"The Wolf of Wall Street" Review

Based on his memoirs, The Wolf of Wall Street is the story of the rise and fall of Jordan Belfort: stockbroker extraordinaire. Financed independently, this 100 million dollar production was directed by Martin Scorsese and stars Leonardo DiCaprio. With a 3 hour run-time, the film's main theme is excess. Like an Aronofsky film, The Wolf of Wall Street deals with self-destruction, with the perpetrator being money.

Before I start, I should say, I may be a little biased towards this movie. I've read the memoir of the same name, and knew what to expect. And when I say I knew what to expect, I knew that the film was going to be less about financial corruption and more about sex and drugs. It's shocking how the movie skirted past an NC-17 rating. If you're unable to understand that The Wolf of Wall Street isn't condoning the actions depicted, I'd highly recommend you stay away from it.

The Wolf of Wall Street has some absolutely brilliant performances. Leonardo DiCaprio arguably gives the best performance of his career, and it's going to be a shame when he's snubbed for an Oscar. Jonah Hill is hysterical as Donnie Azoff, Jordan Belfort's partner-in-crime. The rest of the ensemble cast is one of the best of the year. Matthew McConaughey, Kyle Chandler, Rob Reiner, Jon Bernthal, Jon Favreau, Jean Dujardin, and Spike Jonze all appear - and I'm just scratching the surface.

I noticed a plethora of changes from book to screen, but they all served to make the story more cinematic. The Wolf of Wall Street is 180 minutes, but it doesn't feel it. The pacing starts fast and never slows down. It's darkly funny, outrageous, and entertaining the entire way through. The character study on Belfort is fascinating, and I was honestly disappointed it ended as soon as it did. 

I had a couple technical problems with it, though. There would be moments where the film would show a close-up of a reaction shot, of someone already in the frame. Occasionally there would be audio issues with dubbing, or absent sound effects from the surrounding locations. These complaints are incredibly minute however, and The Wolf of Wall Street is the most entertaining movie I've seen in theaters in quite a while. 10/10.

"Lone Survivor" Review

Based on "Operation Red Wings", a failed SEAL Team 10 mission, Lone Survivor is the most recent feature from Battleship (2012) directer Peter Berg. Based on true events and not a board game, Lone Survivor  stars Mark Wahlberg (who is also a producer on the film) as Marcus Luttrell, one of four Navy SEALs sent to kill Taliban leader Ahmad Shahd. Taylor Kitsch, Emile Hirsch, Ben Foster, Eric Bana, and Alexander Ludwig have supporting roles that, as the title spoils, don't make it to the end.

Lone Survivor is relentlessly intense. The filmmakers don't hold back when showing violence and gore - which is good. This way, they don't romanticize the combat scenes. The majority of the film is one long battle, and while at times it was repetitive, it paced itself nicely and was remarkably immersive.

The character development is generic, but it serves its purpose. There are plenty of clichés, but they never are too "in-your-face" and they don't halt an emotional reaction when something significant happens. There's even a surprise or two - if you're not familiar with the story. All this said, the film is still very "black-and-white." Although a moral dilemma is presented early on in the mission, it's still very "us vs. them" in the sense that America is undeniably the good guys fighting the bad guys. The Taliban soldiers are all nameless faces, similar to when you're fighting a plethora of identical villains in a video game. You never are allowed to question the importance of the mission, you're just told to accept that it's what needs to be done. This last point works as a plus though, as the movie doesn't strive to make a political statement, but rather honor those who fought in combat.

I had some technical issues with the audio. The clarity of voices and sound effects seemed to change randomly during the fighting; at first I thought it was just an artsy choice, then it quickly became tired and monotonous. The main problem with Lone Survivor though, is that it never builds towards anything. It's just a series of combat sequences and then it's over. It's entertaining while it happens, but it never has the structure to make a lasting impression.

The thing is, you already know what you're gonna think of this movie before you see it. If military movies are for you, you're most likely gonna like this one (just keep in mind the amount of gore). If they aren't, Lone Survivor isn't the revolutionary film that's gonna change your mind. The action sequences are great though, and it's a nice tribute to those who served. 6/10.

"American Hustle" Review

Based on a true story, American Hustle is the latest directorial effort from David O. Russell. Christian Bale stars as Irving Rosenfeld, a con man who is forced, along with his partner, Sydney Prosser (Amy Adams), to work for FBI agent Richie DiMaso (Bradley Cooper). Jennifer Lawrence, Jeremy Renner, and Louis C.K. are all featured in this story about lying and betrayal.

Each member of the ensemble pulls off a brilliant performance in this drama. Christian Bale, who is known for transforming his body to play a role, gained more than 40 pounds to play the center con artist obsessed with his combover. Amy Adams is great, and Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence steal every scene they're in.

For the most part, the script is good. The dialogue is fantastic and the pacing is quick. The film is a bit unbalanced, however. There's a certain lack of focus that holds the film back.

David O. Russell's style certainly comes through here. While I don't think it was as strong as his last film, Silver Linings Playbook (2012), American Hustle is a fascinating watch. Although it didn't elicit as much of an emotional response as I thought it could have, American Hustle is still a very good movie. 9/10.

"Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues" Review

Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy (2004) was the first feature-length collaboration between Adam McKay and Will Ferrell. Highly-improvised, it was a story about newscasters in the male-dominated industry during the 70s. It was a big success, and in 2008 work began on the sequel. However, despite many of the stars agreeing to take pay cuts, Paramount turned down the sequel proposal in 2010. It wasn't until 2012 that Paramount changed their minds. Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues takes place during the birth of the 24 hour news network.

This movie is stupid. But it's stupid brewed to perfection. Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues is a rare find of inspired stupidity. The actors genuinely look like they're having a great time, and the enjoyment is contagious. If you walk into this movie expecting an intelligent political satire, you deserve the disappointment you'll find. The film does dabble into some social commentary, but the topics are all very light and non-controversial.

As expected for a movie that is largely improvisational, the jokes are hit and miss. The most disappointing ones are the direct references to the first film. There are several moments where the film makes a joke basically saying "Hey! Remember when this happened in the first movie?" Anchorman 2 thrives when it expands on previously established relationships or creates new ones; the energy is sucked out of the film when it makes a reference to its prequel.

There are a lot of celebrity cameos, and each member of the cast is given their chance to shine. The one weak spot is Kristen Wiig as Chani Lastnamé, Brick Tamland's (Steve Carell) romantic opposite. With no one to play the straight man, the entire subplot is just uncomfortably unfunny.

Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues is unbalanced, but entertaining nonetheless. It serves as a proper sequel to the original, and a good waste of a couple hours. 7/10.

"The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug" Review

Continuing the story started by The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012), the dwarves, assisted by Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman), attempt to reclaim their homeland from the dragon of the title name in The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug. The biggest problem with this film is that it's not a movie, it's an episode. There's no real sense of beginning or end. It merely serves as a filler movie. Not to say that there's not a lot going on, or that it's not entertaining, it just can't be viewed as a singular experience.

When the first of the trilogy was released, a common complaint was that it was shot in 48 frames per second, not the cinema standard of 24. Frames per second, or fps, is the number of pictures taken every second, and 24 gives the footage a "cinematic look". By doubling this number, the argument is that it makes action scenes much smoother and easier to comprehend; the opposition says that the film loses its magic and subtlety. The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug felt more natural than its predecessor, likely because the larger amount of action catered to the higher frame rate.

Throughout the film, The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug struggles with tone. Two of the best scenes - the spider scene and the barrel scene, as I like to call them - have a very campy feel. You never fear that any of the characters are in serious danger, but the movie realizes this and prides itself on making the most unrealistically epic battle ever, delivered with a wink and a nod. However, when the film introduces Smaug (voice and motion capture by Benedict Cumberbatch), it attempts to turn to a more serious tone. When a dragon can't hit a single one of the ten targets on screen though, what initially started off as frightening becomes long and tedious.

The length of the trilogy gives the filmmakers enough time to establish a multitude of subplots, but evidently not enough time to fully develop them. The motivations for many of the characters are often left ambiguous, and you're just expected to not think too hard about it; just know that the characters did certain actions, and you should just accept it, because I'm sure they had a great reasons. Many characters also fall to the wayside. Thorin (Richard Armitage) is the only dwarf of much significance, and most of the other dwarves are merely used as props.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug is repetitive, yet very fun to watch. The same beats occur over and over again, but the film rarely drags long enough to leave you bored. The barrel scene and the spider scene are worth the price of admission alone, but the rest of the movie is entertaining as well - even if you are required to see the first film beforehand. 7/10.

"Frozen" Review

Based off of a Hans Christian Andersen fairy tale, this Disney animated musical (they failed to mention this in many of the advertisements) stars Kristin Bell as Anna, a princess who must find and stop her sister, Elsa, who accidentally caused eternal winter in their Kingdom with her ice powers.

With Robert Lopez – co-creator of both Avenue Q and The Book of Mormon – on board for the soundtrack of this film, it’s disappointing that the songs are as bland as they are. For a movie that’s being sold as the next Lion King (1994), the songs shouldn’t be so forgettable. Not to mention that halfway through the movie they just stop, likely to avoid reaching a 2-hour run-time. It never feels like the movie fully commits to being a musical. It just seems like the songs were added last minute for the sake of novelty.

The characters in this film are incredibly one-dimensional. While an interesting moral dilemma is presented early on with Elsa, it quickly gets recycled and the writers never really do all that much with it. Anna is same faux-strong female archetype that you’ve likely seen many times before. Josh Gad’s Olaf – a snowman obsessed with summer – provides most of the laughs, but his character is still very hit-and-miss.

Frozen has been getting a lot of press for being the “female-friendly” Disney tale. It was refreshing that even though they were playing up the romantic elements throughout the film, its ultimate message is not one of “needing a man to survive.” But while this is all good, it should be pointed out that Frozen takes out most of the female characters from Hans Christian Andersen’s The Snow Queen, replacing them with comic relief and potential love-interests. In fact, in the original story, Gerda, the character that would become Anna, attempts to rescue her passive platonic male best friend, who is the only significant male character in the story.

