0 ½
Overall impression
When someone says the name “Michael Bay”, I always think of chaos, not knowing what’s going on, terrible characters, uneven tone, too many explosions, shaky camerawork, and terrible writing. Armageddon has all of those elements. It tells the story of a bunch of oil drillers who, when an asteroid is discovered to be headed toward earth, are trained to be astronauts so that they can be sent into space to drill into the asteroid and blow it up with, you guessed it, a nuclear bomb. Why do they need to be drillers? Well you see, teaching drillers to be temporary astronauts is far easier than teaching astronauts to be temporary drillers. That is the least of this movie’s logic flaws. In between the shakily shot action, we are presented with a romance between two of the worst performances ever put to film, at least in the first half of this movie. I honestly found it difficult to choose between giving Liv Tyler or Ben Affleck the bad performance subtraction. In the end, Ben Affleck had some decent moments, but Liv Tyler had none. Additionally, her characterization made no sense, so I had to give it to her. She didn’t make any sense because she’s a woman who has grown up on oil drilling sites for her entire life and still knows nothing about oil drilling or living. She complains a lot about her situation, and Liv Tyler’s acting makes the character seem like a self-conscious teenage girl. Ben Affleck’s character isn’t a whole lot better, and the pair share some atrociously terrible dialogue. Apart from that, this film is full of destruction and explosions and they’re so terribly in your face that I think I got a headache from watching the film. At two and a half hours, this movie was exhausting to watch. Almost nothing makes sense, characters are only there to say terrible lines, the humor rarely works, and I just wish that I could forget most of this film. The worst part is that it is trying to be good! Sometimes you can tell that this film is trying to copy Apollo 13, which came out a few years earlier; it had so many dramatic moments and real stakes that Armageddon was really trying to replicate. You can tell because the movie sets up these moments that are supposed to be intense, plays them in slow motion, and has dramatic music playing in the background. These moments are everywhere, and not once does this film feel like it has any weight to it whatsoever. That’s probably because it takes place in space though. The only moments in this film that got my attention were during a twist that happens almost two hours into the movie. I guess my expectations for what the film had to offer were so low that I just didn’t see anything coming. Another positive I can give the film is that Bruce Willis and Billy Bob Thorton have major roles in the film, and both do a decent job. Overall though, expect a terrible movie with too many effects, terrible writing, a plot that makes no sense, and just pure Michael Bay (he even has a cameo).
Total: 2
The Impossible Review
Grand Total: 9
Technical
Engaging 6
Moving +1
Suspenseful +1
An amazing scene (reunion) +½
Amazing visuals +½
Great performance/character (Ewan McGregor as Henry Bennett) +½
Great music +½
Total: 10
Overall impression
The Impossible is a film about a family of five who are caught right in the middle of the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami. For all intents and purposes, this film is a dramatic reenactment of the tsunami as seen through this family; it is a raw and realistic disaster film and, as a result, is definitely not a film for everyone. This story pulls no punches in terms of the visuals it presents to the audience and is probably not a film that I’d like to watch again anytime soon, despite its quality. The first item of quality is found in the film’s performances. The only characters that are properly given attention are the family members, meaning that the film has all of the time in the world to develop the characters and draw out the performances. While it does a fantastic job of drawing out the performances, particularly from Ewan McGregor and this child actor named Tom Holland, who is given a lot of focus, the characters aren’t given a lot of development. Obviously, two of the characters, very young children, cannot be given development because they aren’t mature enough to realistically deliver good lines. But the three mature characters aren’t given much either. This is because the film focuses mostly on the disaster and on the plot than on the characters themselves; the film never strives to be anything more than a well-made disaster movie. Fortunately, the actors give it their all. One particular scene featuring Ewan McGregor on the phone is so powerful because of his performance, not because of the simple lines he’s given to say; you really feel as if the situation is weighing on him and affecting his hope. The music, key especially in dramas, is excellent in this film. Another thing worth mentioning, which is rare in dramas, is the amazing visual effects. All of the destruction, including the tsunami, the debris, and everything that goes along with it, looked real. It all made you understand why it’s so impossible to survive something like this. You might think that getting hit by a tsunami is like riding a really fast current, and that all you have to survive is to stay above the water until the current slows. You’d be forgetting that what kills you is not so much the water but the contents of the water. All of the debris that the water takes with it is essentially thrown at your body. The family in the film all suffer injuries because of what the water sent into them. This, of course, lends for a lot of disturbing imagery in the film that will definitely contribute to what I said earlier about how the film is not for everyone. That having been said though, I am very glad I took the time to sit through this experience and would recommend it to anyone looking for a serious disaster movie with great performances.
Total: 8
Kingsman: The Secret Service Review
Grand Total: 8
Technical
Engaging 6
An amazing scene (Bar fight) +½
Really funny +½
Amazing cinematography +½
Great performance/character (Colin Firth as Harry Hart) +½
Great music +½
Great writing +½
Uneven tone -½
Bad performance/character (Roxy) -½
Total: 8
Overall impression
Kingsman: The Secret Service, directed by Matthew Vaughn, tells the story of a young kid off the streets who gets trained in the ways of super-awesome-British-spiery. Yes, spiery is a word (spy-ery). If this movie isn’t a Matthew Vaughn movie, I don’t know what is. I mean, it has all of his “Vaughn-isms”: characters that are great, a non-stop plot that is way too complicated for the runtime of the movie, way too much action, clever and self-aware writing, great jokes, and, above all, a sense of fun. This movie is wicked fun. It has so many great moments that it’s impossible not to at least find this movie entertaining. Samuel L. Jackson typecast as the lead bad guy is so goofy and funny, he completely owns all of his scenes. They even gave him a lisp, as if his dialogue wasn’t funny enough on its own. The movie’s main character (actually not Colin Firth) is a very stereotypical role about a slum kid who is taught to be something greater. His character nicely contrasts with Colin Firth’s character, and helps the humor in the movie work so well. That brings me to Colin Firth. Man, this guy absolutely nails the part. This guy plays a very polite gentleman in a tailored suit who just so happens to be a deadly spy. I guess half of the appeal of the movie is watching these uptight men totally going insane. Colin Firth acts almost as a father to the younger main character who is played by a completely unknown actor, named Taron Egerton, who fit the role quite well. Anyway, this movie wasn’t perfect. One of Matthew Vaughn’s unfortunate trademarks is a convoluted story that ends up being too complex for its own good. This was especially apparent in X-Men: First Class, but it’s not as bad as it could be in this movie. Still, it leaves little time for character development or actual emotion. Don’t expect those two things from this movie. The story has issues too, other than being overdone, but since the movie literally doesn’t take itself seriously at all, I guess it’s okay to overlook those things. That brings me to the biggest issue of the movie: its tone. The movie has a lot of really serious moments that clash with the dumb over-the-top moments. These moments don’t usually work because the movie doesn’t take itself seriously (it’s also really self-aware too, great writing). The stakes in this movie are high too, but the movie isn’t serious enough for you to actually care about the stakes. It’s not a huge problem, because the movie is really fun, but I guess I wanted this movie to be either a little more serious or more stupid, and it couldn’t decide. My last problem in the movie is this one female character who shouldn’t even be in the movie. You think she has a purpose (the obvious one) in the movie but she really doesn’t because of a little twist that happens at the end. Either make the female character more relevant or change that little thing that happens at the end and it would solve the problem! It has nothing to do with the performance either, in fact, I thought the actress did a pretty good job. Unfortunately though, the writing just nullified her character’s relevance to get in one last punchline. Oh well, that was wasted. Overall, a really fun movie above all else.
Total: 8
Three Days of the Condor Review
Grand Total: 7 ¾
Technical
Engaging 6
Thought-provoking +1
Suspenseful +1
Great writing +½
Total: 8 ½
Overall impression
Three Days of the Condor is a strange thriller that cares far less about story than it does about messages and meaning something. It’s about a CIA book-reader, who works with seven other book-readers. The objective of these book-readers is to find new ideas or clues in random books that the CIA could use for future operations. They also look for hidden messages in the books, checking to see if anybody is leaking current information about the CIA’s plans. When one man, Condor, discovers that a particular book has only been translated into three distinct languages, he reports it to his supervisors. He goes out for lunch and, soon thereafter, returns to find all seven of his colleagues dead. The story plays out from there. What’s interesting about the film is its exploration of characters. It’s not that the plot isn’t good enough for the film, I would call it decent, but the film focuses much more on explaining its characters. Even the hitman who is sent after Condor is given an entire scene dedicated to breaking down his character. Speaking of this hitman, his presence and the events that happen at the beginning of the film create a seriously suspenseful air of paranoia throughout the film, even when things are calm. Things do get incredibly calm too, as Condor hides out with somebody else so that he can have shelter as to avoid people after him. The film spends a good chunk of time exploring the character of this person, instead of furthering the plot. When it comes down to it, the existence of this person was hardly essential to the plot, but instead brought a strange and interesting character to the film. That is the one problem with the film, I think; so much time is spent on characters that, when the plot has to be advanced, it is done so rushedly, in ways that the audience could quickly lose track of. On top of that, I think there are some unexplored plot points and some questions that probably should have been answered, that were noticeably absent from the film. This is probably for the reasons already mentioned and took me out of the movie a little bit at the end. Apart from exploring characters, the film presents quite a lot of commentary on the nature of the CIA or, by extension, the nature of any government organization. While it is interesting to hear about, the film definitely could have spent more time on making a twisting plot that moved more than on its political commentary. That having been said, however, this film was released in 1975, meaning that it was released around the time of the Watergate Scandal. The message of the film is absolutely a product of its time but is unfortunately still relevant today. For that reason alone, the film doesn’t feel dated at all. Three Days of the Condor is a very interesting film that has a lot of character studies and commentary in it instead of a better plot. I’ll leave it up to you to decide whether or not that is a good or bad thing.
Total: 7
Spy Review
Grand Total: 7 ½
Technical
Engaging 6
Suspenseful +1
Really funny +½
Great performance/character (Jason Statham as Rick Ford) +½
Great writing +½
Obvious plothole -½
Total: 8
Overall impression
Spy is the latest effort from director Paul Feig (director of Bridesmaids and The Heat, both starring Melissa McCarthy). It’s an action/comedy about CIA agent Susan Cooper (Melissa McCarthy’s character) who is investigating the sale of a nuclear bomb to people who want to use it in New York. It also stars Jason Statham, Rose Byrne, Jude Law, and Allison Janney. While the story may sound incredibly generic (not only is it generic but it doesn’t make much sense), you know that, in a comedy, the story is just supposed to be a set-up for humor and, for the most part, that works out quite well in this film. Now, the humor varies. Given that this is a film starring Melissa McCarthy, there are quite a few jokes surrounding her size and, though they are thankfully far and few, they really don’t work in this film. At the beginning especially, the humor in the film heavily focused on that topic, and made for a shaky start; it was so bad that I actually expected the film to be unfunny and boring. The humor quickly switched gears to three new topics: Jason Statham, insult, and raunch. The raunchy humor is prevalent throughout the film, and is most of the reason the film is rated R. So, if raunchy humor is not for you, this movie will deeply dissatisfy you. Most of it was pretty decent, though a certain character in the film (played by Peter Serafinowicz) is only there to spout out lines playing toward this type of humor. He really went too far for me and made parts of the film feel tired. The insult humor, much more prevalent in the second half of the film, is really pretty great. The writing is done incredibly well on that front, and made for a lot of entertaining conversations. The other subject of humor, Jason Statham, more than made up for the parts that didn’t work as well or were too much. Jason Statham gives the funniest performance I’ve ever seen him give, delivering every perfect line so well that he had me in stitches with every scene he was in. He was by far the best part of the film and was so good that it is worth watching the film just to see his performance. Not only is his humor spot on, but it also makes fun of every action character he has ever played. When you think of Jason Statham, you think of the character that will seriously hurt you, but not after telling you exactly how he will do it in gruesomely specific details. This Jason Statham character does a fantastic job of making fun of exactly that, and I have to hand it to the writers for writing him some fantastic lines. Apart from that, the film actually does a decent job of developing Melissa McCarthy’s character. She’s a woman who has no confidence and therefore has never tried to go into the field herself, opting to instead guide other people in the field, from the safety of her computer. A lot of the film is dedicated toward giving her that confidence through the strangest of situations and, however unlikely it may have been, the film actually succeeds in doing so; there are quite a few moments where the film slows down and gives Melissa McCarthy’s character some justice. Of course, none of the other characters get any development at all. That’s acceptable though, as this is a comedy. It’s also an action film. Though action definitely comes second after comedy in terms of film focus, it is there and it is actually really well done, sometimes even bringing out suspense. All of the action scenes are well directed and reminded me of some scenes a director like Matthew Vaughn would make. I mentioned three other people who were in the film: Jude Law, Rose Byrne, and Allison Janney. Rose Byrne is not given a lot to work with; most of her lines are her cursing at Melissa McCarthy. She’s mostly just there to look attractive (she does a great job at it too, I’ll have you know). Similarly, Jude Law’s character is not given much. Allison Janney plays Melissa McCarthy’s friend in the film and is given a few scenes in which the spotlight is on her. She is passable at best and I really didn’t find her to be effective in the film at all. Overall, Spy is a mostly effective comedy with some great action in it. Jason Statham’s character, alone, warrants watching the film, which makes everything else a bonus. Sometimes the humor, especially at the beginning, isn’t that great. However, the film is a lot more hit than miss and I had a really great time with it.
Total: 7
Jurassic Park Review
Grand Total: 9 ½
Technical
Engaging 6
Suspenseful +1
An amazing scene (water cups) +½
Epic in scale +½
Really funny +½
Amazing visuals +½
Amazing cinematography +½
Amazing story/plot +½
Great performance/character (Richard Attenborough as John Hammond) +½
Great music +½
Great writing +½
Total: 10 (11 ½)
Overall impression
Jurassic Park is the story of this park, a park that houses genetically resurrected dinosaurs. The problem with that, however, is that these dinosaurs often eat people, and so the investors of the park are worried about whether or not the park will be able to open to the public. So John Hammond, the creator of the park, invites three scientists to explore the park and then recommend it to the investors. On top of that, Hammond invites his two grandchildren to join the three scientists on a tour of the park. What happens to this group makes up the plot of the film. Before I get to the actual review, it is really important to provide some context into what Jurassic Park was like when it was released and how big of a milestone it was. Jurassic Park featured some of the earliest examples of actual special effects in film. Many of the dinosaur shots in Jurassic Park are computer generated but, wisely, almost all of these shots are wide shots because the detail of these computerized images were poor and, if a CGI dinosaur were to be seen close-up, it would be obvious that it was CGI. To compensate for this, director Steven Spielberg created huge robotic dinosaurs that could be used in the close-up shots. To this day, the effects are so good that the only way I can tell the effects from the robotic dinosaurs is by examining the movement of the dinosaur in question and asking whether or not a robot could do that. Even that doesn’t always work! The lighting and the sound design for the film are perfect too, really lending themselves to create the amazing practical and special effects that are seen in the film. From a narrative perspective, Jurassic Park is also incredible. As you may imagine, the dinosaurs somehow attack the people in the park. While that may be a certainty, the way in which the story unfolds and how the dinosaurs are revealed feature probably the best use of suspense I’ve ever seen. The dinosaurs aren’t thrown into the film just for the sake of there being dinosaurs to show. Instead, they are slowly revealed and used appropriately; the dangerous dinosaurs probably don’t appear until about halfway through the film. While you might think that this would make the first half boring, it definitely isn’t. In between excellent character development of the three scientists and John Hammond (which features some great humor), the dinosaurs are always foreshadowed, and twists begin to make their way into film as the story unfolds. Not only does the film keep you on edge, but it also provides some really good debate and commentary on what it means to contain or control nature, on whether or not it’s possible, on whether or not you should dive into dangerous experimentation without actually understanding it, and on whether or not man should (not could) resurrect that which nature already made dead. It would have been easy for the film to just have the scientists tell John Hammond that he shouldn’t be doing what he is doing, but John Hammond has quite a few responses to their cautionary rhetoric. A lot of this also lends itself to Richard Attenborough’s performance. His transformation in the film, from happy grandfather in control of his marvelous park, to saddened man whose dreams of showing the world dinosaurs have just been crushed is done really well. I don’t want to get too much more into the character arcs, because I think you should watch the film and see for yourself how well everything is done. Is the film perfect, though? I don’t think it is. While there are even more positive things to say about it (like the score, one of John Williams’ most famous), I think some of the plot, especially with the twist in the film, is done a little haphazardly. By that, I mean that it seems very convenient for everything to have gone down the way it did without proper explanation. Another thing I questioned was why one of the scientists, a chaos theorist, was there in the park. The other two scientists, a paleontologist and an ancient plant herbalist definitely should be there, but I don’t think the film did a great job of justifying the presence of the chaos theorist. He’s a fun character and all, but I just didn’t know why it was necessary or even appropriate for him to be there. However, these small details barely take anything away from the film, which is a fantastically suspenseful dinosaur film.
Total: 9
Jurassic World Review
Grand Total: 6 ¾
Technical
Engaging 6
Suspenseful +1
An amazing scene (T-Rex) +½
Epic in scale +½
Amazing visuals +½
Great performance/character (Chris Pratt as Owen Grady) +½
Overly predictable -1
Obvious plothole -½
Total: 7 ½
Overall impression
Jurassic World tells the continued tale of Jurassic Park, except that John Hammond’s dream has finally come true and the park is finally open to the public. When one dinosaur, a genetic hybrid called the Indominus Rex, is created in the park to attract more viewers (really?), things start to go south. Literally, the dinosaur escapes and begins to journey south towards the resort area of the park. Unfortunately, the entire focus of the film is then directed toward finding this dinosaur and containing it. A lot of military get involved and this film begins to feel exactly like a monster movie, under the guise of the name “Jurassic Park”, which was stamped onto the front page of the script. The film isn’t just any monster movie though. It’s a generic and predictable monster movie. The film spends a lot of time trying to convince you that it is a Jurassic Park movie first, monster movie second, by shoe-horning a ton of references to the original film into every place possible. I watched Jurassic Park the same day I went to see this film and I can tell you that there are probably ten to fifteen distinct references to Jurassic Park, not too many of them subtle at all; the script isn’t all that great at being clever or providing decent suspense the way the first Jurassic Park excelled. One thing the script did pretty well, however, was develop the character of Owen Grady, played by Chris Pratt. He’s a raptor trainer who is brought in to inspect the new dinosaur. The film does a really good job of showing just how he trains the raptors and why, even though he can effectively control them, he holds absolute respect for them and their abilities. He holds a lot of relevance in the plot too, so that was nice. The raptors work pretty well in the film too, even though I think they lend themselves to some plotholes toward the end of the film. Apart from Owen Grady, though, none of the other characters are developed at all. Two children are in the film, probably because there were two children in the original, and they’re related to the park owner, probably for the same reason. These two children go on their own journey while Chris Pratt and the park owner spend a lot of time looking for them. Of these four characters, Chris Pratt’s I’ve already talked about and the other three I have some minor problems with. The park owner is really not that well developed at all, and spends way too much time shedding fake single tears (if you don’t know what that is, you’ll see it in the film) and talking on the phone. Seriously, I think she spends more time on the phone than trying to survive all of the mayhem that is happening around her. The children are also not done very well either. The actors are okay, I suppose, but the characters just aren’t well-written. A lot of the time, they exhibit what I’d like to call “plot conveniences”, which is to say, one of them will say something along the lines of “hey, remember when we did this?” and then apply that to the situation at hand without actually showing us the scenes they refer to. This is lazy writing. On top of that, the dialogue between them is really unrealistic. One memorable scene has the two characters looking at dinosaurs, and then suddenly talking about divorce. I have no idea why it was put into the film at all or what purpose it serves, but it’s there. All of this negativity aside, however, you have to ask yourself two questions. Was it good? It was average. Was it fun? Yes. This film is a lot of fun. Classic, popcorn, monster movie fun. It doesn’t make you think, it doesn’t require a lot of brain activity, it just requires a pair of eyes to take in the beauty of big CGI monsters eating smaller CGI monsters. The effects in the film are pretty good, and are used all over the place. The final act in the movie is riveting, and includes a moment when I wanted to stand up and cheer. The humor, something that didn’t work that well in the first hour or so in the film, really picked up in the last act as well. The last act was so much better than the rest of the movie that I walked out of the theatre thinking I’d seen a good movie when, in reality, I’d just seen a fun generic movie. There are worse things than fun generic movies, but it is definitely important to recognize that this movie really isn’t all that great.
Total: 6
The Lost World: Jurassic Park Review
Grand Total: 4
Technical
Watchable 4
Suspenseful +1
Amazing cinematography +½
Obvious plothole -½
Boring part -½
Uneven tone -½
Total: 4
Overall impression
The Lost World: Jurassic Park is the sequel to the 1993 smash hit Jurassic Park, telling the story of a new island, one that was never mentioned in the first film, on which dinosaurs are living without human interference. Jeff Goldblum’s Ian Malcolm is convinced to check out the island to make sure that the dinosaurs are living properly on their own when he finds out that his girlfriend (played by Julianne Moore before she became well-known) is already there. While this is an unbelievable premise, the film does try really hard to convince you why anyone would ever want to go to this island where killer dinosaurs live and why this island exists in the first place. Unfortunately, this bit of explanation takes up about a third of the movie. The rest of the film can be split into two, making this a film easily into three parts. The first part, mentioned before, is really quite boring, and features a lot of exposition in place of the intelligent debates of the first film, noticeably absent here. The second part of this film is a suspenseful sequence that is done pretty well, though, like the first part, it doesn’t make a lot of sense. The third part of this film is a complete cartoon; it’s silly, pointless, and so unevenly introduced that it feels like it was taken from a completely different film. When these parts are put together, it seems like the film is disjointed in that the scenes don’t flow very well into each other. It doesn’t help that the characters are thrown all over the place during these scenes. While the original Jurassic Park featured a lot of characters, it always stuck the characters together so that they were always interacting and developing. In this film, though, the characters come and go like nobody’s business. Ian Malcolm has a daughter in the film. She serves no purpose at all. Ian Malcolm’s girlfriend just makes things harder for everyone. Vince Vaughn is in this film, and doesn’t really do much. Pete Postlethwaite plays a dinosaur hunter in the film. He’s fine, but disappears two thirds into the film without any explanation. Almost all of the performances are flat, especially the performance from Jeff Goldblum, and I couldn’t help but feel that these actors just took paychecks and then sat around and read off of a prompter. The film isn’t without some positives though. The visual effects, though notably bad a few times, are great, especially when dealing with the dinosaurs. The camerawork from Spielberg in this film is also really good, moving around the various set pieces masterfully. These sets are really elaborate, lending themselves to the many practical effects used in the film. Unfortunately, they are often used in such a way that some of the scenes begin to feel like cartoon scenes. The movie turns velociraptors, the most terrifying things from the first film, which were set up so well, into total cartoons. Seriously, these things just chase people around through windows and under doors like in a Tom and Jerry cartoon. These smaller technical gems and a middle sequence that was done well are the only good aspects of the film which, altogether, is a bit of a mess, with a strange premise that the film couldn’t really capitalize on and a terrible third act.
Total: 4
Jurassic Park III Review
Grand Total: 2
Technical
Watchable 4
Terrible writing -½
Obvious plothole -½
Terrible performance/character (Téa Leoni as Amanda Kirby) -½
Uneven tone -½
Total: 2
Overall impression
Jurassic Park III didn’t even bother to give itself a new or original title and instead went for the rote number after the original film’s title. Does that speak to its quality? It sure does. The premise of this film is that a kid was lost on one of the Jurassic islands (actually the one featured in the second film) and his parents hire Dr. Alan Grant (played by Sam Neill, from the original film) to come escort them to find their son. How do they possibly convince him to go to the island? Not with a girlfriend this time, but with money. Unbelievability and lazy writing aside, I think the screenwriters just wanted an excuse to make another Jurassic Park and didn’t care how bad the excuse was. The first film asked questions about the extent of nature and human control over it. This film made me ask one question: why are people stupid? This film is admittedly faster than The Lost World: Jurassic Park, but isn’t as good; this is unfortunate, since that film wasn’t good to begin with. The only positive about this film is Sam Neill in the lead role. For whatever reason, he makes the terrible dialogue he’s given compelling. He even manages to do it in the company of the awful Téa Leoni and the bored William H. Macy! All of the positives that were said about the second film disappear here. The sets are poor, the camerawork is shoddy, and there isn’t an ounce of suspense to be found anywhere. Hey, on the bright side, there are fewer characters and they all stick together! That’s good right? Not when the acting is terrible and the writing is worse. Sometimes the combination is so bad it’s actually comical. This movie sometimes ventures into the “so bad it’s good” territory. Probably the most famous scene in the film features Sam Neill waking up to find a velociraptor looking at him and saying “Alan!” This scene is one of the most unintentionally comical scenes I have ever seen, and probably elevates the score of this film, because there really isn’t much to say about this movie apart from this: it’s just bad.
Total: 2
Back to the Future Review
Grand Total: 10
Technical
Engaging 6
Suspenseful +1
An amazing scene (Johnny B. Goode) +½
Really funny +½
Amazing story/plot +½
Great performance/character (Christopher Lloyd as
Doc Brown) +½
Great music +½
Great songs +½
Great writing +½
Total: 10 (10 ½)
Overall impression
Back to the Future is a hilarious 1985 time-travel movie about a teenager, Marty McFly, who accidentally travels to the year 1955 where he meets a younger Doc Brown (his friend in 1985) and his teenage parents. I think it’s safe to say that this story has a lot to it and that it is very difficult to condense into a few sentences. In short, go see the movie, because it’s fantastic. Back to the Future may be my favorite comedy (it seems limiting to call it a comedy) of all time, because it ingeniously combines story, wit, and great characters to make a great movie, that is also funny; this movie is great because it’s a comedy, but if you took out the comedic aspects of the film it would still be great because the story, characters and concept are all plenty good on their own. I actually don’t think filmmakers make comedies like Back to the Future anymore because this film has serious stakes to it. The final sequence that involves getting Marty back to the future is heart-poundingly intense, featuring a seriously suspenseful car ride. Most comedies these days go for a story that exists solely for creating jokes and therefore skimp out on giving serious moments any weight because we haven’t really had any time to establish ourselves into anything that has happened. Back to the Future, however, has one hell of a clever story. The story establishes the characters early on and then sets them on an excellently paced quest to get a simple thing done: they have to get Marty back to the future! The story always has an extra bone to throw to make things a little more complicated, but always in a clever way, and never in a way that makes you question what’s actually happening, which is a trademark of a great story. But enough about the story. It’s time to talk about the characters. As I said, the story establishes them well, but does so gradually. Before Marty ends up in 1955, the film expertly gives the viewer a taste of each character, letting you know what kind of person they are. The movie then brilliantly gives implicit explanations for why those characters are that way in 1985 by showing you what they went through in 1955. Of course, this only applies to the four characters that were alive in both years: Doc Brown, Biff, and both of Marty’s parents. A few rewatches of the movie help you appreciate this more as you rewatch the scene with those characters at the beginning of the movie, after getting to know their 1955 personas. Particularly great is the character of Doc Brown, who is almost exactly the same loveable/crazy/genius scientist in both 1955 and 1985. All of the expressions and little quirks that make Doc Brown the character that he is are hilarious, and Christopher Lloyd perfectly captures all of that, making him a joy to watch in every scene he is in. Apart from that, the film gets all technical aspects right. It has great writing (essential to any comedy), has great music and great songs. Everything about this movie just works really well. Another thing to note, as this has become the ordinary with time-travel films is that the movie doesn’t get bogged down in explaining time travel. I think that is something that really holds back many other time-travel movies, so it is nice that Back to the Future doesn’t dwell on the technical aspects of a concept that isn’t real (yet?). Overall, this is a great film that works on so many levels, as a comedy, a science fiction story, and just a classic adventure.
Total: 10
The Shawshank Redemption Review
Grand Total: 10
Technical
Engaging 6
Moving +1
Thought-provoking +1
Suspenseful +1
An amazing scene (ending scene) +½
Epic in scale +½
Amazing cinematography +½
Amazing story/plot +½
Great performance/character (Morgan Freeman as Red) +½
Great music +½
Great writing +½
Total: 10 (12 ½)
Overall impression
The Shawshank Redemption is probably a lot of things. It is probably the greatest prison film ever made. It is probably the most uplifting film ever made. It is probably the most satisfying film ever made. The Shawshank Redemption is a film about Andy Dufresne, a bank manager who is sentenced to life in prison for killing his wife while she was cheating on him. Did he actually kill his wife? We don’t know the answer until most of the way into the movie, as the actual murder is never shown on screen. What we do know is that Andy is in Shawshank prison with a bunch of other convicted innocents including Red, played by Morgan Freeman. Red also narrates the film, as it is told from his perspective. His friendship with Andy is one of the purest, most genuine friendships ever put to film, and the way the film tells the story makes the plot both deepen the characters and stay interesting at the same time. Throughout the film, you don’t know whether or not Andy is trying to escape from prison or whether or not something is going to happen to him. The story is strong enough that the one thing you’d think of when talking about a prison movie is actually absent from your mind. What more is there to say about this film that hasn’t already been said? It’s fantastic. The Shawshank Redemption is an uplifting prison story about finding hope and redemption in the face of impossible odds. The music in the movie just helps make it that much better as you feel the sweeping theme and just feel so good inside as you celebrate the success of these men, the triumph of hope, and the defeat of despair. The movie is full of so much wisdom too, with so many quotable lines, the most famous of which is “get busy living or get busy dying.” There are so many inspiration scenes, so many great performances, and so many characters embodying different walks of life, all struggling to find peace. One character that always sticks with me is the character of Brooks, who has one of the best scenes (of many) in the film. He is an old man who handles the bookshelf the prison calls a library. Though Brooks is old when Andy arrives at Shawshank and only gets older and older as the film goes on, his character is so fleshed out that you understand his entire life and are so affected by all that he goes through. His standout scene, which takes place after he is released from prison, is one of the most powerfully affecting scenes in all of film. While the scene plays out, you hear Brooks’ voiceover and listen to the amazing score by Thomas Newman. All you do is watch as Brooks reacts to all that has changed in the world. “The world went and got itself in a big damn hurry” his voiceover says. That one line makes you think about what it would be like to jump in time fifty years, with that part of your life gone. What would you do now that the world has left you behind? This is just one of the ways The Shawshank Redemption proves to be a moving thinkpiece with just one perfect scene. The movie is about how life changes in prison as well. Though you don’t notice it, all of the actors age in the movie. The make-up artists do an absolutely amazing job of making the process subtle and making you truly feel like you are living the lives of these men. Watching the various characters cope with getting into and out of prison is both heartbreaking and thought-provoking at the same time, which is pretty incredible for a movie that creates a single story with so many different characters and still remains absolutely cohesive and spotless. There are too many things to praise about the movie. Its message, characters, feeling, story, music, and even cinematography are all perfect. That isn’t something I can say about most movies. The Shawshank Redemption is one of my favorite movies, and stands the test of time each time I rewatch this masterpiece.
