xmichaelraine Reviews

Nightcrawler (2014)

A Real Home Run for Jake Gyllenhaal

[8/10 · 3 November 2014]

2014 has been a year dominated by independent films. Not in box office numbers; In quality. And the trend continues with this modest little investigative noir from Dan Gilroy. Making his directorial debut, Gilroy has shown immense potential with this Los Angeles set thriller. Much of that credit is due to a once again fantastic performance from Gyllenhaal, who turns in perhaps his best work to date. This is a character that seems to be a culmination of all of his previous work.

Lou Dobbs (Gyllenhaal) is a neurotic drifter. And he's in no way a good guy. We're introduced to him as he is stealing copper wire for petty cash. Lou is a vulture in the city of angels, desperate to find his niche and eager to succeed. He is very well spoken, but persistent to a fault. One late night driving on the hectic Los Angeles freeway, he comes across a traffic accident and his curiosity grabs hold as he pulls over to investigate. In the midst of officers rescuing a woman from a burning vehicle, he notices men with high tech camcorders filming the scene from multiple angles. This heavily intrigues Lou and he learns from one of the camera men Joe Loder (Paxton) there's money to be earned for the juiciest videos that can be sold to local news stations.

So off Lou goes, stealing his way to buying a camcorder and police scanner. He is now in the beginning stages of 'nightcrawling' and the learning curve is steep. However Lou being the obsessive learner he is catches onto the game quickly, becoming better and better each night. Soon he hires another drifter as an assistant. Lou forms a partnership as well with a struggling news director Nina Romina (Russo) at the cities lowest rated station. This is no coincidence. As the film picks up speed, our 'protagonist' reveals himself as nothing more than a savage man that will stop at nothing to manipulate and deceive his way to getting everything he wants. And it's a fascinating ride.

Gyllenhaal is a man possessed by Dobbs. The dramatic weight loss aside, this is the year's best performance outside of Scarlett Johansen's haunting role in 'Under the Skin'. In the spirit of Patrick Bateman, it's the kind of character you hate to love. Yet you can't help it. Dobbs is a psychopath. But he's freakishly intelligent. He has every angle pre-thought and every exit strategy in place for whatever may come his way. The only weakness I noticed within the film is that nobody is even approaching Gyllenhaal's level here. Who can blame them though?

For me the most key player in the film is cinematography wizard Robert Elswit. In my opinion, he's amongst the absolute best working today, and nobody shoots Los Angeles quite like him. Of course shot on 35mm, the night time streets of LA are alive and very dangerous. The screen is crisp at every moment. No doubt that Gilroy knew what he was doing recruiting Elswit. This will be the second film this year featuring his phenomenal work behind the lens in LA (Inherent Vice coming in December) and once again he creates a Los Angeles that's familiar yet mischievous. The city is the strongest supporting character in the film.

Nightcrawler doesn't warrant repeat viewings, because it fulfills all you expect in the first go around. Gyllenhaal is a revelation. His character is one of the most intriguing we've seen in years. It's as much a satire of the disgusting business of news reporting, as it is a night time thriller. Throw your money to the screen. This is a hardworking film that deserves it for a change.

Gone Girl (2014)

Domestic Horror at it's Finest!

[8/10 · 3 October 2014]

The first real horror release in the United States this October, doesn't come in the form of a cash grab movie about a possessed doll. No, rather it comes to us in the form of a nightmare of the American dream. Gillian Flynn and David Fincher have done for marriage, what Darren Aronofsky did for drug use in 'Requiem for a Dream'. 'Gone Girl' is a deliciously dark, furiously acted, and surprisingly funny representation of the dark side of married life. At times it's absurd as all Hell. But nevertheless, entertaining throughout.

Nick Dunne (Affleck) returns home from the beach one morning where he wandered off to collect his thoughts, to find that his wife Amy (Pike) is missing, and there seems to have been a struggle upon her disappearance. As Nick calls the authorities to report it, what is instantly off putting is how relaxed he is towards the situation at hand. In flashbacks, we see the structuring of Nick and Amy's relationship. Everything being bubbly and perfect at first of course; And as it would be, financial troubles, infidelity, and just the wear and tear of married life takes its toll.

It so happens that Amy disappears on the morning of the 5th anniversary of her marriage with Nick. She had left behind "clues" for Nick to discover that seemed to be leading him to a romantic conclusion, and the detectives investigating her disappearance think that perhaps these clues can be used to locate Amy. As the movie pushes it's plot going forward in the first half, Nick begins to be shredded by the media and local community. Everyone believing that he is involved in Amy's disappearance somehow, perhaps murdering her. This notion becomes even more potent when it's revealed he's been having an affair with a much younger woman.

