Autumn Movies Catch Up: These 4 films I saw in theaters in the last month or so and haven't reviewed yet.

Here's just a quick little look at some films which I didn't feel strongly enough about to fill a major review, but which I did see and want to comment on.

Snowden: Good lead performance by Joseph Gordon-Levitt and some nice supporting parts by Shailene Woodley, Nicolas Cage, Timothy Olyphant, Zachary Quinto, Joely Richardson, Tom Wilkinson, Melissa Leo, Scott Eastwood, and Rhys Ifans. This is a very well-executed suspense film, with tons of moments of tension and is quite paranoia-inducing, something Oliver Stone has always been great at capturing. Gordon-Levitt captured Snowden's voice and mannerisms to a tee, and the only complaints is that the final act is kind of rushed because the film is already fairly long, but I felt the suspense could've been milked during the leaking/espionage moments just a bit longer. There is one major surprise towards the end which I won't spoil but which floored me and made my jaw drop a bit. Better than the average biopic/historical thriller. 7/10 stars.

 

Blair Witch: As both a fan of the original and of Adam Wingard's work, I was crushed by how disappointing, insulting, bland, boring, and hollow this film was. It was so empty and had such a lack of characters it felt like it breezed by in 40 mins, and the visuals of the cabin may have been nice, but unlike the original, this feels like a run-of-the-mill, direct-to-video throwaway found footage film, not a taut and slowly creeping horror phenomenon. I expected more humor, ingenuity and genuine chills from Wingard but this was just trash. I recommend the oft-forgotten and surreally bad Blair Witch 2: Book of Shadows over this any day. There was talks of making the 3rd film in this series an origin/period piece of the witch, which would've made a unique trilogy where each film is drastically different in style and execution but alas, this is a watered-down, nonsensical sequel with no real point. It would've been better to just ket the franchise die than to get this. 2/10 stars.




Jack Reacher: Never Go Back: The original Jack Reacher was a surprise audience favorite in December 2012, as it had a lot of exciting action mixed with lighthearted humor and poked fun at its own tropes. The sequel follows suit and manages to deliver another fun, harmless little spy thriller with a ridiculously skilled main hero as well as some new cast additions such as Cobie Smudlers, Aldis Hodge, Patrick Heusinger, Danika Yarosh, Holt McCallany, and Robert Knepper. The plot isn't quite as intriguing or twisty as the original's, but it is a solid follow-up with some Halloween sequences to hammer home the season. Edward Zwick brings his experience directing action to this film, and it's nice to see him and Tom Cruise work together again, though now it's becoming clear Cruise's age is beginning to make his roles as unstoppable super-killers less believable. 7/10 stars.

The Accountant: This unique thriller film sees Ben Affleck fully inhabit a character again, playing a man with some form of autism that makes him a genius mathematician and who is also trained to be an unstoppable murder machine by his ex-military father. The cast is fantastic, featuring J.K. Simmons, Jeffrey Tambor, John Lithgow, Jon Bernthal (a lot of TV bad guys here), Anna Kendrick, and Cynthia Addai-Robinson, and the plot is structured kind of strangely, with many plots not really coming full circle until the very end, but it is almost like a well-written suspense novel in that way, and I was sure it was based on some source material, but no, it's all from the screenplay of Bill Dubuque. Some of the twists may land differently for some people, but I felt they were all executed satisfyingly and probably can provide a lot of enjoyment on second viewings. Overall, a very solid thriller film with a great lead character. 7/10 stars.

                                                  (Images: Wikipedia)

The Witch: A terrific examination of Puritan culture, repressed desires, and paranoia, all in a tightly paced and impressively executed period horror package

Today, I look at the incredible debut project from Robert Eggers.

