Annual: The Films of 2015
Greetings, people of Earth, kind and despicable alike!
I'm back and although you didn't ask for it, I'm here to break down another year in movies, this year being the subpar 2015 (of course there were some gems but this was also a year where the majority of the pack just couldn't keep up with the few top contenders) and WHAT did we learn from 2015?
We learned that horror movies still suck even though they're desperately clawing at trying out new things, we learned that the superhero genre might be in need of a major makeover (at least from the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Though Deadpool might change the genre for the better [or at least open up newer, funnier, more meta doors for superheroes); we learned that the few comedies that shined shined enough to glow even if it was a more cynical and more self aware glow (but we've been moving in that direction for years) and yet we also learned that the action movie genre just might be more on top of its game than it's ever been. We learned that the critics still love Eddie Redmayne, fanboys still love Tom Hardy, more people should be loving Michael Fassbender and just about everybody and their grandmother wants DiCaprio to win his first, big, long awaited, prolonged worthwhile award. We learned that Alejandro González Iñárritu is on his way to be the next David O. Russel and David O. Russel is on his way to be the next M. Night Shyamalan (kidding but not really. Spoiler alert: Joy wasn't THAT bad but it needs a wag of the finger), and finally we learned that sequels (more specifically years-later sequels) and even more specifically, sequels to franchises dating back to the 70s, are not only on par with their original counterparts but are arguably better than they've ever been before. I saw a friend point out that it's most likely the first year in cinematic history that three separate movies being the seventh installment in their franchise have crossed the $100 million mark. It's science: people love sequels, and not just sequels but sequels that pay homage to original blockbuster classics proving that some Hollywood formulas are simply timeless.
Amongst all the mediocrity, we got Mad Max, and it just might be the most mind-blowingly impressive action movie you've ever seen; we got new Tarantino (overwhelming!); we got new Jurassic Park (underwhelming! [entertaining but shouldn't be allowed to rank anywhere close to Spielberg]), and we got new Spielberg! We saw Amy Schumer finally prove her talent beyond sketch comedy and we watched N.W.A. do the impossible and become a believably heartfelt drama; We got a new Rocky that's NOT about Rocky (kinda) and it's the best Rocky movie since the original; we watched Johnny Depp in a role that's not only NOT Tim Burton but one of the man's best performances in YEARS; Pixar made us cry-laugh again proving they're untouchable when it comes to animation, we watched a far superior remake of the Ashton Kutcher Steve Jobs movie from a couple years ago (or is it a much better prequel? Either way it's much, MUCH better), we watched a French JGL tightrope between the twin towers in the 1970s (in stunning 3D) and it was beautiful; the truth is finally revealed about what really happened when naughty priests touched little boys and everybody thought The Martian was based on a true story. Speaking of spacemen, fanboy JJ Abrams struck gold twice giving us not just more Star Wars but the best Star Wars we've had in over three decades.
In the end, I can't complain. I got giddy about a few things at the cinema this year, even if I slacked in watching movies more in 2015 than I ever have (even working two jobs, I can't squeeze in the extra late nights bootlegging like I used to but maybe it's God's the Star Man's Matt Damon's way of telling me I shouldn't be bootlegging movies I clearly love and cherish so close to my heart. And SPEAKING of missing movies, let me disappoint you all and give you the breakdown of:
All the Movies I Missed in 2015!
(Everything from Oscar nominees to future Razzie winners)
- Jupiter Ascending
- Kingsman: The Secret Service
- Chappie
- Wild Tales
- Ex Machina
- Entourage
- Love and Mercy
- Spy
- Dope
- Ted 2
- Cop Car
- The End of the Tour
- The Gift
- Pawn Sacrifice
- Everest
- Trumbo
- Bone Tomahawk
- Crimson Peak
- Beats of No Nation
- Sicario
- Legend
- The Good Dinosaur
- Macbeth
- Chi-Raq
- In the Heart of the Sea
- Room
- Brooklyn
- Krampus
- Concussion
- The Big Short
Now before I dive into my ranking system, for first time readers, I rank on a mix of quality vs. personal taste. Now I KNOW this sounds like a cop out so I don't have to feel obligated to give the better movies the top spots but my weird ranking system allows me to justify exactly why the films are listed as follows (Bridge of Spies is obviously the better film but I still gave a higher spot to the movie where Ice Cube's son plays Ice Cube while he flips off the police, simply because I enjoyed more with the personal, critical mix that was dished to me over Spielberg just being Spielberg (and that's no distaste towards Steven, I literally just called Spies the more superb film even if the end result may be too slow for many viewers).
My point IS, you can't question WHY a laughably outrageous excuse for a horror movie about grandparents wanting to eat their grandchildren is ranked higher than an actually well crafted horror movie that's a throwback to the B-movie days of John Carpenter, because I personally felt like I'd rather laugh at Shyamalan taking a stab at mind numbingly foolish humor-horror rather than someone using the overused "sex = death" formula (even if it is in somewhat well crafted taste).
