Blade Runner

Merry Christmas Eve! Now I’m sure you would expect me to do a Christmas movie (I’m thinking of you Die Hard), but with the teaser trailer for the sequel having debuted just a couple days ago, I’m reviewing Blade Runner. For the record, Ridley Scott is only taking producer duties for Blade Runner 2049, but with Harrison Ford returning and adding Ryan Goslng to the cast, it will certainly be interesting. Oh, and Denis Villenueve is directing, and I was a huge fan of Prisoners—not to mention he garnered huge praise for his most recent work Arrival.

            I gotta make sure I throw this disclaimer in near the beginning: Blade Runner is not an action sci-fi flick. Yes, it’s from Alien director Ridley Scott who would later give us movies such as Gladiator and The Martian. But Blade Runner is much different. It certainly has sci-fi appeal and influence-- video games such as Final Fantasy VII and Mass Effect clearly took notes from the film, and directors such as Christopher Nolan have cited this film as inspiration, but it also doesn’t fall into the trippier territory of films such as 2001: A Space Odyssey. Based on the cleverly titled book Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep by Philip K. Dick (he died before the release of the film, but praised what he saw which was about the first 20 minutes), this movie is much more philosophical. Perhaps Blade Jogger would be a more fitting title—the pacing is very deliberate and not at all what I was expecting.

            The movie stars Harrison Ford who was determined to not wear a hat because he was just coming from Raiders of the Lost Ark. The year is 2019 and genetic engineering has advanced so far as to create androids, or replicants, that are superior in intelligence and physicality. Their telltale sign is their responses to questions that are supposed to evoke human emotions. Created to work as slaves, replicants have rebelled in off-world colonies (remember this is 3 years from now) and are declared illegal on Earth and are to be terminated (they use the word retired) if found. This is where Ford comes in when it’s discovered that 6 replicants have returned to Earth. Obviously, this has all the ingredients to be a thrilling action flick. But it takes a much different direction. Replicants are designed with a failsafe that automatically retires them after 4 years. It produces cool, thinking quotes like, “It’s too bad she won’t live. But then again, who does?”

            Ridley Scott liked the idea of Ford being a replicant, but Ford has stated that he despised that idea and said that before filming Scott agreed with him that his character is definitely human. Now I won’t spoil anything, but I will say that it’s a question toiled with during the film. Also, if you watch the movie, watch the director’s cut version (which technically isn’t fully Scott’s cut) because the ending is much much better than the theatrical cut of the film.

            Really, above sci-fi or philosophical or whatever, I’d describe this film as weird. I’m not sure what you’re expecting from the film going in, but it’s not what you’re going to get. There isn’t ever a clear tone established, and this just adds to the difficulty of describing just what the film is. Even the highly-regarded score switches from slow, dark melodies to jazzier moments. I will say, however, probably the most consistent element of the film is the lighting. It’s certainly always on the darker side, but all the ways the light comes through in every scene is skillfully crafted.

            In all honesty I can’t even say I’m much of a fan of this film. I didn’t care for how it was edited, and some of the sub-plots really were weird. The movie succeeds in getting you to think, but it also makes you wonder what you just watched. I’m not sure how many times or how precisely I can say it, but it’s a strange film. Not strange like drug-fueled Trainspotting, and not confusing like Stanley Kubrick, but more cerebral like the very ends of the films 28 Days Later and Sunshine. I can’t say you will enjoy this film (possibly because I can’t say I enjoyed it), but I’m extremely curious about the sequel, and for that alone it might be worth checking this film out. And in case of rain, make sure to grab yourself a light-up umbrella. Those things are so cool.

#1 Skyfall

This is truly the pinnacle of Bond films. Although perhaps not the best opening action sequence overall, it succeeds in introducing the tone of the film-- one that fits perfectly with the narrative. It also introduces Naomie Harris who is a welcome addition to this revamped cast. And maybe the animation sequence doesn't tell the best story, but it's so clever, and when matched with Adele's titular song, it is definitely the best theme.

Early on Daniel Craig briefly sports a scruffy look. He doesn't come close to passing the physical. The psychological examination is clever. All of this and more builds on the approach Sam Mendes beautifully takes this film. And it's all backed behind a stellar cast. Ben Whishaw plays one of my favorite (if not favorite actually) characters in the young and arrogant techno Q, and of course adding Ralph Fiennes into the mix is awesome. This also marks the best narrative given to Judi Dench as the aging M (although give Judi Dench credit because she looks great for however many decades old she is).

If you didn't know it was coming, I had to save Javier Bardem for last. He is a powerhouse actor who became familiar to American audiences with his villainous turn in No Country for Old Men (I'd describe his character as the combination of Joker and Two Face from The Dark Knight). Also shout out to his starring role in Alejandro Inarritu's foreign film Biutiful. And if you need any more evidence of his quality acting, look no further than his malignant and sophisticated role in this film. His introduction and monologue is memorable, his actions are remorseless, and unlike Christoph Waltz's antagonist in the sequel, the execution of his plan is smart and scary. Easily the best villain of this series.

Something I haven't really discussed much from the other films but that is so vital to the success of this film is the cinematography. The film lost out to Life of Pi at the Oscars, but the shots of Shanghai-- in particular the silent action scene in the skyscraper is one of my favorites of any film-- are such a gorgeous combination of colors bursting from the dark surroundings (hmm, even a bit like the tone of the film).

This movie is the perfect blend of old and new Bond. Throw on top a great character-driven story, and not only is this my favorite film of Daniel Craig's series, it's my favorite Bond film (admittedly, I need to re-watch many of the classics, especially with Sean Connery). And not only is it my favorite Bond film, it's just a tremendous film on its own. Multiple scenes always pop out as memorable, and the climax is simply fantastic. Even if you haven't seen Casino Royale, or any Bond film for that matter, I can't stress enough that to anybody and everybody I give a high recommendation to go watch Skyfall.

