The Hateful Eight

Not to be mistaken with Adam Sandler's The Ridiculous Six, Quentin Tarantino's eighth film was mired in controversy long before principal shooting began. Allegedly there was a script leak, and he was furious and threatened not to make the film at all. That might have been a good thing had he moved on to something a little different. The Hateful Eight is an homage to the Western genre that he holds so dear. 2012's Django Unchained was our last taste of Tarantino, and his style is quirky and inimitable, but perhaps he's become complacent behind his reputation.

The story follows a group of semi-strangers who find themselves snowed in at Minnie's Haberdashery in the post-Civil War era in the mountains of Wyoming. Nearly every character has a secret or a secret identity, which convolutes the fidelity of the story in the first place. Everyone seems to know each other by reputation, and they spend more time introducing themselves and selling their back stories than they do having the trademark rhetorical banter that makes Tarantino unique in the first place. Anyhow, every single character is sinister and seedy. There's the bounty hunter, the criminal, the hangman, the sheriff, the major from the Union army, the general from the Confederate army, the mysterious "Bob", and the cow-puncher. A few other characters make an entrance (or exit) in extravagant fashion, but it all lacks any drama or chemistry. Each character fails to deliver anything more than some flamboyance and snappy dialogue (that no self-respecting post-Civil War bad ass would use). After the tenuous first act devoid of any action, we begin seeing the violence in the men (and woman) come out, and Tarantino gets his gratuitous blood-fest started. As their number dwindle, we are left guessing who is who? And who will survive? But ultimately, who really cares? Tarantino tries to out-clever himself, and the script is really just amateur given the intriguing premise.

The ensemble cast is a who's who of past Tarantino films. Samuel Jackson, Kurt Russell, Tim Roth, Michael Madsen, James Parks, Walton Goggins, and Zoe Bell have worked with the director at least once prior. The new additions are Channing Tatum, Bruce Dern, Jennifer Jason Leigh, and Damian Bichir, and none capitalize on the opportunity. Although the tone is one that is starkly Quentin Tarantino, there is a staleness about much of the interaction and story arc. He inserts nods to previous films through product placement, pieces of dialogue, or even recycled actions, and they show his personality as a writer and director, but he needs to move into new material.

The Golden Globe nominations are entirely unfounded. Jennifer Jason Leigh does a decent job as the murderer, Daisy Domergue, but there is nothing exceptional to her work. Tarantino is like David O. Russell in that regard; actors get awards nominations under his watch, and often it is without merit. The writing is undeserving as well, as there are a dozen scripts that should have been credited for the quality and hard work before Tarantino. This is an example of a film being given credit before it is objectively viewed. I was fortunate enough to catch an advanced screening, but once the reviews come out, they will not be kind. I guarantee it. I will say this though, the score was a fun classic Western tune by frequent collaborator and industry stalwart, Ennio Morricone.

I would have loved to seen deeper characters. With alter egos and hidden identities, it is impossible, even in a nearly three hour film, to get to know who a person really is. The Hateful Eight was missing any sense of emotional connection to the audience. I began falling for Kurt Russell's character, but it fell apart when he arrived at the Haberdashery. Quentin makes his living on creating inspired characters, and a Western without a protagonist, or an interesting character is just plain boring. Every character has baggage, but none of them get you in their corner. Even if the story had transpired in the exact same way, I might have felt differently if there was at least one character that threw some intrigue my way. It was greatly disappointing.

The film once again pushes the conventions of the industry. Nearly three hours long, ultra-violent, and gratuitous at that. Full-frontal male nudity, which is a rarity in film, but becoming common in Tarantino's body of work. Much of what comes through on the screen numbs the viewer because it is just a bunch of garbage. Quentin Tarantino has lost his edge, and although he is returning to the Kill Bill franchise next, I am hopeful that he will create something new. Forget the homages to his favorite genres. Westerns and samurai films had their day. Get with the times and add your flavor to the twenty-first Century, Quentin. Until then, I will continue to follow his work because I admire his vision, but in this case, the product just comes across as lazy. 5/10.

The Revenant

The Revenant is beautiful, and epic, and glorious unlike anything else you will see this year. It will be a criminal shame if the Academy doesn't call its name for Best Picture, Director, and Actor.

The Revenant refers to a return after death. An apparition, or a haunting. A fitting title for a story so hinged on the idea of nothing left to lose. Based on the novel by Michael Punke, its roots are non-fiction, but historical accuracy is speculative. Hugh Glass (Leonardo DiCaprio) is a frontiersman in the 1820's. Braving the elements and savage landscape, he leads a US Military group collecting fur, and the stakes are high for such a minimal return. Lives are lost daily through conflict with First People, or the treachery of Mother Nature. In a shockingly realistic scene, Hugh is mauled by a bear and left to either heal or die, with Fitzgerald (Tom Hardy) and Bridger (Will Poulter) left to tend to his fate. Strong personalities clash, and Hugh is abandoned, and what transpires is one of the more visceral tales of survival and revenge that I have witnessed on film.

Director Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu is in a class his own. Having won last year's coveted Best Director statue for Birdman, he has done something unconventional and truly remarkable. Filming using only natural light, the setting of The Revenant is pure. Filmed in Canada and Alaska, there is a beauty and a chilliness that permeates through the screen, and with minimal visual effects, the actors take on the brunt of the harsh elements. This is where it transcends film and becomes an epic tale. The actors are in bone-chilling water, trekking through snow, foraging through the forest for food in a primal, almost Neanderthal display of survival. Tom Hardy is great, but Leonardo DiCaprio is flawless in his method acting.

DiCaprio's performance puts him on the threshold of the greatest iconic thespians of our time. He is simply the best contemporary actor around today, at the level of Daniel Day-Lewis and no other. There aren't words to describe his range and commitment on this project, and the end result, when coupled with a compelling story and a visionary director, is nothing short of breathtaking. Whether he is swimming in an icy river, eating raw fish or buffalo liver, climbing into an animal carcass to stay warm (Empire Strikes Back comes to mind), or just staring with his cold, blue eyes, it is amazing.

From the opening scene, delivered sans cuts, it is a ballet of movement and sounds. The camera weaves through men just as an attack stirs them from their comfort. The nonchalance of violence gives the audience a taste of just how cold and callous the times were. This is Inarritu's gift. He conveys the emotions of the men, the time, and the place through the lens of his camera in a way that few can.

Not to marginalize the other actors, but this film will stand on Leo's performance. I can't possibly find anything flawed about the film other than there are some sequences that take a bit too much screen time. Terrence Malik would be proud of the effort, but otherwise, it is absolutely brilliant, all around. Tom Hardy is deserving of some praise as well, as the cynical and heartless fur trader who earns an enemy or two by the end of the story. I would put him in the Supporting Actor race, but it holds stiff competition this year.

After reading the novel, I was excited for this adaptation, but there were quite a few deviations that may or may not have enhanced the strength of the story. We will never know, but it truly doesn't matter. The Revenant is the best film of the year. 10/10.

Star Wars - Episode VII: The Force Awakens

The cinematic event of the year has finally arrived, and with it, the decimation of the global box office, and the return of balance to the Universe.

It’s been thirty-eight years since George Lucas introduced us to a galaxy far, far away, and thirty-two years since Return of the Jedi. With the seventh cinematic installment, following a multi-billion dollar franchise with television, fan fiction writing, merchandising, and a buy-out by the Disney Corporation, they finally straightened the course and got it back on its feet. Is Episode VII as good as anticipated? Yes. And it is much, much better.

The battle between good and evil continues. Thirty years have gone by, and the evil Empire has been replaced by the First Order; an intergalactic group of troublemakers. The legend of the Jedi is a distant memory and the resistance is searching for Luke Skywalker, who disappeared long ago and just may be the missing piece in the battle of good versus evil.

We are introduced to a new lot of characters, and there is immediately a familiar chemistry that develops between them. Daisy Ridley is the orphan scavenger, Rey. She is courageous and feisty, and carries with her a secret that even she doesn’t understand. Her attitude is innocent but tough, and she has a purity to her that is affable and mysterious. John Boyega is the new reluctant hero, Finn, a former Stormtrooper who has a crisis of conscience and finds himself embroiled in a conflict greater than he ever imagined. Oscar Isaac is Dameron Poe, the Resistance’s best fighter pilot who is just hard to dislike. He’s a nice guy who has the charm of Han Solo, and the swagger of another cocky, young X-Wing fighter pilot.

Adam Driver plays Kylo Ren, a bad guy with a secret of his own, and a Knight of Ren. We never learn the full extent of his back story, but that actually helps with his enigmatic masked persona. His character balances the line of human and monster incredibly well, with a great voice and a lanky walk, and he just may be the best bad guy of the franchise to date (sorry Vader and Maul).

The original cast all make an appearance, and with each one, there are cheers of approval by the packed audience. It’s a rare instance of a film giving you chills; not necessarily because of what’s on the screen, but because of the richness of the universe and the emotions that are stirred by nearly forty years of really knowing these characters. That’s the first thing that ignites the magic of the film. There is just so much history with these characters; it’s like a family reunion.