It is what it is folks. I know how to take in a phenomenally talkative drama like Spotlight and STILL get hyped before the movie when the new trailer for the sequel to the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles remake comes on (obviously the first one sucked but watch the previews for the new one and TELL me you're not even a LITTLE bit curious [unless you literally have no soul]). I know how to mix true quality in film with my personal affection for entertainment. Yes folks, I'M the a**hole that continues to pay money for Transformers sequels, support both Marvel AND DC movies(and it's NOT that hard to do) and respect long, critically acclaimed dramas that demand patience and love for the craft of what cinema snobs would consider "quality film." But alas, that is the madness that is my brain.
Alright this is taking too long, let's start the damn show.
And now, without further ado, ladies and gentlemen, I give you: the overlong, overly bloated, inevitably irrelevant and most likely disappointing list of:
Every Movie I saw in 2015! 🎉
(Ranked!)
33) Southpaw
I've never been more baffled by a movie's outcome in 2015 than I was by the latest Jake Gyllenhaal vehicle, Southpaw. I was baffled by how much people ragged on Spectre. I was baffled by how insanely good Mad Max was but Southpaw just really threw me off because it's a movie that absolutely feels like it should be great and instead settles for being bland, mediocre and predictable.
Coming out in the wake of summer blockbusters like the wonderful Pixels and the never-ending success of the outstanding Jurassic World (yes these remarks are sarcastic, folks), another movie "about boxing" was released and not only does Southpaw follow the character traits of nearly every single boxing movie that's been influenced by Rocky over the last four decades, but the whole movie devices to be a big metaphor about "fighting your inner demons" in order to grieve over a personal loss.
It is now where I'd like to take the time to give a proper SPOILER ALERT for anyone who's legitimately going to see this movie and even though that number will inevitably be small, there's one MAJOR plot point that happens early on that drives pretty much the entire motivation of Gyllenhaal and therefore the entirety of the film. It's a pretty BIG deal for a movie so very insignificant but I literally can't write about this movie properly without talking about this elephant in the room. So without furher ado, those who actually want to go into this movie blind, you've been warned...
Brief backstory. The movie focuses on an angsty, flaming hot relationship between childhood sweethearts who talk like mob wives, Gyllenhaal and his wife Rachel McAdams. The intro of the film peppers their whole relationship in about 10 minutes. They're both aggressive, they've both been hurt, they're both stronger because of each other, they're both MADLY in love (puns intended maybe?). So anyway. They have a daughter. And Gyllenhaal is a boxer. Gyllenhaal takes part in a proper sh*t-talking-fest as all good rivalries show in the past. "You're gonna eat my dust!" They might as well be yelling at each other during their big promos and interviews. Anywho. During a big press conference/party/event before the big fight, some of the inevitable sh*t-talking goes down. The big mean rival starts talkin smack, Gyllenhaal acts like a tough guy and walks it off and then the big bully disses Gyllenhaal's wife (oh no he did not). Gyllenhaal gets pissed. His bouncers are holding him back. The two fighters start getting wild. Bouncers are holding everyone back on both ends. People are shoving. Yelling. Throwing punches. EVERYTHING gets in a craze. And then. and THEN. One of the bouncers pulls out his 9 (I literally couldn't make this stuff up). Some rando who appears to be part of some gang (maybe a bouncer gang?) has his gat out. Comradery ensures. A gunshot goes off. I repeat. Someone FIRES A GUN. Total accident right? The bullet appears to have hit McAdams and she goes down. Gyllenhaal is holding her in his arms, crying, and the inevitable happens. SHE DIES. That's right. This insane incident causes Rachel McAdams to DIE not even a half hour into the film. Ballsy twist yes but REALLY? An argument over the boxing match causes an accidental gunshot that kills this man's wife?? And as a repercussion NOTHING happens??? Granted, I'm absolutely thrilled the movie didn't turn into some sort of ridiculous revenge movie where Gyllenhaal goes after then gunman and they settle this horrible incident either in a courtroom or in the ring; either way, Gyllenhaal having to use his fighting skills to avenge his dead wife would have turned this mediocre movie into a straight up trainwreck. Luckily, the filmmakers decide to use this plot point as a metaphor; boxing out one's rage of grief by fighting in the ring. It's sad and poignant, sure but the end result is almost meaningless by, in my humble opinion, an absurd way to kill off the protagonist's wife. I almost couldn't believe they off'd her like that; not because it was sad but because it was just straight up unbelievable. And what's worse, the whole film piggiebacks on this plot point to make a story about Gyllenhaal not only having to get over his dead wife but having to become a good dad. Yes, folks, the Oscar bait is fresh off the market. Angry fighter turned enraged widower must become a good role model for his only daughter. And honestly, the whole thing kinda sucks.
I get that the marketing wanted to pull a twist on the audience and make everyone believe they were gonna watch another generic boxing movie but what we get instead is almost worse. The cliche plot of building up a questionable father having to prove himself to his daughter to tug on our heart strings is just sorta lazy writing. Of COURSE we all wanna see a good father-daughter bonding story and of COURSE there's gonna be struggle and angst along the way, but by killing off the wife in order to focus on this parent-kid relationship, it's obvious things will turn out well for them in the end. You're not gonna force a father and daughter character together after a loss like theirs and NOT have a somewhat happy ending in the end. This is Hollywood and instead of making a gritty picture about grief and absolute loss, the filmmakers showcase a "family comes first" moral that we all see coming early on.
