"Vacation" Review

(You can watch my video review of this film here: bit.ly/1VOdX0L)

I hate to admit it, but I’ve never seen any of the original National Lampoon’s Vacation movies. I know, I know, I’m missing out on Chevy Chase in his prime. And Harold Ramis directed the first one. And John Hughes wrote the first three! I know, I know. You see, I’m a youngster. I’m only 17, and consequently, I haven’t seen every popular movie in existence. I got my advance screening passes to Vacation about 4 hours before the screening began, so I didn’t have time to get myself acquainted with the Griswolds. That said, I think that gives me a more unique perspective than a lot of film critics who grew up on these films.

This sequel, taking place a full generation after the first one, stars Ed Helms as Rusty Griswold. After discovering that his family doesn’t like going to a cabin in Michigan, he decides to spice things up by taking a road trip to “Walley World”, a theme park that his Dad took him to when he was young. Rusty is an airline pilot though, so I guess he doesn’t like to mix work and leisure. After beginning their cross-country journey, things quickly go downhill, and continue to get worse at every turn.

Vacation reminds me a lot of We’re the Millers, which came out a couple summers ago, only Vacation isn’t quite as bad. We’re the Millers takes a bunch of annoying characters and tries to make you sympathize with them. The characters make a bunch of bad choices and, at times, are seemingly rewarded for them. The filmmakers try to convince you that the characters develop, even though they obviously haven’t, and the whole ordeal becomes too sentimental and ultimately frustrating. On the other hand, Vacation takes a bunch of annoying characters and makes fun of them. The entire movie is focused on punishing these characters, and forced sentimentality is limited. Not to mention that Vacation is funnier and slightly more daring than We’re the Millers.

Vacation is the directorial debut for John Francis Daley and Jonathan M. Goldstein, but you might know them from some of the movies that they’ve written. They helped write Horrible Bosses and Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs 2, which, if you haven’t seen yet, you should. 2 Cloudy 2 Meatballs is probably one of my favorite animated sequels, and I will defend it to the death. What I’m getting at is that Daley and Goldstein are good at writing self-aware comedies that are just fun. They’re a lot like Phil Lord and Christopher Miller, without the great third act. Daley and Goldstein wrote the film as well as directed it, and they put together a solid little screenplay that doesn’t aspire to do much more than make you laugh. There’s a constant stream of incredibly raunchy jokes, so if you’re into that, you’ll probably like this. Vacation also provides a very respectable directorial debut for the two of them. The movie is mostly cut-and-dried, but there are some small stylistic choices that show that some effort was put into the film. Daley and Goldstein are writing the upcoming Spiderman reboot, and I’m excited to see what they put together.

One of this comedies strongest selling points is that it has a great comedic ensemble. Ed Helms is wonderfully naive as the head of the household, and Christina Applegate is really funny as his wife. The two child actors, Skyler Gisondo and Steele Stebbins, both do fantastic jobs delivering their jokes, but they are somewhat exploited by the script and the nature of the comedy. Vacation also has a ton of great cameos. I won’t reveal them all because the surprise appearances is part of the fun of the film, but Charlie Day, Chevy Chase, and Chris Hemsworth all show up, and they’re all fantastic.

Vacation doesn’t always make a ton of sense, and it doesn’t have a very long shelf life, but it’s actually pretty funny. Even though I haven’t seen any of the originals, I still enjoyed it. There were some callbacks to the original films, but with exception to one that a trailer had clued me in on, they were either obvious enough where I got it immediately, or subtle enough where I didn’t pay any attention to it. I laughed a lot at this movie, even at jokes that I had seen previously in trailers, and I’d recommend it if you’re just looking to laugh at some stupid jokes. 6/10.

So, I enjoyed the film, more or less. But, after writing my review, I wanted to go back and watch the original to see if that would have had any impact on my thoughts. Granted, this wouldn’t account for nostalgia, but I’d perhaps gain some insight on where the film was coming from. I could have rented National Lampoon’s Vacation online or something, but I decided to follow the path of my ancestors and buy the DVD from a video store. It was a strange and intriguing experience, and I watched it on a mysterious DVD player after my parents went to sleep.

I noticed a lot of similarities between the films, and stylistic inspirations the sequel took from the original. None of this really made the sequel seem too incredibly forced, but it might have made the sequel seem too familiar if I had watched the original first. However, the sequel took things in a different direction or took the situations to another level. Seeing the original film added additional jokes to the sequel, but the sequel works independently as well. Not to mention that the sequel also had plenty of original jokes.

One of the interesting things I noticed about the two films is that the punishment for the family progressed at different rates. With the original film, there was a build, with each event being worse than the last. With the sequel, things started out extreme and stayed at that level throughout. In torture terms, the progression of punishment for the original film is like being dehydrated, then given salty foods, then given hallucinogens. With the sequel, the progression of punishment is like being shot in the kneecaps and then being hit 4 times with a tire iron every 3 minutes.

Another thing I noticed was that the style of humor was very different between the two films. For starters, the original film utilizes a lot of dark humor, whereas the sequel is more based off of shock value. There are a lot more singular jokes in the sequel, but the original has a lot more character development. I ended up laughing a lot more to the sequel, but I had a more fulfilling overall experience with the original.

Overall, I felt like the sequel was a nice follow-up to the original. It differentiated itself in style and tone while still keeping several important themes and motifs. I don’t think seeing the original changed my opinion too much of the sequel, but it gave me more of a reference point. I’d say that this new film is worth a watch if you’re a Griswold completionist, looking for a stupid, inappropriate comedy, or want to rent from the comfort of your home. I’m sticking with a 6/10.

"Ant-Man" Review

Watch my video review here: bit.ly/1Ifey1n

Concluding Phase Two of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, we have Ant-Man. Ant-Man is a strange film to hold that position though. If anything, it feels like Ant-Man is the interlude between the second and third phase. Sure, it introduces a new hero, but Avengers: Age of Ultron was the movie that created a solid resolution for the series (and Joss Whedon), and having Ant-Man follow it as the official conclusion seems forced and unnecessary. The scale of the film is just too small (heh) for the movie to seem like anything but filler.

Ant-Man is directed by Peyton Reed, which is a definite step-down from when Edgar Wright was attached to the movie. In fact, Edgar Wright was the one who lobbied so hard to get the film made in the first place, but he left the project last year due to ‘creative differences’. Now, it’s not a very daring remark to say that Edgar Wright would have probably made the Ant-Man better, but I think that it’s true. For one thing, he was obviously incredibly passionate about the project, and that goes a long way towards making an enjoyable movie. Wright also has a strong track record making quality films for a cult audience. However, Wright’s movies also don’t always reach a wide audience on their initial release, making him a not-so-profitable director. It’s disappointing, but it makes sense to me why Marvel is wary about taking risks with their pictures, especially with characters they want to make a big part of their shared universe. And it’s incredibly obvious as you watch Ant-Man that the focus was on establishing a character to be used in upcoming films, rather than creating a unique and singular movie.

Paul Rudd stars as the titular superhero, and he has a good amount of charisma, but not a lot of material to work with. There’s some blatant emotional manipulation and mediocre humor and that’s about it. The film is ultimately a superhero origin story, and Ant-Man’s origin is a man named Scott Lang. He’s an everyday sort of dude who went to San Quentin after hacking into his corrupt company’s system and ‘Robin Hood’ing millions of dollars. He’s trying to raise enough money to pay for child support so that he can see his daughter, who absolutely adores and remembers him after he spent several years away from her in prison. He resorts to a life of crime, where he meets Hank Pym (Michael Douglas), and gains his shrinking powers. There are father-daughter relationships, villains that we don’t really need to talk about because they’re not memorable or important, and brief cameos by both Avengers and postmodern Nazis.

