Paterson (2016)

 

Paterson

 

I haven’t checked out many of Jim Jarmusch’s work but I liked what I have seen so far. Coffee and Cigarettes especially, was an entertaining series of memorable segments featuring an ensemble cast. I hadn’t researched much about Paterson outside of seeing the trailer in theaters. My preconception was that this film would be the perfect film for Adam Driver to showcase his acting talents and I think this prediction was proved right. Its another welcome addition to 2016 but I think it may be divisive among moviegoers.

The film is about a bus driver named Paterson, who also shares a name with Paterson, New Jersey. He is a very structured man who sticks to his daily routines. He also is a talented poet, much of his work in poetry is sprawled physically on screen. My first impression is that this film wouldn’t be for everyone and I stand by that thought. The film may feel slow inconsequential, and repetitive at many times. I’m certain that is exactly what Jarmusch was going for though. Paterson is a man who is set on a mundane, familiar schedule; a small change in routine or a small change in his world can through him off course. And it happens.

I think Adam Driver was great. He plays the role of Paterson with a silent conviction and you can tell he’s a different almost simple man. Paterson is observant and expressive. He’s attentive to many common and specific things such as the conversations on his bus route, or even a box of matches. His wife Laura is his driving force and really influences him to pursue his passion. The relationship is hardly chaotic and really works. One could argue that there isn’t much going on but I think there is in Paterson’s world around him. Its an absorbing watch to see his interactions with the world and how they fuel his poetry.

There aren’t many issues to resolve in the film. Jarmusch goes to a familiar place where he sacrifices plot progression for a character study. I think its an enjoyable film. Its subtlety in humor really works and nothing really feels overstated. Paterson is a daring independent film that is not afraid to express itself in an uncharacteristic way. Jarmusch is experimental yet again but has a story to tell no matter how commonplace it seems to be.

7.5/10

Doctor Strange (2016)

Doctor Strange

 

Its no secret that Marvel is a money making machine. The Marvel Cinematic Universe has grossed billions of dollars and remains a force every year. Overall, I think the franchise has been very successful in bringing comic book heroes to life through origin stories and combining the heroes for action epics. Marvel's latest installment was introducing the masses to Doctor Strange. I wasn't very familiar with the character so I was cautiously optimistic going into this one.

The films stars Benedict Cumberbatch in the titular role. Benedict is a great performer and I think he's always remarkable in what he is in. Doctor Strange is about a arrogant but precisely successful neurosurgeon who gets in a life changing car crash that messes up hi hands. Strange searches far and wide for a way to get his hands working again. he travels to Nepal and is introduced to a fantastically magical world of sorcery where he can do more with his mind and alter reality, time, and the world from harnessing the power within.

First off, the effects in this film are great. Its immensely psychedelic and extremely graphically busy. The skyline is constantly shifting and worlds are bending and all of it looks up to par. It was reminiscent of some of the sequences seen in Inception. The fight scenes in the film also do not disappoint. Its got what it needs to keep thrill seekers engaged. Marvel also gathers a very talented cast to add to its never ending list of A-listers involved in the MCU. Mads Mikkelsen is a brilliant performer, although he's a bit of a shallow villain in this.

The film has too much going on in concepts. A person's soul? can come out of their body, there is a giant demon thing that's trying to destroy the world, there are shortcuts that lead to major cities, buildings can be moved, there is a mirror reality, a moving cape, fireballs, time can be put on a loop... its insane how many things happen in this film. Its not that its hard to follow, its just that the film becomes conceptually ugly the longer it goes. It doesn't feel like other Marvel films as the world that is created isn't very interesting and feels bland despite all the visuals involved. 

Cumberbatch plays a great Doctor Strange. He's an egotistical guy who becomes humbled and is yet witty and remains flawed. He's a welcome addition to the Marvel Universe, I assume he will be a part of the next Avengers film. Its just that this origin film doesn't really stand out as you are just thrown into the world of sorcery and just have to accept what is going on. Its an admirable effort but pales in comparison to some of the other heroes in the MCU. There is still room for improvement and I'm curious to see where this goes.

6.5/10

Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk (2016)

 

Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk

Ang Lee takes four years to bring forth his followup to Life of Pi. I thought Life of Pi was phenomenal. it was a stunning visual experience and through creative storytelling we got a really memorable film. When I saw the trailer for Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk I wasn't very impressed because I couldn't really discern what the film was about. The film just sort of got lost in the shuffle at the end of the year, and now having seen it I am glad it did just disappear from the awards mix.

The film is about a group of soldiers who are being honored at the halftime show at a Thanksgiving Dallas Cowboys football game. The film is portrayed through the perspective of one of those soldiers, Billy Lynn. The entire film takes place during this game and is littered with flashbacks of the war and events with family all seen through Billy's eyes. The film sounds decent on paper but the delivery was off and the film ended up being a long and uninteresting cliched film that is one of Ang Lee's weakest efforts in  recent memory.

The film set the record for having the highest frame rate and I was thinking why? Ang Lee is fairly innovative and his cinematography can be remarkable. However going for the high frame rate for a drama like this with little action made no sense. The characters pop out at you and look too lively and it just comes off really weird. It should have been saved for a different film. There are moments where characters dialogue right into the camera and it's just odd. Some scenes do pop out at you, especially the actual depiction of the halftime show but its not enough to be a saving grace for the film.

The film stereotypes American soldiers and some aren't portrayed favorably. The war time scenes and relating depiction of PTSD doesn't really break any new ground or ever really touch you emotionally. In fact, its disconnecting. The film tries to cram in a ridiculous love story with a cheerleader for the sake of having a relationship in the film. The dialogue is cheesy and feels artificial as its too sudden and unrealistic. The films flashback format really hurts the film as while some of the flashbacks are necessary and interesting, the return to the present reminds you of how dull and drab the present sequence is.

 I think this is a great debut for Joe Alwyn who portrays a stern-faced under pressure Billy Lynn very well. The film also has a solid Kristen Stewart and a rare appearance in film from Chris Tucker. Its a shame they are wasted in a film with nothing to really offer the talent that was gathered. Its just a disappointment that something as visionary and monumental as Life of Pi was followed up by a generic, flawed, undeserving disappointment of a film.