Which makes the whole second half of the fim ridiculously bland. They use this relationship Gyllenhaal has with his daughter as a means to motivate his character as a fighter as if we were watching Rocky train with Mickey except instead of an old man, it's a little girl. The end result is so tiresome because you can smell the ending a mile away and they hype up the "big ending" as all Hollywood movies do and make it seem like the stakes are far larger than they actually are.
And in the end, if you watch movies; if you TRULY watch movies and can pick up on standard cliche film tropes, the only thing that will move you in any way, postively or laughably negatively, in this film is that big secret death scene that no one wanted you to know about going in.
Other than that absurd twist, the only thing that's really worth having a conversation about regarding the film is Gyllenhaal's acting. It's nothing new, considering his performance in 2014's Nightcrawler was frightening enough to nearly earn him an Oscar nomination (he didn't earn said nomination and to this day, the decision to not do so still baffles me). Gyllenhaal proved from a ripe young age of Donnie Darko that he can act but he's also a peculiar breed because he's not great in everything. Unlike dudes like Kevin Spacey and Christoph Waltz merely need to grace their presence on film to make their projects simply better, Gyllenhaal really proves that he's extremely talented when he tries. I'm not saying he's ever been BAD but he's certainly phoned in more than one performance (looking at you Day After Tomorrow). Thankfully, Gyllenhaal actually appears to be trying in Southpaw even though director Antoine Fuqua appears to be asleep during the filming of it, though that's no surprise for Fuqua given that most of his resume, with the exception of Training Day, is as bland as Southpaw.
Anyway, Gyllenhaal's pretty great. He's exceptionally terrifying as a loose cannon of a fighter; someone who enters the ring bloody and insane; unafraid of death and at some points, even seeming to be egging death on. He plays the part well regardless of playing the part in a soap opera style plot with overused cliches and morals.
Bottom line: if you've never watched Jake Gyllenhaal or a movie about boxing or parent-child relationships, or a movie at all, then watch this movie. If not, then by all means, skip it. If you wanna see Gyllenhaal really act (and act like a true maniac) watch Nightcrawler.
Grade: D+
32) San Andreas
There's literally almost absolutely nothing to say about this one. Do you enjoy disaster movies? Do you enjoy Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson? If you answered 'yes' to both then chances are you'll have fun. And that's all it is folks: Fun. Is it very good? Absolutely not, but I'm 97% positive that's the point. It's literally The Rock vs. earthquakes (in 3D!). It's about as enticing as it sounds. Is it as entertaining as 2012 or any Emmerich flick for that matter? Hell no, but Dwayne literally carries any weight this film has on his muscle-bound shoulders. And for a movie with geographical catastrophes this size, he's really only carrying light weight because there's literally nothing else redeeming about it. The movie is packed out, exploding with special effects ranging from dazzling to dismal, a beyond weak supporting cast, all phoning in their performances (annoying children! Divorced, bickering ex-wives! Who could want more!?) including a very lazy Paul Giammati who talks about graphs and tremors with a level over 9,000 (I guess they needed one Oscar worthy actor on their billboard?).
The movie is absurd, folks. Don't even bring your brain to the door. Leave it home. Turn it off. The only literal reason to watch this one is because Johnson is so likable you just wanna watch him fight natural disasters (when bad guys don't bring enough ruckus, who better to face off with than Mother Nature herself?). It's entertaining and even that's giving it too much credit. Want a fun, thrilling romp to watch with the family? This is it folks. The family-friendly disaster blockbuster (which isn't actually a blockbuster but performed surprisingly well at the box office). America can agree that enough people like The Rock in order to follow him for a brutal near-two hours of CGI disasters, broken family values, and some horrible one-liners, ridiculously laughable stunts and a happy ending. But with so much more worthwhile distaster flicks, the happy ending is nothing more than a money shot of a few cents. If you're gonna do it, do it for Dwayne.
Grade: D
31) Unfriended
An early-in-the-year horror flick, the latest take on how the Internet can kill you is a surprisingly (somewhat) poignant commentary of a thriller; dumb and flawed of course, but poignant nevertheless. It exists merely as an exercise both in craft of the horror genre and something a little (slightly) more in terms of a moral on how the true horrors are once again not the demons of dead victims returning from the grave to haunt those who wronged them, but we as human beings. Yes folks, we as humans are once again proven that we completely suck as a race who do nothing more than bully and harass people to their deaths and in this glorious day and age of social media, we use the Internet as our playground to bring others down, six feet under.