The second thing that makes “The Force Awakens” such a magical experience is that writer/director JJ Abrams manages to capture the essence of the first trilogy, perhaps even better than George Lucas himself managed to do in the second trilogy. Coupled with longtime Lucas collaborator Lawrence Kasdan, they managed to create a simple, yet satisfying beginning to a new era.

The Disney Corporation is going to own Christmas for the next six years, with projections of the opening weekend destroying the record books (estimates exceed $265 million, breaking the record by over $55 million). 2016 will bring us Rogue One, directed by Gareth Edwards (“Godzilla”, “Monsters”), 2017 will be the follow up to Episode VII, written and directed by Rian Johnson (“Looper”, “Brick”, some of the better “Breaking Bad” episodes), and 2018 is the first origin story focusing on Han Solo’s youth. 2019 brings us Episode IX, written by Rian Johnson and directed by Colin Trevorrow (“Jurassic World”), and finally, 2020 will be the Boba Fett origin story.

Whew, they have their hands full, not unlike another company that is successfully shattering records with suits of iron, green maniacs, Norse Gods, and patriotic super soldiers. My point is, the franchise is in good hands, and the next five years will be exciting to say the least.

It isn’t unrealistic or even speculative at this point to claim that Avatar’s $750 million domestic and $2.8 billion international box office records will fall. “Star Wars” appeals to literally every possible audience, and has a following like no other, even in the pantheon of sci-fi cults.

“The Force Awakens” stirs childhood emotions in anyone who has grown up to that powerful John Williams opening orchestral movement. It’s a must-see for the holiday season. Go for the characters, enjoy the effects and story, and leave satisfied. That’s what movies are supposed to be about. 10/10.

In the Heart of the Sea

The life of a sailor has been romanticized countless times in novel and cinema, and I just don't get it. "In the Heart of the Sea" is painfully cliche at times, and although the film captures the mystery, beauty, and peril of the sea, it remains a mostly hollow and glorified epic seafaring journey.

Captain Pollard (Benjamin Walker) and First Mate Owen Chase (Chris Hemsworth) are whalers in Nantucket in the early 1800's. The setting is delivered beautifully, and the town's excitement over the lucrative oil found in whales has inspired a dangerous industry that has consumed every facet of their lives. Then they go off to sea. Pollard and Chase have their disagreements, but it's no Mutiny on the Bounty. The rub is that there isn't a compelling dramatic moment or issue that would create this tension in the first place, and it just doesn't go anywhere useful. Enter Moby. A massive homicidal whale makes the predators the prey and hunts them halfway around the world, leaving carnage in its wake. The effects given to the whale scenes are fantastic, don't get me wrong, but Moby certainly isn't Jaws. The film deserved more tension, more suspense, and more action.

Director Ron Howard is overrated. There, I've said it. It's difficult to fight this fact, as much as you may want to. If you look at his filmography, there are just four high quality films over his thirty-eight film, forty-six year directorial career. Email me and I'll fill you in on the goods. There are some other ones that are fun and all, but he has made his name on just a couple of strong efforts. If I spent nearly sixty years working in Hollywood, I could direct award-winning films without a doubt. "In the Heart of the Sea" has some nice special effects, and we all know that filming on water has its challenges, but the film could have used something a bit more, I don't know, magical from Opie.

Chris Hemsworth just seemed to be the wrong choice for lead. There are attempts to mask his British accent, and even some discernible moments of a New England accent. It comes off as entirely insincere. Ben Whishaw and Brendan Gleeson as Herman Melville and Thomas Nickerson, respectively, are the bright spots of the film as a pair of raconteurs telling fish stories over whiskey in a room filled with ships in bottles. And when that's the bright spot, you're sort of in trouble.

Moby Dick is a timeless tale, but this variation is just unnecessary. It makes me cringe to see previews for these great (and some not-so-great) stories being retold over and over as if that's more important or spectacular than original ideas. Thinking about the upcoming "Point Break", "The BFG", "The Jungle Book", "Ben Hur", "The Magnificent Seven", "Jumanji", and "Tarzan" is just too much new old movies. Okay, I won't lie, "The Magnificent Seven" will be pretty cool.

The film seems starkly out of place. It was originally intended for a spring release, but that was encroaching on the impending blockbusters, and In the Heart of the Sea is too serious and wistful for that movie-going audience. Perhaps there was an awards-savvy audience in mind when it was pushed to October, targeting those hungry for yet another retelling of a time-honored legend. With biopics all the rage, isn't it a more meta-cognitive approach to make a movie about the story that was told by the man who sailed on the ship that inspired the book for the author. I got lost in my own sentence. Suffice to say, it is not clever. The studio chose to push it yet again to early December. The doldrums between the Thanksgiving feast and the Christmas frenzy. My point is, the film just doesn't fit anywhere. With a more compelling story arc, and perhaps stronger characters, it might have been stronger with any particular audience, but it was simply bland. It's a whale of a tale, but stick with the Melville classic. 5/10.

Spotlight

Rarely does a film come along that can jerk a tear from my eye without using cinematic drama or emotional manipulation in the form of character empathy or foreshadowing. Spotlight manages to achieve the type of emotional response typically reserved for well-crafted documentaries by simply telling the story in an authentic and just way. Plainly put, the story speaks for itself. The best films in the non-fiction genre are the ones that don't try too hard to be something exceptional. They allow the audience to fall into the rhythm of the characters and dialogue without any subversive plot twists or gimmicks, and they allow the story to just be.

Everyone has heard about the Catholic church child sexual abuse scandal that popped up in Boston in the late 1990's, but there hasn't been a story told on film that has given the story the justice that it deserves; from either side. On the one hand, the church has endured ridicule, and the title of Catholic Priest has almost become synonymous with the punchline of a pedophile joke. On the other, the untold story of thousands of legitimate child sex abuse victims and hundreds, if not thousands of Priests has remained hidden in the shadows for fear of shame, persecution, or God knows what other reasons.

Spotlight refers to the special investigations team of journalists at the Boston Globe. They run high profile exposes and often spend months working a case before it is published. The foursome are portrayed remarkably by Michael Keaton, Mark Ruffalo, Rachel McAdams, and Brian d'Arcy James. Working under the newly appointed Globe editor, played with a veteran calm by Liev Schreiber, they are tasked with following up on an abuse allegation at a Boston Diocese. Rounding out the supporting cast are John Slattery (Mad Men), Stanley Tucci, and Billy Crudup. I can honestly say that this is a case of flawless performances all around, in what is a sizzling and taboo discussion piece. From the outset, there is a growing sense that something isn't right, and the deeper the team digs, the larger the spiderweb of involvement by various people and organizations within the city and in the Diocese. This particular investigation sparked an international outcry for action and blew the lid off one of the worst kept secrets in Boston.

Handling a story of this nature demands a delicate balance. After all, in today's day of religious intolerance, child sex abuse in the Catholic church is akin to ISIS' relationship to Islam. What I mean is that it is easy to pigeon-hole the religion and defame it based on the actions of the few. Admittedly, the numbers are skewed, and there are more abusers than there are apostates, but the crimes are no less horrendous or cowardly than suicide bombing, are they? The film treads lightly on the details, but still places the blame squarely where it lies; the conspiracy to cover up the crimes. The heart-wrenching piece is the shattered lives of the hundreds of victims that never had an avenue to find justice until the court of public opinion was opened up to them.

I would expect nothing less than numerous Academy Award nominations for Spotlight. You could nominate numerous supporting actors with a straight face, but Mark Ruffalo will likely get the lions share of recognition. I would also expect it to end up on Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Original Screenplay ballots. It is a must-see, and will be hard to beat in terms of sheer quality.

Writer/Director Tom McCarthy (writer of Pixar's Up) has certainly made strides since last year's potential Razzie, The Cobbler. Spotlight lands squarely atop my current list of Best Pictures of the year (that I've seen so far). It is beautiful in its execution, acted to near-perfection, and directed with a veteran's patience and eye. What sets this apart from other works of non-fiction is that this story wasn't told to shock audiences, it was told to honor the story, it's a story that needs to be told, and was done tastefully and fearlessly, and that is why it gets such high marks for me. It's hard to beat a film like this in any genre. Of course, it's hard to beat a story like this as well. 9/10.

Creed

You know what I hate about boxing movies? They make me feel a little out of shape. Okay, a lot out of shape. Boxers have some of the most disciplined physical regimens of any athlete, and that’s part of the appeal. Seeing how far a person can push themselves physically in a sport where it is you and you alone who can deliver your fate. Fight, train, discipline. It’s a romantic notion, but one that is unrealistic for most of us. That’s why we pay to see others do it. For all intents and purposes, this film is Rocky 7. It’s the inevitable changing of the guard because, well, Sylvester Stallone will be seventy years old next summer. Wow. “Creed” is the new generation of the franchise, focusing in on Rocky’s late rival/friend’s illegitimate son, Adonis.

“Creed” is a new take on the dying sport of boxing; a sport tarnished by controversy and disappointment over the past couple of decades. A sport that has been supplanted by the more ADD-centric mixed martial arts movement. A sport that has a long and distinguished history, but it is seemingly fading from the public interest. Boxing is as pure a sport of man versus man as you can get. The physical and psychological demands of the gloved combat sport is machismo at its purest.

