By: Peter Kosanovich

Wonder Woman (2017): Before she was Wonder Woman she was Diana, princess of the Amazons, trained warrior. When a pilot crashes and tells of conflict in the outside world, she leaves home to fight a war to end all wars, discovering her full powers and true destiny.

Wonder Woman was, in many ways, the superhero movie we needed right now; as a people, as a society, and as a viewing audience. This movie was a work of love, and better than just about any other superhero movie, it new its emotional core.
              
Let me go on though, Wonder Woman is definitely flawed! It is far from perfect, and there are definite reasons for that. I have been immensely critical of Zack Snyder and the cinematic universe he has established for DC and Warner Bros. – he desaturated the color palette of his movies, required everyone to conform to his overuse of speed-ramping in the editing suite, wrote stories that were overly convoluted and didn’t flow, and gave us no emotional connection to any of the characters – and while my deepest condolences and best wishes go out to the Snyder family in their time of sorrow, these stylistic choices have harmed the quality of these movies. Because of this, Patty Jenkins, the director of Wonder Woman, was required to go outside her normal wheelhouse to accommodate his style. Generally speaking she managed to accomplish this, but on occasion it got in her way of telling a compelling story.
               
In terms of the story itself, Wonder Woman, like most of DC’s movies, went through a number of scripts, and directors, and producers, right up until just before principle shooting. Patty Jenkins stepped in last minute after the previous director left; this meant she was working with already established scripts, storyboards, shot lists, locations, much of the crew, etc. These are hardly ideal conditions for a director to step in, and still manage to hit a home-run! To that I say, Bravo Patty Jenkins! You deserve any and all praise you get!
              
Based on all of this it’s a wonder that Patty Jenkins managed to make the movie as good as it ended up being. I thoroughly enjoyed it! I teared up at points! And for anyone who knows me, that is not an easy feat to accomplish. That is a testimony to Patty Jenkins understanding and devotion to her characters. I will say the script was not the strongest, it had its moments, but it was far from perfect. Patty managed to bring out some of the best moments through the performances she brought out of the actors. I commend her.
              
Now, enough on the backstory!

Wonder Woman takes place during WWI, “The Great War.” In his escape from German soldiers, American spy Steve Trevor (Chris Pine), crash-lands at the Amazonian island of Themyscira. He is rescued by Diana, AKA Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot), who agrees to return him to the war because she believes it is her duty to save the world of man from Ares, the Greek god of war. While in Themyscira the world is filled with bright, vivid colors – paradise – but upon reaching London Diana comments that “it’s hideous,” noting the bleak color palette often associated with war time and the industrial era of the time.

After assembling a team, Steve and Diana go to the front; we see images of amputees, civilians fleeing danger, smoke and ash raining down. Here the now iconic “No Man’s Land” scene occurs, Diana cannot just stand by and watch the carnage of war. It is here that we feel the power of Diana, the power of Wonder Woman, the power of women. It is an incredible scene, and very emotionally resonant and empowering!
 
Without going too much further to avoid spoilers, I loved this movie! I did have issues with parts – some of the writing, some of the speed-ramping, one particularly awful piece of CGI/VFX – but most of that I attribute to the constraints Patty Jenkins was required to work in. I cannot wait for the sequel, when Patty will hopefully have more creative control! But regardless of the films issues, it exceeded all expectations from an emotional standpoint. It knew its core! The emotional center of the film felt incredibly grounded and compelling. If for no other reason that is why Wonder Woman succeeds, it made us care about those characters.


The Critique: Wonder Woman was, pun fully intended, wonderful! It was grounded, had a core, and spread love and hope in a bleak and uncertain world! It was empowering and resonant in all the right ways. Many of the issues were from previous problems in the DCEU and should not be attributed to Patty Jenkins or the cast.

Recommendation: Go see it!

Rewatchability: High!

The Verdict: I want to make it clear that, despite the universal praise it’s receiving, this movie is far from perfect, but so lovable regardless. My number is 7.5/10

Alien: Covenant (2017): The crew of a colony ship, bound for a remote planet, discover an uncharted paradise with a threat beyond their imagination, and must attempt a harrowing escape.

Yes! Finally! An Alien move with Xenomorphs actually in it! We've been waiting 20 years for the Alien franchise to finally bring back, you know, the alien, and that wait is over. (Shush.....not including the AVP franchise) I was a giddy little schoolboy while that Xenomorph was on screen. It was AWESOME. The problem with this film, however, is when you really start to think about it. Ridley Scott has been given complete creative control over his Alien franchise, and raised a lot of questions in his first installment, Prometheus. I still don't really know what was going on in that film. While this film does actually answer more questions than it poses, some of those answers are going to leave fans of the franchise (such as myself) wishing for more. The lore-building here SUCKS. But hey. There are freaking Xenomorphs this time around. And the film looks absolutely gorgeous. And the acting is awesome. Basically, your mileage will vary with this film. If you're coming in just wanting a monster movie, you will enjoy the crap out of this while you're not sitting around waiting patiently for everything to be explained to you. But if you're coming for the fact that this is a freaking Alien movie, and you want to know more about the origins of the Xenomorphs.....well you're gonna be disappointed.

So! Let's start out with the good. Let's talk cinematography. Dariusz Wolski is one of the best cinematographers in the business, and he does an absolutely marvelous job here. This film is absolutely gorgeous. I'd recommend seeing this film in the theater for the cinematography alone, as it's easily the best of 2017 so far. The set design is great as well. I don't know where they went to film this but Ridley Scott and company did a great job making this look like a foreign world and maintaining the overall grandeur of its predecessor Prometheus, which was definitely the strongest part of that film as well. The sound crew had a lot to do with this as well. This film overall has a strong showing from the technical departments, to the point that it may get a nomination or two from the Academy despite its early release. The acting here was outstanding as well. Katherine Waterston, man. Where has she come from? She is the hero this franchise needed, a worthy successor to Sigourney Weaver. While we may never get a resolution to Ripley's character because Ridley Scott doesn't feel like returning to that part of the lore, they definitely stumbled on a new actress to build the franchise around in Daniels. She has a great story arc and is just overall a total badass. You know who else is great in this film? Danny McBride. Ya. I'm just as surprised as you are. But he shows off his dramatic side in this film and was great! And, of course, there's Michael Fassbender. His duel portrayal as David/Walter is chilling. Though his characters do get to an absolutely TERRIBLE resolution. I guess that leads into the bad!

So, let's first hit that point. So for the first and second act Michael Fassbender's characters are awesome. They get some one on one interactions that are great. But then their characters get the worst resolution ever. Anyone who has ever watched a movie will see this coming from a mile away, and yet for some reason Ridley Scott builds it up and when he pulls back the curtain he seems to think that we're all gonna be like, "Whoa! Didn't see that coming!" Well, I did. As did everyone else in the theater. Then there's the contributions to the lore. I know only people that care about this franchise will be upset about this, but I'm one of those people, okay? The contributions to the lore here are so freaking lackluster man. I was so disappointed! I won't spoil, but it appears that I'm in the majority here thinking that these contributions and resolutions and the answer to "Where did the Xenomorph come from?" are weak, and bring down the overall franchise. Ridley Scott clearly wants nothing to do with the lore of Alien: Resurrection, but if you're going to give the legendary Xenomorph a backstory it's gotta be strong. Unfortunately this is anything but strong. 

However outside those two things, there really isn't much to fault with this film. Which is why your mileage will vary. If those two faults don't bother you, you're gonna have a good time and I highly recommend this film. You can certainly watch it without watching Prometheus, and given what this film does to the Prometheus story line, I would actually recommend it. (Ya, this film basically made the entirety of Prometheus irrelevant. That happened) And there are freaking Xenomorphs, man! They get to wreak havoc like the perfect organisms that they are! If only they were given the backstory they deserved.

The Critique: Despite great execution from the technical and acting departments, Alien: Covenant delivers a hilariously lackluster backstory for the legendary Xenomorph, which will ultimately leave fans of the franchise disappointed.

The Recommendation: If you like monster movies but haven't watched an Alien film since James Cameron's Aliens, this might be the film to jump back in on.

Rewatchability: Moderately High

The Verdict: 6/10 Above Average

King Arthur: Legend of the Sword (2017): Robbed of his birthright, Arthur comes up the hard way in the back alleys of the city. But once he pulls the sword from the stone, he is forced to acknowledge his true legacy - whether he likes it or not.

Can we please start giving Guy Ritchie some credit? There aren't that many directors using the full range of cinematic aspects available to them, but Guy Ritchie is undoubtedly one of them. However, unlike someone like Edgar Wright or Wes Anderson, Guy Ritchie's films just don't seem to be held in as high regard. I don't really know why-yes, the stories may be weaker, but I'll take an overall well-executed film and a weak script versus a strong script and poor execution. The first Sherlock Holmes was outstanding, and can be credited with rebooting the Sherlock franchise, and his 2015 film The Man from U.N.C.L.E...... as I'm sure you know by now, was one of my top action flicks of the year. While Ritchie's signature can be seen throughout this film, there's just too much..... crap here to make it truly enjoyable. And the people have already spoken-King Arthur is shaping up to be the first true box office bomb of 2017. Poor Warner Brothers studios just can't catch a break.

So, let's talk about the positives first. Guy Ritchie throws a lot of ideas against the wall, particularly in the editing department. Some of them stuck, most notably with the montages. There are some really cool sequences here as Arthur and his crew lay out plans for taking back England from Vortigern. This is another strong part of the film-Jude Law plays a damn good villain. While there are some limitations with his character in the writing department, which we'll get to in a bit, Jude Law was simply eating up the screen in his role, and I loved it. Finally, some of the stylized action sequences worked, and looked pretty darn cool. However, most of them did not.

Let's start there with the negatives, shall we? While some of the action sequences were pretty spectacular, the vast majority of them were pretty laughably bad. I guess when Ritchie and co. combined their stylized action sequences with the magic within this world, we found ourselves left with some pretty incomprehensible CGI-filled sequences. The worst was undoubtedly the final boss battle. This sequence was TERRIBLE. The Amazing Spider-Man 2 looks better than this! Then there's the writing. Ohhhhhh boy. This film was passed between a TON of screenwriters, and it really shows. This film is an absolute mess from a script standpoint. Even the actors were confused, most notably the great Charlie Hunnam in the lead role of Arthur. His character randomly seems to switch personalities at several points and it was very odd. One second he's charming, then the next he's a complete jerk for no reason, then suddenly he's charming again! Jude Law's character, Vortigern, also suffers here-his character's motivations are simple, yes, but there were several occasions where it seemed like he was trying to be a nice guy and it was really confusing. I don't know if this was intentional or not, or the result of just how infectiously charming and charismatic Jude Law can be, but it just comes back to the overall tone of the movie. Or lack thereof.

This film is the result of corporate-directed film-making, and what happens when you revise your film a dozen times trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Despite some good moments from Guy Ritchie, it is simply just too toxic to be anywhere near Warner Brothers right now. There's no doubt this film suffered at the hands of corporate execs trying to find an answer to the massive success Disney is enjoying between Marvel and Star Wars, and it looks like the distributor is going to lose a TON of money because of their misadventure. And overall, while I did find some great moments here and there watching this, there was just too much crap surrounding those moments to make the overall experience enjoyable. There are several more high-profile Warner Brothers releases coming this year-Wonder Woman, Dunkirk, It, Blade Runner 2049, Geostorm, and Justice League-and there's a lot of pressure for these guys to deliver some hits. If all of these films are disappointments, the clock may honestly find itself approaching midnight for one of Hollywood's original studios. Don't falter on us now, Warner Brothers. You have too much history behind you.

The Critique: Despite a few exhilarating action sequences, King Arthur: Legend of the Sword, falls flat on its face thanks to a very weak script, shaky acting, and overdone CGI.

The Recommendation: There really isn't much to like here, so I'd say go see The Man from U.N.C.L.E. instead, because.....seriously. Nowhere near enough people have seen that film.