To call Unfriended a fine craft in the horror genre is not just misleading, it's false. What it is, however, is a jab at a new style of horror not seen from the likes of many flicks to come before it. The closest analogy I can make when it comes to attempting a unique craft such as this would be surprise horror hit Paranormal Activity. Now let's pretend for a minute that it didn't receive four sequels and a spinoff since all these movies are rightfully more terrible than the last (because they are, I'm not sorry) but instead, if we focus on why Paranormal Activity was such a huge success in the first place, it's plain to see that it was because it did something new for the horror genre. By taking the hamdicam style and applying it to "found footage" being an evidence tape of a supposedly true story, the film instantly became something fresh that had been missing from the desperate genre for a while. And while, like I said, the movie is more or less a waste of your time it tackled the ghost-demon found footage style and applied it well enough to leave an impression on people. And while Unfriended is no Paranormal Activity, it breathes life into a new generation of horror because it uses the precious and beloved resources of social media all around us and applies it to the horrors of young teens using it as a weapon.
And before I start getting into how witty the film comes off, let me first address that the movie is flat out ridiculous. It is an outrageous exercise in showcasing dumb, ignorant teenagers who the audience more or less wants to see get picked off because of how annoying and frighteningly accurate these crappy kids are represented.
And yet the film does a lot in its own right by establishing these crappy kids as average annoying teens, which doesn't separate them much from ACTUAL annoying teens, in real life. In the end, you don't care so much for these young characters as much as you're impressed by how horrifying they can be once they get creative with the technology they use. With a clever use of "cinematography" by shooting the entire film from the POV of one girl's laptop, the filmmakers expose the audience to a first person view of all of the Internet's wonders and horrors using the desktop background as the singular frame of the "camera angle." In short, the film is essentially one still shot of a desktop computer and the activity that happens on the computer is what consumes the next 80 or so minutes of your life. The constant internet activity (through Skype, Facebook, Chat, etc) is part of what makes the film breeze by because it's what we're so used to in this day and age and it's also what makes the film equally as scary.
But to call the film scary is simply not true. Sure, there are some solid jump scares, loud noises and jarring cuts of teens getting horribly mangled over Skype video but there's not much actual horror outside of the morality approach of "don't be an a-hole on the Internet otherwise it will come back to literally haunt your ass." Yes, there are themes of bullying, especially cyber bullying, and all types of harassment through social media here, creating an epidemic for teens out there to stop belittling people through the Internet (which is where teens live these days) except for the fact that the movie doesn't quite reach that impact of "important values" that exist in a horror movie. Instead, the filmmakers clearly just wanted to have some fun and see if they could get away with an entire movie that takes place over Skype and Facebook.
And for that simple accomplishment, it works. The movie is outstandingly dumb and flat-out absurd with deliciously terrible gore and cyber-ghost violence and all that hullabaloo and horrible nonsense that crappy teen actors playing crappy teen characters are known for playing but if the movie just wants to have some fun (and possibly scare young audiences out of using social media for a night), then the movie definitely did its job. I just can't say the movie did its job well enough to be liked, friended or gain any followers.
Grade: C-
30) It Follows
Grade: C-
30) It Follows
The first legitimate horror movie release of the year also happens to be one of the more astounding and overall confusing movies I've seen in quite some time. It's not just that I'm torn between my feelings but I'm baffled by what the filmmakers were trying to accomplish in their overall message. I mean, it's not rocket science here folks. The premise is simple: we follow a young girl who contracts an STD (in this universe that means a sexually transmitted demon; yes you read that correctly, a demon) and in quite few short terms we see probably one of the most in depth approaches to preaching on teens, budding sexuality and a moral on free sex, from a modern day approach, let alone a horror approach, from probably any filmmaker who's been bold enough to tackle the issues in such a light since 2007's wildly unbelievable but very real "thriller" Teeth.
Yes folks, this is a movie about sex but it's also a statement on sexuality and its consequences and what follows in It Follows is more or less a sermon on how scary sex can be, especially for those getting into it for the first time and what the outcomes can be depending on who it's with.
Now the 'sex = death' formula is no stranger to horror. The B-movie idea of it alone harks back to the campy days of John Carpenter flicks in the late 70s. But today the formula is a little different for a modern era. I won't bore you with the basics. The plot follows a young girl who sleeps with her new love interest/boyfriend who has lured her into a trap where he is in fact passing on a demonic presence to her through sex and the only way to get rid of the demon is to sleep with other people in order to literally pass it on (I wish I was kidding). With a premise so specifically unique, the film shocked me regarding how much critical praise the film was receiving. In no time at all the film was being deemed a chilling, modern day masterpiece in horror, that was brewing a true suspense filled with a remarkable tension that had been absent from horror moviest all these years, that would deem the film an instant cult classic. So of course, while keeping expectations fairly low I couldn't help but expect something juicy out of something that seemed like it would deliver on its promises. And as a lover of the horror genre I gotta say, all in all I was honestly disappointed and there's not a clear reason why.
