Best of 2016 (part 1 of 2): Introduction and Honorable Mentions 2016 was certainly a mediocre year. It was filled with sequels, reboots, and franchise starters to franchises no one was ever asking for or for that matter nothing we needed. It was the year where the DCEU showcased itself and went out on a whimper. Marvel proved that at this point having an identity and formula wasn’t just enough to make a successful universe. You have to expand upon it. Fox/Marvel took chances with an X-men character and succeeded, but only to move three steps back with Apocalypse. Lucasfilm continued to build the identity of the Star Wars cinematic universe with Rogue one. Mostly everything else 2016 either had a mediocre response or died way to quickly to be remembered. This is what makes 2016, so frustrating is that not much has changed in regards to studio filmmaking or independent filmmaking. Sure, we now have a Wolverine movie that’s sure to get an R rating and there’s a lot more brands that are getting the franchise starter or reboot. But really 2016 didn’t have a lot of new ground to cover in terms of cinema. There wasn’t a Mad Max or an Edge of tomorrow or a Her to change things up for the year.
With that said, this list was so hard to make. There was a lot of well-crafted films that populated throughout the year and that charmed me enough to make this top 10 list super hard to make. For the record, these movies all received an A- or higher. Also, please note that my list is in no0 shape or form an ego thing where I showcase how many movies I’ve seen (that’s what my letterboxd account is for). The purpose of the list is nothing more, but a list of recommendations of movies that I saw from 2016. I hope you enjoy or leave satisfied with these movies as much as I did. Honorable Mentions: 5. Kubo and the Two Strings. Personally, I haven’t seen a Laika movie since Caroline. So, going into this I didn’t have the love for Laika Animation as I do with Pixar films. However, after walking out of this movie I appreciate Laika’s movies and the kind of stories they tell to families. They’re not cutesy or gruesomely dark, but they are mature adventure films that have stakes and consequences. Now, I’m not saying Disney or any other company doesn’t make movies with consequences. However, the consequences and stakes are conveyed in this movie (and Caroline) through a darker tone to where you emotionally connect right away and feel for the characters faster than any film this year. The reason this movie isn’t higher on my list has more to do with the execution of the story in that it’s a pretty predictable story and it takes some of the suspense out of the picture for me. 4. Nocturnal Animals Nocturnal Animals (other than Deadpool and Moonlight) have probably the most stylistic screenplay of the year. While, it’s writer-director does a great job of conveying crafting a story about a man’s tragedy and rise to masculinity. While also being a pulpy revenge thriller. The movie features wonderful assemble and if you can get over the fact that what’s happening in Jake Gyllenhaal’s story isn’t real (this isn’t a spoiler by the way). Then the emotional impact of the movie becomes even greater. 3. Popstar: Never Stop Never Stopping Sure, The Nice Guys got raped at the box office, but man is this comedy gold had it even worse. Funny and compelling in a “This is Spinal Tap” kind of way. This movie works as relevant comedy and will continue to find its audience (Like the lonely Island always does) in many years to come. 2. Manchester by the Sea- Sure, it’s cinematography and direction is very minimal and flat, but that was the point. Done very similarly like an Alexander Payne film. Director Kenneth Lonergan wants you in this movie to be immersed into Casey Affleck’s Lee Chandler and Lucas Hedges’ Patrick pain and grief as they both deal with the loss of their families. While yes the subject matter is dark and grim. The movie also has a massive since of humor and compassion for its protagonists. So, yes within one movie you’ll be doing a lot of laughing and crying over a story that’s just really fantastic with characters’ worth being around for its 137-minute runtime.
JackieJackie is borderline experimental. While the film is technically a biography it has more in common with 2014’s Selma and 2012’s Lincoln in terms of structure more than anything. The movie covers The JFK assignation in almost Rashomon style storytelling where the story and the point of views jump around a lot to convey the chaos Jackie Kennedy (Natalie Portman) was going through in the weeks after her husband was assassinated. So, yeah the movie is about Jackie Kennedy grieving the loss of her husband and we see glimpses of her life and the movie tries to figure out what her legacy was.
On one hand, this movie could’ve easily turned into Oscar bait and really from a screenwriting this script kind of meanders to tell a story about a person grieving and losing her mind. However, Director Pablo Larrain’s direction immerses you into her grief and doesn’t leave you. You feel her determination to use a funeral as a lasting remark on her husband’s legacy and as a massive F-You to her husband’s conspirators that she’s not afraid and won’t let her loss push her away. It also helps that Jackie is accompanied by powerful performances from Portman, Peter Sarsgaard, and John Hurt. Another thing that helps the movie is the cinematography. This was shot on 16mm film and it gives the movie a look that is an akin to films that you would see from the time period. Larrain’s attention to detain and subtle direction makes the movie more special and unsettling than any other movie this year that deals with grief. Jackie is 100 minutes of watching grief. However, the award for us the viewer is too weirdly see someone in grief and rise above it in a way that doesn’t feel contrived or uninspired. A- Rating. Note: Jackie is now playing metro areas near you. AlliedAllied is Robert Zemeckis’ finest movie since Flight. It’s got great camerawork, solid acting, and direction that doesn’t bore you at all. While you maybe distracted with the idea that Brad Pitt is nearly 53 and he’s still looking descent for his age and with an ending that doesn’t make a lot of sense. The movie is still a quiet and tense Romantic thriller by Zemeckis and screenwriter Steven Knight.
As you might have heard, Allied is a movie about two allied spies (Brad Pitt and Marion Cotillard) who work together for a week in Casablanca and after they assonate a German ambassador. They fall in love and have a child. However, things are not all happy go-lucky. Brad Pitt’s character Max Varten, finds out there’s a strong possibility that the Marianne his wife (Cotlliard) might actually be a German spy, who’s been undercover since the beginning of their relationship. Everything is falling apart for Max and it’s up to him to figure out if his wife really is a spy or not. The film’s first and second halves could’ve been deadly to each other, because it could’ve felt like two different movies strung together to make one, because a screenwriter didn’t know how to make either one into its own movie. However, by placing an overall theme of trust and how each of the characters have used it to gain the trust of their so called friends. Despite them killing their friends in ferocious manner later. The jux position of trust is now on Pitt’s character solely and when he’s confronted about having to deal with his wife he has a heavy heart, because he got too close to the now suspect. Overall, Allied can be seen as Zemeckis’ answer to Gone Girl that is lesser than or uninteresting. However, Zemeckis still shows here that he can still build suspense and get descent performances from actors. Another thing worth commenting on is the look of the movie. Despite the fact that the movie was shot on Digital. It still has a very classic ascetic and feel to those movies. Again, I think the movie would’ve benefited if they had spent more time on the mechanics of the ending. I don’t hate the ending per say, but I don’t think everything that lead up to it worked in service to the characters we’ve gotten know over the span of two hours. B+ rating! InfernoInferno is a fast paced thriller that has all of the tropes of a great Hitchcock chase film, but because the movie has such a rushed script it runs out of steam and sense way to early. It is also a chore to sit through, because the script is so rushed and there’s so much reliance on exposition rather than the characters figuring out things on their own that it’s much more suited for an exposition-driven movie rather than a Mystery film. But, the cast is doing their best and out of all of the movies in the Robert Langdon series (The Da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons) this is the most vibrant in terms of cinematography. Plus, Hans Zimmer’s score is still great here even if it’s over dramatized.