Rewatchability: Low

The Verdict: 4/10 Below Average


Image Credit
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMzM2MDk2MzE0OV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwMzQ1ODQxMjI@._V1_SY1000_CR0,0,1498,1000_AL_.jpg

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (2017): Set to the backdrop of Awesome Mixtape #2, 'Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2' continues the team's adventures as they unravel the mystery of Peter Quill's true parentage.

Wow, IMDB went right there with the reference to the mixtape. Right in the description. Anyway! Let's not beat around the bush on this one: Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 is more of the same. It is nearly a carbon copy of the original film. Now, is that a bad thing? No. To me that is not a bad thing. I have seen so many sequels try and reinvent the wheel on its second go and fall flat on its face in the process that I have no issue with a film taking an "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," kind of mentality. THAT SAID. To all of you who groan about franchises like The Fast and the Furious being "more of the same" then turn around and love a film like Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2? You need to look yourself in the mirror and say, "When in Rome." Sorry, I lost my train of thought there....I have no idea what you should do. But the double standard is real! Is my point. Anyway, moving on. Let's talk about Guardians 2 and what it gets right!

Let's talk about the dialogue. Like the first Guardians film, Vol. 2 is all about the "moments" versus the overall plot. The overall plot here is fine, but it's these moments that we all look back on and smile upon. Besides for the obvious one-Baby Groot-I think Rocket once again steals the show. Bradley Cooper just plays this character so freaking well. Pratt and Saldana are great together, and there's some good interludes between Dave Bautista and newcomer Pom Klementieff as well. And once again Elizabeth Debicki is a GREAT villain. I seriously love this woman...she can pull off a CRAZY villain character. If you have no idea who she is check out The Man from U.N.C.L.E. As if I don't talk about that film enough. Also, the effects are great! Mostly. There were a few times where the CGI was overwhelming, like, The Amazing Spider-Man 2 kind of overwhelming, but for the most part they were great. Especially on Ego's planet! That place is freaking beautiful and that's thanks 100% to the effects. Also the soundtrack is good. It's more of the same from the first film, but at least it was more than surface-level deep. There was just more marketing around it (heck it made it into the freaking IMDB description) so it didn't feel as authentic necessarily.

So! Let's talk about the negatives of this film. You may have noticed I didn't touch on Kurt Russell to this point. Well, that's because I didn't think he was all that good. Look, things start well enough with him, but as the film progresses and he's asked to be more than just charming and charismatic, he really falters. And what happens to him in the final act? Please. Terrible casting choice. Almost as bad as asking us to believe a 61 year-old Ian McDiarmid could take on four Jedi, including Samuel L. Jackson, in Revenge of the Sith, no problem. Then there's the pacing. Holy CRAP is the pacing in this film TERRIBLE. Like, seriously! Nobody else has any problems with the pacing? This film DRAGS its way to the third act with some absolutely meaningless setup. I found myself just straight-up impatient and wanting this film to just get on with it! It comes in at 136 minutes, but it could've EASILY shaved off 30 minutes off its run-time. The pacing is really a product of another big problem with this film-the overall story is really not all that compelling. Like the original, this film is all about the moments (which are great) and in the process of this the overarching story suffers. Oh! Andy FOR THE LOVE OF GOD can we PLEASE get other Marvel characters to acknowledge this crap? I mean, I know they're going to in Infinity War, but there were what? Five post-credit scenes here and not one of them was like Iron Man or someone, ANYONE, from the Avengers investigating the damage the Guardians did! C'mon! Five post credit scenes and literally none of them added anything to the film. I don't even remember them at this point, and I just saw the film a few days ago! 

Ok I'm sorry. You probably think I hated the film. I really didn't! It's fine and it's fun, and there's nothing wrong with that. I just hate how a film like this gets a free pass for its missteps. We groan about unnecessary sequels and reboots, but we flock to every Marvel film in existence and think they're the best things ever, even when they do the exact things we always groan about. But all of this does not take away from the fact that this is a FUN movie. It is the definition of a mindless popcorn flick, and that's exactly what a summer blockbuster is supposed to be. But it doesn't change the fact that it is more of the same.

The Critique: While the dialogue is witty and the cast is charismatic, Guardians 2 is simply more of the same. Combined with a lackluster story, mediocre pacing, and a less-than-stellar casting choice with Kurt Russell, this sequel fails to live up to the charming originality of its predecessor. 

The Recommendation: We all know you're going to see it, so why bother?

Rewatchability: Moderately High

The Verdict: 6/10 Above Average


Image Credit
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMjAyNDM3MjI4Nl5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwMDA5MDIyMjI@._V1_SX1777_CR0,0,1777,935_AL_.jpg

The Circle (2017): A woman lands a dream job at a powerful tech company called the Circle, only to uncover a nefarious agenda that will affect the lives of her friends, family and that of humanity.

Ok! So let's talk about The Circle. What happens when you put a bunch of charming and charismatic actors and actresses in a movie then forget to hire a writer, editor, and director and base it off some crappy subject material? THE CIRCLE. Wow is this thing bad! It's a damn shame too because this is the final featuring length film for Bill Paxton. But of course the film does everything it can to avoid this topic. Because it's not smart enough to conjure up a touching tribute for the late, great actor. Sorry this is how you had to go, man. I will remember you for your classic roles, not this. Outside of Paxton you have guys like Tom Hanks and Patton Oswalt sleepwalking through their roles, and other people like Glenne Headly, Karen Gillan, Ellar Coltrane, and John Boyega are given nothing to do. And at the center of it all..... is Emma Watson. She is trying, I'll give her that, but her character is just so poorly written it doesn't matter. 

So, let's talk about the abysmal writing, shall we? This film is based off a best selling novel of the same name by David Eggers. In the novel, similar to the film, Eggers attempts to show us what a world of total transparency looks like. But it brings absolutely nothing new to the table. This is the biggest problem with this film. It attempts to try and make some elaborate statement on what would happen if we went 100% transparent, but then it just goes down the most generic twists and turns you could possibly imagine. You can see the ending coming from a mile away. Oh! Congress is investigating The Circle, and now the person leading said investigation is being investigated themselves? WHAT A COINCIDENCE. I'm sure The Circle didn't have anything to do with that! Most of these characters are just generic stereotypes that fill the void around Emma Watson. And what about that ending. GEEZ that ending is TERRIBLE! It is the most predictable piece of crap ending you can think of. Hey! Let's have a story about 100% transparency end with the top dogs getting in trouble for not being 100% transparent! Ya! NO. You have to be more creative than that, guys! C'mon! 

In addition to the crap story, we had a pretty lackluster showing from the editing department, as well. Though, before I get to what I didn't like I have to highlight the one thing I did like in this film that came courtesy of this department....when Watson's character was being "100% transparent" she was basically live-streaming her life. During these moments, the editing crew put up the "comments section" of her live stream on the screen, which was pretty cool. Films have been struggling to figure out how to showcase texting and reading things on a screen for years and what they did to showcase that here was better than most films out there. This guy, Tony Zhou, did a great video essay on the subject. Anyway, moving on. While the editing crew showed up with those sequences, where they didn't show up was with the, well, editing of the film. There are a lot of cuts throughout this film that are either too late or too early. On multiple occasions I was sitting there thinking that there was going to be more of the scene forthcoming just to see it end abruptly. I don't know why the editing was as distracting as it was here, but it was. 

I don't know if all of this falls back on director James Ponsoldt. He has struggled to recapture the magic of his earlier films like The Spectacular Now and Smashed. But with both of these films the argument can be made that he had better writers and actors that don't necessarily need to be told what to do from the director. That later one is the biggie for me. Miles Teller, Shailene Woodley, and Brie Larson could be great in a film even if the director was an actual monkey, but there are just some people that have to have a director to help them through a movie, and the more I watch Emma Watson, the more I think she's one of them. Now there's nothing wrong with that....I think Natalie Portman falls into this same boat and no one is going to deny that she's one of the best actresses of the 21st century. But someone like Natalie Portman learned early on that she needs direction from experiences like Star Wars. Watson seems to have in her head that because she did a great job with Hermione she can make it on her own, but in a film like this where the direction is erratic she really struggles. I say this out of love, Emma. You have to pick films with good directors if you're gonna stay in Hollywood's elite. There will always be phone-it-in roles for you that you couldn't possibly screw up, (looks at Beauty and the Beast) but if you're looking to step outside your comfort zone you gotta do it with a great director. See Natalie Portman teaming up with Darren Aronofsky or Pablo Larraín.

Anyway, for the rest of the world not named Emma Watson....stay very far away from this film. Unless you're a movie nut like me and like seeing a bit of innovation when it comes to displaying Internet comment sections in a film, there's nothing for you here. Only pain.

The Critique: Erratic direction combined with terrible writing lead The Circle down a dark path to one of the worst films of the year so far, despite its charismatic list of stars.

The Recommendation: I know you long to hear it.....AVOID THIS ONE LIKE THE PLAGUE

Rewatchability: Low

The Verdict: 2/10 Garbage
 

Image Credit
​https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMTc2NTkxOTQ2OV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNzMxNTAwMjI@._V1_SX1500_CR0,0,1500,999_AL_.jpg

Beauty and the Beast (2017): An adaptation of the fairy tale about a monstrous-looking prince and a young woman who fall in love.

I'm not going to lie: I'm impressed. So far many of these live action Disney adaptations have left me thinking, "Is this really necessary?" and some of the "alternative" adaptations, like Maleficent, have left much to be desired. Well, that finally ends today: Beauty and the Beast is a surprisingly good film that still (mostly) manages to capture the magic of its source material. While it's not perfect, (looks at Luke Evans and some of the excess musical numbers) I still found myself humming along to some of its iconic scenes. I haven't seen the original film in years, so I think this definitely impacted my opinion of the film because I had forgotten just how good a story this is, but still. As far as Disney's (still unnecessary) live adaption of its classic fairy tales go, this is easily the best one yet. The CGI was excellent, (it needed to be with the talking furniture) and the editing crew showed up and really added to the movie with several well-cut numbers. These are things I have found lacking in several other iterations: if you create a well-rounded movie and don't just focus on retelling the story in as generic a way as possible, suddenly the film doesn't feel like a straight-up cash-grab. It's amazing how that works! If you've been holding out on these Disney reboots, Beauty and the Beast may be the one (and really only one so far) worth checking out.

My Number: 7/10 Good

Ghosts in the Shell (2017): In the near future, Major is the first of her kind: A human saved from a terrible crash, who is cyber-enhanced to be a perfect soldier devoted to stopping the world's most dangerous criminals.

Well, I must appreciate a film that goes all in on a premise. Ghosts in the Shell is a remake of a 1995 animated film by the same name, a film which has inspired multiple sequels and even a TV show since its release. And, while I appreciate a film going all-in on a premise and doing a great job with "immersion," this film does it so well (minus the fact that there's no people in this giant, sprawling city) that it will likely turn off most mainstream American audiences. There were many points throughout the film where I had to ask myself, "what just happened?" and before I had time to figure it out we were onto the next thing. So, eventually I just turned my brain off and enjoyed the visuals of this film. No doubt the strongest part of this film, the visuals here are breathtaking. Whether it be skyscraper-tall advertisements, or an invisible Scarlett Johansson taking on a bad guy in water, this film excelled at looking absolutely gorgeous. Sadly, though, great visuals does not equate to a great film, and the second you try and figure out just what the heck is going on in this story...you'll be lost. I went with some friends whom are super into this franchise and they seemed to mostly enjoy it, so if you're a fan of the originals you'll probably like this one, but for everyone else? If you like sci-fi and wanna look at something pretty check it out, if not consider seeing Life instead to get your sci-fi on.

My Number: 5/10 Average

Life (2017): A team of scientists aboard the International Space Station discover a rapidly evolving life form, that caused extinction on Mars, and now threatens the crew and all life on Earth.