The film takes a slow burn approach, minimizing time spent in the ring in favor of character development and handing the baton from nostalgia and power to a new generation of fighter in a new era. Gone are the times of punching slabs of meat. The new boxer is more brains and less brawn. There is something emotional about seeing an aged Stallone, and maybe it is only going to be felt by those who grew up knowing Rocky Balboa and the cinematic magic that he brought to the underdog role, but Michael B. Jordan is appealing to any audience, new and old alike, and certainly fills Rocky’s shoes adequately.

Michael B. Jordan (“The Wire”, “Friday Night Lights”, and “Fruitvale Station”) plays the progeny, Adonis Creed, with a burning fury in his eyes. He is a bitter young man fighting to escape the shadow of his father. He excels at exuding his toughness, but there is a soft side to him that just doesn’t quite fit the mold. The grittiness and violence in his character isn’t as prevalent as a film like this year’s “Southpaw”, but he is physically imposing, in a more fine-tuned machine sort of way.

The softness bodes well for the development of the relationship with Sylvester Stallone’s Rocky. Their growing symbiotic relationship is really what the film is about. They need each other, on opposite ends of life’s journey, and the interactions bring out the best in both of them.

Stallone has rarely been better as an actor. He lets his guard down and shows a vulnerable side that is authentic and fitting for his final (most likely) film in the storied franchise that served as the foundation for his own legacy. His soap box speeches are like entries out of Yogi Berra’s diary, and it reminds us what endeared us to the character in the first place nearly forty years ago.

Director and screenwriter Ryan Coogler (“Fruitvale Station”) reunites with Jordan for what is one of the best boxing films in recent memory (better than “The Fighter” and “Million Dollar Baby” for certain). He uses precision camerawork and choreography to enhance the attempt at realism. An impressive single-shot sequence in the middle of the film is testament to his vision and attention to detail. He captures the essence that the audience wants to experience, and does it without any unnecessary glitz or glamour. The on-screen ring-time is deliberately minimized to keep the focus on the characters, and it works. By the climax, there is a hunger for the fight that only grows stronger through the absence of much fighting to lead up to it.

“Creed” manages to accomplish what has been so difficult to duplicate since the early “Rocky” films, and going back further, to “Raging Bull”. A realistic approach to the emotions beneath the surface of the fighters. The real humans behind the fighters. “Creed” delivers a knockout performance for the holiday season, and I for one am thankful that it didn’t disappoint. Here’s hoping the “Creed” franchise is just beginning. 9/10.

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 2

After three book and four films, we finally bid adieu to everyone’s favorite bow-wielding heroine, Katniss Everdeen. I will spare you the book versus movie comparison, but will say that it has quite a bit in common with other recent epic finale attempts; fantastic action, satisfying resolution, but a bit long-winded and melodramatic on the back end.

When the first Hunger Games came out in 2012, it became the next “Harry Potter” in terms of low risk, bankable box office success, and sparked an industry frenzy of imitators; “The Lightning Thief”, “Divergent”, “Maze Runner”, “Ender’s Game”, “the Giver”, and the upcoming “the Fifth Wave”. There is something about the young adult sci-fi dystopian future that is like catnip for the target demographic, which by my calculation, is just about everyone. Don’t lie, you know you love these movies.

The film picks up where Mockingjay Part 1 leaves off, in the middle of a revolutionary war with the wealthy being overthrown by the proletariat. Propaganda, terrorism, and class wars make for an almost uncanny commentary on our current political climate. Suzanne Collins, you visionary, you. Katniss and her band of elite friends and warriors must infiltrate the capitol to remove the evil President Snow from power to finally end the war and return power to the people.

This is where the film finds its rhythm and success. The elaborate traps that the game makers litter throughout the city make for a dangerous maze with deadly consequences and heightened tension, because as we all know, all bets are off when it comes to a finale. Any of the characters are fair game to be killed off, and (spoiler alert), many are.

The second act falters greatly, however. After the climax, there is the obligatory wrapping up of the story which goes on for so long, I thought Peter Jackson might have been involved in the film. At well over two hours, it seems as if the two Mockingjay films were dragged out just so they could double the profits. Smart move for the studio, but not so great for the paying audience. It would have made a fantastic single movie, but there’s just too much excess fat in a five hour finale that honestly should have been trimmed.

Jennifer Lawrence has evolved beyond this character, but she was locked in from the start and is certainly getting paid well for this franchise. She is keeping herself busy with next month’s Oscar-bait biopic, “Joy”, and projects with Steven Spielberg and Darren Aronofsky on the horizon as well as another “X-Men” film and a curious science fiction story called “Passengers” with Chris Pratt.

Francis Lawrence (no relation) is a fantastic director with a bright future in the action genre. The man behind “Constantine”, “I am Legend”, and the final three “Hunger Games” films is in strong command of his work. His action scenes are thrilling and suspenseful, and there is a dark, edginess to his craft. There is a scene in the sewers below the capitol that is eerily reminiscent of the “Aliens” films. Claustrophobic, dark, perfectly timed sound effects and red herring moments that make you jump. This is the Francis Lawrence I want to see more of in the future.

Philip Seymour Hoffman’s last film role is unremarkable as Plutarch Heavensbee, the former game maker-turned rebellion leader, but his presence is noticed. It’s always difficult seeing an actor on-screen after their death, and like Robin Williams’ “Boulevard”, there is a heartfelt feeling that he will be missed.

“Mockingjay Part 2” was precisely what I was expecting, but the first half impressed me and the second disappointed. It’s time to move on to the next franchise du jour. What will it be? Blood Red Road? Delirium? Legend? Pure? Only time will tell, but there is limitless material out there, and with it we might see the next Jennifer Lawrence. Parting is such sweet sorrow, Katniss. 7/10.

Spectre

Daniel Craig is back for the fourth and perhaps final time as the iconic lothario James Bond; the British spy with an insatiable appetite for women and a knack for finding, avoiding, and making danger look just plain cool.

The latest entry into the pantheon of the genre finds James dealing with the aftermath of “Skyfall” and the death of his beloved mentor, M. The trademark opening sequence is breathtaking as a helicopter does barrel rolls over a crowd of onlookers in Mexico City on the Day of the Dead. The film continues its epic 148 minute journey, introducing us to new villains, new women, new gadgets, and a hip, new twenty-first century nod to the changing spy game and the challenges and fears that come with it.

Everyone who follows the cinematic universe has stumbled upon James Bond once or twice (or twenty-four times) and after the masterful “Skyfall” in 2012, there has been a resurgence in the quality of the films as well as a shift back to basics where Bond is less of a ladies’ man who gets cool gadgets and fights baddies to more of a tough guy who fights complex networks of villains and just happens to be good with the ladies. It’s subtle, but it’s appropriate for the evolution of the franchise.

In an homage to what might be Craig’s swan song, “Spectre” takes on a much more classic approach to the story. It’s eerily nostalgic of the Sean Connery Bond; the one who made the character so compelling way back in the 1960’s. What keeps us coming back for more each and every time? I’m glad you asked. The spy fantasy is nothing new. Excitement is a natural yearning, and what better fantasy than being a smart, attractive, physically imposing man who carries a license to kill, escapes every hostile situation, and gets literally every woman he wants. The formula doesn’t get much more perfect than that. Why do women love James Bond? I haven’t figured that one out yet, but my theory is the whole international man of mystery thing. Tame the wild beast, travel to exotic locales with the coolest guy in the room. That sort of thing.

Craig walks through the role, perhaps fatigued by the demands of playing such an important character in film. There is already speculation as to the identity of his successor, with most odds makers putting Idris Elba, Damien Lewis, and Tom Hardy at the top of the list. For my money, I’d like to see a fresh direction and see a younger actor play the role. Someone like Jamie Bell. Not necessarily a prequel because the franchise isn’t entirely chronological, but a fresh set of stories to accompany a fresh actor (perhaps a throwback and a 1960’s or 1970’s setting?)

Two time Oscar winner Christoph Waltz plays the villain, Oberhauser (is that his real name?), who has a past link to Bond as well as the previous villains from “Casino Royale”, “Quantum of Solace”, and “Skyfall”. He walks through the role without any real emotion, and I was honestly expecting quite a bit more as his persona just oozes Bond villain. The connections are a nice bow on the quadrilogy and suggest that the next film may be a step in a new direction with some new blood at the helm and in the role. I think it’s a good choice.

Sam Mendes (“American Beauty”, “Road to Perdition”, “Jarhead”, “Skyfall”) is one of my favorite directors, and I imagine he couldn’t pass on the experience to be a part of the Bond legacy. Although he’s rumored to be attached to the twenty-fifth installment, I imagine he will move on to something different. And I can’t wait.

Dave Bautista brings some muscle to the film as Hinx, the henchman. It’s been awhile since we’ve had a good henchman, and it is another nod to the classic approach to this film. My only complaint is with his limited screen time and his lackluster exit.

