THE HATEFUL EIGHT - Review

The Hateful Eight

Western, 2015
3 hours, 7 minutes (70mm Roadshow Cut)

Written and Directed by Quentin Tarantino

Rated R for "strong bloody violence, a scene of violent sexual content, language and some graphic nudity"

Starring
Samuel L. Jackson
Kurt Russell
Jennifer Jason Leigh
Walton Goggins
Tim Roth
Bruce Dern
Demian Bichir
Michael Madsen

"Looks like Minnie's Haberdashery is about to get cozy for the next few days."

This movie almost didn't happen. To recap: A couple of years back, the script, which was sent to some Hollywood executives, was leaked onto the internet. Tarantino was furious and refused to make the film. However, after one critically acclaimed live reading featuring several of his regular cast members, he decided to make the picture. Thank God he did. 

Tarantino's latest yarn is set in Wyoming, many years after the Civil War. A blizzard is approaching quickly, and eight strangers on their way to the town of Red Rock find themselves trapped at an inn called Minnie's Haberdashery. No one is quite who they seem to be, and naturally violence and insanity ensue. 

Oddly enough, The Hateful Eight might be the most Tarantino-esque movie he's released since Pulp Fiction. While the 1994 classic was only the director's second (and still, arguably, his most popular) film, he has come a long way since then. Don't worry; it still has excessive swearing, violence and gore. In fact, the special effects guys get second billing.

The acting from all eight central characters is worthy of Academy Awards, and that's not something I say lightly. Samuel L. Jackson, who has appeared in almost every Tarantino movie (his cameos in Kill Bill and Inglorious Basterds do count), is given a meaty lead role. Kurt Russell and his killer mustache do a fantastic John Wayne impression. Walton Goggins and Jennifer Jason Leigh are also outstanding and deserve a heaping amount of credit for their work. Aside from the cast,  the dialogue is as sharp as a Hattori Hanzō sword. The film is expertly paced, the three hours going by faster than a jack rabbit. 

And all of this takes place inside one little old haberdashery. Don't let the single location turn you away; this is filmmaking and storytelling at its absolute finest. 

The big question right now is why this movie gets a perfect score. Well, honestly, I loved every sick and twisted second, nary an issue or gripe in sight. I expected to enjoy it, but I didn't expect to fall in love with what I think may be a master filmmaker's finest picture to date. Usually I like to give movies a day or two, maybe a second viewing. But, like last year's Whiplash, I just have a good feeling, that kind of feeling I can't shake off. 

The film can be seen right now during the 70mm Roadshow run, which presents the film with an overture and intermission. It is only playing in three Chicago theaters, but will expand to a wide, digital release in a week or two. The cinematography is absolutely gorgeous. The interior shots are just as breathtaking as the exteriors and the detail of the film is unparalleled with perhaps the exception of 70mm IMAX. Most movies nowadays are show in an aspect ratio of either 1.85 or 2.39, but The Hateful Eight is shown in a wide 2.76. Talk about wide.

This is only the second film that I have guaranteed a spot on my Top 10 of 2015 list.

10/10

STAR WARS: THE FORCE AWAKENS - Spoiler Free Review (Finally)

Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens

Sci-Fi/Action Adventure, 2015
2 hours, 15 minutes

Written by JJ Abrams, Lawrence Kasdan and Michael Arndt
Directed by JJ Abrams

Rated PG-13 for "sci-fi action violence"

Starring
Daisy Ridley
John Boyega
Oscar Isaac
Harrison Ford
Carrie Fisher
Mark Hamill
Lupita Nyong'o
Andy Serkis
Domhnall Gleeson
Anthony Daniels
Peter Mayhew

"That's not how the Force works!"

I love the phrase "the magic of movies." It's old and cliche, but I believe in that magic. Over a year ago, when the first Star Wars trailer dropped, I cried when the Falcon appeared. The trailers after that made my heart soar like an X-Wing through space, especially the last one that was released about two months ago. The hype surrounding the film can be overwhelming and the expectations are massive. 

A majority of the film left me speechless. The latest episode in the Star Wars saga was hugely satisfying and did not disappoint. Oh my God. It was so much fun. 

Sure, there are issues. Enough to discuss, but not enough to hate on. It's easy to nit-pick and it can be fun, especially with a movie of this scale and legacy. 

Humor comes from several unexpected places. Look closely and you'll find tons of easter eggs from the old trilogy. Several of the jokes are little throwbacks as well. There are a few new and badass Force moves we've never seen before. The dogfights are gorgeous and spectacular. The lightsaber fights are gripping and intense as they can possibly be. 

It's so hard to describe my feelings about a movie like this. From the moment the LucasFilm logo shimmered on screen to the final wipe to the credits (with the original score, obviously), I was so enthralled by the magic, the nostalgia, the Force. 

So go and see The Force Awakens. Hell, go and see it twice. I know I will. There's no better feeling than when a movie lives up to the hype-Falcon (no, not hype-train).

I'm trying to be spoiler-free right now, and just coming off of my first impression, this is my score. After seeing it at least one more time and letting it sit, I'll write a more detailed review filled with my full thoughts and feelings. For now, I'm just enjoying the high. 

9.6/10

SPECTRE - SPOILER FILLED Review

Spectre

Action/Adventure, 2015
2 hours, 28 minutes

Written by John Logan, Neal Purvis, Robert Wade, Jez Butterworth
Directed by Sam Mendes
Rated PG-13 for "intense sequences of action and violence, some disturbing images sensuality and language"

Starring
Daniel Craig
Christoph Waltz
Ralph Finnes
Léa Seydoux
Dave Bautista
Ben Whishaw
Andrew Scott
Monica Bellucci
Naomie Harris

SPOILERS AHEAD - YOU'VE BEEN WARNED

Over the last couple of weeks, the one movie that seems to come up more than anything else is Spectre, the new James Bond film. Because I am becoming increasingly annoyed with the discussion, I'm going to write a damn review, since ya'll are basically asking for one. 

The story is as follows: A bad guy does some stuff and Bond has to go and stop them... Okay, I don't totally remember the entire plot because there's two and a half hours of stuff going on. Basically, Bond is trying to learn what he can about an evil organization named Spectre. Back in London, a guy with the codename C is developing a global surveillance program that will halt the need for a "00" program, for whom Bond works for. Obviously the two are related. 

Admittedly, I didn't hate Spectre. Hate is a strong word. Although I found several problems, I didn't shake my head in disgust as I watched, but I wasn't too impressed. Coming off of my favorite Bond film, Skyfall, I had my expectations pretty low. Unfortunately, there was enough wrong that pissed me right off. 

The one thing I LOVED about the movie was Mr. Hinx, played by Dave Bautista of Guardians of the Galaxy fame. It's a great throwback to the silent, muscle-bound henchmen of the Connery and Moore days. His battles with Bond are exceptional and exciting, even if they defy the laws of physics. It's a damn shame he's killed halfway through the film, and as such is underutilized. 

