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)

10 Cloverfield Lane: A terrific psychological thriller that was almost ruined by marketing and rewrites

Today, in an immensely delayed review, I look at the spiritual sequel to 2008's found footage hit 10 Cloverfield Lane.

10 Cloverfield Lane:
After an argument with her boyfriend, a Louisianan woman named Michelle drives into the countryside looking to escape. After she is involved in an intense car accident, she awakes to find herself the unwilling inhabitant of an underground bunker, created and ruled with an iron fist by the mysterious Howard. She is joined by fellow inhabitant Emmett, and soon the survivalist Howard explains that there has been some unexplained attack which has resulted in apocalyptic conditions outside, so no one can leave the bunker. But as tensions rise among the three and Michele desires a way out, they find that whatever lies for them outside may be better than staying.
    The basis for this film was an micro-budget script titled The Cellar. I think this is incredibly apparent in that the connections to the Cloverfield franchise are incredibly loose and don't even come into play until well into the third act. I would have almost preferred it just be its own film as opposed to tying it to a nearly decade-old found footage film, but then again, in this depressing state of Hollywood it probably wouldn't have gotten a quality studio treatment without being tied to some pre-existing property.
    Mary Elizabeth Winstead makes for an impressive leading lady, and she is definitely undervalued and it is a shame she seems to exclusively get shoved into genre pieces. John Gallagher, Jr. is also strong as her male companion Emmett, whose presence in the bunker seems to put Howard in a bit of a mood for some reason. He is an effective romantic interest and very likable character for the little we get to know of him. Bradley Cooper has a nice voice cameo near the beginning, and Suzanne Cryer also cameos.
    The final member of the cast and the shining star of this film is John Goodman. Good God, the transformation of one of the most lovable actors in Hollywood into a threatening and domineering screen presence is remarkable. Every moment he's on screen and every piece of dialogue is dripped with tension, as literally almost anything could set his hair-trigger temper off. Not that he doesn't get moments that humanize him a bit, but his character ultimately comes off more pitiful and sad than sympathetic, in direct opposition to Goodman's usual Teddy Bear appeal.
    The film really was a solid and tense psychological thriller, and incredibly well-done and paced bottle story (i.e. story set in a single location with a small cast) as well as mystery. The last 15 minutes almost ruin the entire movie, as that is when they shove in the unnecessary "tie" to Cloverfield, and honestly I thought of two places exactly where they could have cut to black and I would've been totally satisfied and even impressed (i.e. right after a character leaves a location and discovers something about the outside world, or right after this same character sees an object in the distance and says "You've got to be kidding me," you'll know what I'm talking about as soon as you finish the film).
    Overall, this is a terrifically tense movie that succeeded in getting me invested into its not entirely unique but still intriguing premise, though I would recommend just turning it off before the climax totally drops the ball (you'll know exactly what I'm talking about). Maybe a fan edit will be created one day (hopefully). 6.5/10 stars.

                                          (Image: 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)

The Revenant: A visual powerhouse, but does it deserve the hype?

Today, I look at the latest film from modern filmmaker master Alejandro González Iñárritu.

