"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.