Nightcrawler - Review

If it bleeds, it leads

The motto takes on a whole new level with this film.

The Plot

Lou Bloom (Jake Gyllenhaal), a highly intelligent and meticulous individual, is looking for a job. And that comes to him when he encounters a "Nightcrawler" named Joe Loder (Bill Paxton), who introduces him to the world of freelance video journalism. Recruiting an assistant (Riz Ahmed), getting in good terms with a News Director (Rene Russo) and arming himself with the equipment he needs, Lou sets out to become the best Nightcrawler in the business.

Review

I am late to the game in watching this movie. I had to wait to buy the Blu Ray in order to watch it. And I'm so glad I did. First time director, Dan Gilory, definitely created one hell of a feature film debut with this great examination on the shady business of "Nightcrawling." It also helps that he is an incredible screenwriter, because the script is crisp and easily avoids the easy way out of things when it comes to characterizations and plot points. But none of that would've mattered if the wrong person was casted in the role of Lou Bloom. And we should be thankful that Jake Gyllenhaal IS Lou Bloom.

Gyllenhaal completely transforms into the strangest, yet most efficient, person you'll ever meet. Lou is the very definition of a sociopath. He is completely removed from morals and only views things in quantifiable measurements that shape the reality he sees. And it is a reality that in the end is a very true one. The character of Lou may come off as a horrible individual due to his actions, but what makes him strangely likable and appealing is not just his efficiency, but the way he speaks. There is definitely something unhinged about the way he talks, but it isn't noticeable until he starts talking blackmail. The most difficult roles to play, are the ones where the main characters are inherently evil due to moral standards, but are in some ways extremely likable. He is a guy who is having a hard time finding a job (many can relate to that) and when he finds something he can do, he makes sure he is the best at it (something we can all aspire to). But there is no denying that his lack of morals in order for efficiency does make him a terrible person. And it is  electrifying to watch on screen.

Lou's enablers are pretty much the most relatable characters in the film, but what makes both of them wrong is that they are what they: enablers. Lou's employee, Rick, played by Riz Ahmed is definitely the only one who has a moral compass. But because of his disposition of being an individual who doesn't really have many options in life, it easily makes him someone who is not just an enabler but a follower as well. While this could easily be a weak role, it is a testament to Ahmed for making his character not appear to be too weak, just morally conflicted. Then there is Nina, the News Director played by Rene Russo, who is driven to give her channel high ratings with horrifying yet well composed images. And luckily for her, Lou is capable of delivering those things. Russo does a great job of playing someone who initially comes off as being amoral as Lou, but then her morals resurface on the discovery of just how sociopathic he really is. Both of them play such key roles in helping us explore Lou's personality and help us understand just how far all of these individuals are willing to go in order to achieve success. And although his role was a small one, Bill Paxton definitely played a key role in jump starting this whole experience.

But the core of the film is an examination of the long used journalism slogan: "If it bleeds, it leads." This film takes an interesting look in how exactly news stations get their hands on "exclusive" footage in order to draw ratings. Having studied TV and film, as well as worked in a control room before, I know exactly how all this goes on. So it is no surprise to me that what these people do can be considered amoral, especially if someone like Lou is working on the job. But what Gilroy did so masterfully well is not beating it over the head that this is morally wrong. Well maybe he does do it at the end, but by that point it is earned by showing us pretty normal things that we see on the news prior to that point. Especially given its noir and thriller look will set this film apart from others that try to deliver a message. Because the key that Gilroy seems to understand is that the message has to be formulated by the audience, while the story is king.

Final Thoughts

I couldn't do my top 10 list of best films of the year of 2014 because I could never watch all the films I wanted to see for that year. And if I was able to do so, this definitely would've been in the Top 5. Nighcrawler is an incredible thriller about how far is too far in the world of news that doesn't come off as a preachy look on the morality of the media. Instead what we get is an incredible story with a great knockout performance by Jake Gyllenhaal as the ever efficient Lou Bloom. This is definitely one of the best films of 2014.

SCORE: 9/10 - A riveting thriller with an incredible performance by Jake Gyllenhaal

The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies - Review

"I will have WAR!"

Pretty much sums up the plot of this entire movie.

The Plot

After Bard (Luke Evans) successfully slays the dragon, Smaug (Benedict Cumberbatch), the people of Lake-town are left without a home and seek to find shelter. Their only option is The Lonely Mountain. There, the dwarf king, Thorin (Richard Armitage), has succumbed to Dragon Sickness and refuses to let the refugees enter. With an army of elves lead by Thranduil (Lee Pace) arriving to lay claim to some of the mountain's treasure; Bard wanting to ensure the livelihood of his people; and an army of Orcs wanting to claim the mountain for a strategic holding; the dwarves and Bilbo (Martin Freeman) find themselves in the middle of a massive war that can only continue to escalate.

How will this day end?

Review

Well I'll give it this. I wasn't bored as much as the previous two installments. But I can't help but feeling that this film just proves that what I've been saying (and what many others have been saying) about splitting this story into three movies was too much. Case in point, this entire film feels like the battle of Helms Deep stretched out for two hours. I compare the battle to Helms Deep because to compare it to the Battle of Minas Tirith in The Return of the King would be a compliment. And that is not to knock on the Battle of Helms Deep, because I have stated in my review of The Two Towers that it is one of the best battles ever filmed in modern cinema. But my reason for comparison is that The Battle of the Five Armies feels like it should've lasted the same amount of time that the Battle of Helms Deep did. In which case it should've been 40-45 minutes in length. Not over two hours. Because everything just felt so unnecessary.

Richard Armitage's Thorin once again becomes a dick. He gets afflicted with Dragon Sickness, which is a fancy way of saying someone is greedy, and doesn't want to share the wealth. Even though he promised the people of Lake-town that he would. And he probably should've shared the wealth to them because their resident Bard played by Luke Evans is responsible for getting rid of the dragon that stole the dwarf kingdom in the first place. But at least in this film there is part of his development from the previous film still in tact. Thorin's trust of Bilbo is still there, and I'm so glad it is because it was pretty much the most redeeming part in the film.

As Martin Freeman's Bilbo Baggins is one of the highlights of this trilogy, he's highlighted even more as being paired with an opposing force in each film. Unlike the previous films where my favorite highlights have been a single scene involving Bilbo and one other person, in this film it is Bilbo's scenes with Thorin throughout the movie that are truly remarkable. Finally, a relationship between characters works throughout the course of an entire film. And I am so glad that it is between these two. And if you really think about it, had this trilogy been a singular film, their interaction would appear more tighter and a more cohesive growth of relationship rather than an overly long spread out growth. It's good that what was built in the second movie is paid off in here, but it could've been handled better. I wish I can say the same for the rest of this movie.

The subplot that was prominent in the previous film about Gandalf finding Sauron was put to an end rather abruptly. While it was cool to see Galadriel (Cate Blanchett), Elrond (Hugo Weaving) and Saruman (Christopher Lee) go ape shit crazy against Sauron and the ghosts who will become the Black Riders, it seemed like an abrupt end to a subplot that ultimately has no major consequences to the main plot of The Hobbit. I understand the need to explain how everything ties in to The Lord of the Rings, but all out honesty, this scene could've easily been added to The Desolation of Smaug. Because there, it would seem more relevant, and give Gandalf more room to recover for this film.

Then there's the forced romance in this saga. The subplot between Kili (Aidan Turner) and Tauriel (Evangeline Lilly) is resolved here. While the love story is a little bit more believable in this film than the very sad attempt to make it seem cute in the previous one, it felt totally unnecessary. It once again only serves as a way to develop Legolas (Orlando Bloom) into the character people will know from the original trilogy. I'm almost certain that if this trilogy was just one film, there would be no romance and Legolas would just be a nice little role that appears here and there. I would've preferred that instead of this forced development when we already know the end result.

And then here comes my big complaint that I have been complaining about for a long time: the overuse of CGI. I didn't feel like I was watching a film that takes place in Middle-Earth anymore once the battle started. In fact it looked more like a console game cinematic that I'm watching on screen. Not once did I believe any of what I was seeing is real. But within that CGI overload, there are some bright spots. Scenes involving Luke Evans' Bard and his people fighting Orcs was actually real. I'm glad that most of the Orcs they faced off with were guys in makeup and not CGI. It recalled memories of the previous films that showed real people fighting in the close shots, only resulting into CGI if it is a wide shot. But unfortunately, the practical guys are swallowed up by the amount of CGI put on screen to the point where it becomes very off putting. 