So if it’s been 7 years since the last one in the series and they even had another Robert Langdon book to adapt, why did they dive into this so quickly even with a script that feel like it need another draft. To that I don’t know, but looking at this movie, I feel like we could’ve waited a bit more for a better script that tried to make sense of the mystery it was solving. But the script isn’t completely the entire problem with the movie. There’s also the directing here and the cast who seem to be trying, but halfway through seem to give up. Ron Howard tries to direct the hell out of this movie, but his intense editing can’t really make up for a plot that doesn’t make sense. Plus, his antagonists have reasons for doing what they do, but have no logic or sympathy to back them up. Plus, the movie again features a double cross that again feels so unnecessary (something that always happens in these movies). While the movie is pretty to look at and Hans Zimmer’s score is so good, you can probably watch this movie as a silent movie and enjoy it more. However, Inferno can’t seem to escape it’s rushed and illogical script, because the mystery is such a cluster screw. The actors seem to give up at certain points in the movie and Ron Howard tries way too hard to invest in material that needs a massive revision. With that said, I think Inferno is a waste of time and talent unfortunately, maybe catch this movie on a cheap rental just to look at the beautiful cinematography. C- rating. Blog update:Hello Readers,
You’ve all been probably wondering why I haven’t been writing reviews lately. I’ve been working on midterm papers, speeches, and exams for my five classes. Plus, I’m getting ready to direct a project again. So with that said, my written reviews have been lacking and will continue to be lacking for a little bit longer. However, with that said I have a compromised. I do a weekly podcast (www.khznetwork.podbean.com or on iTunes under the name KHZ Network) every week where I review films every week. Most of them will be released on Thursday. Also, I plan to write reviews for movies that won’t be discussed on the podcast. Also, I run a Letterboxd account (Here’s where you can find it: http://letterboxd.com/cinemakale/) where I post my one paragraph reviews after I watch a movie, so you almost get my instant reaction on movies from there. Keep in mind, this won’t be the standard, after this semester is over (December 16th), I’ll be able to keep writing more reviews again for new movies after this semester and I’ll be able to expand the blog even more and try to update some more. For now, here’s my ratings for the latest movies that have come out in that last three weeks. The Accountant: B+ rating Queen of Katwe: B+ rating Miss Peregrine’s Home for Peculiar Children: C rating. The Girl on the Train: C- rating. Quick review: Deepwater HorizonDeepwater Horizon is part of Peter Berg’s Patriots trilogy in that he tells stories of characters who go through horrible ordeals and deals with how they survived physically and have to recover emotionally. In Deepwater Horizon, we follow characters trying to survive an oil rig explosion and get an account as to how this occurred. While the movie doesn’t present any cerebral ideas or points a massive finger towards the corporation running the oil rig. Berg still gives us a movie that’s intense, griping and terrifying at the same time.
The movie follows the crew of the Deepwater Horizon as we see the interworking of the rig and how this technical marvel works. We get to meet most of the characters before the ordeal happens and then when it hits it really does hit and become an intense movie. As a whole, I really love this movie. I did have an issue with John Malkovich trying to do a southern accent. It really did sound like an English man doing an accent. Everyone else feels natural, even Mark Wahlberg tries to do a Texan accent. So, with that said, I recommend the movie for its sharp intensity and the massive amount of sympathy for the survivals on the rig. Which for this movie was (while safer) smart, because it forced the movie to be efficient and concentrated on a premise that people can relate to more. B+ rating. Blair Witch Review.My review on Blair Witch can be found on The Youth Critic Podcast at www.khznetwork.podbean.com
The Magnificent SevenThe Magnificent Seven is more like “The Paint by Numbers Action-Filled Let’s hit the lowest common denominator Seven”. So “why should be called that” you ask? “It sounds less magnificent and it's too long”. Well, that’s what the movie is. I think a title should represent its own movie. To be fair to the movie though, it wasn’t a completely bad movie. Now in my Letterboxed entry on this movie, I did talk about how this movie had great cinematography (From Mauro Fiore) and a great score from the late James Horner. I also liked action and surprisingly the direction of the movie was solid through and through. So, why do I think the movie is average?
On one hand, I admire that film is trying to do a lot of things that are modern. For example, instead of bandits that invade a town in the west, it’s a mining company forcing people out of their homes by murdering the townspeople in cold blood and burning their church (I’ll get to that in a second). Another example, is the movie’s ethnically-diverse cast and Haley Bennett’s character takes charge of the situation and acquire the seven outcasts to protect their town. However, the movie somehow underplays and doesn’t utilize these changes to the source material in a way that’s compelling. It’s nice to have a villain who is from a mining company, but Peter Sarsgaard plays the villain so cartoony that it kind of takes the creep factor out of it. Also, why have a cast of seven vital characters when you’re only going to give two of them character development. Also, I mention that a female character is the one that acquires the guys to fight in her and the town’s cause. She gets ignored or undermined every time she mentions that she’s capable of shooting a gun. These problems stand out to me like a sore thumb, because they don’t contribute anything exciting to the picture. Sure, it’s nice to have better action and pyrotechnics than what Kurosawa and Sturges had back in the day, but making action set pieces isn’t the point of those predecessors. The point of those films where to examine characters of all different personalities and unite them (along with a village) to fight against greedy bandits. In this film, the cast doesn’t get a lot of time to develop any comradery or develop a personality other than a skill or by his race, before we get to prolonged fight set pieces. While sure, most people will go into this Magnificent Seven wanting a spectacle, I just feel like this a spectacle that won’t be a classic like it’s two predecessors. The movie delivers on the spectacle, but don’t expect much more than that. C+ rating! Sully (Quick Review)Sully is surprisingly good. It’s not great, but given that this was from the same guy who brought us Jersey Boys and some indie film about a Sniper a couple years ago, it’s surprisingly well-made. The film features many great performances and feature strong execution from Clint Eastwood as he examines the “Miracle on the Hudson” incident and dives deep into the character of Captain Sullenberger. While, I do admit that the film at times does feel like an old man complaining about computers and how self-reliant we are. It’s still very poignant and it’s a thoughtful message that doesn’t provoke a cynical tone as much it provokes a hopeful and uplifting tone.
If there’s any other major criticism here it’s that the movie’s conflict is very over dramatized and in the grand scheme of things it doesn’t really warrant a film. I say this, because the conflict is nothing more than a bunch of insurance agents determining if Sully (Tom Hanks) had made the right decision to land on the Hudson rather to turn back to the LaGuardia airport. Yes, there’s some PTSD explored within Sully as he rethinks the crash and his career as a pilot. However, despite the film’s conflicts, the movie actually has a great structure that is done in a Rashamon-style narrative that adds to the overall uniqueness of the film. Tom Hanks gives another great performance along with his other co-stars and overall the direction carries the film. If it wasn’t for the two main problems attached to the film, the movie would be considered an Oscar-contender in my books. B+ rating. Don't BreatheDon’t Breathe is probably the most airtight and efficient script of the year so far. It delivers its character development very economically while maintaining a pace that movies the movie along very well. As a 90-minute horror movie with 4 characters should do. However, in a summer that’s filled with slog material, this movie is a nice shot of adrenaline that is so needed at the end of august. Even though, it’s filled with adrenaline and clever scares that would probably impress David Fincher. There are some moments in the movie that will be a bridge to far in the gross out humor. Plus, there’s two screenwriting elements that I think do undermine the movie’s overall quality. Despite these two minor issues, the movie is probably the best horror thriller that summer has given us yet. Keep in mind, this year gave us Green Room and The Conjuring 2.