The Witch:
An isolated Puritan family on a farm in the uncharted territories of New England are faced with horrific tragedy when their newborn Sam goes mysteriously missing. Suspecting a witch is in their midst, the family must fend off this insidious and seemingly supernatural force as it tears their family apart, fueled by their restrictive religious beliefs and superstitious fears.
    Robert Eggers has constructed here a brilliant horror film, and a tautly thrilling period drama about an unraveling family facing both the hardships of their isolated, conservative lifestyle and poor harvest as well as more primal fears such as the fear of the unknown. The inspiration from Puritan folklore is undeniable, namely given away by the subtitle A New England Folktale, but also the setting and themes. The dark, foreboding wood which threatens to envelop the relatively peaceful and serene green farmland is a staple of Grimms' Fairy Tales like Red Riding Hood and Hansel and Gretel, not to mention the brief glimpses we get of the titular monster's cottage in the deep woods and her various guises she takes (I won't give one away but let's say it's fairly reminiscent of a popular female fairy tale character) seem to be images we've all seen re-imagined in countless interpretations of classic stories.
    The nuance and subtlety of characters and their motivations and repressed desires is something I was surprised the film tackled as well as it did. It never feels as though it is shoving anything in your face, but rather has slight implications, and keeps you in the dark. In fact, it can never be sure up until the climax that what we are seeing is just the product of cabin fever mixed with religious indoctrination-related fears of the Devil, or is truly the Prince of Darkness infesting the familial cottage.
   The musical score by Cube composer Mark Korven is pitch-perfect, reminiscent of the more experimental soundtracks of the 70's horror films while also capturing the tone of the film well: slow-building, uncomfortable, and searing to experience. The compositions made each scene elevated in tension and ominousness, making me hope that the upsetting and gruesome acts on screen would cease and the horrible, disjointed chants and rhythms of the music would stop infesting my eardrums, and I cannot give a bigger compliment to the sound design than that.
    Eggers' attention to period accurate sets, costumes, and dialogue will off-put the teen audience members who will have unmistakably flocked to this film expected the dull and tired jump-scares of Blumhouse films, only to discover the scenes in this film sometimes read like that classic play they hate reading in English class. The shame in the greatness of this film is the majority of its' audience (the aforementioned teens and college-aged slasher and jump scare buffs)  will not appreciate the period dialogue or subtle psychological horror or dramatic tension and will mistake the film for boring, pretentious, or just plain weird and pointless.
   The acting was incredible from the central players, who are the only characters we really get to know in the movie. Anya Taylor-Joy was unexpectedly inspired as Thomasin, the eldest daughter and the closest thing the film gets to a main heroine. She was vulnerable and stressed with the immense pressure on her to help in the family affairs, but also felt like a real teenage girl living in that period: repressed, confused, tired of living in fear of God, etc. Her interactions with her siblings, including her brother Caleb (played by an also terrific Harvey Scrimshaw, who portrays the struggles of an adolescent boy growing up in such a restrictive and isolated family) felt so real and vivid. Ralph Ineson and Kate Dickie, both recognizable faces and veterans of character acting, especially in fantasy and period pieces, are almost Oscar-worthy as the parents. Ineson's father is gruff and righteous, but unlike most Puritan patriarch characters, he is too vulnerable and feels human and tormented, and you do get a sense that he is devoted to his family, even in his darker moments. Dickie's mother is utterly passionate in her devotion to both God and her children. Her declining sanity as her family's existence goes to hell is tragic and yet totally understandable given the circumstances and Dickie is experienced in portraying slightly unhinged matriarchs (just see her supporting role on Game of Thrones for further proof of that). The family felt real and incredibly sympathetic, making early scenes with them hard to stomach. I wanted this film to just be some period drama piece so nothing truly awful would befall them, but I also knew this was a horror film, so there was nothing to do but just watch the family slowly devolve into treachery and madness. If I ever do a more in-depth look at this film (which I intend to some day), I will more fully develop my thoughts on each character's specific flaws and desires and how they are exploited in throughout the film by the supernatural forces around them.
    The scenes with the witch (or is it a witch?) were handled remarkably. They were brief and disturbing, and offered only glimpses of the twisted world of this woman. It also makes one realize that it's no wonder why Puritans were so paranoid about witches in real life: if I though these women were real I'd be terrified, too. The portrayal of black magic in this film is raw and unflinching, but also vague enough to provide a sense of mystery about the subject to remain frightening and avoid bad taste.
    I cannot help but compare this film with Rob Zombie's The Lords of Salem. Both are frightening in their own respects and both center around witchcraft, but they are completely contrasting in styles (The Witch is a slow-burning period piece with minimal gore and a downplayed witch; The Lords of Salem is a throwback to the acid trip-esque exploitation films of the 70's and is very in-your-face with its' presentations of witchcraft and some truly demented and bad taste imagery). I like both films (though I like this recent one a bit more), and I feel both are throwbacks to true horror. No jump scares or silly slasher kills, just pure terror and human misery. And it is because of this that these are classics in any other period but now. Due to the way the horror market is now, it is essentially just a teen playground where it's all safe scares that have CG ghosts who go "BOO!" and are essentially a beginner's level of horror film. This means for these witch films to be a financial success, they have to be marketed to the teen horror audience. However, the general teen audience is also not mature nor educated enough to really comprehend the subjects tackled in these films and therefore will walk out hating the film and probably feeling cheated or revolted or both. If you are a person reading this who just wants a fun night out at the movies, a funhouse-style scare show where you can laugh it all off at the end, steer away from these films. But, if you are someone looking for some thought-provoking art that spurs real conversations on culture and religion while also packing in expertly crafted tension and nightmare-inducing imagery and sound design, then I cannot recommend these enough.
    While everyone's raving about Deadpool, I'm going to spread the word about The Witch. It's the first movie in a while that I've actually loved the more I've thought of it and I believe it is one of the best horror films in years. Hell, it's just a really good movie all-around. The acting, period detail, music and sound, assaulting imagery, and roots in classic folklore all add up to something that I think is truly Academy Award-worthy, at least nomination considerations. But, to my everlasting frustration, horror just isn't "Academy material" it seems looking at the recent years of the Oscars. Robert Eggers has proven himself a creative visionary to be looked out for in the near future, Anya Taylor-Joy and the other child actors have cemented names for themselves and hopefully get more work (and take it away from the dreadful child actors that get most of the work), and Ineson and Dickie have again proven themselves to be criminally underrated performers and strong leads. Just go see it. I don't care if you are the type of person I mentioned above who would probably not like it. Do yourself a favor, go in with an open mind and moderate expectations and you will probably be as blown away as I was by such a powerhouse debut for a director. 8/10 stars.