Everything about this film screams classic Bond, and that is what makes it work. It isn’t nearly as well done as “Skyfall”, but it is absolutely on par with what should be the audience expectations. Perhaps “Skyfall” should have been the fourth installment, sending Craig out with an award-worthy bang, but I paid to see James Bond drive a cool car, fight some quirky bad guys, and bed some beautiful women. Job well done, James. 8/10.

Our Brand is Crisis

Timely and ambitious, “Our Brand is Crisis” is a satirical reflection of our current American political climate set to a backdrop of a South American country in distress and a pair of rival strategists jockeying their candidates in a critical presidential election.

Sandra Bullock is “Calamity” Jane Bodine, a brilliant semi-retired political strategist whose flexible moral compass led her down the path of self-destruction years prior. Tasked with bringing a Bolivian candidate out of the cellar in just eighty days using media, a smear campaign, and some of Jane’s own political tricks, it is a whirlwind of polling, running ads, and pandering to the people.

Billy Bob Thornton is Pat Candy, Jane’s longtime rival who is a globetrotter for the highest bidder. Orchestrating elections without a second thought of consequence or conscience. The two of them are birds of a feather yet they stick out in a sea of South Americans as elitist and disconnected.

Written by Rachel Boynton originally as a documentary in 2005, and adapted by Peter Straughan, the notion is nothing revelatory. It’s an underdog story on the campaign trail, exposing just how depraved and competitive the behind-the-scenes folks truly are. The focus is on the people and not the election, but in this case, glossing over the plight of the Bolivians in greater detail was a mistake. This film would have worked much better for something less serious. Maybe a city council race in Seattle, or the gubernatorial race in Wyoming. An unstable South American country just didn’t really jive with the tone of the characters and what I think was the statement of the film.

The witty repartee between Bullock and Mackie, and Bullock and Thornton throw around clever quotes, political anecdotes, and idealistic rhetoric with lightning speed. The problem is that these characters are more clueless and simple than they let on. And uninteresting. The fact is that “Our Brand is Crisis” has a bit of an identity crisis itself. It wants to be politically relevant, and insightful. It also wants to develop strong characters who establish lasting relationships. But it also wants to tackle some real significant global issues, and use humor to make those issues less painful. It’s too much and not enough.

There is an uncomfortable tension between Bullock’s Jane and Thornton’s Pat that I couldn’t tell whether it was sexual attraction or sexual harassment throughout, and that doesn’t bode well for any film. Sandra Bullock is her typical loud-mouthed character evolving through the interaction with the less fortunate, but in this case, the changes are just too massive for her character to achieve realistically. Thornton is just plain slimy, so kudos for his performance, but his character took things a bit too far.

I can appreciate a good political satire, but there is nothing compelling or original in this story. Perhaps most importantly, there is no appeal for any of the candidates. No mention of any issues or past political miscues with the exception of one that is honestly, pretty irrelevant. A film this deeply rooted in the inner-workings of the corrupt political machine needs to provide some direction to the audience. I wasn’t rooting for any of the candidates because I didn’t know what they stood for, or whether they were decent men or not. I wasn’t rooting for or against Jane because although I recognize her character is riddled with regret, I didn’t have a good feel for where her heart truly lies; remorse, atonement, or resignation. That would make an interesting character study.

The film is harshly bleak and cynical, and that is coming from a cynic. I didn’t enjoy this nearly as much as I was hoping, and whatever message was intended didn’t come through very clearly. 5/10.

Bridge of Spies

Based on a true story. Inspired by true events. It seems that everything these days is a reimagining of historical events. Isn’t every piece of writing inspired by true events to some degree? Maybe not The Avengers, but you know what I mean. This time of year, we are bombarded with biopics and slightly embellished stories of valor and heroism. Some stories are truly worth the yarn spun, and others simply aren’t. “Bridge of Spies” falls in line with the latter.

1957, Brooklyn. As the Cold War is escalating, family man insurance lawyer James Donovan (Tom Hanks) is tapped by the US Government to defend a Soviet spy in court, and finds himself entangled with the CIA in East Berlin negotiating with the Soviets and Germans in a game of cloak and mouse and cat and dagger. You know what I mean.

Directed by Steven Spielberg should be enough of a reason to see this film. Throw in written by the Coen brothers and starring Tom Hanks, and it should have been a home run. Unfortunately, the film relies too heavily on Atticus Finch syndrome (trademark pending) and patriotism. The story is unremarkable and even less suspenseful that it certainly should be, and there are only so many times we can be expected to watch a good man defying the odds and risking his reputation and safety to simply do the right thing. Sorry Steven. With a variety of projects on his plate (“Ready Player One” and “The Circle” should be exceptional fun) he has ample opportunity to move on. After all, he’s Steven freaking Spielberg.

Tom Hanks breezes through this performance with his fluttering eyelids and boyish grin interspersed between important speeches. I still think his best performances didn’t earn him Oscars (“Captain Phillips”, “Saving Private Ryan”, “Road to Perdition”) and this one will go down with a potential nomination, but shouldn’t secure any hardware. Of course, some people are raving, but his portrayal of James Donovan is less Gregory Peck and more… well-aged Tom Hanks on autopilot.

The Coen Brothers are a perennial favorite of mine, and they have turned their attention toward screenwriting in lieu of directing. They tend to alternate between quirky comedies and Oscar bait, and their upcoming “Hail Caesar” will certainly be quirky. Their fatal flaw in writing this story lies in their inability to capture the suspense and tension between the US and USSR. Come on guys, we are on the brink of Armageddon and you choose this story to be about moral character? Amp up the suspense a bit, even if it’s just for one scene. There was none to be found. Opportunities aplenty, but missed at every turn. I will commend them on weaving a complex game of espionage and elucidating things nicely at the end for the mainstream audience. Don’t worry, you don’t need a history lesson before watching the film. This marks two non-fiction screenplay bombs in a row for them (remember last year’s “Unbroken”?)

Mark Ryland is the lone performance that stands out, and it might win him a Best Supporting Actor nomination. A longtime stage thespian, he plays the Soviet, Rudolph Abel with a subtlety worthy of mention. Few words spoken, but he still says so much through his expressionless façade. He can be seen re-teaming with Spielberg in the upcoming “BFG”.

The Cold War was a scary time. Or so I’ve heard. There are admirable men and women whose actions prevented us (America) from facing catastrophe and their stories are things of legend worthy of public celebration. I just wish this film was a bit more intense.

“Bridge of Spies” isn’t what I would consider a bad movie by any means, it is just disappointing, long, and boring. Don’t expect anything beyond average. 6/10.

The Martian

There is something inspiring about seeing the words “Ridley Scott” over a backdrop of stars. He is unquestionably the master of the genre (Alien, Blade Runner, Prometheus), and for a change, he shirks aliens and dystopian futures for something a bit more realistic and a bit more heartwarming; Robinson Crusoe in space. This is a fantastic film based on a brilliant book.

Based on the best-selling novel of the same name, “The Martian” finds astronaut Mark Watney stranded and alone on Mars after a storm scrubs his crew’s mission and they blast off, thinking him dead. A botanist and mechanical engineer by trade, he finds himself needing to solve problem after problem with only science, humor, and perseverance to keep him going. The clock is ticking as his basic needs necessitate creative feats of ingenuity on his part, while the entire human race roots for him back home.

There are two major deviations from the novel; one that was a savvy move by the screenwriter that I totally respect, and one that didn’t sit well with me but is entirely understandable from the cinematic angle. Drew Goddard (“World War Z”, “Cabin in the Woods”, “Cloverfield”) is one of the hottest screenwriters around and his upcoming “Robopocalypse” (Steven Spielberg) and “Sinister Six” (Marvel super villains) certainly won’t disappoint either. Of course, his source material on this one was pretty much written for a film. Author Andy Weir is a self-proclaimed science geek, and his novel was lauded for its feasibility, so there really wasn’t much that needed to change in the first place.

Matt Damon does his best Tom Hanks from “Castaway” impression, but the weight loss is clearly done with special effects in lieu of a six month filming hiatus. Soliloquies, video diaries, and a wry wit brings the much needed levity to the otherwise dire and tenuous situation of surviving indefinitely, which is amplified by an ominous soundtrack (when the 70’s pop music isn’t playing). A performance devoid of live character interactions is a difficult challenge, and the gravity of the situation is bleak if not completely hopeless, yet Damon conveys the emotion adeptly.

The rest of the cast is astutely inserted to raise the stakes and change perspective, so we truly feel the weight of the rescue effort, even in scenes of Mark Watney isolation on a beautiful cinematic landscape. Jeff Daniels plays the terse NASA administrator with nary a smile or smirk the entire film, and it anchors the pragmatic angle perfectly. Kristin Wiig is the potty-mouthed public relations director, Annie Montrose, who I was honestly expecting a more lewd and crass performance by based on her character in the novel. Chiwetel Ejiofor is Vincent Kapoor, the mission controller who is the emotional center of the Earth setting, and Donald Glover, Benedict Wong, and Mackenzie Davis are the lead specialists working around the clock to make everything come together just right. The crewmembers on the ship back to Earth in the third setting are Jessica Chastain, Michael Pena, Kate Mara, Sebastian Stan, and Aksel Hennie, and their performances are honestly just filler.