The movie is about three young adults Rocky (Jane Levy), Alex (Dylan Minnette), and Money (Daniel Zovatto), are small time house burglars that steel from items that can pawned and untraceable. While pawning some items from a recent hit, money gets word on the street that there’s an old blind man (Stephen Lang) who just got a settlement out of court for losing his daughter in a car accident. So, the kids make a break into the house to steel his money. However, when they underestimate his disability, the kids have to survive the night from a man who’s not afraid to defend his house. “Spoilers” Once crap gets real when Money dies after being spotted by the blind man. Rocky and Alex do everything they can to avoid the blind man from catching them. For a solid 45 minutes this proves to be an inventive cat and mouse game. Around the hour mark, there is a reveal about the blind man that will prove to be not only controversial, but it will be a bridge to far. Even for the most earnest of horror fans. I wasn’t particularly bothered by this, because the movie efficiently develops the blind guy. You don’t necessarily emphasize with him, as much as you understand his reasoning (Even if it is demented).\\ Spoilers (done) However, I did have issues with two things. The character of money and the last minutes of the movie. While it’s obvious in the trailers that Money doesn’t have a lot of screen time. I do think his character deserve some more development. His character was just an asshole during his screen time, that when he dies the only impact it has in the movie is that it just shows that the Blind man is willing to kill. So, instead of having a character out of money (and everyone else here gets well developed) we have more of a plot device than anything. The other issue is the last minute. There’s a point before the movie’s conclusion that would’ve worked just as well without the final minutes. However, because of what happens in the final minute. It kinds of takes away from the overall quality and it just adds on to something that didn’t needed another appendage. Overall, the movie is a really strong movie. The script is screenwriting 101 at its finest. The execution is so akin to Fincher and the pacing doesn’t get in the way of the character development. Even after we get through the development, we still get good character consistency. Which does surprisingly can come up short in a typical horror movie. I think people should take a chance with this movie and lot of you have. It’s worth the price of admission as you can witness masterful horror done really well without extremely cheap jump scares. Yes, there’s a scene that might gross people out. However, this horror thriller keeps you on edge and the movie wastes no time cutting to the crap. A- Rating! Kubo and the Two Strings (Quick Review)Kubo and the Two Strings is a really good movie about the power of storytelling and what it means to have personality. You might say that these themes are pretty logical and you would be right. However, in a summer where the big thing lacking films is personality and identity. Kubo does a great job of not only informing its audience this theme, but also is a living example of its theme. It’s use of animation in the context of the story is widely creative and imaginative. Also, the filmmaker’s choice in voice casting is really spot on. Even though, the movie didn’t emotionally move as much as I expected. Plus, the climax of the movie kind of comes a little too simple. However, despite these minor things. I still found this movie a lot of fun.
Over the past few years, Laika animation has been producing content that are good, but seem to go under the radar, because of poor timing. However, I’m pleased that Laika is still a company that takes chances and their choices of stories really stands out. The only big criticism I have with their film is that the main character almost turns into a Mary sue (an archetypal character that can do anything and has little to no weakness). The supporting characters Monkey and beetle are uniquely flawed and explored, but Kubo doesn’t really have a lot that he can’t do and certain things that happen to his character repetitively happen to him a little too much. Despite that though, I think Kubo and the Two Strings is a unique animated film that everyone should check out. It bursts with life despite some of its faults. I saw this movie with a family of four sitting behind me and the whole family seemed to enjoy the movie a lot. So, I don’t think anything here is adult or to kiddie for anyone. It’s a strong perfect balance of both. I can’t quite recommend this movie enough and please go out there and support this film before it leaves cinema. As it’s worth all of the money. A- rating. Ben-Hur (2016)Ben-Hur is probably the biggest “Meh… It was okay” kind of movie of the year so far in a year of “Meh… It was okay” kind of summer. While all of you probably saw this coming a mile away (judging by the movie’s box office). I argue that you guys made the right decision to stay home and wait for the Redbox and streaming rental release to watch the movie. I mean no one was excited by this movie, Paramount. How in the hell did you make Ben-Hur unappealing? Anyway, you’re probably all wanting to know my thoughts on the movie. Well, you guys’ kind of predicted the movie being bland and uninteresting for the exception of chariot scene. And that’s pretty much the entire movie for me. Other than the performances being strong and some of the action set pieces being interesting, it was just okay overall.
The movie follows the story beats of the 1959 version accordingly with only a shorter running time and some beats dished out faster. For me, the biggest thing that actually saves the movie are the performances from Jack Huston (Playing Judah Ben-Hur), Toby Kebbell (playing Messalas), and Morgan Freeman (Playing Ilderim). However, the real standout performance is Rodrigo Santoro (Playing Jesus). While he isn’t given a lot of screen time and his whole subplot probably could’ve been cut from the movie. Santoro’s Jesus is actually a very compelling character his presence enlightens the movie in a way. The only issue with this is the usage of the character. Jesus is pretty much a character (in the context of the script) known as a convenient plot device for screenwriters to use here and there to motivate characters. So, while Santoro’s performance is excellent and spot-on. I have to say his character was more of a device that motivated people and his conclusion to his arc (along with the theme) is pretty much tacked on to the movie rather than something that is an overarching theme. For me that was the crux of all my problems with the movie. It’s a neutered, by the books, everything is a plot device kind of story. Which kind of take away from the epicenes that should be attached to the name Ben-Hur. Which is kind of odd, because Timur Bekmambetov is actually a very capable filmmaker who knows how to tell epic and rich stories. Yes, I realize I’m talking about the same director who made “Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter”. However, if you look at the films he made before his first American film “Wanted”. Bekmambetov has had rich filmography. For some reason, a lot of his remake does feel really neutered. Overall, I don’t think this remake is bad per say. I just don’t think it’s worth the price of admission. C+ rating! Sausage Party (Quick Review)Sausage Party is one of the more genuinely surprising films of the year. No, it’s not because of how vulgar it gets, but it’s textual themes are much more controversial than what's led on in the trailer. However, its biggest flaw is that the movie isn’t really that funny. Sure, it’s funny to see food being murdered horribly and hear curse words come out of them. However, after a while it turns into a routine Seth Rogen comedy.
As you might have heard by now the film is about food not knowing that their lives are in danger every day and they think it’s a true honor for one of us humans to pick them up at the store and take them home. However, they soon realize that’s all BS and they must hatch a plan for their survival. Now other than the textual theme of the film being a massive surprise. I was surprised by where it goes in terms of plot. We follow two different plots going on at the same time. Plot A) is all of the problems at the store. Plot B) follows all of the hot dogs and food items that make it home to some random lady’s house. However, these plots never get tiresome at all, because the movie’s rules get more and more looney as the story progresses further. And really, the whole last twenty minutes of the movie is the most entertaining part of the film. Overall, I think Sausage Party is a good time at the movies. It’s just, I wouldn’t go in looking for another stoner comedy. If anything, go in ready to watch a parody of our current point of views of the world. But also be ready to have an interesting debate with yourself as you get ready to either go to bed or smoke that bong that’s waiting for you after the movie. B Rating. Pete's DragonPete’s Dragon is an okay movie that continues Disney’s streak of “good, not great” remakes of its original titles. However, each movie has their own niche that makes it unique. Cinderella had the perspective of being part of our generation while also getting to explore the fantasy elements even more. The Jungle Book has the digital spectacle working for it. Pete’s Dragon has the story, themes, and whimsical nature that Disney usually brings to their films. However, it’s execution is really standard and unusually stagnant. It’s like if Director David Lowery doesn’t want to challenge its family audience with the themes of grief and nature vs. man. Pete’s Dragon wants to be a film that’s family friendly, but doesn’t know how to balance mature themes with cute kid moments.
Pete’s Dragon is about a little boy Pete ( Oakes Fegley) who lost his family in a car accident and in the woods six years prior to the film’s story. However, he befriended a dragon for the next six years and one day he’s discovered by Grace (Bryce Dallas Howard) and her soon to be step-daughter Natalie (Oona Laurence). The two begin an investigation on where Pete comes from and how he survived out in the woods for so long. One word to describe this movie is whimsical. Everything about the movie is light and fluffy and wants to charm people with it’s cute dragon (and the effects are really cool). However, this movie doesn’t want to fully commit to any theme. On one hand there’s a theme of “Nature Vs. Man” With Karl Urban’s Gavin and his desire to catch Elliot and turn him into a zoo display. However, that never quite goes anywhere. And then there’s a subtext of grief in that Elliot is basically a coping mechanism for Pete in his trauma for the death of his parents. While this is a good theme to rest on a movie that has the “Boy and his dog” motif. The film doesn’t want to dive into those themes of grief and give us a proper arc for Pete. And really, the solution for this would’ve been. Let’s base Pete’s arc and (formed the subtext into “The five stages of grief”. And have connecting tissue that developed that arc even further. Now you wouldn’t have to sacrifice anything, but you would be taking a risk with the audience (and the kids). Overall, I think Pete’s dragon is a nice kids’ movie that kids and adults can watch together and it be a harmless journey. However, I do think by sticking to the familiar troupe “A boy and his dog” (or in this case dragon). And not really testing the audience by full-forming the subtext. I think hurts the movie a bit. However, this movie is beautifully shot. Every actor gives a great performance. I also appreciated that this wasn’t a giant CG fest. It was nice to see CGI used sparingly here. Pete’s Dragon is a fine movie, but I felt like it played it safe rather than try to challenge its audience with something a bit more grounded. B- rating! Sharknado Series ( Editorial)Over a week ago, Sharknado 4: The 4th Awakens was released on the Syfy Channel and it was watched by 2.77 million people nationwide. While this is still good numbers for the Syfy channel. The series hasn’t hit any records since Sharknado 2: the second one with its 3.9 million viewers. So, what’s with the decline? Why are reviews for Sharknado 4 not as exciting as usual (people have liked the campiness) or viewership isn’t holding up? I think there’s a trend going on with each passing movie in the Sharknado series that they’re trying really hard to force the joke that the when the joke is kind of already tiresome. However, when something is still making a profit and your studio turns in nothing but low-budget crap what else can you do?