Total: 10
Mr. Holmes Review
Grand Total: 6
Technical
Watchable 4
Moving +1
Thought-provoking +1
Great performance/character (Ian McKellen as Mr. Holmes) +½
Obvious plothole -½
Total: 6
Overall impression
Mr. Holmes is the story of Sherlock Holmes at the end of his days with a failing memory. He’s living with his housekeeper and her son, Roger, and trying to recall his last case. Dr. Watson, who had dramatized all of Holmes’ cases in various publications over the years, had created a happy-ending version of Holmes’ last case that Holmes is almost certain is inaccurate. Why would Holmes quit his profession if his last case was a success? The film tells the story in a series of flashbacks as Holmes recalls details from his case with the help of Roger (played wonderfully by newcomer Milo Parker). As this film is, before all else, a character study of Sherlock Holmes past his prime, this film is quite slow-moving. The case in point is not the focus so much as Sherlock Holmes’ fading memory and legacy are. After all, when you live alone and have only an impressive collection of memories to keep you company, fading memory is a huge detriment. The writing in the film rarely ever exploits or shows off Holmes’ talents or how amazing he is at solving cases, but instead shows him as a man. This stripped-down presentation of a character almost everyone knows is what keeps the film interesting. The writing does a good job of making Holmes a very warm character, especially in how he interacts with Roger; many witty and charming remarks come from Holmes with the intent to gain friendship with Roger. In general, the film does a good job of keeping itself humorous, quite a lot of which comes from McKellen’s performance. As the story unfolds and you begin to realize why the case was such a colossal failure for Holmes, the film does a great job of showing why the failure was not so much Holmes messing up the details but rather Holmes’ insistence on using logic and nothing else to solve everything, when things like human nature and instinct rarely follow those paths and are just plain unpredictable. When the film comes to a close and Holmes begins to act upon that realization, you really believe the reasons for which he does this. That having been said, the road to the finish is not always the smoothest one. One particular sequence that happens near the end of the film feels incredibly abrupt and out of place. While I can see the purpose behind its inclusion, the scene could have been removed from the film and almost nothing would have changed. In fact, the scene itself doesn’t make sense. The purpose could have been fulfilled much more tactfully than inserting in an unnecessarily dramatic scene into an otherwise low-key and graceful film. That aside, Mr. Holmes does a good job of establishing the character of Sherlock Holmes in his later years and examining the limitations of his character. Ian McKellen does a great job of bringing the character to life, even if said character is a bit of a stereotypical old man and the movie itself is fittingly slow.
Total: 6
Southpaw Review
Grand Total: 5 ¾
Technical
Engaging 6
Moving +1
An amazing scene (visiting mom) +½
Great performance/character (Jake Gyllenhaal as Billy Hope) +½
Overly predictable -1
Obvious plothole -½
Total: 6 ½
Overall impression
Southpaw tells the story of Billy Hope, who will hereafter be referred to as “Boxer”. Boxer is having a great time at the top of his game as the undefeated light heavyweight champion of the world. His world is slowly taken from him when, at a press conference after one of his matches, a struggle ensues when another boxer, Miguel Escobar, insults Boxer’s devoted wife. In this struggle between Boxer, his mates, Escober, and Escobar’s crew, a shot rings out, killing someone really close to boxer. Now, if this shot had come from an unknown source, it would have made for a much more believable and not-so-black-and-white story; if it had been this way, we wouldn’t know whether or not one of Boxer’s people was responsible for said death and the guilt and/or mystery could add an element to the film that wasn’t so darn predictable. But no, the shot comes from the one of the instigator’s henchmen. Afterwards, Boxer does some stupid things that lose him all of his money and custody of his daughter. How he loses all of it in one shot is definitely full of holes, but we can skip over that because it is essentially just setting up the rest of the film. Boxer has to get back into the game and to do that, he needs to get a new trainer and start over. Working his way up, he gets a chance to win back his title and finally get into a match. Boxer will be fighting the obvious candidate. Throughout the final match, I was sitting in my seat waiting for the opponent to say something to bait Boxer, and the film didn’t disappoint. Nothing in this film disappointed if you were waiting for it to do something obvious. Predictability and cliché kill any suspense the film would have, but didn’t stop the performances from affecting the way they did. The acting in the film is definitely its strongest aspect as scenes between Boxer and his daughter are often without major dialogue, allowing you to be genuinely moved by the performances of the child actress (who was decent) and Jake Gyllenhaal (who was really, really good). Jake Gyllenhaal gives so much to his character, whose only traits are big, dumb, and angry. You don’t get to see many other emotions from the character, as he’s not exactly well-written, and I really wish the film had cut back on the “dumb”; the character never really thinks anything through, can barely write, etc. Watching this character be dumb in every scene got tiresome after a while, though Gyllenhaal never lets your eyes wander off the screen. Other character stereotypes are saved by performances. Boxer’s trainer, Tick, is one such stereotype, but is played by Forest Whitaker, who does a good job. All of the performances in the film fit the roles, which makes it that much more of a shame that the roles weren’t creative in any way, shape, or form. Apart from that though, there isn’t much to say about the movie, except for the boxing matches themselves. They’re brutal and gory, but also a little lazy. For example, all of the punches that the boxers land on each other all use the exact same sound effect, which was bad enough that it was noticeable and actually a little comic. Add a loud soundtrack to play during all of the fights are you have boxing matches that basically pummel your senses to death. Overall, Southpaw is a very generic boxer movie with elements of countless similarly themed films; the characters are stereotypes and every element of the story is predictable. That having been said, some formulas are formulas because they work and many of the scenes in this film, particularly the ones between Boxer and his daughter, work really well. The acting helps elevate everything else.
Total: 5
Mad Max: Fury Road Review
Grand Total: 9 ½
Technical
Engaging 6
Suspenseful +1
Moving +1
An amazing scene (sandstorm) +½
Epic in scale +½
Amazing visuals +½
Amazing cinematography +½
Great performance/character (Charlize Theron as Furiosa) +½
Great music +½
Total: 10 (11)
Overall impression
Mad Max: Fury Road is the fourth installment in the Mad Max franchise that tells of another time Max (Tom Hardy) finds it within himself to help people instead of just escaping with his life. This time around, it is Furiosa (Charlize Theron) and her group of “wives” that Max helps to escape. Furiosa was a designated truck driver for Immortan Joe, the leader of a spot of land called “The Citadel” in which he pumps water up from the ground and sparingly gives it to the disgusting band of people relying on his supplies. The way in which Immortan controls everyone and creates all of these resources is so perfectly captured in a series of establishing shots and a few lines of dialogue, proving once again that you don’t need the characters giving endless speeches of exposition to make the audience understand the situation. Furiosa is on her way to collect gas from Gas Town and bring it back to The Citadel. Little does Immortan know, however, that Furiosa took several of his “wives” and planned to take them to “The Green Place” where they could be with other women who have escaped enslavement. Immortan Joe quickly realizes what is happening after he notices that Furiosa has gone off course and investigates. Sending his entire army of trucks and vehicles of destruction, Immortan Joe pursues Furiosa for the entirety of this film. Max comes into the story as the “blood bag” for one of Immortan Joe’s soldiers, whose circumstances I still cannot wrap my head around. That aside, Max and his soldier, Nux, become attached to Furiosa’s caravan and eventually become allied with it. This film, from its visual blend of special and practical effects, to its amazing camerawork, is a visual masterpiece. Many of the visual effects in this film are absolutely unbelievable, and the production design behind all of the stunts and the settings is some of the best I’ve ever seen, easily topping those of the previous Mad Max films (which is saying a lot). At an early point in the chase, Furiosa drives her truck into a sandstorm. The resulting three or four minute sequence is visually spectacular, both beautiful and scary at the same time. The music in the film also reflects this throughout the film; during the action scenes, the music is pulse-pounding and during the quieter, more character-focused scenes, the music is beautiful, quiet, and sad. The movie does a great job of putting these character-focused scenes in between the action setpieces to make sure you don’t get tired of the action. This was incredibly effective during the first two-thirds of the film, where we learn everything there is to know about Furiosa’s character, the women, and the green place. I don’t want to say that the film peaked at the end of the second act, but there was an emotionally moving scene that, to me, was way better than anything that happened afterwards. That isn’t to say that the film half hour of the film isn’t good, it’s a chase scene every bit as impressive and engaging as the previous action scenes that preceded it. It’s just that I didn’t expect the kind of emotion I got at the end of the second act; it absolutely blew me away. After all of this praise, it is still possible to find more to talk about. The film, with all of its amazing shots of wide and elaborate landscapes, feels giant in scale, even when you realize that the entire film is basically one big chase scene. Somehow, the movie made it apply to Max as well. As much as Max is in the title of this film, he is basically along for the ride for the entire film, with his own character moments here and there. The focus of the film is absolutely on Furiosa and on her drive as a character; by the end of the film, you are so invested in her character’s struggles toward finding any hope left in the world. The only negative thing I can think of is found in the character of Nux, the strange soldier attached to Max. I’m still not really sure what Nux is or what his motivations were behind joining Max and Furiosa’s mission. Furthermore, I really don’t understand how his character works or why he needed Max’s blood in the first place. This is a minor flaw in an otherwise amazing film. Mad Max: Fury Road is undoubtedly the best in the franchise, boasting spectacular visuals, incredible action sequences, and genuine emotion.
Total: 9
The Fault in Our Stars Review
Grand Total: 7 ¾
Technical
Engaging 6
Moving +1
An amazing scene (eulogy) +½
Amazing story/plot +½
Great performance/character (Shailene Woodley
as Hazel Grace) +½
Total: 8 ½
Overall impression
The Fault in Our Stars tells the story of Hazel Grace, a cancer-stricken teenager who meets Augustus “Gus” Waters at her cancer support group. She’s a total downer realist and he’s a hopelessly goofy optimist. Their friendship and reluctant romance make up the entirety of this story. I say reluctant because both Hazel and Gus must deal with the reality that either of them could take a turn for the worst, leaving the other heartbroken. Hazel’s parents support her going out and living her life while she can and Gus’ parents never seem to be part of the equation, so Hazel and Gus get a lot of time to develop their relationship in a believable, touchingly beautiful way. Being a movie about lovers with cancer, The Fault in Our Stars does a really good job of balancing the romance and the depressing realism of having your life be constantly on the line. The film achieves this balance by closely following this formula: sweet scene between Hazel and Gus, shocking cancer scare for either of them. Just when you think that both are going to make it out of their situations just fine, something happens to remind us all that this movie is about both romance and cancer. As we go on their adventure, from traveling to strange sculpture gardens to booking a trip to visit Hazel’s favorite author Van Houten, the film never really strays from this formula but instead introduces other means to creep sad realism into the film by way of characters like Van Houten (Willem Dafoe) who is probably the only character in the film I ended up disliking; it just seemed like he was such an unnecessary and unexplored element to the story that definitely resulted from adapting the character from a book in which he was given much more depth. In spite of Van Houten, the formula really works with the movie, giving it a strangely happy/sad mix of tone that is consistent throughout as two characters who are just so incredibly different are put together in the backdrop of their unfortunate circumstances and are allowed to live their lives for once. The formula drags from time to time, but the characters and the acting from Shailene Woodley (Hazel is definitely the focus of the film) keep you invested. Shailene Woodley is the only actress in the film that feels like she is actually playing a human character because of all of the realism the character has. Gus is a really likeable guy, but almost too goofy and unrealistic at times. This isn’t a totally a bad thing though as there are a lot of good things that come out of having an upbeat romance. For one, the film completely avoids the clichéd “huge fight” that happens between partners or the “misunderstanding that breaks them apart” moments that happen in so many other inferior films. In the end, the tone in The Fault in Our Stars is its number one quality, balancing the cancer and love to somehow create a film that leaves you both happy and sad at the same time. The pacing sometimes drags and a couple of the characters aren’t as strong as Shailene Woodley’s character, but this is still a very good film.
Total: 7
Sinister 2 Review
Grand Total: 0 ¾
Technical
Watchable 4
Suspenseful +1
Too long -1
Overly predictable -1
Obvious plothole -½
Bad performance/character (James Ransone
as The Detective) -½
Boring part -½
Uneven tone -½
Terrible writing -½
Total: 0 ½
Overall impression
Sinister 2 is the sequel to Sinister, the 2012 horror hit about a demon, Bughuul, that uses a child in a family to murder the rest of the family in some horrifying way. This time around, the family is a recently divorced mother and her two children. They recently moved into the house previously occupied by one of the families murdered by Bughuul and therefore are a potential victim in another murder. The detective from the previous film finds them and must warn them before it is too late. Even if you haven’t seen the previous film, Sinister 2 brings nothing new to either this franchise or the horror genre. There aren’t any twists at all in the boring story and, given that all of the rules that Bughuul abides by are explained in poorly written exposition, nothing is surprising at all. Even the scares, which are far and few, are completely predictable. Only one scare, near the beginning of the film, was effective. The rest of the scares are completely ineffective because they are predictable jump scares using overly loud music after silence; you can see these things coming from miles away. The rest of the movie is really boring. None of the performances in this film have any merit. None of the actors have any chemistry and the dialogue in this film is laughably bad. I laughed more watching this movie than I do in most comedies because nothing is believable and the characters get into the most awkwardly written situations I think I’ve ever seen. The child actors in this movie are awful and the children they are portraying are lifelessly one-note characters; I couldn’t tell you a single thing about either of their personalities, except that the older one beats up on the younger one. Seriously! Bughuul goes after the children, so they should at least be creepy or be given off-putting lines to read off. But none of that is the case at all! To make matters worse, this movie never creates a scary atmosphere in which the audience can get scared for anyone. This movie takes place largely in a dark house next to an abandoned church where people were murdered! How is it that nothing ever feels haunted? Given the setting, it should be so easy to make an environment in which the audience is constantly on edge, even if nothing happens. This movie tries to do it once and then never tries again. At just under an hour and a half, this movie feels long and boring because so little happens in the form of anything in this movie. The story in this movie is so ridiculously simple and stagnant that I could have walked out of the theatre at the thirty minute mark, come back in at the hour mark, and literally nothing more would have happened. Horror movies are so easy to make! Just make a reasonable story in a creepy surrounding and make sure to have plenty of scares. Good horror movies even have a good story with twists. This movie has none of that. No good writing, no creepy atmosphere, no good performances, no twists. It has a lot of lame though.
Total: 1
The Transporter Review
Grand Total: 4
Technical
Watchable 4
An amazing scene (oil fight) +½
Obvious plothole -½
Bad performance/character (Qi Shu as Lai) -½
Bad music -½
Total: 3
Overall impression
The Transporter is about Frank Martin, a man who transports packages for crime groups. He lives by a certain set of rules to keep his work clean: stick to the deal, no names, and never open the package. One day, however, he happens to notice that the package is moving. He breaks his rule by opening it and discovers a young woman. When he delivers the package, his employers suspect that he’s broken the rules and retaliate. He manages to escape with Lai, the woman in the package. Together, they go after Frank’s employer and his group of human traffickers. This movie is watchable and contains entertaining moments, but could have definitely used its premise more creatively. A lot of that has to do with the fact that this movie was obviously low-budget. But a lot of it also has to do with how lazy and uneven the storytelling is of this movie. Not a whole lot makes sense but you just keep watching because of the action that is happening on screen. About that action. The action is consistently well-shot and well-choreographed, getting progressively more creative as the film goes on. Jason Statham does almost all of the fighting himself in a way that always keeps it fun and entertaining to watch. One particular fight scene in oil was especially creative, something the film’s story lacked. Apart from the action, however, there isn’t much to get attached to in this movie. The woman in the movie, Lai, should have easily been relatable and sympathetic, as she was the victim. Unfortunately, Qi Shu, the actress who portrays Lai, does a terrible job in this movie; I don’t think I could tell you a single personality trait about her character. Jason Statham is also a fun guy to watch as his accent always makes what he says seem believable. The music in this movie is pretty good at killing any of the believability though; it’s the kind of background music you’d expect to find in a TV commercial or something. Nothing about it adds any personality to a movie that genuinely needs some. At the end of the day, The Transporter is a film that’s only worthwhile feature is its action. Often creative and always good-looking, the action is pretty good. But bad acting, bad music, and a pretty bland story do a lot of harm. Seriously, the fact that Frank is a transporter is barely relevant to the actual story in this movie.
Total: 5
The Sixth Sense Review
Grand Total: 8
Technical
Watchable 4
Suspenseful +1
An amazing scene (reveal) +½
Amazing cinematography +½
Amazing story/plot +½
Great performance/character (Haley Joel Osment as
Cole Sear) +½
Great music +½
Great writing +½
Total: 8
Overall impression
When one hears the name M. Night Shyamalan in the modern era of film, the typical response given is a cringe or a shiver, as if the name had sinned against the movie-going community. There is some merit to this, as he has made quite a few awful movies including The Happening, After Earth, and The Last Airbender. But someone like Shyamalan wouldn’t be allowed to make these terrible atrocities one after another unless he had first made some good movies. So let’s look at the movie that launched his career sky-high. The Sixth Sense is a well-crafted, well-acted movie that tells a really good story about Dr. Malcolm Crowe, a child psychiatrist, who realizes that he let down one of his patients, resulting in that patient, as an adult, confronting him and then committing suicide. Some time later, Dr. Crowe finds Cole Sear, a child with the same symptoms as the first failed patient and is determined to try his best to help him. Cole and his divorced mother have problems in their family as they all try to cope with their sad situation, all while Dr. Crowe’s obsession with his work has caused him to become distant with his wife. The acting in this movie is amazing. Bruce Willis as Dr. Crowe delivers a very restrained, sad, and confused performance as Crowe struggles to understand Cole as he has to cope with his own problems. But the star of this movie is definitely Haley Joel Osment, who was only ten when this film finished production. This kid has a scary intelligence in his eyes that make you really believe you’re watching a kid with a sixth sense, and not some actor. He’s lost and sad for most of the movie because nobody understands him or believes in his “affliction”, as I’m sure he would call it. Both his story and Malcolm’s produce a profound sadness that permeates the early parts of this film and makes the rest of the movie, a journey between the two of them, compelling. James Newton Howard’s sad score for the film does a great job of pushing this tone even further. Through the various twists and turns, this movie still manages to feel very slow throughout. It speeds up a bit in the second half after its first reveal but crawls otherwise. That is really its biggest fault. The story is crafted in such a way that almost requires it to be slow, so as not to arouse the suspicion of the viewer as to what is actually going on. You see, there is a clever twist at the end of the movie that requires a lengthy setup. While watching the movie with the twist in mind, I can see how clever and manipulative the movie is so that it makes the twist as jolting as it is. If you enjoy slow-building films, this is definitely one to check out. There isn’t anything necessarily scary about it, though creepy and suspenseful at times. Instead, it is a thoughtful drama about a kid who has a sixth sense and the doctor who helps him cope with it.
Total: 8
The Last Airbender Review
Grand Total: 0
Technical
Boring 2
Kids movie +1
Too short -1
Terrible adaptation -1
Terrible writing -½
Obvious plothole -½
Bad performance/character (Jackson Rathbone as Sokka) -½
Unfunny -½
Overuse of effects -½
Uneven tone -½
Total: 0 (-2)
Overall impression
I don’t normally review TV shows because I find it very difficult to find the right amount of time to invest in one. I feel like I owe the TV show at least an entire season, and that is a lot more time than owing a movie its runtime. Consequently, I rarely watch TV shows and never review them. The only TV show I have seen in its entirety is Avatar: The Last Airbender. Back in 2005 when this show aired, I didn’t have cable so the only time I managed to watch this show was when I was visiting some family friends in their Long Beach Island house. I somehow managed to go there the same week three years in a row, the week of the season finale. During that week Nickelodeon would air reruns of past episodes that I couldn’t help but binge watch. I never really got the full experience until I saw a trailer for this movie in 2010 and decided to watch the show on my own. Man does that show hold up in every way. I love every second of it, from the humor, the great writing, the great animation, the many complex messages and human characters that interact in the show, all toward one common goal: to bring peace to the world. Man, if this movie had any of that it probably wouldn’t be as reviled as it is. The Last Airbender is literally the most poorly written, poorly acted, poorly directed, poorly paced movie I’ve ever seen. The movie is only an hour and forty minutes long, but tries to cover twenty episodes of story into one movie. As a result, just about all of the dialogue in the movie is rushed exposition as the movie tries to jump from underwhelming plotpoint #1 to underwhelming plotpoint #5 without anything in the middle; there is no time at all for characters or emotions and the audience can’t get attached to anyone or feel the stakes of the movie. So when poorly choreographed action sequences are in frame, we don’t really care about what’s happening because we don’t care about the people involved. Instead, we get to sit back and enjoy how hilariously bad this movie is. How hilariously monotone it is. How hilariously bad the writing and acting are. How there is literally no emotion. How the movie tries to make humor and utterly, utterly fails. And yet, none of these compare to the film’s greatest sin. You see, The Last Airbender had all of the potential in the world. Avatar: The Last Airbender was a fantastic show for all ages that everyone could take something away from. There was so much great mythology, culture, character, emotion, and story that this movie, as an adaptation, should have used. But none of it is present! I mean, what the heck is that creature that Aang rides on? How does he fly? What’s his name? Why aren’t there more? What the heck is that lemur thing Aang finds in the temple and takes along with him? Why is that even there? What the heck is that spirit dragon thing? Why is it there? Nothing makes sense in this movie! NOTHING. This movie needs at least five hours to explain all of the crap it glossed over and another five hours to actually make us care about the characters. A movie is a total failure if it had all of the potential in the world and did absolutely nothing with it. I can’t even give this movie so-bad-it’s-good credit, as this movie should have been amazing. It wasn’t.
Total: 0
Unbreakable Review
Grand Total: 8 ¾
Technical
Engaging 6
Thought-provoking +1
Suspenseful +1
An amazing scene (orange man) +½
Great performance/character (Samuel L. Jackson
as Elijah Price) +½
Great music +½
Too short -1
Total: 8 ½
Overall impression
Unbreakable is about David Dunn, a man who somehow survives a horrific train crash without a scratch on his body while all of the other passengers were killed. Everybody, especially his struggling family, are in awe of his survival. A mysterious man leaves a note on his car asking him how many times he’s been sick before. Intrigued by this odd question, Dunn learns that he has never been sick in his life and tracks down this mystery man. It turns out that he is Elijah Price, a strange comic book store owner with an interesting theory: what if Dunn is a superhero and just didn’t know it? You see, Elijah has a condition that makes his bones incredibly brittle and easy to break, and he suspects that there is somebody on the other side of the spectrum, someone that is unbreakable. His theory postulates that comic book superheroes actually existed, but were an exaggeration of the truth, that people just denounced their traits as being “super” and stopped believing in them altogether. But those people are still living in this world. So the story is essentially the origin story of David Dunn. The best part about the movie is that this theory actually makes sense. For someone like David Dunn, you wouldn’t know you were a superhero. I mean, you remember times that you were sick but not times you weren’t. You would never know that you were invulnerable if you never got hurt and, in the event that you did get into a situation that you survived without a scratch, you would blame something else, such as pure chance, for surviving. Dunn isn’t just invulnerable though. When he looks at someone or brushes up against somebody, he sometimes gets an image of them either committing a crime or a crime they have already committed. But there are so many reasons Dunn wouldn’t believe this was a superpower. I mean, Dunn wouldn’t have a way to check all of these people to see if all of his little flashes were true. His story also just seems to have a “I just had a feeling that that guy was gonna commit a crime” spin to it that would do a great job of destroying any belief that he actually had a superpower. I mean, this movie really makes you think about whether or not it would be possible for there to be a superhero in the world. In an age of skepticism about just about everything, most miracles or freak occurrences would be denounced before they could be pursued further. So, in a sense, this movie says a lot about how we doubt ourselves and about superheroes at the same time. Furthermore, this movie asks about whether or not we all have some sort of pre-defined purpose in life that, if we stray away from it, we become sad for some reason. Dunn’s marriage is suffering, he can’t connect with his son, and he just feels perpetually sad and lost. Is this because he isn’t out there doing what he was meant to do? This movie is a fantastic, brilliant idea from M. Night Shyamalan that I just want to see more and more of. This profound sadness is conveyed brilliantly by Bruce Willis in a very subdued role that I think is even better than his role in The Sixth Sense. The sadness is also perfectly captured in the score to this movie by James Newton Howard. It is undoubtedly one of the best scores ever written as it plays sad and quiet while also creepy and suspenseful. As soon as we realize that Dunn might be a superhero, we are constantly expecting something to happen to him to prove it. This creates an aura of gradual suspense that just climaxes in a scene involving just that: something happening to Dunn. And it is a triumph! As good as Bruce Willis is in his role though, Samuel L. Jackson as Elijah Price is even better. There is something strange about him, even though he seems normal. He’s another one of those sad people who seems to have lost his way. And all the while, this move subtly manages to be a superhero film that is both believable and incredibly serious. That is an amazing achievement. I only wish the movie was hours longer or had sequels because this world that M. Night Shyamalan created is amazing and I just wish I could see more of it. I wish I could see Dunn doing more things. I wish I could see supervillains. I wish I could see more of everything.
Total: 9
The Visit Review
Grand Total: 6 ½
Technical
Engaging 6
Suspenseful +1
Really funny +½
Great performance/character (Ed Oxenbould as Tyler) +½
Obvious plothole -½
Uneven tone -½
Total: 7
Overall impression
The Visit is a surprisingly hilarious horror film by reviled director M. Night Shyamalan. Perhaps he understood how awful his movies were becoming, after big-budget catastrophes The Last Airbender and After Earth, and decided to go back to basics. The Visit cost only $5 million to make (compared to the $150 million and $130 million, respectively, of the other two films mentioned) and looks like it was made for $5 dollars. It’s a found footage documentary type of horror film, as Becca, the female lead in this film, is an aspiring filmmaker who wants to make a documentary about her visit with her grandparents. Her mother had a bad falling out with them when she was a young adult and hadn’t spoken to them until they called her up and said that they wanted to see their grandchildren. So Becca and her brother, Tyler, are sent to visit their grandparents while they treat their mom to a cruise. Their grandparents, as it turns out, are very strange, especially at night. The first half hour or so of this movie are hilarious, mostly because Tyler says a lot of ridiculous stuff; he’s a rapper apparently. Becca and Tyler have great chemistry, and you really buy that they are sister and brother. To top it all off, the lines they’re given make them seem like they’re actual kids who say some really funny stuff. The problem with the film being so comedic is that when the scary aspects of the movie begin to happen, the characters say something really funny, and the tension that would be there is relieved. That isn’t to say that this movie isn’t scary; it has a lot of creepiness to it and something about grandparents going insane and killing you is really disturbing. Only at the end of the film, when the twist is revealed and the kids become genuinely terrified does the humor end. The problem is, the scenes in which this happens feature some of the most unbelievable character decision-making that I’ve ever seen. Becca and Tyler literally lose all of the intelligence we’ve seen on display for the first 75% of the movie, which makes the horror a little less scary because of how unbelievable it all is. I ended up more frustrated by how stupid the kids were than scared of what was going on. Given that the horror wasn’t as prominent in the film than the comedy was, I will definitely remember this movie for the strong first-half because of how funny it was.
Total: 6
The Maze Runner Review
Grand Total: 4
Technical
Watchable 4
Suspenseful +1
Obvious plothole -½
Boring part -½
Total: 4
Overall impression
The Maze Runner is another one of those young adult novel adaptations to the big screen, joining the likes of The Hunger Games, and Divergent. The premise of this one is a lot less complicated than the premise to either of those two, however; a bunch of kids are trapped in a maze and have no idea who they are, why they’re there, or anything really. Now, this raises all of those questions and many more. Most of them remain unanswered, which is frustrating. This movie has a very difficult time making its own story within the franchise it seems convinced it will establish; this movie knows it’s going to have a sequel and just serves to set it up. That’s not to say that nothing happens, but rather that nothing seems to happen for a reason. The first half hour or so of this movie is almost all exposition, with introductions to characters based upon what one character tells you about them, as opposed to how the character in person interacts with Thomas. Who’s Thomas? He’s introduced into the maze and starts to fight against the people already there, who are convinced that they have to abide by rules designed to have them survive, but not escape. But given all of the exposition, you’re left scratching your head as you try to figure out answers to the billion plot questions you have and never give a thought to any character questions. I mean, when did any of these characters who want to survive exclaim “I don’t want to die” and break down, showing some genuine emotion? Where was that? For the film’s very little credit, there are a few scenes in the second half that involve Thomas’ interactions with the other characters, where they actually reflect on their dire situation. This is actually a breath of fresh air as, for once, our brains aren’t being bombarded with facts we don’t know what to do with. Then, Thomas becomes a Maze Runner and things start happening. By that, I mean that Thomas and most of the crew make it through the maze and into the next movie. Seriously, the ending to this film is literally a set-up to the next film. This is sad because the film that came before it barely stood on its own. There are so many questions I have still that are incredibly important to the plot of this story, without which not much makes sense. That’s the worst kind of storytelling. Yeah, there were a few good character moments and the maze features were suspenseful, but the majority of the film was a big question mark that was never answered. It seems the final score of this movie will have to wait for the next two films to arrive in theatres.