#2 Casino Royale

I love love love the opening to Casino Royale. It's a perfect blend of infusing classic Bond while showing the world hey, this is the new direction we plan on taking this series. Admittedly, Daniel Craig is an unconventional look, but his charm will win you over. The parkour of the action sequence is really fun to watch (and Johnny English Reborn basically spoofs it and it's hilarious), but it's the opening scene that puts this as the best intro. The theme is a good song, not great, but fits well; the animation is clever and works well, and that's what puts "You Know my Name" as the 2nd best theme.

It doesn't matter who you are, if you prefer blondes over brunettes, or whatever it may be. Eva Green is the best Bond Girl in the Craig franchise. She brings the wit to match the man in the tux at every step. I'm a fan of Mads Mikkelsen, and he would be the best villain if it weren't for the #1 pick. Judi Dench is a solid choice, and she actually is reprising her role as M from the previous series. Jeffrey Wright also brings quality to the film, so I believe we've settled that the cast works well.

As far as story is concerned, there is a lot of good and a little bad. If you have establishing shots of well-known areas, putting title cards to tell you where the characters are currently at is cheap and dubs down the audience; this is something this film avoids even if it's brought into Quantum of Solace solely to make sure that sequel was a disappointment. The point is that you'll almost always see me praise subtlety. That really isn't the case here. I'd probably recommend subtitles actually for this film because details are sometimes given in low voices that's hard to pick up. The plot moves to a new action scene, or the characters suddenly display new motivations; and if you aren't paying attention to everything going on, chances are there will be something confusing. In fact, this was probably around my third viewing of the film and I picked up on new ideas while still being in the dark about others-- there are movies like Inception and The Prestige that work these details and foreshadowing effectively (both obviously Christopher Nolan films), but it's more of an annoyance here. And as we're on the topic of story, the writing and dialogue gets half-credit. The movie is way too choppy, but there are still some great quips:
Bond: Vodka-martini
Bartender: Shaken or stirred?
Bond: Do I look like I give a damn?
And my favorite:
Vesper (Eva Green): Am I going to have a problem with you, Bond?
Bond: No, don't worry. You're not my type.
Vesper: Smart?
Bond: Single.

On a final note for the story, I'm a sucker for well-constructed scenes like the development of the poker hands, and the torture scene is one of the best in any film. The confusion I've been referring to is mainly in the last 30 minutes. I'll say no more than that, but it's kind of hard to put a finger on what the goal was or what went wrong. These closing scenes aren't bad-- the climax is an awesome set-- but I don't believe it works to the degree the movie hopes for. Overall, the cast is all solid, but it's not the film's fault that the #1 pick has a better ensemble; what really brings the film down to the 2 slot is some choppy scenes and a confused plot. And if those are the critiques I have to give it, that should tell you that this really is a good film. It gets my recommendation, and if you're somebody who hasn't seen a Daniel Craig James Bond film, there's no better place to start than here. Tomorrow, you'll hear my reasoning on why one of the sequels surpasses this film, and you are free to disagree with my reasoning.

#3 Spectre

Sam Mendes returned as director for the fourth installment of the Daniel Craig James Bond series. With everything from questions of how long Craig would be doing this to what a huge budget the film had, there's lots to discuss.

Arguably the best place to start, lets talk about the beginning. Production values are imminent from the opening shots. Although there is hardly a cut or a word for the first five minutes, there isn't really anything special that happens. And this ends up taking a toll when the run-time is just under 2 and 1/2 hours. There's some cool helicopter stunts (with some disbelief of reality put aside), but I still consider this action sequence only the third best. And then you also have to talk about Sam Smith's "Writing's on the Wall." His voice is fantastic and the relevance of the animation in accordance with the story is appreciated, but there's some lacking quality that doesn't seem to fit in with a 007 film. And the animation overall didn't strike me as impressive, so I still rank this theme as third best as well.

Spectre attempts to tie in the previous films into this plot. I guess there's points for effort, but it doesn't really have a huge emotional connection to pull it off. And there were multiple instances where a scene could've been tidied up or even cut entirely. But no. This movie just had to make it to 2 1/2 hours. It's just really long and a little draining.

I think I was still fine with the film up until a snowy mountain sequence where Bond ends up driving like this cargo plane. And as problems arise, the sequence goes into the most Pierce Brosnan-esque style of action-- so over-the-top that it's just like c'mon man.

Lea Seydoux adds a nice touch, and Monica Bellucci certainly adds a bit of a surprising element for Bond Girls. Really have no issue there. And then fans of Sherlock will recognize Andrew Scott in the film. Having gained attention as Moriarty, I was intrigued to see him step into a different role... That didn't happen. Pretty sure the producers told him to act almost exactly as Moriarty had. The result is nothing surprising, which is a disappointment and also a little frustrating.

But lets talk about what had the most potential overall for the film: Christoph Waltz. After having Javier Bardem kill it as the villain in the previous film, I think Waltz is an excellent choice to bring new elements. But this is easily the worst aspect of any Daniel Craig Bond film. Which pains me so much to say because there's a good deal of build-up. His introduction has great camerawork and lighting, and it creates a mystical veil around the organization and his role behind it. And this lasts for lets say 8 minutes. Then the movie basically forgets about it for a good hour. He's brought back, and it could still be very interesting despite a drop in fanfare. But what was supposed to be a tense, high-production action set-piece is set back with a surprisingly boring backstory for the villain filled with ideas that say "This is the bad guy and he's bad and he does bad things because he's bad" and unbelievably predictable action. And I guess they make it appear he's dead, but everyone knows that's not the case--even if the run-time is padded already. The climax reminds me of Mission Impossible Rogue Nation if that climax was also filled with cliches. And what I mean by that comparison is that Rogue Nation kind of has their climax setup like a heist, and you don't really feel any tension because you feel like it all is part of the good guys' plans. Spectre is similar to this, and the ignorance and stupidity that leads to the demise of the villain makes me think that the writers just couldn't think of any other logical possibility for a death.

Spectre isn't all bad, like the returns of Ben Whishaw as Q and Ralph Fiennes as M were very welcome, but it's a very flawed film that certainly had potential. If anything, it makes me want Craig to return one last time for an awesome sendoff. As for the two films I ranked higher, I believe there are some differing opinions on which is better, but after re-watching both, the choice is clear to me.