The Revenant:
Fur trapper Hugh Glass is on a journey with a large party of scouts and trappers with his half-Indian son Hawk. After some unforeseen strokes of bad luck, Hugh finds himself left for dead in the harsh winter. Struggling to survive with vengeance as his only motivator, Glass braves the unrelenting wrath of mother nature. (DO NOT watch any trailers for the film, just take my word for it, they spoil a number of key reveals that I feel negatively effected my viewing experience a bit.)
   After being in development for 14 years, with numerous notable stars and one director (Park Chan-woo) leaving the project over the years, it's a wonder this film turned out as beautifully as it did. While Chan-woo is of course an incredibly gifted director with a keen eye for visuals, I don't even think he would have pulled off what Iñárritu and cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki were able to with this film. The long, uninterrupted, flowing movements of the camera throughout incredibly complicated action scenes in uncompromising and difficult filming locations astounds me and it is this monumental task that was accomplished that really pushes this film out of the realm of just general Oscar bait. Iñárritu is one of the most compelling and talented directors working today and I always look forward to his projects. Just one year after his Best Picture win for Birdman, it looks like he'll be taken home the gold statue again because to pull off this absolutely daunting film in under a year is breathtaking.
    Leonardo DiCaprio has always flirted with the idea of method acting but never really gone in full the way Christian Bale does, or Heath Ledger and Robert De Niro did. This is about as close as he's ever come to going complete method acting and it pays off. Despite this role feeling a very obvious plea to the Academy for Leo's ever-elusive Oscar win, his physical commitment to it and the things he reportedly did to prepare for his character are shocking and what most people would consider overkill but I feel without them, this film wouldn't be as impressive.
   Tom Hardy is excellent as the film's antagonist character, and the closest the film gets to a truly through-and-through despicable character. His physical appearance and savage mannerism were executed potently by Hardy and the make-up effects team, turning him and Leo from the handsomest men in Hollywood to disgusting, grungey scavengers.
   Will Poulter, Domhnall Gleeson, Forrest Goodluck, Paul Anderson, Brendan Fletcher, Kristoffer Joner, Brad Carter, Melaw Nakehk'o, Luka Haas, and Duane Howard fill out the rest of the principal cast, and all do an excellent job, except Gleeson. While he was serviceable, he didn't surprise me as much as the rest of the cast and felt like a bit of a weak link.
    While there are some glaring historical inaccuracies, which I won't spoil here for the sake of maintaining surprise for when you see the film, I just recommend to only take the film's story with a grain of salt and read up on it yourself. I also felt some of the political statements on Native Americans, both in the film and in the press surrounding it, were on-the-nose, unoriginal, and overdone. In the opening sequence, it seemed like they were taking an objective stance, portraying both sides as flawed and bit cruel, but then the rest of the film is spent talking about how great Native Americans were and trying to push the stereotype that Native Americans were peace-loving, in touch with the earth, and completely docile until settlers arrived.
    Many of stated the violence in this film is gut-wrenching and hard-to-watch, and although it is, and unlike anything Iñárritu has one before, I felt this hype was unwarranted. I sat there thinking "Sure, this is awful, but I've seen worse. Maybe if I didn't go into this with such expectations I'd be more shocked." Thanks again, social media, for once again overhyping something to no end with your sensationalism!
    Other than those two things, which are more minor complaints than major distractions, I felt this was an absolute dynamo that probably blows every other Oscar nominee out of the water (haven't seen them all yet, so who knows). Iñárritu has yet again delivered a brutal, unflinching film that tests the viewer, even if it does get a little pretentious at times. 8/10 stars.


                         (Image: Wikipedia)

My Picks for Non-Traditional Holiday Films/Specials

Merry Christmas! This year, I've been watching a lot more untraditional holiday specials and movies, or rediscovering ones I don't watch as much anymore, trying to find new annual favorites, and to break the mundanity of forcing myself to sit down and watch the same holiday films every year. So here's a list of my personal favorite non-traditional holiday watches:

Film:
Joyeux Noel
Die Hard
Lethal Weapon
Black Christmas
Krampus
Silent Night, Deadly Night
Kiss Kiss Bang Bang
Batman Returns
Edward Scissorhands


TV Episodes/Specials:
"Kegel the Elf" from The League
The Snowman
"Night of the Meek" from The Twilight Zone
"And All Through the House" from Tales from the Crypt
"A Krampus Carol" from The League
"Confrontation" from Wilfred
A Claymation Christmas Celebration
"A Very Venture Christmas" from The Venture Bros.
"Mr. Grumpy-Pants" from Superjail!
Mr. Magoo's Christmas Carol
The Cricket on the Hearth
The Leprechaun's Christmas Gold
Ernest Saves Christmas (if you hate yourself)
"A Very Sunny Christmas" from It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia
"Silent Night" from American Horror Story: Asylum
"Birth" and "Afterbirth" from American Horror Story
"O Holy Moly Night" from F is for Family
Arthur's Perfect Christmas
The Town that Santa Forgot
"Christmas Special" from The League of Gentlemen
The Star Wars Holiday Special (only if you enjoy so-bad-it's-funny specials)
"A Very Special Family Guy Freakin' Christmas" from Family Guy
"Road to the North Pole" from Family Guy
"Simpsons Roasting on an Open Fire" from The Simpsons
"The Fight Before Christmas" from The Simpsons
"Tis the Fifteenth Season" from The Simpsons
"Woodland Critter Christmas" from South Park
"Sabrina's Christmas Wish" from BoJack Horseman
"It's Christmas in Canada!" from South Park
"A Very Crappy Christmas" from South Park
"Merry Christmas, Charlie Manson!" from South Park
"Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo" from South Park
"Mr. Hankey's Christmas Classics" from South Park
"Red Sleigh Down" from South Park
"HappyHolograms" from South Park
"Black Friday" trilogy from South Park
"A History Channel Thanksgiving" from South Park
"Helen Keller! The Musical" from South Park
"Merry Christmas, Mister Bean" from Mister Bean
"The Draft Dodger" from All in the Family
"Blackadder Christmas Carol" from Blackadder

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)

The Martian: Overhyped science fiction film with some nice touches

Today, I take a look at a film that came out almost two months ago but people are still going out in droves to see.

The Martian:
During a mission to Mars, an intense storm hits, separating astronaut and botanist Mark Watney from the rest of his team. Believing him dead, they return to their primary space station to return to Earth. Watney is miraculously alive, however, and must figure out a way to survive on the harsh planet until rescue can arrive for him.
    This movie's hype was pretty amazing considering ti's just a run-of-the-mill sci-fi movie that just happens to have an ensemble cast of famous stars. I haven't read the novel by Andy Weir, though I fully intend to, so I'm judging the film solely on its' own merits. Matt Damon is a very strong lead, with some nice funny dialogue, but never does he feel too tongue-in-cheek, he knew when to play the situation straight and play out the gravity of his situation. The ensemble cast is too big to list here, but I felt they were all fine. A bit typecast (and cast solely on name recognition it seems on the whole), but decent. Major critique though: there was not one supporting role I felt could've not been filled by any other actor and been just as fine. Everyone was just sort of bland, as with most ensembles nowadays. I also found it amusing that they made Tolkien references, when Sean Bean, featured here, was in the Lord of the Rings films. But they aren't the real focus of the film. Damon is the glue that holds the film together, and, of course, the suspense.
     For a science fiction movie that isn't an adventure film this story had some great suspense. Every problem that is solved only serves as a catalyst for the next problem, so the movie never feels boring. Not only that, but there is a surprisingly squirm-inducing self-surgery scene early on that was fairly ballsy for a big movie like this to feature. And for an October release, this has all the polish of a summer blockbuster. It remind me of Interstellar quite a bit.
     Much like that film from last fall, this is a movie that tests your patience. It is almost draining, as so much has happened by the end that you want to feel invested, but ultimately feel like you should just go home and go to sleep. And, much like Interstellar, some of the designs felt a little too reminiscent of other science fiction efforts (including Ridley Scott's own Prometheus).
    Drew Goddard (the writer) also exhausted their two "fuck" limit for a PG-13 film far too early. If you don't known the MPAA generally likes to keep the uses of the word "fuck" in PG-13 films to about one or two tops, excluding inaudible uses and completely excluding uses in the sexual connotation. This film used it up a little too early, and got away with it a few times (mouthing the word, not saying it), but at certain times, (Minor Spoiler Here) the character is typing a message and is using the word "fuck", and other characters' reactions suggest it is uncensored, but then it is censored on-screen. Not only does that take me out of the movie for being lazy, it also completely seems out of character for Watney to self-censor.
    Ridley Scott has produced better work than this, so it is sad to see that this is most successful film of his career. However, The Martian is an enjoyable, if predictable and patience-straining movie that relies a lot of name recognition in its' casting choices. It's about on par with Interstellar for me, in terms of both entertainment factor and overlong run time (and both feature a stranded Matt Damon). 6.5/10 stars.

                                         (Image: Wikipedia)

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.

Crimson Peak: del Toro's visual feast unfortunately lacks substance

Today, another review of a Halloween film out in October.

Crimson Peak:
Aspiring young author Edith is the daughter of a successful businessman in Buffalo, New York. She is courted and wooed by the mysterious baronet Sir Thomas Sharpe, and his sister Lucille, and she is married to him and taken to his England estate. However, Edith can also see ghosts, and they begin to warn her of a place called "Crimson Peak". Edith tries to forget these warnings, but as her new husband and sister-in-law grow increasingly distant and suspicious, and these nightly ghost appearances grow more frightening, she realizes there may be more to this estate and her new husband.
    Guillermo del Toro, whatever one's opinion of him is, cannot be denied to have a keen visual eye. He is a master of lighting, impressive sets and costumes, and of cinematography. The look of this film evokes memories of Hammer Horror and Bram Stoker's Dracula from 1992. It even matches the idea from those films of having romance take priority over the horror aspects. However, in terms of quality, this film comes nowhere close to those. The primary color palate is green, red, and black, which is funny, considering there's a scene which talks about color blindness and its' lack of reds and greens, almost acknowledging that people with color blindness will not fully see the best part of this movie: the imagery.
    The special effects are pretty good, even if the CG is overutilized. Some of the ghosts are menacing, others feel a little silly.
    Mia Wasikowska is a decent lead, but feels a little wooden at times. Tom Hiddleston, while good to see him get away from the Loki character, starts strong but slowly his character becomes way too  predictable. Jessica Chastain is laughably over-the-top evil, and there's, again, no mystery for her character despite the film supposedly being a mystery. She's obviously a villain from the start. Charlie Hunnam, Burn Gorman, and Jim Beaver are strong supporting characters, even if they are, also, pretty cliched. Doug Jones has some roles as ghosts in the film. It's cool to see del Toro still casting his buddies in small parts when the part fits them.
    The plot starts pretty strong, and the first half was investing. But the middle tries to build slow tension, but ultimately feels like it just drags on, as it quickly becomes evident of what's going on. The climax packs in a completely cliched and predictable twist, but the final confrontation is entertaining, if not exactly scary. There's some brutal kills/attempted kills in the movie that just look like they hurt and make you cringe. Guillermo always seems to pull off those moments better than most directors, at least in the mainstream. One particular stab had one man in my theater screaming "Jesus Christ!" completely out loud in my small, and mostly empty screening.
    Crimson Peak isn't exactly what I would call a scary, or even really suspenseful movie, bu it's a solid and mostly entertaining one with some chilling imagery and excellent period sets, costumes, and vibrant colors. There's some pretty violent scenes at the beginning and the end to keep things from getting too dull and to keep the stakes high, but ultimately, this isn't as good as del Toro can be. 6/10 stars.

Edit- November 11, 2015: the ghosts in the film were accomplished using mostly practical effects, not CGI as I had thought, though they look like it.

                                                         (Image: Wikipedia)

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

September Movies: The Visit and Black Mass

Today, I look at two movies I've seen recently.

The Visit:
Two young kids, a pretentious teenaged girl who likes making movies, and an idiotic boy who thinks he's a rapper, go for a week to visit their estranged grandparents and reconnect with them. However, spending more time with them, they realize something is very wrong with their grandparents...
    M. Night Shyamalan has been the laughingstock of Hollywood for the past ten years. A pariah, who is despised by critics, and whose fans have even grown tired of his constant churning out of garbage. Suddenly, this film, which looked ridiculous and stupid, was getting good reviews. People were saying he was turning his career around at last. I went in knowing this movie would be bad. No matter what people said, I knew it, deep down. And it was gloriously bad. It's supposed to be this found footage horror comedy, but the parts that I could tell were supposed to be scary were hilarious, and the parts that were supposed to be funny just cringey and awkward.
    The found footage angle doesn't work at all because it's essentially unnecessary except for budgetary reasons. There's still opening credits despite the "real" style, and the equipment being used by the main character is way too good for a teenage girl to have. The camerawork is so crisp and clear, it's like a professional camera. And the webcams being pretty much perfect, with no delay or bad audio is another pet peeve of mine as of late.
    Olivia DeJonge and Ed Oxenbould are the two annoying main characters. The girl spouts movie equipment explanations and terms to the audience like we're stupid and talks in an incredibly condescending voice. The boy is just plain irritating. I do admire the two actors, who are Australian, putting on such convincing American accents, but the material they were given is just awkward. Peter McRobbie and Deanna Dunagan play their grandparents, who are some great scenery-chewing villains. They are without a doubt the best part of the whole movie. Kathryn Hahn appears as the kids' mother, who is fine, but for a found footage movie, it's distracting to see such a recognizable face.
   The Visit is packed with jump-scares and unintentionally hilarious moments (grandpa's poop is used as a plot point and a scare), and is just painfully awkward at times in a way only Shyamalan can do. While I was thoroughly entertained, I feel it was still a failure as a horror-comedy, and should be seen as an all-around comedy. The only remotely suspenseful scene is the final confrontations with the grandparents, which are ruined by a poop scare and with a callback to football earlier in the movie that is absurdly forced. Overall, see it if you want a good laugh, or put it on at a Halloween party. This movie is a prime example that these day, Blumhouse will produce anything to make a quick buck. 5/10 stars.




Black Mass:
Telling the story of infamous Boston gangster James "Whitey" Bulger (a criminal whose exploits have inspired many other films), this movie follows his rise to power, family struggles, and the controversial alliance between Bulger and the FBI.
    Johnny Depp has been in a bit of a career rut lately. Being typecast as the eccentric oddball for the past twenty-or-so years hasn't helped. In this movie, he gets to actually be an actor again by portraying a character who is different than is others, who has a semblance of depth to him. His portrayal of Bulger is the crowning achievement of the film. He's empathetic at times, but is mostly cold, intimidating, and other times, disgusting and skeevy. The makeup job on him was excellent, with some subtle touches like a bad tooth and pock marks, and more noticeable ones like his receding hairline and icy blue eyes. Johnny still looks a little too handsome to be the real life Whitey (who had big teeth and looked much older), but his performance makes up for it.
    The rest of the cast do a fine job. It's too lengthy to list all here, but I will say Joel Edgerton was a good tragic hero character, who had moments of idiocy.
    My main problem with the movie was its' often repetitive nature (if Bulger is alone with someone or with just him and his guys and someone else, it's a guarantee that he's going to either kill them or do something creepy, it's like a formula). There's also no suspense in certain scenes after awhile because you can predict how it's going to end based on the information above, plus obvious music cues, so it's not great a suspense thriller. Even as Bulger story, it's a lot more boring than most. The Departed has more leeway because it was a fictional story, so they could do more with the story to make it more investing, but here, it's all facts, so after awhile it gets quite dry. The first act definitely felt more intriguing and fast-paced than the second, which dragged its' feet too much.
    Some of the camera angle choices were cool (in one death scene, they pan away to leave it kind of unclear what exactly was done, which was somewhat unique.
    I know it's the title of the book this was based on, but I don't know exactly why they decided to call this film "Black Mass". I mean, it's an eye-catching title, but it really has nothing to do with the film's content.
    Regardless, Black Mass is a decent gangster biopic, but nothing to write home about. It's essentially a straightforward telling, with little visual flair. I was disappointed, because director Scott Cooper has had a fairly good track record. Depp's performance may be enough to save this movie from pure mediocrity, but it's nothing compared to the other films based on Bulger's life. It's also a  bummer when the dinner scene from the first trailer was done better in that trailer than in the actual film. 6/10 stars.

                                                                (Images: Wikipedia)

Mission: Impossible- Rogue Nation: A review so late this movie will probably be on Blu-ray soon

Sorry for the extreme delay on reviews, I'll be pumping out more in the next few days and probably do another "Top 10 Horror" list for Halloween.

Mission: Impossible, Rogue Nation:
Ethan Hunt is on the run from the CIA, after the Impossible Mission Force is shut down completely. Not only that, but he is trying to single-handedly unravel the conspiracy surrounding The Syndicate, a "rogue nation" of sorts that is essentially an evil IMF dedicated to advancing its' own goals and goals of its' investors through strategic terror attacks made to look like they are connected to other groups. Hunt must team with mysterious newcomer Ilsa and his old teammates Benji, Luther, and William Brandt to clear their names, avoid the CIA, and prove to the world that The Syndicate is real.
    Now, this was originally scheduled for a December release, like the previous installment Ghost Protocol, but was pushed forward to avoid box office conflict with Star Wars VII (smart move). This is a film that feels like a rushed release. Released with little publicity for a summer blockbuster in late July, it just felt forced and unnatural. This is also obviously similar to the upcoming Bond film Spectre, in that both focus in on the heroes fighting an evil organization that is a dark reflection of their own agency, and both evil organizations in the films are iconic enemies of their respective franchises.
    Tom Cruise is still a very entertaining and formidable action star and is able to put his absolute all into every scene and stunt, which is very admirable; it's amazing how few of his films use stunt doubles. Ving Rhames, Jeremy Renner, Simon Pegg, Alec Baldwin, and Rebecca Ferguson make up a strong supporting cast with Rhames and Pegg being the best of them, with Rhames having a smaller but still pivotal role. Ferguson makes a decent newcomer to the cast, but there's something so cliched about her whole femme fatale mystique that detracts a bit from the performance.
    Sean Harris plays the film's main mystery villain, whose identity I won't spoil. He is the leader of The Syndicate, and is fairly slimy and creepy, almost reminiscent of Toht from Raiders of the Lost Ark or Le Chiffre from Casino Royale. However, he is nowhere near as strong or memorable as a Bond villain, but is an improvement over the previous installment's slightly underwhelming villain.
    However, this is the only thing that Rogue Nation improves on. Despite some impressive set-pieces such as the opening plane sequence (which was spoiled in the trailer and felt rushed in the film, as well as feeling like too much too early), Ethan's escape early on, the fight with an assassin in a theater, the motorcycle chase, and the final confrontation with the villain, the action feels lackluster when compared to the unpredictably excellent sequences in Ghost Protocol. This film just doesn't feel as grand or investing as Ghost Protocol, and feels closer to a run-of-the-mill Hollywood sequel, unlike the last two films.
    Christopher McQuarrie has done some good work in the past, especially with Bryan Singer, but surprisingly he doesn't feel as prepared for this as Brad Bird did last time, despite Bird never directing an action film, or even a live-action feature.
    Mission: Impossible- Rogue Nation is an entertaining and worthwhile spy thriller, though it's not as enthralling or slick as the last two in the franchise, and probably won't be as intriguing or artful as Spectre. 6.5/10 stars.

                                                     (Image: Wikipedia)