I admire Peter Jackson's attempts of trying to replicate the grittiness of war he had in the previous trilogy, but in here it just doesn't work. A large battle happens for the first hour then all of a sudden the large battle doesn't seem to matter anymore in the second hour. It is not very well paced, badly edited, and very spotty. I was even wondering at points, "where the f**k did those rams come from?" It just tried to outstretch something that is not meant to be this long into something that is inevitably bloated and in the end very underwhelming. Especially when the giant worms from Dune make a cameo.

Final Thoughts

If you'll notice, not once did I praise the ensemble. Because while everyone is giving it their all, the terrible writing and overload of filler material weighs down on anything that would make them appear to be a perfect ensemble. Which is a shame because I really like Luke Evans and Lee Pace, but in the end they seem more like background characters in this film than important key players. And I feel even more sorry for the ensemble of the Dwarves because other than Armitage's Thorin, I could care less about the rest of them. Martin Freeman is definitely the best highlight of this series and I couldn't have asked for a better person to play Bilbo Baggins. It was nice walking down memory lane, but in the end this is an underwhelming ending to a very disappointing trilogy.

SCORE: 5/10 - This should've been the last 40 minutes of a singular Hobbit movie

For a review of the previous film, CLICK HERE

Exodus: Gods and Kings - Analysis and Review

"I'm willing to fight for an eternity."

It almost felt like an eternity watching this film. Which is heavily disappointing given that this is my favorite story from the Bible.

The Plot

Moses (Christian Bale), the prized general of Egypt discovers that he is actually a Hebrew slave's son. When Ramses (Joel Edgerton), a man Moses once viewed as a brother and now Pharaoh of Egypt, learns of this truth, he has Moses banished from Egypt. But in exile, Moses discovers his true course in life as a messenger for God. 

Analysis

I'm going to address this in here. I was one of the many people who is not bothered by the race issue. I love The Ten Commandments. It is one of my favorite movies of all time and my favorite Biblical movie. Which is filled with many, and I mean many, white people in bronzer and eye liner. Lots of bronzer and eye liner. Granted, I was just 8 when I saw the movie and the picture book Bible that I read had illustrations that depict everyone as white. So I just assumed that's the way it was, and never questioned it. However, as I got older and delved into other mythologies and the regions they originate from, it was a shock for me to find out that Egypt is in Africa. And even more shocking was discovering that the people who originally inhabited the region were black. So that changed my perception of Egypt, but that didn't make me angry about Yul Brener playing Ramses. It was just nice knowing that information.

So when the time came for Ridley Scott to take up the reins of Exodus, I was curious what the casting would be like. And as I predicted, most of them are white. Now, there are a couple of reasons why I know this was going to happen. For one, the Egyptians are technically the antagonists of the film. If black actors and actresses were to be casted as the Egyptians, it would've been praised for some but bashed by others. Mainly because, having a large African nation be portrayed as the villains and being punished by God will not sit well for some Black Civil Rights groups. It would be viewed as a demonizing of blacks as well as white propaganda to show that God hates black people. And it would be strengthen even more if the Hebrews, who are Jewish, are portrayed by nothing but white actors. Which would've added to the fire. Which brings me to another point.

The Hebrews who would become the Jewish people who inhabit Jerusalem today do not look the way they do now. In fact, they look more like dark skinned Arabs rather than the fair skinned people that are associated with Judaism today. So if Hollywood were to cast the Hebrews properly with the matching ethnicity of the time, they would have to be of Arab descent. The problem? Most Arabs have an Islamic background, meaning they are forbidding from portraying their Prophets or any story from the Quran in any shape or form. In short, they're forbidden from playing anyone in Holy Texts. That includes The Bible or The Talmud. Which automatically dismisses them from portraying anyone like Moses or the Hebrews in this movie. So of course other ethnicities have to be considered. But then again, although that should be the logic behind the casting, there is a primary truth as to why white people were casted: White Christians.

America still has a large white Christian population that prefers seeing famous white actors portraying their beloved Prophets as white people. This has been embedded in their mindset since the days of Charlton Heston, and it is not going away any time soon in our generation or the next. So with that in mind, I view that as a the primary reason why white people are still casted in ethnic roles today. But if there were to be other arguments besides that, then I would just point to my stances on how black people would react and why most Arabs cannot act in these films. It is just an endless cycle of problem after problem because the world is full of intolerable people. I don't care how much people make claims of "It's 2014" or "It's 2035" because I can guarantee you intolerance will never change. So no, I don't have a problem with white people being in this movie... for the first minute of the film.

Review

It is a jarring thing, seeing John Tuturro play a Pharaoh. His performance wasn't memorable, yet what was most memorable about him is how much I felt he doesn't belong in this movie. And that's the saddest part about this movie. The most memorable thing about it, is seeing how much all these white actors in Egyptian roles don't seem to belong in the film. Which should tell you something about someone who doesn't care about the race issue of casting. That doesn't mean I think all of them were out of place.

Joel Edgerton as Ramses was not jarring for me to look at. This was probably because he was heavily promoted, which prepared my mind to accepting him as playing this ancient Egyptian king. But because he was the only one heavily promoted in the trailers and TV spots, my mind couldn't adjust when I see the like Tuturro, Sigourney Weaver and countless other accomplished white actors in these roles. It's like my mind could not accept any of them except for Edgerton. Yet my mind was accepting of Indira Varma as the High Priestess, probably because she's not white. So yes, it will be jarring because something just doesn't seem right about these actors playing these roles. But it doesn't prevent them from being good actors in their roles.

Edgerton was fine as Ramses. He is pretty much a spoiled brat who was given little attention by his father, which gives him this ego that he has to be better than his father. Edgerton plays it as best as he could, yet I couldn't help but feeling like a lot was missing from his story. In fact, I feel like a lot was missing from this story. Mainly the relationship between his character and Christian Bale's Moses. A relationship that should've been the heart of this movie, and it was set up at the beginning brilliantly, but it never really amounted to anything. Which is such a waste because Bale plays a great Moses. It would've been powerful to have these two powerhouse actors play two brothers who have to face off against each other, but it never feels like the relationship was firmly established to make us feel that way.

Bale's Moses is pretty much a different take on the character. This Moses is more of an atheist who after suffering a trauma becomes a babbling psychopath who now believes in God. So much so that he even speaks to God, who in this film is portrayed as a highly intelligent and merciless child. This interpretation of God and Moses probably stems from director Ridley Scott's atheist beliefs but tries so hard to rationalize it in a politically correct manner as to not to offend any atheists who watch the film. Which, while interesting, devoid the film of something that is important for a Biblical epic: Wonder.

All the plagues and the miraculous acts of "God" in this film have scientific explanations. In other words, this movie makes it all seem like a coincidence. The atheistic Moses just happened to start believing in God and just happened to return to Egypt when all these devastating plagues are happening at the same time. The Red Sea just happens to part at the moment Moses and his people needed it to, not because God parted the Red Sea. Which is pretty disappointing for someone who was in awe of the Red Sea sequence in The Ten Commandments to just see the Red Sea in this film be the sudden shifting of the tides. The Egyptians in the film even try so hard to explain how everything has an explanation and is not an act of God. And because of this, this sense of wonder and power is gone. I don't care what your belief is, but even my atheist friends know, if you're doing a film about Moses, it needs to show off the power of God.

So all in all, a movie that really only has two memorable performances in it: Christian Bale and Joel Edgerton, and a politically correct way of explaining how God works for non-believer audiences, becomes a movie that has no soul. I highly doubt casting ethnically appropriate actors could save this movie, because it would've still have the same problems. With a lack of a strong relationship between Moses and Ramses along with a very boring explanation of how all the acts of God happen in this movie, the best Biblical story is now the worst one. It is beautiful to watch, but just because something is beautiful, doesn't mean it has personality.

Final Thoughts

Darren Aronofsky is an atheist who grew up Jewish and used his Jewish background to craft a dark story about Noah. Yet, that film still had something wonderful and magical about it that makes it feel special and miraculous despite the dark subject matter it explores. Ridley Scott is an atheist who puts his views into a Biblical films and instead of trying to make something fantastical, as one should, he instead makes something that has no soul. There was a soul in Noah, and that was made by an atheist. So how is it that a director who has been around longer than Aronofsky and created one of the most magical fairy tale films in the 80s, Legend, could not create something wonderful and empowering with this film? Because to be honest, it is a boring remake of Gladiator. No joke. If you think about it, this film is not a Bible film, it is a plot for plot remake of Gladiator.

SCORE: 4/10 - Bale and Edgerton are wasted in this beautiful, boring remake of Gladiator

BIRDMAN or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) - Analysis and Review

Is Michael Keaton okay?

Because this movie makes it seem like he's not.