#4 Quantum of Solace

Today is considered to be James Bond's birthday! So to celebrate we're going to rank all 4 Daniel Craig 007 films.

If you haven't guessed by the title, the sequel to Casino Royale ranks last. And honestly, it's not even close. To understand this film, think of it as a trigger-happy Bourne film. And I mean that in one of the worst ways possible. The editing is atrocious. The film takes a Matrix Reloaded approach and stacks action on action; however, it's not even as successful as that film. The opening action sequence has one decent moment, but anyone able to follow the rapid edits deserves an award. What such rapid editing tends to correlate with is weak content to begin with. Some well thought out long shots could've worked effectively, but the truth is that there just isn't anything special about the action set-pieces besides perhaps locale. And don't even mention the parachute opening 10 feet above the ground. You can't walk away from that without an injury.

Although I can appreciate some of what Jack White accomplished with "Another Way to Die," Alicia Keys only takes away from the song-- making it and the corresponding animation the worst theme as well. The Bond Girls are the worst as well. Let's see, what other worsts does it have... Oh yeah! The villain is so uninteresting. And it's so obvious during the climax that there's no way he could even put up a fight against Bond.

Despite going for the darker, remorseless tone, I actually felt that Daniel Craig brought some of his greatest charm in this film. Even though there really isn't any cool dialogue to accompany him, I feel that after already having one round as the famous Brit, Craig was tailored in his approach to the character, and it's one of the aspects that pays off for the film.

But enough praise. The film has annoying characters, and even when trying to fit elements from the previous film, the plot is so basic and not memorable in any way. But when you have an action flick, almost all can be forgiven with quality action. And the film just falls flat. Not only is this the worst Craig Bond film, it just isn't a quality picture. It's a misstep, and that probably contributed to the gap between this film and the next one.

Tomorrow, starting with #3, the other Bond films are certainly entertaining to differing degrees. There's a lot to compare and a lot to talk about. And just as a little something to think about, the producers considered George Clooney to be the new Bond, but he smartly declined due to him obviously not being British (a couple years after this he even starred in The American). As always, comments and suggestions are appreciated and encouraged. Feel free to agree or disagree with this list, and tell me how you would rank them. Signing out for tonight, the name's Gill. Jacob Gill.

The Best Movie Ever Made

We're not talking about the first plan. We're not even talking about plans 2-8. No sir, I am referring to Plan 9 from Outer Space. This gem is written, produced, and directed by Ed Wood, Jr. There's numerous stories of actors doing stupid things-- for example, an actor playing a cop would repeatedly point his gun at himself-- just to see if Mr. Wood would notice (Spoiler, he didn't).

Now, there are really only 2 types of moments in this film: moments that are so bad it's funny, and moments that are just plain bad. I'm talking about an awful narrator who, whenever he mentions a character or setting, there must an awkward edit to show what he's talking about-- in case the audience was confused. The writing is so choppy, for better and definitely for worse, the directing is just... just bad. I don't think there's any other way to say it. And the actors would just get their lines over with because they had better things to do with their lives.

So what is this ninth plan? Well, aliens with much laughably better technology come to Earth in their flying saucers on strings. And in order to make sure Earth creatures don't destroy the shared universe, they must be destroyed. Thus, the best way for the aliens to accomplish this goal is to obviously raise the dead using their electron guns. This diabolical plan ends up raising a total of 3 creatures throughout the movie: a big detective, Dracula, and Vampira. Trust me when I tell you how haunting and scary and gory and... Oh I can't do it. The biggest laughs are watching the 3 walk over to the main characters as the characters just stare and watch in "horror".

This movie isn't always good, but it certainly is always bad. Look it up. There's horror and drama and sci-fi babble with quick edits. Not sure how much more you can ask for. There's even a Johnny Depp film called Ed Wood based on this guy (haven't watched it though). Okay, that's all from me. And remember my friend, future events such as these will affect you in the future.

Captain Sully

January 15, 2009. Many remember the date for the "Miracle on the Hudson." Crew and passengers totaled 155 as birds flew into the engine of the plane, forcing the captain to land in the Hudson River. Heralded as a hero, people who haven't read the book (including myself) that Chesley Sullenberger proceeded to write about the incident may not be familiar with everything that happened after the memorable day.

There's different ways of approaching the material, so let's see how they decided to do it before analyzing the contributions of the individual. The beginning sets up how Sully never embraces the role of a hero and how his mind is tormented about how he saved the lives of everyone, yet the flight committee pushes to know if it was the best and safest decision; Sully reported that he lost both engines and thus wouldn't have thrust to return to a runway, but simulations and data engineers put together state otherwise. The beginning also sets up how Sully has always had a passion to fly and is an experienced pilot with over 40 years under his belt.

It isn't until about the 30 minute mark that we get our first glimpses of the day in question. From then on there's a good deal of Sully contemplatively running through New York and reliving the day and the possible outcomes, and then different views of the 208 seconds of fateful flight.

This is not the most thrilling movie. It just simply can't be. And it doesn't infuse the amount of enjoyment that Moneyball did with subject matter that could've bored audiences. Nevertheless, that is not to say the movie is boring. Clint Eastwood directs, and he more than anybody ever can direct with such a cool hand. And his directing when it comes to the rescue scenes on the river may be overlooked, but it's truly strong directing. And in typical Eastwood form, expect a lot of subtle piano playing in the film (Eastwood is credited with the theme for the film). It's also worth mentioning that even though many glimpses of the crash (or as Sully puts it, "forced water landing") are presented throughout the brisk hour and a half, it doesn't get old. There's purpose every time it's shown, and the right amount is shown every time.

Tom Hanks stars as the captain who misses his family and truly believes he was just doing his job-- nothing overly heroic. There's some internal demons to battle over the course of the movie, and it may not be Hanks' finest performance, but the everyday-charm and subtleness is still quite a performance. Aaron Eckhart is the clear supporting role, second fiddle character. He's really meant to be the comic relief, and, not all the jokes are the most well-written, but again there's charm for the guy that has his captain's back every step of the way. Laura Linney is never on the screen with Hanks at the same time, but as the distressed wife, they share plenty of phone calls together.

