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

MAD MAX: FURY ROAD - Review

There is so much I must say about this film and why it is so brilliant. This review in particular has everything that I can say, or at least, the patience to say. Writing these is much harder than it seems, and there is so much about Mad Max: Fury Road that I want to say. I hope that I have used the right words to express my love for this film in just a few hundred words, for if I had to keep writing, it would transform into a jumbled mess. 

Anyway, enjoy the review!

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

Mad Max: Fury Road

Action/Sci-fi, 2015

2 hours

Written by George Miller, Brendan McCarthy, Nico Lathouris

Directed by George Miller

Rated R for "intense sequences of violence throughout, and for disturbing images"

Starring

Tom Hardy

Charlize Theron

Nicholas Hoult

Hugh Keays-Byrne

Josh Helman

Nathan Jones

Zoë Kravitz

Rosie Huntington-Whiteley

Riley Keough

Abbey Lee

Courtney Eaton

"Oh, what a day! WHAT A LOVELY DAY!"

Hollywood is ridden with reboots, sequels and adaptations. The only original content can be found in the indie circuit, and while they may receive critical acclaim, they don't make much money and nobody sees them. The masses have spoken: modern Hollywood is a wasteland of dried up creativity. 

And this is why Mad Max: Fury Road is so fucking unbelievable. It is without a doubt the greatest reboot in cinema history. The original, 30 year old trilogy has a sizable cult following. The visual effects now are incredibly dated, but the costumes and production design are so distinct that it's hard to ignore. George Miller, the writer and director of the entire original trilogy, has come back to made the best and cohesive film in the series thus far. It not only works as a great action film, but it has a weighty narrative with stellar characters that stand out from the wasteland. 

It is not clear where Fury Road fits in the chronology of the series, but it doesn't matter in the slightest. The film opens with Max, now played by Tom Hardy (and formerly played by Mel Gibson) delivering a gravelly voiceover with his backstory. His family is dead. He used to be a cop. He drives around the wasteland trying to survive. Simple and effective backstory. Max is the archetypical loner, and in a way, a man with no name, and it's made clear from the very beginning. Through a series of absurd and high-octane events, Max finds himself in the company of Imperator Furosia (Charlize Theron), a badass driver with a robotic arm. Furiosa is on the run from the War Boys, a clan of white, dusty skinned baldies led by the indomitable Immortan Joe (played by Hugh Keays-Byrne). Furiosa has something that Joe wants - his Five Wives, five beautiful young and fertile woman who are used to give birth to Joe's sons. Max agrees to help them reach the Green Place, a save haven. They are accompanied by Nux (Nicholas Hoult), a member of the War Boys, on their quest across the desolate wasteland. 

Although the film is called Mad Max, Max himself is hardly the central character. Yes, he is present throughout the film, but his performance is mostly silent. It's Theron's character, Imperator Furosia, that steals the show at every turn. Don't think that she's a damsel in distress. Furiosa is a warrior who stands up for her beliefs and refuses to let go, even in the most dire of circumstances. Seeing a character like her on screen is proof that Hollywood can make a successful action film with a female leading role. Max is more like a catalyst for the story, a lead in to Furosia's plight. He's an extra soldier in her one-woman army. It would have been nice to see more from Max, though, as his past demons continue to haunt him. There is nothing wrong with him taking a back seat to a female lead, but it would simply have been nice to see more of him. 

What is so shocking about Fury Road is the character and plot payoffs. The characters are tremendous in diversity. Each of the Five Wives has a distinct personality, and they eventually play integral roles in the final act. The leading characters, like Furosia and Nux have strong yet simple story arcs that pay off brilliantly in the finale. While it may be somewhat predictable, George Miller infuses these moments with genuine emotion and grit. The simplicity of the plot is what makes the film work. Any movie can have visual effects on a grand scale, but most of these blockbusters are bogged down with extraneous plot points that feel forced. Not Fury Road. It's simple and clean. Two main protagonists. One common villain. A singular goal. Simple and clean.

But what about the visual effects? How do they enhance the simplistic story? I want to see action, goddamit! 