Ultimately, the energy is just spent in the wrong place. The animation is beautiful, but the story is just plain lazy. Near the climax, there are plot-twists that occur for the necessity of the plot, not because they actually make sense. And the resolution to restore the Kingdom is downright cringe-worthy. That said, for the most part, it’s not a painful movie to sit through; there just aren’t many redeeming factors. 5/10.

"The Hunger Games: Catching Fire" Review

In my opinion, The Hunger Games (2012) is not a very good movie. The books essentially rehash a generic dystopian government tale and market it to a young adult audience. Not that there’s anything really wrong with this though. It can serve as a gateway to other, better, cinema and literature. And other than the constant annoying references, people who aren’t interested can just attempt to ignore it. However, when adapting a book about kids killing kids, the MPAA creates an issue. When your main audience is in its adolescence, an ‘R’ rating is out of the question. To keep it ‘PG-13’, the original Hunger Games avoided showing any of the consequences of the violence, and missed the tone entirely. Playing up every aspect except the brutality, The Hunger Games did exactly what it preaches against. However, with a shift in directors, Catching Fire is a significant improvement from its predecessor.

The twist for this movie is that instead of drafting 24 kids to fight to the death, only past winners of the games will be considered. With this ploy, the movie is able to be more explicit with it’s depiction of the Battle Royale, as well as bring quality actors into supporting roles – including Jeffrey Wright, Amanda Plummer, and Sam Claflin. However, with so many characters, many get left to the wayside. Nearly half of the contestants are never mentioned. You see them for the first time after they’ve died, which essentially reduces them to a number. 

The people who say they watch the movies for the social commentary are lying. The entire message can be summed up with a simple “Class Warfare = bad.”  However, I do think this movie does a good job at depicting a government trying to keep control of its people. There isn’t much of a change in President Snow (Donald Sutherland), but the addition of Philip Seymour Hoffman as the new “Game-maker” adds an interesting element. And Effie Trinket (Elizabeth Banks), the ambassador to District 12, significantly develops as a character.

The movie still struggles with pacing, has numerous logistical inconsistencies, and could benefit from an ‘R’ rating, but nonetheless it still manages to be pretty entertaining. If you liked the first movie, you’ll like this movie. If you didn’t, I wouldn’t recommend you rush out to see it, but you might not hate it as much as the first movie. 7/10.

"Dallas Buyers Club" Review

As of recently, Matthew McConaughey has had a significant resurgence in his career. Following The Lincoln Lawyer (2011), he’s had a string of successful supporting roles in some independent films; from Richard Linklater’s Bernie (2012), to winning the Independent Spirit Award for his role in Magic Mike (2012), to Oscar buzz surrounding his (supporting) title role in Mud (2013) this Spring, McConaughey has proved that he can act. Dallas Buyers Club may be his magnum opus however, as he lost 38 pounds for the role, and frankly gives the best performance I’ve seen this year.

Based on a true story, McConaughey plays Ron Woodroof, a homophobic, promiscuous, drug-addicted, electrician in 1985 Dallas. After he is diagnosed with HIV and given 30 days to live, he becomes an outcast because of the connotations with the disease at the time. The FDA’s corrupt and lackluster policy of approving drugs leads Woodroof to start smuggling unapproved substances into Texas. With the help of Rayon (Jared Leto), a transsexual AIDs patient, he sets up a Buyers Club – a way of indirectly selling drugs. 

The main reason to see this movie is for the performances. Along with an amazing physical transformation, McConaughey adds dimension to a seemingly one-note, cartoonish role. It’s a brilliant character study, and it’s a lot of fun watching the arc. Also losing 30 pounds, this movie is Jared Leto’s first film in 4 years. He truly transforms into Rayon; if I hadn’t known that it was Leto prior to seeing the film, I never would have guessed. It’s a heart-breaking character and it’s played with absolute sincerity.

My main complaint with the film is that it drags near the end. It repeats the same theme over and over with only slight differentiation in the events. It overstays its welcome a bit, but it’s still a very enjoyable film. Not to say that it’s happy-go-lucky, far from it, but I’m definitely planning on watching it again sometime soon. 9/10.

"Thor: The Dark World" Review

Replacing Kenneth Branagh with TV Director Alan Taylor, Thor: The Dark World is the sequel to 2011’s Marvel movie of the same name, sans the colon. There’s nothing inherently wrong with this movie, it’s just remarkably bland.

In this installment, the fill-in-the-blanks villain is a Dark Elf named Malekith (Christopher Eccleston). With the Convergence approaching, Jane (Natalie Portman) is infected by the Aether – a powerful weapon. This leads to Thor reuniting with Jane and Malekith attacking Asgard. If you don’t understand the science or importance of things like “The Convergence” or “The Aether”, don’t worry. The movie doesn’t expect you to think about it. In fact, the writers spend as little time developing these things as possible. Just know that they’re super important and lead to crazy hijinks.