5/10

American Pastoral (2016)

American Pastoral

I really like the Fanning sisters so I’ll basically watch anything with them. I was also curious about this film because its the directional debut of Ewan McGregor. I went in blind not knowing what the film would bring but it seemed to have a strong cast, and for the little buzz it generated it remained something that I really wanted to check out. I think its a solid debut for McGregor as a filmmaker but can’t escape being too dull at times.

The film is based on a novel about a family with a daughter with a speech impediment. She witnesses a traumatic scene of the infamous monk setting himself on fire in television. After this childhood incident Merry (Fanning’s character) becomes a radical opponent of war. She starts out vehemently opposing Lyndon Johnson and the war efforts but eventually becomes the culprit in a murder after a bomb goes off. Swede (Ewan McGregor) spends most of the film trying to find his estranged daughter and find out why she is the way she is.

I think the film has strong performances as you would expect from the cast of this caliber. You immediately see the disenchantment of youth in Fanning’s character and understand how radical she is in her anti-war stance. Her pained relationship with her mother is stated quite well, and the uncomfortably in it drives her mother mad. I had no problems with the character interactions, however the film cannot escape feeling dull and prolonged. You don’t care enough to follow Swede as he tries to find his daughter, and when you finally find her, its just very underwhelming.

Its hard to care for Fanning’s character as she’s unlikable from the get go. The film doesn’t offer much else outside of a quest for a character you’d rather remain lost. The method of storytelling does not always prosper as it goes through periods of stalling and the payoff isn’t really entertaining. It gets very lost in an antiwar shuffle and remains shallow despite trying to go deep. I’d say its exciting to see McGregor get behind the camera but his first adaptation does not have enough life.

5.5/10

Allied (2016)

 

Allied

 

Robert Zemeckis is a good director who has been streaky as of late. He has some work that I really like but in recent years he's been forgettable. Judging by the trailers I wasn't very excited for this film. After viewing the film, I'll say that its better than I expected but could have been far better. Its still worth a watch and others may champion the picture more than I will.

Marion Cotillard. What more can I say? I am so glad this extremely talented French actress switched over to American cinema. She's fantastic and magnetic in this film (as she always is). Two Days, One Night is a stellar film in which she showcases her talents. She does everything right in this film as well. I think the film could have been written better, but her character is still full of a sexual mystique and you watch as her truth unfolds. Although mysterious, her character is fulfilled and her relationship with Pitt on screen is charming. Pitt is also great in the film, the acting wasn't ever going to be a let down with these two.

The plot progression is slow. I think once you get to the point where Marianne is accused of being a spy, the film picks up. Prior to that attention wanes, minds wander. There is action on the screen and the plot stays busy but feels lifeless at times. This is not a fault of the actors but seems like writing that doesn't provoke at large stages. This might have to do with the film focusing more on romance during wartime than being an espionage thriller. I think it could have used more of the latter to make for a more memorable experience. There are moments which are good but I felt like the film was uneven.

Characters come and go, outside of the two leads everyone else is fleeting, not memorable, or just there to advance the plot. There's talent there like Matthew Goode and Lizzy Caplan but you don't really care about them because they are not around for long enough. Stuff just happens and lots of the film just feels tame and not as gripping as you'd expect from a World War II spy film. The film needed more suspense to really captivate the viewers but goes off on some tangents. I'm not saying the actors were wasted as the film isn't bad, its just that with better writing everything would have thrived. This one doesn't stack up to Zemeckis' best but its stylish, well acted, and has costumes and set pieces that take your eyes into a setting from WWII, although your mind is left to wander.

6/10

Loving (2016)

 

Loving

I first saw the commercial for this film on Election Day and thought it looked excellent. I'm a bit of a history buff, but for some reason the case of the Loving's slipped my mind. This film is about a couple who endured rough times where interracial marriage was illegal. The story is based on the landmark Loving v. Virginia Supreme Court case. While I don't find the film to be fantastic, I thought the performances all around and a few of Jeff Nichol's film techniques really made this film an enjoyable experience.

The opening  is extremely powerful. The film opens in silence as you see the couple sitting and deeply pondering. You see the pain in their face as they know what they must face in the world around them. I think this film has really powerful but subtle performances by Edgerton and Negga. Edgerton is damn near unrecognizable and a force as the soft spoken Richard Loving. An even bigger force was Ruth Negga. She doesn't have to do a whole lot because things come naturally to her. Every expression on her face conveys a statement and even in her silence you can see so much of her character coming to life. I haven't really seen Ruth Negga in anything else but I'm certain she will have a great future. Its a soft, understated performance but boy is it a really good one. She definitely deserves her Best Actress Oscar nomination.

The other aspect of the film that really contributed to its enjoyment, was the style of Jeff Nichols. Nichols usually focuses on families and the turmoil and how they endure life. This was the case in his previous efforts, Take Shelter and Midnight Special. Nichols' films also are set in a rural area. This film differs in subject matter to his previous sci-fi dominant efforts, however the slow burning technique and powerhouse performances are all there. The film even utilizes Michael Shannon, who has become a  veteran in Nichol's employ. There are also other moments where a powerful score just elevates the scene. 

While the film isn't perfect and is not making my top ten films list of the year, I'd say the endearing performances and characters full of dimension really make the film worthwhile. If you are a fan of Nichols' craft, you won't be disappointed. This is a vast improvement after Midnight Special couldn't really follow up a really good Take Shelter. This film may have started my love for all things Ruth Negga.

7/10

Moana (2016)

Moana

 

If you know me well enough you would know that I'm very critical of animated films. I think a lot of them miss the mark and can only remain interesting for children. A good animated feature is inclusive of a widespread audience and can remain smart and engaging will offering fun and crafty animation. Moana is not something I was looking forward to, as on paper it didn't look like it was going to leave much of an impression on me. It's safe to say that I'm surprised that this film was honestly pretty good.

The first thing that I think deserves praise is the music. Nearly every song is excellent, catchy, and just so full of life. It's hard not to sing along to the music. This isn't exactly something I can say for a lot of animated films. The more technical aspect of the film is great. The colors are very vibrant and the animation is vivid and expansive (just like the vast ocean the heroes sail). Some of the action is eye-popping and very striking, especially the battle with the lava demon, Te Ka. Auli'i Cravalho is a relative newcomer who does a very good job of bringing Moana to life. She will probably have many more voice acting roles in the future.