Hinx may have just been a pawn; the king is Franz Oberhauser, played by the immaculate Christoph Waltz, who is just as good as you would expect him to be. He is later revealed to actually be Blofeld, the most iconic villain in the history of James Bond. Bond fanatics had a hunch that this was happening, considering Blofeld was the head of Spectre in the old films. The surprise here was how poorly it was handled. Yes, he gets the scar on his face with the glassy eyeball and he's got the cat, but that's as far as it goes. Oberhauser is played up as someone from Bond's past who has organized everything in Craig's past movies: Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace and Skyfall. It's a cool idea and mostly works, considering Spectre is a huge villain organization... However, it lacks almost all of the impact it should have had. Remember when Bond villains wanted to blow up the moon or some other crazy shit? Whatever happened to that? I guess the Brosnan movies ruined the far-fetched plans like that since everyone wants a "serious" Bond movie now. Blofeld's intentions are to get the surveillance program in development by C, but that's all. Yes, the implications of that goal are horrific, but not enough to sustain the movie. Oh, and Blofeld doesn't know how to torture for shit. The scene is fairly painful to watch, but he gets back up after all of that shit and easily dispatches all of the bad guys around him and blows up the place like the last 10 minutes didn't happen. What a waste. 

It wouldn't be a Bond movie without gorgeous women. There are two in this one: Monica Bellucci and Léa Seydoux. One is an older Italian bombshell while the other is a young and generically sexy French blonde. Unfortunately, Bellucci is barely in the movie and Seydoux is the actual love interest. This sucks because when Seydoux says something like, "I love you, James," my first thought is, "No you fucking don't." When that's the immediate response, that's a problem. And it's not like her saying it and he's against it, and their relationship is in trouble or some rom-com crap like that. The interaction isn't believable at all, yet it carries throughout the film. 

Surprisingly, Bond's talented backup team plays a significant role in the film. Ralph Finnes, who plays the new M, has a weighty role (much like Judi Dench's M in Skyfall). Mendes definitely utilizes the supporting cast of good guys, and even if what they're doing is kind of lame, it's still immensely enjoyable watching him run around and doing action things. 

For all of it's shortcomings, Spectre isn't the worst Bond movie out there. It's a fun homage to the Bond films of old and it's a decent sendoff for Craig if he chooses not to return. All four of his films are intimately interwoven, unlike most of the other movies. I was hopeful that the return of Sam Mendes would make for another great outing, but the directing is much less inspired than Skyfall. He seemed to show up, do the work and pick up his check. Most of the other people probably did the same. Oh well. At least the movie is watchable. 

6/10

STEVE JOBS - Review

Steve Jobs

Biographical Drama, 2015
2 hours, 2 minutes

Screenplay by Aaron Sorkin
Directed by Danny Boyle
Based on the book Steve Jobs by Walter Isaacson
Rated R for "language"

Starring
Michael Fassbender
Kate Winslet
Jeff Daniels
Seth Rogen
Michael Stuhlbarg
Katherine Waterston

"Coach lands on the runway at the exact same time as first class."

You can put any actor in a movie and people will be skeptical. Michael Fassbender as one of the biggest tech giants in history? Could work. Seth Rogen as the real brains behind the computer? Um... Maybe? Throw in Kate Winslet and Jeff Daniels and you've got a stellar cast. What about a director... How about Danny Boyle? He's a bit of an odd-ball, but he's won some Oscars and we like him, right? Yeah, that works. But I'm still unsure. And THEN you find out the movie is being written by none other than Aaron Sorkin, and now you've got a fuckin' movie. And what a fuckin' movie it is.

Sorkin has taken a different approach to Jobs' story. The film takes place in three distinct time periods: 1984, 1988, and 1998. Everything happens in real time, and it all occurs backstage, mere moments before Jobs introduces the next big thing to the world. Jobs is faced with tech demo problems, past demons, and irate superiors, and his daughter, who is the real crux of the story. It is far from a straightforward biopic, but this picture is more of a character study than anything else. 

Everyone is already comparing Steve Jobs to Sorkin's The Social Network, considering they're both loosely based on prolific tech billionaires with massive egos. It's a reasonable question, but they are different beasts. The Social Network was focused mainly on Zukerberg's ego blinding him from building a company from the ground up and the roadblocks in the way. Steve Jobs, on the other hand, focuses on the man's demons and personal problems first. Yes, he is obsessed with his products, believing they are just as significant as the Allies winning World War II. Steve Jobs has a much different ending as well, which was almost perfect... But it lingered for just a minute or two too long for my taste, and it shapes how Jobs is ultimately perceived, which clashes with how the film portrays him throughout the two hours. 

I've mentioned Aaron Sorkin several times because he's the real mastermind behind the film. Danny Boyle did a stellar job taking on his script, just as good as Fincher did on The Social Network. Boyle's direction only stands out in a few key moments, utilizing some Dutch angles and tight editing. The rest is all for Sorkin, and his sharp and witty dialogue is as brilliant as it has always been. Characters have distinct voices, all managing to keep up with one another in the chaotic world Sorkin has created. 

Anyone can write a good script (in Sorkin's case, a truly great script), but it takes actors to bring it to life. Skeptics need no longer be skeptic: Fassbender completely delivers on virtually every level. He's ruthless, genius, and a jackass. Winslet, who plays Joanna Hoffman, his "work wife" and close confidant, is the only person who can penetrate her boss' cold exterior. Rogen is incredibly sympathetic as Steve Wozniak, an old friend of Steve's and original engineer and designer on the early Apple computers. He has maybe three scenes total, and watching Jobs shut him down repeatedly is heartbreaking. Rogen could actually get an Oscar nomination this year. 

Now, most people who want a biopic will be sorely disappointed. Considering it only takes place in three parts, much of the history is condensed into these moments. It's obvious that not all of this drama happened as is, and there is questions regarding the validity and intent of actions of certain characters. Was Jobs the jackass that he is portrayed as? Maybe. There was similar controversy regarding The Social Network. If you really can't get past the historical inaccuracies, you might not like the film. 

Steve Jobs, at its core, isn't even about the technology. It's the story of how Jobs failed to connect with his daughter, Lisa. She is well played by all three actresses and she helps Steve change throughout the film. She starts off as a cute little kid who doesn't know any better, but grows to resent her father for being, well, Steve Jobs, and even she must find some solace with her father. It's a touching story for the two of them, and it's a welcome surprise. 

Those looking for a definitive biopic of Steve Jobs may as well watch the Ashton Kutcher film from a couple years back. I've heard many audience members disliked it because of what they expected, which is a shame, because Steve Jobs is definitely one of my favorite movies this year. It's expertly crafted, tightly written, and impeccably performed. Just go into it knowing what you're paying for.