To explain my point let me explain who makes the Sharknado movies. The Sharknado movies are made by production company called The Asylum pictures. A production company that a decade ago was infamous for their shady practices by releasing mock blockbusters around the same time big studio films would come out at the same time. Also, the studio had such hits like Mega Shark Vs. Giant Octopus, Mega Python vs. Gatoroid, Nazis at the center of the earth, etc. You get that this is a probably a B movie company. So, when it came to Sharknado, it was just another crazy idea for the studio. So, when it came out to being this big hit. It stunned them as much as it stunned the entire world. While the whole media was deciphering or throwing in its own opinions on how this would’ve succeeded. I think what happened was the title. I think the title and the concept was so ludacris and insane that people were willing to laugh at the movie for 85 minutes. So, in reality Sharknado is nothing more, but a huge joke that an audience gets to laugh at. So, when the second one comes along; it still proved to be as stupidly funny as the original, but you could tell that the joke was losing steam. So, by the time we get to this fourth one. I think the joke is starting to run itself to the ground. Which is kind of a shame, because we’re now at the point where sharks are nuclear. So, what can the Sharknado franchise do to stay fresh? I think really there’s nothing more we can do. The Sheppard family are just boring and cliché now and the effects are so sub-par, that we kind expect stupid-looking effects. There’s no surprise anymore to these movies. We’ve seen and the filmmakers have done everything possible with this series. If they can do anything it’s that they should try to finish with this fifth one coming up. Maybe try and find some other Ludacris concept. All and all, I think the Sharknado series is reaching the end of the line and I think to continue on to make four more of these movies is a massive mistake. Guys, I think the joke is dry. Paying Bills Be Like...Full Disclaimer: Not only am I friends with the filmmakers behind this short film, but I worked on it for one day (Not paid) as a Production Assistant and as a sound engineer. However, I do solemnly swear that my opinions on the movie are not biased or a promotion for my friends’ movie, this is essentially my thoughts on the movie.
Paying Bills Be Like is a superficial and heighten-reality satire of what roommates have to deal with at the end of every month; Determining which roommate pays certain bills. What Michael Benton and Alejandro Espinoza did here was create an overly dramatic reenactment of this conversation and the struggle that young people have to deal with every month. Overall, I really like this short. It’s funny, dramatic, and ambitious. While yes, you can say there’s been ambitious shorts with better quality. However, knowing that short films don’t have the same resources as feature length films (Trust me guys, I make short films for my classes. It’s not a profitable or rich business) I think you have to forgive a lot of technical aspects and just hope that the sound is clear when watching these shorts. With that said, I think Paying Bills Be Like earns its ten-minute length. The short is essentially about two roommates. One, who’s a big burly man who’s going insane due to the reality that he’s broke and can’t pay rent and doesn’t want to confront his fear. The other is a skinny mild-manner man who confronts the reality, because it’s his responsibility and we can assume that he can pay the bills just fine. When these two forces confront their problems, everything goes berserk. Ultimately, leading into a confrontation that lands the insecure burly man to have to deal with the consequences of not confronting his problems and using fear to try to scare them away. Now, I did say this was a funny short and it is. The bigger and more elaborate the confrontation is the more you can laugh at the ludacracy of the scenario and even follow along with the action. Also, It’s interesting how Benton and Espinoza demonstrate how dominance and cowardness can be attributes to a character while a less dominate and less cowardly person can be equal in a conflict. Another thing, that elevates the movie is the music. It can be so epic sometimes that it facilitates the laughter and emotion of the film even more. Overall, the only issue I had with the film is that there’s a gag that gets repeated in the movie and really the last scene of the movie should’ve taken place down before the final showdown as it would’ve been a joke would’ve not been repeated again and it would’ve been more symbolic. I won’t go into more detail, because I don’t want to spoil the movie even further. Overall though, I enjoyed watching this short. Yes, I helped make it, but I argue that you should see it regardless of my involvement. A- Rating. Batman: The Killing JokeBatman: The Killing Joke is probably the most embarrassing adaptation of a Batman graphic novel ever. It truly was terrible and not in a laughable kind of way. I say that because the film tries to be deep and philosophical, while also exploring characters. However, this movie just kind of wreaks with the smell of pretension and a quick cash grab. It’s quite unfortunate that this had to be this bad. Mostly because, it’s nice to see Mark Hamill and Kevin Conroy back voicing the roles and specifying that they would only come back for this movie if WB Animation ever wanted them to do it. However, with I still maintain that the intentions here were innocent. It was just the wrong decisions were made here.
So anyway, you’re probably wondering about the plot of this movie. Well, the plot for the movie is that one half of the movie is about Batman (Kevin Conroy) coming to terms with the reality that he’s going to either kill The Joker (Mark Hamill) or be killed by him. Also, Joker is coming to terms with the fact he must finally break Batman once and for all as well. So, he paralyzes Barbara Gordon (Tara Strong) and puts Commissioner Gordon (Ray Wise) through psychological torture. Ultimately, Batman has to come to terms with his relationship with the Joker and they have to have a showdown. Yes, there’s a good thirty minutes in this movies where we explore Batgirl/Barbara Gordon and her relationship with Batman. However, that story has very little to do in the end with the overall arc of the story. And this is where my criticism begins. The Batgirl prologue that takes up the screen time for a long time, but ultimately equates to so little in the main plot. It also doesn’t help that the transition for these two plots are so clunky that they might as well have just said “Here’s “The Killing Joke” folks. The movie we’ve been building up to for the last hour.”. Guys, I could go on and on about the problems with the movie. However, I didn’t ever want to tear this movie apart. This had so much promise that for it to fall flat on its face like this is an even bigger disappointment than Batman V. Superman. Only because, the potential here is beyond anything Zach Snyder could cook up. In two weeks, were getting another DC movie called The Suicide Squad and apparently Batman and Joker not only appear in the movie, but they have a small part in the film. I hope David Ayer and his team can do some sort of justice towards Batman, Joker, and the some of the characters in the DCEU. I only hope for this, because I’m tired of DC falling flat on its face and Batman just having a crappy year. Overall, I think The Killing Joke does play with the themes presented in Alan Moore’s comic. However, it makes the mistake of not expanding on those themes or adding its own unique voice in an adaptation that I think is worthy of a movie (live-action or not). So, while it still has some of the awesomeness from the comic. This is a lackluster adaptation. C rating! Jason BourneJason Bourne is probably the most exciting and most exhilarating movie you’ll see all summer. Not because of a compelling story. It’s because, Paul Greengrass can still deliver the goods when it comes to pacing that makes you sit on the edge of your seat and action scenes that are intense and exhilarating. While, also featuring great performances from Matt Damon and his supporting cast. Now it is unfortunate that the movie does two plots that are equally not up to par to the trilogy’s other stories. However, I still think this is the summer action movie that is worth the price of the admission.