This movie is surprisingly fun. While it borrows heavily from other films, I still had a good time watching it. The movie throws you right into the thick of it with a thrilling opening sequence like the opening of Gravity, and as the creature develops it became more and more like the Xenomorph from Alien. Actually, this film might as well be called Alien 2.0. But that's not necessarily a bad thing! The tension of this film was unreal-it may only be a 104 minute film but it felt like 404 minutes long..... And yet thanks to the slow boil to start and a few breaks throughout the "everything is going wrong" sections of the second and third act, I actually really cared for these characters. Far more so than anyone outside of Ripley in the original Alien. The creature itself is also fascinating-they take the idea of the "perfect organism" and multiply it by about 1,000, creating a creature that is basically indestructible. As fascinating as it is, this may be the biggest misstep of the entire film-if the alien creature is actually invincible, you know what the ultimate outcome will be. And believe me: exactly what you think will happen, happens here. But that really didn't matter to me. The journey getting to the final outcome was still a fun one, and thanks to some great acting from Jake Gyllenhaal and Rebecca Ferguson, (FINALLY she has a good role to tout following her breakout performance in Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation)  I had more than enough fun on the ride. Just......don't expect too much from this.

                                                                                     My Number: 6.5/10 Almost Good

The Fate of the Furious (2017): When a mysterious woman seduces Dom into the world of terrorism and a betrayal of those closest to him, the crew face trials that will test them as never before.

America's favorite series to hate is BACK with another big stupid action movie that is just so much fun to watch. Yes, I LOVE this franchise.....get over it. Even though this installment does not quite reach the pinnacle that was Furious 7, (I mean c'mon-you really want us to believe that Vin Diesel is working with the bad guys) its calling card - the spectacle of it all - is still an absolute blast to watch. The banter between characters like The Rock and Jason Statham is awesome and hilarious, the effects are great, and the cars are still sexy AF. Charlize Theron is the big addition here. She is clearly a villain this franchise is all-in on, and I can see why - she killed it as Cipher. Though.... her conclusion, admittedly, was pretty weak. This film also struggled to figure out how to write out Paul Walker without actually writing him out. The motivations of Diesel's character is the big loser with this - they basically write in a motivation for him that is not earned in any way. And they ask Vin Diesel to act too, which can be something if not hilarious to watch. Though he does his best! He clearly tried, so A for effort. But you don't go to a film like this expecting a good story! Heck you shouldn't even expect great acting. You go for the spectacle, and it's here and bigger and better than ever. I'll just say this when it comes to the set pieces: zombie cars, man. Freaking zombie cars. Now don't you wanna go see it? Plus, you know, a submarine chase scene which is easily worth the cost of admission alone. So, ultimately, if you go into this movie ready to turn the brain off and have a good time, you're gonna have a good time. But in terms of getting into the series? Start with Furious 7.

                                                                                         My Number: 7/10 Good

Free Fire (2017): Set in Boston in 1978, a meeting in a deserted warehouse between two gangs turns into a shootout and a game of survival.

Following their massive 2016 in which they took home Best Picture for Moonlight, this time the hottest studio in Hollywood right now, A24, teams up with the great Martin Scorsese and a cavalcade of stars to bring us Free Fire. What could possibly go wrong, right? How could a film starring Brie Larson, Sharlto Copley, and Armie Hammer be dull? Well, by forgetting the definition of the term "pacing." A film like this should be flying through it's 90 minute run time, right? Not here! Free Fire is an absolute drag, turning basically 20 minutes of action into 90 minutes. While there are some great one-liners, and Armie Hammer in particular is FANTASTIC, there's just not enough content here to make this one truly enjoyable. For a film where everyone has a gun, there's an awful lot of useless talking! Not to mention basically the entire establishing of these characters was a waste of time - none of them have remotely interesting back stories. And some of the ideas flirted with in the fantastic trailer, like characters forgetting which side they're on, are not investigated AT ALL. This basically just turns into an overlong Mexican standoff, with Brie Larson being the only person to have something even resembling a character arc. So, at the end of the day, while there is a good premise here, and the actors involved are clearly having fun with their roles, poor writing and pacing sinks this film from being the best it could be. For a studio that has dropped some of the best films of recent years, it's hard for me to believe they ever let this one out the door.

My Number: 4/10 Below Average

Your Name (2016): Two strangers find themselves linked in a bizarre way. When a connection forms, will distance be the only thing to keep them apart?

Hi everyone! You may remember during Oscar season I gave some massive shout-outs to the animation industry as a whole, 2016 put out some solid films! Among those I listed Makoto Shinkai’s Your Name, a Japanese anime film which has since gone on to become the highest grossing film in the history of Japan, surpassing Spirited Away from the legendary Hayao Miyazaki. Well, it’s finally here! Your Name got its US release this past weekend, and I only have good things to say. I will do my best to avoid spoilers!

Your Name tells the story of two teenagers, Taki and Mitsuha, as they inexplicably begin body-swapping between Tokyo and a small village in the countryside. Mitsuha, a 17 year old girl in the country, wakes up one morning only to be questioned by her friends and family about her strange behavior the day before – hundreds of miles away in Tokyo, 17 year old Taki is given the similar treatment. Hitting the notes of comedy right off the bat, Your Name emulates Freaky Friday to a T. At the same time it sets a tone of mystery, as the audience is treated to Mitsuha as herself and in Taki’s body before we even meet Taki. Who is Mitsuha? Who is this boy she’s inhabiting? And then, after meeting Taki, why are they swapping bodies? They begin leaving each other simple notes – questions in school notebooks, messages written on each other’s arms, journal entries, etc. – and slowly learn what is going on.

Not wanting to mess up each other’s lives, Mitsuha and Taki decide to establish rules for each other while body-swapped: don’t spend each other’s money, limit changing clothing/showering and bathroom use, and leave journal entries in the notes section of each other’s phones. Despite these rules, the influence they begin to have on each other brings them closer together. As their emotions develop and their connection seems more a link of fate than mere chance, Taki embarks on a journey to find Mitsuha, beginning the emotional roller-coaster of Your Name. Unfortunately any more description than that gives too many spoilers, so you will just have to see Your Name for yourself.

Without a doubt this is one of the most beautiful movies ever made, and not just anime or animated movies. Your Name is stunning! Makoto Shinkai has truly crafted a masterpiece, and has rightfully earned comparisons as “the new Miyazaki.” The story itself is well done, if a little unconventional a points. Though the story is great in its own way, it lacks some of the deeper meanings and themes that are often so present in Miyazaki’s works. The characters are likable and easily identified with. And the animation itself is something onto its own. Shinkai uses vibrant colors paired with extreme lighting to wondrous effect, allowing the contrast to almost overwhelm the screen.

Simply put, I loved Your Name. It was a beautiful, stunningly gorgeous film that tells a story of love and fate.

The Critique: The overall blending of comedic and dramatic elements not only make this a great story, but something that is very enjoyable and highly rewatchable. While I’m used to Miyazaki’s deeper meanings in his movies, Shinkai tells an excellent story in his own way. It’s not a bad thing by any means, just a little different than what I’m used to.

The Recommendation: If you’re a fan of anime in the slightest, or if you’re a Studio Ghibli fan, you will love this movie. It is also a great movie to use as an introduction to the world of anime for anyone wanting a good way in. I honestly liked it more than any animated movie I saw last year!

Rewatchability: Definitely!

The Verdict: 9/10 Awesome
​
Image Credit
http://cdn.awn.com/sites/default/files/styles/original/public/image/featured/1031519-funimation-sets-oscar-qualifying-run-your-name.jpg?itok=oTg1WrD6

Eagles of Death Metal: Nos Amis (Our Friends) (2017): A documentary on the band on stage at Let Bataclan during the attacks in Paris on November 13, 2015.

HBO and Collin Hanks are the first to take a crack at a documentary on the band Eagles of Death Metal after their names were immortalized by being on stage at Le Bataclan during the Paris terrorist attacks in November of 2015. As much as I was emotionally moved by this documentary, and as much as it tells a story that needs to be told, I also believe its release comes too close to the events themselves to be of any real value. I think we are still several years away from the true documentary on Eagles of Death Metal and these terrorist attacks. However, this is still an excellent documentary that does nail showing the raw emotions still felt by the band. The story is told primarily through the eyes of frontman Jesse Hughes and his best friend and Queens of the Stone Age frontman Joshua Homme. These are two of my favorite bands, so it didn't take much for this retelling to pluck my heartstrings. As I said easily the best thing this documentary does is capture the raw emotions that are still being felt by Hughes and Homme and everyone else in the band, but it does also glance over some of the more incendiary remarks made by Hughes since the attacks. So, ultimately, while this is a good first attempt at retelling this traumatic story, its failures to truly encapsulate the event and explain the ramifications because of how quickly its being told hold it back from being the documentary that this band and the victims of these attacks truly deserve.

My Number: 7/10

Get Out (2017): A young African-American man visits his Caucasian girlfriend's mysterious family estate.

Ok. Let me get this out of the way: Get Out is a good film, but it's definitely being over-hyped. It falls just short of greatness for me because of it's massively predictable script. Now, I know with this genre an unpredictable story is hard to come by, but I shouldn't be able to guess what's going to happen before the movie even starts. BUT. Besides for the fact that this slasher goes exactly where you expect it to go, I still had a grand ol' time on the journey. There are a lot of genuinely creepy moments during this film, and it's well-acted. Actress Betty Gabriel stole the show for me as Georgina. Man is that role a far cry from her role in The Purge: Election Year. There's some good editing that takes place here as well, and all of this is sprinkled over a very smart and on point statement on systemic racism today. There's a moment in the final few minutes of the film that was as devastating as it was entirely because of race, and it was, for me, the most thought-provoking moment of the film. But if you're into slasher flicks, this is certainly the best one to come out since The Purge: Election Year, but hopefully it will not be the best slasher film of 2016. You're still in for a good time, (films like this are exactly why I love seeing a film in a dark movie theater with a bunch of strangers) but it's certainly not a 99% on Rotten Tomatoes kind of film. Temper your expectations. Slightly.

Also I don't know if I'm ever going to be able to look at milk the same way again.

My Number: 7/10

Logan (2017): In the near future, a weary Logan cares for an ailing Professor X in a hide out on the Mexican border. But Logan's attempts to hide from the world and his legacy are up-ended when a young mutant arrives, being pursued by dark forces.

​Ahhhhh it's good to see a good X-Men movie again. Seriously, guys, what happened last year with X-Men: Apocalypse? Anyway, Logan is a grittier superhero movie than we're used to, and is the further development of distributors finally embracing the idea of a hard-R superhero movie. There is a LOT of blood in this, which is nice to see! It's nice to see a superhero movie where the hero kills someone and it actually looks somewhat realistic. There's also a lot of curse words, though some of them were definitely unnecessary. However the central calling card of this film is the Wolverine and Laura, played by the wonderful Dafne Keen. While Laura's story arc is one of the weaker parts of the film, it's still well executed, and her relationship with Wolverine leads to a climax that will emotionally devastate you. It is the best moment of the film, and it may even be a contender for one of my favorite movie moments of 2017. Patrick Stewart is also excellent in this, reprising his role as Dr. Charles Xavier one last time as well. Outside of some liberties taken with Laura's character, I did have some quarrels with the third act I won't mention here, but it certainly centered around the film's shameless attempts to setup future installments with a new generation of X-Men. Despite it's troubles though, this is a strong installment for the franchise and brings back memories of Days of Future Past, which is my personal favorite superhero film not named The Dark Knight. Any film that can be used in the same sentence as that one is pretty dang good in my book.

                                                                                    My Number: 7.5/10

Kong: Skull Island (2017): A team of scientists explore an uncharted island in the Pacific, venturing into the domain of the mighty Kong, and must fight to escape a primal Eden.