Total: 4
Sicario Review
Grand Total: 9 ½
Technical
Engaging 6
Suspenseful +1
Thought-provoking +1
An amazing scene (personal to me) +½
Epic in scale +½
Amazing cinematography +½
Great performance/character (Benicio Del Toro as Alejandro) +½
Total: 10
Overall impression
Sicario is about the war against Mexican drug traffickers, as seen from Kate Macy (Emily Blunt), an FBI agent who optimistically believes that this huge problem can be solved by doing things under the law. The problem is that she really has no idea how bad this problem is. The film opens up with an incredibly suspenseful raid of a house suspected of harboring hostages of a Mexican druglord. What Kate and her group of officers find there is definitely not what they expected, leaving Kate sick at this entire endeavor and out to make a real difference. So she’s asked to accompany a group of people led by Matt (Josh Brolin) and Alejandro (Benicio Del Toro), neither of which seem to be government agents; Matt is incredibly laid-back, cracking jokes left and right and Alejandro carries an aura of mystery about him throughout the film. Kate becomes increasingly frustrating with her mission as nobody seems to tell her where she’s going or what they’re doing there until after the fact. This doesn’t really do the film any favors. There are several, incredibly suspenseful sequences in this first half that pay off, but the half in its entirety doesn’t really fit together because you can’t see how it’s adding to an end. In other words, you don’t know what the bigger picture is so the smaller things that happen don’t seem connected into one story. Still, this raises some very interesting questions that the movie has you mull over. Is it right to take action against an entity that you don’t know or understand? Is it worth causing major trouble in some operation if you don’t have any idea what the outcome will be? The movie manages to do this in its first half all while remaining intriguing and well-paced. But none of that even compares to how incredible the second half of this film is. I make the distinction between first-half and second-half based on whether or not you can see the end that I was talking about. Once you understand where the mission is going and it begins to go down, this movie becomes one of the most suspenseful thrillers in recent memory. It is during this second half that we understand who Alejandro is and we really get to see Benicio Del Toro’s acting ability up front and center. I’ve never really been a huge fan of his work, having only a few examples of his to consider, but this is, by far, the best performance of his that I’ve ever seen and the best performance in the film. He brings about a cold intensity that I rarely ever see in performances, and he reminded me of Christoph Waltz in Inglourious Basterds. And that isn’t because the other performance aren’t good. Emily Blunt plays a character that is basically thrown into this mess of a situation, and she plays frustration really well. That having been said, her character isn’t very interesting and, with the exception of a few scenes, the film doesn’t really give her much to work with in terms of emotional range. Josh Brolin suffers from similar problems. Much more of a supporting cast member, Brolin plays a very funny but still serious leader who really doesn’t go anywhere in the film. I say funny when I reference his performance, but it’s also worth noting that Sicario, though certainly not a comedy, features quite a lot of dark humor, even during some of the most intense moments of the film. And yet, for all of the darkness, the film is beautiful. Veteran cinematographer Roger Deakins creates some gorgeous shots in this film, including a lot of incredibly wide shots of the scenery. This makes the film feel epic in size, almost as if the film is saying something about the size of the problem itself. Although the first half of the film is definitely inferior to the second half, it is still really well-shot, acted, and paced. Benicio Del Toro gives one of the best performances I’ve ever seen by anyone, and completely steals the film from other good acting performances from Emily Blunt and Josh Brolin.
Total: 9
Black Mass Review
Grand Total: 6 ¾
Technical
Engaging 6
Suspenseful +1
An amazing scene (you don’t look sick) +½
Great performance/character (Johnny Depp
as Whitey Bulger) +½
Great music +½
Too long -1
Uneven tone -½
Total: 7
Overall impression
Black Mass tells the story of the rise and fall of Whitey Bulger (Johnny Depp), a crime boss in Boston. Whitey Bulger is a murderer, drug-dealer, and completely unsympathetic. One of his childhood friends is an F.B.I. agent (Joel Edgerton), who offers to shield his group of criminals if he gives them critical information on one of the rival gangs in Boston. So Whitey gives them little tidbits here and there while they shield his crimes, no matter how severe they may be. And so, all throughout this film, you watch a bad guy getting away with bad things, and that’s it. Now, there is a lot of good to be found in this film. For one, it features great acting, particularly from Johnny Depp. He plays his character like a timebomb, where you can almost feel his internal pressure cooker ready to explode during some incredibly suspenseful scenes. The supporting performances in the movie, primarily from Benedict Cumberbatch and Joel Edgerton are both fine as well. Benedict Cumberbatch is in a far smaller role, and does a fine but unremarkable job with it. Joel Edgerton goes a little over the top in a few scenes, particularly with his ridiculous Boston accent. Throughout the film, the only truly transformative performance was that of Depp, where I actually believed that I was watching a character, not a performance. On top of that, the film features some truly beautiful music. That music is often powerful and sad when something is happening to Bulger, yet you don’t really feel anything for him, since you never really see his humanity; you only ever watch him as a disgusting criminal. And since that makes up the entire movie, there never feels like there is anything to get attached to. All of the characters are scum in some sense or another. So, given the constant supply of criminal activity this film offers, it begins to go on for a little too long with the same thing, and I began hoping for it to change gears in some way. The characters never really have any transformations or changes, like similar characters do in other films. One could argue that The Godfather is a movie about criminals getting away with terrible things and that there isn’t anything to get attached to, just like in this film. But the character of Michael Corleone has such a fantastic arc that is amazing to behold, that the movie still means something. Black Mass is engaging and Depp’s character inhabits an aura of suspense, but without that this movie really wouldn’t be much of anything. As it stands, it is a decent crime drama. Nothing more, nothing less.
Total: 6
Pawn Sacrifice Review
Grand Total: 7 ¼
Technical
Engaging 6
Suspenseful +1
An amazing scene (game 6) +½
Great performance/character (Tobey Maguire
as Bobby Fischer) +½
Great music +½
Too short -1
Total: 7 ½
Overall impression
Pawn Sacrifice is about the early life of Bobby Fischer (Tobey Maguire), arguably the greatest chess player that ever lived, which is saying even more if you consider the fact that he was also the youngest ever Chess Grand Master. On top of being a phenomenal chess player, Fischer was stricken with intense paranoia and conceitedness. The movie begins with Bobby Fischer as a young kid, as he begins to play chess. By the time he is in his early teens, Fischer is a chess player to be reckoned with. The movie basically fast-forwards through this part of his life, pausing to briefly explain his separation from his mother, who is a communist sympathiser, something Bobby can’t stand. As he grows up in the chess world, he quickly begins to understand that he has something special. He challenges the Russian chess players, Boris Spassky in particular, to matches through his conceitedness. But his paranoia begins to get to him, and he slowly becomes unhinged. He starts to ask for unreasonable conditions in the chess room, such as no cameras that make any noises, or no audience, or a new chess board that makes less noise when he moves the pieces. The sound editing, camerawork, and performance from Tobey Maguire perfectly capture what he is going through, as small noises become huge booms, and Fischer’s eyes dart everywhere in fear as he believes people are listening in. Tobey Maguire plays his character incredibly well, and you start to really see how mentally ill this man is, in spite of his brilliance. After a while, Fischer just becomes difficult and refuses to play until all of his conditions are met. Even then, he won’t play. He is a frustrating and unlikeable character, but you still root for him because you want him to overcome these barriers he has put up and just play a good game of chess. When that finally does happen, the film feels triumphant, and the beautiful music reflects that. What a relief it is to finally have Bobby Fischer where he should be: at the chess table. Far better than in his room, taking apart his phones to make sure they aren’t bugged. However, once Fischer finally plays his game of chess, the movie ends. Only small clips of his later life are shown, where his health rapidly deteriorates. I wish the film hadn’t ended so early and had kept going, because I had finally accepted the character and wanted to see more of what he went through, or perhaps what happened as a result of his match. That having been said, this is a fine film with good acting, good music, and a complex character to work with.
Total: 7
Mississippi Grind Review
Grand Total: 6 ¼
Technical
Watchable 4
Thought-provoking +1
An amazing scene (I didn’t come here to lose) +½
Great performance/character (Ben Mendelsohn as Gerry) +½
Obvious plothole -½
Total: 5 ½
Overall impression
Mississippi Grind is a movie about a gambler named Gerry and a carefree friend he met in a bar named Curtis. Gerry has a problem: he cannot stop gambling. Curtis has a problem: he just travels everywhere. They have a mutual problem: they don’t know what to do with their lives. But, as luck would have it, they strike up a good conversation in the bar. Curtis talks about going down to New Orleans to get into this large gambling ring and Gerry jumps on it. Their subsequent road trip is a catalyst for this film to take a really good look at gambling addictions. The film is never really entertaining, mostly because nothing extraordinary happens in the story. The characters are what had me the most invested, because they each tell a different side to the depressing addiction that is gambling. Gerry feels like a real person in the movie, in part because of Ben Mendelsohn’s terrific performance as this wastoid and in part because his problems seem real. The way in which gambling is depicted in this movie, from the way Gerry can’t seem to be able to accept defeat, to the way he actually doesn’t know how to spend the money once he’s won, feels real. Seriously, if you’d spent your life gambling, owing everybody several hundred dollars, and then suddenly won a hundred thousand or some ridiculous sum, would you know what to do with it? Gambling has, at that point, stricken you of everything you used to care about; you’ve lost your wife, your daughter, your money, your everything. So what do you do? This movie leaves that as an open ended question. And that isn’t really a problem. The way the movie made you think to get to this question was really impressive. The problem rests in all of the other, plot-related things that were left unresolved. The movie just didn’t know when to end. There were several moments where I wondered whether that was it. The movie answered by continuing on and on. It wasn’t too long, it just couldn’t decide how long it wanted to be. In the end, Mississippi Grind wasn’t particularly entertaining, but it featured good characters played by good actors and a realistic depiction of gambling and addictions in general. It’s a film that is worth a lot more than its admittedly low entertainment value.
Total: 7
99 Homes Review
Grand Total: 8 ½
Technical
Engaging 6
Suspenseful +1
Moving +1
An amazing scene (foreclosure) +½
Great performance/character (Andrew Garfield
as Dennis Nash) +½
Total: 9
Overall impression
99 Homes is a film that takes place right after the economic crash of the late 2000’s. Houses everywhere are being foreclosed on, mostly by Rick Carver (Michael Shannon), a shady and apathetic realtor. Dennis Nash (Andrew Garfield) and his family are kicked out of their home in what is one of the most heart-wrenching and disturbingly scary scenes I’ve ever witnessed. Dennis works construction, which is a very difficult business to be in when nobody wants to buy homes, and therefore no homes need to be built. Carver, however, owns plenty of homes, and many of them need repairs. So he offers Dennis a job. That job slowly evolves into him basically becoming a lesser version of Carver. Dennis just wants enough money to buy his house back, and Carver’s scams bring in millions of dollars of it. But people really begin to hate Dennis, looking at him as the enemy when it is really the banks and the government that messed everything up. That isn’t to say that Carver is innocent, on the contrary, he’s a dirty profiteer of people’s hardships. But he’s the primary recipient of blame. That is, until Dennis starts to do his dirty work for him. This movie is incredibly difficult to watch, because it is basically the same as watching dozens of families get ripped from their belongings, their houses, their history. Andrew Garfield does such a fantastic job of playing the desperate father and desperate son, trying to provide for his son and for his mother. He hates what he is doing, but feels like he has to in order to provide. That is the toughest kind of situation to be in, and Garfield really plays the conflicted Dennis perfectly. Michael Shannon also does a great job as Carver, a man so used to crying families that he literally does not care anymore. Who knows if he ever did care. All that is left for him is millions and millions of dollars. The ways in which he justifies what he does are actually really interesting because he consistently shifts the blame to the government and other entities that basically cheated all of America and caused so much hardship. The film builds for a while, as Dennis works bigger and bigger jobs, and you expect him to do something like overthrow Carver or expose all of his fraudulent work in a hurricane of a finish. I mean, there is a lot of built-up tension in this film. But the end is a little underwhelming. You could tell that it was really trying to make that climactic finish, but it just went out with a fizzle instead of a bang. That having been said, 99 Homes is a disturbing watch that shed a lot of light into what it must be like to lose your home, especially when you really couldn’t do anything about it; it’s an emotional powerhouse of a film that is really difficult to take in.
Total: 8
The Walk Review
Grand Total: 9
Technical
Engaging 6
Suspenseful +1
An amazing scene (the walk itself) +½
Amazing visuals +½
Amazing cinematography +½
Great performance/character (Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Philippe Petit) +½
Amazing story/plot +½
Great music +½
Total: 10
Overall impression
The Walk is about Philippe Petit’s walk on a wire set between the Twin Towers of New York City in 1974, done before the towers were even completed. But it’s about much more than just his incredible stunt. It’s about his life, how he got into this crazy occupation of his, and why he wanted to do it. The first half of the film is pretty slow, but never boring. It covers how Petit decided to become, to use his phrase, a “wire walker.” This part of the movie, though nowhere near as good as the rest of the movie, focuses a lot on Petit’s friends, his inspirations, and his dreams. The dreams are incredibly important in the theme of this film, as it is a movie about pursuing your dreams, even if that means you’ll be ridiculed by your relatives and complete strangers. Petit has all of these problems, but never gives up. He wire-walks because he loves doing it, and for no other reason. It makes him feel alive. Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who plays Petit with an immaculate French accent, primarily narrates the first half of the movie, filling you in on how he feels and how his career is progressing. The narration can get annoying when it is overdone, sometimes making you feel like the filmmakers realized that the second half of this movie was worth getting to, and wanted to rush through Petit’s backstory. Normally I’m not a fan of rushing through things, but I saw the second half of this film. The second half of the movie is his stunt. This incredibly illegal stunt requires incredible planning to be able to pull it off. If Petit and his team are caught on top of the Twin Towers, they will be arrested, go to jail, and the dream will be over. The Walk turns into the most suspenseful heist film you’ve ever seen, as every little detail matters. Petit and his team have to get on top of the towers with all of their gear, sneak past guards, and then set up the wire. The setup of this stunt takes probably half an hour of the film’s runtime, but I wouldn’t have spared any less as this part of the movie is nothing short of riveting. The entire time, you want Petit to succeed. Even though he is a demanding, selfish, and arrogant, the dream that was established in the first half of the movie is something worth supporting. You want Petit to succeed, because of how much it means to him. All of the planning, all of the preparation, goes to nothing if he gets caught. Alan Silvestri’s score perfectly nails the heist, adding so much nail-biting tension to the movie. And even after the heist, Petit still has to do the walk. The cinematography and visual effects blend together to create a terrifyingly realistic scene in which you feel the height. You feel the wire. You even feel the wind. And yet, it doesn’t make the scene any less triumphant than if Petit had won an Olympic Medal. After everything that he has been through and after all of the preparation and planning, Petit is finally walking. The scene is so perfectly crafted, with beautiful music and hardly any other noises; it feels dreamy. You want to stand up and cheer for this man who, despite being seriously insane, is living his dream. This movie is indeed a feel-good movie. I didn’t really like the first half, but respected its necessity. The second half of this movie is perfect from start to finish. The suspense is incredible, the visuals are stunning, the music is beautiful, and the walk itself is sublime.
Total: 8
The Intern Review
Grand Total: 4 ¾
Technical
Watchable 4
Great performance/character (Robert De Niro as
Ben Whittaker) +½
Total: 4 ½
Overall impression
The Intern is about Ben Whittaker, a retired widower who, at the age of 70, just doesn’t know what to do with his life. He’s traveled the world, picked up all sorts of hobbies, and still cannot find enough to do. He’s happy, but just wishes that he could be more productive with his time. So, when a start-up tech company posts a flier about a senior internship program, Ben jumps on it and gets the position. He is assigned to Jules (Anne Hathaway), the company’s restless and sleepless CEO. The friendship that follows makes up the entire film. Now, you have to respect this movie for not involving any hint at a romance between these two characters. They are forty years apart, so obviously it would be a little strange. But the movie refuses to even acknowledge it, as if it knows how many dumb romantic comedies there are with a similar premise. Instead, you get a pretty sensitive movie about two people with very different problems. Ben has too little work and Jules has way too much work. But Ben has an incredibly upbeat attitude that just seeps into Jules, breakdown the many walls she has put up around her until she finally has someone she can call a friend. In that respect, the movie is quite touching. In every other respect, however, this movie is completely harmless, riskless, and ultimately forgettable. As much as Robert De Niro is clearly trying in this movie and plays a really entertaining character, the movie couldn’t really do all that much with its premise. There just isn’t anything there. Not a whole lot of real drama. Not a whole lot of comedy. Just a lot of...feel-good...bright...sunny-sunshiny movie? And that’s really it.
Total: 5
The Martian Review
Grand Total: 9 ½
Technical
Engaging 6
Suspenseful +1
Moving +1
An amazing scene (the catch) +½
Epic in scale +½
Really funny +½
Amazing visuals +½
Amazing cinematography +½
Great performance/character (Matt Damon as Mark Watney) +½
Total: 10 (11)
Overall impression
The Martian is a film about Mark Watney, an astronaut stranded on Mars after his crew had to evacuate during a storm. During the evacuation process, Mark was struck by some debris and was blown far out of reach of the other crew members. His radio went dead and they couldn’t find him, all while the storm worsened, threatening the rest of the crew. They had no choice but to leave. It wasn’t their fault that Mark Watney wakes up alive on Mars the next day, to find himself alone on a desolate planet. He returns to his station to find most of his supplies intact, including a rover, some solar panels, and the station itself. He then decides that he is not going to die on Mars, and sets up to science himself out of his fate. Instantly, the premise of this film opens up so many possibilities and inherent problems. How is he going to survive? How is he going to contact NASA? How are they going to contact him back? How will they get him back to earth? Will they just leave him there? All of these questions must be going through Mark Watney’s head too. The thing about Mark is that he’s a botanist, so growing food in general is something he can do without a problem. He’s also a hopeless optimist. He has such a great sense of humor about his awful situation that it’s impossible not to like this guy. Matt Damon does a perfect job of embodying this character. Damon manages to do the best thing an actor can do, which is to lose himself in the role; after a while, I stopped watching Matt Damon and started watching Mark Watney. Given Damon’s star power, that is an impressive feat. While Mark does his absolute best to survive on Mars, NASA begins to notice that Mark’s area on Mars is beginning to change. How’d the rover move? How did those solar panels get arranged by themselves and cleaned off? Right from the start, I could tell that this was going to be much lighter than its subject material would suggest. Guy stuck on Mars alone, without contact with anyone, doesn’t get depressed and cracks jokes. That isn’t to say that this movie doesn’t have incredibly serious moments. The finale to this film is quite suspenseful. In fact, there are parts of the film all over the place that are suspenseful. And there are parts of the film all over the place that are hilarious. And there are parts of the film all over the place that are actually quite emotional, especially when the film really delves into Mark’s situation and the weight of it all begins to take its toll. This is truly a credit to Matt Damon’s performance, as he makes us feel all of those things. And the fact that all of these emotions happen throughout the film is a real credit to Ridley Scott’s ability to make a film an excellent mixture of all of those ingredients. Let’s talk about Ridley Scott for a second. I think he’s incredibly overrated. He has made a terrible movie for every good movie he’s made. For every Gladiator there’s The Counselor. For every Alien there’s 1492: The Conquest of Paradise. The worst part of it all is that I wouldn’t consider Alien or Gladiator amazing movies, but I would consider The Counselor and 1492: The Conquest of Paradise to be some of the worst movies I’ve ever seen. So for someone to compare Ridley Scott to someone like David Fincher or Steven Spielberg just makes me cringe, because those directors manage to make winner after winner after winner. Thankfully, The Martian is starting to turn me around. This is as close to a perfect crowd-pleasing movie as any. The characters, acting, story, and visuals are all great. The only thing I could say about it that took me out of the film a little bit was that about two-thirds of the way into the movie I started to feel its length. This section of the film was almost entirely focused on what was going on at NASA, back on earth. As much as it continued to keep my attention, what with the all-star cast playing the people at NASA (including Chiwetel Ejiofor, Jeff Daniels, Sean Bean, Donald Glover, Kristen Wiig, and Benedict Wong), I missed watching Matt Damon. The light-hearted nature of this movie might have hindered it from being the next 2001: A Space Odyssey, but it’s really hard to complain about the movie we got.
Total: 9
Steve Jobs Review
Grand Total: 8 ¾
Technical
Engaging 6
Suspenseful +1
An amazing scene (You’re going to destroy me) +½
Great performance/character (Michael Fassbender
as Steve Jobs) +½
Great writing +½
Total: 8 ½
Overall impression
Steve Jobs is a film with only three scenes in it. Each scene is about forty minutes of Steve Jobs’ life, occurring right before the unveiling of one of Steve Jobs’ creations, whether it be the 1984 unveiling of the Macintosh, the 1988 unveiling of Steve Jobs’ NeXT computer, or at the 1998 unveiling of the iMac. Through this strange structure, Steve Jobs managed to perfectly depict who the titular character was, what he did for Apple, Inc., what his strengths were, what his flaws were, and how he worked with people. Enormous credit should be given to the writer, Aaron Sorkin, and director Danny Boyle, for crafting all of these characters out of just three scenes. Steve Jobs is definitely flawed, but the filmmakers are careful not to make the exposure of his imperfections mean-spirited; I never felt like the movie was trashing Steve Jobs as a person. His conflicts with his daughter Lisa, with Lisa’s mother, Chrisann, and with his co-workers are somehow all present during each of the three scenes. While you might think that this might prove overwhelming in the first scene, Sorkin and Boyle carefully let each conflict unfold individually, so that you only have to focus on one at a time. Sometimes, the way a particular conflict is presented is so incredibly engaging that you forget about all of the other things going on. There are a lot of these instances in the movie, my favorite taking place during the second third of the movie. This particular scene is a confrontation between Steve Jobs and John Sculley, the man who was responsible for Jobs’ leaving of Apple, Inc. after the failure of his project, the Macintosh. Thanks to the first scene, we already know both Jobs and Sculley pretty well. Both Michael Fassbender (Jobs) and Jeff Daniels (Sculley) are fantastic in the scene. Fassbender is, in my opinion, one of the best actors working today, which is pretty incredible given that his first film role was in 2006, less than ten years ago. He is amazing in this film, pulling off every one of the emotions his complex character feels throughout the movie. Jeff Daniels is continuing his push towards dramatic work in this film. With this role and with his role in The Martian, Daniels is proving that he is capable of a lot more than his role in Dumb and Dumber. Another standout performance in this film is the performance of Kate Winslet, who plays Joanna Hoffman, the head of marketing at Apple, Inc. She is in virtually every scene in this movie and helps ground Jobs, who, like the audience, is often so focused on who he’s talking to that he forgets about everything else that is going on. From the excellent performance to the incredible writing and direction, Steve Jobs is one of the most impressive biographical pictures I’ve ever seen. The only thing about this film that I didn’t really like was the ending, which was a little underwhelming in its softer tone. Steve Jobs is still definitely worth your time.
Total: 9
Bridge of Spies Review
Grand Total: 7 ½
Technical
Engaging 6
Suspenseful +1
An amazing scene (shooting at the wall) +½
Amazing cinematography +½
Great performance/character (Tom Hanks as Jim Donovan) +½
Great music +½
Overly predictable -1
Total: 8
Overall impression
Bridge of Spies is about James Donovan (Tom Hanks), a lawyer from Brooklyn who is tasked with defending Rudolf Abel (Mark Rylance) a captured Soviet spy. Now, this film takes place during the 1950’s, when the American hatred toward the Soviet Union was at its peak. Almost overnight, Donovan becomes hated by almost everyone. The judge in the trial and the jury involved are all incredibly biased against Donovan and Abel. This makes for a lot of confrontations and an incredibly effective and suspenseful first half or so. Even better is Tom Hanks’ performance as Donovan; Hanks’ long career has almost made him the perfect candidate to play Donovan’s everyman, the guy who is willing to do what’s right just for the sake of its rightness. Hanks brings an incredible likability to his character that you can’t help but root for him, even if the character itself doesn’t have much to offer other than what I’ve mentioned. Despite the tension-filled scenes in the first half, Spielberg manages to make use of the circumstances to create humor, most of which is sold by Hanks and Rylance, who plays the Soviet spy Rudolf Abel. What could have been an incredibly suspenseful time between Donovan and Abel never comes to pass, because Rylance does a really good job of making Abel non-threatening and actually quite admirable. But Rylance is hardly the star of the movie as, about forty-five minutes in, we are introduced to another conflict and he practically vanishes. This side has to do with the U2 incident, where the Soviet Union shot down a U.S. spy plane and captured its pilot, Frank Powers. After Donovan’s work with Abel, the CIA asks him to negotiate the swap between the two, as he is not an official of the government. Donovan goes to East Berlin during the making of the Berlin Wall and gets to witness all that is going on all while he has to adhere to the job he has to do. The middle portion of the movie, in which the film focuses on the American side that is captured, is a lot less tension-filled and intriguing as the first half. Most of that is because we never really get to know the American characters and thus don’t really care as much about them as we do about what Donovan is doing. Donovan is the rock of this film, and it’s a lot less interesting when he’s not on screen. The second half takes place mostly in East Berlin, during a period of history when being there would have been the scariest thing. Yet, this half of the film seems to be holding back in that it could have hit a lot harder and been a lot scarier. The best moments of this second half are when it hits you with the realism that I expected a lot more of, epitomized in the scene I called “shooting at the wall,” a scene in which you can only just react, as Donovan does, with shock and horror at how scary this situation truly is. This film is not a thriller by any means. It has some suspense in it and certainly could have been a thriller, but wasn’t. It’s a well-acted, well-directed movie with good music, good cinematography, and a completely predictable and ordinary story. And that’s okay. I don’t think the movie was trying to be spectacular. It was trying to be good. And that’s what it was: good.
Total: 7
Room Review
Grand Total: 10
Technical
Engaging 6
Moving +1
Suspenseful +1
Thought-provoking +1
An amazing scene (seeing the world) +½
Amazing cinematography +½
Amazing story/plot +½
Great performance/character (Jacob Tremblay as Jack) +½
Great music +½
Great writing +½
Total: 10 (12)
Overall impression
Imagine if your entire world consisted of a room you were born in, a room you were never allowed to leave. Imagine if you had never met another person other than your mother and her captor. Imagine if your mother told you, a five-year-old, that she needed to get out of the only world you knew and that she needed your help to do it. What would you think? Can you even comprehend a world outside of your own? When you open your eyes outside, what will you do? Room is simultaneously the most complex and simple story I’ve ever seen on the big screen. It’s about Jack (Jacob Tremblay) and his mother (Brie Larson), who are both trapped in a place they call “room.” The mother has been held captive in room for seven years and Jack has lived there for all five years of his life. Periodically they are greeted by “old Nick”, the mother’s captor. He gives them enough food to survive so that he can violate the mother as often as he pleases. But we never see any of that as the story is told from the perspective of Jack. The scary realism of the mother’s situation contrasts with the innocent naiveté of her five-year-old son. This movie plays such a brilliant twist on the typical hostage thriller movie because it’s completely about the hostages and not about anyone trying to find them or figure out what happened to them. All we see is what Jack and his mother see; you don’t even see what’s on the outside of the room they’re trapped in until one of the two actually makes it outside. It’s impressive filmmaking because it puts the audience in the child’s shoes. For quite a lot of the movie, we are trapped on one, cramped, tiny location, that feels neither cramped nor tiny. For Jack, room feels huge, because it is the entire world to him, and we feel that as the audience. For this part of the film that takes place exclusively in room, we find out all of the circumstances that led to this situation, and how the mother dealt with explaining the circumstances to her son. This movie considers everything there is to consider about the situation, so we don’t have to ask questions but instead get to focus on the incredible character studies taking place. All of those questions I asked at the beginning of this review are addressed through character expression, Jack’s narration, or the incredible acting of the film’s two leads. Brie Larson shows so much strength toward protecting her son and yet so much vulnerability as you can see just how incredibly difficult it is to cast aside your own troubles to protect your son. Her performance is probably the best female performance I’ve seen so far this year. Yet, as fantastic as Brie Larson is in Room, Jacob Tremblay is better. I have no idea how old he is, but he completely loses himself in the role to the point at which I actually believed he was the character of Jack and not an actor. This is a rare feat for an adult actor to pull off, but Jacob Tremblay manages to do it with ease. It helps that the screenwriters gave him incredibly realistic lines. Never does he sound too sophisticated for his age, as if an adult was giving him lines to read; everything he says feels natural and pure, just as his character is innocent and pure. The beautiful music adds to Jack’s purity and the wonder he feels when he sees the world. The camerawork in this movie depicts the world in the most positive light that you just want sit back and appreciate the wondrous gift that existing in this world is; you just want to take in all of the beauty there is. This film goes through the entire range of emotions that can be felt by the characters in the situation, flawlessly combining suspense, wonder, sadness, frustration, and hope to create a film that is affecting and realistic. Room reminds me that even the littlest of films can have the largest of impacts on the viewer.
Total: 10
Beasts of No Nation Review
Grand Total: 6
Technical
Watchable 4
Suspenseful +1
Thought-provoking +1
An amazing scene (engineering student) +½
Great performance/character (Abraham Attah as Agu) +½
Too long -1
Total: 6
Overall impression
Beasts of No Nation tells the story of Agu (Abraham Attah), a young boy living in West Africa during its devastating civil war. His innocent life gets turned upside down when soldiers invade his home, kill his family, and force him to flee. Lost, he runs into a group of rebel mercenaries led by Commandant (Idris Elba), who recruits him on his unclear mission. As the film opens up, it becomes evident that there really isn’t an end or a worth to all of this. While that is definitely old hat as far as war films go, the uniqueness of Beasts of No Nation lies in its perspective; the film tells its horrifying story from the perspective of a ten-year-old boy who is partaking in the atrocities. At first, he is just trying to be part of the fight against whoever it was that killed his family and find his mother, who made it out of the village before the troops arrived. But we never really understand who is who in this film or who is fighting for what and the story just doesn’t explore Agu’s search for his mother at all. It just never seems like there’s anything driving the film. And while the lack of a clear future in the war is definitely the ultimate point of the movie and its message about war, the movie would have been a lot better with a more clearcut motive for Agu’s place in it all. The movie’s incredibly slow pace doesn’t help matters either; quite a lot of the movie feels like genuine filler, more the reason for there to be a more centralized story. The one major upside to the film is the performance of the child actor Abraham Attah. I’ve never seen him in anything before but he carries with him such a maturity and a depth to his character that you genuinely believe he is a war survivor, especially after having gone through everything he has. Idris Elba is also very good as the Commandant, leader of the rebel troop. His character, however, wasn’t really that fleshed out and realized, and I don’t really feel like he’s going to be what I remember most about the film. As it stands, Beasts of No Nation is a well-made war film that tells a story worth telling, featuring fine acting and a good message. If it had found a more efficient and engaging way to relay all of that, it might have been one incredible film. It will have to settle for being decent.
Total: 6
Brooklyn Review
Grand Total: 8 ¼
Technical
Watchable 4
Moving +1
Suspenseful +1
An amazing scene (Tony’s family dinner) +½
Really funny +½
Amazing cinematography +½
Great music +½
Great performance/character (Saoirse Ronan as Eilis) +½
Total: 8 ½
Overall impression
Brooklyn tells the story of Eilis, an Irish girl who immigrates to 1950’s-Brooklyn, New York to seek a better life by becoming an accountant. However, she finds it incredibly difficult to fit in because, though she has a job and a boarding house, she doesn’t know anybody and is unfamiliar with American customs. She misses home, and we see that through her letters with her sister and mother, who remain in Ireland. Her attitude towards America changes when she meets Tony, an Italian-American, at a local Irish dance. She lets Tony walk her home because she wants to escape the other girls in her boarding house, but soon warms to his kindness and nervousness around her. What ensues is a romance that completely transforms Eilis, at least until she gets new from home requiring her to go back. She does return, but becomes torn as to whether or not to stay, creating a lot of tense moments in the film’s final moments. This movie was one of the most moving romance/dramas I’ve ever seen, which is saying a lot because, while I haven’t seen many, they’re definitely not my favorite kind of movie. The difference between Brooklyn and other films in the genre is that Brooklyn has clearcut conflict that you can relate to and understand. None of the characters make ridiculous decisions or do anything that takes you out of the movie. Instead, they act like real people. The acting in this film is terrific all around. Saoirse Ronan showcases, once again, that she is an amazing actress. Ever since she graced the screen as Briony in Atonement, it has become abundantly clear that Saoirse Ronan is excellent in period dramas. Just as good is Emory Cohen, who plays Tony; I’ve never seen him in anything before but he made his character feel like he was born and raised in New York, New York, and you feel for him just as much as you feel for Eilis. The supporting roles are played well too, with a standout performance from a child actor who plays Tony’s younger brother. He adds so much humor to the film that I actually found myself laughing out loud. The only negative to give to this film is that it’s not a fast-paced adventure. This movie, especially before Eilis meets Tony, is slow-moving. The first act dragged on a little too long and, though I suppose this just emphasized how Eilis felt in America, it wasn’t particularly entertaining to watch. Other than that, Brooklyn is a beautiful looking and sounding (great music) film with great performances and a really moving story.