The plot thickens further when Nick notices an ex boyfriend at a rally fundraiser for Amy. He becomes worried of his appearance, convinced of his involvement. However, Nick becomes manipulated by the media even further, and as more evidence surfaces to which it looks like it's a no-brainer he's guilty of murder. However, the mother of all twists takes place, and Gone Girl takes a deep, dark plunge into madness very quickly. Without revealing too much, I'll say as someone who avoided the novel I had grand ideas for how I thought this film would play out. And god damn was I mistaken. The one thing that prevents me from giving the film a perfect score is the fact that it's story has such a distasteful view towards married life. As if nobody is ever to be trusted with your love, and that we're all inherently pieces of grool. Once the film kicks into absurdity, it becomes the blackest of black comedies maybe ever; but that's what's so damn fun about it. Do I sympathize with anyone in the movie? Not really. It's a well thought out examination of how media works into tricking people into jumping to conclusions, and there's some interesting things to gather from it's stance on how ugly things can become behind closed doors. That doesn't mean it's not shlock. However, it's shlock of the highest order.

David Fincher is a master of perfection, and nothing's changed with this entry into his filmography. Every shot, every movement, every damn breath of a character is pre-planned, and executed to perfection. And as much of an advocate I am for 35mm, David Fincher is making the best case for digital filmmaking. He and returning favorite cinematographer Jeff Cronenweth captured this darkly lit story impeccably. Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross return as well to provide a pulse like soundtrack, that never goes too far, but always creates the necessary atmosphere. Of course credit has to be given to Gillian Flynn on producing such a twisted story, and filling in scenes with such tasty dialogue in her debut as a screenwriter.

What would this movie be however without great performances? And man they are a plenty. Affleck once again turns in a great role, this time very subtle and subdued. He's not asking you to feel sorry for him, and I like that a lot. The standout far and away is Rosamund Pike however, and unfortunately I can't go into details why. Man oh man though, she is absolutely at the peak of her game here. To my biggest surprise is how good Tyler Perry is playing Nick's snaky lawyer. Neil Patrick Harris as the creepy ex-boyfriend is fine, somewhat miscast I feel. Another small weakness in the film.

Comparisons are being made to Hitchcock, De Palma, Verhoeven, etc. Fine I guess. To me, it was all Fincher, all the way. He earned his right to claim a style, 3 films ago. This is Zodiac, Panic Room, Se7en, The Social Network all rolled into one. It's not as good as 3 out 4 of those films, but it's yet another reminder that Fincher has meticulous detail in every frame. And a lingering sense of attitude and dread waiting behind every corner. Cheers to another great film, from a modern maverick of cinema.

614moviebuff.blogspot.com

Guardians of the Galaxy (2014)

Very Solid Summer Blockbuster!

[7/10 · 4 August 2014]

What has been said to be Marvel's biggest gamble ever, is looking to pay off massively; And well, for good reason. GOTG is a hell of a fun ride from start to finish. It knows exactly how new it is to a wide audience, never taking itself too serious but also never poking fun of its dedicated fan base. Not being a reader of the comics, I have no idea how loyal it is to the source material; But I do know that this a funny, adventurous Summer blockbuster loaded with good performances and gorgeous visual effects.

The film starts in the 1980's on Earth as we see a young Peter Quill (Pratt), who will later become 'Star Lord', go through a very traumatic event. Immediately after, he is abducted by a giant spacecraft. We shoot 26 years ahead and we now see 'Star Lord' on the hunt for a mysterious orb. Upon retrieving it, he is sought out by henchmen of the Kree radical Ronan (Pace). Ronan has struck a deal with Thanos (Josh Brolin) that if he retrieves this orb and delivers it to Thanos, Thanos will destroy the planet Xandar; Which Ronan has extreme distaste for.

So now Quill aka 'Star Lord' is the object of a manhunt by Ronan, and Gamora (Saldana) finds him, along with partners in crime Rocket (Cooper) and Groot (Diesel). They all have a big scuffle, and end up getting arrested and sent to a galactic prison. In the prison, they meet Drax the Destroyer (Bautista) who turns out to have a beef with Gamora and her family tree; specifically Ronan and Thanos. Gamora also has a hatred for what we learn is her adopted family, and has vowed to betray them at every turn, and make her escape from the galaxy away from them. The gang all teams up, make a plan to escape the prison, and sell the VERY valuable orb, and split the profits.