The film has a LOT going for it. For one, the seemingly goofy premise is actually fairly poignant. It's the kind of film that would and probably should scare young teens out of having meaningless sex with strangers at such a young, ripe age; it's the the kind of film with a moral that bashes viewers over the head but it's disturbing enough to potentially help them realize that there is a true world of horrors out there that await them when they open themselves up (pun intended) to random strangers. And yet, somehow amidst the morals and life lessons of being a young slut, the film STILL sort of misses its mark. We follow our young protagonist as she fights to rid this demon from her life so she can stop being stalked by this demonic presence that takes the form of old naked people and creepy zombified ghost/demons in their underwear (which is truly horrifying) but somewhere along the way the story gives into a medocre sense of uncertainty. The girl is the only one who can see these demonic embodiments yet her friends who don't carry this demon/disease can somehow still see traces of the demons interfering with her life (there's a whole sequence at the beach where the demons are attacking people even when they're not seen, pulling on characters' hair and breaking doors down, shown in an almost invisible, psychic force and the end result is almost comical and rather absurd). It's as if the writers couldn't totally buy into their premise so they created a sort of entity to stalk these helpless, whorish teenagers. Speaking of whorish, it's frustrating to try and care about a character who needs to become a slut in order to rid herself of this horror in her life but then again, that's probably just the film buying into the audience's inhabitions to judge the character for being forced to have sex in order to get rid of her demon/disease. I mean, good Lord, even writing this and putting it into words just proves how ridiculous the film actually is. Granted there's some truly, TRULY horrific moments that may send chills up your spine (a few of the early sequences where our protagonist is being stalked by the demon, taking shape of a zombified half naked woman, is truly disturbing) but even so, the actual elements of horror can't make up for the film's conclusion (or lack of, rather) considering the fact that there IS no conclusion. Instead of giving into a gory climax that the film promises from its opening scene, the film ends up just simply cutting to black during a moment where the audience thinks "huh, I wonder how much longer this endeavor will go on for." Well wouldn't ya know it, it looks like the filmmakers finally listened to their audiences and simply cut them off just when the whole thing starts to drag on.
Bottom line: it's ridiculously well crafted in spots but in the end it's nothing more than a waste of a decent premise bashing you over the head with its morals and ineffective in most of its attempts to scare.
Grade: C+
29) The Visit
Good lord. The Visit is a movie I could either spend way too much time talking about or a movie I could give a couple sentences talking about and you'd still get the gist of what you're getting into, and yet you'd have no idea what you're signing up for. I could break down the movie beat by beat and you'd still gawk at how outrageous this movie is.
I find that every year there's at least ONE movie that appeals to me because it JUST seems bat-sh*t-crazy enough to be watchable, whether just for pure entertainment or because the movie will be worth talking about, even if it's the literal WORST movie of the year. Some of these movies, I don't know why they bother because they're not only not really good, they're usually terrible; but what's worse is they're never GOOD-terrible. It never reaches the status of The Room and sometimes I just have no words on the final result. Last year that movie for me was Tusk, a movie I actually spent too much time talking about and I shouldn't have because there's not one kind of person I could recommend it to (unless you're as curious by weird movies as I am), and this year The Visit was that movie for me.
In short, two kids visit their grandparents and stay with them for an extended weekend and as the tag line would probably say "there's something wrong with grandma and grandpa..." And let me just bullet point this b**ch because this movie is... It's just plain ridiculous. First, I applaud M. Night Shyamalan for joining the crowd and officially giving up on himself. Amidst all the absolute garbage the man's put out over the years, The Visit might be the most fun movie he's ever made and it's for all the wrong reasons (and maybe that was his intention).
KUDOS to the kooky grabdparenrs (where are THEIR oscars?) and f**k the kids. Both of the leading child-actors are horrible and unlikable. The daughter's bad, but the little brother with the lisp, who pretends to be a rapper and make witty jokes, is so bad that he makes me want to wring his scrawny neck until his eyes pop out. By the film's end I was hoping the grandparents would eat him.
Oh what's that? EAT him you might ask? Ah yes, that's right, appears old grandma and grandpa are looking to kill and potentially EAT little Timmy and Tina (idk their actual names, shut up). Yes, this does play out like a "horror movie," and I don't know what's more horrific, naked grandma (cue Family Feud clip) or every actor in this movie jumping back and forth from acting like they're in a horror movie to acting like they're in a comedy. And the final result is BAFFLING; alarming almost. Because on paper, this movie is TERRIBLE; utter garbage; LITERALLY might be one one of the worst movies you'll ever see... But at the same time, the movie gets a little TOO self aware for my own good to the point where I can't help but think that Shyamalan literally threw up his hands and said f**k if; I've lost my mojo; let's get weird. And for whatever crazy reason the cosmos foresaw and saw to be fit, they gave Shyamalan the ability to make a movie watchable again.
Now MAKE NO MISTAKE, I am NOT saying you should watch this movie. In fact, unless there's a legitimate reason or curiosity for seeing it, there's not a reason in the world to waste your eyesight and 90 minutes of your life but make note that while The Visit is BAD, it's fittingly more tolerable than The Last Airbender, The Happening and Lady in the Water because while the movie is indeed garbage, it's kinda really funny sometimes. And as self aware as Shyamalan gets, there's no way all of it can be intentional because Shyamalan simply can't be that funny. Between the interactions of the creepy-ass oldies and the annoying whippersnappers; the laughable scenarios and the hilariously intense final twenty minutes of the film, the movie ends up being memorable, even if it's for comedic reasons, and THAT's the difference. No one can recall ANY of Shyamalan's movies post-Signs because they were just plain BAD; they were bland, boring and lifeless, and here, the man's made a movie that is FILLED with one liners and ridiculously memorable, hilarious scenarios whether he intended it that way or not and for being a movie so bad, the movie works really well at BEING a bad movie. And no, like I said, it's not Troll 2 status, but it's bad enough that you'll at least have a conversation with someone about it when it's all said and done. People haven't done that with one of Shyamalan's films in over ten years.