The special effects in this movie are really good, at least. In the first scene, we see a younger version of Michael Douglas, and while it’s not perfect, it’s pretty convincing. Shrinking the main character gives a new perspective to each of the action sequences, making them somewhat more enjoyable than the standard color orgy that we find in most Marvel films. Not to mention that the shrinking special effects look really cool.

But the thing about Ant-Man is that you’ve already seen Ant-Man in one form or another. There are no surprises here. Just some redundant plot points and missed opportunities. The film is missing the sense of fun and passion that’s necessary to make a movie like this really work. Ant-Man is by no means a bad film, but it’s pretty tedious and dull at times. To me, Phase Two was increasing in likeability as each film went by, but this installment is a lukewarm finale. 5/10.

"The Gallows" Review

(To watch my video review of this film, click here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ry_2poKNWI)

When Paranormal Activity was released in theatres back in 2009, it marked the beginning of an era of supernatural horror. Franchises like Saw died off and we replaced all of the torture porn with ghost stories, 79% of which came from Blumhouse productions. We’ve seen a wide variety of ghosts in this time, between soul-sucking demons, to ouija-board spirits, to skype session spooks, and it honestly feels like the bottom of the barrel is being scraped by the time we get to the ghosts within every high school theatre. Personally, I’m not really all that into the whole paranormal genre, for two big reasons. First, I find it hard to feel genuinely frightened about something that doesn’t have a physical presence in our world. Moving around objects in a room can create an unsettling mood, but it’s hard to sell me on a movie that’s just that and jump scares. Second, I don’t really believe in the whole ghost thing in the first place. There was a self-proclaimed psychic that performed before the screening that I saw this film at, and while it was impressive how quickly she answered the question of if she could see dead dogs (yes), it was hard for me to take her seriously when she said that she was “sensing the spirit of someone whose name starts with an R”.

We start The Gallows with a home recording of a high school production of… The Gallows. I looked it up, and there’s no play out there called The Gallows, but all you need to know is that there’s a guy named August that they want to hang. Anyway, it’s one of the worst, most boring instances of high school theatre imaginable, until the actor playing August accidentally dies on stage due to a prop malfunction. Twenty years later, for some absolutely unimaginable reason, this same high school wants to honor the anniversary of this incident by putting up another production of The Gallows. This clues us in pretty quickly that The Gallows isn’t all that interested in logic, which is a good thing to recognize pretty quickly, because if you hadn’t already, you are now given explicit permission by the filmmakers to not take the film too seriously.

So we see a rehearsal for the revival production of The Gallows, and it’s just as cringey, if not more cringey, than the performance twenty years prior. It’s at this point we are introduced to our four main characters, who must all be punished for being unreasonably attractive for high school students. Ryan, who holds the camera for most of the film, is potentially one of the most annoying characters ever put to screen. You know how no matter what, someone talking while holding a camera sounds extremely obnoxious? Well imagine that, only coupled with the fact that everything that comes out of their mouth is hypocritical, overeager, and misogynistic. That’s Ryan. He’s a Football player who has to help out with tech for The Gallows. He has a stereotypical cheerleader girlfriend named Cassidy, and his best friend, Reese, is starring in the production as August. Reese quit football to be in the play, but his lack of experience hurts his ability as a performer. He has a big crush on Pfeifer, the girl that he’s starring with, who is the absolute stereotype of a theatre person. Ryan convinces his girlfriend and Reese to come to the high school after dark to destroy the set, and we have our plot.

While all of the characters are different levels of annoying, at least they act extremely genuine on camera. The Gallows is a found footage movie, and while the acting in these types of films is often very stilted, everyone in this movie, from lead to background actor, is incredibly naturalistic in their performance. Of course, there are more than several instances during the film where it doesn’t make any sense whatsoever for anyone to be holding a camera, but I don’t think that this film would have worked without the found footage vibe. The shaky cam, like it or not, really adds to the effect, much more than a camera with smooth movements would. This is not the film for meticulously crafted shots with brilliant lighting. Not that The Gallows really revitalizes found footage in any way whatsoever, but the stylistic choice just works really well for this movie.

Okay, so the whole ghost in the theatre premise is pretty stupid, but it’s also kind of hysterical, and really lends itself very nicely to creating a fun atmosphere for watching the movie. From a horror perspective, a theatre is actually kind of a perfect setting. There are no windows, so there’s always a sense of isolation and captivity present. The general layout of a theatre makes sense, but there’s a bunch of secret doors and hallways, so you’re always sort of disoriented, but never alienated by the film. There’s also a bunch of foreign props and cables all around, and that stuff is always creepy.

The Gallows also works surprisingly well because although the villain is technically a ghost, he has a sort of physical presence that presents a real sense of danger for the characters. He also doesn’t screw around with the way he attacks his victims. There’s no, “Oh, I’m gonna slowly drain your soul and demolish your personality.” Everytime he wants someone dead, they die quickly and dramatically. The film almost blurs the lines between being a supernatural and a slasher horror film.

With only four main characters, The Gallows ends up being really short. It’s only 81 minutes long, which is far under the average run-time for a movie, and I actually kind of like that aspect to it. The movie doesn’t devise ways to waste time or drag on the film, it just gets in and gets out. A solid amount of screentime with four somewhat undeveloped characters is still better than watching 23 six-line characters get murdered to death. The film is tight, and doesn’t leave you with much of an opportunity to get bored.

In fact, this movie fooled me into thinking that it was just gonna be some crappy horror film with no effort put into it. Although the script does lack any true sense of logic, it’s obvious that it went through several revisions to create some interesting moments. Everything that happens in the film serves some sort of purpose to the story, which is just awesome to see, because that’s not always the case for horror films, a genre that has a reputation of being cheap and exploitative. There was some really nice reintegration near the end of the film. I don’t mean reintegration where the filmmakers shove metaphors and motifs down your throat throughout the whole film, I mean a moment where a small detail that you thought nothing of was brought back to make a significant impact on the film’s story. There was even a cool ‘Left vs. Right’ moral dilemma in the movie that really caught me off guard. These things don’t make the movie brilliant, but they show that some effort was there.

The Gallows is super campy, and never really gets scary past a couple decent jump scares, but it’s pretty enjoyable. It falls into a lot of the same horror film tropes, but it executes them with competence and limited style. The story doesn’t really make a lot of sense, and the more you think about it, the more infuriating it becomes, but that doesn’t prevent the movie from being an entertaining watch. It doesn’t do anything revolutionary, and it has very short shelf life, but it’s far from a negative or a boring experience. 5/10.

"VICE: eSports" Review

(The following review was done as a result of a fiverr gig. Have me write a review on the movie of your choice: http://bit.ly/1IA8IfO)

The world of online gaming is a fascinating place. In places like South Korea, gaming is as big as football in America or chess in Russia. There are celebrities, commentators, and high-stakes competitions. In the past few years, there have been several very insightful documentaries and news stories that analyze the gaming culture and where it’s going. If you have seen any of these, or know anything whatsoever about South Korean gaming, you can skip eSports (also known as The Celebrity Millionaires of Gaming). While attempting to cover one of the biggest gaming events ever, the documentary stumbles over its shoelaces and manages to miss every single opportunity to be interesting.

The biggest problem here is that the host, Matt Shea, is the wrong man for this job. He covers this job in the way I’d expect a basketball correspondent to cover the World Cup. He makes fun of the whole culture and doesn’t seem at all interested. When he talks, he appears woefully unprepared, and asks his interviewees some of the most painfully boring questions. One of my favorites examples of bad interviewing was when he talked to KSI, “UK’s #2 gamer”, and asked him, “Are you a millionaire?” KSI responded with, “uhhhh… yeah.” Throughout the documentary, Shea speaks with such indecision that it seems like the take that is used is rehearsal footage, and all of the actual footage was lost in a fire.