The Plot

Riggan Thomsan (Michael Keaton), once known for playing the iconic superhero, Birdman, is now an actor trying to do something meaningful. And to him, that is adapting a Raymond Carver story into a play. But when the play loses a actor due to an accident that may or may not have been caused by strange abilities Riggan possesses, the production resorts to bringing in a notoriously hard to work with actor named Mike Shiner (Edward Norton). With Shiner's methods proving to be an antagonizing force in Riggan's production as well as his budget, Riggan puts up with everything in order to make the play work in hopes of leaving his past as Birdman behind. But in a world where superheroes are the big Hollywood ticket, Riggan's past continues to haunt him with what he could become if he made a comeback to the roll that made him famous.

Analysis

Overrated. It is a term that gets thrown around a lot without people realizing what it means or how to properly use it. When something is overrated, it could mean two things. One, overrated could mean that a person believe that a highly regarded movie is complete crap. And two, overrated could mean a person believe that the movie does not live up to the hype, but is still good.

The problem is, most people associate overrated with the former. And by associating, it is just a nice way for rebels to say they hate something. And this is how overrated has become a bad word. 

Say The Dark Knight or The Avengers is overrated to comic book movie fans, and they will automatically assume what you mean is you hate good movies. Say The Godfather or Lawrence of Arabia is overrated to movie fans, and they will assume you're nothing more than a lover Michael Bay films with not taste whatsoever.

So yes, overrated is a word use to describe extreme disdain for a movie. But the proper use of overrated is better suited for: Did not live up to my expectations... but I still liked it.

Review

I don't know if I want to call this movie overrated. That was the feeling that I had while walking out of the movie theater. But as I kept thinking about it, there were a lot of good things about this movie.

The first thing I have to mention is the cast. Just like Gone Girl, this movie sports an extremely talented cast. Everyone in this film was extraordinarily good with their roles. Zach Galifianakis does a subdued and smart performance as the troubled productions' Producer. It is a nice change from the roles he is usually associated with, and I wish he'd do more stuff like this. Then there is Emma Stone as the troubled daughter of a celebrity. She plays the character with a lot of ferocity and smarts that make her definitely a product of this age. Then there is Naomi Watts as the actress who finally made it to where she always wanted to be. She plays it as someone who has been through the grind and is definitely thankful for where she is. Then you have Andrea Riseborough playing the actress who is going through the grind without a care and is just happy to be acting. She's loose yet also has a sensitive side that she wants to hide, and Andrea plays it well. There are countless others in this film that are good, even if they're small roles. Especially a nice performance by Lyndsey Duncan as a theater critic who represents everything that people assume about critics. The cast is just near perfection. But they are nothing to the perfection achieved by Keaton and Norton.

Michael Keaton and Edward Norton are definitely the standouts of this film. For a very pure reason. They appear to be playing heightened versions of themselves. Keaton is definitely an actor who is still famous and has a celebrity status, but does not appear in that many movies anymore. Norton is an actor who is notorious for being difficult to work with, yet when becomes to play, he comes to play. Keaton's Riggan Thomson and Norton's Mike Shiner are definitely odd reflections of themselves. It seems like a stroke of casting genius choosing these two for these specific roles. Both of them excel with their character exponentially in a display that may be drawing from personal experience while at the same time really showing off just how talented these guys are. But Keaton is the standout between the two, as it is his movie, and he really makes you feel for his situation. His character is someone who could've been bigger than what he is now, and he totally sells it. This is the best acting that Keaton has done in a long time, but it will never put a shadow over his role as Batman... I mean Birdman.

But now comes the point where I explain why I'm juggling with the use of the word: overrated. Simply because of this. It did not play out the way I had hoped for. Which is a terrible thing for a film critic to say, because a film critic is just suppose to analyze the film as it is then maybe compare it to similar films if need be. But the thought of "not playing out the way I hoped for" belongs to a filmmaker. And I am one. The film is a commentary about celebrity status and blockbusters, particularly the superhero genre. The movie's title is Birdman, yet the superhero only shows up in two scenes in the movie. Yet I feel like there could've been more to that commentary. Sure, the amount of commentary was placed in the right spots, but I feel like I was robbed of something that really would've been revelatory to a mass audience. Because to film fans, we get the subtleties and the references right away, yet for some reason this may not seem to get the message across. Also it seems to be a bit confused on what side of the "celebrity" argument it falls under, because I wasn't quite sure what it is the film was trying to say about celebrities that the average person doesn't already know.

And another thing is the highly acclaimed long take technique used for the entire film. It is definitely unique in making the film appear as if it is all being filmed with one camera for two hours straight without cutting. The problem that I have with it is that I got dizzy and slightly nauseated. It does achieve this almost floating dreamlike quality, but when the camera shakes it really is disorienting. I had to fight my dizziness in order to watch the movie because I was so intrigued with Keaton and Norton's characters, but it did eventually make my head hurt. If it was done completely on steadicam to give it a nice flowing motion instead of switching to a handheld style most of the time, I probably would've tolerated it more. So yes, I acclaim it for the technical difficulty of filming and editing a movie to look like one take. But I can't deny that I may have came close to vomiting because of this.

And then finally, the story. Because it is extremely predictable in a sense. The reason why this film is acclaimed is for the acting and the commentary, yet the story is so predictable that in the hands of another director and different actors it could've been terrible. There was a point after the first hour of the movie that I felt bored because all of a sudden I realized how this movie was going to end. Also, at that point, I started to not care about the performances. This may be because I've already made up my mind from the first hour that these performances are amazing and so have nothing else to expect from the movie. And a part of me really wishes this movie was condensed to 90 minutes instead of the 2 hours that I had to float through. Granted, I love 2 hour movies, but this could've gotten its point across within 90 minutes. But frankly, because it was that long, and by the second hour it feels like two more hours pass by, it really wasn't a home run for me.

Final Thoughts

I still haven't decided if I want to use overrated. Because this film is an acting tour de force. Every single actor in this film is incredible, with Keaton and Norton elevated higher above the rest. Then there is the commentary that film lovers will get a kick out of but the average viewer will not fully get. There is the dizzy camera work that is getting praised as an achievement, where the only achievement it succeeded was giving me my first nausea in a movie theater. An overtly predictable story that ultimately serves as a vehicle to showcase powerful acting and a commentary on superhero movies that doesn't stay that interesting. It really is hard. But maybe I should just say it. Because while typing this sentence, I've now settled. This movie is overrated.

7.5/10 - I expected much more from this. A lot more. But well done, Michael Keaton.

John Wick - Analysis and Review

Yeah, I'm thinking he's back

I once saw him kill three men...with a pencil.

The Plot

John Wick (Keanu Reeves) just lost his wife to cancer (or some sort of non-specified disease) and was given puppy from her before she died to help him cope. But when four Russian wannabe gangsters break into his house to steal his car, they kill the puppy. What the four Russian wannabe gangsters didn't know is that John Wick used to be the Russian Mob's (and possibly the world's) most dangerous hitman. And he's coming for them. And nothing will get in his way.

Analysis

There really isn't one for this because...it is what it is. Pretty much all I'm going to say is that if you know what you are and embrace it, then there is a big chance that others will embrace you as well. That same mentality fits with movies. This movie knows what it is, and it is making damn sure that you know what it is. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't. But in this instance, it does.

Review

This is probably the best action movie coming from the states this year. Of course it is nowhere near as good as The Raid 2 in terms of groundbreaking action, but this movie sure has some spectacular action. And that shouldn't be surprise given that the directors of this film were the stunt men from The Matrix. There was another film directed by a stunt man that came out this year called Left Behind starring Nic Cage. But where that stunt man failed, these stunt men succeed. And they bring along their old collaborator and star of The Matrix, Keanu Reeves, back into action.

It should be said right off the bat that if you think the premise sounds silly, don't worry, this movie doesn't take itself too seriously to dwell on it. Yes, it is the story about a man who takes down the Russian Mob because they killed his dog. But it was the dog represents to the titular John Wick that really sets him off. And for the most part, the first 30 minutes of the film handled it really well. Some might even say that the first 30 minutes might almost have crossed the line into "we're taking this seriously" territory. But luckily for the audience, the filmmakers know when to pull the plug before it got too serious. Otherwise everything else that happens, while predictable, would not have been as fun as it is.

Reeves is excellent as John Wick. In the first 30 minutes of the film, we really do buy him as a loner type who loses the one person who made him feel vulnerable. And with the loss of the dog, Reeves was able to convince the audience that John is a man who held back his dark side only to unleash it at this moment we're witnessing. This may probably be Reeves best performance in years. Which is saying a lot since he's not the greatest actor in the world. But with this type of role, he will definitely excel in spades. It also doesn't hurt that his fighting style in this movie is incredible. It is not the martial arts he proficiently displays in The Matrix, but it is a believable form of close quarter combat intertwined with firearms. He really sells that when John Wick goes into beast mode, this guy is efficient and will always try to go for the headshot. And if he doesn't, he would use his ammunition conservatively in order to buy more time for him to get the headshot. He is probably the best original action hero since Liam Neeson in Taken. And I'm glad he has this role to make his comeback.

