On the Edge of Tomorrow

“I live, I die, I live again!”

Although that's an actual line from yesterday's Mad Max: Fury Road, it fits the tag line to Edge of Tomorrow almost perfectly: Live. Die. Repeat.

If you are familiar with Groundhog Day and Source Code, then add war and aliens and you get this movie. You have to be very, very careful with this as well. Basically, Tom Cruise is an inexperienced (yeah, that's a first) officer who is afraid of blood, and he gets thrust onto the front lines. It's supposed to be a great victory, even having the name Operation: Downfall. Instead, the Mimics set it up for the world to throw all their soldiers right into an ambush. Then Cruise ends up getting an Alpha's blood mixed in him, granting him its time-manipulating powers. It becomes his job to relive every day, and slowly learn how to defeat the enemies. He meets Emily Blunt, the only person that will believe his situation, and she trains him to be able to defeat the aliens. Since the whole movie has the same day, same scenarios repeated, it's crucial to show enough to the audience without it looking repetitive. And I think this video game-like movie succeeds tremendously.

Hardly ever has an editor's job been more important or difficult. The result is very humorous at first at all of Cruise's deaths, but as he grows closer to Blunt and witnesses death every single day with little ability to make a significant impact, the dreading of having to do this again with no escape hits really hard.

If you're unfamiliar with Tom Cruise films, I may shun you at first; but do not worry, for I will gradually show more and more of his films (and so many are quite good). It's much more understandable to not know of Emily Blunt. And that is a shame, for she is a talented actress in some great films like The Adjustment Bureau and Looper (okay, she's probably known most for The Devil Wears Prada). Sadly, outside of these characters, there's nothing to cheer over with the supporting cast. But the focus is on the 2 stars, and that's the way it should be.

A cool addition to this sci-fi action flick is the exoskeletons worn by the soldiers. Resembling what was seen in Aliens, for the most part, the actors are actually doing stunts and wearing these. There's enough to figure out that it takes a couple of resets to be familiar with how to operate them.

One scene I particularly remember in Groundhog Day is Bill Murray at the bar, and slowly he finds the right words to say to make the conversation work; similarly, Cruise suffers many deaths only to be more aware for the next shot where he gets past the obstacle. The pacing is quick, but it also settles down for pondering the dire situation at hand. It's a combination of emotions that I think works very well. All in all, it's just such a fun and smart film that I'm really pleased to see made right.

In conclude

In conclusion, this is a good film.

In conclusion, this is a film that blends a hearty amount of action, comedy, and drama. I look forward to seeing more films from both Tom Cruise and Emily Blunt.

We'll be having plenty of fun for next week. We will review our first Pixar film, and my older brother (blogger of Coffee Cup by the Lamplight) will be my first guest reviewer!  

Die Historic on the Fury Road

Happy Easter, everybody! What better way to enjoy eating chocolate and popping open some eggs than to watch an adrenaline-pumping, non-stop action flick?

Well, although that does describe Mad Max: Fury Road, that does not do it justice. Because this movie is pure awesome.

I must first admit I've only seen about half of the original, and maybe 10 minutes of The Road Warrior. With that said, I can confidently say that die hard fans (and Die Hard fans) and newbies (like myself) alike can strap in for the ride.

Perhaps the blood rushing constantly doesn't allow you to fully process what you actually just saw, but after checking out the bonus features, you have to realize that besides digitally removing certain things and enhancing colors, every stunt you see was actually performed-- and usually at top speed. I'm talking about blowing up huge trucks, flipping cars, motorists jumping over vehicles, and so much more. Easily my favorite are the pole-rider guys; you may remember them from the trailer on these huge poles to swing from one vehicle to another. Yeah, guys trained for weeks to be able to do that. And I might as well say, kids, no matter how cool it looks, I only give you permission to attempt these stunts as long as you capture it on video so that I can laugh at you later.