Of course the plot thickens when the group learns of the extreme power of the orb, and when they learn the reasons Ronan wishes to acquire the orb, they make new plans for it. So what about the film then? Why is it good? Well, it's because it draws much inspiration of successful adventure films before it. I've heard many comparisons to 'Star Wars'. From a visual sense, obviously yes. One HUGE difference between the two, George Lucas could never write dialogue this funny. I would say this film qualifies as Marvels first legitimate 'Action-Comedy'. Because it is actually very funny. Mostly due to Peter Quill, and the BRILLIANT Rocket voiced by Bradley Cooper.

The screen is packed with eye candy, tons of bright booming battle sequences, and honestly the CGI is pretty top notch. At times, I found myself bored a bit with the battles as they seem to drag a little too long. And my only other big complaint is probably the development of Ronan. I mean, when he's on screen he's an effective villain, just not a memorable one. a movie like this needs to have a bad guy you love to hate, and hate to love. But I didn't feel really any specific reaction to him. It's obvious this film is a starting point of something much bigger, but a better villain would have sufficed. On the other hand, every character is great. Chris Pratt has become an A-lister and this film will just catapult him even further. Zoe Saldana is sexy and kicks ass by the minute. Dave Bautista makes a solid big screen debut as Drax. But the stars of the show are Rocket and Groot. Their friendship is infectious and it resembles that of Han Solo and Chewbaca from the Star Wars franchise.

'Guardians of the Galaxy' once again will bring Marvel loads of money in box office, and this time it's well earned. Credit to James Gunn for hitting the nail on the head, and balancing the tone and atmosphere of this film all the way through between humor and heart. It's not a perfect film; Not for me at least. Some will find this to be one of a kind. To me it's one of many. But there's no resisting its charm. Not by anyone with a beating heart.

Boyhood (I) (2014)

A Remarkable Film.

[10/10 · 4 August 2014]

Wow. That's all I can think after having walked out of the theater after this. This is not only the best film I've seen in 2014 so far, but perhaps one of the Top 5 films I've seen in perhaps 5 years or more. I mean it's almost like you're not watching a feature film, but a documentary. You're literally watching a family grow and age right before your eyes. The film gently reveals the reward as well as struggles of being a child and growing into yourself; As well as showing in equal balance, the tribulations of being a parent. Here is a film that everyone can find a little piece of their own experiences in. In some cases like myself, more than a little piece.

'Boyhood' focuses primarily on Mason Jr (Coltrane). The story begins with Mason at 6 years old. He and his sister Samantha (Linklater) living with their newly divorced mother played by Patricia Arquette. Early on we witness her struggle being a single mom, trying to balance out going to school, working and keeping her children in line. Mason is some what of an adventurer and scoundrel early on. Hanging with much older kids, we see him spray painting bridges, skipping out on homework, and well....just being a young boy.

Soon we meet Mason and Samantha's father played by Ethan Hawke. He has been away in Alaska working after the divorce, but comes back and promises the kids that he will be around much more soon. He seems to be a man child, not wanting to take too much responsibility and focusing on making it as a musician. However, we'll see an impressive character arc with him towards the end.

The films is incredibly smooth in it's transitions of progressing our characters age. There's no title cards, no dramatic entrances that represent an unveiling; Just subtle, unannounced changes in the characters age and status of life. We see Mason developing into a kid focused on art, and living on the fringe. We also see his mother go through a string of bad relationships with abusive alcoholics. As well as his father wander in and out of the film making his weekend appearances that he's allotted. Ultimately, there isn't much of a traditional narrative; Rather the film is an intimate dissection of human life.

In the tradition of all of Richard Linklater's films, these are characters that feel totally real, and you love being in their presence. Linklater is arguably the most humanistic of all American filmmakers, because he doesn't judge his characters. He loves every character he creates. And he portrays them with absolute honesty. And that's definitely the case here. Never has a fictional family on screen, felt so organic. There were so many moments that I had a huge smile on my face, as well as many times my eyes were gathering tears.

I cannot applaud Linklater enough for the sheer difficulty of making a movie like this. The film was shot for 39 days over the span of 12 years. Meeting up with all of the actors whenever all of their schedules would allow, with a new addition to the script in hand. The conversations feel improvised a lot of the time, but Linklater has said almost all of it was scripted. Which is no doubt a testament to his extraordinary writing. All of performances are top notch as well, highlights being Arquette and Hawkes performances. They both have character arcs that they pull off wonderfully, and it's almost spooky to see them age and know where they were in that stage of their careers. And what a risk it is to cast a 6 year old boy who's never acted before, and having no idea what kind of man he'll grow to be. What if he grew into a terrible actor? Luckily, Ellar Coltrane grew into a stud, and has real confidence and subtle command over this role.