9.5/10

Fun Fact: One page in a screenplay is (roughly) the equivalent to one minute of screen time. The runtime for the film is 123 minutes, but the screenplay is... 177 pages. Pages and pages of dialogue... And it truly is brilliant. 

THE WALK - Review

The Walk

Biopic, 2015
2 hours, 3 minutes
Screenplay by Robert Zemeckis & Christopher Browne
Directed by Robert Zemeckis
Based on the book To Reach the Clouds by Philipe Petit
Rated PG for "thematic elements involving perilous situations, and for some nudity, language, brief drug references and smoking"

Starring
Joseph Gordon-Levitt
Charlotte Le Bon
Ben Kingsley
James Badge-Dale
Ben Schwartz
Steve Valentine

"The carrots are cooked!"

I'm gonna keep this one short and sweet.

The Walk is based on the story of Philippe Petit, a French wire-walker who dreams of one day performing on a wire strung between the Twin Towers in New York City. Doing this, however, is incredibly illegal. So he and a rag-tag team of misfits go and do a bunch of illegal stuff to make it happen.

That's the gist of the film. It's also the gist of the masterful documentary Man on Wire, which won the Oscar for Best Documentary in 2008. It's almost impossible not to compare the two films. Even though The Walk gets most of the story beats right, including a few dramatized and probably fictional events, it has one key flaw: it's not inspiring.

When I saw Man on Wire, and every time since seeing it, inspiration strikes. It's the kind of movie that makes me want to go and do something with my life. I've thought to myself, if a man can walk between two towers on a wire over 400 feet above the ground, then I can do... well, I can do anything. The man accomplished his dream, and his dream was unbelievable in scope. It was an impossible dream. The story itself is inspiring, but Zemeckis turns Petit's story into a flat two hours.

The wire-walk itself (which is actually GREAT in 3D) is drawn out. The effect loses its appeal quickly, despite being a cool visual effect. There are moments with very little tension. Petit's narration (which is sometimes treated like an awkward talking head) interrupts the otherwise suspenseful moments.

Other than the somewhat dull wire-walk itself, the worst part of the movie (by far) is Petit's voiceover. They have him standing on the Statue of Liberty with the towers and the New York skyline behind him while he speaks charismatically to the audience. It's an okay way to start the film, but it quickly becomes a nuisance when they repeatedly cut back and forth from the action to his talking head. The talking head even interrupts during the most suspenseful moments, explaining every thought that crosses through his mind. This was something Man on Wire was able to get away with, because Petit tells the entire story verbally, and more is told than shown.

The real Philippe Petit on August 7th, 1974, before walking the wire.

Honestly, it's just boring. The storytelling in Man on Wire is actually suspenseful when narrated by Petit himself, and there's no more Hollywood flair or visual effects than there have to be.

It's not all bad. JGL's performance is strong, as he matches Petit's charisma with a decent French accent... But he fails to help the audience understand exactly why he needs to accomplish his dream and what it means to him. Ben Kingsley shows up for a bit, but doesn't do much other than have an untraceable accent.

To explain just exactly how I feel about this film, I want to quote a good friend of mine (he's a stellar filmmaker, too), Matthew Sadowski:

"So you're saying that if offered to see "The Walk", we should walk? Take a hike to "A Walk in the Woods" instead? Or go rent "Walk the Line"? Heck, maybe I'd get "Walking Tall" if I'm at the video store anyway. You don't want to spend too much time there; you just end up stumbling around like "The Walking Dead." Spend too much time there, the staff gets angry and calls security. Get pissy and they could take you on "A Walk Among the Tombstones." That would make it "A Walk to Remember."

The Walk: 5/10

Man on Wire: 10/10

Seriously. Watch the fucking documentary!

THE MARTIAN - Review

Hey everyone! It's now October, so you know what that means... AWARDS SEASON IS FINALLY UPON US! Well, it's been here for the last couple weeks or so, but with The Martian and a few other big movies coming out this week, it finally feels like we're getting in the swing of things. Since there are a lot of films coming out, there's going to be a lot more double feature reviews and maybe some that are missing. I wanted to write a review for Sicario, as it's easily one of my favorites this year. Absolutely worth seeing, it's a tremendous thriller and one of Benicio Del Toro's best roles. 

I've got a lot on my plate in the next few weeks, so I might condense some of my reviews and do more shorter ones than fewer long ones. We'll see how it works out. 

Anyway, I whipped this one up for you pretty quickly while I had some downtime. I know a lot of people are really into this movie, and I was too. 

=======================================================================

The Martian


Sci-fi, 2015
2 hours, 21 minutes
Screenplay by Drew Goddard
Directed by Ridley Scott
Based on the novel The Martian by Andy Weir
Rated PG-13 for "some strong images, injury images, and brief nudity"

Starring
Matt Damon
Jeff Daniels
Chiwetel Ejiofor
Jessica Chastain
Michael Peña
Benedict Wong
Kate Mara
Sean Bean
Sebastian Stan
Aksel Hennie
Kristen Wiig

"...Fuck..."

The past three years have brought us three high-concept, huge budget space movies. Gravity was the first, brought to us in 2013. Last year brought us Interstellar, and now, The Martian. All three films were critically acclaimed Oscar bait, using A-list stars and directors to create epic and intimate films about the dangers of outer space. However, Gravity disregarded actual gravity (and you can disregard my old review of that one), Interstellar was a pretentious and somewhat boring waste of time. The Martian, on the other hand, is a finely tuned story that succeeds on every level. 

The crew of the Ares III is on Mars. Their mission is compromised after 19 days by a dust storm. The entire crew manages to escape safely with the exception of Mark Watney (Matt Damon) who is swept away by a piece of debris and shrouded by the sandstorm. He awakes the next day and must "science the shit" out of what he has in order to survive and make contact with NASA to tell them he is alive and well. Back on Earth, NASA struggles to find a way to safely secure Watney's return. 

It's a fairly simple premise that provides tremendous conflict. Thankfully, screenwriter Drew Goddard managed to make it simple. The story has a huge amount of science involved, which is, to my knowledge, accurate. Better yet, the complexities are explained in the simplest ways possible. For example, Watney needs to grow food. He explains it in detail to his video logs, but it is complemented by tightly edited visuals that help the audience understand what he's doing. The complex science is made simple enough using tightly written dialogue which is never overly expositional because it is all relevant to Watney's survival. Everything, no matter how uninteresting, is do or die. The showing is much more effective than the telling. 

The Martian does a great job of balancing multiple storylines. Between Watney's trials on Mars, NASA's struggle to get him home, and the Ares III's desire to rescue their friend, the story is tightly written. Watney may disappear for a small chunk of time in the second act, but everything going on in every region of the story is riveting, and surprisingly, the lighthearted yet gripping tone is consistent. Watney, in particular, has a sense of humor about his situation. When he is down to meager rations of potatoes, he crushes up an Ambien and dips the potato in it, telling the video log, "I ran out of ketchup seven days ago." The humor remains consistent throughout, but it's not overbearing. Just enough to keep up spirits. The only issue of having so many stories is that there are moments, especially in the middle, when it drags. Just a hair. 