Loki (Tom Hiddleston) is the only character that adds any life to the movie. The movie picks up every time he’s on screen, and then immediately draws back once he leaves. And Marvel seems to have realized this, adding re-shoots to stretch out Loki as much as possible. I could talk about other characters in this movie, but to be honest, none of them are more than a simple gag. There’s plenty of humor in the movie, mostly with Darcy Lewis and Erik Selvig (Kat Dennings and Stellan Skarsgård, respectively); the jokes are pretty good for the most part, but they just seem out-of-place.

The climax of this film is admittedly very exciting, but it’s a long trek to get to that point. Thor: The Dark World isn’t as bad as Iron Man 3 – Marvel’s other attempt for the year – but it’s just not memorable. It will likely just be a distant memory the next day. 5/10. 

"12 Years a Slave" Review

Arguably Brad Pitt’s best chance for an Oscar anytime soon (His company – Plan B Entertainment – produced the film), 12 Years a Slave is the third feature film from British artist Steve McQueen. With this movie, Shame (2011), and Hunger (2008), McQueen has become one of my favorite directors working today. Although he was not a writer for this film, it definitely has his distinct style. 12 Years a Slave is probably his most accessible feature, but that’s not to say it’s any less emotionally taxing. It’s not an easy watch, but 12 Years a Slave is one of the best – if not the best movie of this year.

Based on the memoirs of the same name, the story follows Solomon Northup (Chiwetel Ejiofor), a free black man from upstate New York, who is kidnapped and sold into slavery. The movie is less about its destination and more about the journey that takes place. The title in itself spoils the ending, yet the film is so engaging there’s no feeling of waiting for the inevitable.

The brilliance of the performances is one of the reasons that the film is as convincing and effective as it is. Chiwetel Ejiofor’s turn as Solomon Northup is one of the best of the year. The real scene-stealer, however, is Michael Fassbender as Solomon’s malicious, possibly mentally unstable, plantation owner. He was snubbed by the Academy in 2011 for Shame, but this performance will hopefully turn some heads. The entire ensemble is absolutely fabulous though; Newcomer Lupita Nyong’o was heart-wrenching as the constantly abused Patsey, Paul Dano (who is slowly turning into one of my favorite actors) is stunning as a despicable plantation manager, and Benedict Cumberbatch provides a touch of irony as Soloman’s (relatively) kind initial owner. Not to mention the rest of the supporting cast, boasting Paul Giamatti, Scoot McNairy, and Quvenzhané Wallis.

Stylistically similar to McQueen’s other films, 12 Years a Slave lingers on each shot, not anxious to change to a different angle. The cinematography captures the mood, dragging you into the experience. Hans Zimmer’s haunting score is the cherry on top. It’s subtle and subdued, but takes the movie to the next level.

A word of warning though, this is not a movie for the faint of heart. Nor is it one that will allow you to function normally for the rest of the day. It took me at least half an hour before I was ready to rejoin society. I will definitely be revisiting 12 Years a Slave in the future; I just don’t know when I’ll be ready. 10/10.

"Ender's Game" Review

Based on the classic Orson Scott novel, this movie is the result of a 28-year effort to get the book adapted. After an alien invasion, the military decides to recruit children to be future leaders. Directed by Gavin Hood, Asa Butterfield stars as Ender. The impressive supporting cast includes Harrison Ford, Viola Davis, and Sir Ben Kingsley. With a 100 million dollar plus budget and numerous technical innovations going into it, it’s disappointing that Ender’s Game is as underwhelming as it is.

The film’s main falter is the lack of focus in its script. The underlying moral messages are either shoved into your face or underdeveloped. There are several ideas that are presented in the film (love interests, character faults, etc.) but then completely forgotten about. The first 2/3 of the film isn’t great, but it’s harmless enough. Everything falls apart in the remaining 1/3 though. Characters start making less and less sense, themes and messages are muddled, and everything seems less real. Not to mention the incredibly anti-climatic ending.

For a film with so many child actors, the performances are surprisingly solid. Especially with so much CGI. Asa Butterfield holds the movie together with relative believability, and the supporting roles are played well – even surpassing the performances of some of the veteran actors in the film. Viola Davis is good with what she’s given. Harrison Ford isn’t that great, though not worse than anything else he’s done in the past decade. And the film pulls an ‘Iron Man 3’ by barely including Ben Kingsley, and while he’s there, he’s not memorable.

On a technological level, this film is great. Plenty of scenes are in zero gravity, and it’s believable. The battle training sequences in the middle of the film are probably the high point. And the creature designs are great – with what little they do with them. 

This film isn’t terrible. It just feels a little bit rushed. With all of the money put into special effects, it would have been nice if there were a little more put into making the script good. 7/10.

"Free Birds" Review

Starring Owen Wilson and Woody Harrelson, this animated film involves turkeys that travel back in time in attempt to stop turkeys from being eaten on Thanksgiving. As an APUSH student, I can tell you that this might not be historically accurate, but we’ll look past that flaw for the sake of this review.

The biggest problem with this film is that it tries to do too much. Free Birds attempts to be a buddy-comedy, a sci-fi adventure, a romance story, a coming-of-age tale, and a war movie all in one. It ends up doing none of them well. This lack of focus took me out of the movie and left me more confused than entertained.