I also think the film is a good look into a culture that many people won't be familiar with. I've noticed that Disney is really trying to focus on some minority groups in the past few years and this is perfectly good for fresh inspiration. In the case of Moana, this provided for an interesting and unfamiliar setting and story, which adds to the films overall appeal. I'm well aware of the cultural criticisms this film received for the portrayal of Maui and the lack of heroine goddesses. However, its good to leave some criticisms at the door. If you look hard enough a criticism can be found for anything and its unnecessary for a film that means well.

The film has its typical Disney cliches. You have the "chosen" hero who is unsure of themselves. You have the relationship with a buddy that is at first strained but then leads to the characters liking each other. There is a falling out and reunion with the hero discovering their ability. The film treads familiar Disney ground. Its not a terrible thing and kids won't really give a damn about it. Its not a flawless film, at its core its a familiar formula but I think the cultural aspect and imaginative visuals put a good balance.

I think Kubo and the Two Strings was far and away the best animated film of the year and proved why Laika are ahead of the curve. I'd say Moana is better than some of its animated counterparts in the year, such as Zootopia and Finding Dory. I still long for the days of 90s Disney films but this effort shows that they are still trying at least. If for nothing else, sit back and enjoy the excellent music and visuals in the film.

7.5/10

Underworld: Blood Wars

Underworld: Blood Wars

My first experience of film from 2017 happens to be the latest installment in a series that I am extremely mixed on. I love the original Underworld. I loved the universe created and thought it was a well crafted action film with a good balance of both style and substance. Unfortunately, none of the sequels were close in quality to the original and a few of the films kind of just faded into the background. I wasn’t overly excited for Blood Wars but all I really wanted was a decent film that is at least better than some of the sequels.

The film starts off explaining some of the key events of the previous in the franchise (which I really needed as a refresher). It takes a while for the film to really get going. We see a few new characters, all with their own motivations. You really wonder who is doing what and it takes time to really frame the story. I felt uninterested through the first act. The film does get better once we see more of Tobias Menzies’ villainous character. I think with so many films in the franchise its easy to forget characters and all about the vampire/werewolf hybrids and what the Lycans are really after.

Kate Beckinsale is gorgeous as always in the film. Her Selene character always kicks ass and looks incredibly sexy in a black leather suit. I also dug remodeling her character with the blondish locks in her hair. The dark blue hue of the film is back once again but its cool because the film looks really stylish and the gothic feel of the Underworld universe is ever present. There’s more than enough action and bloody violence to keep the moviegoer entertained. Its important to remember that these films are gearing more towards popcorn entertainment than something that can be take seriously  as a cinematic work.

I think the introduction of Tobias Menzies’ is such a strong point. The man plays one of the most despicable villains I have ever seen on television in Outlander. Just channeling a fraction of the hate in that character is enough for you to get invested in the hate for his character. Some of the other characters kind of fade away and feel incomplete but there’s enough fun going on to allow you to forgive some of the film’s shortcomings.

I think with Blood Wars we get the film series’ most satisfying sequel despite being flawed. The film is still as stylish as ever and a stronger third act keeps the fuel in the machine. I wouldn’t mind if the series ended soon but I think we may have to go through a film or two before the series is at its conclusion. Overall, its nothing special but still better than what I had expected.

6.5/10

A Monster Calls (2016)

 

A Monster Calls

 Based on the novel of the same name, A Monster Calls is about a boy who gets visits from a monster at 12:07 am and pm. This tree like monster tells him three stories and demands that the fourth story be told by the boy and be the true confrontation of his nightmare.  Conor (the lead character) also has a dying mother and must not only deal with that and the monster but also deals with bullying and how to come face to face with his grief. The plot sounds very confusing I’m sure but its not once you get into the grove of the film.

First impressions is that this is not a film for kids, its too dark for children. The subject matter is serious and dark, and it could be scary for a young audience. There’s also a depiction of bullying on multiple counts, which could be too real for the young folks. Getting past that, I think the film is a bit of a mixed bag. Without getting into spoilers, the fourth story and reveal of Conor’s nightmare is done very well. The thing is you kind of have to sit and wait for it and the film spends periods just limping to the end.

The delivery of the film is intriguing. I wasn’t blown away by the CG monster but there is an air of familiarity hearing the voice of Liam Neeson beaming from the giant. The stories are entertaining and told from a graphic heavy perspective (which is fine), its the in-between the story moments that are really hit or miss. There are areas where the film is at a standstill which makes me wonder if the film would have worked better as an hour long special. Its a bit of an ambitious effort from a filmmaker who usually has an interesting story to tell but it comes down to the source and how it can be adapted.

I was thrown off a bit by Sigourney Weaver in the film but thought Felicity Jones was good. It was harrowing seeing her as the film went on and seeing her progression get worse. There are a few heavy moments in the film that could get a casual moviegoer to shed some tears, but for me I can’t escape how disengaged I felt at many points in the film. The way I see it, this was probably a very interesting novel but not one that could be adapted properly because its thin.

6.5/10

Hacksaw Ridge (2016)

Mel Gibson is a director who comes back every few years or so and just blows me away. In 2006, I was amazed by Apocalypto. I still watch that film from time to time because its so riveting, damning, and beautiful. When Hacksaw Ridge was announced I was excited. I tend to get very drawn into well made war films. I knew with Mel, I'd likely see and experience something that would be very worth the watch.

The film is about the real life story of Desmond T. Doss, an army medic who refused to hold a gun or fight the opposition during World War II in the Battle of Okinawa. His bravery, resolve, and willpower to save his fellow comrades makes for such an inspiring story, if projected successfully onto the screen. Andrew Garfield has had one hell of a year. To go from the lead in the atrocious Amazing Spider-Man films to starring in a Scorsese and Mel Gibson epic; its one hell of a leap. He's faultless in this. Doss is a kind hearted simple man whose passion is to help those who are in dire need of help. 

We are first subjected to young Doss growing up in a rather abusive household. We get to see how Doss had become a pacifist and how he met the love of his life. There is nothing with what is seen here. Its arguably slow, however its sweet and takes you back to a love story from WWII. Its good stuff. The film just keeps getting better from here. We then see Doss during training and how his lifestyle causes his infantry to turn on him in hate and disgust. He overcomes adversity and finally gets to the Battle of Okinawa. 