Feels like the summer blockbusters are coming earlier and earlier every year, eh? Logan kicked it off just one week after the Oscars and now Kong: Skull Island is here. It's odd, too: this film is the quintessential summer blockbuster. It's a big, stupid action movie that would be perfect to go see on a hot summer's day to escape the heat and turn the brain off for 2 hours. Don't get me wrong....as much as this film was trying to be something more than a popcorn flick, it accidentally does the popcorn flick quite well. If you go into this film wanting to see a giant gorilla fight giant lizards with shameless one-liners from the cast, that's what you're going to get. As well as a chance to see Loki and the future Captain Marvel on screen together. (Don't worry....they're the best part of this movie) But don't go into it looking for anything other than that because man....this script is a total disaster. From the WB-mandated surface level pop song every two freaking seconds, to the film changing it's tone on a dime multiple times a minute, this script may find itself receiving the "Worst script of 2017 award." I just gave up after a while, and instead had a blast watching a giant gorilla beat stuff up. This is by no means a good movie, (heck I may even have to label it a guilty pleasure at some point) but if you go into it ready to turn the brain off and have a good time....(even at the film's expense) you're gonna have a good time.

​My Number: 5/10

The Belko Experiment (2017): The IMDB description is too long. This movie sucks.

What the heck happened here? This movie is an absolute trainwreck. It has shallow characters, incredibly slow pacing, (despite its brief 88 minute runtime) and is overall just messy. This film was written by James Gunn too! The dude is the brainchild of what I think is the best MCU film, Guardians of the Galaxy, so I know he can create some fleshed out characters. What was this? Did he write this script just for the paycheck? So many characters have no real arcs, and the only one that does (Danny, and she's not even a main character) has the most unsatisfactory conclusion outside of the actual ending imaginable. Oh ya! And at the end, when we get the whole "What was it all for" discussion, the response is a shrug and the ol' "We're not at liberty to say" excuse. No. F U. Such lazy storytelling. Also most of this film is just a straight ripoff of the great The Cabin in the Woods, right down to them having an eerily similar pothead providing "comedic relief." Only this time the pothead does not have the coolest bong ever. There is a loooooooot of blood and gore in this film, (fair warning-it was a little much for even my tastes) and even if it is accidental and surrounded by a lot of stereotypes, the idea itself is pretty interesting. So I guuuuuuuuuess it has that. But Jesus is this script a disaster. There aren't nearly enough slasher flicks out there, so our pickings are slim, but I would say don't even bother with this one. Watch The Cabin in the Woods and any of The Purge films again. They're all better than this one. Yes, even the first Purge film. This movie sucks.

My Number: 2/10

Manchester by the Sea (2016): An uncle is asked to take care of his teenage nephew after the boy's father dies.

Well, here we are. My last film review of 2016. Obviously I intentionally saved Manchester by the Sea for last, as I was hoping for it to be as good a film as something like Room was. Unfortunately, though, 2016's version of Room goes to Lion, as Manchester by the Sea failed to emotionally wreck me like either of those two films did. Don't get me wrong-it is an emotional film filled with dramatic moments and buoyed by an Oscar-worthy performance from Casey Affleck, (real-life issues aside) but this film really just.....didn't quite move me like others have this year, and I think I might have to call this one "overrated." It felt more like The Revenant than Room, unfortunately. Now, I'm not taking anything away from this film by saying that, nor am I taking anything away from The Revenant. It's good-I'm not denying that-I'm just saying that it's not.....that good.

So, as is typical around here, let's start with the good. And the good starts with Casey Affleck. The controversy of "does Casey Affleck deserve an Oscar"  will be saved for another post where it's appropriate, because here I like to try and look at just the film itself. And yes, within the film itself Casey Affleck is outstanding. He puts in a performance that can rival anything his older brother Ben has done over the years, (except maybe The Town)  and on its own merit is more than deserving of an Oscar nomination. To be honest, Affleck plays this role so well I thought he was just playing himself, but he's also asked to display a wide range of emotions throughout the film. Taken just on its own merits, this is probably the best performance from a male actor in 2016. That said, I really feel that the cast is Casey Affleck and Casey Affleck alone. The other Oscar nominee, Michelle Williams, is good, but nowhere near Oscar-worthy good. She has a total of four scenes in this film, two of which are just her in the background. She has one emotional scene with Casey Affleck, which was a great scene no doubt but not enough to merit an Oscar nomination. This spot should've gone to someone like Janelle Monae from Hidden Figures or even Rooney Mara from Lion. Anyone, really. Not 10 minutes of Michelle Williams. Kyle Chandler is pretty good in this, as well as Lucas Hedges, but nobody else had the same pomp and circumstance as Casey. Now, I've spent this much time on the acting because it's the centerpiece of this film-there really are no risks taken whatsoever in the technical department outside of a few clever cuts out of editor Jennifer Lame, but really outside of that there's not a whole lot going on with this film. Which is a shame because it's directed by Kenneth Lonergan, who does have some excellent films under his belt from a screenplay/director standpoint.

As for the screenplay....it's.....fine. Well, no. It's good. It's a good tale of someone being thrust into a position they do not want to be in and having to figure out how to deal with it, but it's also a tale I've seen before. However it does end in a pretty good way that was....unexpected. As a result I did like the ending simply because it was different. But never was there a moment where I found myself an emotional trainwreck. There were certainly moments where I was supposed to feel that way, but I just never rocked the ugly cry. I honestly cannot tell you why this was the case. Maybe it's because I never once felt like I could identify with the son, Patrick? That might have something to do with it-the guy is kind of a jerk who does not treat Casey Affleck with a lot of respect-this might have turned me off just a tad to the story. Maybe if Hedges had looked at Affleck the same way Jacob Tremblay looked at Brie Larson in Room.....I would've been more emotional. But that would've also been out of place with this film because there are totally different circumstances going on here. I just......I don't know. Obviously I'm trying to figure this out as I go along, but I think I'm onto it, so I'm gonna go with the answer to "why was I not emotional during this film" as "Affleck's nephew, played by Lucas Hedges, is portrayed as a jerk. Final answer."

Ok I spent way too much time trying to figure that out, and it may sound like I'm trying to take away something from what was an otherwise good film. I think I have stumbled on why I don't think this film will crack my top ten this year, but hey....maybe you find Patrick a lot more likable and identifiable than I did. Maybe you have a completely different opinion about this film and think it is one of the best of 2016. But that's not me. While I'm glad I saw it, and I can safely say Casey Affleck puts in one of the best performances of 2016, Manchester by the Sea definitely failed to leave that emotional impact I was looking for. However I still look forward to seeing what Kenneth Lonergan does next. Iiiiiiiiiiin 2025.

The Critique: Despite a great performance from its lead, Manchester by the Sea failed to leave any sort of emotional impact on me thanks to poorly written teenager character that is a centerpiece for the film.

The Recommendation: Look, if you can get past what I disliked in Patrick, you will likely enjoy this film. It's also worth watching if you like the ol' comeback story for Hollywood. Even if that comeback is coming back from sexual assault allegations.

Rewatchability: Moderately Low

​The Verdict: 7/10 Good.

Well, there you have it! The last review of 2016. Thanks for joining me on this adventure. Now onto lists, lists, and more lists!



Image Credit
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BODUwNGU1ZjYtNGIyYy00MjJiLTg1YWEtNzU1YzIyNTQ4YjkwL2ltYWdlXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNDkzNTM2ODg@._V1_SX1500_CR0,0,1500,999_AL_.jpg

John Wick: Chapter 2 (2017): An ex-hitman comes out of retirement to track down the gangsters that took everything from him.

Before we go any further, and if you're a fan of action movies.....stop reading. Drop everything and go see this. If you are a fan of the action genre and somehow missed the first John Wick, change that. Right now. Because John Wick is easily one of the best action flicks of this decade, and this second film somehow lives up to its predecessor. Yes. Once more, like with the original, I freaking love this movie. It is wonderfully shot, choreographed, and executed. There really isn't anything out there filmed quite like John Wick, and when I come out of these movies I'm really baffled that there aren't any imitators yet. There are problems with this film, yes, but man. If you want amazing action sequences.....look no further than this.

So what makes John Wick's action so great? I think it's really the choreography of it all. The sequences are meticulously staged, right down to ensuring that an empty clip of Wick's gets thrown in the perfect spot and hits the wall at just the right time. The choreography in this film follows closely with it's predecessor, and given the fact that this is easily the best part of this franchise (and what makes John Wick, well, John Wick) I am amazed that the copycats haven't sprung up just yet. Looks like that might change with 2017's Ghost in the Shell, but we'll have to wait and see. Additionally, what makes the action sequences so great here is the camera placement. Stuntman-turned director Chad Stahelski is very conscious of where the camera is placed at any moment in these action sequences, and thanks to its wide lens the viewer is able to see everything going on. No shaky cam! No uncomfortable close ups! Just as many wide-shots as possible. And when the action does move into a more claustrophobic area towards the end of the film, the camera still gives us enough of a wide-shot to not get too disoriented.

While the action sequences are still the calling card for John Wick, this film also investigated the alternate universe that its creating. More so than the first one. Unfortunately this is where a few small missteps occur, as we see some of these big sequences take place in highly populated areas of the world and yet no one around these assassins ever blinks an eye. Like if someone fired a gun in a subway the people wouldn't go nuts. Because they, you know, don't want to get caught in the crossfire. But beyond that I loved the world-building that takes place in this film. It has just enough rules to be interesting while being grounded enough to be believable. Finally, I have to talk about this legendary cast. The marketing team focused on the reunion of Keanu Reeves and Laurence Fishburne, but I was more intrigued by the cameos from acting legends, including Mario Donatone, Peter Stormare, and Franco Nero. It felt like every scene I was going, "Hey! I know that guy!" which is always fun. At the end of the day it felt like people wanted to be in this, and hopefully that continues with the inevitable next installment. While it's not quite as good as the original, if nothing else John Wick: Chapter 2 solidifies this franchise's place at the top of the action movie genre. Now if you're still here and even remotely like action movies.....go see this.

The Critique: While not quite as good as its predecessor, John Wick: Chapter 2 solidifies this franchise's place at the top of the action genre thanks to its breathtaking fight sequences.

The Recommendation: An ABSOLUTE must-watch for any action fan or fan of Keanu Reeves.

Rewatchability: High

The Verdict: 8/10 Great (though not quite as strong an 8 as I gave its predecessor)


Image Credit
​https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMzA0NjIyODY4OV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwMTUyOTIyMTI@._V1_SX1500_CR0,0,1500,999_AL_.jpg

​Miss Sloan (2016): In the high-stakes world of political power-brokers, Elizabeth Sloane is the most sought after and formidable lobbyist in D.C. But when taking on the most powerful opponent of her career, she finds winning may come at too high a price.

So I wasn't initially going to write a full-length review of this film, but after it was over I felt....compelled...to do so. Look. I can't deny I love a raunchy political drama. Remember I'm the guy that searched out and watched Zipper back in 2015. Remember that one? Ya I'm sure no one remembers that one but me. I also love shows like The Newsroom, so it was also kind of weird to see Alison Pill and Sam Waterston playing somewhat similar characters. So I was excited to watch this! And initially after I completed it, I was smiling. Initially, I enjoyed it! That is definitely going to buoy my score, because as I started to really think about it.....I realized just how shallow this film is. This film is the political drama equivalent of a mindless popcorn flick, only it's trying to be more. Anyone who follows my blog knows I have NO problem with a superficial film that knows what it is. But, unfortunately, this film does not know it. And after I got over looking at this film and adoring Jessica Chastain, I started realizing this.

So, let's talk about what this film nails. For one, it is sexy as hell! The customers are fantastic, the colors are great, and everyone looks awesome. I don't think I've seen a film where Michael Stuhlbarg looks this good! And of course Jessica Chastain's hair and makeup is perfect in every scene, because of course it is. MAN do I love her. She is acting the crap out of this film and putting in one of the most overlooked performances of 2016. It's not perfect as there were a few points I found myself squirming, most notably when she had to convey anger, but it was certainly better than her performance in last year's Crimson Peak. But over all she does everything she can to hold this film up with her own two hands, and she looked damn good doing it. If only her character had any sort of depth.....