Grade: F+
28) Ant-Man
I'm gonna cut right to the chase with this one. Yes, it's another comic book movie; yes, it's another entry in the Avengers' critically acclaimed Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU for the noobs) and yes, you'll pretty much know what to expect from a movie called Ant-Man, especially following the footsteps of any Avenger including the much superior likes of Iron Man. One thing I definitely can say with confidence is that among everything that's come of Tony Stark's rise to fame as the headliner of Earth's Mightiest Heroes, Ant-Man is bar none the WORST entry in the Marvel Cinematic Universe canon thus far.
That's right folks, twelve films including the decently actioned, poorly plotted Iron Man 2, the decently actioned, more obsolete now-than-it's-ever-been Incredible Hulk, and whatever bad thing you ungrateful sons'a b**ches have to say about the original Thor and Captain America films, NONE of them are as admittedly unsatisfying as the most recent go from the boys at Marvel.
Now I know what you're thinking, "Ant-Man is supposed to be FUN and goofy and it's Paul Rudd! It's supposed to be light and comedic," and that's the thing; you're right. Believe me after lugging around the ever bloated Age of Ultron (will get there soon), it's BEYOND a breath of fresh air to get something as light and simple as Ant-Man: the Diet Coke of Marvel movies (Marvel Lite if you will) but my LORD, if you're gonna go for comedy, at LEAST strike even a FEW jokes since there are more than enough reasons this shoulda been a homerun for Marvel.
And believe me, I'm not nagging. It's you guys who complained up and down about the inevitable flaws of Ultron and while yes, I found it to be mildly disappointing, it had enough going for it to drive me to buy the bluray steelbook so believe me, I'm not one of those out-witha-pitchfork, trying to kill Marvel, DC-otherside-of-the-fence folk. I'm ALL for both sides and I'm ALL for love and war whether you're the comic book movie that's dark and gritty or the comic book movie that's funny and self aware. In fact, what I respect most about Ant-Man and the boys at Marvel is that they KNOW not everything is The Dark Knight. Rag on it or praise it all you want, but you can't argue that one of Man of Steel's biggest kryptonites was the fact that Superman was left sitting in Nolan's Batman-caped shadow; EVERYONE has been using TDK as a template for not just comic book movies, but action movies everywhere and people are finally realizing that the formula doesn't always work and for Marvel to take their films in the literal opposite direction (Ant-Man feels more like a Saturday morning animated rerun than a dark, suspenseful thriller [and it should; that's the damn point]), they're the only comic book movie studio to nail "getting it right," but upon viewing the film, it's also abundantly clear that the stainless, steeless, bulletproof paint that Marvel's been wearing for seven years now is finally really starting to show signs of wear and tear. Yes, this enormous franchise is flawed (what franchise ISN'T? (Lord of the Rings doesn't count, okay whatever, it's a rare occasion) but up until now the films have at least kept a superb balance of story (eh), light humor and real character in order to drive each comic book off the pages but where even the worst entries in the series have enough redeemable qualities to have a pulse (at least Iron Man 2's action set pieces were memorable), Ant-Man is almost completely lifeless, and I have a couple theories as to why it ended up that way.
For starters, as the fans know, there was an enormous dispute during production between Marvel Studios and critically acclaimed, cult-followed director Edgar Wright. Wright, walking into the project with Shaun of the Dead and Scott Pilgrim on his shoulders, wanted to do the film with the specific vision he saw fit while Marvel attempted to coax Wright into a more by-the-books script that stayed within the boundaries and guidelines of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (a dilemma that plagued Joss Whedon as well during the filming of the Avengers sequel [again, more on that later]) but unlike Joss reconciling with the studio, here Wright walked from the project and with Wright gone, it shows, and it shows TERRIBLY. Now, is that to say the film isn't rich and humorless? Not exactly. The movie has very brief (and I mean brief) but solid moments that show glimpses of what could have been with a full-out, Wright-written picture but because of those glimpses of Wright, the end result sheds some real tragedy here and it's obvious as to why. The whole movie feels like an ant-sized story being slapped with a giant-sized 'what-if' and makes it all the more of an effort to sit through because of it; the potential was simply outstanding.