Let me just tell you that Mel Gibson is an excellent visionary when it comes to depicting visceral action. Its completely necessary to show how a war truly is. Nothing is held back. Blood comes from everywhere, limbs fly off, guts are hanging out, heads are being blown off. Its intense but phenomenally shot. You are in the trenches experiencing the nightmare as it happens. Its the best show wartime action since Saving Private Ryan. I'm not going to lie, I came here for good war action sequences and was very impressed with what I saw. 

Here's a film with a few many characters and honestly they are developed decently. This is Doss' story through and through but you love the connections with the people in his unit and how they all come around on him. Doss is a hero in its finest form. Its wonderful to witness his bravery and courage through a wonderfully shot, gripping, war epic. Mel Gibson hits the mark yet again.

8/10

Moonlight (2016)

 

Moonlight

Oscar buzz is always something that garners excitement. I'm always enthralled to see a critically acclaimed award worthy film to see what the hype is about myself. Moonlight is a film about a man named Chiron. He is a gay black male growing up around bullying, hate, and an uncaring and unresponsive mother. Chiron's life is told in three phases: as a little boy, as a teenager in high school, and as an adult. Three actors portray Chiron and all of them are impressive. The subject matter is heavy and delivered with an unhinged feeling of reality.

Young Chiron has to deal with a mother who is inattentive and is addicted to drugs. He seeks help and comfort from a caring couple played by Mahershala Ali and Janelle Monae. The second segment is probably the toughest to watch as teenage Chiron in his quiet and withdrawn nature has to deal with his first experience of homosexuality and all that comes with it. What comes with it? Bullying, which is intense. He gets picked on and suffers emotional and physical abuse. This causes him to snap and violently attack his bully which leads to his arrest. The third segment, Chiron is an adult and a drug dealer, however this is the most satisfying segment as Chiron gets closure on a lot of relationships and problems that previously plagued his life.

The cinematography in the film is excellent. There are times where the camerawork is personal, such as in the school fight. The camera takes a first person view in this instance, which allows you to be in the fight and experience the blows firsthand. This also happens a few times when portraying Chiron's drug addicted mother. The score is also fantastic at points and becomes touching towards the end. The film looks crisp and refined behind the lens of the still relative newcomer, Barry Jenkins.

The films authenticity makes it so powerful. Chiron could be any real disadvantaged kid growing up in a shady area filled with fighting and drugs. Chiron can't help that he was born into this ugly life, and no matter how hard he tries to get away from it, something pulls him in. In spite of his disadvantaged circumstances Chiron tries to find solace and inner peace with the problems and relationships in his life. It does not always have to be bleak, the past is the past the future is what you make of it.

The performances from just about everyone is great. There are a few newcomer performances all of which work very well. I especially liked Naomie Harris as Chiron's drug addicted mother. The final scene with adult Chiron and older Harris is tense but relieving. Overall, its a strong film by Barry Jenkins, one that is loaded with very beautiful scenes and some really harrowing moments. Its a very solid effort one that you will think about long after seeing the film. We could have a strong award season contender here.

7.5/10

Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them (2016)

 

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them

I’m a huge fan of the Harry Potter franchise. I read the books as a teenager and was enamored with the wizarding world that JK Rowling managed to create. The films aren’t without flaws but they were very enjoyable for the book lovers and casual movie fans alike. The films were enjoyable for adults and children alike. Initially, I didn’t care for a spinoff or prequel to the Harry Potter franchise; I didn’t need anything in that magical universe anymore. I was of the opinion that Rowling should have closed that chapter of her life and focus on a more unique project. However, I still decided to check it out as I heard many people enjoyed this film.

I’m sad to say that I did not like it anywhere near as much as the Harry Potter films. The first hour of this film seemed so inconsequential and bland. There’s an overabundance of CGI usage to depict some of the beasts. While some scenes with the beasts look great, others looked so reliant on CG that it was distracting and takes you out of the picture. The first hour of the film focuses on introducing the beasts that escaped Newt Scamander’s briefcase. I quit the film an hour in because I was sorely disappointed with what I saw.

After getting back to the film, I’d say the film gets stronger in the second phase. Once the severity of the Obscurus is revealed the film becomes a bit darker and engages the audience more. There are still questions to be asked and I expect them to be answered in the trilogy (I’m not very fond of the idea of sequels to an unnecessary film). While the film gets better,  it still carries none of the charm and fun that made the Harry Potter films so special. The HP films had a purpose and you knew that everything was well thought out, I can’t say the same for a very uneven FBAWTFT.

I’m not the biggest Eddie Redmayne fan. He can put in a tremendous performance but isn’t in many films that I really like. He was a considerably weak leading man. Its hard to get invested in his character who is just there and becomes second to whoever else he is on screen with. Katherine Waterston is committed to her role and was one of the best features of this film. There seems to be other characters who are kind of thrown into the film to serve the plot. There are also a few easy way outs in this film. Something big gets solved by a convenient circumstance that gets explained on the spot.

This film failed to make a good impression. It has prolonged action sequences and an introduction of many new types of beasts, however outside of a few references to the HP universe the film just feels like it doesn’t need to exist. I don’t have a lot of faith in the expected trilogy but its going to exist and I pray that it is better. Right now this film is what The Hobbit was to the Lord of the Rings trilogy. LOTR was great and we absolutely did not need The Hobbit trilogy. These beasts and this films concept do not need finding.

6/10

Hidden Figures (2016)

 

Hidden Figures

Here comes a film about three women who were crucial to the American space race and not many know about this story. I certainly did not. I’d say these types of biopics are necessary as awareness for people who have contributed so much in the past and shaped our lives in a better way. The film is about three black women who try to overcome segregation and unequal work rights in the workplace. One of these women (a mathematician), calculates the trajectory for Project Mercury and the 1969 Apollo 11 flight to the Moon.

This film is one that’s built on its performances, especially a typically strong one from Taraji P. Henson. She’s almost always great in her roles. Hidden Figures required to be a sort of mousy, quiet worker. However, the prejudice against her because of her race/gender get to her and then she becomes impassioned. Katherine Goble Johnson (who is played by Henson) is a brilliant person and is able to snide it in a few situations to people who doubted her. I also liked Janelle Monae in this and hope to see her in more in the future.

