Movie Review: The Babadook

If you want a good film, then take a look....at Jennifer Kent's directorial debut, The Babadook.

Amelia (Essie Davis, The Matrix Reloaded) is a single mother raising a troubled 6 year-old, Samuel (Noah Wiseman), who has behavioral problems.  Amelia's husband died on the way to the hospital for Samuel's birth and she seems to never have properly dealt with the grief of this.  Meanwhile, her son truly believes in monsters under the bed and arms himself against them, while also lashing out against anyone who doesn't believe him.  These behavioral problems eventually get him expelled from school.  One night, Samuel finds a book about Mister Babadook on his shelf and has his mother read it to him before bed.  Samuel becomes convinced that the Babadook is real and his behavior worsens.  Amelia slowly starts succumbing to the stress of raising her child alone, dealing with the unresolved feelings about losing her husband, and every bad thing that goes along with those things.  Her descent escalates as she begins to believe in the Babadook as well, and supernatural occurrences begin to plague her and her son.

 First things first, this is an excellent film.  If you are looking for a traditional supernatural horror film, then this still can work for you, but I must warn that it will seem a bit of a slow burn though.  When it comes to the Babadook itself, Kent uses the less-is-more approach, and it works.  You get little to no jump scares, but the imagery planted throughout the backgrounds and in the shadows will haunt you.  Kent doesn't completely deprive you though, and she does deliver a few full on looks at the creepy Mister Babadook.

Where this movie thrives, however, is as a psychological thriller/horror.  It is a character piece about a single mother's slow descent into madness.  Samuel is played annoyingly perfect by Wiseman.  He is one of those kids that just doesn't stop and can just grate on your nerves.  The fact that he annoyed me for the first half of the film just made it work that much more for me.  Every parent has had those days where lack of sleep and a constantly misbehaving child just makes them want to scream.  This gives you a weird sense of sympathy for the character of Amelia even though she is diving straight into the deep end of insanity.  Her struggle throughout the film is the most terrifying thing about it.  You just don't know how far she is going to go, and that is where the tension lies.  The Babadook just becomes the catalyst.  That being said, this whole film rests on the shoulders of  Davis, and she gives an Oscar worthy performance.

The sound and visual design also both really work well.  You don't get much of a score for the first 30 minutes of the film.  A lot of what you get is quick cuts and sharp, jarring sounds.  As the Babadook slowly makes himself known, the score slowly rises until you finally get the sharp crescendos in the thick of the action.  The colors and tones in the house also fit the tone of the film.  The house is shot in bleak, drab tones to match Amelia's setting depression and hopelessness.

Essie Davis really does carry this film, and Wiseman does a good job of it as well.  As for the rest of the cast, I have know real complaints.  They all did a fine job with what they had to work with.  I think side characters was where this film lacked just a little.  Most of them didn't end up amounting to anything other than a plot device.  Some were barely even that.  The one place where this film actually fell slightly short for me was the ending.  I felt Kent didn't stick the landing.  Without giving away any spoilers or plot points, I felt she just didn't know where to take it and just kind of ended it.  Don't let this deter you though.  It didn't fail, or even lower my feelings for the rest of the film.  I just didn't stick for me is all.

I can probably safely call The Babadook my favorite horror of the year.  I would recommend it to any die hard horror fans.  The practical effects are fantastic, and a nice change of pace from all the CGI out there.

Rating: *********- (9 out of 10) [Full price!]

Memorable Quote:

Samuel: I'm really tired because of the drugs mommy gave me.

Movie Review: Big Hero 6

Don Hall (Winnie the Pooh) and Chris Williams (Bolt) bring the Disney partnership with Marvel over to the animation studios with Big Hero 6.

In this film we follow the story of a 14 year old robotics genius named Hiro (Ryan Potter, Senior Project).  He lives with his older brother Tadashi (Daniel Henney, The Last Stand) and his Aunt Cass (Maya Rudolph, The Way Way Back) (because his parents are dead, because it's a Disney animated movie) in the American/Japanese hybrid town of San Fransokyo.  Hiro has been using his gift to win illegal back-alley robot fights.  Tadashi thinks he is wasting his potential, so he tricks him into going with him to his "nerd school" to check out what he does.  Hiro thought the university would be below him, but finds out just how cool it really is.  While there, he is introduced to Hadashi's project, Baymax (Scott Adsit, We're the Millers).  Baymax is an inflatable robotic "nurse".  If in pain, he will inflate and scan & diagnose you.  Then he will attempt to cure you and deflate when you are satisfied with his care.  Hiro also meets several of Hadashi's friends.  He decides he'd like to attend the university.  To gain admission he creates a bunch of microbots that can be controlled with your mind to create anything you wish, which he enters at the university's annual exhibition.  While at the exhibition a fire breaks out destroying everything.  Hadashi runs back to rescue his professor and is killed in the explosion (seriously Disney, can no character have a whole family).  Turns out it wasn't an accident.  Hiro builds some armor for Baymax, and along with his new friends, goes out to find and capture the person responsible for his brother's death.

So, while Pixar has been steadily declining in my opinion over the last couple of years, Disney Animation Studios has picked up the pace.  The last several movies have been quite good in their own ways, and this is no exception.  This film may be formulaic, but it has heart and fun characters and good dialogue.  Some of the side characters are maybe a little to stereotype-y, but Hiro is fleshed out really well and goes through quite the emotional journey.  Baymax of course is the star.  His lines are delivered just pitch perfect by Adsit.  He is like a big, kind marshmallow that you just want to reach out and hug.  Again, the plot may be formulaic, but the dialogue and the pacing keep it going and entertaining.  The animation of course is visually stunning as well.

The real heart of the story is where this Disney film differs from most of it's predecessors.  As I mentioned before, this has the oh-so-common Disney theme of losing a loved one.  I feel like this movie dug deeper into this issue.  Baymax, being the robotic nurse that he is, is there throughout the movie to help Hiro with his emotional pain of losing his brother after having already lost his parents when he was young (while also flying around in his new suit and generally being awesome).  We watch for an hour and a half as Hiro goes through the 5 steps of grief.  Other Disney films may show these stages, possibly even all five, but I think Big Hero 6 does it much more extensively.  On top of showing the five stages, it really focuses on surrounding yourself with friends and loved ones when you are hurting from a loss.  This is a wonderful film to show your younger children to start a conversation about grief and loss and how to cope with it.  It helps that they encompass it in a superhero movie, so they can also thoroughly enjoy it as pure entertainment as well.

There is something missing from this movie that I just can't put my finger on, that makes it feel like it will not go down as one of the "classics".  However, it is a solid, entertaining film that can proudly sit next to all of those said classics.  Disney Animation Studios have been on a roll as of late, and if they can keep putting up this kind of quality I will happily anticipate their future endeavors.

Rating: ********-- (8 out of 10) [matinee]

Memorable Quote:

Baymax: Budda-ludda-ludda-la

Movie Review: Nightcrawler

Dan Gilroy shows us a dark, behind the scenes look at gathering news footage in his directorial debut, Nightcrawler.

Louis "Lou" Bloom (Jake Gyllenhaal, Source Code) is a man looking for his calling in life.  Meanwhile, he's selling stolen items to a scrapyard.  One night he runs across an accident and stops to check it out.  He doesn't pay attention to the victim, rather the man (Bill Paxton, Edge of Tomorrow) getting footage of everything.  He talks to this man, Joe Loder, who tells him about the business of news footage gathering to sell to the highest bidding station.  The next day Bloom buys a camera and a police scanner and gets to work.  He sells his first footage to the morning show of a low-rated news station.  The news director, Nina (Renee Russo, Major League), love his work and they end up forming a sort of partnership.  Things escalate as Bloom goes to amoral and downright unlawful lengths to get the first and best scoop at tragic scenes in LA.  Nina is a news director in a flailing station who needs the ratings, so even knowing he can't be getting the footage legally, she turns a blind eye to his methods and uses it anyway.

Dan Gilroy both wrote and directed this film.  He does have some writing credit to his name, but this is his first directing gig, and boy what a debut it was.  It is a great, gritty look at news stations, paparazzi, and society in general.  You will watch this film being appalled at the lengths he goes to in getting footage for this small news station.  You'll hate the guy, but also realize that the kind of footage that he is getting in this fictional world is the kind of news footage we flock to in real life as a society.  We are fascinated by death and destruction.  With the things he does, you know this is exaggeration, but it makes you reflect on the fact that this is exactly the kind of footage we want to see.  Nina is coming into sweeps period at the station part way through the film and needs good footage and stories.  This resonated with me, because I work in a news station. (Sadly, I don't get paid for writing reviews, so I've gotta pay the bills somehow).  The station I work at is in the Midwest, but not in Chicago, so crime is pretty low, but I can see the work that gets put into finding good stories for sweeps periods.

I'll give Gilroy a nod for writing the film, but it is Gyllenhaal that brings the script to life.  I'm going to join the bandwagon and say that he definitely deserves an Oscar nod for this role.  He took this character and made it his own, even down to little nuances such as his habit of putting his hair in a little ponytail right before he's going to do something bad.  Louis Bloom is a complete sociopath.  He is meticulous and manipulative and is always one step ahead of everyone.  He's great at reading people and knows how to exploit their needs to get what he wants.  His actions will appall you, and you know you can't root for him.  Somehow you respect him though for his drive and his ambition to be the best at what he does.  With Bloom's actions being so appalling, Gilroy was smart in writing in an "intern", Rick (Riz Ahmed, Closed Circuit).  Rick is with Bloom through all of his filming escapades.  He provides a little comic relief to ease the tension without being over the top.  He also provides our scapegoat for a reason to root for Bloom to get away with things, because you don't want to see Rick get caught in the crossfire.  The character of Nina is the perfect companion to Bloom because she is kind of his doorway into the real world so to speak.  Being a sociopath, Bloom has a bit of a disconnect with other people.  Nina has that same drive and ambition as him, so she can relate, but she has a better connection with people and helps him to meet everyone at the station.  Bill Paxton plays a bit role as Bloom's introduction into this world and later competition.  It is always good to see him pop up.

With a great script and a phenomenal performance by Gyllenhaal, this is a must see film this fall.  It is also another solid directorial debut for the year.  This film is dark and tense and it will get under your skin.

Rating: *********- (9 out of 10) [Full price!]

Memorable Quote:

Rick: I could've gotten more, couldn't I?

Lou: Absolutely.

Movie Review: John Wick

Chad Stahelski and David Leitch (both in directorial debut) bring down the wrath of the mystery man, John Wick.

John Wick (Keanu Reeves, The Replacements) is a retired hit man for the Russian mob.  He was happily married, but his wife died of cancer.  All he has left is his car and his new dog.  A couple of thugs take both of those from him and that's what lights the fuse.  One of the thugs ends up being the son of his former boss, so he takes up vengeance on the whole mob in spectacular fashion.  That's it in a nutshell.  You want plot/story/character development, then go home, this is not the movie for you.  You want some kick-ass action and amazing close range gun fights, then stick around.

The story is pretty ridiculous if you think about it too hard.  It is sheer coincidence that the mob boss's son goes after Wick's car.  Later he finds out that everyone and their mother knows who Wick is, and not to mess with him.  Growing up with Wick's boss, how did he not have a flippin' clue?  Wick just wants the son, but of course he's got to go through the entire mob to get to him.  There is even a contract put out on him to keep him away.  The son is kind of a douche, so obviously they all take the contract for the money, not necessarily to protect the kid, right?  The mob in this film is kind of a secret society.  Luckily Wick kept a stash of their secret gold coins to get into their fun club houses (along with a cache of weapons).  He stays at a hotel called the Continental to find out information.  Remember when you played tag as a kid and you had a home base where you were "safe" and couldn't be tagged?  That's essentially what the Continental was in this film, only with assassins.  Ha, ha....I'm in the Continental, you can't shoot me.  Them's the rules.  Well, someone breaks the rules and even more hell breaks loose than has already broken loose.  You know where it all ends, half the population of New York dead.

I don't want to crap on the film too much, because all that nonsense doesn't mean anything.  Where the movie succeeds, is where it is meant to succeed.....the action.  This is the first time directing for both of the directors, but they each have a long line of films where they did the stunts/stunt coordination, and it shows.  The choreography of some of the fighting was just fantastic to watch.  John Wick uses handguns throughout the film, but it's all close range in the middle of hand to hand fighting.  I found it quite unique and refreshing.  Reeves is no stranger to martial arts, and does a great job.  This is also one of those roles that fits him well.  He plays the straight-faced, no bulls*** killer well.  This is 100% his movie.  (Although, John Leguizamo had a brief part, and they could have used him more in my opinion).  The rest of the characters have no background, and no development, but you just don't care because Reeves is so much fun to watch.  All my complaints about the plot and story kind of go by the wayside a bit also, because once the action starts it doesn't really let up for the remainder of the film.

I think these directors have something going for them in the world of action.  They did a competent job with what little they were give with this script.  They will be two to watch out for in the future of action movies.  Story issues aside, this was a fun ride that's worth a look if you're in for a slick, mindless action film.  The good mostly outweighs the bad.

Rating: ******---- (6 out of 10) [rental]

Memorable Quote:

Viggo: He's not the boogeyman.  He's the guy you'd send to kill the boogeyman.



Movie Review: Fury

David Ayer (End of Watch) shows us the Fury of an American tank crew in WWII Germany.

I am a sucker for a good World War II film, and this one delivered.  It's set at the tail end of the war on the front lines in Germany, 1945.  A tank crew has lost their assistant driver/gunner and the army sends in a typist named Norman (Logan Lerman, The Perks of Being a Wallflower) to replace him.  He has never even seen the inside of a tank before. We watch as he learns to adapt and fit in with the rest of the tight-knit crew as they go help capture more small German towns.

The missions themselves are not the main focus of this film.  This is a film about the effects of war, and the tolls it takes on a man.  The rest of the crew that Norman joins consists of the commander Don 'Wardaddy' Collier (Brad Pitt, Fight Club), gunner Boyd 'Bible' Swan (Shia LeBeouf, Lawless), loader Grady 'Coon-Ass' Travis (Jon Bernthal, Grudge Match), and driver Trini 'Gordo' Garcia (Michael Peña, Everything Must Go).  These men had been serving together for three years.  They are like family, and 'Fury' (the tank) had essentially become their home.  Not only were they a close-knit group, but the war had turned them into cold, killing machines.  Norman came in green and idealistic because he had spent the war behind a desk.  He had never killed a man, and was reluctant to do so for fear of losing his humanity.  Humanity is the big theme of the film.  Don and company had become a bit detached after three years of war together.  They didn't know anything other than killing Nazis.  Slowly throughout the film, Norman breaks through to them a little.  There is a great scene in the middle of the film where they are all having dinner with a couple of German women.  Each of the characters really gets a minute to shine in this scene.  The tank itself worked as an obvious metaphor, but luckily it never felt heavy-handed.  The four original crew members put on a defensive shield all around them, but any time they are seen within the confines of the tank you see a glimpse of who they truly are inside.  Norman has to break through the shell of the tank to get inside and be accepted as part of the crew.  David Ayer did a great job of making this a 2-way street though.  Norman also has to learn that not everything is sunshine and rainbows.  The war will never be won unless people die.  He finds out the hard way that if he doesn't harden up a little and learn to kill Nazis, that others could die due to his hesitation.  As Don puts it to him, "Ideals are peaceful.  History is violent."

This film is mostly focused on being a character piece.  That being said, it never forgets that it is also a WWII film about killing Nazis.  When fighting breaks out, it doesn't shy away from showing the violence of some of the deaths.  You will see blood and body parts flying.  There is a great looking 3 on 1 tank battle in the middle of the field.  Finally it all culminates in a stand-off against a few hundred German SS troops.  This final battle is tense and gets you totally invested.  On top of the good looking battle scenes, the whole movie itself was shot just beautifully.  The cinematography was great.  Everything was dirty and bleak.  Just with the look of the film itself you could feel the toll that the war had taken on everything.

One thing I don't usually mention about any given movie is the score.  Most of the time I don't really notice the score.  I mean that in a good way.  A good score should just blend in nicely with what you are seeing.  Usually if you are noticing the music, it's kind of a bad thing and it takes you out of the movie.  This film, however, was one of the exceptions.  I was enthralled by the music.  Like the film itself, it was dark, gritty, and somber.  I noticed it without it taking anything away from the film.  In fact, it only added to the experience.  Steven Price is going to be a composer to look out for.  He also composed the score for Gravity.  That was my favorite film of 2013, and in much the same way, I noticed the music in a good way.

One final thing can not go unspoken, and that is the cast.  Being a heavily character driven story, this film would not have worked without the proper cast.  All five of the main actors hit it out of the ball park.  Logan put in a solid performance having to hold his own against Brad Pitt.  I've always been a fan of Pitt, and this is one more role that solidifies my fandom.  Shia may be a little crazy in real life, but he does have some acting ability.  This may be his best performance to date.  If he keeps this up, I may even forgive him for the Transformers movies.  I have not seen much from Jon Bernthal other than "The Walking Dead".  Like the others though, he put in his all and did a fine job.  Finally, there is Michael Peña.  I think he is criminally underrated, and horribly underused in films.  This film did nothing to sway that opinion.  As always he was a joy to watch.  On top of the great acting from each, they also had real good chemistry with each other.  You really felt their bond, and when that final battle comes, you care what happens to these guys.

Overall, I can't say enough good about this movie.  It was the whole package for me.  If you like WWII films and can handle a little graphic violence, then do yourself a favor and get out and see this film.

Rating: ********** (10 out of 10) [Go see this now!]

Memorable quote:

Wardaddy: Do you think Hitler would f*** one of us for a chocolate bar?

Movie Review: Dracula Untold

In his feature film debut, Gary Shore takes a shot at telling the origins of one of the most iconic Universal monsters in Dracula Untold.

In the 15th century, the Turkish empire was trying to take over the world (because Everybody Wants To Rule the World).  In so doing, they would take young boys from their families and train them to become ruthless killing machines for their armies.  One of these was a young boy from Transylvania named Vlad.  He earned himself quite a reputation for impaling all of his victims on wooden spikes earning him the nickname Vlad the Impaler.  He wasn't fond of what he'd become and eventually got out of the army to go back and rule Transylvania peacefully for many years.  The Turks showed up unannounced one day and decided they wanted to take the young again, including Vlad's son.  Vlad did not have the army to oppose them, so he made a deal with a master Vampire in the mountains to give him the power to stop the army.  He was informed that he would have the powers for three days and then revert back to human form if he could avoid the temptation of drinking human blood, otherwise he'd be a vampire forever.  You can probably fill in the blanks from there.

I feel like this is one of those movies I shouldn't have liked on principal, but I liked it anyway.  Some origins should be left a mystery, especially Dracula's, but somehow I got over this.  I also somehow got over the fact that they took an absolute monster and turned him into a tragic hero.  A lot of it worked based just on the performance of Luke Evans (The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug).  He really sold this character for me.  He played a man who was ashamed of what he had done in the past and was willing to make an unspeakable deal with a monster that may damn him forever, just to keep his son from having to live the same life.  He played off the struggle well too.  You could see the conflict as he tried to avoid that fateful temptation of drinking human blood.  Then something happens that angers him so much that he gives in (not a spoiler: you knew he was going to stay a bloodsucker) just so he can ultimately destroy the Turks, giving his son a chance to rule in peace.  When he does, you see that it has taken something from him and he will have the monster inside to fight forever.

One of the things that really worked well for me was the running time of the film.  It clocks in at under 90 minutes sans credits.  I've seen some complain that this does not allow for much character development, but I think that's where Luke Evans comes in again.  His is the only character that truly needs developed and he does such a fine job that you see his transition from man to monster quite well in those 90 minutes.  I do try to steer clear of other reviews when trying to review something myself, but there is one thing I have to mention.  I've seen a lot of negative comments about this movie, with the biggest gripe being that of historical accuracy.  They use actual historical figures in this film, and sure it's probably all wrong, but you're watching a film about a guy who can turn into a bunch of bats!  If anyone goes to a Dracula movie looking for a lesson in history, we have much bigger problems to deal with.  As for the character of Dracula, I don't know the full lore, but I'm sure that some things were changed to suit the story.  However, they kept in the classic attributes such as daylight, wooden stakes to the heart, crosses.  I felt they kept enough the same to not ruin the character entirely.

Another thing that worked was the special effects.  Some weren't fantastic, and some of the action got a little quick and dizzying, but a lot of it worked.  The armies of bats that you see in the trailers I thought were done well.  Also, when the vampires dealt with anything life-threatening (ie, daylight), the skin peeling from the body was quite effective.

I've already mentioned that Evans rose to the challenge of his role.  The other actors put in decent performances.  Nothing stellar, nothing bad.  Charles Dance (Alien 3) also did a fine job as the master vampire.  Dominic Cooper (Need For Speed) was okay as the Turk sultan, Mehmed, but after having seen him play an evil sadistic bad guy so amazingly in The Devil's Double, I think I hold him to an unfair standard.

This is by no means an award-winning movie.  Yes, I did enjoy the effects, and to a certain extent also the acting.  This film is not trying to be an award-winner though.  It's essentially trying to be a quick, fun ride.  In that aspect I felt everything worked well together.  It is a good movie to rent on a Friday or Saturday night with some friends when you want a fun action movie that moves along at a good pace.  It was a solid first effort for a new director, and it held me enough to want to see where else they take this new version of the classic monster.

Rating: ******---- (6 out of 10) [rental]

Memorable Quote:

Master Vampire: Let the games begin!

Movie Review: Men, Women & Children

In this day and age of texting and social media, Jason Reitman (Thank You For Smoking) takes us behind the scenes into the lives of several Men, Women & Children.

This film follows several teenagers and their parents, exploring their relationships with each other and how technology now plays a role in those relationships.  There is Brandy (Kaitlyn Dever), who has the overbearing mother (Jennifer Garner) who tracks and monitors everything she does online.  Tim (Ansel Elgort) who just wants to play his online game, but his father (Dean Norris) wants him to be the football star.  Hannah (Olivia Crocicchia) who wants to be a star, and the mother (Judy Greer) who is trying to live vicariously through her.  Chris (Travis Tope), who doesn't seem to have a real relationship with his parents (Adam Sandler & Rosemarie DeWitt), but does have an unnatural relationship with his bizarre internet porn.  And finally Allison (Elena Kampouris) who lost way too much weight to get noticed by a boy.  Her parents (J.K. Simmons & Tina Parker) seem to realize her problem, but keep their distance about it.

Did we hit all of the teenage tropes in this film?  Check.  However, the approach to these issues is one worth taking.  This film delved into the role that technology plays now with teens and even adults.  The real problem is that this great discussion piece was taken up and totally mishandled.  The tone of the film just didn't land with me.  It was trying to be a serious discussion about these relationships, which is great, but the characters were written so exaggeratingly over-the-top that it was too hard to take them serious.  The characters, especially the adults, were taken to the extreme edge of the stereotypes they were portraying to the point of being comical, all the while asking you to really invest in them.  Sandler and DeWitt have a sexless marriage.  Barely was a conversation started before he started masterbating to his son's internet porn (creepy), and then both he and his wife just jumped right into affairs.  Judy Greer got so engrossed in making her daughter look good on her website that she practically turned it into child pornography.  Jennifer Garner's character was the one I found the most over-exaggerated.  She spent her evenings reading every last word that went in and out of her daughter's phone and computer.  She also intercepted messages and deleted even the most simple, innocent messages without asking the daughter what they might have been about.  She also watched every movement her child made with the use of GPS.  I realize that there are parents out there that are quite extreme like these (and that scares the living daylights out of me), but I feel like this film took that extreme just one step to far with nearly all the characters to the point of ridiculousness.