The film is filled with people who have played villains or have been known for being in these types of movies. Willem Dafoe, Ian McShane, Lance Reddick, John Leguizamo, Michael Nyqvist and Alfie Allen pop up as various players in the underworld. Dafoe plays a fellow assassin and appears to have been a mentor figure to Reeves' character. McShane plays the owner of The Continental Hotel, a safe haven for assassins who use their own form of currency and operate on a strict no kill policy while staying at the hotel. While I'm sure it is not original, it is definitely a fascinating concept that makes this film that much more enjoyable. It also helps to have Reddick as the manager of the hotel. Leguizamo has a cameo as a car shop dealer who brings the bad news to the Russian Kingpin played gleefully by Nyqvist. Theon Greyjoy, aka Allen, plays the wannabe Russian gangster and son of the Kingpin who causes the monster to be unleashed. That guy can't catch a break can he? And in a surprising turn of casting is Adrianne Palicki who plays the singular hit woman in the film who is willing break the rules of the Continental in order to get a massive pay.

All of these colorful characters fit nicely in this well constructed fictional underworld. While the mob is very real, these criminals and assassins operate in a highly fictional manner. Which works in favor of the film as it shot in a way to mirror a stylized comic book with a little mix of neo-noir. I mean, seriously, there's a Hotel specifically for assassins to stay in when they're on the job! That should not work, but it does! What also works is that even though the audience can predict what is going to happen along the way, you want to see how it goes down instead of dreading seeing it happen. Because the action is so much fun and the screenwriter should be applauded for making some very witty cliche lines that just add to the fun of this film. It is pretty much a near perfect action movie just because it accepts that fact that it is not trying to be a great action movie. One can even say that it is a satire on the action genre, but not so much that it becomes a bad joke. Good thing it doesn't.

I also gotta commend the filmmakers for not overblowing the violence to Paul Verhoeven levels. This is a pretty violent film, and the head shots are bloody. But at least it was just the right amount of violence that shows brutality without overdoing it.

Final Thoughts

This is definitely one of my favorites of the year. It is a film that came out of nowhere and is pretty much one of the biggest surprises. Will it be in my top 10? Only time will tell. But know this. You need to know what you're getting into with this movie. It is a fun movie that knows what it is and expects you to go along with the ride without expecting anything more. If you can accept that, then this movie will be an awesome experience. If not, then skip this because you're intellectually incapable of having fun.

SCORE: 8.5/10 - The most fun American action movie (not superhero) made in a long time

Big Hero 6 - Analysis and Review

Balalala la 

That'll make more sense if you saw the movie.

The Plot

When boy genius Hiro Hamada (Ryan Potter) loses his brother Tadashi (Daniel Henney) in a fire, he discovers that the fire may have been caused by someone who stole his technology. With the help of his brother's greatest invention, a caretaker robot called Baymax, and Tadashi's classmates (Jamie Chung, Genesis Rodriguez, Damon Wayans Jr. and T.J. Miller) from an esteemed university, they all band together to stop this mysterious foe.

Analysis

This movie is not accurate to the comic book it is based on. Then again it is an obscure comic book in Marvel's plethora of properties. For all intents and purposes, this was meant to be the most anime inspired comic of the Marvel line. The artwork is very reminiscent to the manga art style and even draws from anime archetypes. The mecha, the boy genius, the samurai, the giant monster, the magical girl, and the tech suit hero. All of them are there. Yet for the film, they have been drastically changed.

Hiro, the boy genius, is pretty much the one who seems to remain in tact for the most part. Except he's not a snobbish kid, and he's not fat. Baymax is a mecha who can turn into a dragon with Hiro's dead father's mind acting as its's brain. However in the movie Baymax is a helper bot created by Hiro's brother. Honey Lemon is a sexy secret agent take on sailor moon who acts like a dumb blonde in order to hide the fact that she's the smartest woman in Japan. In the movie, she's a really geeky conservatively dressed girl who loves pink and chemicals. Wasabi is a samurai who can focus his chi (his soul) into creating energy katanas. In the movie, he's an organized OCD guy with a speciality in creating plasma technology. Gogo is an ex convict who was released under the condition that she uses her powers for good. In the movie, she's the tomboy no nonsense adrenaline junkie of the group. And Fred? Well, in the comics he is the descendant of the original inhabitants of Japan who can turn into giant monsters. In the movie? Fred is just a big comic book and kaiju fan who wears a modified monster suit.

So yes, very different. Yet I don't hear people complaining about this. Why? Because it is not a well known property. This allows the creators to take these characters and do whatever they want with them. They made all the characters science based and diversified their ethnicities. While it is the politically correct thing to do with giving them different ethnicities, it does kind of bug me that all of them are suppose to be Japanese. I admire the fact they kept Hiro and Tadashi Japanese, and possibly Gogo too. But what made this team special was them being Japan's only group of superheroes in the Marvel Universe. It would've been great to have all of them still be Japanese, but since no one will really care, it is completely fine. After all, what matters is if the movie is good and not how accurate it is to the source. So is it worthy of the name Big Hero 6?

Review

This movie is definitely one of the best animated movies of the year. A hell of a lot better than that trash called The Book of Life. This is what I look for in an animated film. It offers up adult themes and presents them to children in a way that they would understand. Themes such as dealing with loss of a loved one and learning to cope. While it is a theme that is often explored in animated movies, it is alway a welcoming one when the filmmakers don't hold back on what is going on and don't sugar coat it. And while that is definitely the underlying theme of the movie, there is another that is a lot more prominent. The idea that science and education is cool.

Another reviewer pointed out that science is usually portrayed as an antagonistic force in superhero stories. It is always the Mad Scientist who is the villain, and rarely are the heroes scientists. Sure, there is Iron Man, The Hulk, and The Atom, but there are more science villains than science heroes in both Marvel and DC. So it is really refreshing to have our heroes use science as a means to save the world. Sure, it seemed to have beat the message over the head by having the main character, Hiro, take a tour around the university to see the amazing things the other characters are working on, but it definitely would've convinced me to want to enroll. It is a nice way of saying that education is important, as well as showing just how amazing science can be with everything that can be done now.  And it really helps that it has great characters to make science cool.

Hiro, voiced by Ryan Potter, may be the stereotypical tech boy genius who has no drive, but it works so well in this film. Tadashi, voiced by Daniel Henney, is the catalyst of the film who helps Hiro finds his purpose by showing him the potential of what he can become if he had the education and the resources to do so. And while it is morbid that Hiro becomes a lot more relatable after the passing of his brother, he is still relatable from the beginning as a kid who feels he's got everything figured out. We've all felt like we know everything we need to know and nothing else, but the truth of the matter is we don't know everything and we never will. But trying to learn everything is part of what makes life interesting. And that is shown well through Hiro.

But obviously, the standout of this movie is Baymax. The lovable marshmallow robot that was created to help people is one of the many bright spots of the film. He is naive enough to be lovable, but not so much that we would think he's dumb. Because in the end, he's meant to be a symbol of Hiro's brother. He's everything that Tadashi strived for by using science in order to help make a better world. While I'm sure Tadashi never intended Baymax to be customized into a fighting robot superhero, it is still clear that his message and what Bayamax represent resonates with Hiro. He is the very representation of what science can do to change the world, as well as help Hiro cope with the loss of his brother. It is a nice combination in a movie that is promoting the themes of dealing with loss and the amazement of science.

And the visuals of this movie are amazing. They're not as good as Rise of the Guardians or How to Train Your Dragon, but for a Disney Animated film that's not Pixar, they are definitely top notch. The world of San Fransokyo is vibrant and colorful while also being neo noir at night. And the action scenes are spectacular. Which they have to be if this movie is going to be a superhero movie. A city and incredible set pieces are just two of the staples of superhero stories, and this film excels in them. But that doesn't mean there aren't any weaknesses.

The supporting cast of Gogo Tomago (Jamie Chung), Honey Lemon (Genesis Rodriguez), Fred (T.J. Miller) and Wasabi (Damon Wayans) were excellent with their one dimensional characters. And that is a major compliment in that their respective voice actors were able to make them feel alive, despite the fact they don't really develop. And they agreed to becoming superheroes a little too willingly. Then there is also the villain of the movie, which the filmmakers attempted to have a nice parallel with Hiro's character in terms of losing someone but going over to the dark side because of it. This could've been handled better, but it definitely was handled competently enough to where it does work.

Those may seem like big problems, but in the end they really aren't. Because the main focus of this movie is not on the ensemble, but rather Hiro's relationship with Tadashi which continues through Baymax. It is the story about a boy and his robot, who just happen to also wind up saving the city.

Final Thoughts

If you have kids and want them to be interested in science, please take them to this movie. It is a heartwarming film that has a great message all wrapped around a superhero adventure. It is not the best animated film of the year, but it is definitely one of them. There is so much to love about this movie and how much of an influence it can have on the younger generation. Science can definitely change the world, and can possibly save it. This is for the kids, while Interstellar is for the adults in terms of promoting the need for science. For comic book fans, it may not be accurate, but it is a damn good movie.

SCORE: 8.5/10 - A nice animated film that disguises "education is cool" in a superhero movie

Interstellar - Analysis and Review

To boldly go where no one has gone before.... I had to say that

This is Christopher Nolan's second foray into science fiction. The first one being Inception, which in many ways was more of a love letter to the anime film Paprika and heist movies than actually dealing the legitimate science. This film on the other hand is meant to be more about the science, and how it can possibly save humanity from extinction.

The Plot

The world is dying. Militaries have been disbanded. All technology and education are dedicated to turning people into farmers. And the only food left on Earth, is corn. But when ex-pilot and aeronautical engineer Cooper (Matthew McConaughey) discovers a message produced by an anomaly in gravity, he discovers the location of a clandestine branch of NASA called Lazarus. There, he is recruited by Dr. Brand (Michael Caine) to lead an expedition through a wormhole that appeared within their solar system to find a new home for humanity. Cooper leaves behind his family in hopes of finding them a chance for survival. Humanity was born on Earth, it was never meant to die here.

Analysis

Christopher Nolan is right. We no longer appear to look up to the stars. Instead we are more concerned about what is happening here on Earth. 

The Space Age during the Cold War may have been an age of dreams clashing in a time of potential disaster, but it was still an age of dreams. After we made it to the Moon, it seemed like the world was ready to conquer the galaxy, and then maybe the universe. But instead we're still here. Still having ideas and fantasies, but never anything that can be reality. Of course there have been probes and satellites sent to Mars, but for some reason it didn't seem to inspire many as it did when we first landed on the Moon. Even the European Space Program, Ambition, sets out to catch a comet and succeeded. While it is a small triumph on the road to space travel, it feels like it doesn't matter.

What happened to us? What happened to the ideal of reaching the heavens? I believe it is because there is this feeling of, we've been there and done that. Reaching the Moon seemed to be the greatest thing this planet has achieved. But honestly, it made everything we've done after that seem pointless. If there is anything that I hope this film will do, I hope it does inspire some to travel and seek out new worlds. But till then. We will watch as satellites do the work for us, and forget about a major achievement as if it was nothing. At least not yet. But for now, it is nothing. And that is sad.

Review

This is the movie that people who are not fans of Nolan will use as their ammunition to unmask him to the world as a fraud. Because there is definitely plenty of things wrong with this film. This is also the movie that people who are enthralled and worship Nolan as the god of cinema will use as their torch to continue to ignite the flames of genius that he supposedly is. Because there is a lot of this film that is utterly breathtaking, with a message that is extremely powerful. So which side of this war between Nolanites and Nolan haters do I stand on? Somewhere in the middle.

This is Nolan's most ambitious film with the most ambitious ideas that have not been explored since 2001: A Space Odyssey and the original Star Trek series. The dream of space travel. The scientific theory of wormholes. The theories of what would happen to someone inside a singularity? All of these things are tied together by a simple and unscientific concept. The love of a father and his daughter. Matthew McConaughey continues his spree of being a force in acting as he delivers a powerful performance as our reluctant heroic astronaut. Mackenzie Foy plays his daughter, Murphy, and shows that she is definitely a young one to look out for in the future. Their relationship is what binds this movie together and it is one of the strongest points of the movie.

The other strong points of the film have to do with the space travel sequences, the new planets, and the surprisingly breakout characters that were not really promoted in the previews. One of the things I love about Nolan's take on film is how he uses old school techniques in modern filmmaking. All the spaceships in the movie are real. Whether it be models or gigantic moving sets that the actors can actually step inside of, they are tangible objects and not made out of computer generated imagery. I could easily tell this from the way the moving parts of the docking stations and the shuttles worked. In CGI there is a slight delay and an unintentional grace to movement, even if it meant to be a small one. With models it feels more alive and the eye knows that it is a real thing. The same goes for the creativity of the planets from the water planet to the ice planet to the desert planet. All of them were filmed in actual locations with some CGI in order to enhance the otherworldly feel. And who are the breakout characters that I am talking about? The robots! TARS and CASE, two rectangular robots that I was not aware would be in the movie, and I'm so glad they were. These two robots are pretty much where most of the humor comes from, in an ultra serious and dramatic film. They are a relief as well as a breath of fresh air in terms of design on how a robot would look like. They are pretty much a direct reference to the Monolith from 2001: A Space Odyssey, with the exception of being able to transform and are a lot more helpful.

Where this film falls apart though, mainly has to do with the need to beat science over our heads as well as the message of love being a transcending variable. Nolan took the ambitious idea of explaining all these scientific theories to an audience who would watch movies like Transformers and expect them to want to take in every second of information. The problem is, there is too much information. Now, some films have a lot of exposition in them. Look at David Fincher's films. But Nolan and his screenwriter brother, Jonah, put so much exposition that unless you are aware of the type of science being spoken (like I do) then it is very easy for the average movie goer to get lost in what all the science means. And it is a shame that the exposition is given to the supporting cast consisting of Anne Hatheway, Wes Bentley, and David Gyasi. While Hatheway's character, Amelia, gets to have more of an emotional character arc, she still winds up being just an exposition person along with the other astronauts. Their characters could've been handled better, as well as all the other characters in these films who are not the father and the daughter. 

There is even an appearance by a well known actor, who will be a welcoming surprise to audiences, but quickly devolves into a villain that ultimately seemed forced. But because of who it is, it was a nice character change for this actor. Still, it seemed unnecessary to give this movie a human villain.

While I was able to get by with the massive exposition and was fine with the appearance of a villain, what I didn't buy and nearly took me out of the film was the final 40 minutes of the movie. The build up of the film was built around real science and things that we do know. The final 40 minutes enters the realm of extremely weird science fiction that almost dissolves all the realism that this film is built around. While I understood it, it will definitely be a major turn off for the audience who will view it as too weird and too convenient. And I mean really convenient. In fact, anyone who is smart enough to see the massive foreshadowing in the beginning of the film will be disappointed by how convenient and weird the trigger for the foreshadowing is. It was just too much of a "WTF" moment that it really does not sit well for me.

Then there is the true resolution. It wasn't the way I wanted it to end, emotionally. That sounds like a pretentious thing to say, but if one were to think about the ending, everyone who watches knows there is a proper way to end the movie. And the way it does in this film is definitely the right one, but executed improperly.

Final Thoughts

This film could've removed a lot of characters and a journey to the water planet. It also could've gotten rid of half of the science talk and half of the "we need to be better" talk. If those were not in the film, this movie would've been a thousand times better. That's not to say that it isn't a thousand times better than other movies that have come out. Because it is, yet it isn't. This is an incredible film that reached too far and was incapable of doing all it set out to do. And that is fine for me. It is also fine for Nolan haters who see it as the living proof of him being a hack. It is also fine for the Nolan fans who admire the ambition. In the end it is still an incredible film that suffers with a horrible ending and too much exposition for its own good. This is the movie experience of the year, but not the greatest movie of the year. 

SCORE: 7.5/10 - This movie will become a classic, but in 30 years from now

The Book of Life - Analysis and Review

Color me...confused

About 1/3 into the movie, I was asking myself this question: Why does this movie have a 79% certified fresh critic rating on Rotten Tomatoes?

The Plot

Two deities, voiced by Kate Del Castillo and Ron Perlman, make a wager involving two young men, voiced by Diego Luna and Channing Tatum, on which one of them will marry their childhood crush, voiced by Zoe Saldana. The stakes? The kingdoms of the dead.

Analysis

Theatrically released kids movies, pretty much have a standard. That standard is, can adults find some form of enjoyment too? That standard for American cartoons was created by Walt Disney. His animated films contain heavy amounts of depth that didn't shy away from dark things, but was able to balance it well by sugarcoating the product into something kids can enjoy. Then Pixar took it a step further by having the notion that they make adult animated films that kids can enjoy and then fully understand once they grow up. Dreamworks accomplished this early on by being a little bit too adult, but eventually found the right balance once Guillermo Del Toro joined the group to oversee projects like Kung Fu Panda, Puss in Boots, and How to Train Your Dragon. 