This is the best film of 2014 by a mile, and I don't see anything else other than maybe 2 other prospects impressing me more. 'Boyhood' is a film accessible to everyone. It can be related to in so many ways. Whether it's being a young boy moving from city to city trying to make new friends; A woman struggling to raise her children while also gaining her education to make a better life. Maybe it's the magic of finding your first young love and then losing them. 'Boyhood' hits every note without missing a beat, and it will be a favorite of mine till the end of my days for sure. You owe it to yourself and to Richard Linklater to see this beautiful film.

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (2014)

Pretty Solid All Around!

[8/10 · 16 July 2014]

In 2011, 'Rise of the Planet of the Apes' caught everybody off guard. After the terribly misguided remake of the original 'Planet of the Apes' in 2001 by Tim Burton, people weren't expecting much from another reboot of the franchise. So it was a pleasure to discover a clever, entertaining new entry into the franchise. Instead of actors portraying apes in heavy make-up; We were giving brilliant CGI apes, and a central ape named Caesar portrayed through motion capture by the king of the artform, Andy Serkis. This new film is a worthy continuation of that 2011 reboot, although it lacks in some aspects. Regardless, this is a solid summer sequel with unbelievably realistic CGI, solid performances, and heavy emotional resonance.

We begin 10 years after the conclusion of the last film. The 'Simian Flu' has spread around the world and wiped out most of human life. The apes on the other hand are doing just fine. Flourishing actually, living in the dense forest of San Francisco in an impressive fort-like structure built from the trees surrounding them. Ceasar is still the leader amongst the apes, and their loyalty to him is unflinching. Early on, we see two younger apes in the woods hunting, when they come across a human wandering alone from a group of humans. This alarms the entire ape tribe, and Ceasar with all of his mightiness speaks once more and tells the humans to leave.

It so happens that a population of humans have a genetic immunity (at least for now) to the Simian flu. They're residing in San Francisco, but are on the verge of using up all of their power reserves. Malcolm (Jason Clarke) returns with his group from the woods and informs the humans leader Dreyfus (Gary Oldman) about the exceptional apes in the woods. Dreyfus is determined to reach a dam reserve in the woods that can restore power to their city, and let them begin to rebuild their world. And he will get this done, at whatever cost. Malcolm insists that he and his crew can get the apes trust through Ceasar, that will allow them to rig the dam without any conflict. But then, we wouldn't have a movie. So as anyone should see coming, there is much conflict through betrayal, and mistrust; Leading to the last hour of the movie that plays out exactly how one would expect. War.

Matt Reeves (Cloverfield, Let Me In) has taken a definitive dark, broody tone in this film. For me personally, it feels like 2 films in 1. After the first hour of the film, I was convinced I was watching a masterpiece. Then once the cards were laid out, and we realize that we've been building to an exuberant action film for the latter half; It's just okay. The sum of these two halves balance out for me to become one good film. Not great. Not groundbreaking. But a good film. My biggest issue against it is the amount of emotion and time spent building the ape characters, which I appreciate. But then dissolving all of this time into an hour long battle sequence in the end. We form bonds with Caesar's family, and his inner circle of most trusted apes. They've all evolved a form of communication with hand gestures (we read subtitles), and through this language, and the miracle of facial motion capture; We understand their emotions. We see into their souls. This is the strongest point of the film for me, and I wish it could have stayed on this track throughout. They revisit it towards the end, but we've already been distracted. However it's the first time I believe in this long standing series of originals, reboots, and remakes that we really see into the apes world and psyche. For that, I applaud Reeves and his team. And the work that Andy Serkis does with this motion capturing is unbelievable. If not an Oscar nomination, the man needs high recognition as an actor. The work he does which includes Gollum in the LOTR series, King Kong (2005), and countless other films; The man is extraordinary. His movements, dialect, facial expressions. It's all spot on.

In conclusion, this is another solid entry into this Summer's array of blockbusters. I still prefer 'Rise' over this one. Perhaps it was due to my low expectations and high reward back then. Who knows? Regardless, 'Dawn' has solid performances from good cast. It's an emotional ride for the first half, and then an action packed (perhaps too much so) roller coaster for the second half. Some people have hailed it as flawless. I could've used a bit less. However, even I can admit: An ape on horseback firing duel assault rifles, is simply badass.