Even in terms of kids’ films, this movie isn’t that funny. It never fully lost me, every once in a while there’d be a joke that caught me off-guard, but for the most part it was kind of painful to sit through. I know that it’s a kids’ movie and the target audience is eight-year-olds who don’t know any better, but that still doesn’t make this movie good.

The most baffling part of this movie though is the weird, contradictory political message. On one hand it touches on animal cruelty and how there are other options, then on the other hand the other option the film presents is fast food. Not to mention the moral ambiguity and animal cruelty behind that, unironically preaching how great fast food is to kids isn’t a great way to end a film.

There are also just some straight-up strange choices in Free Birds. When going back in time to 1620, all of the turkeys are Native American. Face paint and all. It’s a small detail, and I’d hesitate to call it truly racist., but it’s something that bothered me for a large chunk of the film.

On that note the movie isn’t all bad. There’s a strong female character, which is nice. I also want to congratulate Free Birds for making the first homoerotic turkey movie. It’s not the worst thing of all time, but it’s nothing you should be wasting your time with. And it’s probably nothing you want to show your kids either. 3/10.

"Bad Grandpa" Review

Other than the ‘Jackass’ movies, the films that Jackass Presents: Bad Grandpa is reminiscent of are the Sacha Baren Cohen films Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan (2006) and Brüno (2009). In terms of quality, Bad Grandpa is closer to Brüno than Borat though. That’s not to say it’s all bad however; I enjoyed myself a lot more than I was expecting.

Bad Grandpa involves Jackass’s Johnny Knoxville as 86 year-old Irving Zisman, who must take his 8 year-old grandson across country to his real father. A simple enough plot, which is reasonably distracted to make way for the selling point of this film: Knoxville and newcomer Jackson Nicoll catching people off-guard with the crazy stunts they pull.

Johnny Knoxville isn’t that great of an improviser. There are plenty of moments where you notice his voice switch back to normal. His dialogue with other people is often stinted and unnatural. This is okay though, Knoxville is more known for his stunts than his acting, though there are only a few physical stunts throughout the film. Nicoll is pretty average as far as child actors go (meaning not very good), however it should be noted that he keeps his composure remarkably well throughout the movie. He even shines in a few scenes saying outrageous things to adults in a normal, childlike manner.

The old-age makeup is surprisingly good, which is necessary to make this movie work. The hidden camera work is decent enough as well, though there are noticeable moments where reactions are faked because they weren’t captured initially.
Ultimately the weakest parts of the film are the scripted scenes that are served as filler between the public displays. They don’t take too much time, but I found myself wishing they would hurry up these scenes, as many of the scripted jokes fall flat.

As expected, some of the antics are very effective, and others aren’t. This ratio is surprisingly favorable though. I found myself laughing more often than not. There are definite places where the movie could have been cut down, but it never dragged on too long. This movie is best watched with some of your friends, so you can cringe and laugh in the company of others. 6/10.

"Carrie" Review

1974’s Carrie is the first published novel of horror king Stephen King. Its 1976 Brian De Palma adaptation, starring Sissy Spacek in an Oscar-nominated role, is generally considered to be a landmark horror film, albeit dated. Chloë Grace Moretz stars in the title role in this remake directed by Kimberly Pierce. I use the term ‘remake’ rather than ‘adaptation’ because while there are a few new ideas present from the novel, this movie draws heavily from the original film. That said, a remake should be viewed as a singular experience, not as a comparison; while I may mention the original as a reference point, I’m judging this movie on its own merits.

I don’t think Chloë Grace Moretz was right for her role. Carrie is bullied extensively by her peers, and in this version it’s hard to understand why. We’re supposed to believe that Carrie is generally considered unattractive, but Moretz is a very photogenic actress. Not much is done to alter her appearance, and so you’re just left confused at why everyone gets so much pleasure out of tormenting her. This coupled with Moretz’s mediocre performance take you out of the film. She falls back on a nervous/pouty facial expression for the majority of the movie. When it comes time for the famous prom scene, Moretz just goes to an angry action star face, rather than showing real emotion.

The real star of this remake is Julianne Moore. As Carrie’s mother, she gives a frightening take on the religious zealot. I was in an awkward position of both wishing for more of her, because of the quality of her performance, and less of her, because of the intentional amount of aggravation you feel about her character. I did feel emotion towards her performance though, which is more than I can say about many of the other characters in this film. Most of the performances are unfortunately forgettable. They simply lack any dimension whatsoever. Portia Doubleday and Alex Russell play malicious for the sake of malicious as the couple scheming against Carrie (Speaking of Alex Russell, if you haven’t seen Chronicle (2012), watch it immediately. It has a similar story to Carrie but is also uniquely inspired.).

There’s nothing boring or painful to watch in this film, but it’s similarly devoid of any passion or excitement. Although Carrie is rated R, this is not used to the film’s benefit. A PG-13 cutting of this film would be very similar to the theatrical cutting. The prom scene was especially disappointing. The editing and reliance on CGI rather than practical effects make this scene more reminiscent of an action movie, rather than horror. The trauma of the event is very much toned down. This was likely to avoid controversy about violence in schools, though I feel like that argument is a bit counterintuitive. Overall, there isn’t much that’s inherently bad about this film, but there just isn’t a lot to love. 5/10.