It’s also obvious that Matt Shea is not particularly charismatic in front of the camera. He is far too passive when talking to people, and far too passive-aggressive when talking about them. At a press conference, he timidly raises his hand, and then throws a fit when he doesn’t get called on. When his friends want to play games at a game cafe, he acts all hurt and insists on taking everyone to a club, even though that has nothing to do with what the documentary is looking at. And when asking for an interview with one of the industry’s biggest stars, he gets a, “Now or later?” from the star. He then proceeds to whine about not being able to get interviews. Matt Shea feels like a character that Mike Judge put on TV, not someone hosting an hour-long special on VICE.

On a technical level, there’s some pretty bad filmmaking going on here. The voiceovers honestly sound like they were done in Shea’s basement. The point of this documentary is to feel like you’re witnessing the events through Matt’s eyes, so it’s understandable why they didn’t hire a professional voice artist, but couldn’t Matt do more than one take in the recording booth? The clips used to illustrate Matt’s points seem to be chosen indiscriminately, and there is more than one instance of a clip running too long when it could have easily been cut much earlier. It’s just sloppy the whole way through.

As KSI says, “It’s all about personality.” And this documentary has none. At times, it seems fitting that a documentary that (briefly) talks about reaction-based YouTube playthroughs feels so much like one. Every time something interesting happens on screen, we cut to a shot of Matt Shea explaining to us what we just saw. There’s so much wasted potential here. What you end up with is a couple of mediocre character studies, not the multi-dimensional analysis that could have been. The documentary even manages to take any of the tension out of the World finals, making nothing in the film worth caring about. 2/10.

"Insidious: Chapter 3" Review

Insidious: Chapter 3 is a pretty bad movie. I didn’t really like Insidious or Insidious: Chapter 2 much either though, so if you liked those two films, you’ll probably like this prequel, written and now directed by Leigh Whannell. Whannell wrote the first two films, and because James Wan was busy making Furious 7, Whannell is making this third installment his directorial debut.

Okay, so Insidious is a really profitable franchise. True to the Blumhouse style of making movies, the original film was made for only a million and a half dollars and grossed nearly one hundred. Of course, that number doesn’t account for marketing, but that’s still a pretty great return on investment. Although all of the scares were mostly laughable in my opinion, it had some interesting imagery and utilized its budget relatively effectively. Insidious: Chapter 3’s budget is evidently nearly $10 million, and I have to wonder where the money went.

The story takes place a couple of years prior to the events of the first film. There’s a girl named Quinn, played by Stefanie Scott, and she misses her dead Mom. She tries to reach out to her dead Mom, but instead an evil spirit comes to try and kill her. There’s a lot of unnecessary exposition and then all of the demon hunters from the first two films come in and mediocrity ensues.

I spent much more time cringing at the non-scary moments of this film than I did at the scary moments. For a writer who claims to have made an effort to avoid cliches in the first film, there’s an unsettling amount of them here. Quinn has an annoying younger brother, an attractive but awkward guy who is desperately in love with her, and a sassy friend of another ethnicity. She has an audition for a theatre college and she's super nervous about the results, and all of this faux character development goes on too long and you end up feeling like Quinn is less real than when she began. She gets hit by a car at one point. I laughed when she got hit by the car.

The performances are only okayish but the dialogue is just not good. Lin Shaye easily gives the best performance as Elaine Rainer, and she's only decent. Generally, caring about the characters in peril is important to create good horror, and in this movie, the characters just aren't developed enough to be cared about.

In all honesty, this movie feels like it belongs straight-to-DVD. If it didn’t have the Insidious franchise to back it up, I’m not sure it would have been released to theatres. The story is overly simple and every moment feels far too redundant. At times, it’s hard to watch. There were a few somewhat inspired shots, and a couple decent jump scares, but that’s about all I got out of it. At the end of the day, it’s not fun to sit through, and, just like the other films, it’s very forgettable. 2/10.

"Pitch Perfect 2" Review

I'm proud to say that I've been with the Bellas since the beginning. I remember going to see Pitch Perfect way back in 2012 on opening weekend and being pleasantly surprised. At first, the film didn't perform too well at the box office, until word-of-mouth kicked in and Pitch Perfect became a huge sleeper hit. Elizabeth Banks, who produced and had a supporting role in the first film, directs this sequel in which the Bellas compete at the A Capella world championship in attempt to bounce back from a disastrous performance for the President.

Pitch Perfect 2 succeeds because it carries the same spirit of the original, without seeming to copy it. The big thing is that the film takes the world of A Capella super seriously. A lot of the humor is derived from being part of this bubble where A Capella is the most serious thing ever, and if there's too much winking within the bubble, the whole thing falls through. Thankfully, the film takes A Capella just as seriously as it did in the original. Another part of the magic comes from the hysterical improv on set, coming mostly from Rebel Wilson and Adam Devine. The final aspect of the winning combination is the great singing.

Pitch Perfect 2 does what is expected of it for a franchise sequel. The stakes are higher and the situations are more extreme. There's a larger budget and even some more celebrity cameos. However, this film strays from the norm in that Pitch Perfect 2 is much more of a feminist movie than the original. It's not preachy, but it's definitely a 'girl power' movie. Personally, I think that's cool. Hollywood is super sexist both in front of and behind the camera, and it's not often where you have a large ensemble filled with women and a female director.

Of course, students can't be students forever, and with this installment of the franchise, all of the characters from the original are graduating. If there's going to be a Pitch Perfect 3 though, new characters need to be introduced. That's why this film spends a significant portion of the film developing Emily (Hailee Steinfeld) as a character. Steinfeld blew onto the scene after scoring an Oscar nod for 2010's True Grit, but after seeing her in a few more movies, it becomes apparent that her performance is somewhat dependent on the quality of her co-stars. I think that she's a great actress, but I'm not quite sure she'd be able to carry the film in the next installment. Who knows though. The Pitch Perfect franchise has had plenty of surprises.

While Pitch Perfect 2 keeps a lot of the qualities that made the original good, it also retains a lot of the faults. Jokes don't always land where they need to, and there's some sense that a lot of scenes were left on the cutting room floor for the sake of pacing. However, I would argue that this film is at the same quality of the original, it's just less of a shock. Your opinion of the first movie will be your opinion of this one. 7/10.

"Mad Max: Fury Road" Review

Reboots of properties from the 80s are a dime a dozen, but very rarely do we get reboots from the 80s with the same original director. Steven Spielberg and Ridley Scott have been toying with some of their previous properties, but they are producing and directing so constantly that it's not all that surprising. The original Mad Max film was released in 1979. Starring Mel Gibson and directed by George Miller, the film was a huge hit in Australia. However, it wasn't until 2 years later with the release of Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior that the franchise became a hit in the United States and made Mel Gibson a star. Miller directs Mad Max: Fury Road, and while Gibson has been replaced by Tom Hardy in the titular role, Fury Road stands on its own, so watching the originals is a reward rather than a prerequisite.

Early on in the film, Max says that he has "been reduced to a single instinct: Survive." That's the gist of the story. Sure, there are motivations for the characters to do the things they do, but for the most part, the film is 2 hours of watching the protagonists try to not die during epic fights and car chases. While this lack of a story might throw some people off, it works very well thematically, and allows the movie to focus on creating some incredible action sequences.

As far as action scenes go, Fury Road really raises the bar. The editing for this movie is absolutely astounding. The frame rate is manipulated very frequently to give the film a distinct style and make the action clear, despite the often fast cutting. A majority of the film takes place through various car chases, but the constant movement doesn't get disorienting, and it doesn't get boring. This is likely due to the brilliant cinematography, which makes the desert seem strangely beautiful, and captures the action marvelously without making you feel like you're watching a movie. The movie also utilizes a lot of practical effects, which help avoid the tragic fate of looking like an animated film. Fury Road is super crazy, but you never feel alienated by the craziness. The insanity of it all just goes to serve the tone of the film.