Total: 8
The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 2 Review
Grand Total: 7 ½
Technical
Engaging 6
Suspenseful +1
An amazing scene (water underground) +½
Epic in scale +½
Great music +½
Obvious plothole -½
Total: 8
Overall impression
The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 2 tells the continued story of Katniss, the rebellion, and their assault on the capitol and President Snow. As the title suggests, this film doesn’t really feel like a cohesive story, and has a bit of an abrupt beginning. As it is pretty much just picking up where the last one left off, it doesn’t really begin to tell its own story until about thirty minutes into the movie. As soon as it finds its focus, this movie is electrifying. The action and suspense of this film as Katniss and her friends assault the capitol are some of the best I’ve seen all year. One scene in particular (which reminded me of Aliens) features suspense so powerful that I almost thought I was watching a horror film. The action throughout, though not particularly well-filmed, feels big. The entire film feels like it takes place on a scale far larger than the one given for us to watch. That having been said, it sure knows how to play the claustrophobic side as well, featuring underground sequences that just ooze unease. While the spectacle was always doing its job, I really didn’t feel like there was much story to work with. It’s pretty simple: Katniss and her band of rebels are infiltrating the capitol. There really is only one plot twist in the film and, though it was appropriate, it was also pretty predictable. The only reason the film was actually engaging was because the characters had been well-established. Peeta, the focus of the previous film, is a welcome addition to the film as he often turns on the crew, thanks to the poison the capitol had inflicted on him. Josh Hutcherson, who has been pretty bland playing his bland character, does a much better job in this film, keeping his character sympathetic even when he snaps and gets scary. That having been said, the psychological degrading that Katniss has been going through for the past three films pretty much stops here. I think the film was a little too concerned about portraying Katniss as a hero instead of a victim, which made it lose a little bit of the realism I had come to appreciate. That was the kind of psychological conflict that this film series has been good at portraying; in this film, it worked with Peeta, but not with Katniss. If I have to talk about the characters, I have to talk about some deaths. I’ve always been a supporter of “The Lion King method”, which shows the death, the body, and the reaction in detail of all who matter. In this film, none of the deaths are given this treatment. Instead, the film just rushes past them, without giving the viewer enough time to actually take in what has happened and be affected by it. One of the deaths was almost entirely wasted, which is a shame because it probably had the largest amount of buildup and potential. As much as this installment of the film series had a few wasted moments and wasn’t that up to the task of telling a good story, it was still incredibly entertaining. I thoroughly enjoyed quite a lot of this film, which really has to do with the suspense and the action that really keeps the movie going. It could have been better, but I wasn’t disappointed.
Total: 7
Spotlight Review
Grand Total: 8 ¾
Technical
Engaging 6
Moving +1
Thought-provoking +1
An amazing scene (it could’ve been anyone) +½
Great performance/character (Mark Ruffalo as
Mike Rezendes) +½
Great music +½
Total: 9 ½
Overall impression
Spotlight covers the story of an investigation by the “Spotlight” team, a team of investigators who work for the Boston Globe, into sex abuse by the Catholic Archdiocese of Boston. The story begins rather unassumingly, as the Globe had previously talked about a smaller case involving one particular priest, John Geoghan, and not really followed up on it. They really should have, because digging around reveals an entire slew of priests that are suspected abusers. So many people are involved in this case that have either chosen to forget, are too ashamed or guilty that they were involved with it, or just unwilling to speak out against an institution that does a lot of good in the community. But it’s the job of the Globe’s “Spotlight” team to investigate into scandals like this without bias. The film does an excellent job of showing how the team handles the case while they’re talking to people related to it as opposed to how they talk about the case amongst themselves. Most of the members of “Spotlight” grew up in Boston and went to Catholic schools where some of the alleged priests taught. The film does such an amazing job of showing how it could have been anyone who was targeted and abused. The film also delves deeply into the psychology of the victims. It digs into the systematic targeting of specific people within the Boston community, which would typically be kids in struggling or broken families, often with absent fathers. It might as well be the fathers themselves that were the abusers, if you think about the kind of respect a priest had in the community. The movie really got into this and how it factored into why the victims rarely spoke up about their experiences. That having been said, the movie sputters a little bit towards the end. The first half concerns just about all of these interviews and the film opening up about the incredible scope of the problem. The second half focuses on how they’re going to present the story, and gets a little bogged down in going after “the institution”, a quote uttered quite a few times. By the end of the film, I still wasn’t convinced that the team had proven that there was a problem with the system or been very clear about what was wrong. Moreover, there are some things brought up in the story that are never explored again, even if it would have been an interesting aspect of the story. There is also a section in this movie which, I think, was included for historical accuracy and no other reason, because it adds absolutely nothing to the film and only serves as a slight hiccup in the main story. But apart from that, this movie is excellent. The issues are real and thought-provoking. Howard Shore’s piano-heavy score works perfectly in the movie, and the film has plenty of really impactful moments. Most of these moments belong to Mark Ruffalo. His character is definitely the most affected by this story, and he has more than one scene in which he just lets his emotion out. The other actors do a good job in the film as well. Michael Keaton plays the leader of the “Spotlight” team, and does a good job, even if his character doesn’t really display much emotion. He’s personally connected to the case too, but remains the consistently unbiased journalist that he is. Rachel McAdams does most of the interviewing and you really feel all of the hardships that the victims dealt with through her. Liev Schreiber, Stanley Tucci, and a slew of other actors play characters even more secondary than the central four or five, and all do a fine job. At the end, this film is a story worth telling, that unfolds really well and features great performances, even if it loses its way a little in the second half.
Total: 8
The Night Before Review
Grand Total: 7
Technical
Engaging 6
An amazing scene (I have her phone) +½
Really funny +½
Great performance/character (Michael Shannon as
Mr. Greene) +½
Obvious plothole -½
Total: 7
Overall impression
The Night Before tells the story of a group of three friends and their Christmas tradition. One of the members, Ethan, lost his parents on Christmas eve of 2001. His two friends, Isaac and Chris, come over to cheer him up and the trio go out to celebrate the night before Christmas. Fast forward fourteen years and the three friends have their own personal lives. Ethan is unwilling to commit to his girlfriend and leaves her, Isaac is starting a family, and Chris has become a famous football player. The three reunite for their tradition but Ethan is the only one who doesn’t see that the three of them should probably move on. However, he convinces them to go along anyway as he has tickets to this massive party that the three have always wanted to go to. As you might expect, this movie plays on its stereotypes well. Seth Rogen is always high, Chris is the typical jock, and Ethan just can’t find his way. The three have excellent chemistry and you really buy them as a trio of old high school friends who go out every year to party. They meet tons of people along the way and all sorts of hijinks ensue. The Night Before is very funny, throughout the film. It’s also just about the right length. It never felt rushed or slow, it just felt really entertaining. There are several cameos on the film, and a few casting choices that would normally never make sense but somehow do. The standout is Michael Shannon as the drug-dealer Mr. Greene. Michael Shannon carries an incredible intensity about him that it blends so well with his laid-back drug-dealer character and lends itself to many laughs. The cameos I won’t spoil, but let’s just say that they all make sense. I also liked how the film promoted keeping your friends and talked about how difficult it becomes when people grow up. Sure, there were things that didn’t add up in this film but it’s a comedy about getting high with friends on Christmas Eve. For what it is, this film is pretty entertaining.
Total: 7
Straight Outta Compton Review
Grand Total: 8 ¾
Technical
Engaging 6
Moving +1
Suspenseful +1
An amazing scene (mama called) +½
Really funny +½
Great performance/character (Corey Hawkins as Dr. Dre) +½
Great songs +½
Great writing +½
Bad message -1
Total: 9 ½
Overall impression
Straight Outta Compton is a biographical picture about the N.W.A. a rap group that rose to prominence around the late 80’s and early 90’s. As such, this movie tries its best to tell the story of the members of the group as a group and as individuals, as several of them have had impressive post-N.W.A. careers. That having been said, there were five members of the N.W.A. and this movie really only does a good job of focusing on three of them. In fact, I know just about nothing about the other two. Is it a coincidence that the producers of this movie (Ice Cube and Dr. Dre) happen to be two of the three members that have most of the focus (the third is Eazy E, who died of A.I.D.S. in 1995)? I don’t think so, but let’s focus on the movie itself. Straight Outta Compton is nearly two and a half hours long, but never drags. That is thanks to the writing and great performances from the film’s three leads (four if you count N.W.A.’s manager Jerry Heller, played by Paul Giamatti). The chemistry this group of actors has is really great in the movie, making you feel like these are genuinely the group they’re portraying. Add some great humor to that and you have the formula for a successful bio-pic. The film perfectly gives a real background as to why the group decided to make the kind of music they decided to make and why they were so popular: they were so infuriated by the terrible treatment they received by the police. Heck, everyone was, which is why their style of “tell it like it is” was received so well. During N.W.A.’s concert, you can’t help but feel electrified by the incredible energy that is on display in this movie; you really feel like the songs are connecting with people who finally feel like their voice is being heard. N.W.A.’s activity takes up about half of the movie. After which, you get a taste of the cruel backstabbing nature of the music industry. The members are turned against each other because they never really know who they’re working for, how they’re getting paid, or why they can’t just do their own thing. They have to deal with all of this paperwork that they don’t understand; they feel like they are constantly being manipulated while all they wanted to ever do was make music about how they felt about the problems they faced. That having been said, they do a lot of violent things in the movie and a lot more in real life, none of which is properly addressed. Never once do the characters sit back and tell themselves that maybe they shouldn’t have done that one thing or maybe they’ve made choices they regret. It just seems like they live in glamour, vanity, and hubris without having any qualms about it. Sure, Eazy-E dies as a result, but you never get the feeling that any of the members realized that it was the lifestyle they’d been living in that had been the cause. Still, the movie does its job of telling the story, even if some bits are left out and three out of the five definitely have the focus. The concerts are magnetic, the performances are great, and more than one scene contains some of the humanity that unites them all. You get their motivation and why they did what they did. For all that, Straight Outta Compton is a successful biopic.
Total: 8
The Gift Review
Grand Total: 7 ½
Technical
Engaging 6
Thought-provoking +1
Suspenseful +1
An amazing scene (suspenseful shower) +½
Great performance/character (Rebecca Hall as Robyn Callen) +½
Too short -1
Total: 8
Overall impression
The Gift is a film about the Callens, a successful married couple who move to Los Angeles, the hometown of Simon, the husband. In a grocery store, While the two are shopping, Simon is recognized by Gordo, as they had gone to the same high school. Gordo begins to show up randomly at the Callen household, leaving mysterious gifts. Joel Edgerton directs this movie and plays Gordo with a lot of subtlety, making his character really unpredictable and scary, even though he might not even be the bad guy in this movie. You see, Gordo does these things as a way to reconnect with Simon, and the movie really explores what went on between them back in high school and whether or not people can move beyond the past. It also explores whether or not people change over time and whether or not, if you don’t know somebody’s full history, it is possible to know another person at all. Rebecca Hall’s character, Robyn, is the person caught in the middle of the Simon and Gordo conflict. She delivers the best work I’ve ever seen from her. She perfectly plays the scared wife who becomes more and more frustrated with all of the questions that keep popping up surrounding her husband and Gordo. Seriously, this is almost a horror film in how suspenseful and creepy it is. That having been said, the movie doesn’t hold up that well after all has been “revealed.” That is, there are a lot of questions and loose ends that just aren’t answered or tied up. At the end of this movie, I still don’t really feel like I know who Gordo is/was and what happened to him in high school. I feel like this movie could have been a lot more complete if it had gone on for a little longer and taken the time to show more of that it had to offer in terms of its story. The character I most understood in the movie was Simon. Jason Bateman does a great job as this character, adding layers of mystery to Simon as the film goes on. In the end, The Gift is a very suspenseful film that, though it asks a lot of good questions, doesn’t really answer some of its own by the time everything comes to a close. The performances and the creepy atmosphere are enough to make this one an easy one to recommend.
Total: 7
Ex Machina Review
Grand Total: 7 ¾
Technical
Watchable 4
Thought-provoking +1
Suspenseful +1
An amazing scene (arm cut) +½
Amazing visuals +½
Amazing cinematography +½
Great performance/character (Oscar Isaac as Nathan) +½
Great writing +½
Boring part -½
Obvious plothole -½
Total: 7 ½
Overall impression
Ex Machina is a story about Caleb Smith (Domhnall Gleeson), a computer programmer for the mega tech company Bluebook. He wins a trip to visit Bluebook CEO Nathan Bateman (Oscar Isaac) and learn about all of the research he does in his secluded residence. At this residence, Nathan introduces Caleb to Ava, the result of incredibly advanced artificial intelligence that Nathan wants Caleb to test; Nathan wants to see if his artificial intelligence is good enough for the real world. The movie is mostly about Caleb interacting with Ava while discussing the interactions with Nathan. The discussion is what generates most of the intrigue in the movie because Nathan is a bit of a loose cannon; Nathan is a genius, but a heavy drinker who lives alone and exercises a lot. Oscar Isaac makes the character so scary because he does these slight mannerisms that make the character appear to be ready to crack at Caleb at any instant. Nathan often leads the conversations he makes with Caleb, leading Caleb to conclusions about artificial intelligence and various other interesting topics. You get the feeling that Nathan is holding back information from Caleb while Caleb doesn’t want to admit that he is beginning to become attached to Ava. The director does an excellent job of creating suspense during these conversations by consistently having the characters each appear to be holding back something. There is an aura of mystery surrounding Nathan’s residence including strange power outages, constant surveillance, and Nathan’s animatronic servants whose purposes are never quite clear. Throughout the movie, the writers toy with the question “should you do something just because you can do it?” This idea touches upon morality quite a bit as you could use artificial intelligence to achieve nearly any goal, but must also be mindful of the potential consequences. Ava, played by Alicia Vikander, is fascinating to watch. Vikander does an excellent job of giving Ava small mannerisms that give Ava a persona that is almost human, but not quite. While all of these elements add up to an interesting movie, the pace often drags. Many scenes, especially some of the scenes featuring Ava, go on for far too long. The ending of the movie gives itself up to a large plothole as well, which is unfortunate given how seamless the entire movie was beforehand. Overall, this film is incredibly intelligent and boasts fantastic direction, writing, and performances. The slow pace and the ending, however, cause the film to lose a little bit of its luster.
Total: 8
'71 Review
Grand Total: 9
Technical
Engaging 6
Suspenseful +1
Thought-provoking +1
An amazing scene (stabbing empathy) +½
Great performance/character (Jack O’Connell as Private Hook) +½
Total: 9
Overall impression
‘71 is about the unrest in Northern Ireland between Protestants loyal to The United Kingdom and Catholics wanting independence. Private Hook is a British soldier sent to Belfast to quell the uprising and provide security to the Protestants living in this volatile area. When their squadron arrives, they are greeted by an angry crowd of rioters throwing rocks and nasty words. These rioters easily outnumber the squadron and begin to push them back. One young rioter grabs a gun from one of the soldiers forcing Hook and one of his comrades to chase through the crowd after him, separating them from their mates. They catch the boy but are ambushed by rioters who beat them. Then three young nationalists walk up and shoot Hook’s comrade through the head. Hook escapes through the confusion and hides. The rest of the movie deals with Hook making it back to his troops. Though a simple premise, this film is a hard-hitting, scary and gritty look into the nasty business that this conflict was. What is it that keeps people loyal to one side or another? Aren’t we all people? Would you help a wounded British soldier who is only around 18 years old or would you report him to the leaders of the nationalist party you’re loyal to knowing they’ll surely kill him? What kind of a disgusting business would cause a person to lose all empathy? These questions are what make ‘71 such an excellent film that, though focused on a single event and a single person, asks all of the questions any film about conflict or war should ask. It also makes this one of the most scarily realistic films I’ve ever seen. There is an aura of fear in this film that never goes away and never escapes the face of Hook. You get an inside look into the devious nature of both sides as each tries to undo the other. In a way, ‘71 acts as a spy film as each side resorts to double agents to get Hook out or get Hook killed. Hook has to stay hidden throughout the film as the people who killed his comrade continue to search for him until the end of the film. These people, just like Hook, are barely older than 20 or so, and yet order the killing and carry out terrible crimes. You get to see one character on the nationalist side as he’s dragged from his family to work with these murderers, even though you can tell that he’s reluctant. His character and the feeling that Hook shares with him at the end of the film is absolutely stunning, because these two characters share no dialogue and yet feel almost like they understand and empathize with each others’ situations. The disgusting nature of the film takes terrible turns as little plot details are revealed to Hook that he probably should not have seen. This movie is short, but there is so much to take away from it. Jack O’Connell perfectly captures the fear and devastation his character feels from this ordeal and the final scene in the movie perfectly captures his desperation. The only negative I have for it is that some of the dialogue between the characters is difficult to understand as the accents many of the Irish characters sport is very heavy. Apart from that, though, ‘71 is a fantastic film about human humanity, loyalty, and conflict.
Total: 9
Trainwreck Review
Grand Total: 3 ¼
Technical
Watchable 4
An amazing scene (John Cena movie) +½
Too long -1
Boring part -½
Uneven tone -½
Total: 2 ½
Overall impression
Trainwreck tells the story of Amy (Amy Schumer), a writer for a celebrity magazine whose promiscuous habits have been promoted by her father, who told Amy and her sister that “monogamy isn’t realistic.” Amy has certainly lived her father’s statement, going out pretty much every night, drinking and getting high, and then sleeping with whoever happens to be around. But when she is asked to interview Dr. Aaron Connors (Bill Hader), a sports doctor who is revolutionizing the world of athlete surgery, she begins to realize that maybe her father’s philosophy is missing out on a few things. When it comes down to it, this film does a pretty good job with its premise and setting up the psychology of its main character. The beginning of the film has quite a few good laughs concerning Amy and the many men she courts. One of those men is played hilariously by John Cena, who completely steals the show for the brief amount of time he’s in the film. But then, once the movie begins to develop, it takes on this much more serious tone. All of a sudden Amy has really serious family problems, and the audience is supposed to care. But Amy starts off as a selfish and unlikable person, as the premise of this movie requires, so we really can’t get pulled into the drama. This is especially unfortunate because this film is leans towards drama far more often than it should, given that it’s supposed to be a comedy. And then sometimes it’s a romance between Amy and Aaron. A lot of the dialogue between the two of them is actually pretty funny, but when it goes on for thirty minutes without stopping, the film just becomes really boring. This film could have easily shed about thirty minutes of its two hour runtime and been a much more efficient comedy. The comedy itself is spotty as a result of the tone shifts all the time. Many of the scenes just become awkward because you’re not sure whether or not the film is trying to be funny or serious. The various celebrity cameos here and there can’t save Trainwreck from the choices that made it doomed to stumble from the beginning. This film isn’t a disaster, but it is a bit of a mess. It definitely had a clear enough premise and some worthwhile characters, but it just drew them out for way too long.
Total: 4
The Stanford Prison Experiment Review
Grand Total: 7 ½
Technical
Engaging 6
Suspenseful +1
Thought-provoking +1
Too long -1
Total: 7
Overall impression
The Stanford Prison Experiment is a film about, you guessed it, the Stanford Prison Experiment. This experiment entailed randomly selecting some students to be guards and some students to be prisoners in a makeshift prison and see how things play out. Things play out rather well for Dr. Philip Zimbardo, the psychologist who designed the experiment. That is, he got more than enough results. The students really began to embody the roles they were given and the experiment became quite a bit more than an experiment. You could say that you would expect the guards to relish in their power and for the prisoners to revolt against this abuse and that the movie was predictable in that respect. It’s in the way that the movie structures the experiment with one event leading to the next as certain prisoners begin to feel the pressure weighing down on them that the movie excels. This movie is so good at creating the fear that the prisoners feel as they begin to realize that it isn’t so easy to get out of this experiment. When is a character in the experiment a character and when is a person a person. Throughout the movie, you can’t help but question what it means to be stripped of identity. What would it be like if you just became a number, separated from everyone you know? This movie has a very psychological feel to it, as you begin to watch people who should, under any other set of circumstances, have no harsh feelings towards each other begin to rip each other apart just because it is their role in the experiment. And yet, is it just the role? Or do people genuinely enjoy subjecting each other to pain and suffering? After the movie is finished and all of these questions are left hanging there, you can’t help but just sit back in shock and contemplate the meaning of what you just watched. All of that having been said, the movie drags on in a few scenes and there isn’t anything that stands out as incredible about it; it’s just an accurate and suspenseful recreation of an insightful experiment.
Total: 8
The Man From U.N.C.L.E. Review
Grand Total: 7
Technical
Engaging 6
An amazing scene (italian wine) +½
Really funny +½
Great music +½
Great songs +½
Total: 8
Overall impression
The Man From U.N.C.L.E. is more of a spy film than it is an action film. It’s about two spies, one who’s American and one who’s Russian, who must unite to prevent some generic baddie from acquiring a nuclear missile. Oh, and this takes place during the height of the cold war. I say that it’s more of a spy film than it is an action film because there isn’t much action in it. In place of that, director Guy Ritchie has made sure to put plenty of style and flair to keep you entertained. This movie feels like it’s trying so hard to be incredible and clever when, most of the time, it’s just being entertaining. That’s not a bad thing, if anything, it makes this movie really funny and enjoyable. But you get the feeling that the movie thought it was so much better than it actually was. It’s still fine, just not brilliant. Part of the reason it isn’t brilliant is that neither of the two stars can bring about a fantastic performance. Henry Cavill plays the suave American spy, and nails the suave but mostly misses out on the comedic timing; he’s given so many lines that could’ve been great, but end up being just decent or chuckle-worthy. Armie Hammer plays the stiff Russian spy, and while he nails the stiffness and the comedic timing, he has this terribly distracting accent that I found annoying and fake at times. Still, where the actors can’t quite make a scene perfect, the soundtrack can fill in the gaps. By far the best scene in the movie takes place as Henry Cavill’s character drinks some Italian wine, listens to some beautiful music and watches his Russian counterpart being chased around in a motorboat. The scene plays out so well because the music fit the tone it was going for so well. The whole soundtrack added a layer of fun to this movie as you begin to suspect that it isn’t taking itself too seriously. And it isn’t. All it’s trying to do is be a solidly entertaining movie. While, more often than not, it doesn’t quite get to the point of brilliance it thinks it’s at, there is a fair amount of fun to be had with The Man From U.N.C.L.E.
Total: 6
Suffragette Review
Grand Total: 7 ¾
Technical
Engaging 6
Moving +1
Suspenseful +1
Great performance/character (Carey Mulligan as Maud) +½
Total: 8 ½
Overall impression
Suffragette tells the story of Maud, a textile worker in early 1900’s England who becomes, almost by accident, involved in the suffragette movement taking place at that time. One of her co-workers is going to court to testify about the brutality of being a woman at the time and invites Maud to come to just become aware of the situation and the cause. But when that co-worker shows up beaten up, the women decide that she can’t appear before court looking like that and instead give Maud the script she was going to read. You might be able to guess what happens and, though the movie goes on a little predictably, it tells its story with sincerity and genuine emotion. Slowly but surely, Maud gets more and more involved with the cause, and we get to see exactly what she goes through as a result. At times difficult to watch, this film is pretty unflinching when it comes to depicting its subject matter. But it seems like that is what’s also driving the character. Allowing women to vote would seriously change the situation, a situation we see more and more clearly as Maud suffers from it. And that makes the cause that much more worth fighting for. Carey Mulligan plays Maud, and we really see through her eyes the shock at how her situation changes based on how closely she’s connected with the suffragette movement. The film’s biggest problem when I was watching it was it’s unsatisfying ending. I can’t go into too much detail because then I would spoil it, but I can say that this ending involves a character’s sacrifice. But this character is someone we barely met in this film, which makes the sacrifice a missed opportunity. If it had been Maud who had made the sacrifice, her character arc would have been complete and the scene would have been shockingly effective. As she spends a good deal of the movie as an observer, this sacrifice would have signified her final step towards becoming a participant in this movement. As it stands, however, Suffragette is still a good film that just had a lot more potential in the final act that couldn't pay off.
Total: 7
The Hateful Eight Review
Grand Total: 7 ¾
Technical
Engaging 6
Suspenseful +1
An amazing scene (mexican) +½
Really funny +½
Amazing cinematography +½
Great performance/character (Samuel L. Jackson as Major Warren) +½
Great music +½
Great writing +½
Too long -1
Overly gory -½
Total: 8 ½
Overall impression
The Hateful Eight is Quentin Tarantino’s eighth movie and boy does it have all of his trademarks. But it also offers something new as well: the feel of an old-style western. This film has an overture, an intermission, music by legendary western composer Ennio Morricone, and was shot in classic 70mm film to really showcase some wide shots. This film tells the story of Major Warren, a bounty hunter, who is traveling to the local town of Red Rock to collect his bounty. On the way, a blizzard impedes his travel and he is forced to hitch a ride from John Ruth (Kurt Russell), who is escorting a fugitive to collect his bounty as well (Warren’s bounty victims are all dead). They also pick up Chris Mannix (Walton Goggins), the new sheriff of Red Rock and settle at a nearby inn to wait for the blizzard to blow over. At the inn, Major Warren suspects that some of the people currently at the inn are there to free Ruth’s fugitive, and a mystery unravels. Now, this movie, as with all Quentin Tarantino films, is full of great acting from all over. The clear standout here is Samuel L. Jackson, who is just as hilarious and intense in this movie as he was in Pulp Fiction. The other standout for me was Walton Goggins, much of whose work I haven’t seen. His character was actually pretty fleshed out in this film and he steals the show in the final scene. The rest of the cast do a great job as well, but none stand out as much as the two I mentioned. Quentin Tarantino’s hilarious writing is back as well, as much of this movie takes place in the tavern with just the actors and the dialogue keeping the audience’s attention. And the movie has some great shots, keeping the tension alive as we suspiciously eye characters, not sure which are the liars. But the story is overly long. About a half hour could have been cut out of this film’s first half, because its pacing just doesn’t match the quick pace that I preferred in the second half. The other problem with the film, a problem that is present in some of Tarantino’s other films, is that the gore just doesn’t fit the type of story being told. This is a genuinely gripping mystery film that should have just been that. It didn’t need exploding heads and people spitting up buckets worth of blood. That just didn’t need to be in this movie to make it entertaining. The writing and cool premise were more than enough for what was needed. Still, this movie is very entertaining, well-acted, well-shot. It’s way too long and the style doesn’t quite fit the type of story, but it’s still worth recommending.
Total: 7
The Revenant Review
Grand Total: 7
Technical
Engaging 6
Suspenseful +1
An amazing scene (bear attack) +½
Epic in scale +½
Amazing cinematography +½
Great performance/character (Leonardo DiCaprio
as Hugh Glass) +½
Too long -1
Boring part -½
Obvious plothole -½
Total: 7
Overall impression
The Revenant tells the story of Hugh Glass (Leonardo DiCaprio), a fur trapper in 1823, who, while moving with his hunting party to escape a Native American tribe, is brutally attacked by a bear. His wounds leave him devastated and unable to care for himself. Though his hunting party finds him, they are unable to take him with them because they still have to escape the Native American tribe. So Hugh Glass’ son and a couple trappers stay behind to take care of him and make sure that, should he die, he’s given a proper burial. One of those trappers is John Fitzgerald (Tom Hardy), who isn’t too enthusiastic about spending so much time on Glass. Fitzgerald is more interested in securing his pay and becoming rich, so he betrays Glass and meets up with the group. Though the narrative in this movie is seriously flawed, the technical aspects are all absolutely incredible. This movie has some of the best cinematography of any film I’ve seen this year. The film showcases amazing shots of the landscape that the trappers are traveling in, and I honestly don’t know how they got some of it because this film didn’t use any artificial lighting to achieve what you see on screen; it’s all real. Well, I don’t think the bear was real. But it certainly looked and felt real. This entire film feels brutal and realistic, in a way that made it really difficult to watch at times as Glass’ injuries are seen in gory detail. The acting is also incredible from DiCaprio, whose physical performance really carries a lot of the movie. But all of these technical elements only make the movie an achievement; they don’t necessarily make it good. You see, I’m glad I was able to experience The Revenant, but I never want to see it again. When it really comes down to it, the story in this film is a revenge story, and not even an interesting one. There is barely any narrative at all in this film, which makes it really difficult to justify its two and a half hour runtime. Throughout most of the middle of this film, I was starting to get bored. Because as much as the movie is often gripping with its realism, it can also be boring with a lot of great-looking shots of landscapes that ultimately don’t add to much. The entire second act of this movie could have been condensed dramatically because it’s basically about Glass’ survival. It probably lasts for an hour and could have easily been shortened without losing anything. It’s third act suddenly starts speeding things up with plot, where I actually started to really care about what was going on because, for the first time in a while, something was actually going on. In the end, The Revenant is a technical achievement with fantastic cinematography, acting, and direction, that just doesn’t have much of a story to tell or a message to deliver. I still recommend seeing this film just to experience it, as its shocking realism is somewhat of a rarity these days. But it is only a good technical film.