The other VERY big hole in the film's production over all, again in my humble opinion (fanboys, shut it for two seconds) is that the the filmmakers CLEARLY have no idea how to use Paul Rudd properly. Now let me take a couple steps back before I say anything too out of line. For one, I absolutely LOVE Paul Rudd; I think when used properly, the man is a comedic goldmine of talent and it's nearly impossible to not like him. For another, I completely support the decision to try and turn him into a blockbuster because he's likable and charming enough, while keeping the sharp humor in tact, so that he could pull it all off like his future co-stars before him (Robert Downey Jr. anyone?) but the most frustrating part about watching Rudd on screen was that it truly felt like someone was trying to stick a Judd Appatow character in the middle of the Marvel Universe. Now like I said, I believe the stars can be funny but Rudd's usual antics; his childish snickering; his rude, random one-liners, his nonchalant mannerisms; his stoner-like gaze into nothingness; while they normally hit home runs for those types of sophomoric comedies, they just don't work here. Don't get me wrong, Rudd had some solid one-liners (especially with Mike Douglas, with whom he shared excellent chemistry with btdubs) but in the end, there was too much throwaway, excessive Rudd and oddly enough, some of it just wasn't funny. It was weird; it was out of place; it was as if someone used cut-and-paste dialogue from Appatow or even worse, told Rudd to improvise, without any legitimate direction. Now, not to bash Peyton Reed for directing flicks such as The Break Up, or Bring It On, put perhaps Rudd's style of humor just doesn't work for his directing (not for a comic book anyway). Now I know many would disagree with me right now but if I'm being honest, Rudd has phenomenal potential and most of it is wasted here.
Now, all that to say, there are a couple saving graces here (and I do only mean a couple). I want to stop focusing on the bad so much because I honestly really did KIND of enjoy the flick, but I need to gloss over the negative. We're gonna skip over the details regarding the embarrassing excuse for a fight sequence between Ant and the Falcon, outside Avengers headquarters (yes folks, I understand it's supposed to be funny but it's really dysmal to watch), and we reeeally don't need to dive into the fact that the best (and probably funniest) sequence of the film involved a Thomas the Tank Engine play set that was completely ruined by the previews, and instead we're gonna focus on the good.
Save for the cartoonish villain, proving once again Marvel's villains are not nearly as rewarding as their heroes (save for Loki of course), as well as the exhausting been-there-done-that final battle ending, the characters and sequences were able to shine just enough to get the film's feet off the ground. Like I said, Mike Douglas shared excellent chemistry with Rudd (and he's great in most things), while Evangeljne Lilly did nothing as usual, outside of looking attractive while sporting an odd bowl cut of sorts. The best characters by far were Rudd's gang of misfit friends who go into detailed stories about information being passed on from one person to the next, to the next (in quick cut fashion, clearly done in Wright style) but everything else is kinda just there for the purpose of being there, whether it's paying homage to something more important or propelling the story forward so we can get to the Civil War preview after the credits (which ends up being the most rewarding thing about the film).
And the film is entertaining for what it is. What it ends up being is a whole lot of nonsense for a franchise that's already come so far and yet reminds us to lay back and focus on the little things (pun intended I think), and that's what Ant-Man's mission ultimately is; to remind us it's not all about this heavy-handed end of the world-Thanos business; but that there's things like Black Panther, and an actual teenaged Spider-Man who can do actual acrobats, on the way; reminding us that amidst the phenomenal special effects (not kidding, the shrinking stuff is really cool and REALLY tastefully done), and failed attempts at complete belly laughs (hey, they tried), not all movies need to be The Dark Knight (see that? Bringin' us full circle!) and Ant-Man reminds us that not all Marvel movies need to be Iron Man... But they should have at least aimed for Incredible Hulk...
Grade: C-
27) Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation
Oh Tom Cruise, how there's not much to say about you.
This one's gonna be easier than the others because it divides its audience pretty much based on selling the movie. Here's how we split: Fan of Tom Cruise? Fan of the Mission Impossible movies? No to both?? There you have it; it's not for you. If you're a fan of either though, you might wanna stick around for Rogue Nation.
Now, as a fan of most of the Mission movies (except we can all go ahead and forget about John Woo: the movie, starring Tom Cruise peaking at his douchiest) and as someone who RESPECTS Tom Cruise when he's good (never said I liked the guy), I'm ALL about these movies considering that they're kiiiind of getting better which each sequel (again, without the hiccup of M:I2).
Critically acclaimed director Brian De Palma gave us the first Mission movie almost 20 years ago (seriously time, chill out). To this day no other movie in this franchise has felt more like a spy movie than that first outing. Slowing down on the action and speeding up the suspense and twists, that first film is arguably the most "Mission Impossible" movie there ever was. It was a great first step into this world. Ving Rhames was relevant. Jon Voigt proves again, he's an awesome actor. Tom Cruise lights up the screen with that famous scene where he hangs by a wire trying not to sweat on the room filled with alarms that would go off if they defected ants (overexaggerating but no really, that scene is one of the best in the entire franchise). And thus, Tom Cruise was born again not as a scientologist but as Ethan Hunt: action star.
We breeze past M:I2 like it never happened and cue twist-ending entrapaneur JJ Abrams who gave us an INSANELY enjoyable M:I3 featuring the late Phillip Seymour Hoffam as the franchise's best villain and a rousing adventure of adrenaline filled action (that's actually purposeful; no silly sunglasses exploding in slow motion). It wasn't quite a spy movie more than Cruise getting in costumes and conning people into thinking he's someone important so he could steal important information on some important person or some important plan; either way, has to feel important.