How to Train Your Dragon 2 (2014)

Amongst the Best Animated Features in Years!

[9/10 · 17 June 2014]

Believe every bit of hype you hear about this film. You will be hard pressed to see a better animated feature not only the rest of this year, but in the next few to come. It does something that not only animation films strive to do; But it does something that sequels strive to do as well. That is expanding their world even further with more excitement, more lovable characters, more emotion, and an overall more enthralling story. 'HTTYD2' does that and then some. It takes off with majesty and flair, leaving all other recent animated films in the dust (Yes including 'Frozen' and 'The Lego Movie"). This isn't a kids film. This is a film for everyone that's dying to be engulfed into what it feels like to be a kid.

What makes this film so wonderful is it's emotional grip, interwoven with it's immersive visuals. There are some very real themes here about the strength of friendship, courage, and family. I was amazed at how touched by the film I was. There was at least twice in this film I was really holding back the tears. It's been quite some time, probably since "Finding Nemo" that I've had that type of connect with an animated feature. I think one reason for this is how strong the voice cast is. It's not easy capturing personality and being expressive while doing voice over work. And this cast does as it as well as any I've ever heard.

And my oh my; The animation. It's incredibly to me what can be done with this realm of filmmaking. It's almost as if we shouldn't connect to the characters at all, because we know going in that they're 100% not real, and they can't be real. They're a cartoon. Yet we connect better with them than most human characters we meet. It's a sense of wonder. Animation also allows the 'camera' if you will, to travel to places that you could never shoot in live action. Shots soaring with dragons above the clouds, practically bringing you along for the ride. The textures of clothing, depths of colors, expressions of every character and creature; It all works perfectly. There were landscapes shots in this where the CGI totally felt gone, and I was looking at a real countryside or ocean view. It's that good.

Parents take your kids to see this now. Let them be absorbed into this beautifully crafted world. This isn't a film; It's a cinematic experience. An experience fit for ALL ages. The reason we go to the movies. Can you tell I loved it? I loved it.

X-Men: Days of Future Past (2014)

Very Solid Entry in The X-Men Universe

[8/10 · 6 June 2014]

We're 7 films in now into this world. And with 2 more on the way, it goes without saying that they're staying afloat by sheer demand from fans. There are a lot of people out there that are die hard 'X-men' fans, just like any other comic book series has. Some of the films are notably better than others. And while there are plot holes galore here (Yes they are plot holes I don't care what you tell me), and I don't think it's better than the latest 'Captain America' or 'X-Men II: X-Men United' for that matter; This movie is full blown turned up to 100 from the get go, with well executed action scenes, a lot of humor in the right places, and a HUGELY talented cast all giving good performances.

The start of the film shows Earth as a desolate wasteland, thanks to the savage hunting machines known as the Sentinels. Originally created to hunt down and destroy only Mutants, the machines had since evolved in the future and began hunting anyone. So we see all of our favorite mutated heroes return and try to figure a way that can go back in time and prevent one of their own Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence) from executing the inventor of the Sentinels Dr. Bolivar Trask (Peter Dinklage). By preventing this event, it will reverse history so that humans will never decide to use the Sentinels to destroy mutants. And with one of many plot conveniences Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) is the only X-Men that can go back in time to reunite young Xavier (James McAvoy) and young Eric aka. Magneto (Michael Fassbender) in order to create a new better future for everyone.

The volume of superhero films we get these days has made them become underwhelming to me for the most part. Rest assured though that this is one of the most solid entries in recent memory. Surprisingly the thing I enjoyed the most is the clever humor written into the script. There are hat tips to the previous films quite frequently yet I feel that this film is trying very hard to separate itself from them. The story builds to what an obvious leap into a brand new storyline. With 2 more films already in production this is no surprise.

Along with the humor, there are a few sequences of action that are extremely impressive. Especially a sequence with the character Quicksilver (Evan Peters) that I will claim is one of the most impressive sequences of ANY action film in the last 15 years. It really is that good. The most simple and honest way I could describe the film is, fun. Even if you're not a die hard fan, there's a lot you can enjoy in the film. A movie with a cast this stacked and a director who is familiar with the loire and characters, would be hard pressed to make a movie that wouldn't be an enjoyable time.