So let's start there, ya? Let's start with the main character, Miss Sloan. She is this extraordinary human being, who is always the smartest person in the room but looks at the world in a very different way. But, do we ever get an investigation of why she acts the way she does? Maybe some scenes where she describes her childhood to a coworker? Or flashbacks? Or really any sort of explanation of why she is the way she is? Nope! What's worse, we get the ol' "I don't have time to tell you" kind of excuse from the film when it flirts with her backstory, as if the screenwriters knew we'd be curious about it but said, "Nope! Don't wanna give you one because we want you to be sad." Additionally, and probably even more notably, was how superficial the rest of this film is. This film does the thing that you see in a lot of action films, like Jason Bourne, where the writers need to advance the plot to point B but feel the need to show you how they got to point B, which constitutes as the main characters standing in a dark room in the CIA going "Quick! We need to find out where the bad guy is!" *Violently bangs on keyboard* "There he is!" to get us there. Too many times in this film it looked like Jessica Chastain was just like "Quick! We need to find a weak point on this guy!" *Violently bangs keyboard* "That's it!" which I didn't initially notice as it was happening but realized soon afterwards. Finally, the ending? Meeeeeeh I don't know guys. Director John Madden and debut screenwriter Jonathan Perera (congrats to him-might not be the greatest script but still a heck of a way to start) both had pretty clear agendas in ensuring Chastain's character is portrayed in a specific way, but the more I thought about it the more I didn't buy it. I'd call this ending a swing and a miss.

In conclusion, while I can't deny this is a sleek and sexy film to watch, and it's covering a topic that is very engaging to watch be portrayed right now, (lobbying against the gun industry) but unfortunately it tackles this topic in a very shallow and superficial way. If it only realized this and adjusted accordingly, or turned this script into the beginnings of a TV show, maybe it would've stood a chance. But as is it's just another wannabe "serious" political drama trying to make a statement.

The Critique: Despite its sleek and sexy look and a great performance from Jesicca Chastain, Miss Sloan fails to make a lasting impression because of a shallow and superficial script.

The Recommendation: If you like Jessica Chastain or political dramas, you'll have fun. Everyone else? There are better films to watch out there right now than this.

Rewatchability: Moderate

The Verdict: 6/10 Above Average


Image Credit
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMTY4MDYwNjAyOF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwOTI4Mzc5OTE@._V1_SY1000_SX1500_AL_.jpg

The Founder (2016): ​The story of Ray Kroc, a salesman who turned two brothers' innovative fast food eatery, McDonald's, into one of the biggest restaurant businesses in the world with a combination of ambition, persistence, and ruthlessness.

Well. Let's talk about this movie, ya? Because....as interesting a story as it is, The Founder suffers from one tremendous problem. A problem which torpedoes the entire film: it glorifies the main character. Ray Kroc is a despicable man, and this film spends way too much time singing his praises. Yes, he created the empire now known as McDonald's, but he destroyed a lot of lives along the way. An easy example of this misstep with the film is with the female characters. Laura Dern is his initial wife, (and grossly miscast, but that's a whole other thing) and about halfway through, he divorces her. No rhyme or reason. Just....sitting at the dinner table, and, "I want a divorce." Then, later on, we discover that he's remarried to a woman who was clearly married to someone else during the film. No mention of how that came to be. It just....happens. This film honestly would've been infinitely more interesting had it been told from Dick and Mac McDonald's standpoints versus Ray's. You really have to feel for them: they are very similar to the Loving couple who paved the way for marriage equality with Loving v. Virginia in that they stood at the precipice of fame, glory, and immortality and walked away because they didn't want it. There's no denying that this is an interesting story-after all, today McDonald's is one of the biggest companies in the world. However, we're still be waiting for it to be told right: from the perspective of the McDonald's brothers.

My Number: 4/10

The Edge of Seventeen (2016): High-school life gets even more unbearable for Nadine when her best friend, Krista, starts dating her older brother.

I'm such a sucker for a good coming-of-age film. And The Edge of Seventeen is certainly that. While there are certainly problems with this film-most notably it presents its solution pretty much immediately then you go through the drama of the film-it was still a good time. Oh and Kyra Sedgwick is totally miscast. Sorry. However! Woody Harrelson makes up for it in one of the best roles I've seen him do, and Hailee Steinfeld is great. If Hollywood had more respect for the coming-of-age flick, she might've had another Oscar nomination. This is easily her best performance since True Grit! Beyond that though, this film is an engaging story (even though it shares a lot of similarities with other coming-of-age films) that I was totally in on. Oh, and there's a great soundtrack! As usual. No Perks of Being a Wallflower level good, but still good. I just wish the solutions to Steinfeld's problems weren't presented so early on and peppered in throughout the film. But really. EASILY the best parts of this film are the exchanges between Steinfeld and Harrelson. I'm sure someone in Hollywood will recognize their chemistry and build a film around having those two as the leads. I would have had no problem watching an entire film of just the two of them snarking off to each other in a classroom. This film is worth a watch for the two of them alone, but if you like the coming-of-age flick, there's no doubt this one was the best one of 2016.

My Number: 7/10

Bleed for This (2016): The inspirational story of World Champion Boxer Vinny Pazienza who, after a near fatal car crash which left him not knowing if he'd ever walk again, made one of sport's most incredible comebacks.

Ahhhh yet another polarizing boxing film. I can't emphasize this enough: I am a sucker for come-from-behind boxer films. Almost as much as the coming-of-age film. Don't ask me why because I can't tell you, but for whatever reason I love these! I am the guy that loved Southpaw, after all. But what makes this film so polarizing is that it's basically two separate films that are split by the car crash that nearly kills Vinny. (Played by Miles Teller) The first half of the film is a boring ripoff of literally every other standard boxing film ever, and the second half is the actual come-from-behind story. Which I enjoyed! Once we got past the crash there were several exhilarating sequences of Teller's training and him pushing himself past the limits of the human body. Unfortunately, while Miles Teller is pretty good as the lead, Aaron Eckhart is TERRIBLE as is trainer. I don't know what he's doing with this character, but GOD is he awful. There really wasn't anyone else who made a splash in this film beyond Ciaran Hinds, who had like one good scene. Everyone else.... I didn't even bother trying to figure out who's who. Vinny's got a big family in this film, and the filmmakers make little to no effort to flesh them out. Honestly this film would've been significantly better had it opened with a montage of Vinny before the accident then went straight into it, and not had Aaron Eckhart as his trainer, but beggars can't be choosers. What we get here is another average boxing flick. Just go watch Creed again.

My Number: 5/10 

American Honey (2016): A teenage girl with nothing to lose joins a traveling magazine sales crew, and gets caught up in a whirlwind of hard partying, law bending and young love as she criss-crosses the Midwest with a band of misfits.

American Honey is a film that feels free. It's a very spontaneous film, and I can really respect that. It made a GREAT casting decision with its lead and complete newbie Sasha Lane, and Shia LaBeouf is even pretty good. Though he was very much Shia LaBeouf. However, it's the freedom of this film that is so liberating. However, it is also freeing to a fault-this film is kind of a scattershot of ideas and no direction. You look at another hippie film that came out in 2016, 20th Century Women, and you see a film that, while spontaneous, still has a goal. It's still trying to get somewhere. American Honey, though, feels like it has no destination. And it ends like this too-the film pretty much just cuts to black, with none of the questions it raised to the viewer answered. I mean I get why it made this decision, but c'mon! At least give us like a bit of closure! Also, there was no editing crew to speak off and thus scenes certainly dragged, and I absolutely DESPISED how this film was shot. The camera never focused on the person I actually wanted it to focus on, and it would randomly cut to things that had nothing to do with the scene because of its spontaneity. And that's why I still enjoyed this film! I can respect a film that really embraces its premise and makes itself as freeing as it can in every facet of film making. Even if it was frustrating at points, I was totally suckered into the film, and couldn't help but enjoy myself. If you identify with the whimsical crowd, move this one to the top of your list. Just behind 20th Century Women.

​                                                                                                              My Number: A deserving, but frustrating 7/10

Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk (2016): 19-year-old Billy Lynn is brought home for a victory tour after a harrowing Iraq battle. Through flashbacks the film shows what really happened to his squad - contrasting the realities of war with America's perceptions.

This movie sucks. Unfortunately it's only my second film from director Ang Lee (the other being Brokeback Mountain) and this one did not leave a great taste in my mouth. The film's problems start with the dialogue. Literally no one talks in real life like they do in this film, and the delivery of said dialogue by these actors is anything but great. I think the camera had something to do with this, as there was this awkward close up going on most of the time when everyone was talking. Newbie Joe Alwyn is alright, but right after seeing other newcomer Sasha Lane's performance in American Honey I can safely say I've seen far better. Additionally, this film is a tonal catastrophe. What is the objective of this film? How are we, the viewer supposed to feel? I have no clue, and it's not because we're supposed to figure things out. Oh no, this film hammers you over the head and makes its points as obvious as possible. Just....one moment we're supposed to be thinking, "Man these guys put their souls out there for us." Then the next it's, "Man everyone hates these guys. Are we supposed to be feeling that way?" And in between there are stories about Billy's sister, played by Kristin Stewart, who's easily the best part of this film with the 3 scenes she gets, and there's this story about "Should I stay or should I go?" and there's a movie deal with Jerry Jones-I mean "discount" Jerry Jones played by Steve Martin and there's this guy who is their agent but is he sleazy? I don't know. Oh wait! Doesn't matter we're moving on. See? See the problem we have here? There's way too many ideas being flown around for any of them to stick. As a result none of them do, and what you                                                                                                                        end up with is likely (or I will tell myself this) the worst film Ang                                                                                                                     Lee has ever made. Tear it down and start again.

                                                                                                                    My Number: 3/10

Lion (2016): A five-year-old Indian boy gets lost on the streets of Calcutta, thousands of kilometers from home. He survives many challenges before being adopted by a couple in Australia; 25 years later, he sets out to find his lost family.

Lion is 2016's Room. An emotionally devastating story that seems so unlikely you think there's no possible way it's true. Yet.....it is. I'm still crying, as I write these first few sentences of this review, because it's just that much of an emotional trainwreck. Well done, Weinstein Company. There's no doubt this is the best film they've produced in at least five years. Well, it's now morning, and I am still reeling from this film. Obviously that's good movie making, and there's no doubt this will be in my top 5 best films of 2016, but now it's time for me to tell you why I think this is a top 5 kind of film. 

Main reason it's in my top 5? The story. The story of Lion is simply incredible. Every moment of this film is gut wrenching, even the slower paced moments. But this film just picked me up and carried me throughout its 118 minute run-time. We spend pretty much the entire first half of the film with a young Saroo, played here MARVELOUSLY by newcomer Sunny Pawar, This segment could've sunk the entire film if it wasn't as beautifully shot and acted as it was. Throughout the sequence Sunny Pawar has to convey emotions with just his face, and he does so simply marvelously. The audition for young Saroo must have been grueling, but they found their poster child with Sunny. After a brutal and emotional 45 minutes or so, young Saroo finally finds a home with John and Sue, played by David Wenham (of Lord of the Rings fame) and Nicole Kidman.

Let's talk about Nicole Kidman for a moment, ya? Because this just might be my favorite performance of 2016. Kidman really isn't in this film a whole lot. The story is, after all, about Saroo, and as it progresses he spends more time with his girlfriend (played by Rooney Mara) than he does with Nicole Kidman. But every single scene Kidman was in she just stole the show. She made me cry more than anyone else has all year, and she did it just with her facial expressions. I think director Garth Davis and company realized they had something great on their hands as the shooting for the film went on, because early on when you see Kidman it was often in wide shots that included David Wenham, but as the film went on those wide shots turned into closeups of just Kidman. There's a sequence towards the end of the film between Kidman and Dev Patel, who plays Saroo as an adult, where the entire sequence basically held on Kidman's face, and she was conveying so much emotion with just her eyes.....it was absolutely devastating.