Again, this really isn't the most thrilling movie, and there shouldn't be hopes of it being one either. But it is a film shot almost entirely in IMAX cameras and the shots of New York are great; the acting is basically between good and great, and the final act shows the most humanity. Perhaps the film could be likened to Lincoln-- well acted without the most compelling of stories, but instead of Lincoln's ensemble cast, Sully places its bets on the focus of a few individual and that helps it retain the identity of an enjoyable film. It probably doesn't raise to the level needed for any Oscar nod, but it is an enjoyable film. And when you can enjoy a film or the film succeeds in the purpose it set out on, that's a win in my books.

Never Say Never to a Review on a Saturday Night

Although I can highly recommend documentaries like Food, Inc., I honestly haven't watched too much in the genre. With that being said, I have prepared a double-header for tonight.

First up, we look to pop music and the Bieber Fever craze. Honestly, if you're going to take up time to watch something on the Canadian, I'd probably say just watch the roast of this guy. As that is not the case for tonight, I'll try addressing this documentary with as little bias as possible.

The film starts off with a terrible edit-infused montage that shows how contemporary and how in-the-moment the singing phenomenon is and how he's changing the world. I will say, some of the biggest joy of watching this is seeing all the braces-wearing tween girls scream and jump and drool over the guy. And then watching fathers wearing Justin Bieber shirts as they take their daughters to the concerts for the experience is humorous as well. I'm really not sure if these were the moments where I was supposed to find joy in this documentary, but I had to have something keep me going through the run-time.

The film switches between the buildup to the sold-out crowd at Madison Square Garden-- an actually impressive feat-- and the humble beginnings of the kid and his rise to stardom. As I really never (sorry for the use of that word) cared about the guy, I only knew bits and pieces to his story, like how he finished second at a singing competition in Canada. As the film shows a bunch of old videos of Justin playing around with his first instruments, there is some vocal talent for his age. But what you have to give the guy credit for is his innate ability with the drums. As much as any guy would hate to admit, Justin Bieber has shown that there is some musical ability under the dreamy hair and brows and eyes and whatever else.

How his eventual manager found his videos randomly on YouTube and introduced him to Usher and all the other events unfolded is all good story material, but it really isn't all that gripping.

Before I can't take it anymore, we'll discuss his performances on the stage that are shown pretty frequently. I'd describe his dancing as a buffered Michael Jackson-- he always seems one move behind. Granted, he does have good footwork and he's able to work the crowd, but his songs just really aren't that pleasing to listen to. I haven't read the series and don't plan to, but it's probably like going back to read Twilight only to realize that the writing style really isn't all that that it was cut out to be the first time reading. Look, I think we've all had enough of this documentary, so let's move on to something a little more interesting.

James Franco goes behind the scenes for one of the most recognizable TV shows ever, Saturday Night Live. Saturday Night chronicles the week's preparation for the live show at the titular time.

The week they filmed is with John Malkovich as the guest host. Although he is seen somewhat during the rehearsals and overviews of skits, the focus isn't on him, and that is truly a good thing. There's a huge team of writers, and everyone gathers around as they throw out ideas for skits-- these include Malkovich wondering about his first cycle as a 13-year-old girl and how the other girls pressure him (her), and another where Malkovich comes in to sing the jingle for that empire carpeting commercial. The writers get to work and try honing their scripts.

As the Live team of actors is very different from what comprised the '75 season, a lot of screen time is given to the likes of Bill Hader. Truly a funny and talented man, he walks around with advice for what should happen during the skits. As the documentary proceeds through the days, one standout moment was a quick interaction with one worker. With a coffee mug in hand, it is told that it is 10 in the morning, and the guy mumbles how he went to bed around 6 and woke up around 8. You really may not think about it, but there's a whole bunch of work and time put in to trying to make a strong week for the show.

Anybody interested in the industry or curious about behind-the-scenes looks should check this documentary out. I learned more than I thought I would, laughed and was entertained, and simply enjoyed the entire film. It's not ground-breaking by any means, but getting a peek behind how the Weekend Update segment is written is really neat. I may not watch the show all that much and haven't been the most impressed in recent years, but it does certainly leave you with more of an appreciation of the dedication behind it all.

This review was written live from New York. Goodnight, everyone!

The Silence of the Praise

The Silence of the Lambs is only the third movie to win all 5 major Oscars (One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest is another): Best Picture, Director, Actor (and Anthony Hopkins has some of the least screen time for a best actor winner), Actress, and Best Adapted Screenplay. It is the only horror film to ever win Best Picture, and it made all sorts of money-- staying on top of the box office for like 5 weeks and already having made back its budget in the first. So the data coming in would say that I would probably write a review on how good Anthony Hopkins and Jodie Foster were, and how this is such a landmark horror film that would rival The Shining as being the best ever. But I’m not going to. I believe this movie has been highly overrated, and if you allow me to explain, perhaps you’ll end agreeing with me too.

When you think about this movie, the first thing you think of is either fava beans or Hannibal the Cannibal. But the star is Jodie Foster… What’s her character’s name again? Clarence, Karen, Carly? You know what, doesn’t really matter. We’ll save Jodie Foster for later because Anthony Hopkins is really what this movie is known for. And there’s a lot of good to indeed say. His looking right at the camera as his character is introduced, his improv mocking of Foster’s accent, his unblinking eyes and famous lines. Oscar Winner? Sure. It’s all there. My criticism will be discussed later when we talk about the director. What I will say, however, is that Ted Levine is vitally underappreciated as Buffalo Bill. First, I’m glad to see Teddy in a role that isn’t a sheriff or cop. Buffalo Bill’s luring of women and skinning his victims already made him a viable villain, but it’s his dancing in front of the mirror that takes the crown and serves as the creepiest thing in the film.