A problem I have with the film is it's lack of sensitivity to a younger audience. I mean, this isn't something I would usually talk about in relevance to a comic book film, however there's noticeable points in the film I thought to myself "Woah now, ease up a bit". A totally unnecessary F-bomb to start, which yes is a critique for a superhero movie. You'll have a great amount of young children attending this movie, they don't need to see superheroes dropping F-bombs. Also there's a weird script element in which the Charles Xavier and Hank aka Beast characters inject a serum of some sorts into themselves to keep their mutant powers at bay and to live more normally. What bothers me about it is that it subconsciously hints towards using heroin, as you literally see the characters tying bands around their arm in a panic and injecting themselves into their veins as if they're thriving for the serum. A tad inappropriate in my eyes, as there were numerous children under the age of 10 in the screening I was in and I couldn't help but feel uncomfortable watching those moments.

Nitpicks aside there is no denying the film is greatly enjoyable. Wonderful actors giving it their all, and there's plenty of exciting moments equally balanced with emotional engagement and laughter. I can't rave on and on about how incredible it is because for one I'm not an avid die hard fan, and two it's not all that incredible. Just very well done; nothing we haven't seen before. Some have said it's one of the greatest super hero movies of all time which is in my mind a bit of a stretch. In comparison to some of the other films in this universe that have been dismal to say the least, it is definitely a breath of fresh air. It's not greatly profound however; Rather a nice flavor of the moment.

Maleficent (2014)

Visually engaging, but not much more.

[6/10 · 3 June 2014]

Before we dive into this movie and break it down completely, there's one thing I feel is necessary to know before anything else; Especially for parents: This movie is NOT appropriate for children under 10 years old. I mean seriously, the battle scenes in this film rival that of 'The Lord of the Rings' in ferocity. Alongside other disturbing plot suggestions like murder, imprisonment, and even sexual abuse. Surround all of this with a clunky storyline and very sloppy editing and honestly I fail to find purpose in this film. No doubt it helms very impressive visuals, and Angelina Jolie is nothing short of marvelous. However in my eyes, I would have preferred left this character to be known as she was. And that was one ruthless villain. Because this movie is begging you to feel otherwise.

I'm of the opinion that when you have a villain as notorious in Disneys' catalog as Maleficent is; Why try to change that? There's nothing wrong with a fantastic villain. Think about a 'Batman' film doing a retread of the story of the 'Joker' and how he was just 'misunderstood' and never really wanted to hurt anyone. It would be for one really strange, and most importantly completely unnecessary. Let villains be villains. There are lessons to be learned when good triumphs over evil like in 'Sleeping Beauty'. You don't need to try and recreate the legacy of a beloved character by totally changing what was so beloved about them for all these years. People love Maleficent because she is such a great villain. Not because she's just a 'scary looking sweetheart' deep down.

The film is brought to the screen by first-time director Robert Stromberg, who is a notable production designer for films like 'Avatar' (2009), Alice in Wonderland (2010), and most recently 'Oz the Great and Powerful' (2013). This is important to know, because there are definitely visuals here that have been borrowed from those mentioned films. It's less 'magical' and more 'haunting'. It's not that the visuals aren't impressive, however nothing beats the feeling of classic Disney animation, like that in 'Sleeping Beauty'. And the direction definitely feels it's lacking in experience. The movie just sort of feels as a lot of small bits spliced together. No real continuity.

It isn't an absolute failure, but I can't say it's an absolute must see. Angelina Jolie brings her all to the role, and she is quite enchanting at times. Sadly not even she can bring the movie together. It's a messy film that I stand by saying shouldn't have been made; At least not with this story arc. I attended the early screening with a fellow blogger Tori Michel (www.thetvmom.com) who writes much more frequently about children's movies, television and games. I asked almost immediately after "Was it just me, or is that a little too extreme for kids under 10?". She reassured me that I wasn't alone there. Perhaps hardcore Disney fans will enjoy it more than I did. I fail to find justification for it.

Visit my blog 614moviebuff.blogspot.com

God's Pocket (2014)

Watch it for Hoffman...

[4/10 · 22 May 2014]

The great thing about "God's Pocket" is the fact that you are in the presence of phenomenal actors, performing at a high level as expected. The problem lies in the fact that it's all within a story that so muddled, messy and cliché' that you just find yourself dying for the film to end. And for a movie that has a run time of only 88 minutes to conjure this feeling, it's doing something very wrong. This film is billed as Philip Seymour Hoffman's final film, and what a shame that is. Not that he isn't wonderful to watch here as usual; but it's weakening to the heart to watch him play such a miserable character for no reason at all.