I can say there are a couple of redeeming factors though.  One is the acting.  I thought that for what they were given, many of the actors did an excellent job.  It was good to see Adam Sandler take a more serious role again after some of his ridiculous comedies as of late.  Although Garner's character was one of the worst, I though she played it straight and she played it well.  Judy Greer had some funny and touching scenes.  The big stand-out roles, however, went to Kaitlyn Dever and Ansel Elgort.  I thought they were fantastic.  Part of that was because their characters seemed the most relatable in the film, and part was because they just simply were that good.  This was good because their little love story seemed to be the main focus of the film.

Having this one good storyline and all the good acting couldn't save this sinking ship though.  On top of being overbearing, there were also just simply too many storylines going on.  It made the film seem to go on forever.  This is one of those rare movies that at certain points had me staring at the screen wondering if we were nearing the end yet.  That is never a good sign.

Overall, like I said, this film really dropped the ball.  I think this society's addiction to texting and social media and how it is affecting us should be a serious discussion.  This film tried to take that serious route.  Heck it even had shots from a satellite light years away looking at the tiny Earth, with a voice-over from Emma Thompson talking about how insignificant we really are in the grand scheme of things.  They just needed to tone down the characters a little and drop one or two of the side stories to add more focus.  It had potential, but this is not one you need to seek out.

Rating: ***------- (3 out of 10) [don't go out of your way]

Memorable Quote:

Joan: I have installed a camera in my daughter's brain, and a seven digit pin code on her vagina.



Movie Review: Annabelle

It's October, so you know what kind of movies are hitting the theatres.  Touching movies about adorable little soul-sucking dolls like Annabelle, directed by John R. Leonetti (Mortal Kombat: Annihilation).

Mia (Annabelle Wallis, X-Men: First Class) and John (Ward Horton, The Wolf of Wall Street) are a young happy couple expecting their first child soon.  In the new nursery room of their home, Mia has a doll collection all along the wall (yikes!), and John comes home with one more for her collection.  After a terrifying event in their home, somehow the doll became haunted or possessed.  Mia and John didn't know exactly that it was possessed, but they got rid of it anyway because of it's involvement in the earlier event.  When they moved to a new apartment the doll showed up in one of the boxes.  For some unfathomable reason they decide to keep it.  It goes all boogedy-boogedy on them and they finally realize that there is something terribly wrong with it.  Then they spend the rest of the film trying to stop it with the help of Father Perez (Tony Amendola, The Legend of Zorro), because in these films the father or priest never looks at you like you're crazy when you say you have a possessed doll.  They accept it quite readily.  There's also a little help from their new neighbor Evelyn (Alfre Woodard, 12 Years a Slave), because when these things happen you can always count on a neighbor to know where to find the best book on demons.

Okay, gotta start with this: possessed or not, who the hell buys their wife this creepiest of all creepy looking dolls in the first place.  Did he not look at the thing?  Seriously.  That being said, this fact becomes the downfall of the first 20 minutes or so of the movie.  The filmmakers try to get by on a lot of just static shots of the doll sitting there looking all immobile, but creepy.  I get it, it's a scary doll....move on.  This kind of slows down the first part of the movie, but there are luckily one or two tense scenes to break up the monotony of the doll's face.  There is a home invasion scene that has a real slasher movie vibe to it that worked well for me.  The second half of the film is where it picks up a little more.  You get glimpses of the power behind the doll's possession lurking in the background and some of the scenes are just haunting and well-done.

I felt the acting quite good in this film, especially for the two leads being relative unknowns.  They played a convincing couple with good chemistry.  Annabelle Wallis had to do a lot of the heavy lifting with scenes involving only her being terrified, and I thought she did quite nicely in those scenes as well.  The supporting cast didn't have quite as much to do, but they got the job done just fine.  The doll did a fantastic job at simply being creepy.

Ironically enough, as scary-looking as the doll is, it wasn't enough to justify showing just it so many times.  This is what brought the movie down a little in my rating, because it is used too much in the beginning of the film slowing it down a little.  Other than that, the acting was perfectly fine, and a lot of the other things that were used to creep you out or give you a few jump scares, worked quite effectively.  If you love horror movies and dolls really creep you out, this might be for you.  Even if you just love horror movies, there is a lot to like in this movie.  It's a solid rental to pick up and watch at home late at night with the lights all down.

Rating: ******---- (6 out of 10) [rental]

Memorable Quote:

Nurse: I got it for my birthday from my mother.

Movie Review: A Walk Among the Tombstones

Scott Frank (The Lookout) decided September would be a good time to take us for A Walk Among the Tombstones.

We start by seeing Scudder (Liam Neeson, Darkman) off duty as a cop in the early 90's.  He witnesses a couple of guys robbing a bar and deals with it.  This ends in a way that affects him enough to quit the force.  Cut to 1999, where he is now working as an unlicensed private detective.  He gets pulled into a bizarre case when a drug dealer (Dan Stevens, The Guest) hires him to find out who kidnapped his girlfriend.  Things escalate when he finds that this is not the first, or last, time that these kidnappers have hit someone.

If you're looking for another non-stop (pun, totally intended) action flick from Neeson, then you've come to the wrong place.  This is not another Taken clone, but rather more of a mystery thriller and a character piece.  And not a bad one at that.  The plot itself doesn't take you to too many new places, but the dialogue and acting elevate this film above the mediocre level.  I don't think all of the action movies that Neeson has been doing have been that bad really, but they're not a real showcase of his talent.  He's given a little more to work with in this film though, and I think he really shines.  He's conflicted when given the new case because he's a good man and doesn't want to help a drug dealer. He even refuses at first.  Then he finds out what happened to the girlfriend, and he gets pulled in. He is also kind of alone and haunted by his past, but finds a friend in a homeless teen named TJ (Astro, Earth To Echo).