In addition, this film has a trove of Bollywood stars, most notably Nawazuddin Siddiqui, who is one of the A-listers of Bollywood. A lot of these actors I wasn't familiar with, so it was very cool to see them in this film. Oh, and before I forget, I was crying for the entire last 15 minutes of the film. So, just prepare for that. I know that comment was very out of place there, but I forgot to mention it earlier so....there you go. Anyway, there were a few problems with the film that keep it from a perfect score. One was the pacing of the film, particularly in the first half. There are a lot of things that happened to young Saroo, and while they are devastating and are meant to serve a real-life purpose, it does throw off the pacing a far amount. This is such a tough one for me, because there's no doubt the opening sequences should be there, but it still doesn't change the fact that the meat of this story is in the second half, and it takes too long to get there. Additionally, and this may be a very Joseph-complaint, but I wasn't a huge fan of the score. It was nominated for an Oscar, so a lot of people like it, but it bothered me. Ready for why? This is the Joseph-complaint part. The main theme sounded EXACTLY like "Light of the Seven" from Game of Thrones Season 6. Yes, THAT sequence. So every time I heard the main them all I could think of was Game of Thrones! I know this was totally accidental, and when the main theme wasn't playing I certainly dug the unorthodox score, but COME ON. "Light of the Seven" is like one of the coolest and eeriest uses of music in a TV/film sequence in recent memory. You cannot sound even close to that opening piano sequence with your main theme for a film. That, my friends, is a fail.

That said, Lion is still an incredible work of cinema, and for most they won't care about either of those two complaints I just mentioned so they will certainly be in for an emotional roller coaster all throughout the film. It's beautifully shot and beautifully edited (should've received a Best Editing nomination. Just saying) and has great set design too. It's a fantastic smashing of Bollywood and Hollywood and well-deserving of its 6 nominations. Check it out.

The Critique: One of the best films of the year, Lion is an emotional roller coaster of a film that is well worth your time.

The Recommendation: An absolute must-see for anyone.

Rewatchability: High

The Verdict: 9/10 Awesome


Image Credit
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMjAwNzI4ODIyOF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwMjUzNjM2OTE@._V1_SX1500_CR0,0,1500,999_AL_.jpg

Loving (2016): The story of Richard and Mildred Loving, an interracial couple, whose challenge of their anti-miscegenation arrest for their marriage in Virginia led to a legal battle that would end at the US Supreme Court.

This. This film is the reason the Academy diversified its voting group. In years past, a film like this would not have been nominated. It most certainly did not make a huge splash, and there was no huge marketing push behind it to get any Oscar nominations, and yet it found itself with a coveted Best Actress nomination. I know I wasn't the only one asking, "Loving? What?" when I saw Ruth Negga's name on the list for Best Actress nominations. In years past with a mostly older and whiter voting class, a film like this would've been lost to the annals of time. But, certain parts of the Academy clearly cared about this film and the performance of Ruth Negga so much they put it in their top five and, after watching the film, I can see why. Negga is outstanding, and certainly the best part of the film. There's a certain.....beauty to her performance. See this film, and the character she and Joel Edgerton, her husband in the film, play, are very shy and reserved. There is no super-obvious, Oscar-worthy scene for Negga. There is no "Here's to the fools who dream" kind of moment for her. It's the character she creates throughout the 123 minute film that is so engaging. It's the character that, when she finds out the Supreme Court ruled in her favor, devastates you with a simple smile.

If you can't tell yet, I absolutely LOVED Ruth Negga in this film. Her performance as Mildred was a very quiet and intimate performance, and well worthy of an Oscar nomination. Joel Edgerton was also great as the husband Richard. Man has he come a long way. Dude sure knows how to play a diverse set of characters. What can be viewed as a criticism, though, is that the supporting cast outside of these two are pretty lackluster. Even the great Michael Shannon isn't given much to do here. Sure, the purpose of this film is to be as intimate as it gets, but this can certainly be a double-edged sword. For example, Nick Kroll plays the lawyer for Richard and Mildred and is initially portrayed as ambitious and potentially only taking this case on to further his own career. Film never investigates that though, and as it goes on all inclination of his ambition is forgotten about and he becomes a caring lawyer. But is that really a big deal? No. This story is not about the lawyer of Richard and Mildred. It's about the two of them. Oh! THAT SAID. There is a TERRIFIC performance buried in this film from Marton Csoakas, who plays a racist sheriff in the town this takes place in. Oh my GOD is he great! He basically gets two scenes in this film, and he kills them both. Almost forgot to mention him! Even though the film forgot about him completely in the second half but oh well! He was great in his two scenes!

Anyway, moving on. The story overall was very engaging. I imagine the research for this was very difficult for this film because the main characters are so reserved, but it's pretty amazing to see such unlikely heroes for the Civil Rights movement. I think outside of the story and acting though, the movie was pretty average though. Nothing out of the ordinary from a technical standpoint. (Again, I think this was the point) I will say though, the sound design was a little lackluster. The dialogue was turned up way too loud from time to time when the characters were having more intimate conversations, and this was kind of distracting to me. Other than that, though, it was a well-made and well-executed film telling an important story worth telling, and I am glad that parts of the Academy felt it was worth an Oscar nomination. Check it out if you're a fan of history or the Civil Rights movement!

The Critique: Beautiful in its simplicity and buoyed by a great performance from Ruth Negga, Loving is a great film worthy of its Oscar nomination.

The Recommendation: Take a looksie if you like history-based films and stories that deal with civil rights. 

Rewatchability: Moderately High

The Verdict: 8/10 Great




Image Credit
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BOTIwNTMwNTUzOV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwMzE1MDU5OTE@._V1_SY1000_CR0,0,1502,1000_AL_.jpg

Elle (2016): A successful businesswoman gets caught up in a game of cat and mouse as she tracks down the unknown man who raped her.

Ok! I'm going to be honest with you: a film like this is why I love critiquing film. (or trying to, at least) Not because it's in the realm of La La Land. Not at all. It's because this film is so polarizing. On the one hand, you have an absolutely MASTERFUL performance from Isabelle Huppert. This performance is going to make a strong run at my top performance of 2016, but then again it might not because.....well, because most of this movie sucks.

I don't know. Maybe I'm just not cultured enough to understand international films. It's definitely not the subtitles! I have no problem reading subtitles. (This entire film is in French) And I don't need everything spoon fed to me. I don't mind having to figure things out myself. What I do mind is having excess fat in your film. The meat of this is that IMDB description. The cat and mouse game between her and the man who assaulted her. Only problem is that only constitutes about 30 minutes of the 130 minute film. The rest of the film is spent developing characters, some of which have nothing to do with the meat of the story, as well as telling a pretty uninteresting side story between Huppert, Anne Consigny, and the most recognizable actor in the film for Americans, Christian Berkel. (Inglorious Basterds) With this much fat, the pacing for the film is nonexistent, and of course it feels overlong. In addition, the set design was not great. Huppert's job is the head of a video game company, and as something of a gamer myself whom has always been fascinated by how they are made, I can tell you that they are not made AT ALL like how they make them in the film. (Not my best sentence there I know but I'm tired) I mean all you have to do is watch Indie Game: The Movie and you'd know they are not run even remotely like that. Unless they're trying to convey the struggles between publishers and developers in one room but.....I just don't think this film is smart enough for that. Finally, there's this whole thing between Huppert's son and his girlfriend, (played by Jonas Bloquet and Alice Isaaz, respectively) that ends in the most underwhelming way imaginable. I mean words cannot describe how poorly written their character arc is. 

All that said....Isabelle Huppert is GREAT. This is a very nitty gritty role that asks Huppert to really dehumanize herself. She clearly gave part of her soul to this character, and I respect her for going all-in here. She became the character from the first moment of the first scene, and when that happens you know you have something magical on your hands. She was so good there were plenty of times I didn't even bother to read her subtitles and I just watched her reactions to whatever it was that was going on. Also because of the subtitles I don't think I can really comment on the other performances, but I will say Jonas Bioquet as Huppert's son was excellent. Additionally, when we were in the meat of the story, I was riveted. When the assailant is finally revealed, the film goes in a very VERY different direction than I expected it to. I most certainly did not see the second half of the 30 minutes of this plot coming, but I totally bought it. It was uncomfortable, sure, but Huppert's character was developed enough that I could understand where she was coming from. In a twisted sort of way. But man talk about a sharp left turn there! This was easily the most interesting part of the film, and I just wish we had spent more time there rather than talking about her son and girlfriend's relationship.

EDIT: I continue to be torn about this film. I just....I love how it's unpredictable. I had no idea who the assailant was going to be, or where the film was going to go after he was revealed. I just wish that the story itself was more interesting! Maybe I should've tried to not dwell on the assault and Huppert coping with that. But at the same time that is the most interesting part of this drama, and when we weren't investigating this further and when we weren't investigating Huppert's struggles to cope with (there are other words I would use there but it may spoil what happens) the attack....it just seemed to me like the film was stalling for time.

At the end of the day, I am very glad that one of the most celebrated international stars finally received an Oscar nomination. However, there's not much else worthwhile going on in Elle, despite a pretty interesting premise. If you're into films like I am, or really like watching great acting performances there's something here for you, but if not? I certainly wouldn't blame you for letting this one slip through the cracks.

The Critique: Despite a masterful performance from Isabelle Huppert, Elle is a woefully missed opportunity thanks to poor pacing and entirely too much excess fat within the story.

The Recommendation: Well, hey! Get to repeat this again: if you're into films or great acting performances it's worth a watch but if not? This is not the film you are looking for. Move along.

Rewatchability: Moderately Low

The Verdict: 6/10 Above Average. And it's a 6 almost entirely for Isabelle Huppert. May very well be the performance of 2016.


Image Credit
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMzA5OTA2NDE1NV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwMjU2NzQ1MDI@._V1_SY1000_CR0,0,1469,1000_AL_.jpg

Florence Foster Jenkins (2016): The story of Florence Foster Jenkins, a New York heiress who dreamed of becoming an opera singer, despite having a terrible singing voice.

So, let me lead with this: I am in the camp that thinks Meryl Streep, while undeniably great, did not deserve an Oscar for this role. Unfortunately, that pretty much dominates my opinion of this film, which is a shame because there are certainly great bits scattered throughout the movie. But there's also no doubt this film was built around Meryl Streep, and I will always have an issue with the Academy giving an actor or actress, even one who is considered by many to be one of the greatest alive, a nomination for its most coveted role when they know this. I don't claim to be an acting expert, but I've always felt it's much easier to play a role that's built around your strengths and weaknesses than it is to step into something outside your comfort zone. So yes. Meryl Streep is great, but it's not an Oscar-worthy performance. I digress. Let's talk about the rest of the film!

Actually, let's backtrack. Might as well get acting out of the way first. Hugh Grant is.....oh man! He is as charismatic as can be in this. He's basically playing himself, but hey let's not forget I love a film like Knight and Day because that film let Tom Cruise play Tom Cruise. Also outstanding was Simon Helberg. Unlike his Big Ban Theory co-star Jim Parsons in Hidden Figures, Helberg is actually really really good! I freaking loved his character here. He basically plays the audience in his role, and he holds his own against the legendary Streep and Grant. Also doing her best, though her character is undoubtedly the weakest part of the story, is Rebecca Ferguson. She's still trying to find her footing after breaking out in Mission Impossible - Rogue Nation, (she tried her best but was crashed in the train wreck that was Girl on a Train....didn't even realize I was making that pun when I started that thought) but I'm confident she'll find a fleshed out role to finally be taken seriously in Hollywood.