It's always challenging to review and talk about a film that you just don't care about at all. Perhaps the biggest reason I didn't care, or sympathize with any characters is because they just made one terrible decision after another. Whether it's Mickey betting all of his money for the funeral for Leon on horse races, Richard Shellburn making persistent efforts to get to the bottom of a bottle, or some other miserable soul crawling through the streets; It's just not interesting. There's no development of these characters. We're not given any influence to feel sorry for anyone. The film is also shot in a depressing sense. Heavy greenish, yellow tint to the lenses really gives the film an unattractive smoggy look.

There's no doubt that this is a stacked cast from top to bottom. A film like this is a perfect example that it takes more than one great element, to make a great film. The director is new to film directing, but has made runs directing the popular television series "Mad Men". And that explains a lot to me. Because watching this film, is like watching an entire episode of a long running series, smack dab in the middle for the very first time. Nothing matters, and you don't care about any of the characters.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014)

Amazing? Not quite

[6/10 · 5 May 2014]

Especially if compared to it's most recent predecessor in the Marvel realm, Captain America 2, this one falls very short of meeting its bold title. A noble attempt none the less. This film is an upgrade over 2012's "The Amazing Spiderman" which I found mind numbingly boring. There's definite improvements as well from the Sam Raimi "Spiderman Trilogy". All in all though, the biggest fault lies in the words on the page. The Amazing Spiderman 2 wields superior special effects, and a gushy on screen romance; However it tries to tell far too much at once, never getting a grasp on the fine details of the seemingly endless subplots.

The most painstaking thing about this film for me, is that watching it I realized I had seriously already seen 80% of the key plots points in the trailers for the film. It's no surprise though seeing as how Sony released some 4 full length trailers, and then who knows how many teasers. What's even more frustrating, is that some really interesting story elements from the trailers weren't even in the film! What's happening here? There's a whole mini clip in the trailers where Harry Osborn reveals to Peter that Oscorp has had him under surveillance for some time now. And it's never in the movie. Not a single reference to it. This is a blockbuster trend I despise. LEAVE THINGS TO BE DISCOVERED. I don't want to know what's going to happen next! And I knew what was going to happen next throughout 2/3 of this film.

I'm making it sound like I absolutely despised this movie, but I promise I didn't. It's just not near as 'amazing' as it wants to be. It's astonishingly ordinary. I mean yeah the special effects and CGI are top rate, but so what? Impressive CGI is dime a dozen these days. The strongest arm the film has is the love story. It totally makes sense that Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone are a couple in real life, because they really do have undeniable chemistry on screen. You do care about their relationship.

With a totally constipated plot, an overlong runtime, and payoffs that just aren't good enough it's a shame to say that we have yet another underwhelming Spidey film. There's probably enough here to keep the young ones engaged, but for me it's just more of the same. There hasn't been a really well done Spiderman film since 2004, and even that one had it's flaws. And with an already confirmed third installment in this series, as well as a "Sinister Six" spin off, there's definitely opportunity to improve; but I won't be holding my breath.

Nymphomaniac: Vol. I (2013)

Lars von Triers, with a Dash of Soul.

[7/10 · 21 March 2014]

There really is nobody making films quite like Lars von Trier. And it's astounding to read about the level of accolades and the amount of respect he receives from his peers in the business. Especially when you consider the subject matter of his films. Quentin Tarantino said that Lars' "Dogville" is amongst the best manuscripts ever written. Paul Thomas Anderson said he "would carry von Triers baggage anywhere." He has directed three best actress winners at Canne Film Festival (Bjork, Charlotte Gainsbourg, Kirsten Dunst). The only prediction you can make with his films, is that they will be completely unpredictable. And there is no exception with this film. It is raunchy, rowdy, darkly humorous, somewhat ridiculous, but to my surprise...it has a heart at the center of it.

The dialogue sets between Gainsbourg and Skarsgard are just fantastic. Skarsgard in particular here, is at his very best that I've seen him. His 'Seligman' brings a level of trust, and a sense of belonging to 'Joe' that we can tell she has not experienced since she was a child. 'Joe' has the idea in her mind that she is a bad human being, and she cannot be understood by anyone, and nobody will ever want to understand her. 'Seligman' relieves this somewhat, by constantly reassuring 'Joe', there is an explanation for her psyche, and that she is likely one of many with the same issues.

The film is in no way perfect. It has an amount of graphic sexuality that may be necessary for the narrative at times, but also a dubious amount that feels is more or less there to shock you. And sometimes I found myself saying "Oh come on now! Stop it". The film can likely be easily dismissed by many due to this, but you must try to dig deep for this film. It is challenging, but it's a piece of filmmaking unlike anything else, which is what you will always get from Lars von Triers. For better or worse, he will always bring you something you've yet to experience, unless he begins to repeat himself.