Total: 7
The Big Short Review
Grand Total: 8 ½
Technical
Engaging 6
Thought-provoking +1
An amazing scene (excuse me) +½
Really funny +½
Great performance/character (Steve Carell as Mark Baum) +½
Great writing +½
Total: 9
Overall impression
The Big Short tells the story of a few investors who saw the Market Crash of 2008 coming and bet against the housing market, making millions when it crashed. Now, with the dense subject matter of finance and investing, this movie had a bit of a learning curve to overcome when presenting its story. To do it, The Big Short relies on comedy to explain its otherwise boring terminology. Overall, I thought The Big Short was an immensely entertaining, well-acted, and well-written film. During this time, many investment banks were putting their money on mortgages, because the housing market has been steadily getting stronger and stronger despite incomes staying the same. The Big Short begins with Christian Bale’s Michael Burry, a Managing Director at a smaller investment firm who notices that the mortgages people keep investing in are full of risky factors that haven’t been recognized by the rating agencies, who keep giving these investments the highest grade, indicating no risk. So Burry begins betting against mortgage investments. Through some coincidental circumstances, others get a whiff of what Burry has discovered and also start betting against mortgages. Two other groups are featured: Mark Baum and his group of traders at Goldman Sachs, and Charlie Geller and Jamie Shipley, a pair of independent traders. But each of these groups is involved with another person; Baum is involved with Jared Vennett (Ryan Gosling) and Geller and Shipley are involved with Ben Rickert (Brad Pitt). Mark Baum and his group are given the spotlight, so to speak, as they are the ones who do the most investigating and we learn about the situation through their actions. With them at the helm, the movie honestly could have been trimmed down quite a lot. Though the stories are related, one of them, or at least one of the extra people, could have been eliminated from the film without a lot of loss. The movie doesn’t drag because it’s so entertaining, but it could have been leaner and used the time to create drama. You see, this movie makes us laugh at the financial crisis by pointing out how ridiculous what was going on was. It does a pretty good job of balancing this comedic approach to the dark subject by featuring moments of effective drama; they come rarely, but these moments allow you to step back and comprehend just how devastating this collapse was. As the movie progresses, Mark Baum becomes more and more angry with the system, and so did I. This movie made me angry, which, I think, is a huge success. Overall, The Big Short was incredibly entertaining and hilarious, but could have lost a few of its characters to either provide more clarity of the subject material or more drama.
Total: 8
13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi Review
Grand Total: 6 ¼
Technical
Engaging 6
Suspenseful +1
An amazing scene (mortar) +½
Too long -1
Total: 6 ½
Overall impression
13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi tells the story of a group of specialized CIA operatives and how they responded to the attacks on the U.S. Ambassador in Benghazi. This movie was directed by Michael Bay, whose previous films reenacting historical events, such as Pearl Harbor, in which Bay recreates the attack on Pearl Harbor, have been pretty disastrous and inaccurate. This film tries to steer away from all of that by focusing only on the group of soldiers and flushing out all political drama and context; you only see the events from the perspective of the soldiers in the compound. Nobody explains why anything is going to happen, only that it’s going to happen. So this film basically boils down to an intense war/action movie about the events. The beginning of this film was pretty terrible, in that it set up the military men as exactly the same stereotypical military people you’re used to: they have young kids, wives waiting for them, etc. To make things worse, the action was terribly filmed at the beginning, where you had no idea what was going on. I suppose you could try to justify this by saying that the film was attempting to make the events feel realistic and therefore confused, but I rarely subscribe to that; clearer events make them more gripping, because you can actually see and understand the threats and get more invested in what is going on. However, the banter between the soldiers and the acting were both pretty stellar. You believed the chemistry and that these guys were genuine military personnel. When the events of the movie start happening, things get a lot more focused and you can actually sit back and be affected by this movie. There are a lot of really suspenseful scenes during the second half of this film that were quite effective, even though they start to get repetitive towards the film’s last twenty minutes or so. The film repeats itself in other places too, using the exact same landscape shots to show an aerial of the compound that the soldiers are stationed in. This really doesn’t help alleviate the confusion that is figuring out where the troops are at different points in the movie. Still, despite the poor storytelling, this movie felt pretty real. The soldiers felt like real soldiers, thanks to the good acting. The movie really didn’t pull any punches when it came to depicting the violence and the combat. It was confusing at times and poorly filmed, but it still felt real. That’s what I took away from this film the most and, for that alone, I can call this a success on Michael Bay’s part.
Total: 6
The Finest Hours Review
Grand Total: 6 ½
Technical
Engaging 6
Suspenseful +1
An amazing scene (over the bar) +½
Epic in scale +½
Amazing visuals +½
Too long -1
Boring part -½
Total: 7
Overall impression
The Finest Hours tells the story of Bernie Webber (Chris Pine), a member of the coast guard who takes a crew to rescue some stranded sailors whose ship has been cracked in half during a monstrous storm. Apart from that, there really isn’t anything going on here. As far as rescue movies go or movies that are about overcoming obstacles or surviving disasters, The Finest Hours has every single cliché you can think of. Bernie Webber has a girlfriend back at home that he is engaged to marry. On the broken ship, one of the sailors is getting incredibly frustrated and wants to jump ship while the ship’s mild-mannered and soft-spoken leader advises him and others to stay. Who do you think is making the good decision? I mean, you should be able to see exactly how this movie is going to play out just from these short descriptions. And the film offers absolutely nothing more than that; it is a by-the-numbers rescue story. That having been said, it is done pretty well from a technical perspective. The visual effects and sound design make the seas off the coast of Boston seem dangerous and scary, and you can feel the impact the waves have on the tiny boat Bernie Webber is trying to direct. Apart from a few technical bits, The Finest Hours is pretty generic and predictable, but was done in a way that kept it entertaining. It definitely could have been shorter as the beginning and end drag a bit, but it kept my attention the whole way through.
Total: 6
Hail, Caesar! Review
Grand Total: 6
Technical
Engaging 6
An amazing scene (tap dance) +½
Really funny +½
Amazing cinematography +½
Great performance/character (Alden
Ehrenreich as Hobie Doyle) +½
Too long -1
Uneven tone -½
Boring part -½
Total: 6
Overall impression
Hail, Caesar! is a film comprised of a few days in the life of Mr. Maddox (Josh Brolin), a film production supervisor, who is charged with fixing various issues in the films being produced by Capital Pictures in 1950s Hollywood. Through the eyes of Mr. Maddox, we see so many different actors, sets, and types of issues a 1950s production might face. This allows the film to show entire scenes from certain “films” and just allow you to be entranced by old-style movies. Each scene is incredibly well-acted and well-intentioned, as you can see different aspects of old Hollywood, such as the Western, the English Drama, the Biblical Epic, and the Musical, each in a perfectly contained scene. The acting in each of the scenes and the way in which Mr. Maddox' various problems come about are also statements about actors, directors, writers, and production. A standout performance was from Alden Ehrenreich, who plays Hobie Doyle, an actor used to playing cowboys in Westerns, who must now act in an English Drama. His hilarious southern American accent perfectly fights the British accent of Ralph Fiennes, who directs the drama. Another standout was Channing Tatum, perfectly cast as a sailor in a musical scene that might have been my favorite in the entire film; it is probably five minutes of pure energy that could only be found in an older movie or a Broadway show. The other scenes exhibit different, but still very enjoyable aspects of old. Hail, Caesar! is at its best when it lets you sit back and enjoy a standalone scene. If you try to figure out what this entire movie is about, however, you don’t find much. The actual “plot” of this film is so uneven and all over the place that I was mostly just confused. The film will go from light-hearted Hollywood scene to something that you’re supposed to take seriously, and the tone shift just seems like the movie that was playing got shut off and replaced with an entirely different movie. If you ignore what is actually happening in the movie and focus on the little movies within the movie (the movies that are being produced), you’ll find a lot to enjoy. But the story connecting the scenes together is just so bizarre and random that it really brings the movie down. Some bits are hilarious, but most are just a little bit boring, even if Josh Brolin, whose Mr. Maddox character connects everything, is doing his absolute best. In the end, Hail, Caesar! had a lot to love in scenes here and there, but was incapable of seaming them together to create a great movie. Anybody who doesn’t find the allure of old Hollywood interesting will find little to like in this film. I really do, so I can still call Hail, Caesar! a mild success. But this is definitely not going to win over everyone.
Total: 6
Zoolander Review
Grand Total: 6
Technical
Engaging 6
Really funny +½
Obvious plothole -½
Total: 6
Overall impression
Zoolander is a hilariously stupid comedy about Derek Zoolander (Ben Stiller), a male model. When he inexplicably loses the title of Best Male Model of the Year to Hansel (Owen Wilson), he becomes depressed and seeks to retire. His retirement doesn’t last for very long, however, as he is inexplicably recruited by Mugatu, a fashion designer, who might be involved in some pretty hefty crime. Yes, I did use the word “inexplicably” two times in close proximity, because a lot of this movie is just random events that are somehow connected. Now, this movie incredibly stupid, a trait it uses to its advantage, at least most of the time. There is so much dumb humor in this film that I admit I chuckled throughout simply at the absurdity of its premise and at how seriously it was taking itself. I mean, Ben Stiller gives a performance so serious that it’s impossible to not enjoy the contrast between what is being shown and how it is being shown. But that brings up this interesting note: Zoolander is likely to annoy a lot of people because of its style. A few scenes in this movie go way too far in how ridiculous they are that I had to cringe a little. If someone like me, who loves dumb humor, cringed a few times in this movie, someone who isn’t into dumb humor will probably hate every minute. All in all, Zoolander is absolutely ridiculous, something I actually like. It’s definitely not for everybody, but I enjoyed it.
Total: 6
The Witch Review
Grand Total: 5 ¾
Technical
Watchable 4
Thought-provoking +1
Suspenseful +1
Amazing cinematography +½
Obvious plothole -½
Boring part -½
Total: 5 ½
Overall impression
The Witch is a very difficult movie to critique, in that it is not really a true supernatural horror film, not really a true drama, but rather a period piece with elements of both. It’s about a family in the 1600’s that, after leaving the main village, decides to begin life near a wooded area. When their newborn child is suddenly missing near the wood and the family begins to turn on each other, you begin to realize that something else might be at play here. Now The Witch might be incredibly slow and bleak, especially in the first half, but it is full of quiet suspense and intrigue. I mean, this film is full of ideas and themes that I would really like to re-explore having seen the film only once. A lot of the story elements didn’t add up for me, but in an intriguing way, and I wasn’t frustrated. There are themes of lust, curiosity, faith, desperation, betrayal, and true fear of the unknown all playing major roles in this film. I mean, this family is really turned upside down by the events that take place. At times, the drama is incredibly hard to watch as you witness characters that should love each other become cruel and scary. There is definitely a certain psychological nature to the horror of this film, because most of the drama comes from the family’s inability to cope with what is happening to them and their inability to solve their problems. Still, before this drama happens, The Witch can be incredibly slow and boring. The entire film has a really bleak aesthetic to it, and the characters are speak in incredibly serious language (actually, their English is often difficult to understand), making the dialogue-only scenes completely emotionless. But that’s not the fault of the actors, these people are just gravely serious. Actually, the acting in this film is all really great, even from the child actors; every character was incredibly believable. One thing that I definitely have to mention about this film is its reluctance to explain events in the story. I still have dozens of questions about what happened in this film and what it means, because there is a lot to interpret. The Witch is a film I anticipate liking a lot more on repeat viewings. Even though it was slow and will definitely disappoint some viewers with its unconventional horror, I found a lot of it incredibly interesting and absorbing. It’s definitely an artsy kind of movie, so know what you’re getting into.
Total: 6
Eddie the Eagle Review
Grand Total: 6 ¾
Technical
Engaging 6
Suspenseful +1
An amazing scene (90m) +½
Great music +½
Obvious plothole -½
Total: 7 ½
Overall impression
Eddie the Eagle is a film about Michael “Eddie” Edwards (Taron Egerton), a Brit whose life ambition has been to compete in the Olympics, even though he’s not particularly athletic. He’s not trying to be the best in the world, or even a winner; Eddie just wants to go to the Olympics. Now, he goes through a few sports trying to figure out which he wants to do, and finally settles on ski jumping. Now, ski jumping is incredibly dangerous, but Great Britain didn’t have a ski-jumping team, so Eddie would be able to go the Olympics by default. There are stumbling blocks and barriers in his way, but this movie is simply about the triumph of the human spirit. Seemingly everyone and everything is against him, what with him starting at twenty-two when you’re supposed to start at six, his dad hating the whole thing, his coach (Hugh Jackman) being a washed up alcoholic, and him having no money. But he tries anyway, and the movie ends exactly as you might think. I mean, there are bits and pieces of story here and there that either are not explored or just don't make sense, but this movie isn't really about story. There isn’t really anything new going on in this movie, but it hits all the right notes. Taron Egerton is great as Eddie, Hugh Jackman is, well, Hugh Jackman, which is great in my book, and the movie has a great feel-good ending. There is a lot of cheesiness here and there, including a scene that has Hugh Jackman flick a cigarette at the camera in slow-motion, but the actual ski-jumping in the film made for interesting subject matter, and it’s not something I’ve particularly cared to look into until now. So good job Eddie the Eagle for getting me curious about something I never thought I’d be curious about. Overall, I left the theatre with a smile on my face and was glad I saw it. I don’t know if I’ll ever see it again, because there really isn’t much to re-explore. But I’m glad I saw it.
Total: 6
Cloverfield Review
Grand Total: 5 ¼
Technical
Engaging 6
Suspenseful +1
Obvious plothole -½
Bad performance/character (TJ Miller as Hud) -½
Unfunny -½
Total: 5 ½
Overall impression
Cloverfield is the found-footage style film about an attack on New York City by a strange alien creature. The movie follows a group of people that includes Rob, a young banker who just got a promotion and is trying to reconnect with his girlfriend, Hud, his excruciatingly annoying sidekick, Jason, Rob’s brother, Lilly, Jason’s girlfriend, and Marlena, a guest at Rob’s party. Yes, getting to know all of these characters is a little confusing, but it gets a little better as the film goes on. What doesn’t get better is our understanding of what is going on. As this film is trying to feel as authentically real as possible, we don’t get anything more than what the main characters see, so there are a lot of questions that just never get answered; they don’t know what this thing is, so we don’t either. I guess it’s simple to just say that nobody really knows where the monster came from, why it’s attacking New York City, or how any of this even happened. The characters never know what is going on and so there is always a suspense in the air in that you really don’t know what is going to happen at any point. I mentioned how annoying Hud is and, well, that is mostly because all he does is comment on everything the way a thirteen-year-old would. It was tiring after ten minutes and it drags on throughout the entire film. It actually made a lot of the film difficult and irritating, and really brought it down for me. The actual visuals and how the monster is portrayed are decent at best, and are unfortunately held back by the film’s style, which I suppose is to be expected of any found-footage film. Apart from that, the film has a few really eye-rolling moments towards the end. But by that point, a lot of the damage had been done. You can still appreciate how hard it is trying to depict this event with authenticity, but the characters through which you’re required to see the events are really annoying and not very smart. It’s a horror movie cliché that the main characters are always idiots, making the wrong decisions everywhere. That is no more true in this film. I liked its aesthetic and some of the scenes involving the actual monster, but the characters just sank it.
Total: 5
10 Cloverfield Lane Review
Grand Total: 9 ¼
Technical
Engaging 6
Suspenseful +1
An amazing scene (opening) +½
Amazing cinematography +½
Amazing story/plot +½
Great performance/character (Mary Elizabeth
Winstead as Michelle) +½
Great music +½
Total: 9 ½
Overall impression
10 Cloverfield Lane is almost the opposite of Cloverfield in every way in that it features fantastic characters, amazing direction, gorgeous cinematography, great music, and is actually a great film. It’s about Michelle (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) who, after getting into a horrific car accident, finds herself inside Howard’s (John Goodman) bunker. Howard claims that an extraterrestrial attack has devastated earth above the bunker, leaving the air contaminated. Howard is definitely a little off, and some of the things he does are definitely strange. But at the same time, it’s not like he’s just claiming this earth attack thing either; there is a decent amount of evidence to suggest it, which makes this situation particularly difficult and incredibly suspenseful. 10 Cloverfield Lane might be the most suspenseful movie I’ve ever seen. It never lets you slide back into your seat and never lets you look away from the screen. The suspense winds itself so well that little things at the end of the movie, like someone breaking a window, make you jump when they wouldn’t normally. Up until the very end of the movie, you really don’t know what is going to happen at all, and I loved every second of it. The performances and filmmaking are superb. Mary Elizabeth Winstead perfectly portrays Michelle, who is actually really smart and resourceful, and you think a lot of the things she thinks. When she’s scared you really feel it. When she has an idea you can see it and want to know what it is, since she’s proven herself to be clever throughout the film. Just as good is John Goodman as Howard. It’s really difficult to convincingly portray a character who is definitely a little strange, but you still give a little bit of trust. As I said, you really don’t know whether or not to believe Howard’s story of what has happened until the very end of the film, which is a serious credit to the performance and writing. Another good, but not as good performance is from John Gallagher Jr., who plays Emmett, the only other person in the bunker. Emmett is important to the story, but definitely doesn’t play as prominently as either Michelle or Howard. It’s really tough to gauge how well his character fits into the film because he is necessary to how some of the scenes play out and definitely should be in the film, but is much less memorable than either Michelle or Howard. When I think of memorable things about this movie, I definitely will think of the premise, the two lead characters of Michelle and Howard, and the film’s score. It’s really hard to review this film without talking about its fantastic score. Composer Bear McCreary did an amazing job with this score, as it adds layers of suspense to so many of the scenes. The first scene in the film is silent except for this eerie music, which just makes the viewer a little uneasy. The only thing I can say that was a little off-putting about this film was the ending, which is definitely abrupt, but still makes sense with the rest of the story. I actually liked it and found it incredibly tense, but it was just very different from what the rest of the movie was. Overall, I absolutely loved 10 Cloverfield Lane. It had an intriguing premise, great characters, amazing music, looked great, and was one of the most suspenseful movies I’ve ever seen.
Total: 9
Eye in the Sky Review
Grand Total: 7 ¾
Technical
Engaging 6
Suspenseful +1
Thought-provoking +1
An amazing scene (ending) +½
Total: 8 ½
Overall impression
Eye in the Sky is about the ethics of a drone attack. It centers on a remote location in a Kenya, where British drone operators are ready to preemptively attack suicide bombers, but hesitate for fear of collateral damage. It’s the classic case of “would you kill one person to probably save ten people”, where the suicide bombers have the potential to kill up to eighty people, but you have the potential to stop them by potentially killing an innocent civilian. When it comes down to it, Eye in the Sky is a very political movie, full of people asking for permission, and legal advice. It was gripping the whole way through, though I don’t think there was anything really memorable about it except for its ending, where the buildup to the movie explodes. It was a finely acted, well-made film that made you think about what you would do in that kind of a situation, where you bear a certain responsibility for the outcome of the situation. It’s interesting to see how the various people in different positions want the situation to end up. You can see some characters who definitely don’t want to be responsible and some characters who absolutely do. You see characters who have been waiting to be able to show how drone technology can be used to prevent terrorist attacks and those who don’t want a collateral damage incident to destroy the drone program. You also see the different attitudes of various countries on this issue. It is a British military group that controls the drone, but the suicide bombers are natives of other countries. There is a lot of political dialogue in the film as a result, but it was never difficult to follow, which is a credit to the writers. Overall, I definitely recommend seeing this film if you like thinking about ethics and politics. It doesn’t offer a lot more than that, but I would still call this a solid film.
Total: 7
Everybody Wants Some!! Review
Grand Total: 8
Technical
Engaging 6
An amazing scene (ping pong) +½
Really funny +½
Great performance/character (Temple Baker as Plummer) +½
Great writing +½
Total: 8
Overall impression
Everybody Wants Some!! is a film that covers a few days in the life of a 1980s college baseball team just before classes begin. The film centers itself around Jake, a freshman just figuring out what college and college baseball are about to be about. Let’s just say they’re about to be crazy. As you might expect, the members of the baseball team all take on various personality stereotypes, but they do it in a way that feels fresh and natural. That is the one thing I just found amazing about this film: all of the performances, settings, and situations felt as if they could have absolutely happened. And the film is that much more hilarious because of it. The credit really has to go to the writing, which somehow makes this film, which isn’t building up to anything or trying to convey any kind of message, flow seamlessly for its entire runtime. Everybody Wants Some!! was a hilariously entertaining film featuring natural performances from its cast of little-known actors, great writing, and some great situational comedy. My favorite character of the bunch is Plummer, who fits the “dumb jock” stereotype. This guy’s delivery just cracked me up every time, and he played perfectly with the other personalities. All of the characters have a chance to shine in this film, and at points in the movie that just feel right. Overall, I had a great time with Everybody Wants Some!! It told its story in an effortless way that made it seem like it was funny by accident. There isn’t much point to it, but sometimes you don’t need that. The movie is just plain entertaining.
Total: 8
The Nice Guys Review
Grand Total: 7 ½
Technical
Engaging 6
An amazing scene (ankle gun) +½
Really funny +½
Amazing cinematography +½
Great performance/character (Russell Crowe as Jackson Healy) +½
Uneven tone -½
Obvious plothole -½
Total: 7
Overall impression
The Nice Guys is about two men looking for a girl named Amelia. One, Jackson Healy (Russell Crowe), is not an investigator so much as he is an enforcer for hire, who will scare away anybody who is after you. He was hired by Amelia to go rough up Holland March (Ryan Gosling), an inept private investigator who has been looking for Amelia. After Healy beats up March, he can’t seem to find Amelia at all, so the two have to team up to figure out where she is and what is going on. They might not be the only ones after her.
At its core, The Nice Guys is a buddy cop movie in 1970’s Los Angeles. The film works off of the chemistry between Ryan Gosling and Russell Crowe playing the ridiculous man and the straight man. Gosling’s hilarious physical humor is perfectly balanced by Crowe’s stoic seriousness. Another character worth mentioning who works really well is Holly (Angourie Rice), March’s daughter. She is just as much a part of the case as her father is because she actually wants to get out of the house and be involved. She’s about twelve or so, which makes for some great situational humor in scenes where she is with March and Healy at a pornstar party (this is the 1970’s…). On the flipside, she also introduces some tonal issues with the film. You see, she does not want Healy to kill anyone. There are a couple scenes in the film where Healy is about ready to finish somebody off but Holly has to intervene. It would have been much better if Healy himself had been the agent of restraint. You see, Healy is trying to find his way in the world, because he wants to be a good person but just can’t seem to be able to do it. His character would have had a much better arc if he had restrained himself instead of Holly.
That, however, is a fairly small flaw in an otherwise entertaining movie. The story writer/director Shane Black surrounds these characters with is actually pretty involved, with twists and turns all over the place. There are definitely parts of the film that don’t make sense, but Shane Black’s style almost makes up for it. Seriously, there are some scenes where Black does a great job of using the camera to reveal certain parts of a scene. Moreover, the movie will consistently break cliché. There is a scene where I thought I knew what was going to happen regarding an ankle gun, but something else happened entirely, and it was hilarious.
Overall, The Nice Guys features fantastic performances that really work well together. The story it tells is surprisingly layered and the film does things you wouldn’t expect. The tonal issues here and there, along with some confusing plotpoints, don’t really detract that much from what is otherwise a very entertaining film.
Total: 8
Now You See Me Review
Grand Total: 7 ¼
Technical
Engaging 6
Suspenseful +1
An amazing scene (in jail with Thaddeus Bradley) +½
Great performance/character (Mark Ruffalo as Dylan Rhodes) +½
Obvious plothole -½
Total: 7 ½
Overall impression
Now You See Me is a film about The Four Horsemen, a group of magicians who are performing “Robin Hood magic” by somehow stealing from those who have wronged people and giving the money to their audience, all building up to one final trick. On their trail is FBI agent Dylan Rhodes (Mark Ruffalo), desperate to not be made a fool of by these magicians, and Thaddeus Bradley (Morgan Freeman), a magic debunker. Together, they try to keep one step ahead of the magicians by figuring out what it is they are all after, while finding out a bit about themselves as well.
Perhaps that is giving the film a little too much credit. It is a little low on character development, but its quick pace, some clever writing, and appealing characters all make it well worth the time. Each of the four horseman have distinct personalities that play off each other really well. They’re cocky, and always seem to get away. The way in which the film explains how each trick is performed while keeping on track with the story is handled quite well. Mark Ruffalo does a fantastic job of making Dylan Rhodes seem more and more desperate. As some of his past is delved into, you get really attached to him, and ultimately root for him throughout the movie, even if the magicians are really engaging.
There are also plenty of twists and turns along the way, many of which I definitely didn’t see. The movie does a good job of planting the information to pull off the trick right in front of you, though some of it you can see is going to be used later on. That having been said, the movie manages to wrap its final trick up really nicely without too many plotholes, and I was quite impressed.
Overall, Now You See Me is a really fun movie about magic featuring some good performances and plenty of twists to keep you entertained.
Total: 7
Now You See Me 2 Review
Grand Total: 4 ¼
Technical
Engaging 6
Bad performance/character (Woody Harrelson as Chase McKinney) -½
Obvious plothole -½
Uneven tone -½
Total: 4 ½
Overall impression
Now You See Me 2 is the sequel to the 2013 film Now You See Me. This time, The Four Horseman, a team of four magicians, are eagerly awaiting instructions from the magic society, The Eye, that they have been trying so hard to get into. But their lack of patience is tearing them apart, especially when one of their shows goes really wrong. They suspect that someone is on to them, and are recruited by Walter Mabry (Daniel Radcliffe), a tech mogul, to steal his competitor’s computer drive or risk exposure. They have to do this while trying to figure out who got the best of them and how to get back into their game.
Now, this film is still entertaining, but it suffers because the last film wrapped up so well that there wasn’t anywhere to go. And this film comes up with some pretty crazy ways to get its characters back into the action. The new characters that are introduced aren’t very compelling or interesting and one of them, Chase McKinney, twin brother to one of the horseman magicians, was downright irritating. You can tell that the film is trying pretty hard to be funny and entertaining, but it was a bit of a tonal mess. The magic tricks in this film were a lot less clever and were instead just impossible. Sure, there was a fair amount of suspension of disbelief in Now You See Me, but the unbelievability hits a new level in this film.
The character development in this film is centered almost entirely on Dylan Rhodes, which is a bit of shame given that he was already the most fleshed-out character. The first scene in the movie (featuring a really good child performance from William Henderson as a younger Dylan Rhodes) is effective, but wasted given where the movie ends up. While the ending of the first film definitely raised some questions, the ending to this film just wasn’t effective in the slightest. In fact, it takes away from the finale of the first film.
Overall, Now You See Me 2 was a bit of a disappointment. The film was entertaining, but sloppy and neither as engaging or as clever as the first film. The tricks don’t always make sense, and it just feels like there is just too much going on in this film’s convoluted plot for much to work. It’s flashy, but cheap.
Total: 4
Warcraft Review
Grand Total: 4 ¾
Technical
Watchable 4
Suspenseful +1
Epic in scale +½
Amazing visuals +½
Too long -1
Obvious plothole -½
Total: 4 ½
Overall impression
Warcraft is a film based on the popular game series that included World of Warcraft, a game I spent nearly a year of my life playing in high school. As a result, I became familiar with the dense lore that is featured in this film. And yet I still was not very impressed.
Before we get into that, though, what is Warcraft all about? Azeroth is a land inhabited by humans, dwarves, and some others that together form the alliance. A dark portal is opened up into their lands from somewhere else, and through it march orcs, led by the necromancer Gul’dan. Several humans, including the warrior Lothar (Travis Fimmel) and the magician Medivh (Ben Foster), and even an orc named Durotan (Toby Kebbell), question Gul’dan’s reasons for invading and his methods of doing so, which involve Fel Magic.
That is definitely a lot to take in, and the movie does its best to mix exposition with actual plot. Unfortunately, the missing link is often character development. It’s even harder to care about Durotan and the sympathetic orcs, as they are all motion-capture performances. Still, when the plot is moving along, the movie had a lot to offer. The battle sequences all feel intense and real, a real achievement considering the amount of special effects put into them. The orcs, often carrying hammers or axes, often just crush the much-smaller humans, and the sound design makes you feel the resulting crunch.
Beyond the battle sequences, this film does not offer a whole lot. As said before, the characters are all pretty thin. One character I did not mention that gets a lot of screen time is Khadgar (Ben Schnetzer), a young, bumbling magician. He is desperately trying to prove himself a capable magician, but there doesn’t seem to be any real emotion behind it, so it is hard to relate to him. There are plenty of scenes in this film that should warrant emotion, but just didn’t for me. It is always a challenge for movies of this size and scope to be able to feel personal, and Warcraft lets itself fall victim to that.
Overall, Warcraft is full of necessary exposition and thin on relatable characters. The visual effects, sound design, and sheer size of the film are definitely positives, but they also hinder its ability to engage you in the story, making the film feel really long. A lot of this film is boring for those who know the lore, and confusing for those who don’t.
Total: 5
The Shallows Review
Grand Total: 3
Technical
Watchable 4
Suspenseful +1
Too long -1
Obvious plothole -½
Boring part -½
Total: 3
Overall impression
The Shallows is about Nancy (Blake Lively), a medical school student who goes surfing on a remote beach and is attacked by a shark. That’s all you need to know and that is all there is to know about this film.
Before she is attacked, the movie tries really hard to give her some family drama or motivation for being at this beach. It never pays off. She surfs around this beautiful beach and, while the water is shot really well, this part of the film is really boring, drawn out, and just poorly edited with weird cuts between scenes and strange music choices. The film tries so hard to create false scares to get you ready for the attack, but the whole time you’ll be just begging for the conflict to begin. I mean, there is some suspense in this time-wasting “buildup”, but not nearly as much as there could have been.
After the attack, the film spends an excruciatingly long amount of time focusing on Nancy’s injuries, which make for an uncomfortable watch. It’s at this point where you can tell that the film is just out of ideas. There is so much time dedicated to Nancy explaining how she is patching herself up, as if she is just talking directly to the camera. Its premise was simple, so it needed more. In this “more”, so many things just make no sense. Still, there is some fun to be had in the second half of this film. There are a few moments that are fun, but way more moments that are just frustratingly slow.
Overall, The Shallows is a drawn-out survival film featuring a shark, gruesome injuries, and a premise that just wasn’t fully realized in this film.
Total: 3
Indepedence Day Review
Grand Total: 4 ½
Technical
Watchable 4
Suspenseful +1
An amazing scene (welcome to earth) +½
Great performance/character (Will Smith as Steven Hiller) +½
Too long -1
Obvious plothole -½
Boring part -½
Total: 4
Overall impression
Independence Day is the hit 1996 summer blockbuster about aliens that arrive on earth to kill us and the humans that fight back. It features Will Smith as fighter pilot Steven Hiller, Bill Pullman as ex-fighter pilot turned President Thomas Whitmore, Jeff Goldblum as scientist David Levenson, as well as many other characters that aren’t really given any depth or enough screen time. That’s not to say that this film isn’t long enough. If anything, it’s too long. There are just so many characters.
Independence Day, the supposedly “dumb popcorn fun” summer movie where you would expect just pure mindless action, has a lot of boring parts, especially in the beginning. There are some scenes with President Whitmore at the beginning that are just lifeless. The movie doesn’t really get going until way after the aliens arrive and start to do some damage.
By that, I mean after Will Smith and Jeff Goldblum take center stage. Even if this film isn’t great at building up characters, the actors in the roles are all doing a fine job. Will Smith’s charisma coupled with Jeff Goldblum’s awkwardness make for some great comedy. Their plan to defeat the aliens is absolutely ridiculous, but it’s so simple that it works for the film. When you think about it, so much in this film is really simple and straightforward. Instead of using the extra time to develop a few characters, it just introduces more characters and more subplots that are just not given enough time to be useful in the film. When David Levenson’s father is on screen, you just wish you could be back with David Levenson himself and Steven Hiller.