Now I can go on and on about these epic stunts and explosions and kills and action and fighting, but even that doesn't give the movie full justice, for it is one of the most fully-realized movies ever. George Miller had this brilliant vision, and the product is a story told with hardly any lines spoken by the main character-- or other characters for that matter. The women are given strong roles to emphasize their importance, not feed on weakness, and the message Miller gave his unit was loud and clear and wonderful: Even though this is a post-apocalyptic world, that doesn't mean it has to be bleak and lifeless and bland. This movie is vibrant and beautiful. To put focus on how humans would actually scramble to find remnants of beauty in a forsaken world is a great twist that enhances the story and the experience.

Now let's talk about the Oscars. And there's a lot to talk about. This film won 6, all these very technical awards including his wife winning for editing, and nominated for 4 others. Not only did Fury Road win these Oscars, but it had to beat The Revenant to do so. Granted, that masterpiece beat it in directing and cinematography, but that's rightfully so. I think a lot of people were questioning why an action flick was winning all these awards from an academy that is known for excluding action, superhero, and blockbuster flicks. I am so glad it was recognized that this high-octane movie had such a vision that came together like nothing else. It's so hard to compare it to the other Oscar nominated films, but it is also really hard to compare it to action films in general. Generally, you have the opening action sequence, background of characters, perhaps a twist halfway through, then a balance of action scenes and talking scenes with a huge climax. And that is not Fury Road. My favorite vehicle from the armada is the huge cargo truck hybrid with drummers beating on the back and a guitarist suspended with strings jamming out and unleashing flames (it's an actual flamethrower guitar). That to me embodies the movie. A weird, weird world full of rocking characters on a chase set to a score with an equal amount of pounding drums and quick guitar jams. It's so cool, but still so intricate with the suicidal half-lives who follow Immortan Joe.

This film changes the game. The progressively more intense sequences keep piling up for some of the most fun you'll ever have at a movie. Will other movies follow suit? And more importantly, how does George Miller create a respectable sequel after this?

Tomorrow is about a movie where tomorrow never comes. Yet is today just yesterday's tomorrow? Anyways, it also stars Tom Cruise, so that should easily be clue enough as to what it is. It's going to be fun, and I guarantee more Cruise films in the future. Until then, drive safe and furious.  

Move Aside, Man of Bat, it's the Man of Steel

 It's a bird! No, it's a plane! Wait, it's the Man of Steel! Yesterday, you may recall a review of Batman Begins, and I mentioned that Christopher Nolan helped with the script. Well, he was accompanied by David S. Goyer, and due to the overwhelming success of the trilogy, their hands penned this Superman reboot. This time, however, Zack Snyder (300 and Watchmen) directed.

With the trend of realism and darker tales, this reboot follows the same path. It even has an origin story that goes back and forth, just like our friendly neighborhood Dark Knight. I will say, Kevin Costner is one of my favorite parts of the film, so kudos to him.

Along with Kevin Costner, Russell Crowe is undeniably awesome to watch as Jor-El, Superman's actual father. The rest of the cast all look very pretty in their scenes, but their purposes are only very slight, and add a little characterization to this other-wordly feeling movie (I'll elaborate more when I get to the director). But in all honesty, the likes of Amy Adams and Laurence Fishburne don't add any big acting chops for this film. Michael Shannon proves a worthy foe as General Zod. And on that note, I must make a slight aside. I was quite impressed to come into this film and not hear any mention of kryptonite or Lex Luthor (yes, there's an Easter egg, but hush up). One of my biggest flaws with Superman is that literally his only weakness is kryptonite; thus, the story lines get dragged on too much. General Zod is a great change of pace, even if he is similar to Iron Man or Hulk villains in the sense that the villain features very similar powers to the superhero (one huge upside to the Batman universe).

Then we have the man of the hour. Probably the biggest praise I can give this film is Henry Cavill. To me he represents the perfect Superman: the hair, facial structure, body physique (ladies, be ready for an absolute beast of a body), deep voice, and ever so slight mannerisms mainly seen in a comforting grin. He truly is the Man of Steel.