One weak spot in the film would have to be parts of the relationship between Scudder and TJ.  They work together pretty well for most of their time together.  However, they have a few scenes together where the dialog gets a little clunky.  TJ also is forced to become a little too convenient of a plot device at some points.  With what he's given, he does do a fine job of making it work for the most part.  Another shining star in this film though, is Dan Stevens who plays the drug dealer hiring the detective.  I am not real familiar with his work right now, but this film definitely has me alert to look for more of his stuff.  He apparently has a big role on the ever-so-popular BBC show, "Downton Abbey".  In here he is given the role of an icy drug dealer who's got a bit of a hard edge to him.  On top of this, he let's a vulnerability show through when talking about his missing girlfriend, while still maintaining that edge.  It's a fine line, and he walks it well.

Another thing to note is the time setting of 1999.  It's appropriate because this looks and feels like a gritty 90's thriller more so than the glossy, polished films we get now.  Scudder is the grumpy old detective that doesn't want to learn technology.  Having this film set in '99 helps sell that.  The internet and cell phones were still new-ish at the time.  Him not wanting a cell phone, or wanting to learn to use the internet were legitimate.  Try being a detective in this day and age without those skills and you'll probably be laughed right out of a job.  The only time this became a little distracting was with too many mentions of the Y2K scare.  It worked as a one-off joke about why he doesn't want to bother learning how to use a computer himself.  From there, it just got annoying with all the references.

This film is by no means an Oscar contender or anything, but it really holds it's own.  It is a little slower paced, but it's a nice throwback to the older more deliberate, character driven thrillers.  If you're looking for some solid acting and good dialogue, then this little mystery is not a bad choice.  It's a good chance to see Neeson do something a little different for a change, while still getting some of that shoot 'em up action he does so well in the last act.

Rating: ******---- (6 out of 10)

Memorable Quote:

Scudder: Chased 'em into the street, shot two dead.....got a third one in the leg.

Movie Review: The November Man

Roger Donaldson (Cocktail) brings us this September action/spy thriller, The November Man.


Peter Devereaux (Pierce Brosnan, The Matador) is a CIA agent who retires after his protégé, Mason (Luke Bracey, G.I. Joe: Retaliation) fails to follow an order and things go wrong on a mission.  He has five years of peace before his former boss, Hanley (Bill Smitrovich, Iron Man) calls him back to pull another agent out of deep cover in Russia.  This agent has information on a man trying for the Russian presidency that the CIA needs, and Hanley claims they will only talk to Peter.  Things go wrong again.  The CIA and Russians are both after Peter.  He runs into his old protégé.  Bad guys are good guys, good guys are bad guys.  Who does he trust?  There's a girl they are seeking who was abused by the bad Russian man.  There's a Chechen war that was started on purpose for control of oil.  Ya follow?  Good.


Yeah, let's start with the plot.  It was all over the place, and just about as easy to follow as my description above.  There were just so many plot points crammed into this movie, and the screenwriter tried to put too many twists into it.  This film ran a fairly short 108 minutes, and yet it felt like it was at least 2 hours long.  I will give credit to the fact that despite the jumbled mess of a story, it did all clear up by the end.  It also felt like even with all that was going on, the movie was still a little clichéd and predictable at some points.  There's the retired agent who is pulled back in and has to face his protégé.  There's the obligatory meeting with an informant in a strip club.  There are two-faced characters who are not really who they seem to be.  There was simply just not much in here that set this movie apart from any other generic CIA spy movie like this.


The acting wasn't bad, but it wasn't real great either.  For the most part I don't entirely fault the actors.  They all did a competent job with what they were given.  All the characters were just so by the numbers that there was no room for them to shine.  Brosnan was the only one who had anything to even remotely sink his teeth into and did a fine job.  He plays a man who wants to stay settled down and run his little shop, but in a few scenes you get to see a little bit of the darkness from his past come through and you're not quite sure if he's going to step over the edge.


There's not much else to say about this film.  It's not really bad, and it's not really good.  It just kind of......is.  It's Pierce Brosnan back in the role of a spy, which is a good thing.  There's enough action to keep you interested.  It's the kind of movie you'll find on TBS or TNT, while flipping through your 10,000 cable channels, that you'll stop and watch when you realize there is nothing else on.  You'll enjoy it for what it is, then forget about it month later.


Rating: ****------ (4 out of 10)


Memorable Quote:
Alice: Do all your friends try to kill you?
Peter: Eventually.

Movie Review: As Above, So Below

John Erick Dowdle (Quarantine) takes us on a journey to hell and back in As Above, So Below.

Scarlett (Perdita Weeks, The Invisible Woman) is the daughter of a famous anthropologist (no, not Indiana Jones), and is following in his footsteps.  She's adventurous and super smart.  Seriously, she speaks four modern languages, two dead ones, has multiple phds, and is even a black belt in some form of martial arts.  It was a bit overkill for the story, but that's a minor quibble.  In this film she is searching for the infamous Philosopher's Stone.  She teams up with Harry Potter and.....no, wrong story.  Through a little bit of detective work she finds out that it is buried somewhere beneath the city of Paris.  There are catacombs running all throughout the underground of Paris where 6 million people were buried a couple hundred years ago (true story).  The tunnels are a tourist place now, but Scarlett has discovered that there may be a hidden chamber where the stone is now residing.  She gets together a group to go down and help her find it with the promise of treasure.  While down there, they pass an entry that is the supposed gateway to Hell, where they each have to face their inner demons and fight their way back to the surface. Who will survive?

This film is being sold as a horror, and it is for the last half.  The whole first half is something different though.  It is more of a National Treasure/Davinci Code type of movie.  We watch her as she finds clues to the whereabouts of the Philosopher's Stone by sneaking into museums, finding hidden clues, checking the maps.  This worked for me though.  I love those kinds of movies, and this one had a story that held my interest pretty well.  Then when the group gets into the catacombs, we get the horror movie we thought we were going to see.  It is horror set in tunnels and caves, so do we get all the clichés?  Yeah.  Someone falling down long hole?  Check.  Someone getting stuck?  Yep.  A broken bone? Sure.  The difference for me was that they established a good story in the beginning of the film.  The filmmakers kept that story going throughout the last half, and used it to deal with a couple of the clichés in what I thought were interesting ways.  I thought overall the story was a strong point.  It's like The Goonies as a horror movie.

A weak point was the filming style.  It's found footage.  Yes, there are some good examples of found footage movies out there, but I'm just kind of tired of it as a whole.  I will give this one points for implementing the structure better than most.  Scarlett has a man named Benji (Edwin Hodge, The Purge: Anarchy) documenting her journey as she uncovers clues.  When they go down into the catacombs he has a little camera installed on everyone's headlamps, so the story can logically be shown from the viewpoint of any of the characters.  You were never left wondering where a camera was or why it would be there.  The problem I have with the found footage, is movement.  When someone is running through the caves, or worse yet, falling, you just get a blurred image on screen.  It gets hard to tell what is going on when this is happening.  This didn't get real bad too often, but it was enough to be a little distracting here and there.  It also really limits the shot choices for the film, which I suppose is why a lot of horror directors use it.  It's got to be a pretty cheap alternative to traditional camera work.

The acting was just alright, but the characters developed well enough.  I actually liked a few of them, which is good for a horror film, because you want to care enough to not see them get hurt.  Weeks did a solid job of the gung-ho lead of the film.  Ben Feldman (Cloverfield) played her translator friend George.  He was the whiny one that didn't want to be there in the first place that you usually can't stand in these kind of films.  How he ended up going with them when he didn't want to was a little forced, but it was handled better than most.  Even being the whiny one, he was still likeable.  Francois Civil (Frank) was their personal tour guide, Papillon, and also the comic relief.  I thought he did a great job.  Those were the three personalities that really stuck out at all.  The other couple of characters were still likeable, but ultimately forgettable.

I have to admit, I went in not expecting much more than a generic horror.  What I got was a historical mystery adventure with some supernatural horror thrown in.  I could have done without found footage, and the acting was fine, but not great.  The story kept it interesting though, and there was plenty of tension during the last half of the film in the caves.  This film was a pleasant surprise.

Rating: ******---- (6 out of 10)

Memorable Quote:

George (translating): Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.

Movie Review: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles

Jonathan Liebsman (Wrath of the Titans) directed this latest version of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, the story of four heroes in a half shell of a movie.

New York is being run amok by a new gang called the foot clan.  While trying to get the scoop that'll finally put her on top, April O'Neil (Megan Fox, Transformers) witnesses four turtle vigilantes put a stop to one of their raids.  In confronting them, they introduce themselves (in case you missed it from the title of the movie) very awkwardly as ninjas who are mutant turtles......oh, and they are teenagers, but they can still have adult conversations, says Mikey.  Wink wink.  That April is a fox.  (See what I did there?  Pretty bad, but still better than the writing in this movie.)  Turns out that April's father was partners with Eric Sacks (William Fichtner, Drive Angry) in the lab that created these same turtles, along with their master Splinter.  April goes to Sacks to find out about a project they were working on before her father died.  Watch out April!  Sacks is a bad man, and he's got a Japanese man, named Shredder, sitting in the shadows of a back room that he gives a giant CGI suit of oversized knives to in order to stop the turtles before they foil his plan for world domination.  (I don't think that was much more spoilery than the trailers).

I'm not even sure where to begin with this.  I guess I will start by saying that I am a fan of TMNT, from the 80's cartoon to the 1990 movie to the NES game and beyond, even as cheesy as some of that stuff is.  So, I went into this movie wanting to like it.  I really did.  There are just too many things that didn't work.  The story, for one.  The biggest problem is the April O'Neil angle.  Why does the one person who randomly is the first one to witness the turtles in action, out of ALL the people in New York, have to magically be directly linked to their origin.  The writers were trying too hard to tie everything together, and that just called for too big of a coincidence.  Also, in doing so, this movie became more of the April O'Neil story, with the turtles being more of a foot note.  Speaking of footnotes, that's kind of what the reason is behind them actually being ninjas.  Think Splinter has a cool back story like he did in the 1990 version?  Nope, just found an old book in the sewers called The Art of Ninjitsu, and thought that would be cool to teach the turtles as a way to defend themselves.

That brings me to the turtles themselves.  It's a wonder they need to be ninjas at all.  They are each the size of a small car, and as witnessed in the first fight of the film, they can whip around barge crates with the greatest of ease.  They're also bulletproof.  All they need is brute force to take out the bad guys.  Another thing that bothered me about the turtles was the get-ups.  Maybe it's just because I'm used to the belt, the mask, and the weapon on each, that I though the rest of it was overkill in this movie.  Leonardo is the leader, so he has a sort of samurai armor looking thing on.  Donatello is the tech guy, so he is covered head to toe with electronics and nerdy glasses.  Raphael is the loner badass, so he's got the full bandana and black sunglasses.  Michelangelo is the fun-loving party dude, so he's decked out with puka shell necklaces and 80's sunglasses.  I liked it better when writers thought that audiences were smart enough to figure out their personalities without the overstated visual hints.

The writing wasn't much better than the design for the turtles.  They claimed to be teenagers, but I felt like they were written more like they were 8 or 9 year olds.  Mikey was ruined as the party guy, as 90% of his dialogue was devoted to his feelings for April.  I realize that it's nothing new to add this element of one or more of the turtles having a little crush on the hot reporter, but this was taken to a creepy, stalker-ish level. If they would have toned this down a little, then maybe the rest of his dialogue, that seemed more in character for him, would have resonated a little better.  The rest of the turtles' dialogue wasn't written much better, either.  The jokes all kind of felt a little flat.  I never thought this phrase would come from me, but Megan Fox may have been the best performer in the movie.  Some of the jokes and gags were actually direct callbacks to the 1990 movie (probably a few for the old cartoon show also, but didn't catch them).  Usually when watching a remake, I can appreciate these nods to the original and still enjoy the current film.  In this case, however, when they made a reference to the old film it just made me wish that's what I were watching instead.