"Captain Phillips" Review

Based on the alleged true story of the first hijacking of an American Cargo ship in 200 years, this at-sea drama is directed by The Bourne Ultimatum’s Paul Greengrass and stars Tom Hanks in the name role. Adapted from a book by Richard Phillips himself, there has been some controversy surrounding this film. Many crewmembers involved in the event have said that the film glorifies Captain Phillips too much, and that he led his crew into harms way.

I think by this point we’ve all come to realize that most Hollywood ‘true stories’ are over-dramatizations. While I’m sure the true story could have made a more interesting and complex plot, I don’t necessarily believe this film is a bad one. Tom Hanks’ performance is definitely very solid. It’s not one of the standout performances of this year, but Hanks definitely blended well into the role. The breakout performances in this film were definitely by the four Somali pirates. Having attended a casting call with no previous experience, these Minneapolis actors stole the show.

The film starts out with Boston-accented Captain Phillips talking to his non-accented wife about how hard it is to make it in the world nowadays. The symbolism is a bit in-your-face but not too distracting. The film’s real problem is that it’s just too long. At 134 minutes, it could easily be cut down to a less exhausting run-time. Not to say anything bad about long movies, but the events in the latter half of the film are so drawn out and repetitive that the film borders on boring and tedious.

Likely the most notable aspect of the cinematography to this film is that it’s shot mostly on a steady-cam. My guess is that it’s supposed to make the audience feel like they’re more at sea and less in a controlled environment. This idea works for a portion of the film, but there are also scenes where it seems like the camera operator forgot how to operate a camera. There are definitely some questionable shots that take you out of the moment and wonder if the filmmakers took enough footage.

On the whole, I was able to feel emotion for this film. There are some intense moments and good performances. The script is no spectacle, though it could certainly be worse. Far from one of the best films of the year, I still enjoyed myself. 7/10.

"Gravity" Review

Starring Sandra Bullock and George Clooney, this drama about a medical engineer and an astronaut stranded in space is the 80 million dollar passion project of Mexican director Alfonso Cuarón.

There's no doubt this movie is incredibly visually stunning. Cuarón essentially created the technology necessary to make it. A large portion of the film takes place in outer space, and it's incredibly convincing. Cuarón's stylistic long takes really lend themselves well to this film. A behind-the-scenes documentary would be absolutely fascinating. The film is gorgeous and it's obvious a lot of effort was put into making it that way.

The script however, is not very good. Gravity is only an hour and a half long, and definitely stretches itself out in order to make it to that point. Littered with clichés, this survivalist tale meanders through a list of obstacles without any real motivation, the only goal being to force drama. For example, the incident which sets things in motion is a large amount of debris that collides with the astronauts shuttle; immediately after Clooney's character (the suave professional, one mission from retirement) saves Bullock's (the newcomer), he tells her to set her watch for 90 minutes. Why? Because in that time the debris will travel across the entire world and hit them again. Because the debris is moving at the accessible speed in order to calculate this and they clearly will still get hit if they move to a different place. These aren't things that bother me too much, but they definitely took me out of the moment.

Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock) is simply not a good female character. In an interview with New York Magazine, Cuarón says that the choice to make the lead character a female was to "strip it from heroists". My biggest fear walking into this movie was that it would be 90 minutes of Sandra Bullock screaming and acting unprofessional. That was largely fulfilled. Bullock's character seems to not be able to act without the guidance of her male companion. Coupled with awkward romantic tension and it almost seems like a metaphor that women need men to survive. Not to mention the implausible (and by implausible I mean remarkably stupid) trauma we learn about her that is supposed to help us accomplish the difficult feat of feeling sympathy for someone fighting for their life.

I didn't think Sandra Bullock's performance was that great. She was far from the first choice for the part, and I think it showed. It was by no means bad, but I'd be genuinely surprised if she walked away with another Oscar. The entire basis of the performance was breathy and scared. There were plenty of awkward line deliveries and I often felt it lacked a certain amount of emotion. It may be the weak writing for her character but I don't believe it's the show-stealing performance that's been hyped.

It may seem like I really hated this film. I didn't. I actually enjoyed it quite a bit. Visually, it's mind-blowing. If you're interested in this film, see it in IMAX. I just wish they had spent a fraction of the amount of time they spent on the technology on the script. The movie seems to be an excuse to show off cool tricks Cuarón developed. That doesn't mean that the movie is terrible though. Just that a lot of potential was wasted. 7/10.

"Don Jon" Review

The first film written, directed, and starring Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Don Jon is a dramedy about a porn-addicted man struggling to find happiness and intimacy.

The theme this film presents is the problem with developing unrealistic expectations about relationships. It’s an interesting concept, but its execution obviously had a lot of thought put into it. It didn’t just hit the same note over and over again. I should note that this film was independently financed. Don Jon is definitely a very hard ‘R’ and I have a hard time believing that aside from distribution, any studio would touch it with a 10-foot pole. With that said, the film is bold and doesn’t shy away from much – which I definitely respect.