The marketing effort is brilliant for this film. Permeating social media and creating viral videos is a true indication that film as a whole is moving into a more progressive media direction. It might be a sign of things to come, or it might just be Ridley Scott’s genius at play.

Triumph of resolve and the human condition is what makes “The Martian” work. Rallying behind a man at impossible odds and doing anything fathomable to survive is really what being human is at its core, isn’t it? The climax had some Michael Bay or Roland Emmerich flair, but what do you expect from what is essentially an Oscar-caliber blockbuster (a rarity in cinema).

This immediately tops my list of best films of the year, but it is just the first week of October, so although it will decimate the box office for the next few weeks, I don’t see it winning any coveted gold statues. Of course, that doesn’t take away anything from the sheer brilliance and enjoyment factor. At a lengthy 2 hours and 20 minutes, it’s a bit drawn out, but it’s certainly worth it in the end. This is a different kind of science fiction, a pleasant surprise from the master of the genre, and it is well worth the price of admission. 9/10.

The Intern

Experience never gets old, but formulaic dramedies do. Nancy Meyers (Father of the Bride, Something’s Gotta Give, The Holiday), one of the most darling writer/directors of unorthodox (old people) romantic comedies today, draws from so many stereotypes that it’s difficult to keep up at times. Of course, that’s the draw, isn’t it? Stereotypes are transparent and relatable. She creates two main characters with polar opposite personalities, yet they somehow need each other and learn valuable life lessons in the process. It’s cathartic therapy for the cinematic mind.

Seventy year old Ben Whitaker (Robert De Niro) finds himself bored with retirement, so he applies for an internship at About the Fit, an Internet retailer run by the onerous and often intolerable Jules Ostin (Anne Hathaway). Just ask her staff of over two hundred, they are all frightened by her tactics. To call her a fickle micro-manager would be an understatement. Ben begins to ingratiate himself to the company, particularly Jules, and a sort of father figure relationship blossoms. Meanwhile, the cliché world of an ultra-successful Internet Start-up Company swirls around Jules and leads us to a crossroads of old school versus progressive, and could you guess which one will win?

Finding itself somewhere between a lowbrow romantic comedy and “As Good as it Gets”, “The Intern” never gains traction in any particular area of the genre. Or any genre for that matter. To me it simply maintained status quo from start to finish. A drama trying to be funny, relying on two outstanding actors to keep it alive.

Robert De Niro does a fantastic job in a truly understated role as Ben. I was hoping for some depth to his character (Jack Nicholson would have been nice) but it never materialized. There was nothing wrong with his performance, but he just sort of coasted through the whole film with his two looks; “I am concerned” and “I understand, I’m older and wiser than you, but I don’t want to make you feel badly”. There was even a moment of opportunity for a big breakout speech that could have made the film (two actually), but it was truncated by the supposedly more desirable bonding scenes that are a signet of any unlikely pairing film. I was rooting for De Niro to knock this one out of the park, but he safely opted for a base hit instead. Ben is a severely likable man, almost too likable to be taken seriously. A great character needs a flaw, and there just isn’t one to endear or connect him to the audience. It’s a lost opportunity, and I blame Nancy Meyers, not Bobby D.

Anne Hathaway is the real centerpiece of the film. Her acting leaves nothing to be desired, but the character is just too predictable. Strong and vulnerable, vicious and kind, brazen and self-conscious. You get the point. Hathaway has the look of a younger Julia Roberts, a perfect actress for romantic comedies in today’s day and age, but she just hasn’t found the right material yet.
Supporting players Anders Holm and Adam Devine made me feel like I was watching an episode of “Workaholics” and I never really bought Holm’s character as Hathaway’s husband in the least. That was an area that could have used some serious second guessing by the casting director, despite how much I typically like Holm and find his humor entertaining.

Essentially, this is what I would call a nice try. Good enough for low expectations, with nothing surprising or fresh. The actors are top notch, but the story leaves you wanting a bit more. That said, this is a romantic comedy at its core, but it’s missing the romance. Therefore, it is missing a crucial ingredient in what could have made it a successful film. 6/10.

Everest

Everest is based on Jon Krakauer's best-selling novel "Into Thin Air". Let me preface this review with a statement. I don't understand mountain climbing. I mean, I understand the thrill and challenge of battling nature, the beauty of the majestic vista, and perhaps the physical demands of the endeavor. No, I don't understand putting your life at risk to do something that is cold, arduous, and where all you get at the end is the prospect of turning around and doing it again in reverse. The top of a mountain is cool and all, but it's not worth it to me.

Anyhow, back in 1996, climbing Everest seemed to hit its peak in popularity as the extreme sporting event, and as a result, there were dozens of thrill-seekers lining up at base camp to see if they were up to the challenge. Krakauer (played by Michael Kelly) joins a guided tour led by the savvy and compassionate mountaineer Rob Hall (Jason Clarke). The group includes arrogant Texan Beck Weathers (Josh Brolin), nice guy mailman Doug Hanson (John Hawkes), and a small assortment of unnamed others. They are a group of experienced climbers and they spend a full month preparing and training once they reach Nepal. We quickly realize that there are just too darn many people trying to climb this mountain, including guides Scott Fischer (Jake Gyllenhaal) and Guy Cotter (Sam Worthington). Now, there is a serious camaraderie among the climbers, even if they are competing for their livelihood (literally and figuratively). At one point, there is mention of a sixty-five thousand dollar payment for leading the climb, which illustrates quite a few things about the gravity of the ascent.

Ominous foreshadowing and a series of unfortunate events as well as bad decisions lead these climbers into the perfect storm, and all they have to rely on for survival is each other and their sheer determination.

The problem with this type of film, and when I say this type, I mean characters bundled up in a nearly unrecognizable mass of clothing (see also astronaut suits, military uniforms, scuba divers), is that once the action starts, it is difficult to keep track of the characters, which diminishes the tension and empathy. If it were me, I would have given each of the characters a bit of flair. Maybe not anything as obvious as a "Hello My Name is..." sticker, but some brightly colored object or something.

The cinematography and direction is beautiful, and the chill of the icy wind literally permeates through the theatre seat, leaving you feeling as chilly as the men with frost-covered beards wrapped in North Face jackets. Unfortunately, the character development is minimal and ultimately confusing as bundled men stagger through whiteout conditions, so their fate is less intense, and more "better you than me." I can't knock the acting or the direction, or the setting, or even the story. It's heroic and tragic. Man versus nature at its most gripping, but it is still self-inflicted punishment (see my opinion of mountain climbing). The reasoning given over and over for why they climb a death trap mountain isn't good enough for me. "Because it's there" is cute and macho, but not compelling.

In any event, I'm a bit conflicted on rating this film. It was beautiful, well-acted, and tragic. But the unsympathetic cynic in me thinks, "What do you expect when you climb a snow-covered rock 29,000 feet in the air with a summit temperature ranging between -20 and -35 degrees Celsius and 1/3 of your oxygen diminished by atmospheric pressure?" I mean, really. Throw in unnecessary roles by Kiera Knightley and Robin Wright, and you have a sadly over-ambitious artistic disaster film. It moves slowly, which provides ample mood, but also eliminates any opportunity for intense action sequences.

Overall, it was entertaining but a bit frustrating. The rating slip is based on my flaws, not the film's. 6/10.

The Visit

Why do we go to the movies? More particularly, why do we go to horror movies? Fear is as undesirable an emotion as, say, grief, or loathing. The answer is simple. Movies are evocative of emotions. We know this. They stir in us a range of emotions in an environment where it’s OK to close your eyes, and where you know that it will be over in a finite amount of time. There is the piece that it’s not real as well. Scary movies just do it for some people, and others can’t seem to stand them.

I’ve often said the hardest films to do well are sci-fi and horror, and M. Night Shyamalan has resurrected from a dismal sci-fi attempt (“After Earth”) to brazenly take on what he does best; horror. It’s hard to believe that it’s been sixteen years since the sensational “The Sixth Sense” which was an absolute horror juggernaut in both critical and consumer success. Well, after a string of less impressive fair (to be fair, “Signs” and “The Village” were fun), he’s back with a whole new original horror film, written and directed with his trademark quirk and a few upgrades.

Siblings Becca and Tyler are sent by their single mother to rural Pennsylvania (Shyamalan’s stomping grounds for all his films) to spend a week with her estranged parents. Things go fine until the geriatric couple begin exhibiting odd behavior. The upgrade on Shyamalan’s technique is that the film is done in the trendy found footage style, with Becca an aspiring documentary filmmaker, so the events are recorded through her trusty camcorder. Many of the more pivotal moments are shown in the trailers (unfortunately).

Keeping with tradition, Shyamalan hides a twist until just before the end, and maybe the massive anticipation made it a bit disappointing, but his imprint reverberates through the aftermath. Shyamalan is a cerebral thriller tactician through and through. I’m coining a term here; post-dated fear. What that means is that although the events in the film aren’t particularly remarkable, he forces you to reflect on what could have happened with hindsight, and if you knew then what you know now, the film is absolutely frightening.

This is what sets “The Visit” apart from every M. Night film except for “The Sixth Sense”. His others held twists; some clever (“Signs”, “The Village”), some a bit ridiculous (“Unbreakable”, “Lady in the Water”), but on the drive home, I literally shuddered.