The performances here are astoundingly good, far better than what you come to expect from an action film. While the film lacks a detailed plotline, the characters are all extremely well developed. Tom Hardy is so mesmerizing in the movie that you forget that he's largely silent throughout. Charlize Theron commands the screen as Imperator Furiosa, and Nicholas Hoult is surprisingly affecting as Nux. I'd also be remiss not mention that Hugh Keays-Byrne, who played Toecutter in the original Mad Max, absolutely dominates on screen as Immortan Joe, the antagonist of the film.

Mad Max: Fury Road is one of those movies that I feel would get even better upon a second viewing. The first time you watch it, you're engrossed in the huge spectacle of it all, and then when you watch it a second time, you know exactly what to expect. There's a great energy behind this film that makes it incredibly fun to watch. If you're at all interested in this movie, see it in theatres. It is worth your money to have that sort of an experience. 9/10.

"Avengers: Age of Ultron" Review

As we near the end of ‘Phase Two’ of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, I would like to make one thing clear. I am not a ‘Marvel hater’. I guess become I’m not a ‘Marvel fanboy’ and there’s no middle ground, I’m thrown to the opposite end of the spectrum. However, at the end of the day, I try to give each Marvel film a fair shot, and I’ve liked quite a few of them. I have a lot of respect for what the studio has done, from a business perspective. That’s my main problem with Marvel though. It’s a business. The movies are made with a strict formula, so as to not risk any box office bombs. Very few of the films end up being bad, but they all end up feeling like the same movie.

 The story of Avengers: Age of Ultron, familiar as it is, takes us through the trials and tribulations of the Avengers as they fight various enemies. After Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) attempts to create peacekeeping artificial intelligence, thing go wrong and Ultron (James Spader) tries to destroy all humans, because in his opinion that’s the best way to keep peace.

On the whole, I liked Age of Ultron more than the original. As an audience member, I felt like I had much more control of this film. What I mean by that is that with this movie, the sequence of events seemed to have more purpose. I felt that the plot was more focused and better paced, and the action scenes seemed to have more purpose to the story than just bragging that the Avengers have teamed up (though the CGI-aided oners really started to bother me). It’s obvious that the one-liners aren’t having the same effect that they used to, but I got exactly what I expected from the dialogue.

Juggling six main characters (and constantly adding more) isn’t an easy thing to do, but I think this film does a very successful job of giving each of the stars ample time to shine. Not only were they given opportunities to be awesome, but they were allowed to significantly develop their characters. I also really liked Ultron as a villain. His main purpose was to be a plot motivator, and he did just that. He was intimidating enough for the Avengers to have to invest everything they have to fight him, but grounded enough to not steal the show.

Written and directed by Joss Whedon, Avengers: Age of Ultron will likely be his last foray in the Marvel Universe, and it’s a great film to go out on. It truly feels like a goodbye to Whedon as well as all of the characters in the Avengers. This is the culmination of all of the Marvel movies released so far, and it generally feels like a nice reward to anyone who’s been following along. The film is such a great farewell that the knowledge of Marvel movies being planned well into 2019 leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Age of Ultron is probably my favorite of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, but it also makes me not want to watch another Marvel movie ever again. 7/10.

"Ex Machina" Review

It has gotten to the point that every time I see the ‘A24’ studio logo, I get just a little bit more excited for the movie that I’m about to see. A24 has been investing in some of the best independent cinema lately, and even when the movies aren’t great, they’re always at least risky and interesting, and I respect them for that. I didn’t know much about Ex Machina (other than that it was sci-fi and getting huge buzz) before I saw it, but when I saw the ‘A24’ logo, I knew I was in for a treat.

The story is very intriguing. A coder named Caleb (Domhnall Gleeson) has won a competition within his work to spend a week in a retreat with the company’s CEO, Nathan (Oscar Isaac). Once there, Nathan shares with Caleb what he has been working on: a female robot named Ava (Alicia Vikander). Nathan engages Caleb in various experiments over the following week to test whether or not Caleb can be convinced that Ava is a human instead of a robot. Ex Machina talks a lot about the role of technology in our lives as well as potential consequences, but does what good sci-fi is supposed to do, and explores these themes without seeming too preachy.

Domhnall Gleeson and Oscar Isaac, who have collectively appeared in every single indie film in the past two years, finally star together, and it’s glorious. They’re both so charismatic and play so well together. It’s heavily debateable as to who is stealing the show. Alicia Vikander gives a remarkably subtle performance as a robot that makes you question everything about everything. Ex Machina is both written and directed by Alex Garland, who has had a lot of experience writing for Danny Boyle, and a lot of that style translates over to this film.

The problems that I had with the film are very minimal. The special effects, while absolutely astounding for the most part, falter minimally when it comes to the style and strength of the skin. There are a couple minor pacing issues I had with the film, as well as a couple times where the script grew too redundant for my liking. This is Alex Garland’s directorial debut however, and I’m interested in seeing where his career progresses. Ex Machina is mind-blowing and crazy engaging, and I’d highly recommend it. 8/10.

"Unfriended" Review

I have a theory that the idea for Unfriended came from one horror executive talking to another and casually mentioning that, “Wow, technology is amazing. More and more of our lives are moving online.” To this, the other executive looked back at the first executive and said, “That’s interesting Jason, but our jobs are to make movies.” After this, the first executive looked at the second executive and the second executive looked back at the first executive and Unfriended was born.

Unfriended takes place online. The entire film is put together as if the audience is able to observe the character’s computer screens. It’s an admittedly interesting gimmick, and the filmmakers don’t skimp out; the entire movie really does take place through a view of various computer screens. The story follows a group of friends as they casually skype on the 1-year anniversary of the day that one of their friends, Laura Barns, committed suicide. However, there is an unknown user in their chat conversation that they can’t get rid of. Eventually, things start going wrong and the film turns into a Agatha Christie-esque thriller as the friends die, one by one.

Because the film takes place on the internet, I feel like there may be some people who are turned off from the movie because it’s not always a 100% accurate depiction of how the internet works. While there were moments that took me out of the film, I very quickly accepted that this was a movie and it has slightly different logic, and if you suspend your disbelief ever so slightly, you can end up having a very good time.

Similar to many other found footage films, the cast is filled with mostly unknown and somewhat generic-looking actors. The performances are all pretty good though, which is doubly exciting because the performances occur in a non-traditional way, because of the movie’s format. The biggest problem I had with the film is that there are numerous scares throughout, and none of them work too well. They’re all really campy and cut together for pure shock value, and that just doesn’t really work with the rest of the movie.

This is not a revolutionary horror film, but it is an entertaining one. It’s trashy and stupid, but embraces those characteristics, and doesn’t try to be anything more than a fun gimmick. It’s worth a watch, but it won’t leave you with too much to ponder when it’s over. Although I’m sure it will be around the same quality, I’m not excited for the inevitable sequel. I’ve seen this movie once, I don’t really need to see it again in a few years. 6/10.

"Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2" Review

Ignoring what we know now of the franchise, I should love a movie with a title like Paul Blart: Mall Cop. That movie sounds like a parody of Die Hard or a generic police protocol film. It would take itself super seriously and be absolutely absurd and end up being a cult classic. Let's be real, the premise of Paul Blart: Mall Cop is really stupid. There’s only two solid ways to play a film like this: 1. The 21 Jump Street route of being super self-aware, or 2. The route of taking yourself super seriously and having a lot of fun. The Paul Blart: Mall Cop franchise opts to do neither of these things, and instead devotes itself to making jokes about segways and obesity. With no creative humor, the film is forced to rely on the charisma of the main character, and yet still the filmmakers manage to screw that up by making Paul Blart (Kevin James) an unlikeable jerk that you don’t want to root for. Yet as an audience member you are told that you should be cheering for Blart, causing frustration because you don’t really want him to be successful. There is constant winking at the camera, which is completely undeserved because the filmmakers don’t fully understand what their movie is.

Six years after the original Paul Blart: Mall Cop, we have Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2. After the events of the first film, Blart’s wife leaves him within the first week of their marriage. Not long after, Blart’s Mom is killed by a milk truck. Blart is feeling down, until he is invited to the security officers convention in Las Vegas. While in Vegas, a group of live-action cartoon villains plan a non-specific heist, and for Blart, duty calls.

To be totally clear, despite popular belief, this is not the worst movie of all time. For a few moments, it's actually somewhat funny. Its main crime is that it's just lazy. The film's budget is $30 million, yet it feels like it was made for well under 5. The other reason that Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2 is easy to hate on is because it made $24 million on its opening weekend. This movie feels like it should have been released straight-to-DVD, and since it made a lot of money at the box office, people are extra resentful.

Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2 isn't good, but there are plenty of movies out there that are much, much worse. The movie is just forgetful. The film starts, things happen, and then it ends. While a majority of the jokes fall flat, the film isn't aggressively bad, it's just bad. None of the actors really try, but they look like they're having a good time in Vegas, at least. By the time that the film ends, you've forgotten all of the important plot points (well, there are none), and are left with only one thing: Always bet on Blart.

In my opinion, the best way to enjoy a movie like this is to watch it with your friends as if it’s the greatest movie of all time. That’s how I experienced it, at least. The theatre that I was in broke out into spontaneous applause 4 times during the film. It’s not like watching a ‘So Bad It’s Good’ film though. For some reason it’s just strange and bad enough to be intriguing, but still put-together enough to seem real. The audience is the one putting forth the effort, instead of the film, but watched like this, Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2 can be very funny. Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2 isn’t in on the joke though. Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2 is the joke. 3/10.

"The Longest Ride" Review

The first thing to take into consideration when deciding whether or not to see The Longest Ride is that it’s based off of a Nicholas Sparks novel. The second thing to take into consideration is that the film is 2 hours and 20 minutes long. The third thing to take into consideration is that Clint Eastwood’s son, Scott, stars in the movie as a bull rider. Based off of this information alone, you should know if you’ll like this film or not. This isn’t a movie that’s going to surprise anyone. It does exactly what it needs to do to give the audience what they paid for. 

The story follows Sophia (Britt Robertson), a boring college student majoring in art history. When she is dragged to a bull riding competition by her stereotypical sorority sisters, she falls in love with Luke Collins (Scott Eastwood), a bull rider who is attempting to recapture former glory after a devastating injury. Collins falls in love with Sophia too, for no real reason other than that the plot calls for it. The problem? Sophia has a post-college internship lined up in New York City and leaves in a few months. They go on a first date anyway, and stumble across an old man, Ira (Alan Alda), who has crashed his car due to a storm. While Ira recovers in the hospital, Sophia reads him letters from his youth. Through Sophia and Ira’s frequent visits, we learn of the relationship between his younger self (Jack Huston), and Ruth (Oona Chaplin). This second romance story within The Longest Ride contains parallels to the first, as well as characters that are just as blandly written. 

If your movie contains the word ‘Long’ in its title, and the run-time is over 2 hours, there better be a pretty good artistic reason. If there isn’t, you can expect a plethora of bad jokes at the expense of your movie, like the one I’m about the make: The Longest Ride? More like, The Longest Movie, because this movie lasted foooorrrreeevvvveeerrrrr. Now that I got that out of the way, this movie is far too long. Nicholas Sparks movies are fluff movies. They are somewhat watchable, vaguely romantic, and incredibly emotionally manipulative, but ultimately they don’t serve any purpose past making you feel all warm and cuddly inside. With movies like this, you have to earn your extra run-time, and despite a relatively fast pacing due to multiple stories occurring at the same time, there is no good reason for the movie to be this long. 30-40 minutes could have been cut from it, easily. 

At best, the movie gets cheesy. At worst, the movie gets downright stupid. There are plenty of unintentional laughs as the cast attempts to deliver some uncomfortable lines, but an unintentional laugh is better than a groan, and the filmmakers unapologetic devotion to making romantic fluff helps make the film less of a chore to get through. All of the actors are incredibly charismatic, it’s just a shame that no one is given anything to work with.

Is this movie a cash-grab? Yes, but there is at least some minimal effort put into it. I’m not this movie’s target audience, so I don’t think it would be fair to completely trash it because it wasn’t made for me in mind. As a film, it hardly reaches the level of competent, but it safely avoids the level of atrocious. It could have been much worse, and I’d recommend it if it seems like a movie that you would like. Of course, if it seems like a movie that you’d like, you’ve probably already seen it by now. 4/10.

"Furious 7" Review

James Wan's career is one of the American dream. Born in Malaysia, Wan met Leigh Whannel at film school in Australia. Together, they wrote Saw (2004), which Wan directed. The film was made for just over a million dollars and was set to be released straight-to-DVD, but after strong festival buzz it got a theatrical release and made over $100 million worldwide. The Saw franchise went on to make 6 more movies and gross over $850 million, but Wan left the Saw world after the first film. He went on to collaborate with Whannel again and make the Insidious franchise, and directed 2013's horror hit The Conjuring. Known for directing low-budget horror films, Wan doesn't seem like the obvious choice to direct a 200 million dollar action film, but he was given the reigns after Justin Lin (who directed the previous four installments) decided not to return for Furious 7.

Does anyone really take the Fast & Furious franchise seriously? These movies are essentially just machismo fantasy power trips. But that's exactly what these movies are trying to be. Furious 7 does what it sets out to accomplish, and does it with extreme proficiency. In my opinion, the intention of the movie is one of the most vital things to consider when discussing the quality of the film. Even though the movie isn't The Godfather, it doesn't set out to be The Godfather. Furious 7 is similar to The Godfather in that family is an important theme, but they are two different movies, both near the top of the class in relation to other movies that set out with a similar intention.

In 20 years, Furious 7 may be dissected and discussed in film class to analyze the pacing and editing of the final product. While plot in this film is more of a catalyst for the action (rather than the driving force of the film), the story is tight and very well managed. The plot takes us to various exotic locations, but at each place we are introduced to new ideas and characters while still feeling tension from the main conflict. These news ideas get reincorporated later in the film and give the ending much more depth. The final action sequence is especially well edited, as the large number of fights and chases going on at the same time are edited seamlessly together so as to keep the movie's anxiety level high and the excitement level higher. Just as one fight scene starts to become monotonous, you are taken to another conflict that is going on at the same time, so that you’re always engaged. Often times in big action films, there can only be so many explosions before things start to feel boring and redundant, but Furious 7 avoids this fate through careful editing.

Another problem that many action films have is a large number of cuts that take away from the fluidity of the scene. Because stunts are dangerous, the actors can't always do them, bringing in the stunt crew. However, because the stunt crew aren't exact twins to the actors, sometimes action scenes need to either be shot in a close-up and/or with lots of cuts to different angles so that the audience can't see that it's not the actor performing the stunts. While this is a cheap route, it often leads to the audience being disoriented and not really understanding what's going on. However, with exception to a few moments, the extreme stunts in Furious 7 are mostly clear and well-performed. That's made even more impressive when you take into consideration the difficulty of completing the film after the death of Paul Walker.

Paul Walker, one of the stars of the franchise who has been a part of it since 2001's The Fast and the Furious, died in a car accident on November 30th, 2013. At the time, Furious 7 was in the middle of production and not all of Walker's scenes had been filmed. After a hiatus in filming, the filmmakers managed to finish the movie with rewrites, body doubles, and CGI. Paul's send-off at the end of the film is very fitting and very touching, and gives the film a really tranquil sense of finality. It's sad, but it's a good sad.

Furious 7 is fun to watch because it doesn't just feel thrown together. The cast seems to be having a good time while filming, and there is a definite sense of awareness of what type of film they're making, as well as their purpose for making it. The jokes that are made in the film aren't the humorous moments, the humour here comes from the devotion to the insanity. If there was any aspect of the film that truly disappointed me, it was the lack of crazy and memorable one-liners. That is a minor complaint though, and one that is likely not shared by most.

Another interesting fact about the Fast & Furious franchise is that most of the cast in nonwhite, which is exceptionally rare amongst large Hollywood tentpoles. Hollywood executives are often afraid to cast nonwhite actors in leading roles because they are afraid audiences (especially international audiences, where an increasing amount of a movie's profits come from) will not want to pay money to see the movies. However, Furious 7 sports an incredibly diverse cast, with Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, Michelle Rodriguez, Vin Diesel, Tyrese Gibson, Ludacris, and Nathalie Emmanuel. Nonwhite actors play the protagonists, instead of just being stuck in villain roles. That is just another reason why I'm glad I can say I enjoyed this film. 7/10.

Why I Stay

I finally made my way over to the new Mann theatre in Plymouth a couple weeks ago. I was a little cautious about going because Mann Plymouth has overly comfy seats and I don’t like being in danger of falling asleep in the theatre, but I was surprised to find that the chairs weren’t even the most frustrating part of the experience (though they may limit my return visits). During the final scene of the film, about 10-15 seconds before the credits started to scroll, the lights were turned on. Not even a fade. The theatre just went from mostly dark to totally bright. Mann Plymouth sent me a signal that I should leave the theatre before the credits even started. This might be the most pretentious thing I’ll ever write in the Trojan Tribune (and that’s saying a lot), but I wholeheartedly believe that you shouldn’t leave the theatre until the credits are over, and that movie theatres should respect the movies that they show.

First off, the credits are part of the movie. You paid money to watch the whole movie, not part of it. If credits bother you so much, why don’t you skip the opening credits as well? Just as the opening credits help set the mood for the film, the closing credits help bring finality to the film. It takes some time to come back from the world that the movie brought you into, and the closing credits are the perfect time to readjust to reality. Often times, the songs in the credits were either made for the film or reflect an important theme of the movie that you can take away from it. Personally, I love to watch the credits because they give me an opportunity to reflect on the movie I just watched and form an opinion of it, and I know that I’m not alone.

Not to mention that leaving before the credits are over is just kind of rude. When you go to see a theatrical performance, do you leave before the actors bow? No, you wait for the lights to go up (and those who leave early are trying to beat the crowds - an excuse moviegoers don’t have). This fact makes things all the more disappointing when movie theatres turn on the lights before the credits are over. I don’t care if you think it’s okay because the filmmakers aren’t in the room, there are other people in the theatre. When you leave early you’re not only disrespecting the filmmakers, you’re disrespecting the people you saw the film with. You came to the theatre to relax, so relax. You can get back to worrying about homework soon, but right now you’re busy getting cultured

Some people say that the credits are boring. These people are wrong. I find that I learn a lot by reading credits. That might have to do with my interest in the film industry, but a large portion of films also have easter eggs or other entertaining elements during the credits. Even if they don’t, I’m positive you’ll find some aspect of the experience to be interesting. Plus, the credits aren’t exactly that long. They take up a couple of minutes and go by a lot faster than you would expect. 

At the end of the day, staying to watch the credits leads to a much more fulfilling experience. Watching a movie isn’t just something you have to get over with. I don’t understand how people can run out of the theatre and not be disoriented. Credits exist for much more than legal reasons. Even if the movie isn’t good, you stayed for the end of the plot, now stay for the end of the movie. 

"Get Hard" Review

In Get Hard, Will Ferrell plays a wealthy hedge fund manager named James who is shocked to be arrested, found guilty of embezzlement, and sentenced to 10 years at San Quentin. Nervous about his time in prison, he hires Darnell (Kevin Hart), a hardworking entrepreneur, to prepare him for prison by 'getting him hard'. If you chuckled at that, you're probably within this movie's target audience.

Directed by Etan Cohen (so close, yet so far), Get Hard operates under the guise that it is a commentary on class warfare, when in reality it's not really about anything but awful people making somewhat offensive jokes. There's not a lot of cleverness in the humor, but the film makes up for that with excessive repetition. Will Ferrell and Kevin Hart are trying (it's obvious that their improv backgrounds helped many of the sequences out significantly), and they have a lot of chemistry together, but the material and story beats don't allow Ferrell and Hart to reach the most of their abilities.

While the movie does become much more enjoyable when you recognize that the characters are awful people you’re not supposed to feel sympathy for, it never reaches the level of ‘good’ or ‘funny’. At best, it’s watchable. It’s never consistently awful, but it’s definitely subpar and forgettable. 4/10.

"It Follows" Review

The story of It Follows is simple. After having sex for the first time with her boyfriend, Jay (Maika Monroe) is chloroformed and tied up. When she wakes up, she is informed that an entity (that no one else can see) will constantly be walking towards her, and she can't let it get to her or she will die. The only way to get rid of the entity is to have sex with someone else and pass it on to them.

It's an interesting 'What would I do?' dilemma, but these sorts of concepts tend to have pretty mixed results. Thankfully, It Follows isn't another The Purge (2013). It Follows is actually a really scary, really well executed horror film.

First, this film was made for only $2 million. Given the scope of the plot of this film, that number makes sense. However, given the high production value of the film, I would say that it was $2 million very well spent. A large portion of the film takes place outdoors, and near dusk, which is impressive because there is less control of the environment outside, and limited time to shoot at dusk. These uncompromising choices allow for the film to claim a very cool and distinctive style. They also illustrate how much control over the film that the director has.

It Follows is genuinely scary, which is always good when making a horror movie. The idea of getting followed is a creepy thought, and creepy is a good descriptor for this film. The imagery used in the film is incredibly unnerving, but very rarely goes over-the-top. The editing in the film helps create the sense of paranoia that keeps you on the edge of your seat throughout the entire movie, not just a couple sequences.

The problem with having such a concept-based film is that there are lots of questions that will present themselves. The movie is incredibly immersive throughout (the 100 minute run-time absolutely flies by), but as you leave the theatre and reflect on the film, there will be lots of unanswered questions that relate to the rules of the film. I don't think a sequel to It Follows would succeed because there is no satisfying way to explore the concept without just remaking this film. That said, this is a very good movie, and a great horror flick. 8/10.

"Insurgent" Review

It's no secret that I don't like Divergent very much. I did the novel version of Divergent as a "Humorous Interpretation" for speech team this year. Essentially, I just made fun of the book and the movie for ten minutes. For those of you who are unfamiliar with the plot of Divergent, the story takes us to a dystopian society where everyone is divided into five different factions based off of five character tropes. Everyone takes a test when they reach an indeterminate age to determine what faction they belong in. However, there are a small percentage of people who are "Divergent", meaning that they fit into more than one of these factions. Because these "Divergents" don't fit it, they must be eliminated... for some reason. Basically, all of the characters only have one dimension, and everyone who is multilayered is special. This allows the novel/movie to force the audience to identify with the protagonist, Tris Prior, because she's the only character who is not a cartoon. This is lazy writing and a problem that is evident in most YA fiction. Personally, I find it insulting to have a book or film tell me that a person is special and unique when they're actually just bland and normal. However, given my extreme dislike of the series, I made a conscious effort to keep an open mind for Insurgent, the second film in the franchise. Catching Fire was much better than The Hunger Games, so maybe we could strike YA sequel gold twice. Insurgent has a new director, Robert Schwentke, and a new team of writers, so who knows what could happen!

Well, nothing good, that's for sure. I thought the movie version of Divergent was a competent retelling of a bad story. I thought the movie version of Insurgent was a bad retelling of a bad story.

The biggest problem with this film is that nothing happens. After the events of Divergent, Tris (Shailene Woodley) and Four (Theo James) are on the run. There's your movie. Tris and Four move to a new place and stay there for about fifteen minutes until Eric (Jai Courtney), Jeanine's (Kate Winslet) henchman, shows up and starts shooting things. This happens for a long time with no real subplot in the film. Things get tedious almost immediately and there is no sense of control within the script. The events seem to occur randomly, meaning that as an audience member you are not given the opportunity to care about anything that happens.

As mentioned before, none of the characters are written as more than a caricature. None of the actors have much to work off of and they don't appear to be trying very hard. The performances range from melodramatic (Woodley), to bad (Jonny Weston as Edgar), to stupid (James & Winslet). Miles Teller, reprising his role as Peter, is the only actor who gives an entertaining performance. He doesn't do anything special other than be deliciously smarmy, but he seems to know what type of movie he's in and attempts to make the most of the situation.

Near the end of the film, there is a big plot twist. I won't reveal what it is, but it's the only significant thing that happens in the entire movie. Initially, I enjoyed this plot twist simply because it was a change of pace, however, after thinking about it, I realized that it was the stupidest decision that the franchise could have made next to telling the audience that the past two movies were all a dream. After doing a little research, I found out that this plot twist was in the book as well, so this one is on you, Veronica Roth.

Visually, Insurgent isn’t very interesting. Divergent was shot in Chicago and really made the post-apocalyptic imagery an important part of the film. Most of Insurgent is shot in Atlanta, and all of the locations seem incredibly vague, like the filmmakers are trying to hide that there is no continuity between the different places that the characters go. This movie doesn’t feel like there was a strong vision behind it; it feels micromanaged by the studio to the point that it has no voice. It’s haphazardly written, shot, and edited.

Insurgent isn’t even fun to make fun of, it’s just a tedious experience to get through. In advertisements, the movie was sold for its “heart-pounding action”, but there’s not enough heart within the film to make you care about any of the average-looking action. At the end of the day, it feels like everyone involved was simply cashing a paycheck instead of working on something that they believed in. 3/10.

"Home" Review

If you saw 2014's Mr. Peabody & Sherman, you might remember the harmless animated short film that played before the movie and made people angry because it wasn't the Rocky and Bullwinkle short that they were promised. That short film was Almost Home. Starring Steve Martin as Captain Smek, the short was expanded into the feature length Home with Jim Parsons and Rihanna starring, and Martin reprising his role.

The story involves a large group of Boovs on the run from the dangerous Gorg. The Boovs take over Planet Earth and relocate the humans to various other places on the Planet. However, one human girl, Tip (Rihanna), avoids the relocation beams. She meets up with Oh (Parsons), who is on the run from the Boov police because he accidentally sent an email to the Gorg inviting them to come to his housewarming party. The film then becomes a road trip comedy as Tip and Oh travel to Paris to try to fix Oh's mistake and find Tip's Mom.

We come to expect decent animation from Dreamworks, and Home is about par in comparison to other Dreamworks pictures that get a wide release (an admittedly high standard). However, the character design for the Boovs is actually super cute. It's one of the few aspects of the film that appears to be genuinely inspired.

Despite the large potential created by the interesting character design, most of the film is wasted on cheap gags. Home pales in comparison to other "Welcome to America"-type kids movies like Paddington because Paddington understands its main character and will create natural situations to communicate who the character is to the audience. You understand exactly who Oh is after spending about a minute with him, and you don't learn anything new as he attempts to resolve the conflict. All of the situations he is a part of develop a random sight gag instead of developing him as a character. The movie also stops at several instances in the film to promote new Rihanna music.

Steve Martin does a great job with Captain Smek, but his role is cut to a supporting one here. The films picks up significantly whenever he is on screen, but the rest of the film just can't keep up. Jim Parsons is mostly charming as the voice of Oh, but his character needs a good foil that Tip just can't provide. Rihanna isn't very good as Tip, but her character isn't very well written either. Keep in mind that Rihanna is a singer, not an actor, and appears to be trying her best, but it just doesn't work that well.

For the most part, Home is harmless. But it plays things really safe. You've seen this movie before. Kids are young though, so it'll be exciting and new for them. If you buy it for a kid on DVD they'll probably watch it an insane amount of times and then force you to buy them a Boov plush toy for $23.78, but this movie could be replaced with any number of other mediocre kids films that would hit the same story beats and serve the same purpose. All of which involve you buying things. 5/10.

"Cinderella" Review

Following his mediocre reboot of the Jack Ryan series, Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit, Kenneth Branagh directs this retelling of the classic fairytale "Cinderella". Do we really need another "Cinderella" movie? Is it really necessary? Well, no. But when it comes to movies directed by Kenneth Branagh, very few of them fall under the category of 'necessary'. This is a Disney movie though, and it stays true to its roots. There is no attempt to make the film dark and gritty or turn it into an action film, so for that reason it is appreciated. Other than adding in Cinderella's parents as characters in the beginning act, there are no desperate derivations from the original animated film to 'spice things up' either. If you're looking for a safe life-action adaptation of this fairy tale, you found it.

Cinderella has all of the confidence of a community theater's 27th production of A Christmas Carol. There is a certain knowledge about how things are supposed to be, and everything goes on without dilemma, but there is this lingering feeling throughout that you've seen this done before. Not necessarily better, but not necessarily worse. Even in the minute risks that are taken through the CGIed animals, they feel done out of necessity rather than creative inspiration. All of the beats are hit to keep the audience from being bored, but there's not really anything present that truly dazzles. The film stays at the level of cute throughout.

At least the film doesn't feel like a TV movie. It might be the community theater's 27th production, but the theater got a couple professionals to take on supporting roles this year, and so everyone is inspired to give it their 'A' game. Cate Blanchett is deliciously manipulative as the evil stepmother, Helena Bonham Carter is wonderfully campy as the fairy godmother, and Stellan Skarsgård is surprisingly layered as the Grand Duke. Lily James does a fine job as the title role, and she has just enough chemistry with Richard Madden as the Prince to make things convincing.

Cinderella is successful in what it attempts to achieve. Unfortunately, it doesn't attempt to achieve much. It is incredibly competently made though. And for a Disney film that lasts nearly two hours, time went by at a relatively fast rate. I doubt that you'll be too disappointed in the film if you go to see it. It's definitely enjoyable. You're really not missing much if you choose to skip it though. If the thought of seeing live-action "Cinderella" is exciting for you, you'll like this. If not, no need to rush anywhere. You can tie your shoes first at least. 6/10.

"Chappie" Review

The more films that Neill Blomkamp makes, the more it becomes apparent that he doesn’t really have anything serious to say with his work. Science fiction is a great mode for social commentary, but it appears as if Blomkamp is much more interested in the visual aesthetic of his movies than the messages he’s sharing with them. It’s okay to not have anything to say, but don’t pretend that you do if you don’t. With District 9 and Elysium, Blomkamp’s previous works, there were some simple real-life parallels that Blomkamp appeared to be commenting on. With District 9 especially, we ignored some of the logical flaws and divergences in the supposed commentary because there’s not a lot of good science fiction and we assumed that a foreign director that sets a movie in South Africa has his reasons everything. With Chappie, it becomes apparent that these moments in his previous films may have just been sloppy missteps that we chose to ignore.

Chappie takes place in future Johannesburg (District 9’s location) where the police force employs automated robot policemen. Deon (Dev Patel), the programmer of this robot intelligence, has created another program that will be able to give robots consciousness. Unfortunately, the military tech company that he works for will not allow him to test the program on a broken robot because of liability reasons, so Deon steals the robot. After Deon is kidnapped by the overarching B-plot, both metaphorically and literally, he tests the program on the broken robot, and Chappie is born. Chappie’s battery will run out in mere days though, and there’s no way to charge him. That’d be an interesting way to discuss mortality and the dichotomy between good and evil, right? Blomkamp does nothing with it, choosing to focus instead on style and plot points.