The movie is about the title character (played by Matt Damon), living in the shadows dealing with his past life as a CIA assassin. Later on we see that Nicky Parsons (Julia Stiles) is working for a wikileaks-esque group to turn over stones and find other files about Treadstone (the McGuffin in the last trilogy). However, in her search she digs up more about her ally and CIA’s next Treadstone, Iron Hand. After warning Bourne about Iron Hand some of the she things she’s unburied over the years. Bourne is thrown back into the game of deadly Espionage and the C.I.A. wants him at whatever cost. As I said before, the movie has two distinct plots in the movie. The movie does its best to intertwine these stories into the overall narrative of the movie. However, the plots here are nowhere near as complex or interesting as anything that came before. Also, at some points in the movie, these plots almost become too cliché or heavy handed. Which is kind of a shame given that Bourne has a reputation of bringing nuance in its subject matter (for the exception of Legacy). Ultimately though, these are the movie’s only huge sins. Overall, Jason Bourne is still a good movie with excellent performances from everyone involve. The direction here from Greengrass is still impeccable. Everything in this movie works so well, despite its plots being dumbed down. Overall, I still think the Damon/Greengrass team still has it. Especially now that they have Alicia Vikander in this movie and her character by the end of the movie, becomes the most complex and interesting part of the movie and I would love to see her character in multiple movies. Overall, it’s worth jumping back into the intense world of Jason Bourne. B+ rating. Star Trek BeyondStar Trek Beyond is the best Star Trek movie in this new generation of the original series. However, that’s faint praise given that I don’t really like any of J.J. Abrams’ movies. I usually feel distant from them rather than being involved or caring about what happens. However, in this movie I can get involve in a lot of things that are happening in this movie. For the first time, this was a fun movie that explored the characters and gave us a story that was actually interesting. Despite, the action being poorly shot and sections of the movie being poorly lit.
However, those problems are kind of minuscule in the grand scheme of things. In fact, the biggest issue I had with the movie was that it doesn’t have a lot of strong connecting tissue holding the film tighter in terms of themes (both philosophical and character wise). In fact, the movie toys with the idea of the two patriarchs (Kirk and Spock) leaving, because of either personal loss or of an extensional crisis. Also, the execution of the philosophical idea that the villain Krall (Idris Elba) is trying to convey comes at a point in the movie where it’s too late to be dishing out that information. Overall though, Star Trek Beyond is a blast too watch. All of the characters are actually interesting to watch and I like that the movie is trying to dive back into doing philosophical ideas (while not executed properly) and also trying to be a Michael Bay esque movie. Overall, I think Simon Pegg and Doug Jung’s more fan-friendly script and Justin Lin’s action style complement each other in a way that I think everyone here can win. I just hope in the future we get more scripts like this for this new star trek cast and I hope we can find directors like Justin Lin who will continently respect the material. B rating! Tarzan (Quick Review)The Legend of Tarzan is an okay movie with a lot of potential for future movies and a great cast that tries there best. If that sounds like most summer movies to you, then you’re correct. Tarzan is pretty much just that. It’s far from a bad movie, but the movie is just average entertainment, despite what it wants to be. Now in full discretion, I’m not the biggest fan of Tarzan, but my lack of fandom for the character comes from a place of Lack of knowledge rather than any flaw I have with the character.
With that out of the way, let me start out with what I love about the movie. I love Henry Braham’s Cinematography. It’s HD look to is incredible and it fully immerses us into the world of Tarzan. Margot Robbie, Samuel L. Jackson and Christoph Waltz are terrific in the movie and bring a lot of humor in a movie that’s pretty dark and moody. All of the other technical aspects in the movie are top notch and truly impressive. However, the flaws almost overshadow the good stuff in the movie. The story is kind of procedural and half-baked and Tarzan himself (Alexander Skarsguard) is too broody and has zero charm. Which is odd, because Skarsguard can bring charm and delight. However, his one-note direction makes him so uninteresting. Overall, The legend of Tarzan is a harmless movie that tries to be modern by being dark and brooding. However, it doesn’t quite work for this reboot. So with that, I do recommend seeing the movie for the supporting performances and the technical aspects in the movie (especially the cinematography). However, with a lack of character development and not that much fun to be had in the movie. I give the movie a mild recommendation. B- rating! Ghostbusters (2016)Ghostbusters (2016)'s biggest Achilles’ heel is the fact that it exists. Especially in a world where movie buffs have been burned by reboots, remakes, and sequels of movies they loved. While yes, the movie is frustratingly plagued by being a female-driven movie in an environment where misogyny is still present. Plus, this was far from the movie fans of the source material wanted. Overall, Ghostbusters (2016) had an impossible wall to overcome and some in the industry would never make this movie for the reasons I just listed. However, despite all of these obstacles, Writer-director (along with his co-writer Kate Dippold) and his cast pull the impossible and deliver a movie that is both fun and delightful. Even if everything doesn’t work and the first movie is still the best film in the series.
The movie starts out with Erin (Kristen Wiig) who’s trying to become a ten-year professor at the Columbia University. However, her reputation is ruined when her estranged friend Abby (Melissa McCarthy) decides to publish the book they wrote about Paranormal activities without her consent. So, she loses her career opportunity and decides to work with Abby and her apprentice Holtzmann (Kate McKinnon). However, when they try to start up a ghost hunting business they get rejected from funding by everyone and ultimately have to settle for less until they can get some substantial business. While this is going on Patty (Leslie Jones) (a subway train worker) discovers ghosts in the subway tunnels and convinces the girls to come over and look at it. After discovering and capturing actual footage of ghosts. They started getting more and more calls of paranormal activity and they must not only help the city of New York from being pestered by ghosts, but also prove themselves to skeptics that ghosts are real and they’re capable to fighting ghosts. From the get-go the movie is filled with director Paul Feig’s troops and stylistic flourishes that makes his comedy a true blast. Seeing the women build their business from the ground up and then their reputations tarnished multiple times by the officials and mayor is inspiring, but also indicative of the movie’s issues with the marketing. Even as the movie jokes and references the harsh criticisms It’s received over the last few months. It still adds to the movie’s overarching arc that the characters are going through. Also, the movie in general is funny. The movie’s cast gets along with each other really well. If any problem with the cast’s chemistry is that there wasn’t a lot of connecting tissue that helps makes the team more unifying. Unfortunately, there just isn’t time devoted, because the movie makes the mistake of following the antagonist of the movie. I see why they did this. They tried to had layers to the character’s villain. However, the villain still feels undeveloped and the all of the characters and their individual arcs seem standard in comparison to the characters in the original movies. Also a lot of the new tech that’s presented in the movie and the logic of how it works is convoluted. However, I think the worst part of the movie is when it tries to do fan service so that fans won’t feel so alienate. The cameos and the insane amount of references kind of take away from the movie’s story and progression. It’s nice to have fan service every now and then in a movie, but it just wasn’t incorporated into the movie’s narrative correctly. With all that said though, I still enjoyed the movie. The best things that this movie has going for it is what Feig brings to it stylistically. This movie is at its best during every ghost scene in the movie, The effects are stylistically updated while also being respectful to the original’s effects. Also, there’s some ghost scenes that are actually effective. And while the movie, the is shot like all of Feig’s comedies (you shouldn’t be surprised by this since Feig has used Wes Anderson’s frequent cinematographer Robert Yeoman), yet the horror is still effective because you feel the tension building through the pacing of the scene. Also, accompanying the effects is probably the best use of 3D I’ve ever seen. I had the privilege of seeing the movie in IMAX 3D and during every effects heavy scene gets really creative with the use of the technology and becomes this fun experience. While having laughs and thrills peculate throughout the movie. And ultimately, that’s all I could hope for with this movie. I just wanted to be able to enjoy the movie without the nostalgia or lack of respect of the source material ruining the movie. With this movie, I enjoyed it despite its flaws. It doesn’t improve on something that was already great. It’s not even a good movie that stands firmly on its own, because of the overbearing amount of references and cameos. However, It’s above watchable and I think fans and newbies will still have a good time watching it and they’ll forgive a lot of the flaws, so they can root for the women in the movie. Overall, I’m not afraid of this reboot. B rating! The Youth Critic podcast episode 45: Independence Day: Resurgence
|
|
Poltergeist (2015 The crappy one)
I should first point out that I haven’t seen the original yet, but I know some of the clichés and the basic plotline to know what the film was going for and what the movie’s conclusion. Just enough to draw comparisons. Anyway, this movie is one of my least favorite movies of the year. It’s not the worse or terrible, it just is such a procedural haunted house movie where everything is re-hashed and plot points can be seen a mile away. With that said though, I think the movie does some redeeming qualities. It just isn’t enough to give a mild recommendation.