As with many first films however, it wasn’t flawless. There were times where it felt like the film was being stretched out to meet a feature-length run-time. The movie juggles a lot of different sub-plots, and occasionally it seems a bit unfocused at where it wants to put emphasis. And while for the most part the dialogue was great, there was still the occasional awkward line used to drive home a point or get out of a scene.

This movie is definitely not a date movie. Nor is it a great movie to see with your parents. It’s not a sweet, Nicolas Sparks-type romantic comedy. It’s not a raunchy comedy either. If it doesn’t sound like your thing, it probably isn’t. However, I thought it was great. It made me laugh. It made me cry. It made me think. 8/10.

"Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs 2" Review

I’ll be the first to admit how surprised I was at the quality of this film. As the sequel to 2009’s Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs, and with new writers and directors, I was anticipating it to fall flat on its face. I began to make fun of it, calling it ‘2 Cloudy 2 Meatballs.’ I still generally refer to it as that, but it’s now a loving gesture in my mind.

I think this film’s biggest strength is that it’s self-aware. The opening credit to the movie is “A film by a lot of people”. After seeing trailers to this film, I was convinced it would be just a bunch of bad puns aimed at the enjoyment of kids. And only kids. However, everything is delivered with a perfectly placed wink and nod that make the jokes really work. In Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs 2, after the island is evacuated, it is taken over by mutant food beasts. After a hysterical Jurassic Park (1993) rip-off, Sam Sparks (Anna Faris) questions, “How did this even happen?” To which Flint Lockwood (Bill Hader) breaks the fourth wall and says (and I’m paraphrasing), “I have no idea. Let’s never talk about it again.” Moments like this where it lets you know not to take anything seriously sets up a wonderful tone that even had me cracking up at some of the puns.

The animation on this film is absolutely brilliant. The attention to detail in creating unique new worlds (and I’m not just referring to the food island) creates a colorful mood and draws you in. The character movements and subtle background details make the film much more enjoyable. I can say that I was never bored watching this movie. Even when the plot slows down, the animation is so enticing it kept me interested the entire time.

Is the plot original? Well, not exactly. It definitely follows the Hollywood formula. You understand what’s going to happen before it happens. However, the magic in this movie isn’t the story, it’s the execution. The tone was spot-on and the animation was amazing. It succeeds where a lot of other kids movies fail – it’s entertaining for all ages (so long as you don’t take yourself too seriously). I couldn’t stop smiling the entire film. Thus far, this is my favorite animated film of the year. 8/10.

"Rush" Review

Written by Peter Morgan and Directed by Ron Howard, the story follows the six-year rivalry of Formula One drivers James Hunt and Niki Lauda. However, with the two-hour length of the film, the script only delivers on the basic plot points and forgets much of the tension in the story. You could say that the movie is a bit... Rushed. Each scene presented serves an overly-obvious purpose that is aggravatingly shoved in your face. The dialogue is unfortunately used to develop the characters in a one-dimensional manner; it's emotionally manipulative and has a sole purpose of driving home a few key points in the scene. Everything is presented in an overly simplified black-and-white manner, even when trying to create complex characters and situations.

The remarkable strange pacing takes away from the drama in the story. Moments seem to drag; moments seem to pass too quickly. While struggling to fit six years of rivalry into a feature length film, the plot seems to haphazardly play a highlight reel. For example, Lauda and Hunt go from being Formula 3 racers to competing for the world championship seemingly overnight. There is neither drama in their ascension nor drama in other competition. With exception to Hunt and Lauda, nearly every other driver in this movie is a faceless name.

That said, if there is tension anywhere, it is in the rivalry between the two drivers. The performances of Chris Hemsworth as Hunt and Daniel Brühl as Lauda are the high points of the film. The cinematography for this film is stunning. If you walk in hoping to get some cool racing scenes, you'll get your moneys worth. Without getting too emotionally involved, simply watching the film is fun enough. By all means the execution of the script was great, it was just the script itself that was lacking.

On the whole I did enjoy this film. It's not the Oscar-movie it's hyped up to be, but it's definitely above average. The performances are great and the races are magnificent. While I never was hugely emotionally involved due to a weak script, I still enjoyed it. 6/10.

"Prisoners" Review

Canadian filmmaker Denis Villeneuve directs this crime thriller about the kidnapping of two 6-year old girls. Executive produced by Mark Wahlberg, this film features an A-list cast of Hugh Jackman, Jake Gyllenhaal, Melissa Leo, Viola Davis, Maria Bello, Terrence Howard, and Paul Dano. With a production budget of 46 million dollars, Prisoners opened at #1 at the box office at 21.4 million.

Jake Gyllenhaal gives a relatively solid performance as Detective Loki, however, he is overshadowed by Hugh Jackman’s portrayal of Keller Dover, a survivalist father who is faced with the moral dilemma of how far he should go to protect his family. In my opinion this is one of Jackman’s best performances. Paul Dano is also fantastic with his quiet portrayal of a mentally handicapped man accused of kidnapping the children. While none of the other performances stand out, all of the big-name actors are given a lot to do and are all very good. If nothing else, the performances in this movie are worth the price of admission.