If I'm being honest here, I have to give it up to Zack Snyder. He takes this CGI-filled movie, and he allows his decisions to dictate what you see. The opening sequence on Krypton is a little much for me, granted, but there's a lot of really power-packed shots like the sun glowing between the fingers of Superman. Furthermore, such sequences such as Superman testing his limits on flight show just how great a reboot is supposed to look.

Zack Snyder isn't perfect though. There were one too many shots of a broad landscape only to zoom in on a speeding, flying object. His message of stepping back and looking at this from a perspective of a human suddenly finding signs of aliens works well, but it was used just too much. The action sequences look great, but I do wonder if Batman vs Superman will address the amount of damage caused to Metropolis. Like, that economy is down the hole. And take it whatever way you want, but the final fight reminded me so much of The Matrix Revolutions.

The final issue I take with the film is in its essence. At the core I feel like Superman doesn't fit into a darker world that Batman embodies and embraces. I understand the reboot and the direction the producers wanted to take it, but there's a part of me missing John William's “Superman Theme.” Sorry, Hans Zimmer, there's just a few composers even you can't beat. There's plenty of merits on the film from the director, main actor, and top-notch special effects, but the separation of this reboot from previous Superman movies mirrors Batman's reboot to a fault. And I don't think Batman should take this issue lightly, so let him have it in the upcoming film, you old Ben Affleck.

My original plan was to take the 2 Dark Knight sequels and review those as the new film comes out this week, but I think I'll save those for later and instead turn to 2 big blockbuster action films that came out pretty recently. We'll be heading to Australia, and we finally mark off one of many Tom Cruise films to come. Depending on when I go to see Dawn of Justice, there may be a review of that in the near future as well. Until then, go crazy and compare cape sizes as to who will win in a fight; but kids, just remember that in my heart, you're all superheroes.  

The Beginning of Batman

 Batman is back in black! Last seen about 8 years ago in the disastrous Batman & Robin, Christopher Nolan took it under his wing to reboot the franchise in a darker, fresher manner-- he showed the crew Blade Runner before shooting to give an idea of what he wanted to do. Now it's the norm for superhero movies to be darker and more realistic (and James Bond films for that matter), but Batman Begins is where it starts.

It's not until after an hour into the film where we truly see Batman in all his glorious armor. What was going on beforehand? An amazingly told origin story in typical non-linear fashion from (my favorite director) Nolan. The film starts with hundreds of flashing bats, and from there we are transported into a world with a Gotham we haven't seen before. Wayne Towers is at the center of this crumbling city as the Waynes do their best to help however they can with such acts as building a cheap train that loops around the city. We also travel to the beautifully cold Tibet where Bruce Wayne trains in ninja-fashion to not just overcome his childhood fear of bats, but to embrace it under the guidance of the superb Liam Neeson, a mercenary following orders from Ken Watanabe's Ra's al Ghul.

Christopher Nolan hails from Her Majesty's nation, and he brings plenty of actors with him. Christian Bale utilizes the new tone with a unique Batman voice that may put some fans at unease, but a voice that I believe perfectly captures the idea behind the franchise. And on that note of an idea, what marvels (sorry, wrong comics) me is how Batman is approached. He is so much more than a vigilante in a mask-- he is a symbol of hope for the citizens, and of fear for the criminals. This carries through the fear-driven film and throughout the trilogy to unseen levels of depth in a superhero story. But back to the characters, Michael Caine is the most charming Alfred imaginable (but I do look forward to Jeremy Irons), and Morgan Freeman and Gary Oldman provide trustworthy allies in Lucius Fox and Jim Gordon, respectively, that drives the franchise past the shortcomings of even Tim Burton's Batman with his fat, pointless Gordon. I will admit, Rachel becomes much better after Katie Holmes departs after this film. And I must include mention of Cillian Murphy, playing as Jonathan Crane aka Scarecrow, who brings such energy and crazy charm with his hypnotizing blue eyes (seriously, Nolan made him take off his glasses whenever he could just to show off his eyes).