Maybe I’m overthinking the whole thing, but I suppose that’s my job. If a particular scene or jump moment sticks with you, then that makes the writer or director happy. Job well done. But it’s rare that the whole premise of a film sticks with you and that’s what Shyamalan accomplished. It’s his rare talent, which I sincerely hope he continues to stick to his wheelhouse.

The casting was great. The elderly couple, Nana (Deanna Dugan) and Pop Pop (Peter McRobbie) deliver chilling performances in what must have taken an excruciating number of takes, and the kids, Becca (Olivia DeJong) and Tyler (Ed Oxenbould) are convincing as siblings with their witty banter and chemistry. A bit too precocious perhaps, but acceptable.

With a paltry five million dollar budget, this is a surefire box office smash. It’s a fun time if you like to see scary movies, but it won’t win any Oscars. Pay attention, and enjoy the fear factor after the film ends. 7/10.

The Man from U.N.C.L.E

Guy Ritchie takes a page from Steven Soderbergh in this hip, sleek spy caper based on another recycled idea. There is something nostalgic about the Cold War era on the silver screen, and although I never saw the original television show of the same name, the story has very generic qualities. KGB spy teams up with CIA to stop a nuclear threat in Europe. There are Nazi scientists, British Intelligence, deliberately placed outdated technology and vehicles, and beautiful exotic locales.

Uncle starts with a short, cleverly crafted Post-WWII history lesson in the form of the opening credits. Now that we're up to speed, we find Agent Napoleon Solo (Henry Cavill) rescuing an East German defector named Gaby (Alicia Vikander), while being pursued by the Ivan Drago of KGB agents, Illya (Armie Hammer). After some obligatory action scenes, the two professionals are thrown together and forced to collaborate in an attempt to prevent a nuclear war being propagated by a wealthy Italian shipping magnate. Hi-jinx ensue, and through twists and turns, double and triple crossing, and the contrasting suave Cavill and blunt Hammer keep reminding us of just how different the Cold War countries are portrayed on film, and perhaps the ideas that we have grown accustomed to without questioning.

Here's a riddle: What do British, American, Swedish, and French actors have in common? They play American, Russian, German, and Italian roles in this film. Only Hugh Grant plays his own nationality as the British Intelligence officer coordinating the United Nations of the Cold War spy game. I felt like I was watching Black Hawk Down (a mostly international cast playing Army Rangers and Special Forces). Cavill's American English is a bit too forced. Much like Christian Bale from American Psycho, his intonation and accents draw attention to his speech and not in a good way. By appearance, Cavill has the look of the next James Bond, and I don't make that comment lightly, but it's too bad he'll be busy playing Superman for the next half decade. Armie Hammer does his best Russian accent, and it works, but isn't entirely believable. He has the physicality of an action star, but every time I see him in a role, there is something preventing me from accepting him. It's possibly a personal bias, and he has a slew of films coming out in the near future, so I'll give him another shot. Alicia Vikander has come from seemingly nowhere to strike Hollywood hard this year. The amazing Ex Machina, working with Ritchie on UNCLE, the upcoming Oscar-bait flick The Danish Girl, and starring opposite Bradley Cooper in Burnt gives her an impressive year that will certainly lead to a strong acting presence in the future.

Guy Ritchie has a very unique style, but I have been disappointed by his slow decay into conformity. His first two films were brilliant; Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels, and Snatch. They reeked of freshness much like Tarantino's films did right around the time of Pulp Fiction. Unfortunately, Ritchie's budget increased, his ideas dried up, and his creativity stalled (Madonna?). His recent Sherlock Holmes films had some of his typical great camerawork, but otherwise sort of shunned his trademark edginess and dropped him down a notch in my book. The Man From U.N.C.L.E unfortunately continues this downward spiral. It's like if Steven Spielberg were to do a Will Ferrell comedy. Doesn't really work. I would definitely go see it, but it's not his wheelhouse. Guy Ritchie may be moving into a new phase as a director, and has a King Arthur revision coming out next year. I don't like it. I miss the garbled British slang, gangster crime stories from his early years, and maybe we'll see that again someday.

The Man from U.N.C.L.E is a bit of a head-scratcher for me all around. Cavill and Hammer didn't need to do this film, and Ritchie was the wrong pick. There had to be a feeling that it wouldn't be profitable, so the question is, what was so attractive about this project? Maybe it was the timing and the money, or maybe it looked better on paper. It's earned roughly half of its $75 million dollar budget domestically, and will likely make up the difference and more internationally, but it just didn't work for me. I do like Henry Cavill though, and would endorse his candidacy for the next James Bond. 6/10.

The Gift

The Gift shares hallmark traits with a laundry list of thrillers: a house with lots of windows, suspenseful moments that make you jump for no reason, a seemingly normal couple being tormented by a wolf in sheep's clothing, a dark and disturbing secret. None of these ideas are new, but The Gift delivers on its promise of a twist ending that you really don't see coming. Not exactly at least. Hitchcock would be impressed with this modern take on the dangerous blast from the past.

Simon (Jason Bateman) and Robyn (Rebecca Hall) are the perfect couple. Moving from Chicago to LA to escape their past and start fresh, they have it all; He is a newly crowned sales executive, and she is a designing consultant. They choose the house with giant picture windows everywhere, eliciting the feeling of anxious voyeurism right from the opening scene. Of course, there are no shades, and as often accompanies the magic of film, the viewer is sucked right into the uncomfortable setting, and then Gordon (Joel Edgerton) enters, or more aptly, re-enters Simon's life. From there, things spiral from a friendly, if not awkward reunion into a frightening cautionary tale explaining why you should be nice to everyone in school.

Written and directed by Joel Edgerton, The Gift is a breath of fresh air in what has been a stale movie-going experience for most of the summer. From the very beginning, you know exactly where this will end, though you don't know exactly how. There are moments that make you jump, make you cringe, and most importantly, make your heart pound. The anticipation of the twist makes the experience worthwhile, and although it might not find everyone satisfied at the end, I found it remarkable that I am looking forward to whatever Edgerton writes in the future.

It may not be realistic. Stalker stories rarely are, but that's the rub. They are a form of entertainment well before they are meant to be believable. Scare me, entertain me, humor me, but please oh please, surprise me. There is nothing more satisfying in viewing movies than genuine surprise. The final sequence where Simon is opening the last of the gifts creates a swell of pride in a film well-written. For that alone, I must rave and give a solid 9/10.

Straight Outta Compton

The biopic of one of West Coast rap's pioneering groups, N.W.A, has finally been released. It was on the table for a few years, with John Singleton ("Boyz n the Hood", "Poetic Justice") attached, but as the screenplay came together, it wasn't a good fit, and F. Gary Gray ("Friday", "The Italian Job") took over. "Straight Outta Compton" was the debut record for who in retrospect is essentially a rap super-group. Dr. Dre, Ice Cube, Eazy-E, MC Ren, and DJ Yella comprise the controversial and innovative friends and unlikely collaborators who turned the music scene on its head in 1988, and sparked a new genre, influencing the legendary likes of Tupac Shakur, Snoop Dogg, Ice-T, Eminem, and Bone Thugs-n-Harmony, among others.

Rap wasn't mainstream in America until the late 1980's. It had pockets of followers on the coasts, but racial and socioeconomic tension was bubbling to a head, and the poor minorities weren't being heard. N.W.A gave a voice to the masses, and it wasn't received well by authorities. In the time of Rodney King, the Watts Riots, and rampant gang warfare, N.W.A was much more than just a quintet of rappers.

The film purports to be about the three most recognizable names and faces, but really centers on Eazy-E (Eric Wright, played by Jason Mitchell), who for all intents and purposes, was the face of the group. Although Ice Cube (O'Shea Jackson, played by O'Shea Jackson, Jr.) was the lyricist, and Dr. Dre (Andre Young, played by Corey Hawkins) was the brains and the producer who made the dynamic group so successful, Eazy-E is the emotional center.. The group deals with the pitfalls of sudden fame, the mixed emotions of their old and new lives, and the hope of a more equitable and just future. The police brutality is highlighted, but played out without excessive drama, which I must give props to the screenwriters and director for their tact in that regard. The relationships of the men, however, remain the heart and soul of the vehicle. With tendrils reaching to all areas of hip hop, and recognizable names dropped throughout, the film is a welcome trip down memory lane, particularly with the doppelganger O'Shea playing his father with near perfect expression and clarity (think angry-faced Ice Cube). Paul Giamatti is perhaps the only recognizable actor in the film, as the questionable manager, Jerry Heller, and although his acting was solid, I just couldn't stop seeing him in a variety of his other roles. I think he was mis-cast, and that is really my only complaint of the entire film. At a lengthy two and a half hours, it almost doesn't seem to give the story proper justice. There is so much ripe material, and so many successes and tragedies connected through the magic of the time and the place. It could have gone on for another hour, which means that they weren't able to get to everything important.