Let's talk about that, shall we? Let's talk about Rebecca Ferguson's character in this film, because as I think about it her TERRIBLY written character almost sinks the entire ship here. She plays Kathleen, which is Hugh Grant's....other wife. So first off, she's like 25 years younger than Hugh Grant, and it shows in this film. This age gap is never mentioned, of course. Second off, her character is not at all developed and is basically meant to serve as a plot device. And before you think there's going to be some dramatic scene between Grant and Streep when Streep's character finds out that Grant is practicing polygamy....don't worry! Let me spoil that one for you! IT DOESN'T HAPPEN. No! At one point Ferguson makes a totally ridiculous "it's either her or me" ultimatum to Grant and everyone in the world with a brain knows Grant is going to side with Streep, and when he inevitably does Ferguson just leaves. That's it! No more Rebecca Ferguson. Done. The closest thing we get is one scene Streep visits Grant unexpectedly and we have Grant AND Simon Helberg (don't worry he knows about Ferguson of course and keeps Grant's secret for literally no reason) pulling off these stupid slapstick gags to keep Ferguson (and another girl) hidden from Streep's viwion. This was totally out of place within the film, and when I started this review I didn't think it bothered me that much but given the fact that I just ranted about it for an entire paragraph clearly it did. BAD MOVIE.

Ok! Now that that's out of my system. Let's talk about more positive things. So the film leads up to this performance at Carnegie Hall, which was a shockingly emotional sequence. Heck it may even sneak into my top movie moments of 2016. Not sure about that one yet, but it was a lovely sequence that, in the span of a few moments, threw me from one side of the emotional spectrum to the other. That doesn't happen very often for me. But beyond that, I don't have a lot of positives to talk about here. Hearing her voice for the first time and watching Helberg's reaction was funny! There's one. And, uhhhhhh Hugh Grant is charming oh wait I said that already. Uhhhhhhhh Meryl Streep is great but we all knew that already. Oh! Oh! Costumes! Streep's costumes were fantastic, and there was a lot of care put into everyone's outfits as well. Though Helberg looked REALLY weird wearing a wife beater at one point. Though that may have been done intentionally, however.

Well, I guess in conclusion I'll end with.........this is a cool story, and I'm glad there was a film made around it. And it's charming and good! There's nothing wrong with either. I would probably be much more enthusiastic about this film if I was watching it in August when it came out instead of now surrounded by some of the best movies of the year, but to me this film is just kind of.....there. If you take away anything from this review, it's that: Florence Foster Jenkins is good, but it's just kind of.....there. Alright that's all I got. Time for bed.

The Critique: While a charmingly good film thanks to Meryl Streep and Hugh Grant, Florence Foster Jenkins is a film that can be described as just kind of existing, and thanks to a few major missteps along the way fails to leave any sort of truly emotional punch.

The Recommendation: Fans of Meryl Streep and Hugh Grant will have a lot to like here, as will people who have been waiting for Simon Helberg to be really good outside The Big Bang Theory, but everyone else? There are better films out there worthy of your time.

Rewatchability: Moderate

The Verdict: 7/10 Good.



Image Credit
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMTczYjA4MzEtNGExNy00MTRhLTk3NTgtMmZkMDA2YTUzMjZhL2ltYWdlXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyMjk3NTUyOTc@._V1_.jpg

Captain Fantastic (2016): In the forests of the Pacific Northwest, a father devoted to raising his six kids with a rigorous physical and intellectual education is forced to leave his paradise and enter the world, challenging his idea of what it means to be a parent.

Wow. That IMDB description was way more interesting than the movie itself. So this movie was very polarizing for me. On the one hand it does introduce some very interesting concepts. The idea of a father raising six kids in his equivalent of a paradise and then their struggles to cope with being forced into the world is interesting! But, the payoff is sooooooo unsatisfactory, and the setup to get to that struggle is so weak! This is a 118 minute movie with about 75 minutes of something that belongs in a different film. The first hour of this film plays more like a comedy with serious parts dripped in: the kids all have a great report with each other and their interactions are funny. There. Just summed it up. But then for about 45 minutes, which is the part where the kids themselves are struggling to adapt to the real world, it turns into a gripping a hugely interesting drama.

Let's talk about that, shall we? Because that's certainly the best part of this film. During this there are some brilliant scenes between Viggo Mortensen and his children. While four of his six kids all have boring (or nonexistent) character arcs, two of the four-the two oldest boys-have AMAZING arcs. There's a scene where Mortensen comes to discover that his oldest son was accepted to every important college imaginable. This is easily the best moment of the film, and shows that this film is capable of greatness. But the film wastes too much time debating over "how we should raise our kids" or "how to stick it to the man." Like, this is fine. I have no problem with a film that talks about that. But if you are going to talk about that.....do it in a believable way.

And that's the big problem with this film. It's simply not believable. The great Frank Langella is in this film, and he is a fantastic example of what a great actor can do to a shoddy script. His character is clearly written to be the "bad guy" of the film, and yet Langella adds so much depth to the character, (the father of Mortensen's deceased wife) that it exposes just how shallow the film really is. See, at one point the middle boy threatens to leave Mortensen and stay with his Langella because he blamed Mortensen for his mother's death. Interesting, right? Well, the film could not move past this fact fast enough. Meanwhile, Langella is left to simply "threaten to call the cops," in response to Mortensen not taking too kindly to letting go of his kid, though thanks to Langella's performance he expresses great dismay throughout the entire sequence. Also, Kathryn Hahn is totally miscast here. Sure her role is just another "sister/wife" role in Hollywood, but during her few brief scenes she's never allowed to be herself. Aka be funny. (Unfortunately) There are a million actresses in Hollywood that can just be a generic "the sister" character so if you're going to cast her at least let her be herself! Yet another role delegated to the actresses of Hollywood trying to get by.

Though on the topic of casting, ohhhhhh boy does Annalise Basso do the best she can to make up for her totally uninteresting character. All the daughters in this film are completely wasted as they always stay idealistically true with the beliefs of their father and don't even at one point question how they live their lives, but Basso kills her role nonetheless. Move over, Chloë Grace Moretz. You just might have some company. You may have noticed that I have not talked about Viggo Mortensen's performance much. That's because it is the best thing in this film. Easily. As much as I'm not fond on the rest of this film, Mortensen is simply terrific as the father, and he does deliver a pretty dang good performance. Though is it worthy of a best actor nomination........? No. I think he got this because director Matt Ross is well known around the business and Mortensen simply does not receive as much recognition as he deserves. However if it were up to me I would've given the nomination to Russell Crowe from The Nice Guys. Probably. I would've at least given something to The Nice Guys. Anyway, I think I am taking a very indirect route of saying that ultimately.....this film is fine. It's not bad, but it's not good either. It takes the path of least resistance, and maybe if I was watching it on a warm summer's night after some baseball I'd enjoy it, but in the cold dark of January under a certain orange menace I'm having none of it. On to the next one.

The Critique: Idealistic to a fault, Captain Fantastic takes the least interesting route to tell it's story and ultimately flops in the process, despite a great (but not Oscar-worthy) performance from its lead.

The Recommendation: You know, I'll stand by what I said previously: if it's a warm summer's night and you're perusing Netflix and see this, you could do worse. Otherwise, there are better Oscar-worthy films worthy of your time right now.

Rewatchability: Moderately Low

The Verdict: 5/10 Average



Image Credit
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMTY1ODkyNzYwNl5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNjE0MDU0OTE@._V1_SY1000_SX1500_AL_.jpg

Jackie (2016): Following the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy fights through grief and trauma to regain her faith, console her children, and define her husband's historic legacy.

​​This is a tough film for me to critique. There's no doubt this is a great film: it's wonderfully acted, brilliantly written, masterfully edited, and has some cool costumes, set design, and a very different but awesome score peppering the whole thing. But.....there's something holding it back. Maybe it lies in the performance of Natalie Portman. Maybe it lies in the overall tone of the film. Maybe it does lie in the editing which, while great, was also very obvious. I don't know! As a result, I'm turning this into a flash review. I'm just going to spit out my thoughts and go down the rabbit hole that is reviewing this film and see where we come out. Ok? Well. You don't really have a choice in the matter, so come along now.

Let's focus on positives first. This film has a great cast that gives it their all. Obviously Portman is the centerpiece, (more on her later) but the film also features a strong supporting cast that includes Peter Sarsgaard as Bobby Kennedy, Greta Gerwig as Nancy Tuckerman, Billy Crudup as The Journalist, (though his identity is revealed in the film so I won't spoil) the late great John Hurt as a priest, (RIP) and John Carroll Lynch and Beth Grant as LBJ/Lady Bird Johnson. I was particularly blown away by Gerwig, who shows off her acting chops in a role that is totally different than anything else I've seen her in. Man did she have a good 2016. Additionally, this film was told in a very unique way for a biopic. (Hence the caption) The film basically covers two weeks of Jackie's life around the assassination of JFK, and it (thanks to that great editing) jumps back and forth between basically four different events as the story progresses. I really enjoyed this non-chronological storytelling style, (I'm sure it has a name but I'm not smart enough to know it) and the seamless, but obvious, editing held it all together. Film editor Sebastián Sepúlveda also did that thing where he mixed real footage with film footage so you couldn't really tell if what you were watching was what actually happened versus what the film is telling you what happened, and I love to see that. Snowden could've taken a page out of this technique when recreating shots of Citizenfour, but I digress. There was also a GREAT set design, one certainly worthy of an Oscar nomination, as the film crew had to meticulously recreate a JFK-era White House as they re-enacted Jackie's Tour of the White House from 1962. On top of it all was a very eclectic and unique score from Mica Levi, who utilized a traditional orchestra to create an almost haunting score for this picture. While it stands no chance to win Best Score against La La Land, it was absolutely perfect for this film and reminded me why I love film scores.

But.....what's holding it back? What's preventing it from being right there with La La Land, Moonlight, Arrival, and 20th Century Women for what I believe to be the best films of 2016? I think it starts with Natalie Portman. Don't get me wrong: she's great in this, and may even net an Oscar for her performance due to the celebrity that she is playing, but I never once lost sight of the fact that I was watching Natalie Portman play Jackie. When you're watching a truly great biopic on a celebrity there's often a moment when the actor playing that character is absorbed and becomes a celebrity. Tom Hanks did it in Saving Mr. Banks. Leonardo DiCaprio did it in The Wolf of Wall Street. Jesse Eisenberg did it in The Social Network. But Natalie Portman just doesn't reach that point here. Maybe it's because I didn't really know Jackie Kennedy. (So perhaps my parents would have a different opinion of her performance) But then again I didn't know Jordan Belfort at all either (I didn't even know that was him at the end of the film introducing himself until like two weeks ago) yet DiCaprio still sucked me into that character. Now granted I'm comparing Portman's performance to arguably the best performance in film since Heath Ledger's Joker, but it doesn't change the fact that I never stopped seeing her, and you don't want that to be the case in your high profile biopic. Also, as I hinted to before, I thought that the editing was too obvious while not adding anything to the film. I looooooved the obvious editing in a film like Whiplash, but that's because it added something to the film. Here it felt like "Oh look at me look at how simply marvelous I am at my job" kind of editing. Again. Obvious for a reason, but obvious nonetheless. 

I don't know. Maybe I'm just being too harsh on Jackie, but that may be because I saw the potential for greatness here. When you have a film centered around one of the most traumatic events of the 20th century, it is very easy to create drama and intrigue. And when you center your story around the First Lady instead of the American people or the president's perspective, you can create an entirely different and unique perspective surrounding these events. But while I do feel like the film kind of does this, I just think it could've done more. That's definitely a good complaint to have about a film, but if this review has taught you anything about how I look at things.....a complaint is still a complaint. 

The Critique: Despite a brilliant performance from Natalie Portman, Jackie falls just short of immortality due to some overbearing moments.