The movie itself is also very well made. The cinematography is absolutely gorgeous. I had a couple problems with the editing and transitions between scenes, but these problems are minor and pretty subjective. The movie seems to move with a slow deliberateness that builds up the tension until it reaches a peak, resulting in remarkably intense moments several times throughout the film.

Prisoners has a 2 and a half hour run time, and while you’re never bored or waiting for it to end, its length and the amount of drama certainly takes its toll. While the script is very strong and the story is very powerful, it could certainly be tightened up. Without spoiling too much, there is specific emphasis placed on certain elements near the middle of the film that end up having very little to do with the rest of the story. And while I loved the bittersweetness and uncertainty in the final shot of the film, I wasn’t as big of a fan of the rest of the ending. The villain frankly lacked the necessary motivation to make the movie seem complete.

On the whole, this is a great film. The performances are wonderful. The film is incredibly tense. And while it’s a bit long, it’s never a chore to watch. While it’s not a perfect film, it’s one I would definitely recommend. 8/10.

"The Family" Review

Executive produced by Martin Scorsese and directed by Luc Besson, this mafia comedy stars Robert De Niro, Michelle Pfeiffer, and Tommy Lee Jones. On a production budget of approximately 30 million dollars, The Family made about 14 million at the box office on its opening weekend. 

There was so much talent behind this project, it’s a shame it turned out the way it did. Robert De Niro plays the same mobster character he’s played plenty of times before, and completely phones it in. I know that with exception to Silver Linings Playbook (2012), De Niro hasn’t had a ton of great roles recently, but it’s still such a shame to see him wasted like this. Tommy Lee Jones essentially plays grumpy cat, a role that is all too familiar to him as well. Michelle Pfeiffer at least goes for an accent, though it’s weird and inconsistent. None of the performances are particularly bad, but none of them are even remotely memorable.

The weakest part of this film however, is its script. It follows a family of mobsters, but splits them up into uninteresting subplots. You go throughout the movie expecting the subplots to come together in some sort of aggravating albeit clever way, but they never do. They serve no purpose to the plot other than filler-time. There are a few fun moments, but for the most part the film just incoherently wanders around.

This film had so much potential, which makes it all the more disappointing that it’s as weak as it is. There’s not much to outright hate about it, but it’s just not a lot of fun. I wouldn’t spend money on it, but if you saw this movie on TV and watched it while you did homework, it might not be the worst thing ever. 3/10.

"Insidious: Chapter 2" Review

Insidious: Chapter 2 took in 41 million dollars on a 5 million dollar production budget this Friday the 13^th weekend. Horror Filmmaker James Wan continues directorial duties and is credited alongside screenwriter and actor Leigh Whannell for the story. Patrick Wilson stars as the father of the haunted Lambert family.

I should say, while I loved Saw (2004) and was okay with The Conjuring (2013), I actively disliked Insidious (2010). I hated Insidious: Chapter 2 even more however. While the original didn’t provide any scary moments, I was still able to laugh along and have a certain amount of fun with the demons. With the lackluster demons in this movie however, it feels like the filmmakers didn’t even try. And while loud music and poorly executed jump scares are nothing new to this series, they’re more aggravating than horrifying. This film’s cardinal offense is that it’s just not scary. It’s boring.

If one good thing could be said about the script, it’s that it attempts to explain some of the occurrences in the original film. There are moments that make you say ‘Oh. So that’s why that happened.’ However, these moments are ruined by the plot-holes they bring along. Now, I know I shouldn’t be chastising a horror film for not having a smart script, but these moments really take you out of the film. That’s not to say there was much to invest you in the first place though. The characters lack motivation and most of the story is just kind apathetically presented to you.

James Wan isn’t a terrible filmmaker. Leigh Whannell isn’t a terrible writer. There are a few scenes that you can tell were inspired, and you can actually feel some emotion from. However, for the most part, this film feels like a cash grab for everyone involved. It’s not scary. It’s not fun. It’s just an exhaustively boring waste of time. 2/10.

"Riddick" Review

A while back, Vin Diesel agreed to make a cameo in The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift (2006) in exchange for the rights to the “Riddick” franchise. Riddick is financed independently and Diesel even leveraged his house in order to fund it. On it’s opening weekend it earned 19 million domestically on its 38 million dollar production budget.

I find the production story behind Riddick to be absolutely inspiring. I only wish I enjoyed the movie as much as I enjoyed hearing about the passion that went into it. The effort definitely shows, and I think the lack of studio involvement makes it a more entertaining film. I love that they went for an uncompromising ‘R’ rating, and I love that the storyline doesn’t follow the traditional Hollywood formula, but I didn’t have nearly as much fun as I was hoping I would.

This isn’t a case where I didn’t like it and don’t understand why other’s do though. The “Riddick” franchise is definitely a cult franchise, and I can totally understand somebody having a ton of fun watching this. It’s just not for me. The film never hit me on an emotional level. I was never bored while watching this movie, but I was never invested in it. If you’re in the right mindset and/or love these survivalist action-thrillers, I would definitely recommend it. From a traditional standpoint however, it’s nothing special. For me, it was neither bad nor good. It just existed. 5/10.