The movie is about a down on their luck family who are on the hunt for some cheap foreclosed houses. They stumble on one they like and after a minute of thought they buy the place. On their first night, some crazy shit happens with a squirrel in the house and a TV tries to communicate with the youngest daughter Madison (Kennedi Clements). On I guess night two is when things get real when the son Griffin (Kyle Catlett) gets kidnapped by a tree and the teenage daughter Kendra (Saxon Sharbiro) is having garage troubles. Meaning the ghosts, can finally take little Madison from her bedroom into the other dimension and thrusts starts the catalyst of the plot.
As you can probably tell the movie doesn’t waste anytime whatsoever getting to the thick of the plot and knows that it kind of is just a run of the mill haunted house movie. Unfortunately though, the movie still has a lot of filler and explains the paranormal activity multiple times, because I guess they knew that there wasn’t that much of an interesting plot here. Some of the other redeeming qualities is the cast. Rosemarie Dewitt is a compelling mother and she actually plays an interesting character who is trying to be the clue of the family (meaning she has to hold it together while dad drinks and maxs out the credit cards and the two other kids are brats and cowards and one kid just sees ghosts). The kids are also not that bad either, the older sister just doesn’t have that much to do other than just be a teenager. Other cast members like Jarred Harris and Jane Adams are also doing fine work as well. The only cast member that feels out of place or is just loss in what he’s doing is Sam Rockwell as the father of this family. Rockwell is highly miscast and ruins some scenes, because he looks so baffled as he tries to imagine being in room full of computer generated poltergeists and they’re all trying to kill his acting family.
Other than those redeeming qualities, the movie is kind of a dull and procedural haunted house movie. Which is kind of sad given that the original is an acclaim haunted house classic and there have been plenty of other Haunted house movies that have done it way better (The Conjuring for example). The poltergeist remake directed by Gil Kenan is sadly dull and uninteresting. Most of the cast is great, but everything else is kind just a waste of time.
C rating!
Mad Max: Fury Road
Well folks, here we are. After years of delays, weather
issues, actors having meltdowns (really it was Mel Gibson, but we can make it plural),
and a three year post-production. Leaving two questions, who the hell does George
Miller think he is? The Terrence Malick of Australia? Well, actually he kind of
deserves that title, because this so impressive. I love this movies from beginning
to end and it just like the wildest mindgasm ever. I mean whoa! Who has the
balls to do these massive set pieces and then go on to it practically? But, I
digress. The movie is in the end a movie and the film not only has killer
action scenes t has some well-rounded characters and women are given a chance
to shine in this movie as tough, but tormented characters who lead a revolution
to overthrow their autocracy that rule the wastelands of the future.
As the movie was opening last week, I decide to watch all three Mad Max Movies prior to watching this movie. One of things that all three movies do is that they stick to a similar structure in that we open with a chase scene or action set piece, then we meet our hero Max (Played back then by Mel Gibson) and he does something Badass. Afterwards, we meet our antagonists and our conflict. Then the rest of the movie is a build-up to a large finale involving the brutal battle between people and their cars. Fury road basically follows the same structure of its predecessors, except it gets through everything we need to know about the characters and their conflicts within the first thirty minutes meaning the rest of the movie is a ninety minute chase scene through the desert and all of those who oppose their autocracy are against a whole army of terminal psychos wanting to oppress them even more.
The movie is about the world has lost a lot of resources and there have been battles over oil and water causing only the strongest more psychotic to survive. Our male protagonist, Max Rockatansky (played by Tom Hardy) has been taken to a near city where everyone follows this messiah known as Immortan Joe (Played by Hugh Keays-Byrne), where he forces people to follow him, because he has control of all of the resources in the desolate world now. While on a run to get gas, Furiosa (Played by Charlize Theron) makes a detour and heads towards east escaping from Immortan Joe and in her care are Immortan Joe’s breeders (five women who are force to breed his sons so his army can grow (Played by Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, Zoe Kravitz, Riley Keough, Abbey Lee, and Courtney Eaton)). So Furiosa, is running away towards some oasis called the green place, where she thinks her and the girls will find a sanctuary there for the rest of their days. As they’re being chased around by Immortan Joe’s army (that has a killer heavy metal band by the way), Max is at the mercy of another character called Nux (Played by Nicholas Hoult), who is part of an group of albino male slaves that worship Immortan Joe to the point where they’re willing to commit suicide for him. However, all of these characters at some point (except for Immortan Joe and his army) team up to survive the apocalypse.
Overall, I can honestly say this is the most creative of the Mad Max Movies. The action and the production design are so ahead of what we got in all of the movies. I mean some of the designs of these vehicles are very detailed oriented and they embody the drivers that are driving them. It also is a massive departure from the other movies, in that this is the most that the Max character feels like a vessel instead of character. In which, this is very much Furiosa’s movie. She is the leader of this Liberation of women and she has just as much control of the situation as anyone else in the movie. She also has to have a lot of dimensions and she doesn’t have to be a service to any man. If there is one critique that I have towards the whole feminist angle in the movie is that the other characters don’t have that much to do and while they interact to every situation differently, they don’t really do a lot of things memorable and one girl is very willing to go back to Immortan Joe in order for her life to be spared. Other than that it does have a massive feminist angle that’s really well done. Even though, Rita from Edge of Tomorrow (Played by Emily Blunt) had more dimensions than any of the characters in this movie or in recent memory.
The only other weak points in Mad Max: Fury Road and this is unfortunate oversight in all of the Mad Max movies is that the stories are always weak and barrowed from other sci-fi movies and westerns. Now, Mad Max: Fury road is the more original story, but it still takes elements and its structure from the previous films. Other than that, I found the movie quite enjoyable. I pretty much liked Charlize Theron and Tom Hardy in this movie, especially Theron. Everyone else is kind of just glad to be here. The effects, the atmosphere and tone. Everything with the execution was really strong. I highly recommend seeing Mad Max: Fury Road and please see it in a theatre with great sound (Dolby Atmos if you can).
A- rating
As the movie was opening last week, I decide to watch all three Mad Max Movies prior to watching this movie. One of things that all three movies do is that they stick to a similar structure in that we open with a chase scene or action set piece, then we meet our hero Max (Played back then by Mel Gibson) and he does something Badass. Afterwards, we meet our antagonists and our conflict. Then the rest of the movie is a build-up to a large finale involving the brutal battle between people and their cars. Fury road basically follows the same structure of its predecessors, except it gets through everything we need to know about the characters and their conflicts within the first thirty minutes meaning the rest of the movie is a ninety minute chase scene through the desert and all of those who oppose their autocracy are against a whole army of terminal psychos wanting to oppress them even more.
The movie is about the world has lost a lot of resources and there have been battles over oil and water causing only the strongest more psychotic to survive. Our male protagonist, Max Rockatansky (played by Tom Hardy) has been taken to a near city where everyone follows this messiah known as Immortan Joe (Played by Hugh Keays-Byrne), where he forces people to follow him, because he has control of all of the resources in the desolate world now. While on a run to get gas, Furiosa (Played by Charlize Theron) makes a detour and heads towards east escaping from Immortan Joe and in her care are Immortan Joe’s breeders (five women who are force to breed his sons so his army can grow (Played by Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, Zoe Kravitz, Riley Keough, Abbey Lee, and Courtney Eaton)). So Furiosa, is running away towards some oasis called the green place, where she thinks her and the girls will find a sanctuary there for the rest of their days. As they’re being chased around by Immortan Joe’s army (that has a killer heavy metal band by the way), Max is at the mercy of another character called Nux (Played by Nicholas Hoult), who is part of an group of albino male slaves that worship Immortan Joe to the point where they’re willing to commit suicide for him. However, all of these characters at some point (except for Immortan Joe and his army) team up to survive the apocalypse.