The scenes are well-developed, especially Batman's drug bust and capture of Falcone. With the fight scenes, the super-fast editing shows the quickness and stealth and blink-and-you'll-miss-it aspect of Batman, but it also makes it quite difficult to understand what's going on. While I understand what you were going for, Mr. Nolan, I do appreciate that you dropped this technique for the sequels.

Outside of the fight scenes, what you can depend on Nolan for the most is the excellent dialogue. I have complimented previous films for the subtlety and what is said without saying anything, but with Nolan helping out with the script as he normally does; we are treated to lines that are never wasted and complimented by awesome one-liners (utilized better in the sequels too).

I think there has been some lost appreciation due to films later like Iron Man, and of course The Dark Knight. The failing, light-hearted, toy-heavy franchise truly came to life in this reboot. It is not the best from Nolan, Hans Zimmer, and regular actor Michael Caine, but it set the bar and the tone to scramble the gears of how these films were perceived; and thus setting up not only one of the best superhero movies, but one of the best ever in The Dark Knight. But do not overlook the clever first entry in The Dark Knight trilogy.

Tomorrow, Nolan is the executive producer for the man in the red cape. Let's see how Zack Snyder's stylish action holds up.

You do not Talk About Fight Club

 All the clues are there-- probably every frame analyzed by huge cult followers. Fight Club is a film that is almost begged to be rewatched, yet there's still something that compels me to not give it all the credit it has garnered. There will be plenty of you that are huge fans of this film, and those that haven't seen it may end up really enjoying it. So, I will make sure not to give away the mind-numbing twist, unlike Rosie O'Donnell (she spoiled it on her talk-show).

Let's start with the main ingredients (of the cast and crew, not for soap). Edward Norton and Brad Pitt are brilliantly cast for their roles. Norton fits the insomniac 100% even if his narration dulls slightly after two-thirds of the film, and, along with his iconic wardrobe, Brad Pitt has the perfect look of a rabble-rouser type of friend. And when is Helena Bonham Carter not awesome? There are also fun parts for Meat Loaf and an unrecognizable Jared Leto. Needless to say, I have no issue with the acting.

As regards to the skewed time line, I have zero complaints about the first 45 minutes or so (Pitt's monologue for the fight club is pretty dang cool) of the film. The setup is all there with some clever dialogue, especially for subsequent viewings, and David Fincher employs a certain craftiness to how he envisions the film to play out. It's not so much that the film had too many issues, but my vision and expectations for what to come were basically on the opposite spectrum of what did happen. What I can say that is that the writing started becoming as crazed as the protagonists portrayed in the plot that followed. To pinpoint a little better what I am trying to get across; basically, I felt the film took a turn for the worst as soon as Project Mayhem was mentioned. I was fine swimming with the sharks in the deep end the movie was already in, but they lost me when the water started to fall off the side of their flat perceived world.

It's becoming a much bigger problem than I anticipated to discuss this film (despite explicit directions to not talk about Fight Club) the way I should be able to, but to do so is too compromising to those that haven't watched it, so hopefully I can refrain. As I say that, let's talk about the ending without talking about it: I'm not a fan of it. The anti-establishment campaigns of the cult army club thingamajig went too philosophical in its uprising message. The most basic way to express my opinion on it is to say that it bit off more than it could chew. I believe a smaller payload with a different direction for the fight club could have made the twist more rewarding. In its strange defense, the ending is exactly what was needed to propel Fight Club to the level of cult status (ironic and satirical for an ironic and satirical film, I got that). Achieving this cult following does not cement a film to greatness necessarily, but it causes viewers to at least try understanding better the effects and results from the film. With that perspective, I do understand the brashness of the storytelling that captivated a set of audience. In fact, I would probably admit to recommending this film because of iconic moments and the uniqueness of its entirety; however, I will keep my outsider place of personally believing it is overrated in what it accomplished.