At this point, it’s safe to say that I think Independence Day is a mixed bag. There are parts of it that are great, there are some great practical effects, and some good characters. But for every fun moment there is a boring moment and for every exciting plotline there is another that is just dead in the water and going nowhere. It just seems like the people who stand by this film as entertaining are focusing on half of it and completely forgetting about the other half.
Total: 5
Independence Day: Resurgence Review
Grand Total: 3 ¾
Technical
Watchable 4
Obvious plothole -½
Total: 3 ½
Overall impression
Independence Day: Resurgence is the definition of dumb popcorn movie. Aliens attack. We attack back! It’s a slightly lesser version of what I thought the original Independence Day was going to be. I mean, when it comes down to the plot points and the characters, the movies are virtually the same. The only noticeable difference is Will Smith, whose absence is a hole this movie unsuccessfully tried to fix with the addition of Liam Hemsworth’s character, Jake.
The problems with this film are pretty much the same as the problems with the first film. This film has too many subplots and too many characters. Not only does it have too many characters, but the characters are all pretty worthless. I mean, this film kills several characters from the original film, but doesn’t really do all that much to make them matter, and just moves on as if nothing had happened to make room for more ridiculous plot. The movie is convoluted, but it’s full of action, and I appreciated that; there weren’t too many dull moments, and I could turn my brain off and watch the sequel to a property I didn’t care too much about to begin with.
That having been said, this film doesn’t really have any qualities. The original film had some fun performances and cool practical effects. In this film, there are plenty of visual effects. None of them are particularly great, but they’re decent and definitely in abundance.
There really isn’t that much to say about this film. It’s possibly the definition of a dumb blockbuster with a ridiculous amount of effects, a convoluted plot, and some fun moments to be had.
Total: 4
The BFG Review
Grand Total: 8
Technical
Engaging 6
Moving +1
Kids movie +1
An amazing scene (dream-catching) +½
Amazing visuals +½
Great performance/character (Mark Rylance as The BFG) +½
Great music +½
Obvious plothole -½
Boring part -½
Total: 9
Overall impression
The BFG is a film about Sophie (Ruby Barnhill), an orphan, who is whisked away to giant country by a giant she affectionately calls the Big Friendly Giant, or BFG (Mark Rylance). She develops her friendship with BFG all while trying to avoid the other giants, giants who eat children.
That’s really all there is to this story for the most part. The films is comprised mostly of their adventures. For some, that won’t be enough. For me, however, I was more than satisfied by the visually stunning sequences between the two characters, particularly the sequences that involve dreams. John Williams’ terrific score and the film’s optimism kept everything very enjoyable. Despite the film’s joyous tone, there are undercurrents of darkness here and there. As dreams are heavily involved in this film’s plot, you might expect the film to address nightmares. It really only brushes the surface of what it might be like to have one, which I thought was a bit of a missed opportunity. A dark nightmare sequence would have given the film slightly higher stakes. Stakes are something I feel like the film needed because, despite the fact that there are child-eating giants roaming about, they never really seem threatening at all, and I wish they had been.
Even without real stakes, the movie was really enjoyable and engaging almost the entire way through. I say “almost” because there is a scene in this film that derails it a bit. This scene involves the Queen of England. All I can say about it is that it was seemingly out of nowhere and a little boring. There were humorous bits in it, but I didn’t think it needed to be a part of the film at all. I guess it must have been included because it was in the book. I haven’t read Roald Dahl’s book, so it felt out of place in the film.
At this point, it must seem like I’m being fairly negative about the film, but I’m not trying to be. There were just a few things about the film that I think could have been better. The movie, as it stands, was thoroughly entertaining, touching, and beautiful. Mark Rylance is absolutely phenomenal as the BFG. He doesn’t actually play the giant, of course, but might as well have thanks to some great motion-capture technology. Ruby Barnhill is also really good as Sophie, the stubborn but smart child who comes to love BFG. I don’t know how much of her acting was done in front of a green screen, but it all seemed like she was actually in the film’s environment.
Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed The BFG. There were parts that I think could have been effective if they were darker, and a one scene in particular was boring, but the fantastic visuals, amazing score, and great performances will have you walking out of it with a big smile on your face.
Total: 7
Ghostbusters Review
Grand Total: 7
Ghostbusters (2016) Review
Grand Total: 5 ½
Technical
Engaging 6
Suspenseful +1
An amazing scene (registered voters) +½
Really funny +½
Great performance/character (Sigourney Weaver as Dana) +½
Obvious plothole -½
Total: 8
Overall impression
Ghostbusters is the story of three washed up scientists, Peter Venkman (Bill Murray), Egon Spengler (Harold Ramis), and Ray Stantz (Dan Akroyd), hunt for the paranormal in New York City. Luckily for them, paranormal sightings are becoming more and more frequent, meaning that their previously ridiculed profession might make them famous. There are some problems though; they don’t know what they’re doing and they don’t know why ghosts are suddenly appearing all over the place.
The concept for this film is difficult to describe because it is just so odd. What sells it is the chemistry between these three bumbling guys. Bill Murray’s dry humor is so perfectly on display in this film that I almost went with Venkman as my favorite character. The only problem is that Venkman is a total creep, frequently advancing on female characters in the film, most notably Dana (Sigourney Weaver) who has a ghost in her apartment. Dana herself is probably the toughest role to pull off, given what happens to her, and Sigourney Weaver does a fantastic job at it. The other two Ghostbusters are great as well, but in different ways. Spengler is the classic “nerd” of the bunch, and you get the feeling that he is the one who designed all of the great technology that they use against the ghosts. His straight talk against Venkman’s sarcasm works wonders. Stantz is more of a bumbler, which makes for some more laughs, especially at the very end. Another performance worth mentioning is that of Rick Moranis, who plays Louis, an accountant who keeps locking himself out of his room. Every time it happened, I cracked up.
As you can tell at this point, the movie is full of great performances and hilarity. The real faltering of the film is with its story. That is to say, this story makes no sense whatsoever. The ending makes no sense and the villain’s choices are rather baffling. I can’t really go into detail without spoiling anything, but let’s just say I was scratching my head in bewilderment at the ending of the film.
The only other flaw I can find with the film is the inconsistency with the visual effects. When the monsters/ghosts in the film are done with models and practical effects, they look fantastic. But when they aren’t, they look truly awful. There are some demon dogs that make appearances in this film that come to mind; they look great when they are just models, but look terrible when they start to run around.
Overall, I would say that this film is a bit overrated. It is very funny, but its story just doesn’t come together and many of its effects just don’t hold up. There are some memorable scenes and quotable lines for sure, but I feel like people don’t remember how bizarre and baffling the ending of this film is.
Total: 6
Technical
Engaging 6
Really funny +½
Obvious plothole -½
Total: 6
Overall impression
Ghostbusters (2016) is a remake of sorts of the 1984 film of the same name, this time starring Kate McKinnon, Melissa McCarthy, Kristen Wiig, and Leslie Jones as the four ghostbusters, a team of scientific (mostly) misfits who have been into paranormal investigation for years. When ghost appearances suddenly skyrocket, these four must figure out why and how to stop the ghosts from wrecking havoc.
And this film was pretty entertaining. I found myself laughing quite a lot throughout as these four comedians work really well together. The film seems to be designed especially to make as many jokes land as possible and, while that proved mostly successful on the joke front, it leaves the actual story on the cutting room floor. The story in this film, especially the ending, makes almost no sense at all. It seems to be building to something, but it ends up fizzling out and going for the grandiose climactic mega ghost battle that you might expect from a 2016 remake of a film called "Ghostbusters". It was fairly fun, didn’t make a lot of sense, and isn’t a film I think I’m going to ever need to see again.
As I mentioned earlier, the story itself is a bit of a mess, weaving from joke to joke and relying on its entertainment value alone to keep the audience from nodding off. The characters themselves were funny, but I never really felt attached to them. Some effort was made, at least in the beginning, to make you feel for the little girls who got picked on at school for being “ghost girls”, but it never really gets a lengthy-enough scene to make it something I remembered from the movie.
Overall, Ghostbusters (2016) gets a pass for being entertaining and funny, but I wouldn’t call it a good movie. Its four leads (and Chris Hemsworth, as their dumb secretary), work well together but you never really get the sense that their characters are fleshed out or with any emotional depth, which makes it hard to feel attached to them.
Total: 5
The Infiltrator Review
Grand Total: 3 ¾
Technical
Watchable 4
Suspenseful +1
An amazing scene (wedding) +½
Too long -1
Boring part -½
Obvious plothole -½
Total: 3 ½
Overall impression
The Infiltrator tells the true story of Robert Mazur (Bryan Cranston), a U.S. customs agent who goes undercover as a cartel businessman in the hopes that he will finally be able to take down Pablo Escobar and his drug cartel.
Now, any kind of undercover film, especially one that is rated R so that it can have plenty of gory realism in it, is going to be suspenseful. And yet, I was amazed at how much I was at ease in this film. The suspense is there in a few scenes, but I expected (and wanted) to be on the edge of my seat throughout the film. But the film focuses on a variety of things, and just draws them out a little too much. Robert Mazur is having trouble with his wife, with the fact that he is growing attached to the drug leaders who are growing to trust him, and with his will to stay alive. But these things are shown really well in isolated scenes, but not throughout the film as a whole. There just wasn’t a focus or sense of urgency that would normally keep the tension high in a film like this. The Infiltrator needed to be a much tighter film because, as much as some of its scenes work really well (one with an anniversary cake and one at a wedding come to mind), it felt like the rest of the film was just fluff, even though there were still things going on.
It didn’t help that the characters were all rather flat. I don’t think I can describe a single characteristic of any of the people in this film. That isn’t to say that the performances are bad, rather, they are all decent, but the screenwriters just didn’t give the characters much depth. As a result, this film was sometimes boring, which this type of movie should never be.
Overall, The Infiltrator was a film that was trying to do too many things without staying focused. Some of its subplots, like Robert’s trouble with his wife or how this kind of job must be really hard since you have to betray so many people at the end, work really well in individual scenes, but not throughout the film. The Infiltrator could have been great, but ended up as pretty average.
Total: 4
Hunt for the Wilderpeople Review
Grand Total: 9
Technical
Engaging 6
Suspenseful +1
Moving +1
An amazing scene (I haven’t dug it yet) +½
Epic in scale +½
Really funny +½
Amazing cinematography +½
Great performance/character (Julian Dennison as Ricky Baker) +½
Uneven tone -½
Total: 10
Overall impression
Hunt for the Wilderpeople is a film about Ricky Baker (Julian Dennison), an orphan misfit in New Zealand who hasn’t really had a home with people who care for him. He is adopted by Bella and Hec (Sam Neill); the former loves him while the latter hates him. So, when Ricky is lost in the forest with Uncle Hec, shenanigans ensue. What makes it better is that the New Zealand authorities think that Hec abducted Ricky; a manhunt ensues for the two fugitives, or “wilderpeople”.
This film is really quite good. The tone and direction are really unique, at least for most of the film. They give off a kind of quirky and zany feel to the film. The tone is pretty light for the most part, except for in a few moments (one towards the beginning of the film, that I can’t spoil) where the film gets emotional or dark. The emotion is there because the characters are fleshed out and we care for them, but these moments still seem like they come out of nowhere. That is pretty much the only thing wrong with the film. When the tone is light, Hunt for the Wilderpeople is absolutely hilarious.
The acting is really great as well. Julian Dennison, who plays Ricky, is fantastic. The film’s humor mostly rests on his shoulders, and he pulls it off beautifully. His goofiness and overall clumsiness juxtaposes very well with Uncle Hec’s gruffness, which Sam Neill does excellently. There are some other performances in the film that were really great as well. A character that briefly shows up is Psycho Sam, a paranoid hippie living deep in the New Zealand jungle. There is an extended scene involving Psycho Sam that is hysterical, mostly because of this actor’s performance. Some other memorable performances come in the form of a crazy child service agent and a cop who keeps following her around without really doing anything.
On top of the acting and mostly great tone, this film looks amazing. New Zealand, famously captured in films like the Lord of the Rings trilogy, is as vibrant as ever in Hunt for the Wilderpeople. There are so many gorgeous, sweeping shots of the countryside that just make you feel how amazing the outdoors can be.
Overall, I really enjoyed Hunt for the Wilderpeople. The chemistry between the film’s two leads was amazing, the film was hilarious, it looked great, and I felt really good walking out of the theatre. The only real problem I had with it was with the tone shifts. They aren’t frequent, but they were really jarring when they happened. Other than that, this film was excellent.
Total: 8
Captain Fantastic Review
Grand Total: 6 ½
Technical
Watchable 4
Suspenseful +1
Thought-provoking +1
An amazing scene (The Rooftop) +½
Great performance/character (Viggo Mortensen as Ben) +½
Obvious plothole -½
Uneven tone -½
Total: 6
Overall impression
Captain Fantastic is about Ben (Viggo Mortensen) who has raised his children in isolation, reading the works of great philosophers, scholars, and scientists while being able to live for themselves in the woods, hunting for their own food and everything. When Ben’s sister calls him back to civilization, he brings his children with him, resulting in what I would call a “culture clash”.
This film is really intriguing because it deals with a sort of utopian situation. I mean, his children can speak many languages fluently, understand the political implications of certain supreme court cases, and debate different sides of theoretical physics; they aren’t exactly older kids either. There are many great scenes in the film showing off what the kids are capable of with the special kind of education they have received at the hands of Ben, scenes that show off the acting chops of these young actors. I don’t think I’ve seen any of them in other films, but they all worked really well. Viggo Mortensen, as usual, is terrific, and gives his intellectual character a certain stubbornness that made him both interesting and frustrating at the same time as he teaches the children only what he wants them to learn.
The education is often compared with standard education of American children, which results in some comedic moments, even if they are ultimately a sad judgement on the current state of education. But at the same time, you also see the shortcomings of what Ben has done. One of his children exclaims that he doesn’t know anything unless it comes from a book, a remark that is absolutely true; his children don’t know what civilization is like, or how to interact with other people. The children, upon discovering other people, rebel in their own way, as you might expect. But Ben never really changes, or acknowledges how much he has genuinely hurt the children by depriving them of what he personally believes to be irrelevant. I mean, he has essentially brainwashed them. The movie doesn’t really ever present it that way, though, and that is rather troubling. Despite how interesting I found this movie, I don’t know if I agree with what I think it’s saying. I might just be reading too much into it, but this is the kind of movie that would tempt you to analyze it, and I’m at least glad it made me think.
Overall, I was intrigued by Captain Fantastic much more than I think I ended up enjoying it. The tone is a little inconsistent, given the blend of humor, philosophy, and awkward situations that result from the culture clash the children face when they have to interact with people other than their father. It is a type of movie that demands thought and inspection and, if you enjoy movies that make you think, I would definitely recommend it. I just don’t think it was fully satisfying.
Total: 7
Nerve Review
Grand Total: 6 ½
Technical
Engaging 6
Suspenseful +1
An amazing scene (escaping the store) +½
Obvious plothole -½
Total: 7
Overall impression
Nerve is about a game, or rather, a phone app, that puts downloaders into two categories: watcher or player. Watchers pay to watch players do ridiculous things, which are essentially just dares. The players are paid for each dare, with more pay and more extreme dares as their popularity goes up.
So the movie follows Vee (Emma Roberts), a nervous high school senior whose friends are all encouraging her to get out there and take risks. So she joins Nerve as a player, and becomes pretty popular when her first dare makes her kiss Ian (Dave Franco). From there, the dares just get better and better.
Now, this premise is pretty simple and, for a while, had me locked in. Everything was working really well. Each dare felt like it was transitioning seamlessly into the next and I was starting to get on the edge of my seat. The performances from Dave Franco and Emma Roberts help the movie along, as they work really well together.
That made up about three quarters of the film. But then it had to make itself all complicated. The events that make up the end of the film are convoluted and unexplained, exactly what I didn’t want from a film like this. The serious tone just didn’t match the rest of the film. The characters do things that just don’t make sense, and while the film does try to be clever with a message about people watching from their phones being disconnected from the events happening, even though they’re really responsible for these dares and their consequences, the sheer unbelievability and suddenness of it all just didn’t work for me.
Overall, Nerve was a film that did a great job of running with its simple premise, at least for the first three quarters. The ending does spoil an otherwise great film, but I still had a pretty good time with it. The dares are pretty creative, but never seem that unrealistic, and the characters worked well.
Total: 6
Florence Foster Jenkins Review
Grand Total: 7 ¾
Technical
Engaging 6
Moving +1
An amazing scene (first practice with McMoon) +½
Really funny +½
Great performance/character (Meryl Streep as Florence Foster Jenkins) +½
Total: 8 ½
Overall impression
Florence Foster Jenkins is about Florence (Meryl Streep), an aristocratic woman living in New York who wants to pursue a career in opera. Her husband, St Clair (Hugh Grant), is supportive of her and she finds an opera coach and Cosmé McMoon (Simon Helberg), a pianist. There’s only one problem: she cannot sing at all. In fact, her singing is so bad that it’s utterly hilarious.
As a result, this film is full of humor. The performances are all perfect from actors who were seemingly born to play their parts. Meryl Streep does an excellent job as Florence, making her incredibly sympathetic and vulnerable. We cheer for Florence, even if she is awful, because she is trying her absolute best and really enjoys what she is doing. By the end of the story, you really adore Florence’s her whimsy temperament. Hugh Grant is similarly perfect in the role of Florence’s British husband with a bit of a wild side. He has his own goals, but he still stays by Florence’s side and supports her. Another excellent performance comes from Simon Helberg as Cosmé McMoon, Florence’s pianist. He was the first person we see actually react to Florence’s singing; the result is hilarious. But he’s much more than that as his character, like the audience, warms to Florence and roots for her.
The only thing I might be able to say that is negative about this film is that it doesn’t try to go above and beyond with any of its scenes. Everything is played out in a safe manner that is entertaining, but not a whole lot more. I feel as though this kind of film is one that gets by on entertainment value alone because it does not have a whole lot more to offer. I was never particularly riveted or moved; I was just entertained.
Overall, Florence Foster Jenkins was a hilarious film that featured some great performances and situational humor, but didn’t do anything more. I would recommend it, but don’t think I’ll find myself drawn back to it for any particular reason other than just entertainment value.
Total: 7
Hell or High Water Review
Grand Total: 8 ¾
Pete's Dragon (2016) Review
Grand Total: 4 ¼
Technical
Watchable 4
Kids movie +1
Obvious plothole -½
Total: 4 ½
Overall impression
Pete’s Dragon (2016) is the latest Disney live-action remake of an older film which, in this case, is the 1977 Pete’s Dragon. I had never seen the original film and had only heard of it in passing, which makes the existence of this film that much more mysterious. Its quality is certainly not the reason for its existence either, as this film is as standard as you can get, telling the story of Pete, a boy who is discovered by a dragon in the forest after he and his parents are run off the road. Pete befriends the dragon, whom he names Elliot. Some years later, Pete is discovered by a park ranger, her boyfriend with a logging company, and her boyfriend’s brother who is more of a reckless hunter.
Yes, you can probably see exactly where this film goes and you’d probably be right. There is almost nothing original going on in this film. It’s just fine. It goes through its emotional moments the way you’d expect, has a standard score, a lighter tone, and a cute dragon. I don’t really think adults will get much from this film except for entertainment in the second half, after Pete is discovered by the park ranger. All of the characters are pretty thin and the performances are serviceable, a word which aptly describes the entire affair.
Overall, I find it difficult to recommend Pete’s Dragon (2016) to anyone above the age of ten. It’s accessible to anyone, has a few good scenes, a slower pace, and a story that goes nowhere except for where you expect it.
Total: 4
Technical
Engaging 6
Suspenseful +1
Thought-provoking +1
An amazing scene (large bank) +½
Amazing cinematography +½
Great music +½
Great performance/character (Ben Foster as Tanner) +½
Uneven tone -½
Total: 9 ½
Overall impression
Hell or High Water is a film about two Texas brothers, Toby (Chris Pine) and Tanner (Ben Foster), who are going around robbing local banks, taking only small amounts for reasons that become clearer as the story progresses. Of the two brothers, Toby has a family and is much calmer while Tanner is a loose cannon who seems to be helping Toby rob these banks simply because he enjoys it. On their trail are two Texas rangers, Marcus (Jeff Bridges) and Alberto (Gil Birmingham), looking to figure out where they’ll strike next and why they’re doing this in the first place.
This film is very tense, very well-acted, and well-shot. It takes place in the current year, but the area it takes place in is so dead that you couldn’t tell; it feels like an old-style western. Throughout the film, you get this feeling of emptiness in this land and that these characters are feeling as one tries to provide for his estranged family while the other tries to get the most out of life as he can. The music and camerawork all work together to really capture what is going through each character’s head. For Tanner, you get a crazed wildman. For Toby, you get a man who is scared, not for himself but for the future of his family. This theme of what people do in these types of situations was very effectively presented in the film.
And yet, despite the seeming hopelessness of the setting, this film is full of humor. The chemistry between each pair of leads created some really hilarious moments. Ranger Marcus is a bit of a racist, or at least makes himself out to be, which is to the dismay of his half-Native, half-Mexican partner Alberto. Their interaction is like the comic relief and keeps the story light towards the beginning. Unfortunately, I didn’t feel as though the tone of the film was well-balanced with both the humor and hopelessness. Throw in some country songs that similarly conflict with the tone and you got a movie that isn’t always sure what it is. Luckily, I think the darker, more somber aspects of the film ended up more prevalent.
Despite the frequent tonal inconsistencies, there is still a lot to love in the film. As I said before, the performances are stellar. Ben Foster completely slips into the crazed role of Tanner and is completely believable every second. Jeff Bridge is hilarious as a grizzled ranger, Gil Birmingham is great as his straight man and Chris Pine holds the whole thing together. The cinematography and music capture how empty this region can feel while still revealing its beauty. I would definitely recommend this film for its tense moments, great characters, and thought-provoking themes.
Total: 8
Ben-Hur (2016) Review
Grand Total: 5 ¾
Technical
Engaging 6
Suspenseful +1
An amazing scene (the chariot race) +½
Epic in scale +½
Great performance/character (Jack Huston as Judah Ben-Hur) +½
Too short -1
Obvious plothole -½
Uneven tone -½
Total: 6 ½
Overall impression
Ben-Hur (2016) tells the frequently remade tale of Judah Ben-Hur (Jack Huston), a wealthy Jew living in Jerusalem in the time of Jesus trying to protect his family as the Roman occupation slowly makes life harder. His Roman adopted brother Messala (Toby Kebbell), conflicted over his ties to the Romans and his love for his family, is forced to give up Judah, who ends up enslaved to the Roman galley ships. But he returns with revenge on his mind.
Now, I’ve seen the epic 1959 film of the same name many times, despite its three-and-a-half hour length, as it’s an amazing story set on a scale that just feels like a legend. The film could have been shortened a bit, but not a lot, as the story just requires a long time to be told for it to be effective. That having been said, this remake does an incredibly effective job of condensing most of the 1959’s story into a very engaging two hours. What is left on the floor is the ending, which is so rushed and out-of-place that it nearly ruined the entire film.
Before I get to what I didn’t like though, there is a lot to talk about. This film surprised me. After a slower opening, the film really picks up and proves itself to be a well-made movie just by itself. It adds little to what is already out there, but it features some magnificent practical sets (riddled with some poor CGI), some real suspense, and great acting, especially from Jack Huston, who plays the titular character; he’s so good that I don’t think the film would be much without him. Every emotion the character is supposed to feel you see on his face as he delivers his lines with authority. After the opening, the pace never really lets up, as the film goes through its motions, skipping some plot points from the 1959 version to make the film more efficient. But as I said earlier, the 1959 version deserved to be as long as it was; there is only so much you can cut.
This leads me to the most glaring problem with this film: the ending. The tone of the ending of this film does not match everything that came before it, with what will seem like a completely uncalled for and seemingly random resolution involving rain and Ben-Hur’s family. The scene is so rushed that it feels like the filmmakers put it in the film just because it was in the older version and not because it was necessary to the story being told now.
Overall, Ben-Hur (2016) is a competent, well-made film with a terrific lead performance, some great sets, and a few riveting scenes (including an amazing chariot race). The film is hurt by an out-of-place and rushed ending that nearly ruined all that came before it.
Total: 5
Sully Review
Grand Total: 5 ¾
Technical
Watchable 4
Suspenseful +1
An amazing scene (human simulations) +½
Total: 5 ½
Overall impression
Sully is about the 2009 landing of a commercial plane on the Hudson River in New York City after a flock of birds destroyed both of its engines. More than that, however, Sully is about the scrutiny and investigation afterwards and whether or not Captain Sullenberger’s decision to land the plane on the Hudson was the right one.
Given that the flight itself only lasts about three minutes, I was amazed by how much this movie was able to make out of its story. The real focus of the story is in the investigation, which is quite compelling. The flight itself was not as dramatic as I imagined it might be. In fact, this movie as a whole is a much quieter film than I was expecting. Tom Hanks as Captain Sullenberger is likewise very understated and reserved. I think the reason I didn’t find the flight thrilling was because the stakes of the film weren’t in the flight as it was just a means to put the focus on the aftermath. The real scariness was whether or not the flight simulations showed that a mistake was made as you see how much Sully is tormented by the possibility that he endangered the lives of all of the passengers. That’s where the real suspense was.
Unfortunately, there were a few things that didn’t quite work. For one, Sully keeps calling his wife about their family issues, the results of which are never really explored after this investigation closes. The ending of the investigation itself was a little too abrupt as well, as the people leading it, who have been trying to pin the blame on Sully the entire film, suddenly change their minds at the end of the movie. This just seemed a little out of character and may have been the screenwriters trying to make these investigators out to be people just doing their jobs, instead of people deliberately after Sully. Since they definitely seemed to be the latter for the majority of the film, this just didn’t sit well.
But overall, I was impressed with this film. It isn’t as exciting or flashy as I expected, but a slower, calmer film about how a forced water landing and subsequent investigation changed a man’s life. There were a few elements that I didn’t think worked, but overall, I enjoyed this film and appreciated its restraint.
Total: 6
The Magnificent Seven (2016) Review
Grand Total: 7
Technical
Engaging 6
Suspenseful +1
An amazing scene (the final battle) +½
Amazing cinematography +½
Great music +½
Obvious plothole -½
Total: 8
Overall impression
The Magnificent Seven (2016), remake of the 1960 film of the same name (which was itself a remake of the 1956 Japanese film Seven Samurai), tells the story of seven gunslingers and knife-throwers who band together to defend a small western town from a ruthless capitalist named Bartholomew Bogue. The first scene in the film sets up the stakes and throws the film into motion as Bogue visits this town, leaving many dead and the rest terrified to stand up to him without some help.
They find that help in the form of seven men including Sam Chisholm (Denzel Washington), Joshua Faraday (Chris Pratt), and Goodnight Robicheaux (Ethan Hawke) around whom the film centers. Most of them have unique personalities that help you distinguish each one on more than just a physical level, making them more memorable. The performances, however, vary in authenticity. Denzel Washington and Ethan Hawke give the only performances that felt like they actually belonged in this old-style western. Coincidentally, their characters, Sam Chisholm and Goodnight Robicheaux, are the only ones with real backstories, as they have some history in the Civil War. Chris Pratt’s Joshua Faraday seemed like he was trying way too hard to mix his “wild west” cowboy character with his character from Guardians of the Galaxy. The result was a performance that was quite fun, but just felt a little out of place in the film.
Performances aside, the film did a great job on a narrative level. Each facet of this straightforward tale makes sense as events lead into each other. The two shootout scenes in the film are very intense, featuring some truly fantastic stunts, many great practical effects, and some hilarious moments.
On a technical level, the film was also quite good. The mountainous landscape is perfectly captured in some beautiful shots that really show off not just the natural beauty of the area but how great it looks at night. There are a couple shots of distant clouds around dusk that just make you appreciate how amazing the Midwest looks. The final confrontation is also beautifully captured in a mix of wides and closeups to show off both the stunts and the scope. Add in a great score by James Horner (sadly passed) and Simon Franglen and you have a pretty well-made western.
Overall, The Magnificent Seven (2016) is a well-made film that proves a worthy remake of the 1956 film. It adds little new content, its characters are a little thin, and Chris Pratt’s humor may be a little out of place, but the music, cinematography, and intensity of this film make it worth your time.
Total: 6
Deepwater Horizon Review
Grand Total: 6 ½
Technical
Engaging 6
Suspenseful +1
An amazing scene (initial explosion) +½
Great performance/character (Kurt Russell as Jimmy Harrell) +½
Total: 7
Overall impression
Deepwater Horizon is about the events surrounding Deepwater Horizon, a Texas oil rig owned by British Petroleum (BP) that exploded, killing or injuring almost everyone on board. This film is about how the explosion happened and how the crew tried their best to evacuate.
The first half of this film follows Mike Williams (Mark Wahlberg) with his family before he leaves for the rig. Though other characters are introduced, Mike continues to be the main character in this film. A lot of this introduction with Mike’s family serves both as exposition and character development, with a great scene involving a soda can used to explain how the rig works with capping the pressure from the oil. Mixed in with Mike’s screentime you get little errors happening on the rig, giving you a sense of foreboding and worry. This half of the film was a little slower than the rest, but still tense, as each of the little problems is so well introduced. Once Mike gets on the rig, he meets Jimmy Harrell (Kurt Russell), a no-nonsense supervisor who hates corporate interference which, in this film, is presented in the form of Vidrine (John Malkovich). Kurt Russell is such a force in this film, giving a really strong performance that you definitely get behind as he is the one arguing for safety when others might not prioritize it. Something also worthy of praise is the sound design during the buildup, which lets you in on every creak in the rig, every little bubble of escaped pressure.
Then the rig explodes. This half of the film is just nonstop intensity, without a second to breathe. The camera shakes a little to make it feel real. The explosions are everywhere, as if there were nothing on the rig that couldn’t explode. The water is on fire. The makeup team makes each and every one of the characters look grimy and hurt. Everything just feels real. The only thing that didn’t quite work were the effects. Some of the wide shots of the rig falling apart were just a little off.
Overall, Deepwater Horizon was an effective disaster film. It’s well-acted, has good sound, and effectively presents the buildup and the aftermath of the explosion. Kurt Russell, in particular, was excellent. The effects weren’t quite as good as I might have hoped and I think the film could have been better explained at points (maybe it’s still unclear what happened) but I would recommend seeing this film if you’re a fan of disaster films.
Total: 6
The Accountant Review
Grand Total: 6
Technical
Engaging 6
Suspenseful +1
Great performance/character (Ben Affleck as Christian Wolff) +½
Obvious plothole -½
Total: 7
Overall impression
The Accountant tells the story of Christian Wolff (Ben Affleck), a forensic accountant with a unique upbringing as a result of his autism; his father had Christian and his brother Braxton trained in numerous forms of combat to be able to defend themselves against the inevitable bullies Christian would face. Now an adult, Christian uses his training and aptitude for math to do accounting for drug lords and crime bosses, trying to keep his identity a secret. Still, he’s been photographed near his clients, which attracts the attention of Raymond King (J.K. Simmons) at the Treasury Department. If that weren’t enough for Wolff to worry about, his current accounting job at a Robotics Company is proving to be quite a puzzle.