N.W.A were visionaries for their time, pushing boundaries particularly with law enforcement and the First Amendment. They were endeared and embraced by their community in South Central Los Angeles, but more importantly, they exposed suburban white America to the raw and unapologetic plight of their lives. "Straight Outta Compton" is an excellent look at the historic rise of a musical genre, and the director and writers offer up a profound and unexplored look at a type of film that hasn't been explored before.

Although biopics are all the rage in Hollywood, this is a deserving story that is certainly worth watching, even if you're not familiar with the back story. Well written, well acted, and well directed. 9/10.

Fant4stic

It’s only been eight years since we last saw the Fantastic Four on screen. 2005’s attempt to spark the franchise and 2007’s sequel were ambitious, and cheesy in the way that Marvel superhero movies tend to be, but they were perhaps a bit ahead of their time effects-wise, and a bit too niche for the mainstream audiences. Well, audience tastes have become a bit more refined and a bit less fickle in the last ten years, and now anything superhero is palatable (See Ant-Man).

The film starts with the unlikely friendship between brilliant Reed Richards (Miles Teller) and the enforcer best friend, Ben Grimm (Jamie Bell). Their bond grows through high school, where they are recruited to work for a think tank because of their creation of a teleporting device that happens to go to a resource-rich planet in another dimension. Whew. Almost ran out of breath. Sue Storm (Kate Mara) works there too as a pattern recognition specialist, and Johnny Storm (Michael B. Jordan) is brought in to weld to pay off his car. I know, right? Franklin Storm (Reg E. Cathey, whose voice puts James Earl Jones’ to shame) is running the think tank, so there’s absolutely no nepotism there. They bring in the genius but volatile Victor Von Doom (Toby Kebbel) to assist, because there’s literally nobody else in the world who can complete this project except for Reed and Victor. They successfully make a machine, things go wrong in the other dimension, they get their superpowers, and then they fight the bad guy who really has no valid reason for being evil in the first place. The end.

This rendition of the F4 gives us a slightly different origins story, but still wastes more than the first hour showing us how they gained their superpowers. It was déjà vu all over again like I was watching another Spider Man or Batman. They spend way too much time on character development for five individuals who make up the core group. You just can’t waste that much screen time with an ensemble cast. We get it. Reed is a nerd genius. Johnny is a reckless hot-head, and his adopted sister, Sue is a computer whiz who is just as good as the guys. Ben is the strong, loyal friend, and Victor is the cynical megalomaniac. We don’t need over an hour to figure that out without any action.

The cast looks great on paper. Miles Teller, Kate Mara, Michael B. Jordan, and Jamie Bell. All young, fantastic actors in their own right, but all tend to make some questionable choices in roles more often than they should. This is the type of film that might have seemed like a good idea, and probably earned a decent paycheck, but ultimately I think everyone knew it would bomb. What I’m trying to say is that all four lead actors were given a terrible script to make a lowball superhero remake way too soon. The bar was just set too low, and opening just a few weeks after Ant-Man seems like a head-scratcher to me, unless Marvel was trying to catch the tail end of the box office frenzy.

Director Josh Trank (Chronicle) does his best with the source material, but even the effects aren’t particularly impressive, which in 2015 is unacceptable for a film of this pedigree. Marvel should have shelved this one for a few years, minimum. It might make a little money, but it’s not worth the hit to the reputation in my opinion. Marvel has the right idea moving into the Netflix streaming series genre. They have some coming out in the next year or two that just might be worth watching. Stay tuned.

Writer Simon Kinberg takes the brunt of my frustrations with this film, although he had some help ruining it. Just because it’s a superhero movie doesn’t mean you get to cut corners. Obvious gaps in believability are irresponsible, even with some bending of the rules implicit in the genre, and there needs to be a bit more in terms of character flaw exposure, peril, and climax.

This is one Marvel film that you can absolutely skip. I give Fantastic 4 a generous 4/10.

On the Cinematic Horizon

There are a lot of reasons to get excited about the future of movies, and here are a dirty dozen that are in pre-production, or shrouded in secrecy. Some have recently been announced, and some have been on the cusp of being a reality for some time now. Either way, here are films that could become a reality as soon as late 2016, but likely will roll into 2017 or 2018.

Avatar 2 – With the unprecedented success of Avatar in 2009, it was inevitable that there would be sequels. However, the caveat is that it has to be as revolutionary and mind-blowing as the original, which James Cameron undoubtedly will oblige. His vision had plans for a trilogy, but that has expanded to a quadrilogy, and it is entirely possible that they will be filmed back-to-back-to-back as a cost-saving measure. Long criticized (and raved) for his meticulous attention to detail, once Avatars 2, 3, 4 are finally unveiled to the public, it will be a multi-billion dollar boon for 20th Century Fox and Lightstorm Entertainment. Well worth the eight year wait, Avatar 2 is rumored to take place entirely underwater with some state of the art filmmaking techniques. Cameron does sequels better than anyone else (Aliens, Terminator 2), so expect Avatar 2 to build on the magic of the original, and surpass it. Scheduled for Christmas of 2017.

Pinocchio – The dark and macabre version of the already twisted children’s story has found a director in Paul Thomas Anderson, one of my personal favorites. Robert Downey Jr. has been interested in it for years, and it looks like he will finally play Gepetto in what might be a return to real acting after skating by on his natural wit and charm as Iron Man for the past seven years (and counting). Pinocchio could introduce a new generation to a beloved story, but the results might not be the same. Likewise, those of us who found the story fascinating as a child will likely get a reality check that might change the way we look at lying. And wooden dolls. And doll-makers.

Blood Meridian – There have been rumors of an adaptation of Cormac McCarthy’s 1985 brilliant work of literature for years. It has struggled to get off the ground despite some very impressive names attached to helm the project (Ridley Scott, Todd Field). The story, characters, and setting would be incredible if done right. Maybe Alejandro Gonzalez Innaritu?

Ready Player One – I can’t imagine a cooler book from the past few years to see in movie form, and Steven Spielberg is returning to the science-fiction genre none too soon. He’s been fishing for Oscars his last few attempts, but action/adventure is where he thrives, and he picked a ripe story for the picking. Ready Player One is my favorite book from the past few years, written by Ernest Cline, and it has been begging for the Hollywood treatment. The big question is; who will play Wade Watts?

The Circle – a very poignant and timely book for the generation of social media overkill. A girl gets her first job out of college at the ubiquitous Google/Facebook/Twitter/Whateverelse.com is out there, and finds her life taken over by her ties with the company. Emma Watson and Tom Hanks will star. Think a Stanley Kubrick version of the Social Network.

Robopocalypse – Another great idea of an adaptation being translated to the screen by Drew Goddard (WWZ, Cabin in the Woods, Prometheus, The Martian, Sinister Six). Think Terminator without the time travel or redundant character depictions. It could be a cool movie with the right director and direction.

Sinatra – Rumors of Leonardo DiCaprio teaming up (again) with Martin Scorcese. Could be a fantastic biopic, but I’m wondering how Leo’s singing voice sounds. Although, singing Sinatra isn’t as challenging as some others might be. Think Walk the Line or Ray meets Ocean’s Eleven. Only Better. Much better.

The Creed of Violence – This is another great book by Boston Tehran about an assassin and a cop with a connection that only one of them know about in Nineteenth Century Mexico. Todd Field is attached to direct, and rumors of Christian Bale or Leonardo DiCaprio as the cop make it a strong draw in both box office and critical potential.

Untitled Alien Project – Okay, the story goes that Neil Blomkampt posted some fan artwork somewhere about his affinity for the Alien universe (which I strongly share), and 20th Century Fox took notice. He is attached to an idea where Sigourney Weaver and Michael Biehn (Yes!) will return for something of a re-imagining of Alien 3. Basically it will pick up where Aliens left off. I can’t think of a better writer/director than Blomkampt for this project (except Cameron), so the franchise is in good hands despite the recent botching by dueling the Aliens with Predators.

Whatever Christopher Nolan is doing next – Nothing is announced. He’s making his money as producer in the DC Justice League, but hopefully he’ll get back behind the camera soon. Interstellar was a disappointment, but Inception and the Dark Knight trilogy were amazing.

Blade Runner 2 – If we wait too much longer, Harrison Ford won’t be around (eek!), but I really like what Denis Villaneuve has done recently (Prisoners, Enemy), and this fall’s Sicario will be better than people might even project, putting Villaneuve on the map as one of the premier directors out there. Oh yes, Ryan Gosling is attached as well.

Kill Bill 3 – Quentin Tarantino is in a class alone. Not that his films are better, but they are distinctly Tarantino, which is entertaining, which is why we watch movies. His next project will bring Uma Thurman back as “The Bride” and will likely capitulate one of the more underrated franchises of the 21st Century. His films bring excitement back to the cinema, which is where they are most definitely best viewed.

Southpaw

There have been countless boxing movies over the years; well done (Raging Bull, Rocky, Million Dollar Baby, The Boxer), well-intended (Ali, The Hurricane, The Fighter), and awful (Diggstown, Gladiator, Cinderella Man). Southpaw falls somewhere in the middle. Not for lack of trying, the lead performance was spectacular, but the story was surprisingly (to me) contrived and formulaic.