                                                   (Image: Wikipedia)

Krampus: The latest holiday horror film from the director of "Trick r Treat"

Krampus:

It's the modern holiday seasons: an upper middle-class family is reluctantly having their obnoxious redneck in-laws over for Christmas. Hijinks ensue, resulting in the youngest son taking back his Christmas wish for his family to better themselves. Suddenly, an intense blizzard knocks out the neighborhood's power and prevents road travel. Very quickly, the family begins to realize that a supernatural force is tampering with their lives: the Krampus, the ancient German demon who comes to punish those who do not embrace the Christmas spirit.

    I've found the legend of the Krampus fascinating for a while now. The irony of this dark and morbid story being told to children around the happiest season of the year was intriguing to me. So when I heard Michael Dougherty (director of the Halloween horror film Trick r Treat) was doing a film about a family who encounters this creature, I was hyped. Initially the trailers were very dumb, but I was confident it would be a fun little movie. And it was. Slightly disappointing, considering how great Dougherty's first effort was, but still enjoyable.

    The humor of the film blends with the horror surprisingly well, and Adam Scott, Toni Collette, Allison Tolman, David Koechner, and Conchata Ferrell were great comic relief in the film, and while initially seeming very unlikable, slowly start to grow on you as the survival portion of the film sets in. Krista Stadler, Emjay Anthony, and Stefania LaVie Owen were good supporting characters, playing the grandmother and two kids, respectively. Some reviewers complained the family was unlikable for the most part, but I found myself sympathizing them more and more as the film went on, and I believe that was Dougherty's intention. However, characters often make dumb, horror movie mistakes, but the tongue-in-cheek nature of the film makes this more understandable.

    Krampus himself takes a backseat most of this movie, which was slightly disappointing, but also built suspense to his eventual arrival. His design was pretty great in this movie, paying homage to traditional portrayals, while trying its' own thing. The special effects of the monsters in this film were fantastic, mostly practical effects, though at times the effect of the Jack-in-the-Box creature looked like a Power Rangers monster suit, and one key scene of a character falling was laughable looking and almost ruins the climax. There is, however, a short clay-mation/CG sequence that looks amazing and shows Dougherty hasn't forgotten his background in animation.