Okay, I can’t hold back any longer. Gotta talk about how this movie suffers. Over the course of filming, I have no issue with the directing. It’s not too special, but it’s not bad; the camerawork is a different story. It’s inconsistent, sloppy, and moves around too much. It tries creating a style that just doesn’t work for the film. The exception is Dr. Lecter’s scenes. Everything works there, but it seems like the film basically was built around what happened there. Which brings me to the actual story and the editing. We start with Jodie proving herself in the FBI and toughing it out as a female there. It’s brief, and some exposition is quickly thrown in to establish her character because, after all, we have to hurry up and get to Hannibal. Which still doesn’t seem totally logical. They go to one of the most dangerous and cunning psychiatrists to help catch the notorious Buffalo Bill, and they send an FBI agent who hasn’t even graduated? That doesn’t add up for me. Fast forward a scene or 2 and we get introduced to Buffalo Bill. It’s a disturbing scene, but now we know who everyone is looking for. So the small amount of film dedicated to detective work really hardly serves any purpose because, after all, let’s just get back to Hannibal. However smart the Hannibal scenes may be, they’re also predictable. And the music really is more nonchalant than anything, and when you mix it all together, you get a film that really isn’t all that scary. It’s a cop story with a good, not great, female lead and an unremarkable story, so it all dwindles down to Hannibal. And he’s truly a pretty great movie psycho, but surround him in a film that is surrounded around him, and the result is just eh.

The climax has predictable moments, but it was leading up to the tense finish I was hoping for the entire film. And then the decisive moment happened and it was so lame. The redeeming part is how the movie ended because despite my criticism from before, I thoroughly enjoyed the ending. So there is that. But if you want an actually scary film with a cool, strong heroine, go watch Alien, Zero Dark Thirty, or just something else.

Joker: The Killing Bat

To celebrate its DVD release, there was a special one-night theater showing of Batman: The Killing Joke with a brief talk with Mark Hamill beforehand. This is an R-rated animated film with the best of the best lending their voices with Kevin Conroy and Mark Hamill voicing Batman and The Joker respectively. Well, that’s what the movie should focus on right? First you have watch the Batgirl filled first half to get there. Actually, before I start getting too critical it’s vital to know how the plot develops. Batgirl and Batman have a couple bickering matches (that’s not entirely true-- Batgirl does the arguing and Batman will wait and then say one line that signals the end of the conversation) about Batgirl’s role in some of the crimes and investigations being tackled. And this fills the first half of the 76 minute film. Then it switches between the present with how The Joker alters the Gordon’s lives (and ultimately how Batgirl becomes Oracle) and the past of how The Joker came to be.

We’ll take this on half by half. When you think of animated films, you’ll think of in-your-face messages (unless you’re thinking of Pixar of course) told by huggable and adorable characters. But when it’s rated R, you totally change the target audience and the way to present your art to them. Subtle references will be picked up and understood and appreciated, and overall the small details will add to the big picture. That’s really not how this film starts off. Quickly, Batgirl is in conflict with Batman because she thinks he’s being too protective of her by not allowing her to pursue a villain. And Barbara Gordon relates her problems to her gay best friend by saying she is sort of seeing her yoga instructor but that they aren’t really together. To top off this very strangely presented sexual tension that is served with humor that just doesn’t really make the cut, the writers have to make sure the audience is on the same page. When Barbara leaves the library she works at, she listens in to a couple where a guy complains to his girlfriend that she’s being too clingy. It’s moments like these that make me cringe at how directly an outside situation relates to one of the main characters. The dialogue and presentation is sloppy-- only slightly being balanced by Batman yelling his cool phrases “Where is he??” and “I’m going to ask you nicely only one more time.” Don’t lie, guys, you know you read those quotes in your deep, dark, handsome voices.

It should also be of note that I watched this film with Amir Kaskas. This otherwise forgettable guy was useful because he has already read the comic and was able to inform me of how this first half introduction wasn’t in the comic. I guess I understand why they chose the route because of what happens with Barbara halfway through, but it just didn’t generate the development and conflict it hoped to.

This movie gets substantially better in the second half. Although I do feel some of facial structures looked weird at moments, the animation (and this applies to the first half in general as well) is superb. And it provides the most depth ever for Mark Hamill to stretch his laughing chords.

Although still a bit too direct, the writing is some of the best. The Joker gets some great monologues, Batman has cooler lines, and the messages play out so much better. Trying to show there’s craziness in all of us, The Joker formulates an ultimately disturbing plan that tests the body physically and psychologically. And as he does so, the story correlates to an average guy trying to build a family and how his day just continues to get worse. No, it isn’t done with subtlety, but its execution excuses for this.

The problem I will say is with the second half is ironically the story and presentation. I can’t confirm that the comic works it out better, but I presume it does. And I can presume so for a huge reason. I just praised The Joker for some monologues he gets; however, with this as an animated movie, the filmmakers hesitate to add pauses or include more lingering shots. There has to be a flow in everything that is done, so you can’t stay in one spot. Because of this, there’s not as much impact in the moment of the scene, instead it relies more on the audience recalling it in hindsight. That is where the comic would come in handy; you could stay on a page forever or flip back quickly if you think you recalled something. There’s really only one moment in this film where this lingering happens, and that’s the final scene going into the credits. People around us were muttering “Wait, is that it?” “Is it really over?” It’s an ending to either like or dislike, no middle ground. To me it was a special moment that worked prominently and is more of the subtlety I wanted to be presented throughout.

All in all, it’s a special screening that could have had more arguments to see it for the one night instead of just buying the DVD, but when you include a crowd that wasn’t all too pleasant to watch with, the DVD probably would’ve just been better. You will have to endure the first half, and although the second half isn’t perfect, it is still a quality watch. If you haven’t seen an animated Batman film, they have a distinct style that are interesting to watch, and personally from what I’ve seen, Batman: Under the Red Hood is what I would recommend watching.

Okay, the movie included a bad joke, so I have to follow suit. Actually, this isn’t so much a bad joke as it is just a short, black joke. Okay, so I was walking down the street, and I ran into Kevin Hart.

…

And on that note, I’m retiring as a comedian. But speaking of bad jokes and dark characters, Suicide Squad is coming out soon. I honestly have no idea what to make of it yet, and I will await further judgment and see what others think before I decide if I’ll give it a go or not.

What Even is Swiss Army Man

Last time we ventured into the strange SyFy world infested with sharks roaming around in tornadoes minding their own business, probably reading newspapers or something-- unless they’re hammerheads because that would be really difficult for them. ANYways, we are going from the strange and unknown to the even stranger and more unknown.

I recently watched Being John Malkovich and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind; both are unbelievably strange, even surreal (especially Mind), and both very well done and refined and entertaining. I won’t say tonight’s movie is more entertaining, but I will say it certainly is stranger. Harry Potter meets Brian Wilson-- we’re somehow reviewing Swiss Army Man.

If you watched the trailer, that gives you a good, brief overview of the absurdity that takes place. Paul Dano is stranded on an island and is about to commit suicide when a body washes ashore. It’s a dead Daniel Radcliffe, but as soon as Dano returns to trying to hang himself, the weird starts happening. Perhaps it’s just his imagination, more likely it’s a hallucination from his starvation, but Radcliffe’s body starts acting in only the ways the writers could think up while I assume certainly intoxicated. There’s certainly a very juvenile aspect to his motorboat farts and regurgitated water, but enough is done to provide ample laughter that doesn’t die down as much as I first assumed it would.

Dano realizes he has a chance to get back to civilization with the multi-purpose titular Radcliffe body, and this is the thread to propel the story. But if all you get or all you assume you’ll get from the movie is physical comedy with a simple story of trying to return from the wilderness, then you sir aren’t looking deeply at all.

As he returns back to life, Radcliffe is hilariously rude and ignorant because he doesn’t remember society at all, so Dano begins teaching him. The topics of family, friends, girls, etc. is all light-hearted and fun, and it also provides the time to reflect on Dano and how he himself never totally fit in with society to begin with. It brings about a little more existential problems, and adds a couple threads to story. It’s not the most developed and it doesn’t have to be because that’s not what the movie is. And anybody who has seen the film can and will agree with me that there’s no way to say what exactly this movie is.

Dano is charming, but the gold star goes to the derpy-smiling Daniel Radcliffe. His childish antics never loses wit and lust as he determinedly wants to learn the ways of society and how to be happy. It’s surprisingly funny and endlessly charming, but it is also so incredibly strange and that is a huge reason why it never really went to mainstream theaters-- it just doesn’t have that kind of audience. Really I think it’s much more individual-based on who would like the film.

I will end with the ending (no spoilers, don’t worry). I’ve heard complaints about how it ends, and the more I have thought it through, the more I am willing to defend it. The movie ending any other way just wouldn’t be fitting strangely enough. It’s a jigsaw piece that doesn’t match any puzzle, yet it fits in with this film. Truthfully, the only question this movie will have you asking at the end will be, “What did I just watch?” Take that as you may, whatever I watched, I actually enjoyed it.
I could do reviews on the aforementioned films near the top, but we’ll see. I also definitely plan on watching Jason Bourne,so there could be a review related to that in some way.

3 Shark Tornadoes

I’ve been trying to get motivated to write a review for a film recently, but nothing really clicked. I considered an early Quentin Tarantino film, but I wasn’t sure how much I would add to the discussion. I was very close to doing a Finding Dory review-- talking about Pixar using more camera techniques and whatnot-- but decided against that as well. I will say, however, one review I saw said to imagine a scale for Pixar sequels ranging from Cars 2 to Toy Story 3, and Finding Dory would rank around a Monsters University. That’s really probably most of what you need to know. But then, after weeks of grueling searches for the right movie to review, I stumbled upon a recent trilogy-- one that people might even consider cult classics. The drama, romance, comedy, and plot twists! Oh yes, the title of this review was definitely not a giveaway. I’m reviewing the Sharknado films (because I hate myself).

Starring Ian Ziering and Tara Reid, these are Syfy films with huge storms that sweep up sharks in tornadoes and carry them over to coastal states (California, New York, and Florida respectively). Do you want to know how or why this is considered possible? Well, besides throwaway snippets of global warming and a 2nd grade science lesson of warm and cold air colliding, the movie purposefully doesn’t make much of an effort. And let’s be honest, if you’re watching one of these films, then you really can’t care that much either. One of my favorite things (I said favorite hahaha) is how a character will be like, “Sharks in tornadoes over land?? That can’t be possible!” Then someone like the main character will say authoritatively, “It totally is possible, and it is happening.” Of course, side characters hear the confidence in that voice and think well, if he says so then who am I to say otherwise? They shrug it off, and continue to the next area the plot drags them.

I came in with the mentality of this is going to be so bad it’s funny. I am hear to say the first 2 are just bad. So bad. Jaws looks more realistic. That was unfair, I apologize. I should never belittle Jaws so much as to compare it with these films. The lack of budget and writers is so evident in the first that you can create a checklist of cliches concerning both story and character. If you’re wondering if one of your items on the list happens in the films, the answer is yes. I will say the weird sensation of the first allowed a little more freedom with the second, including more ridiculous cameos, but that doesn’t help much. And the characters annoy me. The sharks purposefully are either really good or really bad at eating the humans-- simply depending on if the character is important or if the story calls for more tension. It’s a mess that didn’t receive much from me except a few chuckles mixed with plenty of groans.

With all of that being said, the third actually delivered with some clever jokes and cameos. It made it semi-enjoyable. Well, probably until the sharks started swimming in space. “How do the sharks survive in space?” “How do they survive in tornadoes?” To both of you characters, those are excellent questions! And the fact that the movie recognizes it does not save it from explaining it. Oh what am I saying, I just want to get to the end so that the screen can say fin.

If you have a suggestion for a film for me to watch or review, please feel free to comment. I have more ideas on what to do with this blog, but some of them would take up a bunch of time. So in the meantime, hopefully I can com back soon with a review with a serious analysis and insight. Until next time, be like Batman and always carry your shark-repellent spray.

500 (Days of Summer)

As the narrator tells the audience, this is a story about boy meets girl. But you are mistaken if you think this is a story about love. Now we all know the rom-com formula, so say it with me: Boy meets girl, boy falls in love with girl, girl breaks up with boy, boy and girl make up. Yay. Happy ending. And you find these aspects in (500) Days of Summer, and it certainly does fall under this category, but if I were ever to suggest a rom-com to one of my fellow brethrens, this would be the one (well, maybe Midnight in Paris, but that's not truly a rom-com either). The point is that if you didn't know better, a quick check on IMDB for a summary of the film would make it sound forgettable, but I am here to tell you that there is a bunch worth watching.