Overall, I can honestly say this is the most creative of the Mad Max Movies. The action and the production design are so ahead of what we got in all of the movies. I mean some of the designs of these vehicles are very detailed oriented and they embody the drivers that are driving them. It also is a massive departure from the other movies, in that this is the most that the Max character feels like a vessel instead of character. In which, this is very much Furiosa’s movie. She is the leader of this Liberation of women and she has just as much control of the situation as anyone else in the movie. She also has to have a lot of dimensions and she doesn’t have to be a service to any man. If there is one critique that I have towards the whole feminist angle in the movie is that the other characters don’t have that much to do and while they interact to every situation differently, they don’t really do a lot of things memorable and one girl is very willing to go back to Immortan Joe in order for her life to be spared. Other than that it does have a massive feminist angle that’s really well done. Even though, Rita from Edge of Tomorrow (Played by Emily Blunt) had more dimensions than any of the characters in this movie or in recent memory.
The only other weak points in Mad Max: Fury Road and this is unfortunate oversight in all of the Mad Max movies is that the stories are always weak and barrowed from other sci-fi movies and westerns. Now, Mad Max: Fury road is the more original story, but it still takes elements and its structure from the previous films. Other than that, I found the movie quite enjoyable. I pretty much liked Charlize Theron and Tom Hardy in this movie, especially Theron. Everyone else is kind of just glad to be here. The effects, the atmosphere and tone. Everything with the execution was really strong. I highly recommend seeing Mad Max: Fury Road and please see it in a theatre with great sound (Dolby Atmos if you can).
A- rating
Blackhat
This movie is already going to be a divisive film for
people; because it’s a solid thriller, however the movie is poorly shot with
tons of Shaky-cam and they’re a lot of clichés. Plus, there’s some obviously
forced love story between two characters. However, the movie has an interesting
tone, while also changing it’s somewhat dated message to a procedural thriller
actually for the better. Plus, the cast in this movie is also good. Hemsworth
is slightly mis-cast as a hacker. However, the movie knows what it is and it’s
an okay straight-forward action movie from a director who has brought us Heat
and Collateral.
The movie starts with a great opening about how cyber-terrorism works and how effective it can be and it just doesn’t have to affect us Americans. Plus, the opening does a great job imploring the method of “show, don’t tell” in it’s opening, by us seeing how a network can be hacked into. So, after an attack on nuclear re-actor in Hong Kong. The Chinese version of the C.I.A (I know there is a name for them, I was just making a joke) asks our version of the C.I.A. to consult in an investigation regarding the cyber terrorist attack. One thing, leads to another and the C.I.A. recruits a prisoner named Hathaway (Played by Chris Hemsworth), who is infamous for being essentially the Robin Hood of Hackers.
So when Hathaway starts investigating the hackers, he realizes that there is some larger plan at work here and the catastrophic event in Hong Kong was just a test of the mayhem he wants to create later. So they do some procedural tracking down. Hathaway falls in love with his colleagues’ sister (played by Wei Tang), and then some crazy stuff happen. Leading to the movie’s very well done third act.
I think my main criticism of the movie is that while Mann knows how to construct a good thriller, he still relies on he’s clichés, he’s skills in making a good action movie, and he overly relies a lot on the same digital camera he shot Collateral with and while think the cinematography for Collateral was great and added something to the movie. Here it looks terrible, every action scene looks like it was shot for a found footage movie and it makes a lot scenes headache inducing to watch. Another thing, the movie has three composers (Harry Gregson-Williams, Atticus Ross, and Leo Ross) and it still uses temp scores from other movies. So you hear a lot of scores from previous action movies (like Elysium) and that gets baffling really quick. So the movie is far from perfect, however it’s still a serviceable action movie and Michael Mann still knows how to craft a solid action movie. I just which he would go back to doing more movies like Heat and also quit using his cell phone to film his movies. So with that said I’ll give it a mild recommendation B- rating!
The movie starts with a great opening about how cyber-terrorism works and how effective it can be and it just doesn’t have to affect us Americans. Plus, the opening does a great job imploring the method of “show, don’t tell” in it’s opening, by us seeing how a network can be hacked into. So, after an attack on nuclear re-actor in Hong Kong. The Chinese version of the C.I.A (I know there is a name for them, I was just making a joke) asks our version of the C.I.A. to consult in an investigation regarding the cyber terrorist attack. One thing, leads to another and the C.I.A. recruits a prisoner named Hathaway (Played by Chris Hemsworth), who is infamous for being essentially the Robin Hood of Hackers.
So when Hathaway starts investigating the hackers, he realizes that there is some larger plan at work here and the catastrophic event in Hong Kong was just a test of the mayhem he wants to create later. So they do some procedural tracking down. Hathaway falls in love with his colleagues’ sister (played by Wei Tang), and then some crazy stuff happen. Leading to the movie’s very well done third act.
I think my main criticism of the movie is that while Mann knows how to construct a good thriller, he still relies on he’s clichés, he’s skills in making a good action movie, and he overly relies a lot on the same digital camera he shot Collateral with and while think the cinematography for Collateral was great and added something to the movie. Here it looks terrible, every action scene looks like it was shot for a found footage movie and it makes a lot scenes headache inducing to watch. Another thing, the movie has three composers (Harry Gregson-Williams, Atticus Ross, and Leo Ross) and it still uses temp scores from other movies. So you hear a lot of scores from previous action movies (like Elysium) and that gets baffling really quick. So the movie is far from perfect, however it’s still a serviceable action movie and Michael Mann still knows how to craft a solid action movie. I just which he would go back to doing more movies like Heat and also quit using his cell phone to film his movies. So with that said I’ll give it a mild recommendation B- rating!
The Divergent Series: Insurgent
Insurgent:
Also
known as “Part Two of an author’s epic quest to rip-off as many current movies
as possible. As someone who thought that Divergent (the first movie of this
series) wasn’t that bad (it was B- rating), even though it was ripping off
Hunger Games and other YA movies. Before, I go into any more problems of the
movie. I should try to explain the plot first. The movie is about Tris, who
grew up in Abnegation (the Kind and Caring faction) and believe that she’s a
divergent (which means she’s special in that she exhibits kindness, strength,
honesty, peace, and intelligence), so with her exceptionality she decides to
hide and train with Dauntless (the military portion of the place). That’s where
she meets four and then the usual plotline goes. Then we get to my main problem
of the movie. Jeanine (the villain and Kate Winslet’s character) had probably
the stupidest and most hypocritical evil plan imaginable. (Entering into Spoilers
from the first movie) Her plan was to frame certain leaders of Abnegation of
crimes and then genocide a whole faction for those leaders’ crimes, while
convincing Dauntless (I’m still baffled by how this was accomplished after two
movies) to commit her dirty work. They do succeed in stopping Jeanie from
murdering everyone, but for some reason they don’t kill her right there and
then (for all I know it was the sequel deals that convinced them to do this),
then the movie ends with a nice Elie Golding song.
As we
enter into the sequel, we realize that Jeanine’s stupid and hypocritical plan
actually worked (WTF?!). She and her corrupted dauntless soldiers have finished
murdering all of the Abnegation people, just to get some magical box that has a
message in it from the founding fathers.
So with Abnegation gone, Dauntless and Erudite are under her control.
Amity (the peaceful faction) won’t attack her, because they’re all about peace.
With Candor (the Honesty faction), you can obviously send them a message saying
that Jeanine didn’t kill Abnegation it was those “renegade divergents” that did
it. For me this only make sense, because everyone in this world seems so
retarded (don’t take offense to that, because they are) and they’re founding
fathers actually believe that this flimsy faction system would work.
So during these two movies, I
came up with a series of questions. Now normally I don’t do this for my
reviews, but these movies need to be answered (like Jeanine’s evil plan) in
these two movies. Anyway, here they are:
Who thought that this faction system would work?
And if it was such a flawed system, how did last over 200
years?
Especially considering that only two factions really could
single out one another and the three would be totally okay with that? Hell, one
of the factions will even help out in committing genocide on the one you want
to get rid of.