As I stated earlier this is a story that not many people know about. I know of John Glenn and his accomplishments but not of the women behind what he did. The film is powerful in the fact that it shows how unexpected people can be responsible for great things. The film also carries a message of moving on from segregation and moving towards something great (as a result of being united). The messages are very important and the film is very safe in its exploration of discrimination, which should please general moviegoers.

I wasn’t a big fan of Theodore Melfi’s St. Vincent. The film had a remarkable performance from Bill Murray but really failed to be memorable as a whole. With Hidden Figures I think there is an improvement in presenting a story and staying in a successful storytelling structure. Its a pleasant film that does not do a whole lot wrong.

7/10

20th Century Women (2016)

 20th Century Women

Elle Fanning uggh yes. Okay, now that that's out of the way lets get to this film. This seemed like an unconventional coming of age film and that is basically what this was. Its not a mindblowingly amazing film and has some flaws. However, what I thought was a flaw may have worked for another viewer. What I can say though, is that the film left a better impression on me than I thought it would.

The performances of this film are great, particularly that of Greta Gerwig and Annette Bening. Gerwig is such a real character who is pained but absolutely does what she wants to do in life. She has a hard time finding love but her very open nature makes her identifiable. Bening is tremendous in the best role I've seen from her. She's an easygoing mother who is worried about her son and how he deals with life. Remarkably cool but nuanced. Also, Elle Fanning good lord I love her. Okay, I had to get that out of my system again. All of the characters have substantial depth and you do not leave the film feeling like a character's story was underdeveloped. The main core of characters are all in close proximity with each other and through their interactions you get to see their turmoils, struggles, and comfortable nature with each other.

The stories of the characters of the film are at times told by themselves and they seem to be telling the story from a future time, where they have experienced the entirety of their lives. I liked this technique of expansive storytelling. However, there are other things in the film that don't work as well. The slideshow of images of the culture of the 70's seemed gimmicky and didn't exactly add to the film's narrative. It seemed like an attempt to be able to grab viewers but wasn't exactly necessary. There are also times where the scenes have a "psychedelic effect" where the car races off in the highway in a dreamy haze, full with the colors of the rainbow emanating from the car. Again, I thought this was quite gimmicky and trying to harden the fact that this film was supposed to be set in the 70s.

I think one of the things that worked with the film was its humor. There is a lot of it, and while its not always subtle and funny a good amount of it works to make you chuckle or really laugh. Its not something I was expecting but is definitely something that made the film more memorable. There are some scenes that really, really work and help you really want to live in the frame of the characters. The film really focuses on women at the time and a teenage boy trying to navigate in a sea of women in his life. While its not always accurate about men, I think its doing a pleasant job of trying to connect the two while showing some of the plights experienced when men and women try to understand each other. What you get here is a well acted, humorous films that works to entertain.

7/10

Patriots Day (2016)

 

Patriots Day

Peter Berg returned very soon after Deepwater Horizon, with yet another film based on a true event. Patriots Day is a film based on the 2013 Boston marathon bombings by the Tsarnaev brothers. Interestingly, this film also circles around a fictional cop (played by Mark Wahlberg) so we've got a mix of fiction with reality. I'm not the biggest fan of Berg's films but there is no denying he can do tense action scenes very well.

The film is a mixed bag but I'm leaning more on the positive side. The film's depictions of the violence and gore minutes after the attack, do not hold back. You don't expect it to either, especially if you are aware of Berg's track record. The sheer brutality of the event is captured, much like the war violence captured in Lone Survivor. Some of the chase and gunfights is absolutely enthralling as well. The final showdown between the older Tsarnaev and the police is very well done. It is gripping and remarkably captivating. I understand the original account of the events is a haze but the encounter must have been intense, going by the films depiction.

Getting back to the mixed bag bit here are the few things that detract from the film. The film starts out introducing a bunch of characters who are impacted in one way or the other by the event. This is necessarily not a bad thing in and of it self but it takes away from the films focus and too many characters equates for not enough weight given to each other. Some characters are purely devices to elicit an emotional response. The film also suffers from a long run time, condensing the film would have led to a more focused effort. The film seems to be a mishmash at times. The director must have wanted to just include all the scenes filmed, which impacts the narrative element of the film.

I was also not sure about the film being made. The events are very fresh and must still be really shocking for a lot of people impacted by the event. I can see why people would find this film to be exploitative. But on the other hand, films are a good way of educating people on the events of a true story. I assume the film was fairly accurate, so even I was able to learn a lot about the events. Also, Alex Wolff seemed like a dead ringer for the younger bomber.

It's just about what you expect from Peter Berg. A film that does action very well, but a film that suffers from  bloated length and could have used a better approach to telling the story. The film isn't absolutely necessary however its quite enjoyable and will provide for an entertaining, emotional, and enjoyable time for its viewers. I guess at the end of the day that's what you want from your media.

7/10

Christine (2016)

Christine

 

No, not the John Carpenter classic. The minute I heard about this film I was very excited to see this film. For those who are not familiar with the story, this film is based on the suicide of Christine Chubbuck. Christine was a depressed reporter who was going through troubling issues in her private and professional life culminating with her live on air suicide in 1974. Its a touchy, eerie and fairly disturbing subject, yet the film needed to not shy away from what happened and recreate the life of Christine Chubbuck, while not shying away from the gruesome event.

I've got to say, I was very impressed with this film. You cannot look away from this film at all. Its captivating all the way through even the hard to watch bits. Christine Chubbuck's pain, anguish, and disillusionment is portrayed perfectly by Rebecca Hall. I've never seen a more convincing performance from her. She seems to completely embody the character especially during the uncomfortable bits. A shout out to Tracy Letts as the hot tempered Michael. There are so many great moments from Hall including a volatile argument with Letts (and a similar one with her on screen mother). Wish Hall was getting more buzz for her performance, it may be up there with the best I've seen all year.

The film feels like something set in the 70s. There's plenty of shadows in the picture quality and the color is somewhat muted. It helps add to a dark and foreboding atmosphere. The little things really add to the experience of the film. Hall is in almost every frame as we witness her dark character study. Her health problems impinge her, the pressures of her work keep suffocating her, her love life never pans out, any attempt to move up in life goes down in flames.. we witness it all. You can't help but feel sorry for Chrstine; you can tell she is going through a hard time and a lot of it is unjust. We stand in anticipation as everything culminates to her death and the payoff is good.