Fear not, moviegoers. The visual style of the original trilogy is kept, yet it is turned up to eleven. More like twelve. The cinematography, editing, color composition, soundtrack, and production design are all flawless. Totally and absolutely flawless. It's like George Miller took the original trilogy, which was already remarkably absurd, and took it beyond remarkably absurd, and for a series like Mad Max, it's absurd beyond words. Immortan Joe wears a face mask with a painted twisted grin that he uses to breathe. His war party includes the  The aesthetic meshes with the action, which is essentially a series of story driven, high speed battles filled with whizzing bullets and fiery spears that destroy everything in sight. The War Boys use outrageous means to destroy their enemies. They cling to tall poles attached to the backend of speeding cars, swinging to and fro until they can get on top of the enemy's vehicle. And that's just the start of it. The single most outrageous thing in the movie is a truck in the war party loaded up several stories high with music speakers while four drummers pound war drums in the rear while in front is a jacked up looking dude playing a double-neck electric guitar that literally shoots fire from the headstock. It's seen in the trailer, but actually watching it unfold in the film is something to behold. 

A sizeable portion of the special effects are all practical. The film was shot in an actual desert using actual vehicles that are seen in the film. The War Boys swinging on the poles was actually a thing. Don't believe me? Check out the B-roll from the film (which potentially contains spoilers). 

A movie this absurd should not be taken seriously. When walking into something like a Marvel movie, there is a status quo that must and will be upheld. Not Mad Max. There is no status quo for a movie like this, something being taken from cult obscurity and thrust into the summer blockbuster limelight with $150 million behind to back it up. Mad Max: Fury Road is a popcorn flick at heart with a simple story, strong characters and bombastic action. Casual moviegoers will be floored once they accept the bizarre world of the Wasteland. Longtime Mad Max fans will feel like the true scope of what the old films COULD have been back in the day has been achieved. There is no question that Fury Road is the definitive film in the franchise. 

It is a masterful piece of action, and hopefully it will be recognized as such by the masses. It deserves your full attention and the price of a ticket. I myself cannot believe that this is the best reviewed movie of the year so far - a reboot of a 30 year old cult action film trilogy set in a dystopian wasteland. But in the end, it is simply a well made film. And those are a rarity nowadays. 

9.7/10

Author's Note: I saw a preview screening of this film, which was presented in 3D. I didn't know it would be as such until I was handed a pair of glasses at the ticket counter, but alas, I was too excited to see it. Much like most 3D films, it is not necessary. The effect was added in post production, so the visuals look a bit iffy at times. See it in 2D and save yourself a few bucks.

Because Fuck Isaac Newton - A Newcomers Take on "The Fast and Furious" Franchise

Over the course of the last few days, I've taken it upon myself to watch all six movies in the Fast and Furious franchise. The seventh film is coming out soon and people are kinda pumped about it. I don't know why. Something to do with Paul Walker?

I wrote each blurb after I watched each movie to keep it fresh in my head. Hopefully you'll see the progression of my disbelief over time.

You will notice this does NOT include Furious 7, as my review for that will be published in The Columbia Chronicle in a couple of weeks.

The Fast and the Furious (2001)
It's dumb and mindless, but it's fun. Paul Walker is a shitty actor. Like, really bad. I know he's young and I guess he gets better maybe? But for now he's just awful. I didn't expect him to be a detective, though. That was a nice surprise. And how that works in with the rest of the series should be kind of interesting. It's not a great movie by any stretch, but it's still somewhat entertaining.
5/10

2 Fast 2 Furious (2003)
Why did anyone think it would be a good idea to swap Vin Diesel with Tyrese Gibson? I guess they couldn't book Vin, but whatever. It's not much better than the first, but it has a different energy. Paul Walker is slightly less annoying, thank god for that. Ludacris' does one of those songs with the title in the movie and I just have no words... Slightly less dumb fun than the first. Biggest surprise: It's got Deadly Little Miho from Sin City! Too bad nobody gets beheaded.
4.5/10

The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift (2006)
Fucking. Awful. I don't know where to begin. Probably with the lead actor, Lucas Black. The dude was in his early 20s when the movie was shot, but his character is supposed to be 17. Problem is, he looks like he's 30. Some actors, like Andrew Garfield in The Amazing Spider-Man, can get away with playing a teen while being in their 20s. Not this guy. At all. And his southern accent is terrible. Nope. So much nope. The only likable character is Han, who gets whacked near the end of the movie. I know that it's supposed to come after Fast and Furious 6 and before Furious 7. It's still awful.
4/10

Fast & Furious (2009)
They need to be a bit more consistent with the titles. Dropping "the" isn't enough. But that's not important. What is important is that this movie kind of sucks much like the others before it. But this is the only one that feels like a true sequel to the original. It has Vin and Paul squaring off, after not seeing each other for several years. It's kind of fun to watch them be reunited. But what confuses me is Paul Walker's character. He's an FBI agent? After being disgraced, like, twice now? Who would give him a gun and a badge after all of the shit he's pulled? And then in the final moments he turns into a criminal, breaking out his friend from prison. It makes no sense, considering they had been at each others throats until the last 20 minutes of the movie. His character arc makes no sense, but fuck it. I hear Fast Five is actually supposed to be good.
3.5/10