The result is a thoroughly entertaining film with plenty of twists, a fair amount of mystery, and even some humor. The humor is mostly from Christian Wolff’s awkwardness, which Ben Affleck perfectly executes. Beyond this entertainment, however, The Accountant doesn’t have all that much to offer for a few reasons.
The first is that the story is a bit too complicated for its own good. Even without the flashbacks to Christian’s upbringing, this film would still be struggling to keep its narrative as simple as possible. So it should be no surprise that parts of this film consist almost solely of exposition, most of which comes from Raymond King. In fact, if you removed this Treasury Department storyline from the film, I don’t think anything would change—more reason to believe that it’s only there to reveal critical information to the audience.
That leads to the biggest problem with the story: it’s just not creative enough. The Accountant had a good enough premise to really deliver a good story but doesn’t. With more focus and attention to certain scenes, this film could have been great. The writing just couldn’t come up with better reveals for the twists in the film and couldn’t execute some of its best scenes. What could have been a really suspenseful thriller centered on a mysterious character became a standard film that explained everything to you instead.
Still, The Accountant was entertaining. It featured a good performance, some surprising humor, and effective action. The story was a little muddled and the film should have found better ways of revealing information, but I still had a good time watching this movie. I just wish it had lived up to the potential I’m sure it had.
Hacksaw Ridge Review
Grand Total: 9 ½
Technical
Engaging 6
Suspenseful +1
Moving +1
An amazing scene (pushed back) +½
Epic in scale +½
Great performance/character (Andrew Garfield as Desmond Doss) +½
Great music +½
Total: 10
Overall impression
Hacksaw Ridge is about Desmond Doss, a poor man from Virginia who wanted to be a medic in the army in World War II despite strong religious convictions against violence. Instead of killing people, he would be saving them, as he put it. The first half of the film explores his life before the war and during the enlistment process (which is difficult, as he won’t touch a gun). The second half hits you with the war at Hacksaw Ridge, this obstacle the U.S. forces are trying to conquer. When these scenes hit, they hit with such ferocity and scary helplessness that this film becomes one of the most powerful films I’ve ever seen.
But before we even get to the war scenes, we have to talk about the first half of this film. This half is far slower than what follows, but is ultimately necessary in learning about and understanding Desmond and why he is so steadfast about nonviolence. We see his family troubles and how his father lost his friends serving in World War I. These details are essential in giving serious weight to later scenes. We also see what Desmond goes through as his fellow soldiers despise his refusal to pick up a weapon during training and his superiors punish him for it. These scenes are necessary to this narrative but just less engaging.
Once Desmond reaches Hacksaw Ridge and the battles erupt, this film rises to a level of terror and horror that is difficult to describe. You understand why Desmond’s father ended up the way he did because the same things happen to Desmond. There are a few scenes here that completely floored me. And all of this happened before Desmond actually saves anyone. When he actually does save people, it represents such a catharsis for him after all of the suffering he’d gone through to get there.
The battle scenes feel epic and the acting is great all across the board (though the accents are not). Andrew Garfield’s accent and acting are both in top form throughout the entirety of this film. Hugo Weaving also gives a great performance as Desmond’s father; his accent is a little off but he gives so much weight to so many important scenes and is necessary to our understanding of Desmond’s ideology. Other good performances include Sam Worthington (his accent is spotty too), Vince Vaughn, Teresa Palmer, and Luke Bracey. The score is also really effective during those war scenes.
Overall, Hacksaw Ridge is one of the best films I’ve seen all year. It’s also one of the best war films I’ve ever seen. Even more incredible still is that it’s about a pacifist. The acting is very good all around. The score is great and the scale is epic. The first half is a little slow but the payoff is very moving when you get to Hacksaw Ridge. I would definitely recommend seeing this film.
Total: 9
Arrival Review
Grand Total: 7 ¼
Technical
Watchable 4
Suspenseful +1
Moving +1
Thought-provoking +1
An amazing scene (time bomb translation) +½
Amazing cinematography +½
Great performance/character (Amy Adams as
Dr. Louise Banks) +½
Obvious plothole -½
Uneven tone -½
Total: 7 ½
Overall impression
Arrival is about, well, the arrival of mysterious spacecraft on earth. One touches down in Montana, so the U.S. military leaders want a simple question answered: “why are they here?” To answer the question, they request the help of acclaimed linguist Dr. Louise Banks (Amy Adams) and theoretical physicist Ian Donnelly (Jeremy Renner) to start communicating with the alien lifeforms inside the spacecraft. This film offers an interesting character study, an interesting look at communication and language, and a depiction of how the world might react to the arrival of aliens.
The film takes a while to actually show the spacecraft that have landed, which works quite nicely; it builds up the reveal and then delivers it in a phenomenal landscape shot that revolves around the spacecraft and just feels huge. The first half of this film is quite slow, but is gorgeous to look at and quite effective in building suspense. By the time Dr. Banks gets onto the alien ship (which is really disorienting with some changes in gravity), I was locked in.
Peppered into the film are some sequences of Dr. Banks’ daughter and the bond they share. Generally speaking, these scenes fit quite well into the film. Still, there were a few instances where they just felt jarring and out of place. They are definitely important to the story, but didn’t always feel like they were appropriate.
The film goes on for almost its entire length until some information is revealed that fundamentally changes the entire film. If you pay attention, you’ll see that this “twist” was set up throughout, but it still requires a huge suspension of disbelief that I just could not do. To make matters worse, the film wraps up so quickly after the reveal that it didn’t really have the time to justify itself. Moreover, the characters start to act in ways that just don’t make any sense. It tries to deliver a hopeful message, but just stumbles and falls en route and then abruptly ends.
Overall, Arrival was well-shot and carried about some worthy themes in a suspenseful atmosphere that just blew me away at times. But it developed pacing, character, and plot issues in its climactic moments that compromised all that had come before. These weren’t completely out of nowhere, but they were jarring and could have been solved with just a little more time. I can’t ignore how fantastic the middle portion of this film is, but I also can’t say I wasn’t disappointed by the ending.
Total: 7
The Edge of Seventeen Review
Grand Total: 8 ¼
Technical
Engaging 6
Moving +1
An amazing scene (you’re right about everything) +½
Great performance/character (Hailee Steinfeld as Nadine) +½
Great writing +½
Total: 8 ½
Overall impression
The Edge of Seventeen is about Nadine (Hailee Steinfeld), a high school junior who suffered a huge loss in the family a few years ago. She’s bitter and annoyed at how life has turned out and resents her brother Darian (Blake Jenner) who just seems unfairly perfect. and now feels betrayed by her only friend Krista who seems to be prioritizing other people. Throw in a hilarious teacher played by Woody Harrelson and some real emotion and you have a stellar coming-of-age story that I was pleasantly surprised by.
There was a lot to like in this film. I wouldn’t call it a comedy, but there was a lot of humor, especially from Woody Harrelson. A lot of humor also came from the situational awkwardness of so many scenes. Nadine is a pretty awkward person, but one of the characters in this film, Erwin, is hundreds of times more awkward. Usually I don’t like awkward humor but it works in this film because Nadine’s self-loathing is driven by her awkwardness.
The performances are really good too. Hailee Steinfeld has only really had smaller roles since her fantastic performance in True Grit, playing smaller characters in often mediocre movies. I’m so glad this film lets her really shine. Blake Jenner is really good as her brother too, giving a layered character some really powerful scenes towards the end. Even Woody Harrelson’s teacher character works on multiple levels.
What I’m really getting at here is that the writing in this film is pretty stellar. Not a single line of dialogue felt like it was fake or written for a movie. All of the characters had depth beyond what you might expect in a comedy or even your standard coming-of-age film.
Unfortunately, the film isn’t without some flaws. Though I love the writing of the dialogue, the writing of the story is just a little messy in the middle of the film. There are just a few too many stories and characters set in motion for everybody to get enough time to shine. A lot of time is given to Erwin while less time was given to Krista, who should have been a little more central to the story. Still, it’s impressive enough as it is that all of these characters had real depth.
Overall, The Edge of Seventeen delivered a solid coming-of-age story with layered characters, clever dialogue, and some real emotion towards the end. When characters feel something, you feel it too. Even though Nadine is such a bitter person, you feel for her pain and the seeming hopelessness of her situation.
Total: 8
Moonlight Review
Grand Total: 6 ¼
Technical
Watchable 4
Moving +1
An amazing scene (in the restaurant) +½
Great performance/character (Trevante Rhodes
as older Chiron) +½
Amazing cinematography +½
Total: 6 ½
Overall impression
Moonlight is a film about Chiron, a black man growing up in a particularly difficult environment; his father is never mentioned, his mother (Naomie Harris) is a drug addict, and he just never feels like he belongs or can relate to any of the other children his age. The film’s story is told in three parts: one of a very young Chiron, one of a teenage Chiron, and one of an adult Chiron. Each part is more and more personal as the audience gets closer and closer to Chiron as a person.
This movie feels real. It feels like you’ve just happened on footage into three parts of someone’s life. You see how each part flows into the next. Nothing else is going on. Apart from the very intimate and personal camerawork, there isn’t anything technically brilliant going on in this film. Everything rests in how this type of character portrayal affects you; you’ll either be blown away or a little bored. For me, unfortunately, I watched this film, appreciated its storytelling and complex character, but was not particularly engaged. There are a few story elements that felt forced and broke the spell of this film being genuine, particularly during Chiron’s teenage phase. And yet, you see how each of the stories meshes with the others and the evolution of the character is very well-executed.
Definitely worth mentioning as a positive in Moonlight is the acting. The actors who portray Chiron in each of the three phases do a fantastic job. In particular, Trevante Rhodes does an amazing job as the adult Chiron. There are a lot of parallels between this adult Chiron and Juan (Mahershala Ali), a character who appears primarily in the first stage of the film. And yet, this Chiron still remains familiar as there are certain mannerisms that Rhodes incorporates into the character that are also seen in the two previous stages of the film. This parallelism made the third stage particularly compelling for me.
Overall, Moonlight had fantastic acting, great camerawork, and an interesting way of telling its story, but it just wasn’t that engaging for me. Instead, I respect how intimately and personally we get to know Chiron and how much that is a result of the way this film is executed.
Total: 6
La La Land Review
Grand Total: 10
Technical
Engaging 6
Moving +1
Suspenseful +1
Thought-provoking +1
An amazing scene (tell a story) +½
Amazing cinematography +½
Great performance/character (Emma Stone as Mia) +½
Great music +½
Great songs +½
Total: 10 (11 ½)
Overall impression
La La Land is about Mia (Emma Stone), an actress struggling to get noticed and Sebastian (Ryan Gosling), a jazz pianist struggling to keep jazz alive as it slowly dies around him. They meet by chance and form a relationship that explores the role of passion, compromise, music, creativity, self-discovery, and art in a masterfully crafted, gorgeous musical.
There is so much to love about La La Land. From its beautiful set pieces to its catchy songs, this film is simply a delight to watch from start to finish. The very first musical number sets the mood for the entire picture. Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone shine as two very different people who just happen to be in the right place at the right time. Each actor brings a different kind of passion to each character. The first half of the film is dedicated to establishing each character and the setting, creating almost a dreamlike atmosphere of Old Hollywood that is just buzzing with excitement. And yet, it never lets you forget that it takes place in the present day, with remnants of this Old Hollywood slowly fading away.
A few things really turn this film from great into fantastic. Those are the editing, the cinematography, the lighting, and the music. As in Whiplash, director Damien Chazelle’s previous film, the editing in La La Land is almost in perfect synchronization with the music. The first scene in the film is a four minute musical number that seems like it was captured in one continuous shot. This kind of perfect blend of cinematography and editing never ceases to amaze. All of La La Land looks gorgeous and inviting, just as the remnants of Old Hollywood and the dreams of the characters are. The lighting in this film often provides a spotlight for characters in meaningful moments as the camera swirls around them; this blend is just so fitting for the tone of the film. The music and songs are also a perfect fit. Justin Hurwitz, the film’s composer, has put together a terrific score that perfectly embodies Old Hollywood with a touch of realism and themes for each character. The music feels new and hopeful, yet old and nostalgic at the same time; something about it just feels familiar. The songs are also a perfect embodiment of this film’s themes. I would recommend experiencing the film before listening to the soundtrack so you can associate the tracks with the themes in the movie; this will give everything more meaning.
There is really too much to talk about when it comes to La La Land. As entertaining as this film is, I can’t stop thinking about its various themes and how they are explored; I can’t stop thinking about what the film has to say about chasing dreams and settling, about financial success and personal success, about what people think about you versus what you think about yourself. The characters in this film really put themselves out there to be judged in the pursuit of their dreams, and you really see what it means to them. This film makes you confused about how to feel because there aren’t clear answers to some of the questions it raises. Everyone can get something out of this film, and I can’t wait to see it again and find something new to appreciate.
Total: 10
The Jungle Book (2016) Review
Grand Total: 9
Technical
Engaging 6
Moving +1
Suspenseful +1
Kids movie +1
An amazing scene (the red flower) +½
Great performance/character (Shere Khan) +½
Epic in scale +½
Amazing visuals +½
Great music +½
Obvious plothole -½
Total: 10 (11)
Overall impression
The Jungle Book is a retelling of the famous Rudyard Kipling story whose most famous incarnation is perhaps the 1967 Disney animated film. I have made it no secret that I despise the animated version of the film so, despite the fact that this new film was getting rave reviews, I still lacked excitement for it. Well, I was wrong. This film is probably the best live-action Disney remake out there.
In a nutshell, this film is about Mowgli (played by Neet Sethi and the only thing in this film not created by computers), a young boy raised by wolves in the jungle who has to survive against a vengeful tiger named Shere Khan (voiced by Idris Elba). Unlike in the Disney animated version, Shere Khan is a real threat in this film. He might have even been my favorite character, as Idris Elba’s voice just oozes cool menace. The other voice actors, which include Bill Murray as Baloo the lazy bear, Christopher Walken as King Louie the singing orangutan (he actually sings), and Ben Kingsley as Bagheera the protective panther, are all fantastic. The child actor who plays Mowgli cannot have had a lot of help with his acting, seeing as everything else was computer-generated, and he was still pretty good.
The film is also a technical marvel, as you might expect. The visual effects (especially the environments) look fantastic. Some of the imagery this film is about to conjure in a particular sequence involving fire just looks amazing. Moreover, the music by composer John Debney was outstanding. The film also impressively switches locations a lot, such that you get not just the jungle but also mountains and savannas, all feeling just as real.
The only real issues I have with the film concern its story. As much as I appreciated the fact that this version was both more involved and darker than the Disney animated version, some of the flaws still carry over. Bagheera still makes some questionable decisions when it comes to protecting Mowgli (which is his job). The story itself is fairly predictable, and not because I’ve seen it before; the story in this film is quite different from both the book and from the 1967 film. Other than that, I am comfortable calling The Jungle Book a fantastic film for both adults and children.
Overall, The Jungle Book was a fantastic adventure filled with incredible visual effects, great voice work, good music, and a real story. The characters worked really well in the story, with Shere Khan being my personal favorite. Unlike its 1967 predecessor, I would highly recommend The Jungle Book.
Total: 8
Sing Street Review
Grand Total: 9 ½
Technical
Engaging 6
Moving +1
An amazing scene (final performance) +½
Really funny +½
Amazing story/plot +½
Great performance/character (Lucy Boynton as Raphina) +½
Great songs +½
Great writing +½
Total: 10
Overall impression
Sing Street is a musical film about a band that forms in Synge Street, a state school, fronted by Conor “Cosmo” Lalor. Cosmo has never been in a band, but says that he is to impress Raphina, a young model who doesn’t go to school. From there, the band just takes off.
This film feels like an adventure, with writing that makes all of the performances feel natural and all of the events feel like they could have actually happened. As a result, there is so much emotion captured by everything these characters do. When they are having a good time, you feel amazing. When they are sad, you feel it. There is such an authenticity to everything featured in this film that everything feels real. An example of this is in a scene where Cosmo and Raphina are walking through a park and a leaf falls on Raphina, who just brushes it off and keeps the scene going as if nothing happened. I don’t think the filmmakers planned that, and the fact that it worked so well is a credit to the performances.
What I also really appreciated about this film is its spirit. It celebrates what you can do with your life if you want to. There are some great comparisons to be made between Cosmo and his brother Brendan, who played guitar but never really did anything with it. Brendan has a lot to say about risk in music, and how you have to get out there and risk being laughed at if you want to actually become something. You see a lot of this happening with Cosmo’s band as well, as they struggle to actually be respected by the other students at their school.
The only real problem I have with this film is in its drama. As I said before, there is some good comparisons to make between Cosmo and his brother and what they’ve done differently. This creates some drama, but not nearly as much as the marriage troubles their parents are going through. There were times when this was handled well and times when it wasn’t handled too well. It plays nicely into Cosmo’s songs and also into how Cosmo can connect with Raphina (who also has parental problems). On the other hand, it just doesn’t really add to Cosmo’s character. There are times when Cosmo reacts to these problems in confusing ways that I just did not understand. Maybe I just can’t relate to these situations, but it just seemed like the film made some strange choices when showing how Cosmo deals with troubles at home. Luckily, this only happens in the middle of the film and really doesn’t take away from the overall experience.
From the upbeat songs to the genuine emotion of these kids discovering what they can do together, Sing Street is a film that celebrates risk and actually doing something with your life. It harkens back to a time when making rash decisions was the only source of good stories. I left this film with a huge smile on my face, looking forward to the next time.
Total: 9
Keanu Review
Grand Total: 5 ¾
Technical
Engaging 6
An amazing scene (George Michael) +½
Really funny +½
Too long -1
Obvious plothole -½
Total: 5 ½
Overall impression
Keanu is about Rell (Jordan Peele) and Clarence (Keegan-Michael Key), childhood friends who get involved with a cat named Keanu. Rell is having trouble settling down while Clarence is married and has a daughter. The cat appears to Rell, solving his loneliness problem. Little does he know, however, that the cat belonged to a Mexican Drug Cartel leader. What happens next makes up the film.
Now, I wasn’t sure that this premise could make up an entire film, but it does pretty well. The chemistry between this famous comedic duo works really well in the film. The various situations they end up in create some great humor, especially since they, as you might have guessed from the premise, get mixed up with drug dealers.
I mean, this film was really enjoyable. I don’t think any scene in particular had me in stitches, but the film overall was good enough to keep me engaged. The story is serviceable and the performances are fun. There isn’t much else to say except that this is harmless fun.
Total: 6
The Lobster Review
Grand Total: 6
Technical
Watchable 4
Thought-provoking +1
Suspenseful +1
Great performance/character (Colin Farrell as David) +½
Boring part -½
Total: 6
Overall impression
The Lobster is one of the most bizarre films I have ever seen. It’s about David (Colin Farrell), a man who visits a hotel for people who are required to find a partner within 45 days. If they don’t, they will be turned into an animal of their choice which, in David’s case, is a lobster.
The real key to understanding this film is in understanding the atmosphere in this hotel; it makes finding a partner into the most robotic and emotionless experience ever, which makes the entire film incredibly bizarre. I mean, this film is really weird, to the point where some scenes are hilarious, some scenes are horrifying, and I get the feeling that it was all intentional. Seriously, this film jumps between different tones without anything seeming uneven, it’s ridiculous. Add some chaotic music and you have quite a strange film.
Yet, within the strangeness is a sort of commentary that becomes pretty clear the longer the film goes on. There is so much to say here about how emotionless and strange relationships can be in a more digital era, where people are matched up by a computer (not that that can’t work, just that it may give that impression). It also has a lot to say about how desperate some people are for both a partner and for celibacy; yes, the film does present that other side in its own strange way, as if there is no middle ground.
But for all of the film’s thought-provoking themes, the central narrative itself is not all that compelling. There were moments in this film when I felt myself getting bored. Luckily, just as I was truly setting into boredom, however, the film would add a new element of the story that would pique my interest. Still, those boring parts stick out.
Overall, I’d say that this film is definitely not for everyone. Colin Farrell’s deadpan performance was really interesting and fit the film very well; I completely bought into him as the character, but the story itself isn’t as good as the themes it evokes. There is a lot to digest here and you’ll probably continue to process it long after walking out of the theater. It’s a hard film to recommend because of how weird it is but if the premise sounds appealing, you may get a lot out of it.
Total: 6
Don't Think Twice Review
Grand Total: 7 ½
Technical
Engaging 6
Suspenseful +1
Thought-provoking +1
Moving +1
An amazing scene (first sketch) +½
Too long -1
Uneven tone -½
Total: 8
Overall impression
Don’t Think Twice is a film about a group of improv comedians called The Commune that has been around for a while with members moving into the group and then out to various other venues. Probably the highest-prestige venue in this film is called Weekend Live, and several of the members are trying to get in there. So what happens if a recruiter from Weekend Live comes a performance by The Commune? What if one of the members makes it? How will that affect the group? This film explores all of that in a really difficult-to-watch runtime.
The first thing to talk about is how this film presents stand-up comedy. I think the first scene or so in the film is this group doing a sketch; everything feels real, fresh, and genuinely really enjoyable and entertaining. The way they explain how this type of comedy works you can see happening right on screen in front of you, and the performances all feel natural. This continues for the duration of the film.
Unfortunately, this film does have a pretty quick pace, at least in the first half, and things progress very quickly. The first half of this film had me thinking about all sorts of difficulties one could face in this kind of career-path and how difficult it must be to watch people make it around you while you sit in place. But this doesn’t quite mesh with what follows, because the film slows down quite a lot in the second half, featuring a lot of moments when I thought it was over and then it continued on. There were definitely some important scenes in this second half that I don’t want the movie to be without, but I think they just aren’t stitched together in a manner that flows nicely and feels tonally consistent, which brings me to the ending of this film. The ending does not really fit what preceded it in tone and in character. It was a little unbelievable and took me out of the movie quite a bit.
Still, despite the tonal flaws, I would really recommend this film. It feels a little too long but isn’t actually that long and provides a lens into a branch of comedy that I hadn’t given much thought to, and posits some existential questions about life and the career-choices we make in any field. The title very much suits the subject material in how we should think about how decisions we make affect those around us and those we depend on. It is a little heavy and dramatic, but I wouldn’t think twice about recommending this film, go check it out.
Total: 7
Remember Review
Grand Total: 5 ¾
Technical
Engaging 6
Suspenseful +1
Obvious plothole -½
Total: 6 ½
Overall impression
Remember is about Zev (Christopher Plummer), an Auschwitz survivor with dementia who, upon escaping from his nursing home, goes out on a mysterious quest perpetrated by Max (Martin Landau), another Auschwitz survivor at the nursing home. Zev seems to be looking for someone connected to their time at Auschwitz.
This story takes a little while to tell you exactly what it’s going to be about, which serves it well because you’re pretty engaged by the mystery and after you know what’s happening, you see how simple the story is. Christopher Plummer does a great job of giving Zev some personality and determination, even if his character is a little underwritten and the movie itself just doesn’t have anything complex to offer. It’s a competently made film and can be fairly engaging in parts. But after the purpose of this man’s journey is revealed, the story becomes pretty simple. It is rather forgettable as a whole since there really isn’t anything new going on anywhere in the film.
Total: 5
Central Intelligence Review
Grand Total: 4
Technical
Watchable 4
Really funny +½
Obvious plothole -½
Total: 4
Overall impression
Central Intelligence is a film about Calvin Joyner (Kevin Hart), an accountant whose high school dreams of success just haven’t been realized. He meets up with Bob Stone (Dwayne Johnson), an old high school friend whose life is practically the opposite; he used to be the bullied fat kid but now he’s a jacked up spy. Stone accidentally gets Joyner mixed up in a terrorist plot and the story goes from there.
The premise is easy enough to understand and relate to. The characters are enjoyable and likeable. Kevin Hart plays against type, as Calvin is a more down-to-earth, sad character who just wants some peace and quiet while Bob is still a teenager trapped inside Dwayne Johnson’s body. The chemistry between the two is really great and produces some great laughs. The movie isn’t absolutely hilarious, but I found myself laughing frequently at Calvin and Bob’s antics.
The real problem with the film comes with the story itself, which is really ridiculous and unfocused. There are just too many cogs turning in this comedy for the story to actually work. I mean, you have Calvin trapped in some CIA operation with CIA agents messing with his life while Bob is doing his whole thing, which has something to do with account numbers or something (to make Calvin’s accountant job relevant, I suppose). When the story itself was chugging along, I found myself getting a little bored, because it just wasn’t as interesting or entertaining as the characters themselves.
Overall, Central Intelligence is a fun film featuring two characters with great chemistry. The premise was relatable and, when the movie stuck to that, it worked. But then there was also the story itself, which was just too complicated and made me wish for more comedy instead.
Total: 4
Miles Ahead Review
Grand Total: 5
Technical
Engaging 6
Obvious plothole -½
Uneven tone -½
Total: 5
Overall impression
Miles Ahead is a story about famous Jazz trumpet-player Miles Davis (Don Cheadle, who also directs), exploring why Miles suddenly dropped off the map for a few years while at the top of his game. The film follows report Dave Brill (Ewan McGregor) as he tries to interview Miles Davis, who is fighting his record company for possession of his newer music. Poured into the mix are bits and pieces of Davis’ earlier life including his marriage to dancer Francis Taylor.
This movie is a bit of a mess, with the present-day story much more messy and inconsistent than the pieces of Davis’ earlier life. Don Cheadle portrays Miles Davis as a kind of mystery that is just as inconsistent as the film he’s in. And yet, the film never slowed down or became uninteresting. Davis himself is not a likable person, but the film doesn’t try to sell you that likable version of the character. Instead, you just get an unfocused, sad, drug-addict. None of the present-day characters are particularly focused, partially because they never existed and were just written into the story as a way of bringing out what Don Cheadle thought was necessary to understanding Miles Davis. If messiness is what he intended, then this strategy worked. Unfortunately, that doesn’t leave behind a very good movie.
Overall, Miles Ahead tells a very messy story but does give you a sense as to what this person was like. The film doesn’t try to hide Miles Davis’ inner demons and troubled past, but shows him as a lost man. The movie suffers for it, but maybe that was what needed to happen for Don Cheadle’s vision of the character to be realized.
Total: 5
Aferim! Review
Grand Total: 3 ½
Technical
Watchable 4
Total: 4
Overall impression
Aferim! is a foreign film about a policeman and his son, traveling the Eastern European countryside in search of a runaway gypsy slave. Set in the early 1800s, the film follows these two as they meet up with various people from different countries on their way to getting this gypsy slave and finding out the circumstances around which he fled his master.
This film is mildly entertaining if only for the dialogue between the characters. It’s full of racism and sexism, spoken as if they are fact, and this film depicts a lot of vile treatment towards this gypsy slave and poor people in general. Sometimes it’s hard to watch, which is unfortunate because this film really doesn’t provide anything worth watching. The characters are thin and the entire film goes by without much of a point other than depicting this time period as disgusting and cruel.
Total: 3
Manchester By The Sea Review
Grand Total: 8 ¼
Technical
Engaging 6
Moving +1
An amazing scene (fire) +½
Great performance/character (Casey Affleck as Lee Chandler) +½
Great writing +½
Total: 8 ½
Overall impression
Manchester By The Sea is about Lee Chandler (Casey Affleck), a janitor from Boston whose brother dies, leaving behind a teenage son, Patrick (Lucas Hedges). The movie circles around Lee as he deals with figuring out what to do about the situation and why he is so averse to moving to Manchester to live with Patrick, especially since Lee grew up there.
The bleakness of this film is in full force throughout its runtime as the film begs the question “what happened to Lee that made him so bitter and angry?” There are many flashbacks shown in this film that don’t tell you they’re flashbacks but are simply presented as scenes to fill in the gaps and answer questions. For the first half-hour or so of this film, that question is just dying to be answered and, in one bombshell scene, the film does so. The rest of the movie is about his situation afterwards and how what happened to him is affecting him now. It’s really about whether or not he can get over it and the film just keeps on going as the answer becomes clearer and clearer.
The performances in this film are very good. Casey Affleck gives an incredibly restrained performance that makes you feel the pain of his past and makes you feel how uncomfortable he is being reminded of his past through the setting and through the new situation he’s in. Lucas Hedges does a good job as Lee Chandler’s nephew, though his role isn’t very broad and his character isn’t as well-written as some of the others. A big standout in this film is Michelle Williams, whose character I can’t really spoil. She isn’t in the film for that long but has one scene that is just fantastic towards the end of the film; she really made the most of her little screentime.
The writing in this film is also really well done. The way it answers its questions and toys with the audience, leaving them wanting more, is impressive. If the important scenes in this film were predictable because of poor writing, this film would not work nearly as well. Casey Affleck’s character is drastically different between the flashbacks and the present. The way he says little when reacting to this situation he’s in and when reacting to the hardship of the past really sells his pain.
The only problem I have with this film is that, given how it ends and the way it answers the questions addressed above, I can’t see myself rewatching it. After that bombshell scene I mentioned, this film won’t do much for you. The film does have a slow pace and has a lot of heavy subject material, so it may not be for everyone. I definitely got a lot out of it and think that many people will, but it’s not for everyone.
Total: 8
Midnight Special Review
Grand Total: 7 ¾
Technical
Engaging 6
Suspenseful +1
Thought-provoking +1
An amazing scene (sunrise) +½
Amazing cinematography +½
Uneven tone -½
Total: 8 ½
Overall impression
Midnight Special is about a boy with special abilities named Elden. His father, Roy (Michael Shannon), has been taking him to a special location on a certain date, for reasons unknown. All we do know is that he’s accompanied by Lucas, a friend of Roy’s and that they’re being followed by a cult treating Elden as a savior and by the government, as Elden’s powers allow him to detect secret satellite messages.
Yes, it’s complicated, but the film’s first half, when all of this is explained, is the best part. This first half is almost entirely buildup, with small bits of information given to you revealing more about the characters at hand. There is just so much to discuss in a film like this that it hardly feels fair to review it without giving anything away. So many elements of this story act to introduce a possibility of what this boy’s very existence could do to a person or to humanity. And when the buildup is happening for the first hour or so, you’re on the edge of your seat in anticipation and fear of what is to come.
The cinematography and performances really add to this film’s ability to draw you in immediately. The lighting in this film, especially at night, is beautiful. Night plays a big role in the buildup of this film, as Elden’s powers change between day and night. Moreover, the performances are often silent, making you think that the characters have an understanding about Elden that makes you just fearful of what you don’t know. This is fitting, as fear of the unknown is definitely a theme in this film.