Now, the release of Batman vs. Superman is coming up ever so soon. I do have some questions about how Zack Snyder's directing will carry the film, and why the inclusion of Wonder Woman is necessary (does give a wider appeal I will admit), but hopefully with the trusted hands of producing from Christopher Nolan, the film will be well worth the watch. As we count down to the release, I thought that it would be appropriate for next week's reviews to be about the 2 superheroes. The plan is to finally start reviewing some Nolan films, and to go ahead and look at the most recent reboot of the Caped Crusader. I look forward to watching and enjoying the films, so I hope we can look forward to the reviews as well.

Traveling Down the Mystic River

 Tonight features our first mitochondria of film-- our first powerhouse movie. It's easily in my top 10 movies ever, and I could debate a long time for it to be in the top 5. It is Mystic River.

First, some frustrations-- but not of the movie of course. Sean Penn and Tim Robbins won Best Actor and Supporting Actor respectively, but Mystic River received only the nomination for Best Picture and Best Director for Clint Eastwood. Normally, this would be a tremendous honor, and it faced off against the previously reviewed Lost in Translation; however, neither of these films won. So who did win? Peter Jackson in both categories for The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. And perhaps a discussion for much later, considering how widely appraised the source novel was, a brilliant trilogy should be expected. And there's so many aspects that transformed films! But there's certainly also flaws to be found in those 3 hour plus movies (Two Towers is my favorite). There's simply no way that The Lord of the Rings is better than Mystic River (or Lost in Translation). Now, as I stated from the very beginning, these are just my opinions. And I have yet to explain and reason why Mystic River is so merited. So, without further ado, allow me to prove why I am right.

I could tell you Clint Eastwood adds sure-handed direction for this film, and while that is true, it doesn't actually tell you anything. What I can tell you is to watch the eyes. This is a story told by the eyes, and the subject matter couldn't have been approached any better.

The plot is fantastically construed, but I believe a slight disclaimer is in order. This is a dark film. Don't come in with expectations to be cheered up after a rough Saturday night when Jimmy left you for hot Chris or whatever-- this isn't that film. And hey, a lot of the best films are very dark in nature. If you end up watching Mystic River and think to yourself, “Wow, that is such an awesome film!” then I also highly recommend the more recent Prisoners. That movie absolutely deserves a review, but not now.

Anyways, we are introduced to the 3 principle characters-- Sean Penn, Tim Robbins, and Kevin Bacon-- when they were kids and loved street hockey. Two “officers” come up to them and take Dave (Robbins) in their car. It's never shown but rather highly implied of what they do to poor Dave. Flash forward to their adult lives, and all three of them have issues. Robbins is still uneasy from the childhood experience, Bacon is a detective whose wife left without a word and calls frequently (without any words either), and Penn is an ex-con. Within the first 30 minutes, Penn's 19-year-old daughter is murdered, Bacon is assigned to the case, and Robbins becomes a suspect. It's a compelling setup with all the ingredients mixed in for a great mystery, and it achieves that but with added emotional punch as well.

Anybody who says their heartbeat was normal after viewing this film is flat out lying. Penn is dynamic and on edge, Robbins is a very disturbed character whose own wife questions his sanity, and Bacon rounds it out as the sympathetic old friend. In other hands the film could have even turned sappy with all the crossing paths, but this movie is the exact opposite. It is intense in its calmness. All this combines with a score Eastwood did himself with help from his son and an orchestra.

Mystic River. It's a pretty ambiguous title that fits perfectly. There's closure to the film, but so much is left open for interpretation to the audience. And that's what Christopher Nolan films and Lost in Translation, among others, do so well that become my favorite types of movies. Throughout Mystic River is well-developed, well-thought out scene after scene that doesn't want you to see it again the next day or even the next week, but in a year or so, you will be dragged back to the film with the eagerness and anticipation to understand the puzzle fully even if it's missing one piece. Perhaps I have not said enough about the film, or did I give just enough context to make you watch it? Who knows, I'll leave it up to you.