Fast Five (2011)
Wow... I'm actually impressed. I expected this to be pretty good based on what everyone has said about it. Unlike the other films, Fast Five is, simply put, a well made movie. It's not the best Hollywood blockbuster out there, but it redefines the whole franchise. It's not about racing anymore, it's a full-blown and REALLY absurd heist movie. And, for once, I thoroughly enjoyed myself. Maybe it's because it brings together cast from previous installments. Maybe it totally ignores physics in the most hilarious way possible. Maybe they actually have a focused plot that doesn't feel all over the place like literally all of the other ones. It's just a fun movie, and I didn't hate myself while watching.
8.5/10

Fast & Furious 6 (2013)
The moment when Letty reappears and shoots Dom is the most anti-climactic moment in the series. For some dumb fucking reason, there was no dramatic weight to it whatsoever. Come on, dude. Tyrese getting burned while having the loudest mouth is hilarious. The dude just can't catch a break. I would watch two hours of just that. The plot is super boring, though. After a while I forgot that they were trying to protect a microchip thing, because all they did was talk about the guy. I can't figure out why this one got really good reviews. Sure, it's better than everything before Fast Five, but it's very whatever. It's good, but not great.
7/10

Here are some observations I had about the series as a whole.

• The Rock is sweating profusely in 95% of the scenes he is in, even if nobody else is. 
• The first three movies were probably written by 10 year olds playing with Hot Wheels. 
• The second three movies were probably written by 16 year olds playing GTA V.  
• The entire series is like a giant "fuck you" to physics. Why? The vault heist in Fast Five. Enough said. If I remember correctly, Ludacris said it was TWELVE tons. I assume that does not include the hundred million dollars in cash that's inside. Jesus...
• Somehow, getting into a car accident doesn't stop anyone. In fact, the only time a character gets hurt in an accident is when it serves the story. "Did your car get flipped and fall into a ditch? Oh, it's just Vin Diesel, he can't die just yet." Then it's like, "hey, that bad guy only got into a minor crash, but the car EXPLODES so we don't need to worry about him anymore."
• With the exception of Deadly Little Miho and Han, every Asian character is a villain. Correct me if I'm wrong. 
• The black cop in the first two movies is Michael Jordan's dad in Space Jam.
• Quick shots of the drivers shifting gears are copy and pasted throughout the series. Not literally, of course, but within the movies they appear. They have to be, right? It's the same thing in every movie. 
• Nothing about these movies makes any sense. It's excusable, but only over time. At first, the movies take themselves very seriously. Thank god they stop that shit about halfway into the series. 
• If any actor has any muscle tone at all (namely The Rock and Vin Diesel), they are contractually required to have their biceps exposed for at least three quarters of the movie. 
• The least realistic thing about these movies is when The Rock punches someone, they don't die. If The Rock punches you, you're basically dead. Come on. Least realistic thing ever. 

Okay, so those are my thoughts on the franchise. It's a pretty mixed bag of shit with the exception of five being pretty fun. I'll have a review of the seventh installment published in The Columbia Chronicle in a couple of weeks, so stay tuned!

FIFTY SHADES OF GREY - Review

This one isn't getting a typical header. It's not worth my time.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First of all, the only reason I saw this film is because I wanted to be "in" on the phenomenon. I wanted to know why this is as big as it is. Shame I'll never get those two hours back.

I had a thought: When I see Fifty Shades of Grey, I'm going to write my review like erotic prose. It'll be funny. And I probably won't like the movie that much, so it'll be fun. Right?

Wrong. I'm going to say it outright: Fifty Shades of Grey might be the worst movie I have ever seen.

Ever.

It doesn't deserve the attention and detail that I could provide to something funny like that. Hell, it barely deserves my time right now! The only reason I'm writing this is because I'm pissed off. At the very least, I should be telling people to not see this film under any circumstance.

Where should I begin? With the laughably generic dialogue? The unappealing sex scenes? The stunning lack of chemistry between the two largely unlikable and unsexy lead actors? The soundtrack? The fact that it's unintentionally funny?

Or I could just say what everyone else has said about the film: Possessiveness and abuse is disguised as BSDM and tries to make it romantic.