This film does a good job of being unabashedly scary at times. There are few glimmering glimpses for Christine, but these moments fade just as soon as they come. Hope quickly turns to hopelessness. The negative aspects weigh up and bring you down and its inescapable. Its scary to think about how a lot of people have so much going on in their life and how people around them fail to notice what they are thinking. Support services are really important. 

Before rambling too much, the final moments are great. Christine seems resolved and at a stage of acceptance with everything around her. I guess this would have made the final events even more shocking in real life. The sudden and shocking nature of the suicide is caught quite well. I do wish the film ended with her shooting herself and her dropping to the floor, would have been more powerful. While the film meanders a bit and doesn't always seem focused, I am more than impressed with the end result.

7.5/10

Dracula 3D (2012)

Dracula 3D

 

If someone was interested in checking out the work of Dario Argento and they started with Dracula 3D, they probably would never come back to check out the rest of his filmography. I'm no Argento expert. However, I have seen Suspiria and Phenomena and think both are absolutely excellent. I especially love Phenomena. Argento is a master at making his films pop with colors and lights. His brand of horror also portrays beautiful cinematography amidst gruesome scenes. The BLOOD usually looks excellent. Naturally, I wanted to check Dracula 3D out. It just seemed like a good cheesefest; a film that looked like it would be "so bad that its actually good."

I'm quite disappointed to say that I was wrong. This film is not very fun at all. I like the way the film looks. The images and scenes look crystal clear, colorful, and lively. Its all that I would expect from Argento, very indicative of his craft. From there I really struggle to find any other positives. Okay maybe one more, there are beautiful girls on display. This had the feel of a B rate film that offers a few scenes of erotic nature and this did not disappoint in that department. Okay, now I'm certain that that is where the positives of the film ends.

The effects good lord, they look like something you would see in a SyFy channel movie, maybe even worse. I don't know if its from the 3d conversion but it looks like the worst type of B movie effects.
 Normally I wouldn't mind that, but it was distractedly bad. Just pay attention to the scenes where a vampire turns into dust, it looks ridiculous. The dialogue and general acting is the next thing here. it goes from over the top and hammy to uninterested characters just reading lines. All kinds of scenery chewing present from the actors (most of who I have not heard of apart from Asia Argento).
The above negatives may sound good to someone who would think "this movie sounds like its bad but in a way where you can find cheesy enjoyment out of it." That is not true. The plot is another retelling of the story of Dracula, which is fine because Bram Stoker's Dracula is a great story and I welcome different interpretations of the tale. This variation is mind-numbing  and incredibly dull.

You get no enjoyment in what happens and just pray for the end of the torture. I need to see more of Argento's later work to make a full assessment but its likely the magic of his earlier films is completely gone. I don't think I'll even bother with the later work and check out the stuff from his glory days because I'm sure its exceptional.

4/10

High Anxiety (1977)

High Anxiety

 

The satirical comedy is a real hit or miss genre, more so miss in recent years. When the humor is constant and a mix of ridiculous and witty, we can end up with something brilliant like Airplane! However, some of the modern satirical films that spoof popular films can crash and burn easily because of not having anything funny or original to offer. I have seen most of Mel Brooks' films and knew that I had to see this for  number of reasons. I loved Young Frankenstein; it was a brilliant humorous take on the classic Frankenstein film and Gene Wilder is phenomenal in it. I mostly enjoyed other films like Silent Movie and The History of the World Part 1 but there are lapses in comedy in both films. As a matter of fact I'd say Brook's brand of humor isn't always consistent (and somewhat dated) but there are enough laughs to make for a good time.

Another reason I had to check out High Anxiety is because Alfred Hitchcock is one of my favorite filmmakers ever and I had to see Brooks' take on some of Hitchcock's most famous work. I definitely enjoyed being able to spot some of the references to Psycho, The Birds, Rear Window, Dial M for Murder, and of course, Vertigo. Some of the film's humor may have been funny for an earlier generation. I think the best comedic moments come when Brooks pays his tribute to Hitchcock. The most memorable scene in the film is when the lobby boy 'stabs' Brooks with the newspaper in the shower and the smudged ink of the paper circles the drain (akin to the blood in the shower scene in Psycho). Some of the Hitchcockian references are smart, others feel tacked on. None of it really takes away from experience though.

I did enjoy some of the characters and their outrageous natures in the film. Lilloman is a fun character and the moments he and Brooks spend together on the scene bring for a delightful patient-doctor experience. I'd say the best is stiff and pale Nurse Diesel. She plays a memorable villain in her own right, despite the villain being spoofed off of a previous incarnation of something Hitchcock devised. Much like Silent Movie and History of the World Part 1, there are passages in the film that just kind of pass through without really eliciting a response. I guess its dependent on the viewer and their brand of humor, as I'd expect people would react differently to the comedic situations.

I'm not the biggest Mel Brooks fan but I have no problem admitting he's an icon in the satirical comedy genre. I don't think this film touches something like Young Frankenstein or The Producers but its a fun little ode to the master of suspenseful cinema. Its dated but enjoyable. Honestly I didn't expect anything more from this film so I am satisfied with what I saw.

6.5/10

Jack Reacher: Never Go Back (2016)

 

Jack Reacher: Never Go Back

 

I'm not going to lie, I enjoyed Jack Reacher in 2012. It had a nice complex-ish story mixed in nicely with good action and style. This made it an enjoyable popcorn flick. You can't ask for more from a film like this (and something with Tom Cruise). With all that in mind, I can't say the trailer for its sequel brought much excitement. Jack Reacher was always going to be a film series, it just seemed marketed that way. Its just a bit of a shame that the sequel does not live up to or succeed its predecessor in anyway.

Jack is back, and this time he and Major Turner are on the run after being framed for espionage. While they try to clear their name a wise cracking 15 year old teen is thrown into the mix. Not very exciting. This film seems like a step backwards for  a franchise that had a promising start. The original had a better cast, fight scenes, and was written in a way where you couldn't exactly tell what was going to happen (or maybe I just wasn't smart enough to figure it out). That's not the case here. This film treads ground that is all too familiar. You know exactly what's going to happen. The film seemed like The Fugitive but worse. I like Cobie Smulders, but her and Cruise weren't a great pairing; its a step down from Rosamund Pike.