The most fascinating aspect of this movie is the aforementioned overarching B-plot. Musical duo Die Antwoord (composed of members Ninja and Yo-Landi) play Ninja and Yolandi, some drug dealers who, teamed up with Amerika (Jose Cantillo), need to make 20 million Rand to pay off the local crime boss. They kidnap Deon and become the focus of the story when their characters are not at all set up to be at the forefront of the movie. Ninja and Yo-Landi are not great actors. For musicians, they do a fine job (Yo-Landi is somewhat better than Ninja), but they’re still not very good. They are fascinating to watch though. I wasn’t familiar with Die Antwoord before seeing this movie, and I definitely listened to a lot of their music afterwards. I’m not sure I like them as musicians, but they’re addicting to listen to and watch because there is so much shock value and absurdism packed into their performances. However, the surrealistic nature of their music videos are not present in Chappie, and Ninja and Yo-Landi aren’t given the opportunity to showcase their forte. Which is weirdness. A majority of the entertaining moments of the film come from them, but they seem so uncomfortable and out-of-place.

Hugh Jackman plays the villain of the movie, and the film makes sure to let you know straight away that he’s pure evil. In the opening montage of the film, Jackman’s character, Vincent Moore, is shown with his alternative to the police robots, called “The Moose”. And it’s the exact same design as ED209 from RoboCop. I guess that could be described as an homage, but it definitely took me out of the film. It’s seemed cheap to me that Hugh Jackman’s character immediately loses any sympathy when he promotes one of the most famous evil robots in cinema history. Sigourney Weaver’s in this movie. She doesn’t do much. Sharlto Copley does a great job as the voice of Chappie though, and provides the only legitimate emotional beats of the story.

Without knowing that Blomkamp directed this film, you’d be able to figure it out pretty quickly. Stylistically, it’s incredibly similar to Elysium and District 9. That’s okay I guess, but Chappie is significantly weaker than both of his previous films. The special effects are well done, but the script needs massive reworking. For some reason, it seems almost dishonest to the audience to have a script so one-dimensional and manipulative. The ideas stopped as soon as the premise started. 4/10.

"Focus" Review

It seems strange to say that in a movie with Will Smith in a leading role, the real star is an up-and-coming Australian actress, but Margot Robbie isn't just any Australian actress. She was Leonardo DiCaprio's second wife in The Wolf of Wall Street, and managed to steal just about every scene away from him. In the near future, she'll be playing Jane in the adaptation/sequel Tarzan, and she'll be Harley Quinn in DC's Suicide Squad. Needless to say, she's incredibly talented. In fact, I'd argue that she's actually too talented for a movie like this. Her character in Focus is written as basically a prop, a cut-and-dried femme fatale, but her performance refuses to accept these restraints as she creates a multi-layered character. She owns the screen with such ease that it appears as if her character is much more important than it actually is.

Focus falls under the category of a romantic-comedy heist film. The story is split into two different sequences, three years apart. In the first sequence, Nicky (Will Smith), a master of deception, meets Jess (Margot Robbie), a talented amateur. Together, with the help of thirty other supporting characters, they pull off various small crimes in New Orleans, make millions, and fall in love. After an awkward separation, they meet again in Buenos Aires under drastically different circumstances.

As previously mentioned, Margot Robbie is a joy to watch from start to finish. She steals the show, but that doesn't mean that Will Smith is bad. He doesn't give much of a performance, but he's incredibly charismatic. Of course, it's not all that shocking that Will Smith has charisma on-screen, but he is still fun to watch. The film also boasts Gerald McRaney, Rodrigo Santoro, and Adrian Martinez as members of the supporting cast, who all serve their purpose well.

This is one of those movies that the more you think about it, the stupider it becomes. A big theme of the film is distraction and manipulation of focus. In the film's plot, this is used to pick pockets and cause victims to make bad choices. Many characters say that they make people see only what they want them to see. The film's writers/directors seem to want to this theme additionally in regards to the movie as a whole, as there are numerous plot twists throughout. However, the filmmakers don't have nearly enough control over the film to make this idea effectively work, and most of the twists are more groan-worthy than they are surprising.

The film is still very entertaining though. All of the heist scenes are shot like quality action sequences, with lots of intricate choreography and a fast pacing. If you don't think too much about the details, it becomes very enjoyable. At times it often feels like a discount Oceans Eleven, but it's never uninteresting. It's stylish and fun and stupid, and I guess that's all it needs to be. 6/10.

"Fifty Shades of Grey" Review

50 Shades of Grey is the definition of pure hype. The book that the movie is based off of has sold over 100 million copies worldwide and is the highest selling erotic fiction novel of all time. The story of both the film and the book involves the relationship between Christian Grey (Jamie Dornan), an intimidating billionaire, and Anastasia Steele (Dakota Johnson), a college literature student. As part of the relationship, Christian Grey insists that Ana sign a contract that outlines the guidelines of a BDSM relationship, something that Ana is not sure she’s comfortable doing.

The movie has some reasonably decent cinematography, at least. It looks like a movie. The film also uses colors in an interesting manner, with grey definitely being utilized as a motif. None of the actors give particularly bad performances either. I guess as far as positive notes go, that’s about all I have. It’s noticeable that there was minimal effort put into the production of the film though. It doesn’t pay off all that much, but it’s refreshing to know that there was at least some sweat put into making this cash cow.

50 Shades of Grey’s biggest problem as a movie derives from too many different voices adjusting the film’s focus. Trying to get their say, we have the film studio, the producers, the director, the author, and the MPAA. As a result, we have a film split into three parts: One portion of the film is boring, one portion of the film is steamy, and one portion of the film is just plain creepy.

Depending on the age of the report, the number of minutes of sex scenes in 50 Shades of Grey has vastly differed. In early reports, 20 of the film’s 100 minutes were to be devoted to sex. Then, that number was lowered to 15. In the final cutting of the film, the full run-time has been pushed up 2 hours, but the length of the sex scenes have been reduced to 9 minutes. I can only imagine that these changes occurred because of the MPAA’s insistence. In order to make as much money as possible, the film needed to have an R-rating. However, as the MPAA is afraid of sex, there can only be a limited number of sex scenes while avoiding an NC-17 rating. As the original book falls under the category of ‘erotic fiction’, there is around 110 minutes of filler in this film. And nothing happens in that time. The same plot points and character struggles are repeated over and over again. This movie would have greatly benefitted from about 20-30 minutes being cut. This movie would have also greatly benefitted from a new script. And new source material.

9 minutes is still a lot of sex for a movie though. To put things into perspective, Steve McQueen’s NC-17 drama Shame (2011) had only 5 and a half (that movie had Michael Fassbender go full-frontal in the opening scene though). This movie definitely pushes the barriers between NC-17 and R. However, given that the film’s source material is porn, the sex scenes don’t serve any greater purpose, and end up feeling somewhat exploitative.

This movie also demonizes BDSM relationships. The film heavily implies throughout that those who participate in BDSM relationships have had sexual or other traumas occur to them as children. Christian Grey isn’t romantic or sexy, he’s abusive. He regularly makes Anastasia engage in acts that she is not comfortable with; most of the time Christian simply manipulates Ana into doing things under the pretense that she’ll ‘enjoy it’. He is unwilling to compromise for the sake of the relationship, saying that the contract is the only way that they can work. There is no aftercare in their relationship either. This isn’t BDSM, this is abuse. But the film doesn’t seem to have awareness of this fact, as it paints Christian Grey as a tormented man of chivalry. Money talks, I guess.

At the end of the day, this movie doesn’t do anything that hasn’t been done better by other films. Turning a pornographic novel into an R-rated film just doesn’t work. I thought that the film was interesting, but not in the way that the filmmakers wanted me to find it interesting. Again, 50 Shades of Grey is pure hype. Everyone kind of recognizes this, too. Most of the ticket sales and excitement around this film seems to come out of curiosity towards it. I won’t see it for that reason though. It’s not really worth it. 3/10.