The Recommendation: If you're a fan of JFK or Jackie Kennedy or the Kennedy's in general, this film is more than worth your time. Everyone else though? Might be kind of bored during this film.

Rewatchability: Moderate

The Verdict: 8/10 Great

Oscar Talk: Given the amount of press it had going into the nominations and the fact that it only has 3 Oscar nominations to show for it, I think the Academy kind of agrees with me on Jackie. I think there is a very real possibility that this film comes out of Oscar night empty-handed. It's best shot is Best Actress, and even though I haven't seen a bunch of those performances yet, I can say that Emma Stone was definitely better than Portman. We shall see!



Image Credit
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMjExNjQyOTM5Ml5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwMTU1MzQ2MDI@._V1_SY1000_CR0,0,1498,1000_AL_.jpg

​​The Neon Demon (2016): When aspiring model Jesse moves to Los Angeles, her youth and vitality are devoured by a group of beauty-obsessed women who will take any means necessary to get what she has.

Gah this movie! I wanted to like it. Really, I did. So many people complain (and rightfully so) that creativity has been sacrificed in Hollywood at the altar of money. And if there's one word that describes The Neon Demon it's creative. It has a very creative story and tells it in a unique way. Visuals are how this story is told versus dialogue, (though there is still plenty of that) and director Nicolas Winding Refn spared no expense in this department, including some amazing lighting and absolutely breathtaking makeup. Even the editing shows up to help tell this story at times. I loved that! But its visual story is also its downfall. Elle Fanning's character is a HUGE swing and a miss as she makes far too many jumps in character for me to follow. One second she's a totally innocent girl trying to make friends and the next she's pushing away her boyfriend to get ahead. The supporting cast makes some inexplicable jumps in character too, with only Abbey Lee's character remaining consistent. While all these characters are well acted, (this may be the best performance I've seen from Jena Malone) there were simply too many "Wait, what?" moments for me to truly love this film. As much as I love creativity and originality, it's also a two-way street.

My Number: 5.5/10

13th (2016): An in-depth look at the prison system in the United States and how it reveals the nation's history of racial inequality.

Ava DuVernay can do no wrong. Yet another eye-opening film that exposes the terrible systemic racism that exists in this country, 13th is a harrowing documentary. Told entirely through interviews, 13th explores how a simple provision in the 13th Amendment opened the door to atrocities like Jim Crow or the "War on Drugs" to our modern (and messed up) prison system. What is truly fascinating with this film is that it does actually go into the "other side" of these issues. For example, when it highlights the negative effect ALEC has had on our prison system, (ALEC is something, by the way) it actually shows an interview of a spokesperson from ALEC. Because DuVernay's crew actually reached out to ALEC for an interview and they responded. However, when the consequences of their actions are shown, it really goes to show just how ridiculous their defenses are. This is one of the best documentaries I've seen in a long time, and it is worthy of a watch from anyone who asks the question, "Why do Black Lives Matter?" Seriously. Go see it. Just a few missteps in the editing department keep it from a perfect score, but for most people that won't matter. This is available to watch on Netflix right now, so you have no excuse not to watch it. Doooooo it.

My Number: 9/10

Deepwater Horizon (2016): A dramatization of the April 2010 disaster, when the offshore drilling rig Deepwater Horizon exploded and created the worst oil spill in U.S. history.

You know, I wanted to really like this movie. After all my interest in it was spiked by seeing Peter Berg's other 2016 film Patriot's Day, and this was the one nominated for Oscars and not the other, so I figured that I must be better. Well.....it's not. While it's certainly quite the spectacle, and there is a fair share of naturally dramatic events including one film-made one towards the end between Wahlberg and Rodriguez that was EASILY the best moment in the film, but it also had a lot of problems. Unfortunately, these problems outweigh the good in my opinion. The problems start, surprisingly, with the effects. I thought the effects were pretty corny. I don't know, maybe I'm just so used to CGI that I would assume something like this was all CGI, but the fire throughout this film looked very fake. Combine that with the dark setting and the oil and everything on everyone's faces, and I had absolutely no idea what was going on with anyone short of Wahlberg, Kurt Russell, Gina Rodriguez, and John Malkovich. That's.....not what you want to have happen in your film. I don't know. Maybe I should've seen it in theaters. Might have been more coherent then. But as it is I had no idea what was happening to anyone and what was happening where other than EXPLOSIONS all throughout the disaster sequence. Even though the final moments between Wahlberg and Rodriguez were emotional, it was not enough to save it. Oh, and can we PLEASE give Kate Hudson more to do than just being "the wife?" Seriously....when will these shallow roles for actresses end??

​My Number: 4/10

Live By Night (2016): A group of Boston-bred gangsters set up shop in balmy Florida during the Prohibition era, facing off against the competition and the Ku Klux Klan.

This movie is TERRIBLE. The biggest problem with it is that it feels like a bunch of movies in one. As a result, the film struggles to find an identity throughout its 129 minute run-time and is simply a missed opportunity. There were some interesting bits: most notably Elle Fanning's role as a Hollywood-bound girl turned drug addict turned fundamentalist preacher, but the film doesn't spend anywhere near enough time with this idea to make it resonate. Fanning gets basically two scenes to flesh out her character, and that's simply not enough. Affleck is basically playing his character from The Town, which here is very out of place: he's actually kind of bad in this film. His character's arc isn't really that interesting, and his decent from dignified bootlegger to gangster has been rehashed far better a million times before. Rather than taking an interesting route, like with Fanning's character, Affleck (who also wrote and directed the film) seems totally content with making his film feel like every other gangster film. While he may be content with that, no one else wants to see "just another gangster movie," and as a result this movie deservedly tanked. It also caps off one of the worst years in recent memory for Warner Brothers, who will only see Sully and Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them receive any sort of Oscar buzz (three nominations total between them) out of the 18 high-profile films they dropped in 2016. Just watch Goodfellas again instead of this travesty.

My Number: 3/10 Bad (And it's a 3 only for Elle Fanning and the set design)

Love & Friendship (2016): Lady Susan Vernon takes up temporary residence at her in-laws' estate and, while there, is determined to be a matchmaker for her daughter Frederica -- and herself too, naturally.


OH MY GOD THIS MOVIE IS AWESOME. Just needed to blurt that out real fast. Seriously. Make the time to see this film. It is hilarious for the first two acts of the film, then it takes an extreme turn to the dramatic for the final act. Oh my God did this film go from hilarious comedy to gripping drama on a DIME. It took me completely by surprise. I was surprised because the film stealthily laid the foundation for the third act, and then sprung it into action. I was hooked. In addition to an amazing story, Kate Beckinsale is absolutely INCREDIBLE as the lead. This film rests on her shoulders, and she puts in one of the best performances of 2016. While the rest of the cast was pretty much invisible, that was ok because Beckinsale certainly carried her weight. Additionally, the film had a marvelous set design and some great costumes. Don't know why this didn't receive a Makeup and Hairstyling nomination but that category makes no sense as it is so whatever. Ultimately, I give this film a strong recommendation because of its humor, its gripping narrative, and a massively underrated performance from Kate Beckinsale. If you're a fan of films that take place in Early Modern Britain, you need to move this film to the top of the list. Just a couple of minor missteps in the final act with Beckinsale's character keep this one from receiving a perfect score.

My Number: 9/10

Silence (2016): Two priests travel to Japan in an attempt to locate their mentor and propagate Catholicism.

Martin Scorsese can do no wrong. While the first half of this 161 minute film is a little slow, the second half is an exceptional bit of film making from my single favorite director in the business. Scorsese uses the namesake, silence, to a bone-chilling effect and makes for one of the most harrowing moments in film I've seen all year. That said, it does take over two hours to get to that point, and I think a lot of people will be somewhat bored with the journey to get there. The film had this weird haze throughout the first half dominating many shots that I'm sure served an artistic purpose, but I was not a huge fan of it. Mostly because when there wasn't haze surrounding any given shot the film looked absolutely gorgeous. Rodrigo Prieto, one of Hollywood's great cinematographers, shot this film and did a marvelous job when there wasn't that weird haze. I mean overall it's great watching a film like this from a master filmmaker because you know there's an artistic purpose for how every shot is framed and portrayed. Additionally no one is better at utilizing the art of silence than Scorsese and this film further punctuates that point. Absolutely fantastic sound design. And man are the last 45 minutes great! Additionally Andrew Garfield is outstanding in this film. I think he should've been nominated for this performance over Hacksaw Ridge, but that just goes to show just how great a year Garfield had. However Adam Driver's character did not receive the same amount of attention Garfield's did, which is quite a shame. At the end of the day, there's no doubt this film is well worth your time if you're a fan of Martin Scorsese like I am. But it's definitely not for everyone. The Irishman can't come soon enough!

My Number: 7/10

Hidden Figures (2016): Based on a true story. A team of African-American women provide NASA with important mathematical data needed to launch the program's first successful space missions.

Let me first state the obvious: I love this movie. It is an awesome movie of people overcoming a system designed to defeat them, it features some great performances all across the board, and it's leads are badass. Seriously, if you've been feeling down in today's political climate, here is another great escape film. This film shamelessly plays on your heart strings, but I never once minded. I think the main reason I didn't mind it was because this film never really seemed to dramatize its story. The most "dramatic" moment in the film did actually happen, (John Glenn proudly talked about it later on in his life) and the movie does a good job to make itself feel pretty intimate, despite the grandiose of the events taking place. So let's jump into it, ya?

First off, the good. This film is anchored by a terrific performance from Taraji P. Henson. Another snub at this year's Oscars, Henson bursts onto the scene in a blaze of glory as the lead here, the badass, snarky, and way-smarter-than-you'll-ever-be Katherine G. Johnson. This character is beautifully written by Allison Schroeder and Theodore Melfi, as well as the rest of the supporting cast, which is almost as strong as Henson. Octavia Spencer is the big name here, and she is wonderful as always, but I was taken aback by Janelle Monae. The pop singer has burst onto the acting scene this year with great performances in both Moonlight and Hidden Figures. Here she plays Mary Jackson, who is every bit as ambitious and snarky as lead Katherine. Mahershala Ali makes another strong supporting appearance, and white co-stars Kevin Costner and Kirsten Dunst (I almost missed her she looks so different) are good too. In fact, Dunst had a wonderful character arc and even has one of the most emotionally impactful moments at the end of the film, mostly due to her great performance. The only weak link here surprisingly is Jim Parsons who is definitely too famous in one role for his own good. However he is certainly made up for it by Glen Powell, who absolutely KILLS it as John Glenn. This dude is pretty much a no-name right now, but you better watch out because he's exploding on to the scene after this film. 

In addition to some wonderful acting performances and a great script, this film also had a great soundtrack. While the score is mostly invisible (which is a shame because it was composed by Hans Zimmer) the songs, mostly composed by the great Pharrell Williams, make up for it. They provide an extra layer of depth and make this a very fun and upbeat film to watch. Hence why it's the perfect escapism film to watch right now! The 1960's era set and costumes are good, but they are pretty standard for a period film like this. Honestly everything outside the acting, script, and soundtrack are pretty invisible, but I think that's how director Theodore Melfi wanted it. This film is all about Katherine G. Johnson, and everything else you see is around just to help bolster her character. I don't really have any complaints with this film other than the fact that it's motives are very obvious, but is that really a bad thing? I prefer to feel like I'm in the heart of a story versus flying over top of it in a helicopter, but being in a helicopter is by no means a bad thing. This is a great film through and through, and definitely worthy of your time.

The Critique: Anchored by an exceptional performance from Taraji P. Henson, Hidden Figures is an engaging and fun retelling of one of the invisible heroes of the 20th century.

The Recommendation: I think anyone that has any interest in NASA will find something to like here, as well as those who need to escape from the carnage that is our current administration.

Rewatchability: High

The Verdict: 8/10 Great



Image Credit
http://www.indiewire.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/hidden-figures.jpg