Like any Ridley Scott film, the visuals are spectacular. Instead of using CG landscapes, Scott opted to shoot in the deserts of Jordan, utilizing striking orange backdrops. For the most part, the sets, like the rover Watney drives, looks as real as it can be. But across the two hours and twenty minutes, everything is tightly edited and shot, and there's a lot of scientific ground to cover in this movie. The production design may not stand the test of time unlike Alien and Blade Runner, Scott's other sci-fi masterpieces, but it's a realistic and strong approach. 

The cast is enormous, but Matt Damon is definitely the star of the show. He's got a great sense of humor, but in his darkest moments, he brings the fear of certain demise with him. One moment in particular comes to mind, when Watney is counting his remaining rations after an accident destroys his crops. He uses a tarp and duct tape to create a seal so he can survive inside, and when the dust storm whips up, he is at the whim of, well, a tarp and some duct tape to hold. It's a powerful and subtle moment that keeps the audience white-knuckling their armrests. I mean, Matt Damon may be the protagonist, but let's be real: the real heroes of the film are tarps and duct tape. I'm not even kidding. Whenever those come out in any capacity, he goes from being a joking optimist to a serious scientist. 

Ridley Scott has certainly outdone himself. Two of his older sci-fi films, Alien and Blade Runner, have become cultural icons over time. Although The Martian is more science than fiction, it is an inspiring movie that will not be forgotten over time. 

Oh, and it has the single best use of "fuck" in a movie that I have ever seen. You'll know it when it happens. 

9.5/10

BLACK MASS and PAWN SACRIFICE - Biopic Double Feature Review

Hello, one and all! This week, I am proud to present another Double Feature review. This one is about biopics featuring actors with fake American accents! I did my best to keep these both brief, and thus they are a bit rushed. Like, really rushed. It reads like it was rushed. Goddamn. Re-reading this now, like, jeez. I'm running on fumes here. And awards season is coming up, so a ton of reviews are about to drop in the next few weeks, so long as I have time to write about them all. 

Anyway, enjoy these rushed reviews!

===============================================================


Black Mass


Gangster Drama/Biopic, 2015
2 hours, 2 minutes
Written by Jez Butterworth, Mark Mallouk
Directed by Scott Cooper
Rated R for "brutal violence, language throughout, some sexual references and brief drug use"

Starring

Johnny Depp
Joel Edgerton
Rory Cochrane
David Harbour
Benedict Cumberbatch
W. Earl Brown
Dakota Johnson
Jesse Plemons 
Peter Sarsgaard
Julianne Nicholson

"You said to me this was a family secret. And you gave it up to me, boom. Just like that."

Johnny Depp is no stranger to prosthetics and makeup. The dude is barely recognizable in most of his movies. However, his performances are almost always outstanding, even when he barely looks human. Or sane. Depp's latest role comes in the form of one of the most notorious gangsters in American history: James "Whitey" Bulger. Unfortunately, the results are mixed. 

The film chronicles Bulger's life as a gangster from the mid 70s through the 80s. With his small crew, he runs the Winter Hill Gang in Boston. John Connolly (Joel Edgerton) is an FBI agent who grew up with Bulger as a kid. In a nutshell, Connolly gets Bulger to be an informant for the bureau, which has its consequences. Connolly gets a little too friendly with the Winter Hill Gang, which obviously has its consequences. Consequences everywhere. So Things kind of... happen. It's a biopic, so they're supposed to happen, I guess. That's storytelling in a nutshell. Things happen. 

I say "things happen" so nonchalantly because the movie is a little unorganized. All of the above is set up early on and then it just kind of... goes. Bulger and his men kill people and do illegal things, some of which are more shocking than others. I mean, it's pretty much every other gangster movie. Other than Depp's performance, there's no real hook. Some things that happen are more compelling than others. Stylistically, there's nothing that special going on. Depp is given a ton of great set-piece moments. Give the guy more than twenty seconds to say anything and it's both chilling and compelling. That's all I really have to say about his performance. Oh man, I'm saying a ton of things all at once. This review is too unorganized. Fuck it. 

Although Black Mass is a subpar gangster film, it's compelling nonetheless. Unlike other gangster films, such as The Godfather: Part II, it's easy to follow. At no point did I say, "wait, what's going on right now?" On top of that, the cast is really outstanding. Like, too outstanding. The movie cost $53 million to make and it's obvious that at least half of that was to pay salaries. Aside from a couple of relative unknowns, larger stars come in to fill the gaps. Adam Scott, known for his hilarious role on Parks and Recreation, shows up as the guy whose entire job is to say "what the fuck are you doing" to Edgerton's FBI character. He has nothing else going on for him. You can look the cast up yourself and be impressed with the amount of stars they have. Even if they're not A-listers like Depp, they are certainly recognizable. 

Here's the real issue with the film: Bulger is called the most notorious gangster in history, right? So why the hell don't we see that as much? Yeah, he kills a few people, sells some drugs, does bad shit, whatever. He got away with a bunch of stuff and he's really menacing. But nothing in the film quite suggests that he deserved to be so high on the FBI's most wanted list for so long. Joe Pesci in Goodfellas deserves it. Not so much Whitey Bulger. Much of the film is spent in the FBI offices with Connolly trying to cover his tracks and keep Bulger on the streets without compromising himself. I genuinely wonder who has more screen time...

Black Mass may be a little too run-of-the-mill for a gangster flick, and it certainly does not live up to the hype of its first trailer. But when all is said and done, it's a fun movie that is worth seeing at least once. Depp's performance is absolutely worth the price of admission, but isn't it always? I just don't think I'll remember much about the film years down the line. 

Oh, and if the rest of the review didn't sell you on it, Benedict Cumberbatch plays Bulger's brother, so he's got a thick Boston accent instead of his usual terrifying British one. 

7/10

===============================================================

Pawn Sacrifice

Drama/Biopic, 2015
1 hours, 56 minutes
Written by Steven Knight
Directed by Edward Zwick
Rated PG-13 for "brief strong language, some sexual content and historical smoking"

Starring
Tobey Maguire
Liev Schreiber
Michael Stuhlbarg
Peter Sarsgaard 

"Bobby won't crack. He will explode."

Ever wanted to see Spider-Man and Sabretooth fight in a superhero movie? Well, this is probably the closest we'll get. Starring Tobey Maguire (Sam Riami's Spider-Man) and Liev Schreiber (X-Men Origins: Wolverine), Pawn Sacrifice is the story about a crazy guy playing chess with a Russian. Let's get into it, shall we?