Overall I did enjoy the film. I expected to be much more shocked than I ultimately was, but that's not a negative. It's just the expectation, due to Lars' more recent films. Like I said before, you cannot predict a Lars von Trier film. And yes at times it's graphic, most absurd, and quite possibly self-indulgent; Yet it's something new. It forces you to ingest massive amounts of taboo, and look at sexuality with a very open perspective. I feel it addresses quite well the standards society sets on females in regards to sexuality, versus the less strict standards placed on men. We're watching the liberation of one's uncontainable lust. At the same time their struggle to find some peace of mind. To not feel that they are an outcast. As quoted by 'Joe' in the film: "Perhaps the only difference between me and other people is that I've always demanded more from the sunset. More spectacular colors when the sun hit the horizon. That's perhaps my only sin."

The film is brave, but it's a difficult viewing. Ultimately it is a piece of art. The content is left to be interpreted by each viewer individually. It does have a smart, witty screenplay. The cinematography is excellent; and the editing is fairly smooth. It's not necessarily a film I'd say is ideal for theater viewing, but recommended to be seen by every person that considers his or herself to be a true cinema fan. Be sure to leave your morals at the door.

614moviebuff.blogspot.com

300: Rise of an Empire (2014)

Seriously??

[3/10 · 20 March 2014]

Not exactly how I wanted my first review to go. Believe it or not, I went into this with high hopes, and REALLY wanting to enjoy it. Not only did I not enjoy it, 20 minutes into the film I was looking at my watch wondering when it would end. The huge difference in IMDb vs. Rotten Tomatoes ratings, this film has drawn a line in the sand. Either you think it's good, or you think it's trash. I am in the latter group. What makes the film so bad? It almost felt like it was a spoof on the original. The fun campy element vanished. Instead, we're left with a story that's all over the place, terribly noticeable blue screen, repetitive cliché' action sequences, and actors YELLING THE MOST REDUNDANT DIALOGUE POSSIBLE. And seeing it in IMAX 3D I'll say this; if I can see the blue screen outline around actors beard....I'm sorry, but you didn't try hard enough.

The movie isn't a sequel, or prequel. It's time line falls in between the original '300'. Starting out with what felt like 25 minutes of narration, over top of SUPER slow-mo battle montage; we learn that in the Spartans defeat, the Greek army lead by "Themistocles"(Sullivan Stapleton) is ready to charge against the nearing Persian navy. The Persian navy being led by the man-turned-god "Xerses"(Rodrigo Santoro), and super bitch "Artemesia"(Eva Green). We get back stories on both of these foes, Green's character being the more interesting, but that's not singing much praise. The movie then unfolds like this: Battle-Incoherent Dialogue-Battle-Incoherent Dialogue-Battle-Sex Scene-Dialogue-Battle- Credits.

I promise you, what you see on screen feels just as repetitive as reading the nonsense above. I may need to revisit the original '300' to see how it holds up and if I remember actually enjoying it, but from what I recall at the moment I did in fact enjoy it a lot. I mean, it definitely felt silly. However that was half the fun. The other half of the fun was the inventive new style of action sequences. We had seen slow motion, and we had seen blue/green screen used in films, but I can't remember a film that executed it with such style. How could this follow up fall so short? apparently the film is based on new source material from Frank Miller titled "Xerses", which follows his source material for the original film. Only problem is....it's not even finished. How do you write a screenplay for source material that is still in the works? My guess is you say, "Oh it's fine we'll just bring 70% of the scenes to the audience in incredibly, INCREDIBLY slow motion to give it length. We won't have any of the characters from the original that were enjoyable, instead we'll bring in sub par actors to cheese it up a bit. And let's make sure the visual effects, especially the blood look straight out of a very violent video game." At least that's what it seems like happened here.

I will say, if there is one positive to draw from the film, it's Eva Green. I sympathize for her here. She's trying so very hard to bring credibility to this film. Her performance is enjoyable in brief moments, but then it's just frustrating. It's frustrating because you can tell that she is so far above the rest of this cast. A film focusing on her, that was 25 minutes shorter maybe would have sufficed better for me. Her character is the most interesting by a mile.

Save your money on this one. Wait for it to show up on Netflix in 9 months. It's unfortunate because I love Frank Miller, and I feel like this film really wasted good source material. How can we know though? After all, the freaking source material isn't even finished! Unnecessary, uninteresting, and completely unsatisfying. It's something we've seen many times before, and done much better for that matter.

• Michael Raine