    The story at times had holes (how much of the town Krampus' snowstorm has enveloped is unclear), and the ending (as Chris Stuckmann pointed out in his review) felt a little too similar to the ending of Jeepers Creepers. The jump scares felt a little cheap, and I know from watching Trick r Treat that Dougherty can do better, and overall you can tell he wasn't having as much fun with the Christmas horror concept as with the Halloween one. In fact, the PG-13 rating seems to drag down this project with its' obviously censored dialogue ("Get away from my kids, you fudger!") and lack of blood. I'm all for "what you see is less scary that what you don't", but with a big, dumb, in-your-face monster movie like this, some gore would be a good payoff but I never got that. Trick r Treat was rated R, and therefore went all-out with the gore and was better for it. 

    The film felt longer than it was, but that's a good thing. It felt like a solid length for this type of movie. Krampus is an entertaining movie, albeit a slight let-down. Best case scenario: it encourages more viewers to check out Dougherty's Trick r Treat, which, unlike this film, was given a criminally limited theatrical run and then went straight to video and on demand for vague reasons, despite having a good budget and cast. Worst case scenario: it disappoints people and discourages them from watching ore of Dougherty's horror films, which would be a shame, as Dougherty is a talented filmmaker who should branch out and do more work outside of just writing. Give this one a watch, and then go out and buy Trick r Treat for next Halloween (or just watch it now, it doesn't matter). 7/10 stars.

                                     

(Images: Wikipedia, comingsoon.net)

Spectre: Bond sequel left in the shadow of "Skyfall"

The 24th installment of the Bond franchise may be a sign of Craig retiring from the series.

(Spoilers for all previous Daniel Craig films below!)