Open in Brooklyn, some year in the past. Early Cold War era, is what Wikipedia tells me. Anyway, our hero is a young Bobby Fischer (Tobey Maguire), a chess prodigy who wants to do literally nothing but play the game. He's too good. He beats everyone... Except the Russians. One, in particular, named Boris Spassky (Liev Schreiber) who is literally the greatest chess player in the world. He's proven it. Bobby has some serious issues, paranoia, schizophrenia type stuff. And now he wants to do all of this and play the greatest chess master in the world? Yeah, he's going for it. 

The performances are a mixed bag. Well, most of them are actually great. A couple stand out as being so awful, like the kid who plays a teenaged Fischer. He sounds like a kid with a natural Brooklyn accent trying to do a really good Brooklyn accent. Normally, I wouldn't care, but it really did pull me out of the film for a few moments. The scene in particular didn't help much either. He yells at his mother for having sex in the next room with some guy and he wants her to be quiet, so he asks her to get the fuck out of his house. He literally says something along those lines. It's weird, it doesn't fit, and even if it did happen, there are better ways to present the conflict with his mother, even though it only lasts for a few minutes. There are also a few moments of incredibly awkward humor that comes out of left field, and it makes the actors look silly, as though they know what they're saying is weak. But I guess that's bad writing. 

Maguire is as good as anyone expects him to be. I am personally not a huge fan of his, but I have to admit he did a pretty good job. But the real star of the show is Schreiber, who barely says a word throughout most of the film. Most of his dialogue, which comes toward the end, is in Russian. He has a powerful presence, from the first moment he is on camera to the final games of chess. Other great performances come from Peter Sarsgaard and Michael Stuhlbarg, both of whom I had no idea were in the movie. So that was a nice surprise. 

Overall, Pawn Sacrifice is, like Black Mass, a movie worth seeing even if you won't remember it down the road. It's enjoyable for the most part, but stumbles along the way. The final twenty minutes or so, when he actually faces off against Spassky, is unbelievably cinematic for a chess game. And it all really happened! In real life! So maybe that's worth seeing it, I guess. 

7.5/10

TURBO KID earns its name with a boost of retro ultra-violence - Review

Turbo Kid 

Action/Adventure, 2015
1 hour, 33 minutes
Written and Directed by 
François Simard, Anouk Whissell, & Yoann-Karl Whissell
This film is unrated.

Starring
Munro Chambers
Laurence Leboeuf
Michael Ironside
Aaron Jeffery
Edwin Wright 


"Around here, we like to do things with a little more... joie de vivre."


Science fact: the human body contains 4.7 liters of blood. That's one and a quarter gallons, which I suppose doesn't seem like much. The filmmakers behind Turbo Kid obviously misread that decimal point, mistaking it for 47 liters of blood, or 12 gallons, because whenever someone gets killed in this movie, blood spurts for days on end. Death by flying saw blade, intestinal removal via bicycle chain, laser beam... Allow me to explain. 

Remember when the apocalypse happened in 1997? Yeah, neither do I. But Turbo Kid sure does. Set in an unspecified area of the word, supposedly America, we are introduced to The Kid (played by Munro Chambers). He lives alone in an underground bunker surrounded by enough knick knacks, relics of the old world, to impress even Wall-E. The Kid has certainly earned his namesake, as he has an ever-growing obsession with an old comic book superhero - Turbo Rider. One day, he randomly meets an overzealous girl named Apple (Laurence Leboeuf) who begins to follow him around. The two bond quickly until Apple is captured by the land's ruler, Zeus (Michael Ironside). While on his way to rescue his new friend, The Kid stumbles upon a mysterious ship and the suit of the actual Turbo Rider. He takes the suit and becomes Turbo Kid. Armed with his trusty Turbo Glove and aided by a tough-as-nails armwrestling cowboy named Frederic (Aaron Jeffery), Turbo Kid sets out to save Apple and defeat the evil Zeus. 

Munro Chambers and Laurence Leboeuf 

The filmmakers behind Turbo Kid set out with one thing in mind: to make a love-letter to Grindhouse films of the 1980s. The genre is still practiced today in smaller circles of the film community, but Turbo Kid shatters the bar for what the genre has evolved into. Today, Grindhouse films are more like homages to films of old, and only a specific audience acknowledges them. Unfortunately, the same will be said for Turbo Kid, as its release does not send it to many theaters. Even casual moviegoers might get something out of the film. It's goofy without being stupid, gory without being scary, and heartwarming without being cheesy. 

Actually, I take back what I said about it being cheesy. This movie is so cheesy it makes Chicago style pizza jealous. But in a 1980s kind of way. The score is all synth pop and the opening credits song sounds like it should be played over a training montage. Some of the visual effects, like exploding bodies, look incredibly fake, but it works with the amount of blood shed across the entire film. Costumes are varied, as the central characters wear colors that pop and villains wear makeshift garb of the wasteland. Zeus' henchman wears a creepy skull-like mask made of metal while slinging a gun that shoot saw-blades, and his only other protection is football pads. Even Zeus carries a golf club instead of a cane! And it's probably worth mentioning that instead of cars or horses, everyone rides BMX bikes. Not regular bikes. Small and awkward BMX bikes. So yes, it sounds cheesy. It's supposed to have a retro feel with a splash of ultra-violence, and it wouldn't work any other way. 

Edwin Wright as Skeletron

Like the first paragraph alludes to, it's gratuitously bloody. Remember in Kill Bill when Lucy Liu decapitates that guy and blood spurts like a fountain? Yeah, that ain't got nothing on Turbo Kid. A dude gets his hand chopped off, he's spurting red stuff like Niagara Falls.  A dude gets sliced with a saw blade and his body falls apart in chunks. It's almost unbelievable. My personal favorite: Frederic rips off a dude's jaw with his bare hand and stuffs it in his eyes. Like, what? I had to rewind to make sure I got that right. And I did. Absolutely brilliant stuff, and that's just a couple of creative kills among dozens. It's all in good fun and it adds to the pulpy and moody atmosphere. 

Yet through all of the chaos, Turbo Kid has a lot of heart. You can make a movie as goofy as you want, but what is it without a thick layer of emotion spread over the toast that is character? The Kid has a tragic past, and by the end of the film, he is no longer a Turbo Kid; he is a Turbo Man. Apple manages to keep The Kid grounded, giving him a greater purpose than just existing in the wasteland and an even greater purpose for donning the Turbo Rider suit. When all is said and done, before the credits roll, The Kid has completed his journey as successfully and with as much loss as he requires for his story to be complete. 

Turbo Kid is a movie that will be overlooked. It deserves better. I can only hope it achieves the deep cult status that it deserves. It's pulpier than freshly squeezed orange juice, and I'll be damned if it's not one of the best glasses of OJ I've ever had the pleasure to drink. But instead of Vitamin C, it's filled with retro nostalgia and enough ultra-violence to make Alex DeLarge shit his knickers. Even though some may be off-put by the excess, you can't deny it's not quite like anything you've seen before. 

If you're on the fence, I'll tell you what I tell people going into Mad Max: Fury Road: "Don't overthink it. Just sit back and enjoy it for what it is." 

9.3/10

"The Gift" should be shown in schools as an anti-bullying PSA - Film Review

Hey there, fellow readers! You've probably noticed the change in the blog's name... "Planes, Trains and Weitzelmobiles." If it looks familiar, it should! It's the name of my road trip album, the one I went on earlier this summer. I thought my blog could use a little spicing up, and changing the name seemed like it was a long time coming. It's one of many changes coming to the site, so stay tuned. 

=======================================================================

The Gift


Mystery/Thriller, 2015
1 hour, 48 minutes
Written & directed by Joel Edgerton
Produced by Blumhouse Productions
Rated R for "language"

Starring
Rebecca Hall
Jason Bateman
Joel Edgerton


"What does bygones be bygones mean?" 


Every once in a while, I'll watch a movie trailer that I really don't like. Everyone can admit that movies that look bad are easy to dismiss, regardless of surrounding controversy.

And then there's The Gift, which looked like a cheaply made psychological thriller that devolves into a slasher flick with a half-baked cast, written and directed by its lead actor who has never written or directed anything in his life. Well, I guess you can't judge a movie by its poster. Turns out The Gift is an incredibly smart and tense thriller with a perfect cast and great writing and directing by Joel Edgerton. In fact, it's probably the best directorial debut by an actor since Ben Affleck did Gone Baby Gone.

A young couple, Robyn (Rebecca Hall) and Simon (Jason Bateman), have just moved into their new home in Los Angeles. Simon's got a nice new job while Robyn is still running her business from afar while they are trying to have a child. By happenstance, the couple runs into Gordo (Joel Edgerton), an old high school acquaintance of Simon's. Gordo is a bit of an oddball, but he is friendly and means well... Or so it seems. Gordo has something to settle with Simon, and like the book says, "We might be through with the past, but the past ain't through with us."

I was so convinced Edgerton wrote a psychological thriller with a slasher of a final act, but that is so incredibly far from the case. Although the story is incredibly psychological in it's plot, it never makes the audience feel stupid. There isn't any screwing around with what's real and what isn't, which most psychological thrillers seem to desire nowadays. If anything, it's more of a mystery. The real protagonist of the film is Robyn, who is the only genuine and kindhearted person in the film. She wants to be friends with Gordo and finds his quirks to be charming. It's not like she falls in love with him or anything, but when she finds gifts on their doorstep, she is appreciative and wants to return the favor. Robyn may be off-put, but in the end, she realizes that everyone else around her treats Gordo like a freak. She quickly realizes that Simon is hiding something from her, some kind of ugly truth, and she begins to dig deeper into the mystery of what happened between Simon and Gordo.

But in the end, this is a thriller. The twists just keep on coming. Every character is a filthy liar, which brings into question the validity of almost every confrontation between the three lead characters. This is dragged on throughout the entire film, even after the credits roll. Even the answers to important questions have to be questioned, and as the layers of the storytelling onion are peeled back, Edgerton's sharp script keeps the audience constantly on their toes.

I was worried about the cast, but thank God Jason Bateman is really good at playing a scumbag. I initially thought, when I saw the trailers, that he was cast because he does bad indie movies sometimes and he's pretty cheap. Hell no! He seems to be playing a typical narcissistic Bateman character (see Michael Bluth in Arrested Development), but it digs far deeper. Edgerton cast himself pretty well, and even though I wasn't totally blown away with him like I was Bateman, it was clear he can write his own parts. He strikes a perfect tone of being odd, but not THAT weird, like that guy you get a sneaking suspicion that something might not be right with him, but you're not quite sure in what way. Rebecca Hall is... Well, she's just Rebecca Hall. For some reason, I'm never that impressed with her. I don't know why. She's like every other character she's played before, and even though this is the best movie she's probably been in, I can't say I was blown away by her unlike the rest of the cast.

The Gift is a finely crafted mystery thriller, and I'm stoked to see what Edgerton will come up with next. Hopefully something epic and thrilling, like he'll try and do what Affleck did with his directing career. This one is damn good. Real damn good. There's nothing better than being pleasantly surprised by a movie that looks like shit. It's already one of the best movies I've seen this year, so don't tell me that there's nothing out in theaters. The Gift is a movie that's just dying to be seen. And if you think the trailer gives too much away... you are dead wrong.

9/10

ANT- MAN - Review

Hey there, fellow readers! Sorry this took so long to get out there. You know I like to post these within a day or two after I've seen the movie, but this one just took a while. Well, it didn't really take that long. I did the whole thing in one continuous 45 minute writing session and didn't stop, so it's basically a continuous stream of thought. 

I intended on cutting some of it down. Instead, I'm going to leave it as is for your rambling enjoyment. I also want to get to work on writing a review for Trainwreck, which I have quite a bit to say about. I apologize if there are any grammar or spelling errors. Shoot me a message on Facebook or something and I'll fix it right up!

=================================================

Ant-Man

Action/Adventure, 2015
1 hour 57 minutes
Written by Edgar Wright, Joe Cornish, Adam McKay, Paul Rudd
Directed by Peyton Reed
Produced by Marvel Studios
Rated PG-13 for "sci-fi action violence"

Starring
Paul Rudd
Michael Douglas
Evangeline Lily
Corey Stoll
Michael Peña
Bobby Cannavale
Judy Greer
Abby Ryder Fortston


"This is not some cute tech like the Iron Man suit."


Remember when Ant-Man was supposed to come out like five or six years ago? Yeah, that's a fact. It was one of the very first movies that Marvel began to develop for their massive Marvel Cinematic Universe. It only took a few years and the exit of writer/director Edgar Wright (Hot Fuzz, Scott Pilgrim vs. The World) to get the ball rolling. Although Wright had been working on the film for several years as a passion project, he ultimately left after creative differences with the studio. Why? He wanted it to be a standalone film and not intertwined in the cinematic universe. Marvel obviously wasn't having any of it. So he left. Peyton Reed was hired to direct. Shooting began shortly thereafter. And now Ant-Man is finally here!

The latest Marvel installment is a typical origin story. Scott Lang (Paul Rudd) is a reformed thief who is released from prison. He has a young daughter who loves him, an ex-wife who doesn't trust him, and his ex-wife's new squeeze who despises him. Scott can't hold down a job, even at a product placed Baskin Robbins. He's offered one last gig: break into an old man's safe. But when he gets inside, he finds... a suit? The suit gives Scott the ability to shrink down to the size of an ant and super strength when he's small. He is recruited by Hank Pym (Michael Douglas), a scientist who developed suit, to save the world from his former protégé who plans to use the suit's powers for evil.