The lead character is a creepy and manipulative cunt who is so infatuated with this woman, but their relationship never at any point makes any sense. Basically, he manipulates her into trying bondage stuff. Ironically, he tells her multiple times that he's not the kind of guy who can handle normal relationships, but there are only like 2 bondage scenes in the whole film.

Even worse, he stalks her and won't leave her alone. Like, across the fucking United States won't leave her alone. Happens a bunch of times. Seeing the abuse angle here?

It makes no sense whatsoever. Nothing in this film makes any sense whatsoever. And nothing in this film is sexy at all.

In fact, this is one of those incredibly rare films that was even worse than my expectations. And truthfully, I can't think of a single film that has accomplished that feat. So congrats, Fifty Shades, you've just set the bar lower than any other film. Ever.

This film is a fucking disgrace. At the very least, I feel good about getting into the film for free. This movie does not deserve your money.

Here's a better idea:
Go see Kingsman: The Secret Service instead. Sam Jackson has a lisp, Colin Firth is an action hero, and it has the best use of whip-zooms, speed-ramps, and Lynyrd Skynyrd's Free Bird. See that instead! You'll actually enjoy it!

Fifty Shades of Grey: 1/10

THE TOP 25 MOVIES OF 2014

UPDATED on Feb 20th, 2015.
Before I didn't want to wait for Song of the Sea to be released, but obviously, I did not wait and now that I have seen it, it caused a slight change to say the least. Sucks to suck, Boyhood (except you don't suck, you're still pretty good)

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

Here it is. The very best of 2014. There have been a lot of great films to come out this year, and I was lucky enough to have seen exactly 74 of them (because I keep count of shit like this.) It was a bit of a struggle to weed through all of them and pick out just 25, let alone pick out 10. I like to think of the other 15 films, numbers 11-25, as more of an honorable mention. It's difficult for me not to come up with ten films and then just not mention all of the other wonderful movies that came out this year.
But I am happy with my selection this year. I am very fortunate enough to have seen so many of this year's great films (and some not so great). The top 10 gets a description, simply because I always look at people's top 10 lists and wonder "why?" so I personally like to provide the "why."

So, without further ado, here are my top 25 movies that came out in the year 2014.


25. Snowpiercer
24. The Grand Budapest Hotel
23. Stretch
22. The Babadook
21. Big Hero 6
20. John Wick
19. How to Train Your Dragon 2
18. Blue Ruin
17. Captain America: The Winter Soldier
16. Wild
15. Foxcatcher
14. Edge of Tomorrow
13. The Guest
12. Dawn of the Planet of the Apes
11. TIE - Chef/Boyhood

10. Gone Girl - 9
David Fincher makes a lot of fucked up movies, but this one may just take the cake. If you've seen it, you'll understand exactly why. It's got everything a Fincher film should have and more, including two of the best performances of the year from Rosamund Pike and Ben Affleck. It's not the kind of movie that's easy to get out of your head. And for some, it may give you trust problems. That much is for sure.

9. Song of the Sea - 9.5/10
This is the best Hayao Miyazaki film that Hayao Miyazaki didn't make. Aside from being beautifully and distinctively animated, the character arcs, voicework, and music are incredibly strong... just like all Miyazaki films. Except everyone has an Irish accent. All comparisons aside, it's an absolutely gorgeous film that moved me to tears. And despite being predictable for a younger audience, there are several great twists along the way. In a word, Song of the Sea is quite simply the most whimsical film this year, and it is definitely not to be missed by kids and adults alike.

8. Selma - 9.4/10
I'm pretty sure that this is the first major biopic that has focused on Martin Luther King Jr, and holy crap, did they knock it out of the park. I had no clue that the march in Selma was even a thing. There are two things that make Selma work as well as it does: the first is Ava DuVernay's impeccable direction. The film oozes style with impressive editing and cinematography that moves with the rhythm of Dr. King's speeches. Oh, and the other thing that makes Selma so great? David Oyelowo. He's not much of a name, but it's going to be. He doesn't just play Dr. King, he is Dr. King. He is unbelievably charismatic, especially when delivering speeches. Oyelowo's performance is the single best of the year.

7. The Lego Movie 9.5/10
Raise your hand if you expected The Lego Movie to just be a 100 minute commercial! Somehow, Phil Lord and Chris Miller, the guys who did 21 Jump Street, managed to infuse the immortal toy brand with more heart and humor than most animated movies have. It's hilarious and simply delightful. And delightful is a word I don't use that often, but let's be real, I can't think of another way to describe it. I never would have expected a movie about Legos to have such strong character arcs. Even more impressive, the film has a simply spectacular message for people of all ages. It's definitely the movie that surprised me most this year, and I think that says a lot. It may not have gotten the Oscar nomination it should have, but everything about this movie is still awesome.