The stakes are raised for tomorrow with planned controversy-- and not controversy just for the sake of being controversial. Some people will question how I could possibly put the title of the film and overrated in the same sentence. But it will happen. Tomorrow. In the afternoon. Be there.

The 74th Annual Hunger Games

Tonight marks the 74^th Annual Hunger Games, and may the odds be ever in your favor!

These days, teenagers are all the talk-- according to teenagers-- so what better film to do than The Hunger Games? For obvious reasons, the Twilight series gave the teenage genre a bad name, but it was followed up by a more mature series for the post-Harry Potter age. And I should begin by saying that I read the entire trilogy, and I will probably make a couple references throughout; however, there is a completely different discussion over critiquing films to their source novels. Basically, I find that comparisons should always be drawn, but the media and presentation are so vastly different that it is impossible to translate what is in a book onto the screen word-for-word; so, I do not enjoy the whole arguments of “But the book was sooooo much better!!!!” but I will address both for what it matters.

Let's start with a positive: This cast is star-studded. Now, that doesn't necessarily mean the stars do a good job, but it's a start-- and luckily for us, they do a tremendous job. Jennifer Lawrence enters the celebrity life coming out of her role as Mystique from X-Men, and perhaps for another time to discuss, I hate that character. With that said, she was also coming from an Oscar nomination for Winter's Bone-- a lifeless film that nobody need bother to see unless you're just compelled enough for the one bright spot of the film which is her performance. And Jenny from the block is handed the role of Katniss Everdeen, a persistent heroine sure to have inspired girls everywhere. Needless to say, she had big shoes to fill, for everybody would be judging whether she fit the mold of the character envisioned from the book. And emphatically I will tell you that she succeeds. You root for the gender role breaking Katniss at every step. Perhaps even more impressive than Lawrence are the people she is surrounded by. The unrestrained costume designs for the Capitol work so well with Stanley Tucci and Elizabeth Bank's characters. But easily my favorites are the hilarious Woody Harrelson and Wes Bentley's beard.

Undoubtedly, you guys know the basis for The Hunger Games. Even so, it is important to at least talk about the structure. There are two distinct halves in the film: the ceremonies before the Games, and the Games themselves. And in the off chance that you have no idea what The Hunger Games is, I shall briefly clarify. A future dystopia consists of 12 districts. In order to keep the threats of revolt at ease, fear is struck by an event known as the Hunger Games that takes place annually. Everybody ages 12-18 have their names put in to be drawn at random with two tributes from the 12 districts, a male and female. And for those of you counting at home, that's 24 tributes every year.

Katniss lives in District 12 with her sister and mother. This district is mineral based, and thus, also hard-working and poor. To the credit of the film, lots of this can be inferred through visual context instead of pointless exposition. The film is 140 minutes, and even though I think that could have been reduced through some cuts, it reminds me of what happened with Jurassic Park. Just like author Suzanne Collins, Jurassic Park author Michael Crichton also had a hand in writing the screenplay for the film adaptation. And he explained what he did by saying that about 10% of the book made it to big screen, and this is simply because that's all that could be fit into it. Similarly, there's details I wished to have seen made it to the movie, but there's only so much that can be done. With all that they had, there's nothing huge that got excluded to cause any outrage.

Something becoming familiar ground is a love triangle in these dystopian teenage novels. And there's certainly glimpses of this in this film, but I'm glad we aren't swarmed by it (can't speak for the sequels). One of my negatives follows from this. I have been a fan of Josh Hutcherson, but to be a little hypocritical, he is not what one imagines as Peeta. The best way to describe his performance is just “good,” nothing more, and really nothing less. And completing the triangle is Katniss's childhood friend, Gale. And I'm not sure how much there is to think about for Katniss, for when I have the chance to pick either Josh Hutcherson or Liam Hemsworth, you know I'd take Liam any day... What, I'm getting off track? I do apologize.