Right from the start the film sets the quirkier tone of the humor to play out. And not only is it pretty darn rootin' tootin' funny to me, but the overall clever framework and setups have a broad paint stroke on who it will appeal to. To get the basis down, the film jumps back and forth through the 500 days, and it quickly shows the breakup around day 290. Well, if it just skipped to step #3 of the 4 in rom-coms, why should we bother watching the entire film?

Now I could be cheesy and say, “Oh, but the story of how they fell in love is worth the watch!” Now that wouldn't want you to watch it, me to watch it, or really anybody who has a better way to spend an hour and a half. Luckily, as the narrator suggested, that's not the point of the film. Yes there's solid chemistry between Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Zooey Deschanel (even if she plays the same carefree, do whatever she wants type of girl in every film), but really the money hits the mark in a couple of standout scenes. I'm talking about the dance number and the expectations vs. reality. And you may have no idea what I'm referring to if you haven't watched the film, and that's okay. All I'm trying to say is that there is actually a script here that takes a story told a thousand times and projects it in multiple appealing ways.

From beginning till end, you will be watching the film happily instead of either taking a nap and pretending to have cared about the past hour or preparing the tissues and triple chocolate ice cream. It's an enjoyable film with a good soundtrack-- not much more you can ask.

I might decide for next week to throw it back to Quentin Tarantino's early days. There's a whole bunch you can discuss with that guy, so I might as well start somewhere.  

Love & Mercy & Beach Boys

It's time to kick off the summer of reviews! And what better way to do so than with Beach Boys? And so we begin with Love & Mercy, with Paul Dano and John Cusack portraying Brian Wilson in his younger and middle years respectively. I have been a fan of Dano ever since I saw his haunting acting in Prisoners, and he has worked his way up in movies such as 12 Years a Slave. And boy does he shine through here. Not only does he look and act the part, he also sounds the part. And when doing a musical biopic, sounding the part is pretty important and impressive.

Now I am a casual Beach Boys fan and really didn't look into their career before this film, but there is really a story to behold. The Dano years of the 60s experiments with LSD and all the typical band stuff from that decade, and it shows the complex mindset of the spontaneous and wonderful mind of Brian Wilson. And you get plenty of good vibrations because you get to listen to a lot of great songs.

Go forward a couple of decades to the slightly eccentric Cusack who buys a car from the beautiful Elizabeth Banks who switches up from her usual comedic roles to be a more serious, “good” character without too much depth (she's not the focus, but is a driving force and provides romantic connections). Gradually, as she dates the divorced Wilson, she discovers the manipulative therapist Paul Giamatti who has kept Wilson away from all of his family for a solid 2 years at least.

These scenes switch back and forth, and it is a solid dynamic to keep the interest fresh for what might be off-putting to some when they hear “biopic.” You will be engaged and committed, especially if you're like me and are unfamiliar with Wilson's life, but you will also see some missed potential. At just over 2 hours, not all scenes hit the mark and tiptoe through the area marked fluff. There isn't always the intensity wanted in the Cusack scenes, so the powerful moments are toned down just a bit. But, then again, hearing Paul Giamatti yell “SLUT!” over and over can't be all bad.

Generally speaking, the Dano scenes are better and what I continued to look forward to in the movie. He does the best acting, and watching his methods to find the perfect melodies while his domestic life has its struggles is engrossing and worth the watch. And again, listening to the formulation of the songs is a big treat.

There isn't much to boast about directing, but the incredible performance by Dano and the more suppressed and gloomy Cusack are attention-grabbing enough if for some reason Beach Boys wasn't. Ultimately, you'll come away with new appreciation and curiosity about the band that was briefly even more popular than The Beatles, and that is always a success in the mind of a filmmaker.

Tomorrow, we continue happy sunshiney times of summer with a genre that can be loved and hated. All I know is that it will be totally rad dude.

Going Across the Universe with Beatles Songs

Jude and Prudence show up to town to allow some more songs from the Beatles to be played. Yes sir, Across the Universe is a musical throwing it back to the 60s for a love story of sorts torn away with war and strife and LSD. If this isn't making too much sense, you're not alone. Despite a couple 5 minute naps, I will attempt to review the film as a whole.

I think the movie took the easy route right from the start, and it never recovered from the decision. What I'm talking about is story structure. Obviously, all the songs are already there. So how did they make the movie? They took the songs, and they attempted to branch a story out of them to fill in the gaps. The result is high-quality music videos with small periods of “story” in between.

“Well, Mr. Smarty Pants, do you have any better ideas?” I do, but it's harder to pull off which is why I said they went easy. There are two types of musicals: Those that have the songs in mind and try creating a story around them (like Across the Universe), and those that have a story already in place that will be propelled forward by the songs. Personally, I feel the latter is almost always the better formula to work with, but even then it's not a perfect system. I'm just saying that it could have been a huge turn-around for this film. I mean, there might be a decent story in there somewhere, but I didn't really find it nor have the patience to put effort into searching for it.

As this is a musical, we should definitely talk about the songs. Give credit to the film for trying to give modern updates to the songs with flashy graphics to help, but the characters don't add anything because nobody cares about them through the story. I will say, however, one of my biggest issues is that I think most of the songs are worse versions than the originals. Maybe that's a personal bias, who knows. My prime example is “I Want to Hold Your Hand;” the film version slows it down. That ruins the entire beat, and the lyrics aren't powerful enough to carry the weight of a slower song. The vocals of the majority of characters is great, but not everyone hits the right notes, and vocals alone aren't worth an update of these songs.

Despite my inner Scrooge to humbug at these modern folks and their attempts to reminisce on previous times, I still found myself singing along with such classics as “Come Together,” “Revolution,” and “Hey Jude.” I wouldn't even call myself the biggest Beatles fan, but those that claim to hate the band probably just haven't heard the right songs.

This 2 hour + movie is not worth it for the few notable songs featured. The story drags on, and it ends up giving you the feeling of “Oh, is this the last song? Nope, here's another scene.” And thus it goes on and on. Maybe I should just let it be. I don't know.