Spectre:
After the death of M and the partial destruction of the MI6 organization in Skyfall, James Bond has been on the trail of an elusive criminal organization. His only clues are a ring with an octopus emblem, and some unclear ties to the Quantum organization, Le Chiffre, and Raoul Silva. As Bond becomes entangled in an increasingly vast web of terrorist plots, as well as dealing with MI6's new merger with MI5 under the leadership of the surveillance-obsessed C, he is forced to confront his failures as a spy and as a human being, and come face-to-face with a ghost from the past.
    I was hyped for this films from the word "Go." The trailers, the director, the cast, and even the title got me pumped for a Skyfall-esque adventure that would surely leave Mission:Impossible- Rouge Nation in the dust. What I got was an uneven film that wound up not even surpassing the slightly above mediocre Rogue Nation, let alone leaving it far behind.
    Daniel Craig and the returning cast are all still very good, with Ben Whishaw's Q given more to do (and Naomie Harris' Moneypenney and Rory Kinnear's Tanner even less), and Craig still remaining my favorite Bond. Dave Bautista was good as the hulking enforcer Mr. Hinx (his lack of dialogue was also a nice touch and a throwback to older Bond henchmen), and Andrew Scott as the meddling C was a fantastic addition, though he is a bit typecast in these type of roles since his appearance in Sherlock. Lea Seydoux's Bond girl Dr. Swann was a definite improvement over Silva's disposable mistress in the last film, and feels like her and Bond have actual chemistry. Monica Bellucci's character was literally just there for exposition and eye candy. She's almost pointless. There are a few returning actors whose appearances I will not spoil, but it was nice to see them back, albeit briefly. I will touch upon Christoph Waltz in a bit.
    The action sequences are good by Bond standards, but do not feel as innovative, raw, or well-constructed as in Skyfall or Casino Royale. The cinematography isn't as stunning as the last film either, despite being from the same cinematographer as Interstellar, Her, and Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, and sharing the same director, Sam Mendes. I will give it this, the opening tracking shot was extremely impressive (the opening scene's visual palate even felt similar to Live and Let Die) and the location scouts were brilliant. This is also more of a globe-trotting adventure than either Skyfall or Casino Royale, another semi-throwback. However, this film seems to try to throwback a little too often. The entire first half, particularly in the car chase sequence in Rome, feel a little Roger Mooreesque, not only for my tastes, but for Craig's Bond. However, it never falls into the laughable territory of Moore's later films or Die Another Day.
    The music by Thomas Newman is unique for a Bond film, almost Elfmanesque at times. But the music is far from the best part about the film, as evident by the opening song.
    The opening song "Writing's on the Wall" by Sam Smith, was written with his producer in about 20 minutes and it shows. The vocals by Smith are exceedingly impressive, but the instruments are so mellow and muted it is hard to find a hummable tune and it ultimately comes off as forgettable. The song feels like it is trying to be Adele's "Skyfall" and doesn't try too many new things, and ultimately builds to nothing and peters out at the end, much like the film's last act. The song has grown on me the more I've listened to it, but when I first heard it when I saw the film, I was underwhelmed. I wouldn't usually critique a theme this much, but the opening song is such an integral part of the Bond formula. This song initially felt like it didn't fit but it's slowly felt more at home in the Bond music library, definitely better than Madonna or Jack White/Alicia Keys' efforts, which still, after multiple years of listening, don't feel like Bond song material. The opening credits sequence that accompanies it also feels slightly lazy, with repetitive visuals that don't feel as intriguing or as striking as those in the openings of Skyfall or Casino.
    As far as story goes, this one is surprisingly lackluster. There's confusing romances (particularly a short-lived one between Bond and Bellucci's character), some occasionally awkward or ill-timed humor, and this one suspends disbelief a lot more, especially considering Craig's more gritty take on the role (people take unrealistic beatings and walk away barely scathed, there's escapes that logically make no sense, etc.). There's even a scene where a man has his eyes gouged out and it comes off oddly tame and unbelievable. I wasn't expecting a lot of gore, as this is still a PG-13 movie, and gore is sometimes less effective, but the man who was being killed seemed oddly restrained for a man having his eyes torn out. He didn't scream or anything, just kind of grunted in pain. That came off as a little silly and a scene that definitely could've been handled better. The villain also doesn't really appear until the last act, which would've been fine, only they rush his reveal, motivation, etc. all in the final act rather than building it up as they have in previous entries. There is also a torture scene in the film that sounds great on paper but is mishandled and doesn't feel as vicious or disturbing as the one in Casino Royale, which sounds laughable on paper.
    The climax is my biggest story gripe. It doesn't feel as personal, unique, or spectacular as the one in Skyfall, and ultimately feels rushed and all too similar to the climax of Rogue Nation, which sucks considering both films already had similar set-ups, and I wanted to see this film do something different. The second act is very talky, as like previous Craig films, but this one never feels like the dialogue is all that investing or that the stakes are all that high, so the middle drags for quite a bit and comes off as dry. The story, at least the bare bones of it, is very similar to Skyfall in many respects (again, same director) and feels like it took everything that film did well and knocked it down several pegs. Even C's character feels like what the character Mallory could've become in the last film given a more cliche script.
    I wouldn't usually compare this film so much with its' predecessors, but it forces you to. For one, this is the only direct Bond sequel aside from Quantum of Solace, and it serves as a connector between all of Craig's film, bringing his take on Bond full circle, something I enjoyed, but also felt cemented his impending retirement from the franchise. All this and I still haven't talked about the worst part of the movie: the villain.
    Christoph Waltz is a great actor. Fantastic even. But here, he just isn't that good. Not that his performance is bad, but he's given so little to do, so little motivation and background to work with. The motivation given is so dumb and cliche and simplistic it's insulting, especially for a character with so much potential. The motivations of Silva and Le Chiffre in the previous film were simple, too, but original and interesting, and almost made them a tad empathetic. Here, there's nothing human about this character, and while that may work for some villains, here, it plays the opposite way: he's more cardboard cutout than person in this role. The fact that he and Seydoux are paired here again only reminds me of how much a better villain he made in Inglorious Basterds. Despite the seeming perfect casting of this character, he just feels weak compared to Silva and Le Chiffre. I'll delve even deeper into this in the semi-Spoiler talk below.
    Spectre is a worthy sequel to Skyfall and neatly ties up Craig's series (and the Bond timeline in general, but more on that below). However, this connection to the other films will prevent newcomers from enjoying this film if they've never seen one of Craig's Bond films. The film isn't perfect, nowhere near, and it's more than slightly disappointing. I heard negative buzz about the film before going in, which lowered my expectations exponentially, which is great, because I feel as if I went in with my initial high expectations, I would've hated it through-and-through. This is decent conclusion to the Craig Bond series (if it is one, but it sure feels like it), but is not all it could have been. Is it the worst Bond film in 30 years, as some have speculated? Hell no. We still have Die Another Day and the later Roger Moore library of films. I really wanted to give this one a 7, but I can't lie to myself or you, the reader, about how much I enjoyed this. 6.5/10 stars.

My reviews of the other Craig Bond films:

http://mattcottermovies.blogspot.com/2012/11/daniel-craig-bond-trilogy.html

A review that elaborates upon some of my complaints, but overall a differing view than mine:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbe5sJUg1KA

An entertaining reddit thread on the film (SPOILERS):
https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/3qsd4d/official_discussion_spectre_uk_release_spoilers/

                                   (Image: Wikipedia)



Semi-Spoiler Segment:

I will not give away the identity of the villain, as it completely ruins the mystery of the film, but I will say the name initially given (Franz Oberhauser) is not his name by the end of the film. Given the title, if you are familiar with Bond history, you can easily guess who this is. The problem is the same as in Star Trek: Into Darkness: the reveal of the villain's true identity will mean nothing to you as an audience member if you are not an already established fan of the franchise. The other problem with this is I think what happened is the writers said "We can write a sub-par character and just attach an iconic Bond villain to it and pass this sub-par character off on icon status alone and pure name recognition". Also, to soil the name of such an iconic villain by underwriting them, giving them an abysmally overdone motivation for vengeance, and rushing their entire character arc and relationship with Bond is disgraceful to the franchise. It's funny: Skyfall's villain was using a fake name, too. But Silva was revealed to be some nobody agent named Rodriguez we'd never heard of before. As a result, the writers had to make him distinct to stand on his own, and is therefore more memorable and impactful than the supposedly iconic villain in this film. However, this villain reveal ties together the entirety of the Bond timeline. Here's my theory: It's no doubt that Casino Royale is the first Bond novel, and therefore is his first assignment ever in both literary and films worlds. Quantum of Solace is a direct sequel, so that's second in the timeline. Then the Pierce Brosnan timeline happens, as they also feature Judi Dench as M. Then Skyfall, which drops a reference to GoldenEye as well as killing off Dench's M, cementing that this takes place after the Brosnan era. Then Spectre, which is a direct sequel to Skyfall and establishes one of Bond's most recurring and elusive nemeses and re-establishes M as a man, as he was in the older films. This is the film that leads to the original series of films, at leasts the pre-Brosnan ones, and therefore Spectre solidifies the Bond timeline. It may just be my theory, but I feel its' the best one I've heard, if you want to accept that there is any sense of continuity, which Bond films have never been too concerned with.

Sicario: Denis Villeneuve delivers another taut and disturbing thriller

Today, a look at the latest film from the director of Incendies and Prisoners.

Sicario:  
    I didn't really have much of  clue as to the plot of this film going in, so each new twist was a complete surprise. I won't give a plot summary, because I feel that's the best way to experience the movie.
    Emily Blunt is really great as the lead heroine. She's a good mix of toughness, but also naivete and vulnerability that makes her relatable. Benicio Del Toro was fantastic, and Josh Brolin was equally effective. Daniel Kaluuya, Jon Bernthal, Jeffrey Donovan, Victor Garber, Maximiliano Hernández, Rauol Trujillo, and Julio Cedillo are recognizable faces who have smaller parts than you'd expect, but were terrific.
    The plot, much like Drive, is essentially a simple plot done in an arthouse style. The entire atmosphere of the film is almost eerie and the movie has some fairly disturbing segments, as do all of Villeneuve's recent projects. The music by Jóhann Jóhannsson is moody and subtle, and never overwhelms the action or made me feel like I was being told how to feel via music cues, which is something many modern movies do as an easy emotional trick.
    The cinematography by Roger Deakins is beautiful and flowing and clever. Deakins knows how to emphasize the power of a scene by using a huge wide-shot, or maybe focusing in on something smaller (one key scene never shows what actually happens, merely showing a drain on the floor of the room with the audience hearing some vague altercation, whereas others show the huge scope of the landscape the characters inhabit).
    Taylor Sheridan's script is smart and is a new spin on a classic story arcs (revenge, betrayal). I was impressed even more so when I found out he's an actor, not a screenwriter.
    But most impressive is the fact that Villeneuve is able to churn these projects out year after year. He's released a film every year for three years now: Prisoners in 2013, Enemy in 2014 (though technically a 2013 release in film fests), and now Sicario, and they've all been really great.
    Sicario may not be as great as Villeneuve's other works, but it is an unvarnished look at the war on cartels, and an incredibly tense and suspenseful thriller, much like Prisoners. 7/10 stars (perhaps this will become an 8 on further watches).


                                               (Image: Wikipedia)


Side Note:
R.I.P. Maureen O'Hara