I will give points to this movie for the CGI work.  This is the age of bigger equals better, and this movie rolled with that.  There is a scene where the main characters are careening down a snowy mountain while also still fighting the foot clan.  Everyone miraculously comes out unscathed, but hey, it was kind of a fun scene to watch.  The only place that the CGI was a problem for me was the final battle.  I just didn't think that Shredder's armor looked that great.

There are two other little positive things I would like to mention.  One is Will Arnett (The Lego Movie), who played April's cameraman, Vernon.  His dialogue wasn't much better than anyone else's, but when isn't that guy fun to watch.  The other is a scene to watch out for.  There is an elevator scene that's only really about 30 seconds long, but such a fun scene.  What is it with elevator scenes this year?  Captain America had a great one too.

Like I said before, I love the turtles.  So, it pained me to write such a negative review.  It just wasn't that good.  Other than a few fun scenes, most of my time spent watching this movie was spent wondering when it was going to end.

Rating: ***------- (3 out of 10)

Memorable Quote:

Michelangelo: MC Mikey!

Movie Review: Guardians of the Galaxy

James Gunn (Slither) helmed this next installment in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, Guardians of the Galaxy, and it's another great success in my opinion.

The general audience may not know who the Guardians are, but watching this film they'll definitely be hooked on a feeling of complete joy.  The film starts off in 1988 with a small boy named Peter Quill.  After seeing his mother pass away, he runs off and is abducted by a spaceship.  Cut to present day and we find an adult Peter, played by Chris Pratt (The Lego Movie), hunting down this small orb for a buyer.  We find that in the last 26 years he has been raised and trained by a group of ravagers, essentially space pirates.  He tries to sell it on Xandar, the homeworld of the Nova Corp.  It turns out to be a powerful weapon that the Nova's enemies, the Kree, want to steal for themselves to destroy Xandar.  From there it becomes a fun romp through space with Quill (or as he likes to call himself, Star Lord), and the unlikely group of heroes he accumulates, fighting the good fight to save Xandar and the Nova Corp.

It's a pretty basic plot, but the real fun of the movie comes from getting to know the characters.  Peter Quill is a wise-ass womanizing space pirate.  Drax the Destroyer (Dave Bautista, Riddick) is the literal-minded, muscle-bound alien hell-bent on getting revenge on the Kree.  Gamora (Zoe Saldana, Star Trek), is the "daughter" of the Kree leader, Thanos, whom she incidentally hates.  Then there is the walking tree named Groot (Vin Diesel, Boiler Room) and his little partner Rocket (Bradley Cooper, Limitless), the space-raccoon (although don't call him that to his face) with an attitude.  This group doesn't even like each other to begin with, so the bickering just makes for a fun time as they get to know each other and start to realize that they need to work together.  The role of Quill seems like it was written just for Pratt.  I think it may be the best bit of Marvel casting since RDJ as Tony Stark.  Not knowing the characters ahead of time, I don't know if the part was adapted to him or if that really is the way the character is.  Either way, it was just a ton of fun to watch.  The others did just as well, especially Diesel who did voice-over for the CGI Groot and could only use a vocabulary of three words to get his point across by using different inflections of his voice.  There was also a lot of greatness in the supporting cast with the likes of Glenn Close, John C. Reilly, and Michael Rooker.  One of the standouts, however, was Lee Pace (Lincoln).  He played Ronan, the leader of the Kree army that was after the orb.  He dove so far into the role of the power hungry alien that I didn't even realize it was him until the credits rolled.

Besides the top-notch cast, this film has a lot else going for it.  There's a little something in it for everyone.  The dialog is one of the best things going for it.  This movie had me laughing throughout most of it.  The dialog was just really witty and sharp.  I am a huge fan of 80's movies and this film managed to work in a lot of 80's dialog and references.  It was not shoehorned in either.  It all made sense within the context of the film, since Peter Quill was abducted from earth in 1988.  That would mean all knowledge of Earth for him only goes up to the 80's.  In keeping with this trend, it also had the feel of an 80's action/adventure/comedy.  It's hard to describe.  It was like watching an old Indiana Jones, mixed with a little Ghostbusters, set in space.  I don't mean similar subject matter, but rather tone and feel.  Also, without shoehorning it in, but rather flowing it into the narrative, this film may have the best soundtrack since Almost Famous.  It has a soundtrack that just makes you want to get up and dance.  In fact, there's even some fun dance scenes in here that also seem like they have no place in film like this, but somehow work oh so well.

Well, after this whole love-fest for this fantastic movie, I do have to point out one or two minor things that did not work for me.  First, I was worried in the beginning about the dialog.  These are characters that, as I've said, the general public are not even going to know the names of.  Therefore, that's the one thing they did have to shoehorn in.  I thought the dialog when introducing a couple of the characters was a little hokey.  You'll give this a pass, once you realize that it is only to get the introductions out of the way, which is necessary.  The other thing is, I did not like the camera work for the heavy action scenes.  When there was too much action going on, the camera was all over the place.  It was also full of fast cuts.  Luckily there were not a lot of scenes like this, and when there was a little less heavy action it was perfectly acceptable.  It just seemed like when there was too much going on at one time the director and cameraman didn't know where they should be, so they tried to be everywhere at once.

Other than those small complaints, I highly recommend you go out and see this film.  It doesn't matter if you know these characters or not going in.  By the time you leave, you'll be hungry for more.  And in true 80's fashion they let you know you'll get more with the pre-credits title card telling you "Guardians of the Galaxy will be back".  Also, being a Marvel movie, there is a stinger after the credits.  I will tell you that it does not progress any storyline, but for anyone in their mid-30's like me, there's a fairly unexpected fun little cameo.  This movie has it all, action, adventure, comedy, dancing, and a killer soundtrack.  If you're looking for a fun time at the movies, this is your ticket.

Rating: *********- (9 out of 10)

Memorable Quote:

Gamora: We're just like Kevin Bacon!