As strange as it sounds, Ant-Man actually feels like a Phase One Marvel film. It's an origin story with a decent character arc, a bit of humor and no world-ending consequences. Not a single city gets destroyed, which is a nice change of pace. A central character is firmly established with room for growth in sequels. It's about as basic as it can be. Ant-Man is the first new superhero film that Marvel has released since Captain America: The First Avenger. So it obviously makes sense that this feels like a Phase One film. Stuff like Guardians of the Galaxy may be newer, but it's not a superhero film. So it doesn't count.

It's not only the feel of the film, it's the villain as well. Corey Stoll, known for his incredible performance as Peter Russo in House of Cards, is the big baddie known as Darren Cross. Well, more like little bad. Literally and figuratively. Cross' plans are relatively simple and unimpressive. At the beginning of the film, he is experimenting with a shrinking serum, attempting to copy the formula of what is called the "Pym Particle," the thing that makes the Ant-Man suit work. Once he figures that out, he plans on creating a series of super suits with the power, which he plans to sell off to the highest bidder. I'm pretty sure I've seen villains sell of powerful weapons to terrorists before, especially weapons that mimic what the central hero is using. It... it almost sounds like the first Iron Man, right? Or am I a little crazy? It doesn't help that Cross' motives are as boring as his plan. He has some kind of beef with Pym, like they had a falling out, but it's not explained very well, nor is it enough to keep Cross an interesting antagonist. Stoll is practically wasted in the role, but he certainly gives it his all. We've seen this guy before. I mean, yeah, okay, so this was developed when having bad guys like this were fine. It's 2015. We've seen it a thousand times. Give us something new and better. Because at this point, these guys feel like final boss battles. At least the plot isn't convoluted, like some previous installments. Very straightforward, which works for an origin story.

Ant-Man was marketed as a straight up comedy. The trailer consistently got huge laughs in theaters. Edgar freakin' Wright wrote and was attached to direct. Paul Rudd is now a superhero. So... why is Ant-Man only kind of funny? It's about as funny as any other Marvel movie, filled with fun one-liners and some strong physical comedy. Several jokes straight up murder some of the more emotional moments of the film. At one point, Pym is having an emotional moment with his daughter, Hope (Evangeline Lily), and Scott comes in with a little one liner and kills the moment. Practically whacks it in the head with a shovel and buries it so deep underground that the moment becomes unsalvageable. End of scene. When is it acceptable for emotional moments to be ruined by a joke and not saved by literally anything? It's almost cringe worthy. There are a few other moments that are like this as well, but not as severely upsetting. In fact, the humor is spread pretty thinly, throwing in maybe one traditionally set up joke per scene. If the film had not been billed as a superhero comedy, perhaps it would have been more successful, just as funny as any other Marvel film. Before you start criticizing me for discussing expectations, hear me out: unlike most big budget blockbusters, Marvel does an EXCELLENT job of telling us what their movies are. Avengers: Age of Ultron was sold as an incredibly dark sequel with unbelievable high stakes and a villain with staggering power. That's exactly what we got. It also happened to be pretty funny. Guardians of the Galaxy was billed as a cool and fun science fiction adventure with goofy characters, and that's exactly what we got. It also happened to be hilarious from start to finish. Ant-Man is billed as a superhero comedy, but the humor is spread so when someone makes a joke, it feels out of place on occasion. Between Scott learning the extent of his powers and dealing with a villain, the jokes feel practically shoehorned in. That being said, the physical comedy, especially during the incredible battle sequences, is flawless, especially in the finale. As for actual jokes, Michael Peña, who plays one of Scott's thief buddies, is easily the funniest part of the entire movie. Too bad he has so little screen time. 

Speaking of comedy, it's easy to see Edgar Wright's influence on the film. He has a writing credit on the film, and there are a few moments when you just have to say, "Edgar wrote that." They've tried out a few fun little techniques from other films that has never been done in a Marvel film, so it's nice to see the studio try something different. It's not anything radical, but it is noticeable. 

One thing I cannot help but be bothered by is the disgusting amount of foreshadowing. Normally, foreshadowing is a good thing. It's required for stuff like this. A little mention of something at the beginning has implications in the finale. Ant-Man uses such blatant foreshadowing it's almost insulting. The ending is so stupidly clear, I would have put money on predicting the ending of the movie. I want my expectations to be subverted. I actually leaned over to my moviegoing companion and whispered, "that's how it's gonna end." And it did. Stop being so fucking predictable, please... Wait, did I just bitch for a whole paragraph on foreshadowing? Fuck. I completely understand that foreshadowing is damn important when it comes to constructing stories, but, I dunno, I just felt kind of insulted as a moviegoer and fan of these films. The ending is just so shockingly obvious that I can't help but mention it.

Complaints aside, I've never seen an action movie quite like this. Who would have thought that a superhero with a shrinking ability could fight like a badass? Although very few of the visual effects are practical, the CGI is as good as it can be. The fight choreography is utterly bizarre, as Ant-Man disappears and reappears in the blink of an eye all while dolling out punch after punch. It's pretty much all his suit can do, with the exception of give him super strength when he's small. Although he only fights a couple of guys at any given moment, he's got so much potential for teaming up with The Avengers in later Marvel films. 

Seriously, if Ant-Man and Hawkeye get to share this moment in the next Avengers movie, I will shit my pants. 

Casting a superhero is one hell of a challenge. You can get the beefiest guy who looks good in a suit (*cough cough Henry Cavill in Man of Steel cough*) or... you can cast... Paul Rudd. He's definitely bulked up a bit, but he's no WWE star. He can also act. And be unbelievably charming. It does feel like Paul Rudd is kind of playing Paul Rudd, but then again, didn't Jimmy Stewart always kind of play Jimmy Stuart? Like, different versions of himself? He's charming, likable and damn funny. So it works perfectly. Opposite Rudd is Michael Douglas, who has never been in any kind of superhero movie until now. He plays Hank Pym, an old scientist who used to be the Ant-Man before he retired. He's able to perfectly match Rudd's energy and is a formidable mentor figure. Knowing a little about his comic book background, it'll be interesting to see where he goes from here. Pym's daughter, Hope, also has massive potential to grow into a major player in later films. 

Scott Lang is one of the most likable in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Unlike all of the other main heroes, he doesn't have any actual powers. They're granted to him by his suit. Without it, he's just a normal guy. He's got a family. Well, kind of. A daughter and an ex-wife. His relationship with his daughter is the driving force of the film almost from the start. He does everything he can to be there for her, taking on the heist job in the first place to raise money so he can pay child support. He's an ordinary guy placed in extraordinary circumstances, and it works perfectly. His arc has plenty of payoff, as he becomes the hero his daughter sees him as. 