The film has a not very memorable, prototypical villain who strikes the same chords of generic spy films of the past. You can't get behind loathing this guy and that's a problem. If a film isn't allowing you to connect with its main characters you just go through the motions of the film without really feeling anything. That's basically how this film felt for me. Everything about this film just screams average. There are a few moments where the dialogue is just so bland, you wonder how it was written and approved into the script.

It may sound like I'm complaining a lot but it really is the case that this was such a step down from the first film. The more infuriating bit is that its an Edward Zwick film and he brought us two pretty sensational films in The Last Samurai and Blood Diamond. There's real raw emotion in the latter, something that's completely lacking in the new Reacher. Its just another sequel that got churned out into the mix and I think it clouds the quality of the future films. I may 'never go back' to Jack Reacher after this effort.
5.5/10

Ouija: Origin of Evil (2016)

 

Ouija: Origin of Evil

 

When I first heard about this sequel/prequel my initial thoughts were: "Who the hell asked for this?" The first Ouija was cookie cutter horror film. It use the device of a ouija board (and the mystique and eeriness of it) as a crutch for the thin, awfully written that followed. It was a completely forgettable experience, so one would wonder why the film series was brought up again. Its a good thing that first impressions are just what they are because this prequel is not bad at all.

The film was in better hands when it was announced that Mike Flanagan would be directing but I was still mixed. Oculus was actually pretty great. A creative idea that was actually pretty emotional and investing. Flanagan's followup was the Netflix film Hush. I know a lot of people loved Hush but maybe these people don't watch movies often or are lenient to what they see on Netflix. Hush was terrible. I don't want to go into it here but maybe some other time I can explain how improbably dumb it really is. Anyways, this film is a prequel of sorts to the first and is based on a family who help people move on from their passed loved ones by staging seances. A ouija board causes dark spirits in the house to possess a young girl leading to trouble and at times, some wicked fun.

The film is set in the 60s and you can immediately tell by the film style. The style is of a film you'd see from that era; they even used the old Universal Pictures logo at the start of the film. Its not just the post production editing of the film but the costume, music, and just all around aura is done very well. No one knows her well yet but Lulu Wilson made this film. She does a great job and there are a few moments (where the script was fantastic) and she was able to come off as unsettling, just from saying her lines. She is without a doubt the strongest point of the film.

The film isn't without flaws. The third act isn't exactly fantastic as some questionable things happen and you scratch your head wondering if there could have been a better resolution. There definitely could have been. Also, the CG does look ropy at times but I think that can be forgettable as the film offers decent entertainment value. Here's a film that sacrifices scares for build up, good performances, and focus on the story of why spirits have possessed Doris and the circumstances surrounding whats going on. I can respect that. 

I'm usually extremely critical of horror films because these days so many films go for jump scares and have no substance. There are exceptions that are becoming smart, nostalgic, or reinventing the horror genre. I don't think there is anything innovative about Ouija: Origin of Evil but its a massive improvement over its predecessor and is a film has a good amount going for it to make for a good time.

7/10

The Girl on the Train (2016)

 

The Girl on the Train

 

Ninety percent of the time, I have not read the book that the film is based on. This happens to be one of those instances. The film boasts a good cast (Haley Bennett is a rising star for sure) a mysteriously intriguing premise, and solid trailers. How could anything go wrong? Sad to say I think a lot of things did go wrong here. This was quite a messy film in all honesty and a big disappointment. The film may resonate well with fans of the book, so my review is from the eyes of a film watcher solely.

The film is about an extremely disheveled woman (who also happens to be a blithering drunk) who watches a seemingly perfect couple in a house outside where her daily train stops. She is envious of Megan Hipwell, the woman who lives in that house. Oddly enough that woman lives in the house next to her former boyfriend (who has started a new family with another woman). In her drunken states she makes unwanted calls and visits to her ex's house. One day, Megan Hipwell disappears and the cause of her disappearance leads back to one of the people who are introduced in the film. But who is it? Sound confusing? It kind of is when you have to keep thinking of what is happening where. Like the protagonist, this film is a mess.

Flashbacks are okay if done in a clean and coherent manner. This film keeps doing messy flashbacks to different stages, that it becomes a chore to keep up with the different storylines of the characters. Speaking of the characters, they are all unlikable. The protagonist is not someone I can identify with and she becomes a tiring figure as the film goes by. After a while, I got sick of seeing her character in the same zoomed in shot with a confused crying face. You can't connect with Megan Hipwell because she's having relationships with multiple people. Not judging her character but she's so fleeting and doesn't connect or commit to anyone, so not sure why we would to her. Other characters just come into play as a plot device (Lisa Kudrow's character) and others just fade away completely (Laura Prepon).

I'm not sure how the book was written but I sure hope the twists and reveals were written better than they are adapted onto the screen. All of the thrills feel cheap and the film becomes a task to keep up with for a while, that you find it hard to care after a while. I think the main character is also a bit of an idiot at a certain point of this film but its hard to go into that without spoiling the film. I have to say, I was greatly disappointed by this film because I was expecting a decent thriller. You just wish Emily Blunt had her eyes closed on the train the whole time, thus avoiding everything that happens in the film.

5.5/10

Fences (2016)

Fences

I’ve never seen Antoine Fischer but I have seen The Great Debaters, as far as Denzel Washington’s directional efforts go. The Great Debaters was good, a very interesting project. Fences comes along during award season hype and some of the performances were getting rave reviews. Naturally, being the cinephile I am, I had to see it for myself to form my opinion on the film and performances.

The film is based on a play and is about a man named Tony and his wife Rose and their relationships with their children, friends, and family as time goes on. The problem is Tony and his son do not get along and there seems to be respectful animosity between the two. The film also deals with issues like blue collar working life, the changing times, infidelity, and the limitation of career opportunities for black people in the 1950s. The setting of the film is very contained, I’d say 85% of the film takes place in the backyard of the Maxon house. I’m sure this is how the stage is set in the play and I found it to be perfectly okay. The film is based on its subject matter, delivery, and acting performances. Without having read the play, I’d say Denzel has done a respectable job of adapting this play.