That is what separates American animation from the highly popular Japanese anime. Good american animation hides mature themes with visual splendor and incredible storytelling. Japanese anime does this too, depending on what type of genre they're dealing with. If anything, the one Japanese studio that has mastered, and outclasses, this American form of animation is probably Studio Ghibli. Their films are just as whimsical as any Pixar or new age Dreamworks film, yet they don't hide being mature. Rather, they have it in the right places and utilize them in the right ways. Because in the end, incredible storytelling is what counts.

That's not what I saw here.

Review

This movie is boring. Plain and simple. It is really boring. Which given all the talent behind this film, I'm astonished. But then again part of me should be surprised. 

Guillermo Del Toro is one of my favorite directors, and has made one of my all time favorite comic book movies in Hellboy, but he attaches his name to a lot of things. And most of the time, just because his name is attached to it, does not mean it is good. It's a lesson that I should've learned whenever I saw the "Produced by Steven Spielberg" title card appear in the Transformers films, but perhaps I kept thinking because it is Del Toro, it might be different. I know that he wants to bring awareness of Mexican Culture to the states in a colorful way, and this project by animation director Jorge Gutierrez would've definitely been the best way to do so. If only the movie wasn't so... cliche.

Now, I like a lot of cliche movies. Just look at my reviews for Dracula Untold and Hercules. Both are really predictable and filled with cliches that are used only somewhat effectively. But while they are pretty bad movies, they are pretty damn good entertaining movies. This isn't. Now that sounds like a bad comparison because this is a kids film. But from my analysis section, you can pretty much pick up why I'm going to say this is a bad film: There is no subtlety or depth.

The characters, Manolo (Diego Luna), Joaquin (Channing Tatum) and Maria (Zoe Saldana) are extremely cliche. By extreme I mean you can predict already who is going to do what and even what a character is going to say. While each of them are distinct, they're more like caricatures of the cliches they are. Manolo is the dreamer, Joaquin is the macho hero and Maria is an independent woman who loves books. If you know the cliches of those characters, now think about what lines those cliches usually say and you'll be surprised when they say all the lines you predicted they'll say. While it's okay to have stock characters say cliche things, there at least has to be a lot more creativity with how they're said or even a few tweaks to the stock characters. Not only that, the supporting cast was extremely cliche. And you can probably predict what they're going to say as well and be right. This automatically kills any sense of character depth because it makes them all feel like they're picked up from a toy box. In fact, the frame story is they come from a toy box. But Toy Story did not feel this cliche and predictable. And they had way more personality than these puppets.

And the story. My god the story was just not paced well at all. Some portions of this movie was dedicated to having it being told as a story to detention students by a sexy museum tour guide. And yes, it is made clear that she is sexy from how all the male character act around her. Then nearly 20 minutes of the movie is spent with the characters as children, which was highly unnecessary when it could've been summed up in just one to five minutes. Then almost 45 minutes of the movie is dedicated to the adult main characters as they childishly fight over Maria. Which honestly should've just been the first 20 minutes of the movie. Then when the interesting part that takes place in the two Underworlds happen, it is only the last remaining 20 minutes of the movie. That portion should've been the entire run time of the movie. The trailers make it seem like an hour of the movie will take place in the Land of the Remembered and the Land of the Forgotten, but nope, it just sped right through. This is mainly because it was trying to be epic by telling the story over decades when it really just needed to be told when Maria becomes a woman and the two guys are fighting over her. To put it simply, if you saw the trailer for the movie, you've seen the whole movie, and the trailer was better.

And what I'm flabbergasted by the most is the critical acclaim for this film. Most of the acclaim has the excuse that "the visuals are spectacular, even the story was so-so." In my opinion Sucker Punch had spectacular visuals and the story was so-so. Yet you don't see me giving that movie a positive rating, and I love Zack Snyder too. As far as the visuals go, this movie was not even anywhere remotely visually interesting. Yes, it does get interesting to look at once the character dies and goes to the Underworlds, but the movie doesn't spend too much time there. Instead it spends more time in the boring living world where boring dialogue just makes everything in this movie boring. And while the visuals of the Underworld was definitely something, it was not spectacular. A still image makes it spectacular, but in motion it is pretty bland. Compare the visual excitement of Rise of the Guardians' Santa's workshop to the "visual excitement" of the Land of the Remembered in this film and you'll notice that one is a million times superior to the other. 

There are some good things I should say though. Zoe Saldana is great and her voice is charming as the overtly cliched "I don't need a man" Maria. But Ron Perlman as the film's antagonist Xibalba was surprising for me. He nailed the Spanish accent and spoke with a cadence that made his voice unrecognizable for me. So that was a big surprise. But other than that, this movie was too short to have any depth yet felt like it was 3 hours long because of the boring characters and odd pacing.

Final Thoughts

If none of that made any sense then I'll just put it as this. It is a kids movie in the sense that only a child below the age of six will enjoy this movie. Meaning it is the type of movie you'd find as a straight to dvd release rather than a big theatrical one. Theatrical animated movies are indeed targeted for children, but the best animated movies are the ones made for adults yet children are capable of understanding them too. This movie fails in delivering a nice representation of Mexican Culture and as an animated kids movie. The feeling I had watching this movie was the same exact feeling I had watching Transformers: Age of Extinction. The only saving grace is that this movie was shorter, yet it still felt as long as Age of Extinction. Don't believe the critic ratings because this movie is trash. If you have a child though, this movie is definitely for them... but as a rental not a theater experience.

SCORE: 2/10 - Those two points are for Zoe Saldana and Ron Perlman's voice acting.

Dracula Untold - Analysis and Review

The untold story... but you already know the ending

When I was little, I had an obsession with the Universal Movie monsters. Dracula, Frankenstein, The Mummy, The Wolfman, and The Creature from the Black Lagoon. I knew them all, I watched them all, but I didn't stop there. I would look for books that had more information about them, while also searching for other movies dealing with these monsters. But probably my favorite among them was always Dracula.

The Plot

After years of serving the Turkish Army, the notorious warrior Vlad the Impaler (Luke Evans) has taken a life of peace and away from the violent life he once had. But after 10 years of peace, The Sultan, Mehmed the Conqueror (Dominic Cooper) demands that Vlad gives 1000 boys from his kingdom to serve in his army. Including his son. Not wanting to put his son through the ordeal that he went through as  child, Vlad seeks out an ancient evil (Charles Dance) to grant him the power to save his people and battle his former friend. But with great cost.

Analysis

As I've stated before, one of my primary obsessions as a child was Dracula. I know the character inside and out. I've read the classic books. I've watched the Universal films starring Bela Lugosi, the far superior Hammer films starring Christopher Lee and the supreme adaptation of the navel by Francis Ford Coppola with Gary Oldman. I even read every biography and almost every documentary I could get my hands on about his real life counterpart, Vlad The Impaler. Needless to say, I consider myself not just a vampire expert, but a Dracula expert. Whether this knowledge will come in handy in the future, I don't know, but I know everything there is to know about him.

Which also puts me in this strange position the exact same way I was with Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson's Hercules. I know so much about the character that one would probably expect me to be very critical about how he is portrayed onscreen. The thing about Dracula though is that unlike Hercules who has been portrayed as sort of one note through the decades, Dracula has evolved and changed in so many directions. This is mainly because, besides Sherlock Holmes, Dracula is the most adapted literary character in over a century. Because there are so many portrayals, it is hard to lock down which one is the definitive one. And it is this reason that I'm usually open to new takes and renditions because it has become a tradition to always reinvent the character for the past century.

However if there is one aspect that I gotta point out about this film, that is not really a valid criticism, but rather a geeky one. Since this film is suppose to be about how Vlad The Impaler, the historical figure, becomes Dracula, the fictional figure, there was one opportunity that the filmmakers missed out on. That would be Vlad The Impaler's brother, Radu, who along with him was given to the Turks. But unlike Vlad who would be returned to his Romanian kingdom, Radu remained to become a supreme Muslim commander of the Turk army. This would've presented a really great opportunity of having a brother versus brother story. I state this as a complaint mainly because Dominic Cooper's character, Mehmed The Conqueror, is notorious as the man who kills Vlad the Impaler. So from a story point of view, it would be more interesting to have Vlad battle his brother Radu and would leave it in a position that would set things up. But I'm not the writer, and again, this isn't really a valid criticism because the average movie goer would not be thinking that Radu should be the villain, or that Radu is Vlad's brother. Only a select few know this part of history. I wished that was in this movie.