6. Inherent Vice - 9.4/10
Paul Thomas Anderson movies are always the best. Thank god he followed up The Master with something a bit more old school. His adaptation of Thomas Pynchon's novel of the same name is a goofy and chaotic blend of good 'ol fashioned detective work and hazy plot threads that weave through one another like a Gordion knot. The performances are all around outstanding. Joaquin Phoenix is clearly Paul Thomas Anderson's new regular leading man, but it was the performance of up-and-comer Katherine Waterston that really got me hooked. Sure, she only has a few minutes of screen time, but I'll be damned if she doesn't make them count. It may run a bit long, but it's the kind of movie that I didn't want to stop watching.

5. The Raid 2: Berandal - 9.8/10
The Raid 2 is the best action film ever made. Period. I know it's a bold claim. But if you've seen it, you'll understand why. Hell, if you've seen the first one, you may not even believe me when I say that it's better. The story is larger in scope and the violence spans a wide array of locations instead of just an old apartment building. The film is also perfect on a technical level as well. The editing and cinematography perfectly compliment the distinctive Indonesian fighting style. It doesn't even run that long at 2.5 hours because of how fast and frequent the action is. I found myself frequently muttering, "holy fuck" under my breath dozens of times in the theater. And I could hear the other theatergoers saying the same thing. Now that is rare.

4. Nightcrawler - 9.7/10
This is probably one of the most fucked up movies of 2014. Jake Gyllenhaal proves once again that he is one of the most competent actors in the business. The dude literally starved himself for the role, and it actually shows. While much of the film's success can be attributed to his performance, the script is tightly written and directed by Dan Gilroy, this being his first feature. Like many films before it, Nightcrawler is a love-letter of sorts to Los Angeles. The city seems to be as much of a character as those that inhabit the film. Nightcrawler will terrify you in ways you didn't realize were possible, throwing "holy shit" moments at you left and right.

3. Birdman - 9.7/10
Every critic out there, including myself, has noted that Keaton's character in the film, Riggan Thompson, reflects Keaton's own story: He's a washed up actor who was known for playing the world's biggest superhero a couple of decades ago. Okay. We get it. At least Keaton totally kicked ass in what I consider to be one of the biggest and brightest comebacks in a long time. He's going to win an Oscar, I am sure of it. But it's not just his performance. Everything about this film works. The writing is just as dark and twisted as it is hilarious. The supporting cast has brilliant chemistry and is just as interesting as Riggan Thompson. Even more impressive is how the filmmakers told the story itself: a single, two hour long shot that expertly masks every cut. It's wonderfully surreal and something that has not been attempted in such a way before. It's arguably the most inventive film of the year.

2. Guardians of the Galaxy - 9.8/10
There is something rather special about Guardians of the Galaxy. Marvel Studios took a hefty gamble in more ways than one. Thankfully, the actors and filmmakers managed to crate not just the single most fun movie of the year, but the best comic book movie ever made. Although Guardians is certainly a flawed film (Gamora and Ronan are somewhat weak characters), I can't remember the last time I have had so much fun watching a movie. I've seen it four times, and every time, it was just... fun. It's a fun movie. Something like Captain America: The Winter Soldier is a phenomenal and very enjoyable film, but I don't know if I would call it "fun."
Guardians of the Galaxy is the reason that I go to the movies. I want to laugh and have a good time. Guardians is one of the few films this year that gave me exactly that. The film is barely a few months old, yet it seems to have become ingrained in popular culture. Even the soundtrack is making waves, despite just being a mixtape of classic rock songs that expertly compliment each other. It's one of the only movies on the list that I want to watch dozens of times.
I don't think I'll ever get sick of it.