Where the film doesn’t work, I feel, is in its payoff to the buildup. There were just too many different players in this film, many of which did not end up tying into the final story. What makes it a little bit more disappointing is that each of these players, so to speak, would have made a fantastic movie on its own. A film about how a cult reacts to a child with powers would be fascinating. A film about how much trust parents can put in themselves when their child is so clearly otherworldly would be a fantastic drama. There are just so many different bits of films that Midnight Special introduces without fully exploring, leaving you a little dissatisfied at the end, despite how intriguing the film was.
Overall, Midnight Special was full of great ideas, great cinematography, emotive performances, and great tension, but lacked the focus to tie together the many strings it strung along the way. Still, it is hard not to recommend this film just for the experience. The first half is incredibly strong, with the buildup to a sunrise that is really powerful.
Total: 7
Green Room Review
Grand Total: 6 ¼
Technical
Engaging 6
Suspenseful +1
Obvious plothole -½
Total: 6 ½
Overall impression
Green Room is about a punk-rock band that has been touring the country, barely managing to make enough money to the next stop. When an opportunity arrives for them to perform at a middle-of-nowhere Oregon club, they start to realize just how sketchy this place is. There are Neo-Nazi skinheads everywhere, the band crew sees something they weren’t supposed to see, and the club owner locks them in a room to figure out what to do with them. Green Room is about this band escaping.
It’s a really suspenseful and bloody experience for the lot of them. I mean, this movie really doesn’t hold back from depicting the violence. While there were a few moments where the gore seemed a bit excessive and unnecessary, it all added to the realism of this situation. What isn’t really that realistic, however, is what these band members do in this situation. I mean, everything that you could think of to not do in this situation, they do.
That having been said, all of the performances are believable and the film is shot well. The narrative itself is a little difficult to follow sometimes, as the film goes over a lot of the inner workings of this Neo-Nazi group. Still, you’d expect a movie like this to be shaky and incomprehensible in places, but Green Room stays sharp.
Overall, Green Room was an effective thriller that made the most out its situation to deliver suspense while staying as realistic as possible. The characters didn’t make the best decisions, and the narrative wasn’t always clear, but the movie delivered effective thrills.
Total: 6
Fences Review
Grand Total: 7 ¼
Technical
Watchable 4
Moving +1
Thought provoking +½
An amazing scene (the devil himself) +½
Great performance/character (Denzel Washington as Troy) +½
Great music +½
Great writing +½
Too long -1
Total: 6 ½
Overall impression
Fences is a story about a family in 1950’s Pittsburgh led by Troy (Denzel Washington) and Rose (Viola Davis). The film is centered around Troy and how his past experiences with racism and a difficult upbringing have affected his worldview, a worldview that affects everybody around him. The film is adapted from a play and it shows in the film, as almost everything shown on screen consists of a small group of characters talking to each other in one location.
As such, a few things have to be on point for the film to be good. The performances better be believable and the dialogue better drive the story and create rich characters. Fences checks off both of those boxes, at least for a while. This film is a difficult watch because it is so full of drama, but it’s worth your time to see just how effective this style can be. The performances from Denzel Washington and Viola Davis are tremendous, with Washington playing a somewhat difficult person and Davis playing his moderator. Another performance worth noting is from Jovan Adepo, who plays the family’s youngest son. The way his father’s worldview has affected the son is a large part of how effective this film is, because a lot of the drama is in that relationship and it works. The music works very well. It is used sparingly, only coming in at the end of a long scene to transition things along but it was effective each time it was used.
The one thing that took me a little out of the movie was the editing and the resulting pace. This film is over two hours long and, for the first hour or so, had me completely in its grasp. But the way this film is edited together makes it seem like it’s going to end in a few spots when the screen fades to black and, if the film had ended there, it would have been fitting. Then the screen brightens up again and the film continues. This happens a few times and really makes the film drag towards the end. The writing, performances, and drama were still very strong but, maybe there was only so much I could take of it after two hours, that the film just became a little repetitive and overblown.
Still, what this film has to say and the strong performances, writing, and musical choices make it one to watch. It is pretty heavy and dramatic, but this film’s study of the two leads is incredibly effective and thought-provoking. It does drag towards the end and the editing doesn’t help but this is a film I will definitely remember and continue to think about for its explorations of deep characters and changing times.
Total: 8
Lion Review
Grand Total: 8 ¾
Technical
Engaging 6
Moving +1
An amazing scene (reliving memories) +½
Amazing cinematography +½
Amazing story/plot +½
Great performance/character (Dev Patel as adult Saroo) +½
Great music +½
Total: 9 ½
Overall impression
Lion is a film about Saroo (Sunny Pawar), a very young Indian boy who, while out at night with his older brother, accidentally gets on a train that takes him over a thousand miles away from his family. Not only does he not know anybody, but this area in India speaks another language, making it difficult for him to survive, let alone find his family. This period of his life takes up about a third of the film. The next chapter in his story takes place some twenty years later. Saroo (now played by Dev Patel) now lives in Australia and starts to wonder about his long-lost family.
This incredible true story is told very well. The first chapter of this film tells you so much about this man’s life, things that will be re-explored in the second chapter. It also provides a view into the many lost children all over the world and what they must go through. Most movies about this type of story usually don’t spend as much time in the “getting lost” part of the story, but I’m so glad Lion chose to do that. You see, the thing this movie did so well was create a sense of pure nostalgia in its second act. It made me want to go back to my hometown and relive moments or places I used to go visit during my childhood. When the second act of this film shows you these places that were explored in the first act, you feel a sense of familiarity that adult Saroo feels. It’s amazing!
The performances are pretty good in this film. Dev Patel, who plays the older Saroo, does a fantastic job of portraying the sadness of imagining what his family has missed. Sunny Pawar, the younger actor, does a decent job, but the material he is given is very limited and some of the dialogue is a little poor.
The cinematography in this film is incredible and contributes quite a lot to the nostalgic feel you get towards the end. The way things are shot differently between the first and second acts of the film are subtle and effective. To top it off, the film just looks beautiful, especially at night. There are a number of really incredible aerial shots in the second chapter of the film that capture Saroo’s memories and childhood very well.
The only problems I have with the film concern its writing. The dialogue is a little clunky towards the beginning of the film. Saroo has an adoptive brother whose problems and their effect on the rest of the family are a little confusing. A girlfriend character is introduced in the second chapter whose relationship to the central story of Saroo finding his family is a little unclear. If the writing had been a little more focused, all of these problems would likely be resolved.
Apart from that, however, Lion was a great film that told an incredible story. It generated a lot of nostalgia and pushed that emotion very effectively. The cinematography and performances were great and helped the film feel as emotionally resonant as it did. I would definitely recommend watching this film and cannot wait to see it again.
Total: 8
Krisha Review
Grand Total: 6 ¾
Technical
Engaging 6
An amazing scene (first shot) +½
Amazing cinematography +½
Great performance/character (Krisha Fairchild as Krisha) +½
Total: 7 ½
Overall impression
Krisha is about Krisha, a woman who visits her estranged family for a Thanksgiving dinner. As she arrives, you can tell that something is just a little off, and you wonder what happened in the past that caused her to be separated by her family.
This film was made by a first-time director and features actors who haven’t been in a feature-length film before. Despite this, the film is pretty well-acted, well-directed, and quite well-shot. There is one revolving shot around a table that was synced with a particular character in the background that was impressive; you’ll know it when you see it. The camera is often positioned as if someone is eavesdropping on the family, which is quite in line with the film’s premise.
There isn’t a whole lot going on in this film, thematically, and some of the scenes are a little awkward, but for what it is, this small film is well-made and a great first film for director Trey Shults. It’s pretty dramatic and features a very damaged character, so know what you’re getting into; it can be a little hard to watch in parts. I wouldn’t go out of your way to see it, but it happen across it, check it out.
Total: 6
Hidden Figures Review
Grand Total: 8 ¾
Technical
Engaging 6
Moving +1
Suspenseful +1
An amazing scene (rocket trouble) +½
Really funny +½
Great performance/character (Taraji Henson
as Katherine Goble) +½
Great music +½
Bad performance/character (Jim Parsons as Paul Stafford) -½
Total: 9 ½
Overall impression
Hidden Figures is about Katherine Goble (Taraji Henson), Dorothy Vaughan (Octavia Spencer), and Mary Jackson (Janelle Monae), three black women working as computers for NASA in the early 1960s. Their group is segregated from the rest of NASA, and all three of our main characters have much bigger aspirations than what they’re being limited to. They get transferred to different groups at NASA where each struggle with different racial obstacles. The journey they go through is very crowd-pleasing and entertaining, with humor, great performances, and some real stakes.
I really enjoyed this film. It blends humor and drama very well to tell a serious narrative that you care about but always enjoy. As the film goes on, the main character becomes Katherine Goble. It does seem a little like the other two characters get sidelined a little bit, but the film is telling a true story in which the circumstances may have necessitated one story just having more to it, and I think the filmmakers did a very good job of balancing everything.
The performances really help keep things balanced. Taraji Henson does a fantastic job in the lead role, playing a woman who is just disrespected as a result of her race and gender for so long by the other mathematicians in her group, none of whom are willing to stand up for her. Janelle Monae is exploding with charisma as she plays Mary Jackson, who wants to be an engineer, something not easy for her due to segregation in the schools she needs to go to for the “necessary” education. Octavia Spencer also does a very good job in her role as Dorothy Vaughan, who supervises the computing group without having the position of a supervisor. Her clashes with another supervisor create some humor and powerful statements.
The only thing that didn’t work in this film was one performance from Jim Parsons, who plays the lead mathematician in Katherine Goble's lab. He always came across as fake and stale, as if the character wasn’t actually a human. The writing didn’t really help in his case, but he always stuck out like a sore thumb.
Apart from that, this film was very well-made. It has an unexpected amount of humor to it that made it particularly entertaining. The performances are (mostly) some of the best of the year and the film has some real stakes to it, perfectly captured in a scene towards the end of the movie about a fiery rocket. Definitely check this one out!
Total: 8
Nocturnal Animals Review
Grand Total: 9
Technical
Engaging 6
Suspenseful +1
An amazing scene (the highway) +½
Amazing cinematography +½
Great performance/character (Michael Shannon
as Bobby Andes) +½
Great music +½
Total: 9
Overall impression
Nocturnal Animals is a film about Susan Morrow (Amy Adams), an art gallery director unhappily married to a businessman. When he goes away to close a deal and she receives a book written by her ex-husband Edward (played by Jake Gyllenhaal), she starts to read the story and finds many parallels to their former life.
The story she reads is the best part of this film; it is an intensely terrifying and helpless situation that just gets worse and worse and worse. It features incredible performances too, from Michael Shannon as a police officer to an unhinged and terrifying Aaron Taylor-Johnson, whose character I can’t reveal. You need to see this film to understand just how good these two performances are. Michael Shannon delivers the lines in this film with such intense seriousness that it comes across as quite funny a lot of the time, which is intentional. Aaron Taylor-Johnson has always delivered serviceable performances but never really impressed me. He more than makes up for it here, in by far his best work to date. The story told here is just so compelling that you wish the entire film took place here.
And yet, the way the book’s story ties into the film’s story, which begins to recount Susan’s relationship with Edward, is pretty realized. In fact, it may be a little too obvious in a couple scenes. Still, I was impressed by how well the two stories were interconnected. This film is crafted very well and I was riveted for so much of it.
The music in this film deserves particular mention. It is haunting and sad, yet beautiful. There is really only one or two themes that plays in the film, but they just fills the room with depth each time they come up. Even in the first scene of this film, which was jarring and really started me off on a sour note, the music was phenomenal. The film’s composer, Abel Korzeniowski, deserves more work.
The cinematography is also quite good in this film, with many wide, atmospheric shots that just draw you in. I never thought once about the runtime of this film (except in the first scene); it was an immersive experience. I would highly recommend checking out Nocturnal Animals. It has some layers to it and features an incredibly intense story that completely stole the show. The performances were some of the best of the year and I look forward to watching this one again.
Total: 9
The Invitation Review
Grand Total: 6 ¾
Technical
Engaging 6
Suspenseful +1
An amazing scene (drinks) +½
Total: 7 ½
Overall impression
Everything not to do at a dinner party, characters do in this film. The Invitation is about a dinner party in which a group of old friends meet up for the first time in three years. Among this group are a divorced couple, Will and Eden, who are reuniting for the first time since a tragedy split their marriage. Things start a little awkward, as you might expect. But as the dinner party goes on, things get suspicious. Eden and her new husband, who are hosting this dinner party, invite some other guests, and it seems like their intentions are not just to reunite with their old friends.
It’s difficult to describe the premise of this film, but easy to describe its tone: things feel off. There is something wrong in the atmosphere, something wrong with how people are acting. Who are these other guests that were invited and why do they act so strangely? The tension mounts so well in this film, even before anything actually happens.
The direction in this film helps it achieve its atmosphere. But the writing doesn’t really do much to help. Beyond its premise, it doesn’t do anything original. As you might expect, one character feels uneasy while the others try to convince him that it’s just natural for things to feel awkward. There is a little bit of “are things actually off or just in his head” going on in this film, which is a little annoying because, of course, the answer should be obvious given the fact that this is a film.
But the film is still quite suspenseful and doesn’t let you know immediately what’s off until you get into it a little bit. It was effective, especially towards the beginning, and I would recommend it.
Total: 6
Split Review
Grand Total: 6 ¾
Technical
Engaging 6
Suspenseful +1
Great performance/character (James McAvoy as Kevin) +½
Total: 7 ½
Overall impression
Split is a film about three girls abducted by Kevin (James McAvoy), a man with split personalities. Some of his personalities aren’t as enthusiastic about keeping the girls captive but all hint towards them being kept for something important. Among these three girls is Casey (Anya Taylor-Joy), who has a troubled past and tries her best to cleverly trick different personalities to let her and the other girls out.
The result is an entertaining film anchored by a fantastic performance from James McAvoy. While the suspense dies down pretty quickly, the film fills in the gap with intrigue. You see, this film spends a good deal of time exploring Kevin’s psyche and the mechanics of how his brain works. James McAvoy does a terrific job of playing all of the roles, giving them all distinct personalities and quirks that make them very distinguishable, and the constant close-up shots of his face make sure you don’t miss the differences. Watching him switch from one to the next was simply a blast and one character in particular, Hedwig, was very funny.
As I said, this film spends a good deal of time exploring Kevin’s character. During that period, the film spends a lot of time between Kevin and his psychiatrist, which consists of a lot of exposition to explain things to the audience. The film slows down in these parts and loses a little bit of steam, especially since the kidnapped girls are no longer the focus of the film. The focus is further distorted when scenes of Kevin with his psychiatrist are mixed in with flashbacks from Casey’s past that don’t seem to be in the right sequence. They are all relevant, but just aren’t meshed together properly.
Still, this film is an entertaining watch. There is a twist at the end that begins with a musical cue I was very glad to pick up on. You might not understand it right away, as it requires a little homework, but it changes the nature and believability of all that came before, significantly improving it for me. If it weren’t for the twist, I would have said this film was decent but not worth going out of your way to see. With the twist, I appreciated it more. Just keep in mind that this film doesn’t work very well as simply a suspense thriller. You will need to believe the premise to be able to appreciate it.
Total: 6
John Wick Review
Grand Total: 7 ¼
Technical
Engaging 6
Suspenseful +1
An amazing scene (club fight) +½
Total: 7 ½
Overall impression
John Wick is a very entertaining action film starring Keanu Reeves as an ex-professional assassin who’s lost his wife recently but still has a part of her left as her last gift to him was a dog. John Wick and his dog manage pretty well together as this company is something that he has sorely missed. Then a group of thugs break into his house, beat him up, kill his dog, and steal his car. One of these thugs is the son of a very wealthy Russian entrepreneur who knows quite a bit about John Wick. As such, he is horrified that his son was stupid enough to light the fuse that is John Wick. He calls John Wick in an attempt to appease him but, as you might expect, John Wick is not someone to be appeased. This sets off the movie, where John Wick goes after these thugs and everything they’re worth.
Given the simple premise, this film makes the most of it by attempting to be as entertaining as possible. Many of the setpieces it introduces are used incredibly well to produce such entertainment as John Wick is pretty much an unstoppable force against as many people as are pit against him. The first fight scene in the film has about twenty henchmen invade his home only to be slaughtered by the man on his home turf. John Wick retaliates explosively, tracking down just about all of the criminals to a huge, multi-floor nightclub that serves as the best action setpiece in the film. It is used so well to both blot out the noise of gunshots and stabbings, and have the light be a major distraction as most of the time you can’t see the assailants coming your way and they can’t see you. The movie plays this up as half of the shots miss and the only time John Wick actually takes people out is right up next to them.
All of this having been said, the plot of this movie is very simple and not a whole lot happens other than what I have mentioned. The film spends a lot of time building up its world and the various people that live in it, such as Willem Dafoe’s sniper character, and they’re interesting, giving the film a unique vibe. Still, they slow the film down.
This film is similar to Taken in that it consists of one man going up against a slew of criminals after one thing. In Taken, the goal is much more secure and these is a lot of mystery involved in figuring out who it is in the first place that needs to be found. In this movie, the motive is just revenge, and John Wick already knows who did it and who they work for. This makes the film more straightforward, but also a little less compelling.
In short, the story in this film is a bit lacking but the entertainment value makes it worthwhile anyway and it does a lot of good with its setpieces. There isn’t anything necessarily wrong with this movie; it’s just that a lot of things could have been made better or more interesting.
Total: 7
John Wick: Chapter 2 Review
Grand Total: 5 ¾
Technical
Engaging 6
Suspenseful +1
Obvious plothole -½
Total: 6 ½
Overall impression
John Wick: Chapter 2 is the follow-up to the hit action film John Wick that I enjoyed for what it was but felt that the story was a little lacking. This film doesn’t have a story, but more on that later. Explaining the premise is a little difficult, but essentially John Wick is coaxed into killing an important crime boss’ rival. One of the two will soon be appointed to a seat at the top of the crime ring. That’s all that this film needs as an excuse to start its action. From there, John Wick goes on a killing spree against his target. Once that’s done, the film makes excuses for him to keep fighting something.
And it’s an entertaining time. The opening scene of this film makes fun of the first film and how John Wick needs so little motivation to go kill a bunch of people. Keanu Reeves perfectly delivers John Wick’s ridiculously serious lines that often produce laughs at how serious their delivery is. The action setpieces are great as usual, and the film’s finale takes place in New York, so there are many landmarks and places to make for good action setpieces. I would say the film has two settings: one being Rome and the other New York. Each was home to a great setpiece. In Italy, the setpiece was a concert and catacombs. In New York, it was a museum exhibit of glass mirrors. They were each creatively used.
The problem with this film is that it only contains setpieces, not scenes. The “story” in this film only exists for John Wick to creatively kill people in different locations. But there is no drama or reason for any of it. John Wick has such poor motivation for so much of the film, because so much of this film is taken up by him shooting people in the head. He’s also pretty invincible; people can’t actually shoot him unless they’re right on top of him. When he gets shot, he shows no change in his fighting, as if these wounds don’t affect him. There is a scene in this film where ten people with automatic weapons are chasing him down a hall with no exits, and none of them can hit him. It’s just so ridiculous that you get disengaged from the film. The only thing this film has to offer is entertainment value from pure action. Action without either drama or comedy just gets boring. I wasn’t bored during the first watch of this film, but I imagine I will be on repeat viewings.
Overall, John Wick 2 is an entertaining movie but has no story or drama. The movie’s premise exists just as an excuse to give John Wick a gun for him to shoot a number of nameless, faceless strangers. It’s all well-shot, well-choreographed, and well-executed, but it exists without consequences or real meaning. Apart from surface-level action entertainment, why does this film exist?
Total: 5
Beauty and the Beast (2017) Review
Grand Total: 5 ¼
Technical
Engaging 6
Great performance/character (Kevin Kline as Maurice) +½
Great music +½
Uneven tone -½
Overuse of effects -½
Obvious plothole -½
Total: 5 ½
Overall impression
Beauty and the Beast (2017) is the latest of Disney’s live-action remakes of its classic animated features, following the successes of Alice In Wonderland (2010), Cinderella (2015), and The Jungle Book (2016) most recently. All of these films proved to be quite profitable, and so Disney will continue to remake its old properties until the money runs out. In some instances, these remakes have added to the original in some beneficial way (Cinderella (2015)) or simply been much better than the animated film (The Jungle Book (2016)). Both of these are good reasons for remaking a property. When it comes to the animated Beauty and The Beast, I find very little reason to remake the film. It was a huge success when it was released (1991 really isn’t that long ago), was great then and holds up incredibly well. From a quality perspective, I was worried that remaking the film would be of no use. Except for in a couple small details, my fears were fully realized. This remake takes a timeless story, beautifully animated, and tries to recreate it with a computer. Plotpoints are the same, and everything looks and sounds computerized, but the magic is gone.
Let’s start with the performances, which is where we can find some positives in the story. The portrayal of Maurice (Kevin Kline) in this film is much more subtle and warm than in the original. The character has more to do and more history in this film thanks to a few additional scenes, and Kevin Kline’s performance made the character feel real. Gaston (Luke Evans) and LeFou (Josh Gad) are both very enjoyable to watch and do a good job with their over-the-top roles. The big duds come in the portrayal of Belle (Emma Watson) and The Beast (Dan Stevens). Emma Watson is decent in her role, but nearly all of the changes made to this film expand the supporting cast, meaning that Belle’s role has been reduced significantly to the point where it feels like so much of the film is happening around her. Her singing sounds highly computerized, which doesn’t help the film’s aesthetic, which is highly computerized as it is. That brings me to the beast, who is so evidently computerized that he doesn’t ever feel like a real character. The effects are surprisingly poor for a film carrying a $170 million budget, which does a lot of harm when they are responsible for one of the film’s central characters.
Even if the effects and performances are a bit of a mixed bag, the production is still pretty good. The castle has been expanded quite nicely, with a lot of nice scenery added. The music (again by Alan Menken) is nice, adding two new themes that were both pleasant and welcome. The movie is pretty well-paced, and fairly entertaining and humorous the whole way through. I appreciated the additional depth given to Maurice, even if it is told through the use of a new magical object that is used for one scene and then never mentioned again. While I enjoyed watching this version, the animated film is better in practically every way. It feels more alive, more beautiful, and more vibrant than this remake.
Total: 5
Life Review
Grand Total: 6 ¼
Technical
Engaging 6
Suspenseful +1
An amazing scene (cold) +½
Amazing visuals +½
Obvious plothole -½
Total: 7 ½
Overall impression
Life is about a group of scientists at the International Space Station (ISS) who discover cellular life from soil samples on Mars. This lifeform is studied and nurtured aboard the ISS, growing rapidly. But when one of the scientists shocks it in an attempt to revive it after an accident, it attacks. The rest of the film is about how the remaining scientists try to contain this creature, and ultimately try to survive.
Life is a competently made film. The performances are fine, the production value is pretty high, the effects and sound design are all very good. What holds this film back is its lackluster writing, which never seeks to add anything new to a premise that has been spawning films for over thirty-five years. There are moments of suspense, for sure, and the film is entertaining in its own right, but I really couldn’t tell you one thing this film does better than Alien, a film similar in both premise and execution.
There are plenty of themes that this film could have explored just from its premise. Will creatures do whatever is necessary to survive? What does the discovery of advanced alien life mean for humanity? How will humans react to the introduction of a potentially more advanced species? These questions may have been explored more deeply in another kind of movie. Life and Alien both go for more of a thriller type of approach to executing this premise.
There is only one scene in this film that stood out as particularly impressive, and it had to do with a change in temperature within the ISS. It suddenly gets quite cold, and the actors really look as if they were trying to speak in frigid temperatures. Colder temperatures affect speech quite a bit, which was very accurately reflected in this film. While this might seem inconsequential, I was impressed and it stood out from what was otherwise a fairly standard film.
Overall, Life was an entertaining film that was just a little too familiar. It’s lack of creativity was a bit of a letdown, as I was hoping for a little more than just “monster movie” this film is. You will likely be entertained while watching it, only to forget it within a week.
Total: 5
The Big Sick Review
Grand Total: 8
Technical
Engaging 6
Moving +1
Thought-provoking +1
An amazing scene (9/11) +½
Really funny +½
Great performance/character (Kumail Nanjiani as himself) +½
Too long -1
Uneven tone -½
Total: 8
Overall impression
The Big Sick is about Kumail (played by the real-life Kumail Nanjiani), a Pakistani stand-up comedian who drives Ubers during the day. When he meets Emily (Zoe Kazan) at one of his comedy routines, they eventually start dating, which causes all sorts of problems. She isn’t really into attachment and he is going against his family tradition of having arranged marriages. Then she gets sick. It’s pretty abrupt and the movie just throws you into the story. Somehow, through all of this mess, the movie manages to be consistently hilarious, thoughtful, well-acted, and genuinely heart-warming without being too unrealistic.
This movie made me laugh more than any film this year so far. The jokes were really well-timed, smartly written, and Kumail Nanjiani, who delivers most of them, is a fantastic comedic actor. Despite how hilarious he is, the supporting cast are just as good. Ray Romano nearly steals the show from Kumail as Emily’s father. He shares a few scenes with Kumail, including one where they talk about 9/11, that I absolutely loved. And yes, there are many jokes about Pakistan and racial stereotypes, but none of them were forced or awkward; they were all natural and inventive. Another great performance was from Zoe Kazan as Emily. She really gives an incredible impression in the first act of this film and you really feel her presence even as she’s sick and out of commission for the rest of the film.
The sickness does create some drama in the film, but not quite as much as Kumail’s family situation. As you might expect from my short description of the premise, there is some tension between Kumail and his family’s expectations for him. Often this would play towards humor but when it turned serious, it was pretty effective and you really understood the incredibly difficult situation he’s in. The tone shifts can be pretty abrupt and jarring, but they film does the drama pretty well once it adjusts.
Other than the tonal shifts, I think the only negatives I have with this film are that it’s a little too long. There is one additional plotpoint towards the end of the movie involving moving hospitals that just felt tacked on and just an excuse to create some drama. If this movie lost about ten minutes, it would have been just a bit better. As it stands, it’s still quite a good film. It nails the comedy, features some great performances, and feels grounded in reality. To top it all off, Kumail is a complete movie geek.
Total: 8
Baby Driver Review
Grand Total: 7 ¾
Technical
Engaging 6
Suspenseful +1
An amazing scene (one-shot song) +½
Amazing cinematography +½
Great performance/character (Jamie Foxx as Bats) +½
Great songs +½
Obvious plothole -½
Total: 8 ½
Overall impression
Baby Driver is about Baby (Ansel Elgort), a getaway driver working off a debt he has with Doc (Kevin Spacey). Doc assigns him a team consisting of different people to make every job fresh. Baby desperately wants to leave his life of crime and, when he meets Debora (Lily James) at a local diner, he finds his perfect escape. Unfortunately for him, Doc isn’t ready to let him go just yet, putting him and Debora in a sticky situation. Baby listens to music during his driving, which helps him focus and define his moves. It also helps direct the movie to some entertaining heights.
Baby Driver is quite an entertaining ride. Writer-director Edgar Wright always injects his movies with some serious flair, and you can see it here. The music helps direct the movie, which might seem confusing, but you’ll understand when you see the film; certain editing choices are made directly in sync with the music, which was both enjoyable and technically impressive. The songs themselves that Baby listens to also have a fair amount of meaning to the film itself, which I enjoyed.
The performances are also stellar, though mostly from people other than Ansel Elgort. Don’t get me wrong, I think he does a decent job here, but the character is more quiet and reserved, and definitely doesn’t stand out against the people around him. Chief among them is Bats, one of the other team members played by Jamie Foxx. Bats is terrifying and over-the-top. You’re scared for Baby whenever he’s near Bats, but also can’t take your eyes off Jamie Foxx and his terrific performance - it was definitely the standout for me.
Where this film lost a bit of its footing was in this romance between Baby and Debora. I found that it wasn’t very convincing, especially on Debora’s part. The character makes a lot of really big decisions so easily, and I just couldn’t buy into it. I mean, if someone you didn’t know that well came into your diner, killed someone in front of you, and then said “let’s run away”, would you do that without hesitation? That and Baby being able to conveniently hotwire like twenty cars in a row is what took me out of the movie a little.
Overall, I would recommend Baby Driver. It has a great energy to it, features great songs and corresponding editing and directing choices. The performances are great and the characters are fun, even if one of them is a little unbelievable. If you’re like me and don’t quite buy into the relationship set up by this film, you’ll still find plenty of enjoyment to be had in the rest of the film.
Total: 7
War for the Planet of the Apes Review
Grand Total: 8
Technical
Engaging 6
Suspenseful +1
Moving +1
An amazing scene (where is The Colonel?) +½
Amazing visuals +½
Great performance/character (Andy Serkis as Caesar) +½
Great music +½
Uneven tone -½
Obvious plothole -½
Total: 9
Overall impression
War for the Planet of the Apes is the continued story of Caesar and his group of hyper-intelligent apes. The virus that simultaneously turned them smart has wiped out most of humanity and Caesar, who did not want to start a war with humans, finds himself unable to get away from conflict with them. This time around, that conflict comes in the form of a Colonel (Woody Harrelson), who attacks Caesar’s apes. So Caesar tells the rest of his apes to leave for a safer place while he goes after this Colonel. He meets up with a mute girl and another talking ape on the way.
This is a brutal drama about an ape who, while trying to keep his faction of apes out of harm’s way, is just beaten down by tragedy in his life. He never wanted any of this to happen and the character you see in this film is just broken and tired. I’m finding it difficult to refer to Caesar as “an ape” because his character feels so human. Sure, the visual effects make him seem human and his speech is fully functioning, but it’s really what he goes through and the emotions he displays that make him seem so human. This film takes itself very seriously and, unless you’re absolutely invested in the story at all times, it sometimes feels off; you can’t help but chuckle at how seriously a movie about talking apes is trying to be. It’s a really difficult line to walk, and this film doesn’t do a perfect job of it. There are moments all over that work beautifully and really affect you. But then there are moments that are supposed to affect you the same way and instead just bring out unintentional laughter. Even with the inconsistencies, I think the film does a good enough job of nailing the tone where it mattered though, as there were some scenes that genuinely moved me or had me on the edge of my seat.
I already mentioned how the visual effects worked to help bring the movie to life. What also contributed to its serious tone was the score. I often find Michael Giacchino’s scores to be dull, repetitive filler music that does nothing for the film. Here, I found myself admiring the score in different areas of the film. It was beautiful, heartbreaking, and suspenseful, all when those emotions were on display in the film - I just loved it.
Overall, I would definitely recommend this film, especially if you’ve seen the first two. It can be a little tonally inconsistent given how dark and serious it is, but when it works, it works very well. There are plenty of plot conveniences but the visual effects, music, and Andy Serkis’ motion-capture performance as Caesar all work wonderfully and the film ties this trilogy together in a satisfying way.
Total: 7