Review

If you have an idea of how this story will play out, it will play out exactly as you think it will. Believe me, the movie is extremely predictable. Cliches are everywhere, and not in the subtle sense but in the in your face sense. Which is a real shame because there are a lot of interesting ideas in here while at the same time a little bit of history thrown in as well.

The best way to describe it is it is a remake of the prologue in Francis Ford Coppola's Bram Stoker's Dracula, but what was only a few minutes in that movie has been extended into an entire 90 minute movie. Now for a cliche movie like this, 90 minutes actually is more of a favor to it than a derision. This keeps the plot tight and has things moving quickly in hopes that the audience will look past all the plot holes and obvious problems in the film. And it will mostly succeed for the general audience, but for a movie buff or Dracula aficionado, it won't work. 

If you have read a previous entry in my blog, you'll know that I am a huge fan of Luke Evans. And honestly, he is an amazing Dracula. The guy fits the bill of being both the sexy monster that girls love while at the same time appearing to be the savage beast that guys wish vampires would be. This role specifically seems perfect for him, and honestly he was the only well written part in the movie. Which is a shame because everyone else is poorly written and not given enough.

Sarah Gadon plays his wife Mirena, whose sole purpose is to be one of his motivations for remaining a good man. However, her dialogue is overtly cheesy and it really is a shame because she was amazing in Cosmopolis. Then of course there is Dominic Cooper playing Mehmed the Conqueror. I strongly believe that Cooper, along with Evans, is a highly underrated actor. The guy can morph into different roles and is extremely versatile. However his performance as Mehmed is pretty one note and cliche villain territory. There was an attempt to make Mehmed and Vlad have this almost brother like relationship, but it was only for one scene and quickly dissolves due to Mehmed being a dick.  And if one wants the very definition of cliche evil, then there is Charles Dance as the First Vampire. He is everything people remember about classic vampires as monsters, not sex symbols. And he plays it perfectly. So much so that one would wish he was the main villain instead of just a catalyst for Dracula's change.

The rest of the supporting cast falls into the same category of not well written and cliche. Character motivations seem to change in a heartbeat. One moment the people love Vlad, the next moment they want to kill him for being a vampire despite just saving their lives, then immediately go back to loving him again. There is even one character who is obsessed with wanting to be Vlad's servant, who appears three times and in those three times there was nothing that establishes why he wants to be Vlad's servant. 

But with cliche story and mediocre character aside, the cinematography and action sequences in this film are incredible. However, because this is a Dracula movie, one would think that this should be Rated R in order to get the full effect of how dangerous Dracula is. The action is very PG-13 with being incredible yet also filmed in a way to hide how gory Dracula's kills really are. But then again, this film is more like a superhero movie set in ancient times than the horror movie Dracula fans would probably want.

Final Thoughts

Despite all of its problems, and there are a lot, I walked away enjoying the picture. I would never recommend it as a must watch, but I do believe the average person can watch it and find it entertaining for a short while. For movie buffs though, it will definitely not be for them. This movie is not good yet at the same time it is not terrible. It is just an entertaining picture that would've benefited more had it embraced a more violent portrayal of Dracula's attacks with an R Rating. What concerns me though is how this film is suppose to be the first step in reviving the Universal Monster Universe. If you want to jump start your universe, this is not the film to do it. But Luke Evans is perfect as Dracula, so who knows, maybe the other ones might work.

SCORE: 6.5/10 - A fairly predictable yet entertaining look at a really cool Dracula

Gone Girl - Analysis and Review

Marriage...

It's been a while since I reviewed a film. It has also been a while since I reviewed a David Fincher film. This should be interesting....

The Plot

When Nick Dunne (Ben Affleck) comes home after contemplating a decision he has to make, he finds his wife, Amy Elliot Dunne (Rosamund Pike), is missing. Not only that, but signs of a struggle are evident in the home. With Amy's family, law enforcement, and the media wrapping themselves around this disappearance, the evidence starts to point to Nick as the prime suspect for her vanishing. Or perhaps, her murder.

Analysis

If there is one thing in this film that works wonderfully well, it is the portrayal of the media. Being a film student who has to go through some television and broadcast, I know how the news operates. Especially when it comes to stories like this. Our mission is not to tell the truth, our mission is to show the facts. How we choose to show those facts and what we think of them is completely up to us, the media. "If it bleeds, it leads." That's the motto behind it. 

It is a disgusting truth about how journalism works. And I know that journalists are always about finding the truth, yet I know ideal intentions of being a truthful journalist can easily be shattered. That is not the type of world that we live in. Yet we have the media as our voice of truth. There is a reason why we watch the news because that is where the truth is suppose to lie. That is only half true. Yet this film also displays how easy it is for the media to influence people into believing what the truth is. 

The media is powerful. It is neither a force for good, nor a force for justice. It wants to believe it is, but there is no way it can be.

But it is still powerful.

Review

I don't exactly know how to review this film. Mainly because to talk too much about it would be a great disservice. So all I can say is this: The cast of the movie is incredible!

Ben Affleck delivers an extremely subdued performance, and I do mean really subdued performance. His portrayal as Nick is probably one of the most difficult performances to critique. Mainly because some would say that he doesn't steal the show. But the thing is, he's not suppose to. Part of this movie is for him trying to not stand out, trying not to do anything wrong. In other words: become invisible. He does that. And yes, there are moments when his performance elevates, especially once the first act is gone. But I'm just letting you, reader, know this. He's suppose to not stand out. It is part of the character, and he does it brilliantly. This is a guy who just wants to be left alone in order to focus on what is happening to him, but he gets constantly thrown into the spotlight. It is a terrific portrayal that may not put people at ease that he's the new Batman. But believe me, if he can do this, he can play Batman.

Then of course there is the supporting cast. You may not have heard of her, but Carrie Coon is a name you should know. She portrays Nick's sister, who has to help him through these tumultuous times. The chemistry between her and Affleck does feel like a genuine brother and sister relationship. She really delves in to how a family member would act in this situation. As secrets begin to unfold, Coon convinces the audience that no matter what is discovered, she will stand by her brother. She's the one thing that not only keeps Nick sane throughout the whole ordeal, but keeps the audience sane as well.

There is also Tyler Perry and Neil Patrick Harris. Perry plays Nick's Defense Attorney, while Harris plays someone connected to Amy's past. Perry shows that in the hands of a capable director, himself not included, he is a true acting force. That man sold me as a suave and highly intelligent attorney who can easily predict how the media will play things out. He's a master strategist, and Perry will make you believe he is. Harris on the other hand is kind of jarring. He doesn't do a bad performance, he's a phenomenal actor, but there was something about him being in the movie that seems to have stood out. Like he doesn't belong there, while at the same time he does. I guess it works well with his character as this extremely rich man who has all the pretty toys, but his presence was just jarring. Again, he's still incredible, it's just a little weird seeing him in this movie.

There are many others in this film who are great. Kim Dickens and Patrick Fugit are great as the detectives on the case. Though Fugit's character does come off as one note detective who only thinks that Nick is guilty. Dickens' character is the one Detective who does grow in the film, but as this is not a true detective story it is clear that we won't see the extent of that growth. Then there is Missi Pyle as an obvious satire on Nancy Grace. She is the embodiment of the media and how it manipulates information to get a rise out of people. She does this exceptionally well. Hell, even the girl from the notorious Blurred Lines music video, Emily Ratajkowski, gives a fine performance despite being in the film for only four small moments and topless in two of them. That is the sign of an incredible director when everyone in the film from large roles to small roles are all incredible as a whole.

But then there is someone I'm missing. That is the other lead of this film. The titular Gone Girl, Amy Elliot Dunne played by Rosamund Pike. This is HER movie. This is THE movie that will get her the recognition she deserves. This is the movie that may get her an academy award. She is the standout of this film. The whole movie revolves around her character and her disappearance. There are so many layers to this missing woman, layers that by the end of the film may even make you question your own significant other. This is her best role, and will hopefully get rid of that stigma of her being a Bond Girl in the final Pierce Brosnan Bond film. I don't know how to explain or give you a reason why she is incredible. The only way for you to know, is to see the movie yourself.

If there is a negative for the film I will say that there are times that the film feels like it drags. But here is the strange part. Even though it drags, especially with a runtime of 2 hours and 25 minutes, for some reason you want more. You don't want it to end. You want it to keep going. So you're trapped in this feeling of, "this movie is too long," and "I want more!" So it is strange that a movie can actually make me feel this way. Because I did feel the drag, but at the same time I wasn't bored. It is strange that I didn't want this to end. Even when I thought it was ending, I was relieved it didn't. Yet at the same time I wished it did. It a strange thing. But still definitely worth a watch.