Not sure where it would have fit in, but not seeing “Yesterday” featured was a big bummer. There are a couple other songs I would have preferred, but I honestly am not sure if this was album-based or what and I don't care enough to research it.

Just did a little research, and I'm still unsure of how each song was chosen to appear in the film. Oh well.

I have some movies on my mind that I may review, but comment any suggestion for next week. I'll probably feature at least one summer flick for next week. It won't be long before I figure it out, and I'm sure to get it done with a little help from my friends.

Kung Fury and a Little Special Project as Well

 What are you going to do? My job. Today, I have decided to tackle Youtube! And what better than to talk about Kung Fury. It was funded through Kickstarter, and it's an action comedy that perfectly mocks 80s action films.

If you're really curious about the story, it's a rogue cop who has to travel back in time to kill Hitler, aka. Kung Fuhrer. I should probably stop giving away some of the jokes, but there's plenty of great ones and I can't resist.

I'd love to talk about some of the aspects that truly make it an impressive 30 minute Youtube movie, but you should find time to check it out yourself. If it means anything to try establishing what this film is like, Kung Fury is assigned a new partner, Triceracop. I mean, not only is the ridiculousness level great, but there was enough funding to also make it look good. And that is what I am probably most proud of with this video.

I also have to credit Amir Kaskas for showing me the video. And speaking of which, I didn't feel it would be right to give it an actual review, but I still have to give a shoutout to the other Youtube video The Sand-Wich Project. This is a 24 minute short film that I and others assisted Amir with as a project. The result is a horror comedy about friends going into the forest where they're slowly cut down by a mysterious man in an iconic suit. We made it a goal to make fun of all the horror genre cliches, and I can honestly say that I am proud of the result. And if nothing else, Grant Upton is sure to crack you up. Not to mention there's even a special cameo appearance. And if you're worried about quality, we actually kinda had a film crew with camera and audio and everything, and Cody Strong and Nick Hobbs dedicated hours upon hours for editing. 

If you're in the mood to waste an hour of your life and laugh while you do it, here are the links to both videos. It's still a little hard to simply search Youtube to try finding The Sand-Wich Project, so it's probably easiest to simply follow the link. I do recommend watching both, and I hope you will be entertained.

Kung Fury: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bS5P_LAqiVg

The Sand-Wich Project: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5z9VSH4F7qs&feature=share

Captain Avengers

Which side do you take in this star-studded cast? Before I answer that question, let's establish the ground rules. For those of you who read last week's review, I referenced this title using Batman v Superman. And for good reason. The political intrigue is very similar, and you can't really fault Civil War for coming out just a couple months later. Basically, after the opening action scene causes much destruction, the government wants to take over the wheel and pin some accountability and control over these meta humans. After montages of previous Avengers moments and some sob stories for personal reference, Tony Stark thinks for somebody besides himself and signs with the government. This is supposed to put a band-aid over the rift and still allow for safety; Steve Rogers disagrees. If they have to obey a superior officer to give the green light, it may be too late, he argues. And both have valid points and the rest of the superheroes take their sides.

That's the gist of it. And I mentioned the opening action sequence. Well, I kinda lied because first a flashback to how Bucky became the Winter Soldier was needed to create another divide in the heroes. I'm not sure if a simple flip-flop would work, you would probably need an additional scene before the transition, but to have a flashback and then an opening action scene is like you wanted to open the movie with one of them but needed both scenes and decided to simply put them back-to-back.

Now, the biggest flaw of the film is staring down all of us. Captain America: Civil War... Wait, so what point am I making? There's a dozen heroes or so in this film, but the title is still technically a Captain America movie. What this does is try balancing two aspects: a personal focus on Captain America, but also providing a broad stroke with all the Avengers. The result is slightly muddied and not as crisp as it should be. And the reason I may be being a little tough could be contributed to The Dark Knight Rises. I love that film; one aspect it couldn't control (although I thought Nolan handled it so well) was the fact that it had to follow The Dark Knight. Similarly, the previous installment The Winter Soldier is easily in my top 5 superhero films, possibly and probably top 3. It's smart, crisp, and full of terrific action. And Civil War hits most of the marks-- just not as many as the previous film and that's okay and understandable.

What the Captain America movies have always succeeded at the most in the hand-to-hand combat. This movie continues with those great fighting scenes. Before we get to the obvious showdown, I do still have stuff to complain about. With the Winter Soldier acting as a fugitive for large portions of the film, there's a couple chase scenes. And the movement of jumping from a building into a cartwheel to avoid impact doesn't look smooth; this continues when Black Panther is introduced and there's a big chase with cars in a tunnel. The movement isn't fluid-- this hearkens back to the sub-par CGI from the first Captain America movie.

Okay, okay, my heart isn't completely spattered with black ink spots. The showdown excels on every mark. This isn't nearly as dark and fatal as Batman v Superman, so the dialogue that ensues is full of pep and hilarity-- and yes, Spider-Man is one of the funniest along with Ant-Man. Of the newest additions to make their appearance, my favorite goes to Black Panther. His motivation is pretty typical, but I think he was handled really well and with an overall air of coolness and royalty. Additionally, Captain America's suit looks really good, and the way all the different superpowers clash is a blast to watch.

Behind the back-and-forth between our heroes, there's a story that keeps itself going, but again not to the same power and tenacity as Winter Soldier. And after the initial action, there was too much exposition afterward that lulled on. As I described the more light-hearted aspect of the fighting, I said that it helped that there wasn't really a fatality aspect involved. And this is absolutely true, but it also affects the climax briefly seen from the trailer. The grittiness of Dawn of Justice had more tension in wondering how far these characters might go, but with this film no matter how bloody a face might get, there wasn't really a concern that a major death would take place.

All in all, there's a couple scenes in the film that make the entire film more than worthy to watch. And it's a solid piece in its entirety, but there's still cracks in its framework that prevents it from being one of the best. It's been awhile since I've seen Age of Ultron, but if I were to compare it to that, I'd easily recommend this film more. It doesn't surpass Winter Soldier, but there's enough to hold its own-- and setup future installments for that matter.