Jake Gyllenhaal is Billy Hope, the light heavyweight champ who is on top of the world. He's not the prettiest fighter, as his anger and rage through being pummeled gives him the strength to deliver the knockout blow. Consequently, after forty-something fights, his wife and childhood sweetheart, Maureen (Rachel McAdams) is more than a little worried about his deteriorating ability to take a punch and still speak coherently. After a tragedy that is well publicized in the trailer (more on that later), he spirals into even more self-destructive behavior, jeopardizing custody of his daughter. He hits rock bottom, but with the help of an old, wise trainer, he gets his act together and gets one last shot at redemption. Sound familiar? It should, because it's the basic premise of most boxing movies out there.

That's the rub with this type of film, there are only two paths you can go; win or lose. Either build from nothing to a win at the end, or start on top, fall to the bottom, and claw your way back up. The exceptions are the biopics (not entirely exempt from the formula however), but otherwise, there isn't much you can do with boxing to spice it up. Raging Bull is still the gold standard, and most of the credit goes to the great Robert De Niro for that. Because of the decline in popularity and credibility in the sport, it is hard to imagine that we will see many more films dedicated to this genre. Mixed Martial Arts has surpassed Boxing in popularity among fans and presumably athletes, and there is something nostalgic and romantic about the idea of a dingy gym with the dusty leather gloves, the old speedbags, and the legendary promotional posters on the walls. The owner pushing his own mop and sleeping in the back room. It's romantic, but it's also a dying sport.

Antoine Fuqua has broadened his horizons yet again, tackling a sports film. His bread and butter has been cops, military, and the occasional remake/reboot (The Equalizer, 2017's Magnificent Seven). A quick sidebar, The Magnificent Seven should be just that with Chris Pratt, Denzel Washington, Ethan Hawke, Vincent D'Onofrio, Matt Bomer, Peter Sarsgaard, and Cam Giganet as the namesake band of cowboys. Just saying. Anyhow, Fuqua has seemed to gain the trust of the Hollywood brass, and he keeps churning out profitable fare. For what it's worth, Training Day was outstanding, and everything since has been action fluff. Unfortunately, Southpaw's action scenes fall into the unremarkable category.

Kurt Sutter makes the jump from the small screen, where he was spectacular (The Shield, Sons of Anarchy) for creating gritty characters, violent and graphic action sequences, and compelling drama, to the large screen where he tries to duplicate an abbreviated and toned-down version, through unimaginative writing. If not for the cast, this would have been an epic disaster.

Jake Gyllenhaal is the lone bright spot in the film, even with the incredible Forrest Whitaker in an understated yet cliche role as the too-cool-for-school trainer who humbles the champ. Gyllenhaal is coming off a handful of overlooked performances (Prisoners, Enemy, Nightcrawler), he again shows why he is one of the greatest thirty-something actors in Hollywood. He has two films on the horizon that should be worth watching; Everest, and Demolition. At first glance, it may appear he's just playing a dumb boxer, but when you really look into his performance, the physical transformation aside, you can see the acting. This isn't in a transparent, noticeable way, but if you take what you know of Gyllenhaal, you can see just how into character he has becomes because of the stark differences. I wouldn't go so far as to say Oscar nomination, and a July release almost assures that he will be forgotten, but this is one of the better performances of the year thus far.

There was an article in Entertainment Weekly recently that explained the recent trend of spoiling plot twists in the previews, and how it is what audiences want, much to the chagrin of the directors, writers, and actors. The big plot twist in Southpaw is given away in the previews (and most reviews), and although it is a crucial character change device, I found myself wanting to be surprised as I was watching the film. Spoiler alert. There were absolutely no surprises to this film.

My biggest complaint was first voiced by Oscar De La Hoya. The Boxer archetype is too rigidly portrayed. He's a dumb orphan raised on the tough streets of New York. He made something out of nothing, worked his way to the top only to lose it all through poor decisions, being taken advantage of by his hangers-on, and engaging in self-destructive behavior. It may ring true in some cases, but it (hopefully) is the exception to the rule. Playing the stereotype is supposed to make the viewer feel connected to the character through an understanding of his circumstances, but in this case, it's just a bit trite.

If you're a fan of Gyllenhaal, this is a new look for him, and you might enjoy it. The movie doesn't drag on, which is commendable, and the fight scenes seem reasonably realistic and well done. Other than that, there isn't much redeemable about Southpaw. 5/10.

Why 2015 will be better than 2014

Looking at the upcoming releases for September through December, I was awestruck by the potential in awards-caliber films. The Best Picture race may draw a large crowd this year, but this year’s Best Director ballot will be the toughest call in as long as I can recall.

No fewer than 20 of the most critically acclaimed directors of our generation have films coming out between September and the end of December alone, but I can tell you who will be winning the major awards.

Perennial favorites Steven Spielberg, Alejandro Gonzalez Innaritu, Ron Howard, Barry Levinson, Robert Zemeckis, Denis Villaneuve, David O. Russell, Oliver Stone, Danny Boyle, Quentin Tarantino, Ridley Scott, Scott Cooper, Nancy Meyers, Tom Hooper, JJ Abrams, Sam Mendes, Werner Herzog, Gus Van Sant, and Terence Malik all have films coming out over the last three months of the year, and Woody Allen, Michael Mann, and Francis Ford Coppola have films out now. The only A-listers seemingly missing the party are Christopher Nolan, Clint Eastwood, Katheryn Bigelow, James Cameron, David Fincher, the Coen Brothers, Paul Thomas Anderson, Wes Anderson, Ang Lee, and Martin Scorcese, who is on a journey of musical documentaries in between his trysts with Leonardo DiCaprio.

The sheer magnitude of entries into the cinematic landscape this year might be the most ambitious season to date, and although some of the films won’t be the masterpieces of their respective visionaries’ careers, there are a handful that will raise eyebrows and make 2014’s critically acclaimed films pale in comparison.

Ron Howard, Steven Spielberg, Oliver Stone, Danny Boyle, Quentin Tarantino, Alejandro Innaritu, Robert Zemeckis, Ridley Scott, and Denis Villaneuve will present the most likely Best Picture nominees. There is an interesting academy rumor going around, and it has been since 2009, that the Best Picture field will return to five films to increase interest by audiences and lend more credibility and prestige to the award. I support this rumor, and there would be snubs and controversy, but all nominees would be completely deserving. Here are my five Best Picture films of the season:

1.The Martian. Directed by Ridley Scott and based on the bestselling novel of the same name. Ridley Scott is the Master of Sci-Fi, and with a realistic, smart story and a stellar cast, this will be a very popular film with audiences. Matt Damon plays Mark Watney, the lone survivor of an abandoned manned mission to Mars.

2.The Revenant. Directed by Alejandro Gonzalez Innaritu, Leo DiCaprio plays Hugh Glass, a frontiersman in the early 1800’s. He’s mauled by a bear and left for dead, only to survive and seek revenge on his betrayers. Expect nothing short of epic greatness.

3.The Hateful Eight. Quentin Tarantino is in a class of his own. Every film is an adventure unrivaled by any other filmmaker in the business, and the entertainment value is always high. His ensemble casts create some of the most memorable characters, and you can be sure there will be some supporting actor (and perhaps actress) standout performances.

4.The Heart of the Sea. Ron Howard is back after the underappreciated Rush in 2013. The Heart of the Sea reunites Howard with Chris Hemsworth once again, this time based on the true story of Moby Dick. Can you say cool?

5.Steve Jobs. Directed by Danny Boyle and written by Aaron Sorkin, this might be a step up from The Social Network in terms of technology biopics, and I loved The Social Network. Michael Fassbender will earn a Best Actor nod for his work, and will help us all forget about Ashton Kutcher’s awful performance in 2013’s failed Jobs biopic.

However, if the field stays with its current model, expect Bridge of Spies, Snowden, Sicario, and The Walk to fill in the final four candidates, with Black Mass getting an outside shot. As is evident by these films, there is a noticeable void of lead female actors. This may be a boon for Jennifer Lawrence, as she is headlining David O. Russell’s biopic on Joy Mangano, but Emily Blunt may make a run in her Traffic-esque role in Sicario, and you can never count Meryl Streep out, though her Ricki and the Flash might be too loose with her character.

For the men, take your pick. Leonardo DiCaprio, Tom Hanks, Michael Fassbender are my locks with Joseph Gordon-Levitt (either of two roles may lead to a nomination), Chris Hemsworth, Matt Damon, and Johnny Depp following close behind. I think and hope this is DiCaprio’s year.

Alejandro Gonzalez Innaritu will become the first director to win consecutive Oscars since Joseph Mankiewicz in 1949 and 1950. His film, The Revenant will be both riveting and innovative. If audiences aren’t turned away by the gritty violence, it should be a lock for Picture, Director, and Actor. This may seem a bold prediction in the face of such stiff competition, but as was the case with Birdman, Innaritu has adopted original and clever film making tactics making him the hardest working director looking to innovate his field besides James Cameron. For The Revenant, he is using absolutely no unnatural light which must prove to be a challenging film shoot following the lunar cycle, but ultimately, it will pay off huge dividends in the end.
In the face of such remarkable competition, 2015 will be the best crop of films since 2010.