Final Thoughts

This is definitely a David Fincher film. Everything about this movie has his signature on it. And it delivers on all fronts. Every single person in this film is perfectly casted for their roles, even though Neil Patrick Harris does not visually fit into the film he is still incredible. There is that feeling of it dragging on, but it never feels boring. This is a movie that will definitely be talked about for the rest of the year and all the way to the Oscars. Go see this film. And bring a date...if you want to break up with that person after the movie.

SCORE: 8.9/10 - There is that feeling of drag, but other than that, this film is incredible.

High Moon - Analysis and Review

"Welcome to the Odd Side of the Moon"

Usually the phrase "Syfy Original Movie" often gets followed by the word, shark. However luckily this time, that is not the case. But to call this a Syfy Original Movie seems to be the wrong word. In reality it should be referred to as, "A Syfy Pilot for a Series that never got the full order." That sounds about right. And who created this 90 minutes Pilot... I mean TV Movie? Well, none other than the man notorious for creating wonderful shows that don't last past season 2 with the exception of NBC's Hannibal, Bryan Fuller.

The Plot

Return to a futuristic world as imagined by the 60s, where the Moon has become a resource mined by all the major nations of the world. And on this dead planet, a flower is found blooming. An impossible feat. But that is only the beginning of many strange occurrences on the Moon as political intrigue and signs of conspiracy begin to unravel in this quirky, zany, campy throwback sci-fi.

Analysis

Bryan Fuller is either one of the most creative geniuses in television, or the most unluckiest. Before his moderately successful yet critically acclaimed show Hannibal got renewed for a Third Season, there was a time when any show Bryan created would be doomed to end either on the pilot or if lucky the second season. I never realized I was a fan of his shows through the years, as when I saw them I wasn't interested in the people behind television shows. But I do clearly remember a weird show called Wonder Falls about a grad student who has unwanted conversations with inanimate objects who want to guide her through her life. I wasn't wowed by the show, probably because I was too young to understand how clever it was, yet for some reason I kept watching each week. However that only resulted into me watching for four weeks straight because it got canceled after four episodes. Luckily I would learn recently that the show had filmed its entire season with a definite ending and is now out on DVD for fans to experience without the fear of cancellation.

It would only be years later that another weird show would pop up called Pushing Daisies. The story about a pie maker who is cursed with the ability to kill those he touches but bring dead people back to life but only under a minute or else someone has to die to take the place of the resurrected. That sounds morbid, but it is actually funny. It was like watching a colorful Tim Burton show with a dash of Jean-Pierre Jeunet. The world was highly stylized and resembles more of an exaggerated children's storybook that just happens to be telling adult stories. That sounds like an unusual clash, but it worked out beautifully well. And luckily, this show managed to make it to Season 2. But once again, despite being critically praised and Emmy nominated, it was canceled. But luckily once again, Fuller and his writers were able to deliver a definite ending for all the stories told in Season 2.  

Apparently there was another show on cable that he created called Dead Like Me about a woman who becomes  a Grim Reaper. I haven't seen it personally, but as I predicted, it was canceled after Season 2. Starting to see a pattern with Fuller's work?

It is astonishing though that someone as imaginative and talented as him gets so much praise yet such little viewership concerning his shows. They are so out the box and very weird, that it really does take a specific audience to watch. However, as most critics are not the specific target audience and they love his work regardless, it shows just how brilliant this guy is. But again, his shows just don't have broad appeal. Even his reboot of the classic The Munsters series called Mockingbird Lane was not picked up for a full series, but NBC liked the pilot directed by Bryan Singer so much that they premiered it as a Halloween special. So I am glad that Fuller finally found true success with Hannibal, but I'm also disappointed that despite that success, he still can't get another show started. Which leads us to this little sci-fi gem.

Review

High Moon was not meant to be a movie. It was designed to be a TV Show adaptation of a Young Adult Novel called The Lotus Caves. And from this 80 minute film (90 minutes with commercials) it is obvious that this was always meant to be a Pilot. And with that being said, it would be an excellent crammed first episode, not a movie. 

The show is basically a mash up of several different sci-fi and Sean Connery James Bond films from the 60s during the Cold War. The plot focuses heavily on an American Convict, forced to become a miner on the Moon, discovering a red flower growing on the Moon's surface. This leads to a chain of events that has him labeled as a delusional terrorist who might be working for the Russians, who have been trying to steal from the American mining facilities on the Moon. This brings in the Convict's well connected government official Brother who goes there to discover the truth. Of course if finding a flower on the moon sounds weird, how about Indian assassins, gay Russian spy cyborgs, and gigantic robotic dinosaurs sound? Yeah, there is a lot going on in this "movie."

It should be commended however with how much this Pilot is able to stand on its own as a movie. It does have an ending that resolves the greater plot issues of the story being told, but the ending does leave the viewer wanting to know what happens next. After all a movie is suppose to have broad character arcs and development in order to be called a movie. A show operates on a different level in that the pilot is suppose to introduce you to the world and the characters where they currently stand with their personalities but giving hints of how they will develop later. In other words, there is mini character development in this "film." It is enough for viewers who believe this to be a film to be called efficient development, but it is never large development. However that doesn't mean none of the characters get any development.

Jonathan Tucker plays Stanislov, the aforementioned gay Russian spy cyborg who may or may not be working for the U.S. against the Russian Military stationed on the Moon. He is definitely not the main character, that title goes to the convict and his government brother, but seeing as how I can't remember the names of the other characters except for him and one other player, he definitely stood out the most. Stanislov is the very definition of what Bryan Fuller intended this show to be: James Bond in Space...but good. He is a spy, and being an amputee gives him robotic limbs that act like very James Bond like gadgets. He's Russian, and did I also mention he's gay? He is probably the most fascinating character in the show and the only memorable one. Which could kind of explain why this pilot become a TV movie, because if you can't remember the names of the main characters that does seem like a bad sign. That's not to say that the characters were badly done, because the government brother played by Chris Diamantopoulos actually has some really memorable lines. Particularly an ultra serious conversation about politics with a military general that is filled with breakfast metaphors. But again, none of the main characters are really memorable.

No it really is our gay Russian spy cyborg, Stan, and the sweetly cold Eve Smythe, played by Charity Wakefield, who come off as more memorable. Smythe is probably more memorable because her cold yet unnervingly sweet personality and look at me clothes heavily contrasts the other characters in the show. There is a Japanese character who makes an appearance as the operator of a gigantic robot T-Rex on the Moon, but she didn't have too much character as it is obvious they were planning on saving her for later episodes. So in all out honesty, this show fails in making us care about our main characters, but the story is definitely layered. 

What was being told in this episode is a very nice tale of political intrigue with a bit of sci-fi campiness to make for a strange entertaining flick. Again, while the story does keep developing and interesting ways (did I mention Gigantic Robotic T-Rex) with a very satisfying ending it does leave a level of dissatisfaction that we're only scratching the surface. Too many things happened in this film that could've easily been streamlined to three episodes had it been picked up as a series. I've seen this happened before with NBC's show, Revolution, which had a Pilot that crammed a story worth 5 episodes into a single one in order to get to the fun stuff more quickly. However, I have to reiterate again that while it is crammed, for some reason it still works. Even when we don't exactly remember character names, it still seems to work smoothly.

The throwbacks to the 60s era sci-fi movies and pulp comics are present in this "film," and it is a welcome change from the usual gritty science fiction that we have on TV. It is very whimsical with the right amount of campy and seriousness mixed into a strange tone that is definitely something created by Bryan Fuller. I love the world that was created, and I commend the production design team for bringing back this retro look to contrast with everything else. It is a welcome visual change and is the only visual style that would work for this type of show... I mean... TV movie.

Final Thoughts

Come on, you have to admit that this is F***ING COOL!

It really saddens me that Fuller once again can't get a show on the air. You'd think that with Hannibal's success, this wouldn't be a problem, but alas it was not meant to be. But it really is a strong testament to the power and talent that Fuller has. How often do pilots for unpicked shows get to be aired on television? Rarely. And he's done it twice now. So it saddens me that this "weird James Bond in Space" show will never happen. But I'm glad that the pilot reminds us of Fuller's roots as a writer on Star Trek Voyager and the first season of Heroes. I hope to see him back in the realm of Science Fiction again. But for now, I hope Hannibal can make it to Season Four and that his next show American Gods can at least make it to Season One. Till then, this was a nice reminder of a simpler sci-fi world when things can be fun, weird, political, and smart all at the same time. We'll just never see it again.

SCORE: 7/10 - A lot of potential for a series ultimately wasted as a TV movie