What’s the difference between a factionless person and a
Divergent. Shouldn’t Jeanine make an effort to kill those as well?
Why isn’t everyone a Divergent? Most people inhibit more than
one of the traits of honesty, kindness, strength, peace and intelligence.
Also, why does Caleb and Peter (Tris’s brother and somewhat
friend (played by Ansel Elgort and Miles Teller) keep stabbing them in the
back? I mean sure it seems smart to dance around both sides, but isn’t there
other ways of helping Tris (played by Shailene Woodley and Four (Played by Theo
James), rather than keep stabbing them in the backs?
Speaking of Caleb, why did he revert back to Erudite knowing
they wanted to kill Tris and still saw his parents’ work as criminal, even
though it was already established that he regretted joining the erudite nation knowing
that Jeanine was taking over the factions?
What does Jeanine have to gain by getting a Divergent to
open this magical box? What was she expecting? Someone to pander to her
beliefs! Was she expecting God to say that Divergents are evil and taking over
the world thru genocide is the best idea ever? I mean seriously what was she
expecting?
Also, if Condor has a truth serum; why wouldn’t they test it
on Jeanie, so she herself can prove that the rumors about her running an attack
on abnegation are false? Instead of just gullibly going “okay great” to her
message transmits via holograms.
Why is everyone so stupid?
How come the factionless look like homeless people in the
first movie, but look totally fine in the second movie?
These
are the general questions I keep running into when I was critique these movies.
Keep in mind, there are some things that work just fine in this movie. In the
first movie, the whole third act is intense and visceral, while also having a
lot of surprises. I also liked the soundtrack and the lack of love triangle
(which was really refreshing). Plus, I thought that Woodley was working her
hardest to make this material work. In this movie, the only part I liked about
the movie was the thing I didn’t expect to like and that where the tests that
Tris has to take to unlock the Magic box to receive a message from the founding
fathers. Each test (other than Amity (which was the climax)) was well very
designed and expressed a lot of the character’s problems with cooping the
deaths of the first movie and the people she’s responsible for killing in this
movie. I thought all of that stuff worked, except for the ending where for her
amity test she’s having to fight herself (the thing she hates at the moment).
The reason I don’t care for that particular moment is that she knew what she
was going up against and was willing to do anything to win, even if it meant
having to deal with problems.
Insurgent
and the whole franchise in general has always had a weak run in that the movies
are reliant on people having to read the book and have a clear understanding of
the mythology prior to walking into the cinema. A movie shouldn’t have to do
that. With all of the problems I that I’ve mentioned above. I could care less
about the two Allegiant movies that will come out in 2016 and 2017. I hope that
Shailene Woodley and Theo James (and really everyone involved here) can find
more work after these movies. They deserve better than this material that is
ripping off better movies, while also bogging down their characters with
complicated rules and crazy subplots.
C+ rating!
Kingsman: The Secret Service
Kingsman: The Secret Service- Matthew Vaughn has kind of a
great body of Work, while I haven’t seen Layer Cake and Kick-Ass was
underwhelming. Stardust, X-Men: First Class, and now this movie are great films
all around, not because they’re serious and they fill you with complicated
stories and themes, but because they’re fun and they had a unique spin on their
genre or (for X-Men) franchise. Kingsman is no different it’s adding a new spin
on the spy genre, while commenting on it, while saying goodbye to the old and
embracing the new generation of the spy genre. While I think the movie is kind
of bit more mean-spirited towards its politics (in that if you’re Rich and
powerful, you’re going to be the villain again), it’s still so much fun to
watch, while also being visceral and a good origin story for our main Character
Eggsy (Played very well by Taron Egerton)
Like I said, the movie is a spy movie about a character named Eggsy Unwin, who lost his father during a combat mission when he was a kid. Ever since then, Harry Hart (A.K.A Galahad) (played by Colin Firth) has been watching the boy become a trouble youth and guiding him. Then after being accepted into Kingsman through Galahad, he begins a long and really intense job interview and also being mentored by Merlin (played by Mark Strong) (Ok, there is a lot of King Arthur references in the movie). While this is going on, Mr. Valentine (played by Samuel L. Jackson and his swordfooted sidekick gazelle (played by Sofia Boutella) are crafting an evil plot that requires a lot of world leaders and Millionaires to file permission in a secret plot to wipe out the Poor and middle class, because of Carbon Emission and if we downsize the population there won’t be so many carbon emission to ruin the world.
I’m going into spoiler Alert Zone here:
After a great first half of building to the second half, Galahad goes to a church in Kansas where all they do is Hate Preach (So like Westboro Baptist), to see what Valentine is up to. What we get is a scene that is both awesome, but is also horrifying to watch (especially after watching it). And it’s the scene where Valentine unleashes a frequency that causes Galahad and everyone in the church to kill each other and we get a whole ten minute scene where Galahad is like mowing these people down and we see Eggsy and the rest of the Kingsman sit and watch in horror as the power of Valentine’s frequency is being unleash. Oh and keep in mind Valentine isn’t a bad guy (well, he is). He’s someone who wants to stop the earth from falling apart. Which his plan doesn’t fully make sense, but you can see the logic behind his thinking.
Spoilers done
Kingsman is a fun movie to watch, but you can’t take everything in this movie for a grain of salt. However, it’s hard to take this movie seriously when the first half of this movie has some of the most cartoonish violence that i’ve seen in a while (and even the cartoonish action works great to the film’s tone). Also, the movie works great due to its stellar cast, impressive visuals, and a mostly tight and clever script. I had a lot of fun watching this movie guys. The ending (which I won’t spoil) is so great and rewarding and just as fun and intense as the rest of the movie. Here’s hoping Matthew Vaughn can make a hit out of this and make either another sequel out of this movie or adds another spin to a genre or franchise.
A-Rating, if you go in it to have fun and a B rating if you take its politics and sometimes cynical direction very seriously.
Like I said, the movie is a spy movie about a character named Eggsy Unwin, who lost his father during a combat mission when he was a kid. Ever since then, Harry Hart (A.K.A Galahad) (played by Colin Firth) has been watching the boy become a trouble youth and guiding him. Then after being accepted into Kingsman through Galahad, he begins a long and really intense job interview and also being mentored by Merlin (played by Mark Strong) (Ok, there is a lot of King Arthur references in the movie). While this is going on, Mr. Valentine (played by Samuel L. Jackson and his swordfooted sidekick gazelle (played by Sofia Boutella) are crafting an evil plot that requires a lot of world leaders and Millionaires to file permission in a secret plot to wipe out the Poor and middle class, because of Carbon Emission and if we downsize the population there won’t be so many carbon emission to ruin the world.
I’m going into spoiler Alert Zone here:
After a great first half of building to the second half, Galahad goes to a church in Kansas where all they do is Hate Preach (So like Westboro Baptist), to see what Valentine is up to. What we get is a scene that is both awesome, but is also horrifying to watch (especially after watching it). And it’s the scene where Valentine unleashes a frequency that causes Galahad and everyone in the church to kill each other and we get a whole ten minute scene where Galahad is like mowing these people down and we see Eggsy and the rest of the Kingsman sit and watch in horror as the power of Valentine’s frequency is being unleash. Oh and keep in mind Valentine isn’t a bad guy (well, he is). He’s someone who wants to stop the earth from falling apart. Which his plan doesn’t fully make sense, but you can see the logic behind his thinking.
Spoilers done
Kingsman is a fun movie to watch, but you can’t take everything in this movie for a grain of salt. However, it’s hard to take this movie seriously when the first half of this movie has some of the most cartoonish violence that i’ve seen in a while (and even the cartoonish action works great to the film’s tone). Also, the movie works great due to its stellar cast, impressive visuals, and a mostly tight and clever script. I had a lot of fun watching this movie guys. The ending (which I won’t spoil) is so great and rewarding and just as fun and intense as the rest of the movie. Here’s hoping Matthew Vaughn can make a hit out of this and make either another sequel out of this movie or adds another spin to a genre or franchise.
A-Rating, if you go in it to have fun and a B rating if you take its politics and sometimes cynical direction very seriously.