Okay, I've already complained quite a bit about this movie. But as I always say, the most important part of a movie is that it's entertaining. And Ant-Man DEFINITELY has that going on. The cast is great. Fight scenes are unlike anything I've ever seen, and the visual effects are cool as well. The tie-ins to the Marvel Cinematic Universe are tight, so long-time fans will get a few "holy shit" moments that are totally worth it. It's not the best Marvel movie, but it's certainly more enjoyable than some of Marvel's other outings. 

Oh, and there are an absolute TON of fun little easter eggs. Be sure to wait around for after the scrolling credits sequence. It's worth the wait. 

7.8/10

INSIDE OUT - Review

Inside Out

Animation, 2015
1 hour, 34 minutes
Written by Pete Docter, Meg LaFauve, Josh Cooley
Directed by Pete Docter
Produced by Pixar Animation Studios
Rated PG for "mild thematic elements and some action"

Starring
Amy Poehler
Phyllis Smith
Bill Hader
Lewis Black 
Mindy Kaling
Richard Kind
Kaitlyn Dias
Diane Lane
Kyle MacLachlan


"Forget it, Jake. It's Cloudtown."

The human mind makes little to no sense. Scientists and doctors can poke and prod as much as they want, yet amidst the sea of psychology books on the market, there is not one single solution. Much like snowflakes, the mind of a human is unique, vastly different from all others on the planet. Emotions are elusive and fickle, constantly screwing with logic and morals. Pixar's latest film, Inside Out, attempts to explain how the human mind functions. 

Open on Riley (voiced by Kaitlyn Dias), an eleven year old Minnesotan girl. She's happy and free-spirited, an only child living with her Mom and Dad (voiced by Diane Lane and Kyle MacLachlan). In her brain, we are introduced to the five key emotions: Joy (Amy Poehler), Sadness (Phyllis Smith), Fear (Bill Hader), Disgust (Mindy Kaling), and Anger (Lewis Black). The five work together to make Riley a normal and functional person, using a control console which lets Riley react to the world around her. The story of Riley and her emotions could easily be their own films, but they begin at the same time - when Riley and her family pack up and move to San Francisco. During a mishap, Joy and Sadness are swept out of the headquarters of Riley's mind where they reside, leaving Fear, Disgust and Anger to run the joint on their own. Without Joy and Sadness, Riley exhibits symptoms of anxiety and depression in her new environment. Inside her head, Joy and Sadness must find a way to work together to make their way back to headquarters. 

This is the part in the review where I talk about the different elements of the film and how they work or don't work. Yes, the world inside of Riley's mind is a fascinating place and the way it functions is too cool for words. Yes, the animation is gorgeous, the finest Pixar has ever produced. Yes, the voice work by the outstanding cast is literally perfect. Yes, I cried a couple of times. 

What makes Inside Out is the appeal to all ages. This goes beyond a few gags for the older crowd and occasionally cheesy humor for the little ones. On its own, Riley's story isn't that special. She moves away and becomes anxious and depressed. Instead, we are treated to see the inside of her mind where her emotions work. We directly see how they play a role in her life as they rationalize every one of her actions. Not only that, but we see the importance of each and every emotion, even sadness. 

With Joy and Sadness gone, Riley's primary emotional state is in flux. She cannot feel joy or sadness, so she only feels disgust, anger and fear... basically anxiety and depression. Not even the things that make her happy, like hockey, can cheer her up. Adults can understand this. The feeling of frustration and despair, the hope that maybe someday life can return to what it once was. Riley longs to be back in Minnesota so her life can return to normal. I'm 22 years old and I easily identify with how Riley feels. Her emotions take over. She goes against logic and reasoning and goes with how she feels. Hasn't everyone felt that way at some point in their lives? Adults can easily relate to how she feels. 

My biggest hope is that children will have a positive reaction. The film teaches kids that it's okay to be afraid, disgusted, angry or sad. If everyone was happy 24/7, the world would be a boring place. I don't think kids can conceptualize what's going on inside of their heads. They can't say, "I feel depressed" or "I feel anxious." I don't think they know what that exactly means, especially at Riley's age. What Inside Out attempts to do is explain why we feel the way we feel, even if it doesn't always make sense. And thankfully, it's done in such a way that kids can understand. 

Pixar is probably the only animation studio out there making movies that both kids and adults can appreciate. Newer Disney movies like Frozen can be enjoyed by adults, but they don't go very deep on a thematic level. It works as a film, but the whole time, you still feel like you're watching a movie designed for kids. Pixar treats their audience like adults. The appeal is so universal, watching their work as an adult is vastly different then watching it as a kid. The Incredibles has a different effect on me now than it did when I was eleven. But there's something special and immediate about Inside Out that has the ability to effect viewers of all ages. If I had seen the film when I was a kid, I would have felt better about my own anxiety issues when I was that age. Seeing it now as a 22 year old, not only does it make me feel better, but it also, in a strange way, rationalizes those feelings... if that makes any sense. 

Now that the heavy stuff is out of the way, there's a few other things I just gotta mention. The movie is outright hilarious, thanks to flawless casting. I literally cannot think of any alternate casting, at least not for the five emotions. Casting someone like Lewis Black to play a character named Anger is a stroke of genius. Anger even gets excited over the prospect of using curse words, which is hysterical. Bill Hader makes all kinds of scared shrieks that only he could make. Phyllis Smith as Sadness is an interesting choice, considering she's only known for her outstanding work in The Office, she totally nails the role. Disgust is played perfectly by Mindy Kaling and of course there's Joy, played by Amy Poehler. It's obvious that Pixar watched a couple episodes of Parks and Recreation and wrote the role for her. If there's anyone you think could do a better job than these five, then let me know. Seriously, leave a comment with an alternate casting choice. I'm curious.

The world of Riley's mind might be the most brilliantly constructed world Pixar has ever devised. Joy explains the layout of the headquarters in the opening of the film. I won't go into all of the details right now, as it would take too long and be much less poetic than seeing it for yourself. Everything explained by Joy at the beginning is nothing compared to what occurs once she and Sadness are removed from headquarters. Their adventure takes them on the Train of Thought, into the prison of the subconscious, and the engine of abstract thinking. But these are not just places Joy and Sadness go; their adventures in these areas are directly influenced by Riley's story. 

There is so much going on with Inside Out, I truly think I need to see it a second time before giving it a proper verdict. It's so nice to see Pixar return to form, and it's definitely Pixar's best since Toy Story 3. Oddly enough, I wouldn't mind seeing a sequel to this one, like what Riley experiences as an adult or a teenager or something. There is so much unexplored territory here. But for now, it works perfectly on its own and stands as one of Pixar's finest accomplishments. Even if you're one of those people who's like, "I don't wanna see a kids movie," you should still check it out. 

Seriously, it's Pixar. What did you expect?

9.8/10