I think one thing can always go without saying and that is that Viola Davis is so good. Even in a film as bad as Suicide Squad you couldn’t fault her for her convincing performance. She’s rather excellent in this. She becomes a real force towards the end of the film. Denzel Washington is a very reliable actor, in that you can expect him to bring a convincing portrayal to the screen. His Tony Maxon is very unlikable. I’d say he starts off being a middle aged, hard working man who wants to support his family. He seems likable in the beginning with his wise cracks and metaphorical wisdom. As the film rolls along its hard to enjoy his tough love antics, infidelity, and sheer arrogance. At times he’s a pompous asshole who you just want to punch. Tony is unlikable and I think it warrants great credit to Denzel for bringing that emotion to his character. Side note, I also really liked seeing Russel Horsnby in the film, love him on Grimm.

The film is quite long, honestly its a little too long. The film could have been more effective if it were concise and condensed. It still manages to remain interesting, even if you don’t identify or agree with the characters. I’d say Tony’s character is not only flawed but a certain event (or two) seem really out of turn writing-wise, that I wonder if he is written the exact same way in the play. I think we can expect Viola Davis to be up there in the running for an Oscar. As far as the film goes, its carried by excellent performances and strong source material even though everything else is not always perfect.
7/10

Jackie (2016)

 

Jackie

 

I've always had a huge interest in history, and remember being so enamored with learning about American history. One of the events that have always captivated me was the assassination of John F. Kennedy, and all the circumstances surrounding the event. I always try to watch whatever I can related to JFK and the Kennedy's. As soon as I saw the trailer for this film and heard Natalie Portman would be portraying the lead, I had a great interest to see it. I love Natalie Portman and always will try to see whatever she is in. I enjoyed hearing how she was garnering Oscar buzz and had to see the performance myself.

Having seen bits and bobs of Jackie Kennedy giving the White House tour, I'd say Portman does quite a good job and portraying Jackie's accent and the way that she speaks. I'm pretty sure she did her homework and it showed, as at times she just disappears into the role. I've seen most of the Oscar nominated films of the year and I'd say Portman may be very close to a lock for her second Oscar. What I really liked about the film is that its scope is limited to just a few days after the death of JFK. Thus you get to view Jackie at her most pained and vulnerable. Once again, I think Portman's portrayal makes the film. As Jackie walks around aimlessly  in the halls of the White House you can she how disheveled and exposed she is (although she still must maintain appearances). 

The first thing you will notice about the film is the score, which opens the film. Its hard to describe, but the score is a mix of dissonance and something of harmony. Its almost like an instrument trying to play a cheerful tune despite being broken, and its really powerful. Its a truly wonderful and pained score. The films narrative is interjected with events of the assassination, Jackie's White house tour, the events after the assassination and her transition out of the White House, and the interview by Theodore H. White. I didn't care how or when it was done but I thought it was vital to show the shooting and the events with JFK on Jackie's lap while the car was rushing away. I'm happy to say Pablo Larrain does not shy away from this event and its shown in its brutality (which is necessary). 

There's a lack of things going on as the film has a limited time frame but the intention is to place the microscope on one of the most beloved figures in American history during the toughest transition of her life. It feels like a whirlwind at times because you get to see Jackie's life as the first lady and how quickly things changed and how her life turns upside down.  I thought Peter Sarsgaard had the look of Bobby Kennedy but not really the speech or mannerisms. I thought Barry Pepper was great at Bobby in that Kennedy miniseries and I was hoping for something of that sort. Had no idea it was Greta Gerwig portraying Nancy Tuckerman until after googling the films cast. Caspar Phillipson looked a lot like JFK in the doses that we seem him. 

I'm quite pleased that a film about Jackie Kennedy was made, its a biopic I can get behind, especially with an actress like Portman at the helm. I don't think the film is perfect but it gets key elements right. It was vital to portray Jackie faithfully, show the events of the motorcade, and portray Jackie's vulnerability. The film succeeds on those fronts. In the film Jackie wonders what JFK's short legacy as President would be remembered as and tries to remind everyone that for a brief moment "it was Camelot". Its important to see the positives in one of the ugliest events of American history. The film has to go through a lot of sad and ugly moments but is balanced by the grace of Portman's Jackie.

7/10

Live by Night (2016)

Live by Night

I've been a fan of Ben Affleck's directional efforts ever since I saw Gone Baby Gone way back in 2007 in theaters. I also loved The Town and think its his best film to date. Live by Night sort of came out of nowhere but I'm always down for Prohibition era crime films. The film seemed to get lukewarm reviews but there was no way I wasn't going to see this for myself. Overall, I'd say I enjoyed it and its better than what other critics are saying. 

The film is set in Boston (and then Tampa) and is the story of the son of a police captain, who becomes a bootlegger and gangster. Be forewarned that there isn't much that separates this from gangster films we've seen before, however Affleck knows what he's doing and I think he does it well. The thing that pops out to me is the dialogue. Its quite clever and witty. There's funny moments and the film isn't always super serious, which is refreshing. Not everything in the script has to be explained as the viewers are expected to follow the message. The suits, cars, glamour,  of the 20s and 30s is captured quite well (not that I lived in that era to really know if it was accurate). Some of the dialogue was hard to hear in theaters (the accents probably contributed to this). I think this film will one day warrant a second view anyways. 

While I really enjoyed the film, it isn't without faults. It really depends on whether you can forgive the film for that or really see it as a detriment. Some of the characters felt loose and suddenly disappear. This includes Siena Miller, Elle Fanning and Brendan Gleeson. Fates of characters are explained and such but they feel unfulfilled. I thought Fanning's character was just becoming great, but as I said unfulfilled. Miller's character arc was just so odd as well (maybe rushed to fit the story). Well, at least my boy Miguel was in this. The film seems to want to tackle a few foes/events in different parts of the film and doesn't always do it seamlessly, which makes the film seem unfocused. The events of the third act felt rushed together just to come to a resolution. Without going into spoiling there's a head scratching moment near the end that  seemed out of left field. I didn't have too many problems with all this and maybe its because I'm partial to Affleck and gangster films.

I enjoyed the car chase and gun battles. I think the comic element of the film kind of swept into the action scenes which made it enjoyable. I liked that the film takes place in Tampa and mixes with the Black and Cuban community as well. Its nice to see a sort of different locality in a gangster film. I'm sure there's much more I want to ramble about but nothings coming to me. Overall, this probably won't be something that'll be a the top of year end lists but its thoroughly enjoyable even through its flaws. Its not Affleck's best but I applaud him for directing and writing films in a time where he's busy being in blockbusters.

8/10