And while M:I3 is great, something unexpected and yet not surprising at all happened. Incredibles director Brad Bird, adventure entrapaneur, stepped in and made what is arguably the best M:I film to date. From Ethan's signature Sinatra breakout from prison to smokin hot Paula Patton to Simon f**king Pegg stealing the show with gadgets on gadgets; to ALL the action set pieces and ALL of Cruise's real-life stunts including the man opting to jump off the world's tallest building at the ripe age of 50 (which he actually did) nearly everything about Ghost Protocal works in the same adventurous way The Incredibles worked 10 years ago. But I'm not gonna dive anymore into it because we're here to talk about the follow up; the latest outing from the IMF (impossible mission force) and honestly, the best way I can describe Rogue Nation is basically saying it's the Spectre of the Mission movies (and no, that doesn't mean "so it sucked" so shut up).
What I MEAN by that is that it FEELS like a direct sequel to the last movie in all the positive aspects and yet it inevitably falls in the shadow of said previous film entry in which most people will remember it for being "not as good as the other ones." Yes, there are plentiful twists, turns and unexpected occurrances to entertain you; there are cool gadgets, wicked stunts performed by Mr. Cruise himself and yet the whole thing indeed just feels like a bad case of "been there done that." It's not necessarily a bad thing but since the M:I movies happen to be SO vastly different in their entertainment value, the filmmakers are gonna have to step it up in order to make M:I6 better than ever. Only time will tell right? So until then, enjoy Rogue Nation as a 'less-good Ghost Protocal-much better action movie than most action movies of 2015.' At bare minimum, at least you won't be bored.
Grade: B
26) I Am Chris Farley /
25) Going Clear: Scientology & the Prison of Belief
25) Going Clear: Scientology & the Prison of Belief
I'm gonna cheat for this next one and combine movies because it's just too easy. Both are documentaries and both are worth talking about.
The first is a little film called I Am Chris Farley; a much needed tribute to a lovable actor and one of the best things to ever happen to SNL.
The film is a bittersweet send off for Farley that sort of gives legitimate closure for anyone who's been mourning him all these years (me). It doesn't all quite work as a documentary persé; there's literally no reason for the movie to exist outside of the fact that it's a tribute for all the fans out there. In fact I wouldn't really recommend to anyone unless they are indeed a fan of Farley, SNL and really share a passion with that era of wacky slapstick.
The movie does everything you'd expect; it dives into Chris' brief life featuring dozens of interviews with his brilliant SNL co-stars from the glory days of the 90s who get emotional talking about him while end up laughing out loud thinking about all the asinine stunts that man pulled. "Nobody could take a fall like Chris," they'll tell you. The movie will make you wish the actor didn't go so soon and if you had any shred of enjoyment for the man or his work, you'll enjoy this flick, even if you only watch it once.
The OTHER documentary on the other hand is bar-none probably one of the top 10 most important documentaries you'll ever watch; maybe even top 5.
I'm not the biggest documentary fan but I'm always intrigued by people who wanna tell stories about real-life occurrances. That said, while I love being swept away by fiction; scripts filled with actors guided by directors shooting a story, who want to pull you out of reality, I'll ALWAYS remember when a documentary has really moved me whether it's the gut wrenching Dear Zachary (which should never be seen more than once) or the eye-opening look at Food Inc and the real-life horrors at the foods we consume every single day; yes folks Going Clear has done it for me; it's left that impression on me that takes a phenomenal feat to be able to have me not only truly remember the film but to have me actually talking about it months and months later.
And what makes Going Clear so memorable is that this is the first time in human-history that the truth about Scientology has been exposed for all the world to see. Sure that history only spans about 60 years, maybe, but being that Scientology has been one of the most well kept secret religions to ever exist, learning about this madness in 2015 makes the release of this film a national, if not worldwide, phenomenon. It's something that must be talked about and a film that must be seen by nearly everyone. The exposure of these maniacs should be documented in history books and no, unfortunately I'm not talking about the aliens bit.
What makes GC so believable and so f**king terrifying is that SO many people have been influenced by it the way that so many Christians have convinced themselves that there will be a second coming of Jesus Christ.
Now don't mistake me as you read my seemingly outlandish remarks. I'm not bashing or comparing religions nor am I giving GC the number one spot on 2015 movies, but I won't deny the sheer important factor in telling the world about it (or at least my opinions on the matter). And no, I'm not gonna get into religious debate about Scientology. I refuse to bash the religion or even comment on it because I don't bring religion or politics into entertainment. If you wanna make a movie about it, I'll tell you what I thought about the movie (clearly), but one thing we can all agree on, aliens aside, is that the treatment of the individuals this religion has affected, to a degree is not only catastrophic but straight up damaging. Between super stars like Tom Cruise to the little people who are speaking out for the first time, this religion is a global phenomenon that has clearly affected hundreds of thousands of people.
Between the secret swearing; the unbreakable commitments; the oaths of silence and maniacal behaviors in order to belong part of this group of chosen individuals, proves to be toxic, harmful and just purely insane. It's the reason people NEED to see this movie, even if you only watch it once. You literally won't forget it.
I Am Chris Farley - