The Hunger Games- Mockingjay Part One: A fair, if a bit slow, follow-up to "Catching Fire"

Today, I look at the highly-anticipated first part of the final chapter of The Hunger Games Trilogy.

The Hunger Games- Mockingjay, Part One:
After the end of the last film, Katniss has been taken in by an underground resistance group in the demolished District 13. Katniss is being groomed to be their "mockingjay", or a figurehead/martyr for their revolution. Katniss is reluctant at first, but agrees on the basis that she can soon rescue her friend/love interest Peeta from the Capitol, who are using him as their political puppet. President Snow begins to try and crush the resistance through propaganda pieces and bombings, and uses Peeta as his weapon against the resistance.
        I have to say I was a lot more pleased with this film than any previous entry. I think, despite it dragging its' feet in many places, was a lot more emotionally engrossing and thrilling than the previous two films. It had a lot more emphasis on propaganda and its' effective use as a psychological weapon, which was something the Hunger Games had teased at, but never really touched on before. This is the first time in any of these movies I was actually invested in the climax and what was happening, even though I knew that Katniss was going to live through any obstacles in the film.
        Speaking of Katniss, Jennifer Lawrence is still really good in this entry, although to be honest I found her to be the least interesting character. I also found her character very irritating because instead of just letting a scene play, the writers felt as though Katniss had to make commentary on every single scene she's in, as if to tell the audience what's going on. Josh Hutcherson is good as Peeta, despite having a significantly downplayed role in this one, and Liam Hemsworth is...there as Gale. I'm not saying he can't be an okay actor, but in this film there just wasn't much going on with him. Donald Sutherland is still a pretty threatening presence as Snow, who I really like as a villain. Hands-down, best character in the the movie. Woody Harrelson, Elizabeth Banks, and Philip Seymour Hoffman reprise their roles as Haymitch, Effie, and Plutarch, respectively. The film is dedicated to Hoffman's memory, and I'm not sure how they are going to work around his untimely death in the next film. They all do great and are some of the most entertaining and impactful characters in the series. Julianne Moore joins the cast as President Coin, the resistance leader. She can be cold and unsympathetic, but, in the end, I was on her side because she's a resistance leader, and ultimately, it's the leaders who always make the tough decisions, so I forgave her jadedness. Natalie Dormer (Game of Thrones, The Tudors) is, in my opinion, wasted as a character here. She plays Cressida, a propaganda director from the Capitol who fled to join the resistance. Dormer is an underrated actress, and I was glad to here she'd be exposed to a new audience in a major franchise to get her name out there. But then when I saw the film, I realized she was basically playing the character where after the movie everyone just sort of goes "she was alright I guess". Her character is just sort-of there. I hope she gets more to do next time around, especially considering every ad she appears on shows her holding a gun, and yet she holds no such weapon in the film. Sam Claflin and Jena Malone return as Finnick and Joanna, and Jeffrey Wright as Beetee. Stanley Tucci is a little less over-the-top as Caesar, but still very comical and flamboyant. Wes Chatham and Elden Henson appear as two of Cressida's helpers, Castor and Pollux. Overall, I'd say the cast is solid in this film, with my only real issue being that the film suffers from having too many characters, as some just get lost in the fray.
        The special effects and visuals of the films (that includes sets, props, and costumes) are incredible, and take a lot from other films and books and such but never fell too much like a rip-off. The music in the film is pretty bland (sorry, James Newton Howard), but the ending song ("Yellow Flicker Beat" by Lorde) is pretty cool and captures the tone of the movie pretty closely.
        My main problems with the film is the previously mentioned dragging of the feet at some portions, but also the aforementioned Katniss problem. It's mostly a problem with her character, but a few others, too. It's that instead of just letting a scene play out and the actor's expressions let us know how they fell, the writers often felt the need to have Katniss explain how everything was going. I'm going to give an example, so SPOILER Warning if you don't want to know: Peeta appears on TV several times puppeting the Capitol's demands for an end to the war. The second time he appears, Peeta is obviously not doing well: his eyes have dark circles, his face is more gaunt, and his voice more somber. These are things the audience can pick up on visually and audibly, But Katniss feels the need to just say them out loud for that odd guy out there who just can't figure it out (i.e. "Oh my God, he's so different, even his voice his different, he's so thin, look at his eyes..."). She does this a number of times on a few occasions. There's also a scene, (another Spoiler alert), where she thinks she's lost both Gale and Peeta. She instantly breaks down in tears, the perfect way to play it, and then starts talking. "Have I lost them both tonight?! Have I lost them both?!" Just overkill with the dialogue. Film is a visual medium, treat it as such. Not every line from the book needs to be in there, because books require you to describe the characters and surroundings; in movies, we can see with our own eyes! It's an issue I see many films face these days- overwhelmed by unnecessary dialogue that could be conveyed through an image or an expression. The film also feels a bit cheesy or sentimental at times, with plenty of fan service (i.e. Katniss doing bad-ass things when the situation doesn't really need it, and rousing scenes of the resistance being victorious).
      On the positive, I can respect this film (and this series in general) for putting Lionsgate back on the map. Lionsgate was once a small independent company, but in 2004, a little horror film/sleepr hit called Saw put it on the map. But eight years later, the series had ended and the cheap horror/action film thing wasn't working for them anymore. Then, after procuring the rights to The Hunger Games and Divergent, they became a major studio, competing with the likes of Warner Bros., Paramount, 20th Century Fox, Universal, and Disney. That's a true success story.
      But back on to the actual film at hand, The Hunger Games: Mockingjay- Part 1 is a surprisingly entertaining film with some flaws that aren't quite as glaring as in previous entries. With some great supporting actors, a huge cast of characters, cool visuals, and an intense climactic sequence, I must say this is the best of the series. 4/5 stars.

                         (Image: Wikipedia)

Big Hero 6: The latest collaboration from Disney and Marvel

Today, I look at the new film from the animation studio behind Wreck-It-Ralph.

Big Hero 6:
Hiro is a child prodigy/robotics expert living with his older brother Tadachi and aunt in San Fransokyo (guess which two cities this is a mash-up of). Hiro is inspired to join his brother's science institute team after meeting his idol and his brother's mentor Professor Callaghan. After a freak fire, Callaghan goes missing and Hiro's new nanotechnology project is stolen by a masked villain who is used them for a mysterious purpose. Using his brother's medical assistance bot Baymax, Hiro attempts to take down the villain and avenge his idol.
      While not as good as Wreck-It-Ralph (but far superior to Frozen), Big Hero 6 manages to be entertaining and emotionally effective, despite slipping into the over-sentimental zone a little too often for my tastes.
      Ryan Potter is alright as the lead Hiro, who I found to be the least interesting character in the film. Scott Adsit shines as Baymax, who manages to be convincing as a emotionless robot, but also make you laugh and care about him. He's definitely the best part of the movie. The supporting cast, made up of Daniel Henney, T.J. Miller (who is not as good as he was in Silicon Valley, but is still okay comedic relief), Jamie Chung, James Cromwell, Alan Tudyk, Maya Rudolph, and Genesis Rodriguez, are effective and suit their roles well. The masked villain character is actually pretty threatening for a children's film, and I was surprised considering how weak the villains were in Frozen, having virtually non-existent motives and personalities.
      The animation is colorful and energetic, and always feels fluid and never too show-offy. The character designs were pretty great, even if some costumes they wear during the film are a bit stupid-looking. The look of the city is really cool, too, able to present a version of San Francisco with a very Japanese vibe that was really unique.
       The writing for the film is stronger in certain areas, and a number of the plot twists felt forced, and I was disappointed a bit by the direction the movie takes half-way through. When the villain's motive and identity are finally revealed, it's been so heavily foreshadowed in the previous ten minutes that you'd have to be brain-dead not to see it coming. Also (and this is a Spoiler, so turn away now and skip to the next paragraph if you aren't interested), why is it that in newer Disney films the villain can't ever get killed. With the exception of Wreck-It-Ralph, every film I've seen come out of this studio recently never has the balls to kill off villains, which I feel just shows that studios nowadays feel the need to pander to audiences because they fear what some whiny and overly sensitive parents might say if their children are exposed to any sort of violence in movies. And it's not like people don't die in the film, they are a few deaths in the movie, so I don't see a reason for the villain not to die. I know this is a very strange complaint, but it's a trend I've noticed that just sort of feels gutless, in my opinion. (End of Spoilers)
       Also, a song by Fall Out Boy is featured twice, so if you're not a fan of them, just prepare yourself for that. Other than that, the soundtrack for the film is fine.
        Big Hero 6 is funny, touching in some places, and fast-paced, if a little bit cheesy and sickeningly sentimental in some places. Don't be too late to it, either. There's a nice little short called Feast preceding the film that I would recommend catching, and there's also an amusing end credits scene I would say to wait around for. 3.5/5 stars.

                                     (Image: Wikipedia)

R.I.P. Mike Nichols

Today, one of the entertainment industry's most beloved and talented artists, Mike Nichols, died at 83. He was one of the most respected theater and film directors of his generation, as well as a great producer, and even actor and comedian. Even if you aren't familiar with the name, his body of work includes classics like The Graduate (which won him Best Director), Catch-22, Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, Working Girl, Closer, The Birdcage, Charlie Wilson's War, Carnal Knowledge, and the HBO miniseries Angels in America. He was one of the few people to win an Oscar, Emmy, Grammy, and a Tony. He will surely be missed and will be remembered as a multi-talented and brilliant icon of theater and cinema.

                                                             Mike Nichols
                                                         1931-2014 (age: 83)
                                                                 (Image: Wikipedia)

Birdman: An ambitious and unique project from a visionary director

Today, I look at the highly acclaimed film from Alejandro González Iñárritu.