1. Whiplash - 10/10
After my first screening, as the credits rolled, a good friend of mine simply stated, "that is the best movie of 2014." I responded, "You're full of shit. There are still dozens of movies you haven't seen yet, and Oscar season is just getting started." His position did not change. Turns out, I was wrong. Whiplash is the single best film of 2014 for dozens of reasons. Powerful performances, sharp dialogue, crisp cinematography, and rhythmic editing... I could go on. But there is something rare about Whiplash that I have never encountered before.
When I read reviews, I try to find a mixture of positive and negative. When I read a bad review for a film I enjoyed, I usually understand why the critic didn't enjoy it. "Boyhood was too long and the main character was kind of a dick." Okay, sure. I understand your argument, but I still disagree with you. "Birdman" was overly pretentious and I didn't understand the message." Maybe the dialogue was a bit on-the-nose, I found that to be the case. But it didn't bother me. Although I understand complaints, it doesn't stop me from enjoying the hell out of a film.
And then there's Whiplash. I've read some of the very few negative reviews on the film, yet something was different: I didn't understand their arguments. Was I stubborn? I don't think so. In fact, I have yet to meet someone, film student or otherwise, who has said bad things about the film. I've overhyped it to a lot of people and they have all said, "that was fucking awesome."
Whiplash is flawless. It is the only film this year that I can give a solid 10/10 to. Forget everything I said about Boyhood. After the second time I saw that, I realized it was flawed. After three viewings, Whiplash has remained a perfect film that should never be forgotten. Film schools should teach it. Musicians should learn something from it. Editors, cinematographers and sound designers should comb it for its juicy details. Whiplash deserves far more than most of the films on this list, and it will almost guaranteed get screwed over by the Academy at the Oscars this year, but that should not persuade anyone from ignoring this film.
Just give it a go and see for yourself.

'The Hobbit' proves just because you can, doesn't mean you should - REVIEW

The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies

Action Fantasy, 2014
2 hours, 24 minutes
Adapted and Directed by Peter Jackson
Based on The Hobbit by JRR Tolkien
Rated PG-13 for "extended scenes of intense fantasy action violence and frightening images"

Starring
Martin Freeman
Ian McKellen
Luke Evans
Richard Armitage
Evangeline Lily
Lee Pace
Orlando Bloom
Ken Scott
Aidan Turner


"You've won the Mountain. Is that not enough?"

SPOILERS AHEAD. YOU'VE BEEN WARNED. 

I'm gonna keep this one short and sweet.
I love the LOTR film trilogy. I love The Hobbit as a book and as a story. But I don't like it when Peter Jackson turns a children's story into a sprawling epic that tries so hard to be as wide in scope as the original films that put Jackson's name on the map. It's too messy and straight up does not work.

I don't know where to start. For one, the events set in motion by the first two films seem to just kinda END after the first 15 minutes, leaving the set up from the second film seem wasteful. A bunch of subplots wrap up quickly and then some new shit starts happening. It's kind of a weird transition, like the first 15 minutes of the film could have come at the end of the second one, but then, OH WAIT, THAT'S RIGHT, there would be no third movie. Welp, ya got another ticket out of us, Peter. Hope you're happy.

The writing is LAUGHABLY awful. Like, the kind of awful in which I literally laughed out loud. Some bullshit romance subplot (which doesn't exist in the book) with a dwarf and an elf (the elf in question doesn't even exist in the fucking book) and then Legolas (also NOT IN THE FUCKING BOOK) says something hilarious about his father does not control his heart or whatever the fuck. Then, at the end of the film, the girl says some bullshit like, "If this is what love feels like, I don't want it!" And that's AFTER her dwarf boyfriend dies. Because they just had to kill off two of the most characterized dwarves in the film (because that TOTALLY happens in the book... okay, Thorin dies, but I don't think the other one does. It's been a while since I've read the books...). The whole movie is full of awfully generic dialogue to the point where I am stunned that this is even a thing. Not all bad dialogue is noticeable. In this case, it is to a fault.

The visual effects are all over the place. The movie looks fine from a distance. Literally. Sweeping pans of the vast Middle Earth landscapes look phenomenal, as they did in the original trilogy. But close up? Not so much. Everything is bogged down by CGI that is far too heavy for its own good. As a result, it looks like a typical blockbuster. There's even a moment when Legolas does something so fucking ridiculous and the CGI looks so bad that the audience laughed. Hell, that happened quite a bit, come to think of it.

I could go on, but I'll put it like this: if your film looks more fake than something that came out over 10 years ago, you have a problem. Especially with such a monstrous budget.

So what's good about the movie? Not much. The performances are pretty good, Martin Freeman in particular. Ian McKellen is obviously amazing as he has ever been as Gandalf, and Luke Evans is great as Bard the Bowman. The rest of the dwarves are fine. Everyone else is... just fine...

I really can't recommend this movie. It's not good, guys. It's just two and a half hours of non-stop fantasy action that is disgraceful to Tolkien's book. I wanted to enjoy it, but this is really just generic Hollywood fanfare at it's finest.

5/10