As I said before, there are two halves to this film. And separately, they both work. And they are necessary together, but it is pacing that simply is designed better for a book. The ceremonies are fresh and entertaining, but it's a lot of build up for what will end up turning into another half of the film. And this again plays into my belief that ten minutes or so of run time could have been cut to flow everything better. In regards to the Games themselves, I think what was accomplished is pretty astounding. I was so curious how you transfer weeks of survival in the forest into an hour of action-packed fatal adventure. There's never a dull in the action, yet no scene is forced. And the brilliantly harrowing setup for Collins's plot is transferred to the screen by shaky cams that bring the audience to the arena while giving glimmers of wonderful nature in, ultimately, all that the Capitol and its citizens see, a reality show-like game. Gruesome? Absolutely. Stunning? Well, not on the same level of some beautiful films, but for the sake of compliments, yes, stunning.

For the sake of one of the best actors to ever grace the screen, Philip Seymour Hoffman, I would not be surprised if a review for the rest of the trilogy will happen (not happy at all about 2 parts for Mockingjay though). With The Hunger Games, there is surprising depth and maturity to the whole situation of the movie. I believe it set a precedent for later series that tried and failed to replicate, so that speaks to its enjoyability and lasting effect. And folks, I have to admit, I am really excited about next week. I will begin my long list of excellent Clint Eastwood films, and I expect some controversy over one film that is loved and adored by many, including a huge cult following, but one that I regard as overrated. Hopefully, my reasons won't be without merit. And if you will happen to disagree, feel free to express why. As this week comes to a close, I just want to announce that I volunteer as tribute. Goodnight.

I Have No Clue what to Review Next

 Before starting, I do give credit to Garrett Mason for the idea of this film as I was wondering what to do for this week. While this movie is not really a classic, it has indeed drawn a cult following. It is the first movie based off of a board game, so in great whodunnit (actual word fyi) fashion, tonight's review is Clue. And Great Scott! It has Christopher Lloyd and Tim Curry in it! Although a film based off of a game wouldn't usually produce good remarks, these known actors breathe a slight sigh of relief that perhaps this movie will be worth the hour and a half.

The classic characters are gathered in a huge mansion on a dark and stormy night. It plays off with a mysterious vibe that can't be taken all that seriously, and the film realizes this all for the better. It has such an off-beat humor about it that you'll find yourself surprised that you just laughed in that scene. Yet the combination of such a clever script with laugh-out-loud physical humor keeps the mystery of the movie rolling.

All the characters are given vastly different personalities and backgrounds-- Mr. Green and Mrs. White are my favorite eccentricities of the bunch. This ties into the story well of wondering who is the murderer as the body count starts to rise. Not to mention, the similarities to the board game almost release a chuckle with the way they are put into the film: expect secret passageways and murders in multiple rooms with different weapons.

The music could be described as similar to Airplane!, and any comparison to that comedy has to be a plus (the trailer for the film even used the score from Airplane!). There's an upbeat catchy tune throughout with the additions of great songs like “Shake, Rattle, and Roll.”

All in all, there isn't much to get critical about over this film. It's the debut direction for Jonathan Lynn, and that's an impressive feat when you see the beautifully choreographed finale taking the characters through the ordeals of the night to discover what exactly happened. The film, at its core, is a comedy with a red herring-filled mystery. And when people watch it for what it is, that's when it rightfully gets a cult status. There's nothing eye-popping, and the technicalities aren't perfect-- probably due to a small budget; but there is plenty to cheer over and be entertained by (including a couple fun alternative endings). The film doesn't seek glamour, and the great thing about it is that it doesn't need it. It's like a hidden gem. You won't really miss it without knowing about it, but boy are you grateful to have seen it once its discovery is made. Now then, adding contrast to the somewhat dated nature of this lesser-known film, tomorrow features a recent movie (and book series that I did read) that caused a bunch of teenage angst awaiting its arrival on the big screen. And no, until I am forced against my will to see it, it is not Divergent. Or Insurgent. I will admit, it is possibly Allegiant or Ascendant. So keep those not-yet-released films an option.