Birdman, or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance):
Riggan Thomson is a washed-up actor who used to play a superhero named "Birdman" back in the 80's and 90's. While those films were very popular and people still recognize him on the street, Thomson feels very irrelevant in the acting world and decides to write, direct, and star in a respectable Broadway play to reenter the public consciousness in a new way. But numerous problems with the cast, crew, and production start to lead to Thomson losing a grip on himself. Not to mention he constantly hears the voice of Birdman in the back of his head, pushing him to do crazy things, and Thomson also may or may not have supernatural powers.
      This is a movie that sounds very scattered and strange on paper, but somehow manages to be funny, endearing, dark, and original. In fact, when I first saw the trailer, I was like "This is one of those art movies that can't get over itself." It just looked like another pretentious attack on the movie industry and where it is today. And, like John Wick, how wrong I was.
     Michael Keaton's performance as Thomson is top-notch and very easy to empathize with. You definitely feel his frustration and pain as this dream project of his begins to fall to pieces around him. And one can't help but feel the irony of Keaton playing a somewhat forgotten Hollywood actor who played a superhero in the early 90's trying to make a comeback as an actor. Edward Norton is a dynamo in this movie as well, playing a very talented, but also pretentious and eccentric, Broadway actor who Thomson brings into the project at the last minute. Also ironic considering the various rumors that Norton is hard to work with on set. But all that aside, Norton is able to be quirky, funny, and unpredictable in this. Zach Galifianakis plays Riggan's "best friend" Jake, who is also his lawyer and basically also functions as his manager. Galifianakis doesn't over-do his performance but manages to still deliver those awkward moments and funny lines he's known for. Emma Stone, who plays Riggan's daughter, is also pretty terrific, and this is coming from a guy who's never really been a fan of her. She delivers a really great and intense speech to Thomson early on that's very impacting. Amy Ryan (The Wire, The Office), Andrea Riseborough, Naomi Watts, and Lindsay Duncan all have strong supporting roles in this film, and while not standing out like the others do, they all were satisfactory and filled their roles well. The one exception is the last one in that list. Duncan plays a harsh theater critic in this movie, and while she only has a few scenes, she's very memorable, and the dialogue between her and Keaton near the film's climax is a powerful and pretty interesting deconstruction of a certain sect of the critic world usually dubbed "snobbish".
     This is a movie with a lot of ideas, and it's a brilliant black comedy and satire of things like self-absorbed and over-serious actors, dealing with a mid-life crisis, celebrities trying to stay relevant, art critics, entertainment journalism in general, Hollywood blockbusters and where they are now, etc. That's a lot to pack into a two-hour film, but González Iñárritu does it brilliantly and never does the film feel too crammed.
      The visual effects in the movie are used sparingly, but when they are employed, they are actually very good, possibly on-par with summer blockbusters, and I was happy with the various ways they were utilized.
     One aspect of the movie everyone talks about is how it's made to look like it's in one, long, fluid shot. It's done very convincingly through clever editing and long takes, and the entire movie is a technical feat for that. This way of filming also gives the film a brisk pace, and adds a lot of energy to the film, making it feel very free-flowing, as well as chaotic during some intense dramatic scenes. This chaos also helps us feel for Keaton as he deals with it all, and the cinematography feeling unpredictable also relates to the unpredictability of Keaton's increasingly stressed-out character.
    The score for this film by Antonio Sánchez is also very fresh and unlike anything else. It's entirely done on drums, and feels very improvised, like much of the film, but in a good way. It's also very unpredictable, like the plot and characters, and adds to the sense of craziness. Unlike the film, the drumming is very simplistic, but like the film, it's very intriguing and sucks you in. The film also sneaks in drum-related imagery into many scenes, which I found clever, and it provides the viewer something to look for on repeat viewings. I really loved this soundtrack and can't wait to buy it.
    Birdman is a marvel of modern filmmaking, and I want to see it again very soon. I'll admit, I haven't seen any other films from González Iñárritu, but I've heard great things, and after seeing this film, I can't wait to see his other work. This is a movie that's very unusual and I think sometimes too weird for the average movie-goer, but if you love cinema, or art in general. If you love great acting and writing, or if you appreciate cinematography, then this is definitely a must-see. 5/5 stars.

                       (Image: Wikipedia)

The Babadook: The Land Down Under produces one of the most chilling films in years

Today, I look at this Aussie directorial debut.

The Babadook:
Six (almost seven) years after the tragic death of her husband, Amelia is struggling. Her career and love life have stalled, she's constantly stressed, and she is the single mother of her son Samuel, who was born the same day her husband died. In fact, he died in a car crash driving Amelia to the hospital while she was in labor. Amelia has since had a strained relationship with her son: she does motherly things for him, but secretly can't stand him. Understandable considering he's one hell of a problem child: socially inept, obsessed with storybook monsters, and doing poorly in school, he's hard to handle for most parents, let alone a single mother still reeling from a tragedy. It is here where an entity is able to make itself at home in their lives. One night, Sam picks a book off the shelf for Amelia to read to him. It's a strange pop-up book she's never seen before. It describes a creature known as "Mr. Babadook", who one cannot get rid of once you "let him in". After attempting to rid themselves of the book, Amelia and Sam realize the Babadook is after them, and Amelia begins lose a grip on her already fragile sanity.
     When I heard the hype surrounding this film, I was very skeptical. "The 'Babadook'? What the hell is that?" When I finally saw the film, I was taken aback, but not utterly terrified. But that night, when I was getting ready to go to sleep, the image of the creature and the sound of his eerie musical theme crept into my head and I realized what an effective film The Babadook really is.
     Trading in jump scares and excessive monster effects for old-fashioned suspense and psychological horror, this Australian film is one for the history books. Actress-turned-director Jennifer Kent weaves together a genuinely disturbing and smart little horror story that shocks but also makes you think, and this is her first film!
     Essie Davis is absolutely perfect in the role of Amelia. Portraying a broken-down woman on the edge of sanity is no easy task, but Davis brings the character to life in a way I don't think anyone else could. This could be a jumping-off point for her and possibly Oscar-worthy. Noah Wiseman is impressive as Samuel. He's able to be extremely annoying and hard to watch, but that's a plus, and the character is supposed to be this way. But towards the end, you're able to begin to care for him and hope he and his mother can rekindle their nonexistent relationship. Although he slips up a few times (as all child actors do), I'm impressed that this six-year-old pulled such an important role off. Daniel Henshall (most famous for his creepy role in Snowtown/The Snowtown Murders, and for his part in AMC's Turn) has a small supporting role as Amelia's co-worker and possible love interest Robbie, who acts as a shoulder to cry on for Amelia. Barbara West has a small part as Amelia's caring and sweet older neighbor Mrs. Roach, who cares for Samuel and her well-being. The entire cast does an excellent job, but Davis is the stand-out.
    One of the strongest elements of the films is it's mystery. Kent makes the smart decision to only show The Babadook a handful of times, and only show it's face very briefly about twice. While this definitely will disappoint horror fans in the States, I felt it was a great decision, as it doesn't let you get numb to seeing the creature, and makes his appearances all the more unexpected and frightening. Speaking of which, I cannot praise the creature design enough. With his jerky, insect-like movements, tall, skeletal frame, top hat, black coat, long claws, black-and-white painted face, and unsettling grin, The Babadook would be right at home in a German Expressionist horror film, and like creatures from those films, it's hard to explain what makes the look so scary, it just is, and it's a look that will haunt your dreams for a few nights to come. Even the pop-up book gives me the creeps, with it's twisted, Burtonesque visuals and increasingly dark tone, the pop-up book is just one of the elements that makes this movie one that sticks with me. The entire look of the film is depressing, with a grim color palate of blacks and grays and faded greens and browns, like the tragedy that struck Amelia has sucked all fun and life out of her world.
     The sound design and music also play a key role. The Babadook's demonic and unique voice is only heard a few times, but each time it put me on edge. The score by Jed Kurzel, which includes the perturbing and hypnotic Babadook music box theme, sets the tone for the movie and adds to the dream-like atmosphere.
     Speaking of dreams, the film plays with your head, never letting you know if the frightening things that are happening are actually occurring physically, or it's just the Babadook fucking with Amelia's head. The movie plays with the idea of the Babadook as a representation of all the grief and misery in the family, and how it's urging Amelia to do what she's subconsciously always wanted to do: kill her son and end her miserable existence. Amelia eventually must fight back against this urge, and this struggle actually provides a touching story of a mother finally learning to love her son and let go of the past, but not coming across as forced or overly sentimental.
    Another disturbing element to the story that only heightens the fear factor is that the Babadook is never really given a motive. Even in other great recent horror movies like Sinister or Insidious, the villains are given some sort of motive (i.e. Bughuul needs children's souls to survive, the Red-Faced Demon wants to possess Dalton to spread evil to the world, the Bride in Black wants to re-enter the world of the living, etc.), but the Babadook has no real motive to get him to do the evil things he does, he just does them, which adds another element of mystery to the character. He also seems to be able to enter into anything, even appearing on TV late one night in the middle of a Georges Méliès silent film, and his "true form" is never really revealed, letting the audience project their greatest fear onto it.
     The Babadook is an instant horror classic, that I recommend anyone who truly appreciates great psychological/supernatural horror like The Innocents go see immediately, or as soon as they can, as it's being released later in some regions. Essie Davis is mesmerizing, and Wiseman is impressive. It's a film that makes the skin crawl and the viewer think, and that's something the horror genre is sorely missing nowadays: real scares and smart writing and directing. 5/5 stars.

     (Image: Wikipedia)

Nightcrawler: A neo-noir film with the performance of a lifetime

Today, I look at the new crime-thriller Nightcrawler.

Nightcrawler:
Louis "Lou" Bloom is a scrap metal thief in Los Angeles who decides to go into the business of filming breaking news stories (i.e. car crashes, fires, murders, shooting, etc.) and selling the footage to local news stations. Lou becomes what is known as a "stringer" or "nightcrawler", and begins to form a rivalry with the already-established stringers in the city. Lou enlists the help of the down-on-his-luck Rick, and the two become increasingly skilled in the business, and Lou decides it may be time to kick things up a notch to get the best stories. Did I also mention Lou is a complete psychopath?
     Jake Gyllenhaal is one of my favorite actors working today. His performances are always brilliant, no matter how poor a script or director may be, and he always impresses me. This is no exception. Here, at the top of his game, Gyllenhaal gives the portrait of Lou as a disturbed young man who is a master manipulator and all-around sociopathic creep. Even when trying to be friendly and charming, I could tell something's off about him, and the entire movie is a well-crafted character piece surrounding him. He's extremely calm, articulate, and calculating, but also has bursts of intense emotion, which makes him unpredictable and terrifying. Gyllenhaal is so good in the role it makes you look at him in a new light, and he sort of becomes the character, which is unsettling but also shows commitment to the craft. His performance reminded me of Matt Damon in The Talented Mr. Ripley, because he's such a well-known and likable actor, so when you see him pulling off such a creepy role it makes it all the more effective. Some of his creepiness is actually played for black comedy, which doesn't distract from the rest of the movie, but instead improves it.
     Rene Russo (the director's wife) plays Nina, who is a morning news director at an LA news station who begins to form a professional friendship with Lou. She does a fair job, as does the rest of the cast. Riz Ahmed is Rick, Lou's reluctant partner and protege, who can't really be described as Lou's "friend", but more like his sidekick who is somewhat afraid of him. Ahmed is probably the best member of the cast, because he gets the most development as a character. It's impressive considering this is his first major role in an American film. Bill Paxton plays Joe Loder, Lou's rival who has been a nightcrawler for about fifteen years, who feels threatened by the up-and-coming Lou. Even though he's an asshole (which Paxton really sells), you can't help but understand where he's coming from, and it's hard to really sympathize with Lou that much in this situation. Ann Cusack (sister of John and Joan Cusack) has a supporting role in the film as well. The cast, besides Gyllenhaal, aren't given that much of a chance to shine (as the film is all about Lou), but they all serve their purpose and deliver solid performances.
    This was Dan Gilroy's directorial debut (at age 55, no less) and I'm already excited to see what he does next. His script is fresh and intense, and he was able to really capture what makes a psychopath. The cinematography by Robert Elswit is slick and relaxed, and the visuals in the film are very bright, with an almost neon tint, very similar to other neo-noir and thriller films like Drive and Maniac, which were also set in L.A. James Newton Howard's music score is subtle, with an almost techno vibe, and is used sparingly, but effectively. It's cool to see a blockbuster composer like Howard do some smaller projects like this.
    The film is very good at building tension, with every conversation between Lou and other characters having me on the edge of my seat, not knowing what he would do next. There is a car chase/shootout sequence in the film that was exciting and shot with extreme precision. It was one of the highlights of the film for me.
   Nightcrawler may not be a film I'll see three times during its' theatrical run, but it's definitely one I'll watch for when it comes out on Blu-ray, and it's definitely worth seeing in the theater with a nice sound system and big screen, to really appreciate the cinematography and car chase sequence. Gyllenhaal's performance is Oscar worthy and gets under your skin, and this may be Ahmed's breakthrough role, as well as Gilroy's breakthrough film. 4/5 stars.

                (Image: Wikipedia)

Interstellar: Christopher Nolan's epic space adventure sets new standards for the genre

Today, I look at the latest highly-anticipated Nolan film.

Interstellar:
Cooper, a former NASA pilot turned farmer and single father, is struggling to support his family. On near-future Earth, crops are dying, dust storms are commonplace everywhere, and people have given up the idea of space travel and other ventures in favor of just being content with their miserable lives on this planet. Cooper and his young daughter Murph stumble upon a secret government facility after receiving mysterious coordinates, and they are enlisted by Cooper's former employer Professor Brand to help save the world. Cooper must leave his family behind to take a possibly futile journey to another galaxy through a wormhole to try and find habitable planets for humankind to thrive on once Earth dies.
      I feel Nolan has been more and more ambitious with each film he makes. His debut Following was one of the most cleverly crafted "no budget" films of the past 30 years; Memento was well-written and had a unique narrative structure that helped set it apart from other thrillers; Insomnia, while cliche, was able to make Robin Williams into a creepy villain as well as disorient the viewer; The Prestige took an interesting look at the thriller genre as well as science-fiction and fantasy elements; The Dark Knight Trilogy took a pulpy comic book premise and turned it into a sleek, modern action-thriller; Inception blended the heist film with science fiction and multiple dream sequences to, again, set it apart from others. Now Interstellar attempts to tackle a story of epic scale in the most scientifically accurate way possible, save for maybe some of the set and prop designs. It even seems to be trying to be the 21st Century's 2001: A Space Odyssey. Is it that great? No. Is it great otherwise? Yes.
      Matthew McConaughey gives a captivating performance as Cooper. He's extremely likable and is sort of an outsider in his farming community, and he's given a near impossible task to save the galaxy with only a small crew to help, so you really root for him all the way. He is also able to sell the emotional scenes perfectly, as he did previously in Dallas Buyer's Club and True Detective. I wouldn't be surprised if he got an Oscar nomination for this film. Anne Hathaway served her purpose in the film but I never really felt like she really stood out, but she gave a good performance and I don't think too many people could have done it too much better. David Gyasi (Cloud Atlas, The Dark Knight Rises) and Wes Bentley (American Beauty, The Hunger Games, American Horror Story: Freak Show) have nice supporting roles and I think both have them did really well, respectively, even though Bentley doesn't get nearly as much screen time. Bill Irwin (Rachel Getting Married, Across the Universe) and Josh Stewart (Dirt, Criminal Minds, The Collector, The Dark Knight Rises) voice the androids TARS and CASE, respectively, both of whom provide comic relief (but not in an annoying way) and who have multiple uses and abilities that make their black box-like appearance sort of deceiving. Jessica Chastain, Ellen Burstyn, Topher Grace, and Casey Affleck have roles I don't want to give away as they may be minor spoilers, but what I can say is that Chastain does an excellent job in her role, and Affleck is also consistently good. Michael Caine and John Lithgow do really well in their supporting roles and I enjoyed seeing these two play off McConaughey. David Oyelowo has a cameo early on as a school principal, and William Devane appears as a government official. I don't really know how to feel about Mackenzie Foy and Timothée Chalamet, the child actors in the film. They were the only two performers who I felt were a little bit inconsistent. Chalamet doesn't have too many lines so it's fine, but Foy is an integral role in the film, and sometimes she was able to sell me on her and McConaughey as a father-daughter team, but sometimes she came off a little forced and that took me out of the movie. There is one last actor who appears as a surprise in the final act, but I won't give away who it is. All I can say is you'll know exactly who I'm talking about when you see the movie.
      The whole look of the film is really cool, and feels very reminiscent of films like 2001, Star Wars, and Prometheus, to an extent. The thrilling sequences (I can't really call them action sequences) were executed very well. The score by Hans Zimmer, while used a little repetitively, was intense and rousing as always, and my favorite track was the intense organ music played during the climax. The cinematography by Hoyte van Hoytema is lush and beautiful; very polished.
     The few problems I had with the film, aside from the child actors, mostly had to do with the run-time being egregiously overlong; I felt it was a little excessive and self-indulgent. While I do enjoy a good, long movie, this one had me a little exhausted at some points, much like the third act of The Dark Knight, which, along with Interstellar, felt like it had about five different climactic moments back-to-back. It also, like The Dark Knight Rises, took a bit too long to get the story going.
     My other major issue stemmed from some of the writing, mostly the idea of the "love transcending all dimensions" bullshit. I mean, I'd expect that from a Spielberg or a Disney, but not Nolan, with his dark, complicated stories and psychologically interesting characters. Not him.
     But, on the plus side, I think it took some stuff from classic science-fiction cinema and put a new spin on it, and I'm glad it didn't disappoint as much as Prometheus did (and keep in mind, I liked that movie). I also enjoyed the incorporation of time and relativity as a major plot point, as it helped create more drama and tension, and put a clock on their mission, which makes the audience feel that every second counts.
    Interstellar may not have surpassed The Dark Knight Trilogy or Memento in terms of quality, but it definitely did not disappoint. It has a fantastic lead character, incredible visuals, an absorbing story (even if it can get a bit sappy at times), and a solid cast. I can't wait to see what Nolan does next. 4/5 stars.

                    (Image: Wikipedia)

John Wick: Keanu Reeve's comeback movie blows expectations out of the water

Today, I look at the latest major action film to hit theaters.

John Wick:
After the death of his wife, ex-hitman John Wick is severely depressed. That is until he receives a final gift from his wife: a puppy to keep him company. But, after an encounter with some Russians at a gas station, John finds himself being attacked by said Russians at his home. They beat him to unconsciousness, steal his classic car, and kill his dog. After this, John, having nothing left to lose, decides to exact some revenge on the men, who end up having ties to a Russian mob boss who used to employ him.
      Now, when I first saw trailers for this film pop up, I thought to myself "This looks stupid. A Keanu Reeves movie? Haven't been a good one of those in like a decade or so. But the cast looks impressive. How did they get all these great people to be in this shitty movie?" How wrong I was. When I heard reviews for this movie come out, I decided I had to check it out, and I'm very glad I did.
     Reeves always shines best in roles that require the least amount of emotion (i.e. bad-asses Neo in The Matrix and Jack Traven in Speed, cold and calculating Kevin Lomax in The Devil's Advocate, cyborg Johnny in Johnny Mnemonic, and even Klaatu in that terrible The Day the Earth Stood Still remake), so he is perfectly suited to played a broken and detached action hero. Reeves is able to actually sell the idea that he is this unstoppable force of nature in the criminal world, and even do pretty well when he has to deliver emotional moments. Alfie Allen (Theon Greyjoy on Game of Thrones) plays one of the supporting villains Iosef Tarasov, the man who kills Wick's dog and steals his car. While not getting the chance to really stand out like he does on Thrones, Allen is effective as a spoiled, cowardly idiot. Michael Nyqvist (Millennium/Dragon Tattoo trilogy, Beck, Europa Report, Mission:Impossible-Ghost Protocol, Disconnect) is Iosef's father Viggo, the main villain. He's a bit cliched, but is ultimately a solid villain and good adversary for Wick. I also liked that they gave them past history, instead of just giving Wick some random mob boss to face. The rest of the cast are made of excellent character actors, all of whom are, in my opinion, criminally underrated: Willem Dafoe, Dean Winters (Oz, Law and Order: SVU, and, of course, those "Mayhem" Allstate commercials), Bridget Moynahan, David Patrick Kelly (The Crow, The Warriors), John Leguizamo, Ian McShane (Deadwood, American Horror Story: Asylum), Lance Reddick, and Clarke Peters (the latter two probably best known for their lead roles on The Wire). Adrianne Palicki and Daniel Bernhardt also appear as supporting villains. Overall, the cast was consistently good and everyone served their purpose well.
     But the real stars of the show are the action sequences, and these are some of the best I've seen all year. It's refreshing to see a great action movie come out that isn't a comic book adaptation or tied to some pre-existing property (i.e. Bond, Bourne, Mission:Impossible, Die Hard, etc.) and have it actually be good. The last time I can think of that happening was Jack Reacher two years back, but even that was based on an already fairly successful series of novels. The action in this movie covers every great set-piece type: the shootout, chase on foot, chase by car, fistfight, knife fight, and, my favorite, the stealth scene where the hero silently picks off random henchmen one by one in a number of brutal ways. All of the action scenes were shot crisply and clearly and with lots of energy, with only a few moments of shaky cam, which I appreciated greatly. I hate it when I can't enjoy an action scene because I'm trying to figure out what's happening in it.
      The score by Tyler Bates and Joel Richard was pretty fair, but the song "Killing Strangers" by Marilyn Manson and Bates, which was recorded for the film, was used a little too often to where it became repetitive, as cool as it was to hear Manson doing a new song.
       The other thing about this movie I enjoyed were the little details, such as the subtitles having certain words highlighted in neon to emphasize their importance, or the way the villains of the film treat Wick as this sort of boogeyman, which was appropriate as this movie was released just a week before Halloween.
       John Wick is an action movie that's kinetic, fun, and fast-paced, and has a sense of humor. It's also pretty great considering most action films now are either based on superhero comics or are sequels/reboots (which is fine, but it's nice to see an original idea out there) or are just sad attempts at recapturing the spirit of the 80's and 90's classics (i.e. The Expendables). John Wick is a film that pays tribute to the action movies of the 1990's without delving too much into self-parody or relying too heavily on other films for inspiration. I'd say it's definitely worth a watch. 4/5 stars.

                           (Image: Wikipedia)

Top 15 Horror Films of the 1960's: Horror Takes A Realistic Turn

Today, I look at the decade which defined psychological horror as a genre and took a more realistic look at stories of the supernatural. Oh, and Happy Halloween.

Criteria:
Must be a horror film, or film with horror-like elements
Must be a film made/released between 1960-1969

First, a little background...
Within the span of a decade, craze around the atomic bomb and the dangers of science began to die down. People were less concerned with science now and more with the direction their country was going. With many progressive political minds sprouting up in the decade, including John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X, etc., things were changing. Kids were getting more rebellious and opinionated, and the Woodstock generation began to start voicing their concerns on issues such as civil rights for minorities and gays, the war in Vietnam, and legalization of certain drugs.
     Then Hollywood began catching on and starting to produce more provocative films, that broke the Hays Code, showing sex and violence and civil rights issues and swearing and drinking and smoking. There was outrage but also praise from critics and audiences. Movies like Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, The Graduate, Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, Barbarella, and The Wild Bunch caused controversy with their depictions of the things listed above. Psychological horror began to become a prominent genre, with big-name directors such as Alfred Hitchcock, Michael Powell, and newcomer/art filmmaker Roman Polanski taking the reigns of the genre.
    In the late 1960's, culture changed even more when the Manson Family murders became the subject of public interest and the court cases became a cultural event. Showing the dark side of the Love Generation, the Manson murders were so graphic and brutal that they sort of opened people's eyes to how ugly violence is, and made filmmakers more willing to push the boundaries of the ratings system, which was recently put in place. One of the murder victims was the pregnant actress Sharon Tate, wife of Polanski, which also showed that even the biggest stars in Hollywood, even pregnant stars in Hollywood, were not safe from the violence in the world, which was kind of culture shock, as many in the Western world view celebrities as above normal people, and therefore safer from attack.
   The world was changing drastically in the span of just a few years, and so was the world of cinema, and in turn, the world of horror films...

The List:

15. The Masque of the Red Death (1964): One of the better Roger Corman adaptation of a Poe short story, it's a little more artsy than others and was a bit of a box office failure, but has since garnered a cult following among audiences and critics. It's got some great scenery and moody atmosphere, as well as vibrant colors and costumes, as well as a good performance by Vincent Price. Definitely the best Corman/Poe feature.



14. Quartermass and the Pit (aka Five Millions Years to Earth, 1967): The final installment of the Quartermass Trilogy, this film looks at the eerie idea of aliens influencing human evolution, and is equal parts science fiction and horror. In my opinion, one of the more underrated alien films of all time, appropriately placed in what is the most underrated decade for horror. With some great acting, and a well-written plot that stays true to its' source material, this installment in the Quartermass series is arguably the best.



13. At Midnight I'll Take Your Soul (1964): This entry comes from a country rarely recognized for horror, or film in general: Brazil. This rather ballsy horror film packs tons of gore and creepy imagery, as well as spawning the underrated horror icon Coffin Joe, who was created and portrayed by director Jose Mojica Marins. One of the most vile and despicable characters to ever grace the silver screen, Joe is an amoral and sadistic man who has a powerful hatred for religion and emotion. This film was followed by the equally experimental and gruesome film This Night I'll Possess Your Corpse in 1967, and the long-delayed Embodiment of Evil in 2008, both of which are worth a view.



12. The Devil Rides Out (aka The Devil's Bride, 1968): One of the Hammer Horror films based on a more modern novel, this Terence Fisher film starring regular Christopher Lee and James Bond and Rocky Horror star Charles Gray is a well-produced, well-scripted entry into the popular devil worshiper subgenre. The Goat of Mendes, prominently featured in marketing, only appears sparingly, which I respect. Despite some dated effects, the entire film is played very straight, with all actors obviously taking the somewhat laughable subject matter very seriously, which produces a film that has a very ominous feeling, and doesn't come off forced or campy whatsoever.



11. Viy (1967): If you are into arthouse horror cinema, then you'll love this Russian horror film. Adapted from a Nikolai Gogol story, it maintains the same basic plot, imagery, and action, but also alters quite a bit. The unique imagery and atmosphere make this film worth a watch by themselves, but it's actually an important piece of film history, as it was the first Soviet-era horror film to be released in the USSR.



10. Hour of the Wolf (1968): Ingmar Bergman, one of the greatest directors of all time, brings this tale of surrealist horror to the fray, starring regular Max von Sydow. A disturbing trip of a film that has no linear plot structure, the movie should be seen by anyone with an interest in surrealist filmmaking or the ways film can be used to tell unique and non-structural stories. I would not recommend it to anyone expecting a traditional narrative structure with the usual horror tropes.



9. Village of the Damned (1960): One of the few "creepy kid" films that's genuinely unnerving, the plot follows a village which is suddenly hit by a strange series of events, including all of the town's women getting pregnant and suddenly birthing at the same time, and all of their children having similar appearances with similarly quick growing paces. The strangest part is that the children having bright, piercing eyes and seemingly telepathic abilities. George Sanders gives a great lead performance, and the child actors are legitimately scary. The film also has a lot of iconic, frightening imagery, from the children's striking and knowing eyes to the famous shot of the wall crumbling (a metaphor for breaking down people's minds).



8. Wait Until Dark (1967): This thriller from Terence Young stars Audrey Hepburn as a blind woman who is targeted by a gang of ruthless criminals, led by Alan Arkin, who believe she is smuggling drugs. The film was the most successful film of the year, and was an Oscar-nominated release and watching it, you can see why. Hepburn and Arkin are both phenomenal, and the suspense of the film is unmatched by any other in the genre that year. The climax also contains one of the first and most effective jump-scares of all time. In fact, the climax was so intense for the time that in order to add to the effect, movie theater owners slowly dimmed the lights to their legal limits as the film went on, then, as the climax grew in intensity, they would shut off each light completely, one by one, as the light bulbs in the scene were smashed by the characters. A really cool technique I wished more people would try. Anyway, it's definitely one of the best thrillers of the 60's, and deserves all the praise it gets.



7. The Innocents (1961): Jack Clayton's psychological/supernatural thriller starring Deborah Kerr and Michael Redgrave is a film that is wholly reliant on its' atmosphere. Cinematographer Freddie Francis employed many clever techniques, such as "deep focus" and lighting, to make the film more atmospheric and striking. One of the most subtle and convincing ghost stories out there, it is also extremely close to the source material, while also standing alone as its' own unique product.



6. The Birds (1963): Alfred Hitchcock's brilliant and strangely terrifying film about birds that attack the SF Bay Area at random, this movie is infamous for its' iconic and intense scenes of birds attacking a school yard and gas station, for its' inventive camera work, and special effects, which includes model birds, animatronic birds, and even real birds. Tippi Hedren went through hell trying to get this movie made, but it payed off big time for her career. The film remains one of Hitchcock's most beloved and recognizable films.



5. Night of the Living Dead (1968): This little indie film spun off into the most influential and successful zombie franchise of all time. George A. Romero, the director behind the series, is humble enough to state he just got really lucky and never intended for this to become his life's work or become as influential in culture as it has. People don't really think about it, but this is up there with Star Wars and Batman as one of the most influential films ever made, from a pop culture standpoint. With a subtext about race relations in 1960's America, and a lot of imagery that sticks with you, Night of the Living Dead is one of those movies that stirred up controversy and got people talking, and is one of the movies that's responsible for the R-rating being put in place. It makes sense, as the film is actually pretty graphic for a movie made in the 60's, with graphic stabbing and guttings and scenes of flesh being chewed on. So much was inspired by this film that it was selected for preservation by the Library of Congress.



4. The Haunting and Rosemary's Baby (1963 and 1968, respectively; tie): The former is the famed Robert Wise's masterwork of suspense and atmosphere, based on a novella by Shirley Jackson about a social experiment conducted at an infamous haunted manor that goes awry. While the plot sounds like typical camp fare, like many films of the period, The Haunting takes a mature, complex approach to the subject matter, resulting in one of the creepiest psychological/supernatural horror stories of all time. With terrific acting, chilling music, and intricately detailed sets and cinematography, it's no wonder this movie is considered one of the best films of all time.
The latter is Roman Polanski's dark psychological thriller about a young couple whose baby may be the target of their neighbors, who may or may not be Satanic cultists. Brilliant performances by Mia Farrow, John Cassavetes, Ruth Gordon, and Ralph Bellamy, as well as many other greats, elevate the film above the typical grindhouse stuff of the late 60's. Not only that, but the detailed direction and great screenplay make the film worth a few re-viewings, as does the many subtle clues you may have missed the first time around. And did I mention the haunted lullaby music heard over much of the film?



3. Eyes Without a Face and Whatever Happened to Baby Jane? (1960 and 1962, respectively; tie): Two of the most disturbing films of the decade, both focus on the unstable psychology of women who have become delusional over the years.
The former is a French-Italian production. Much like other psychological thrillers of the time, it was panned at first, but later grew recognition. An eerie look at a father trying to do right by his daughter, the movie follows a doctor who tries to help his disfigured daughter by kidnapping beautiful girls and trying to graft their faces onto his daughter's. An influential and fucked up movie, full of weird imagery that gets under the skin (most notably the daughter's emotionless doll mask), it's definitely worth a watch.
The latter is a film no one believed in. Director Robert Aldrich was rejected by many major studios, who said that the lead actresses Bette Davis and Joan Crawford were too old and washed-up. But that was the point. The movie follows an aged child star (Baby Jane) who enjoyed fame in vaudeville theater, but later found trouble getting parts in movies. Her under-appreciated sister, however, was successful in Hollywood, which drove Jane into a rage. Later, the sister was involved in a mysterious car accident, in which she was crippled by being rammed into a gate by a drunk driver. Now, she is crippled and without a friend in the world, being "cared for" by her sister, who uses her power to get sick revenge on her sibling for stealing the limelight away. A disturbing and pitiful picture of two broken women getting petty payback at each other is exemplary of both the depressing downfall of a person's psyche and self-esteem, but also the downwards spiral of these sisters' relationship, all over the chance of fame. Not to mention all the reports of the real-life abuse on set by the two actresses, who truly did despise each other.



2. Psycho (1960): Alfred Hitchcock's most iconic and possibly his most acclaimed film starring Janet Leigh and Anthony Perkins is a great piece of suspense cinema as well as one of the main films to popularize the twist ending. Infamous for it's "don't be late or you won't be admitted" gimmick, this film is both an achievement in filmmaking technique but also in brilliant marketing. The acting by the main cast is great, the cinematography is (as usual) is fluid and precise, and the pacing of the film is near perfect. Despite being a bit overrated, and having the terrible "explanation" scene at the end, the film is still one of the most important movies ever made, and is one of those films you have to see at least once. Plus, Bernard Hermann's score is spectacular.



1. Peeping Tom (1960): Michael Powell's visually striking and (even today) disturbingly realistic portrayal of a voyeuristic serial killer who stalks women and kills them on camera was initially panned and called many things, including disgusting trash and exploitive. Luckily, today it's respected as the classic it is. Unfortunately, the reaction to the film ruined Powell's career: he never made another major mainstream film and died thinking himself a failure (edit: Powell actually did live to see his film gain a cult following, but still was sorrowful it took so long to find an audience). The main performance by Carl Boehm is unsettling to say the least, and the cinematography is excellent, and actually kind of off-putting during the murder sequences. Even Brain Easdale's score is engrossing, including a complex piano solo. Peeping Tom is the best psychological horror film of the 1960's, and one of the best of all time.

    (Images: Wikipedia)

Runner-ups: Repulsion, Cape Fear, Monsters Crash the Pajama Party, The Raven, Mad Monster Party.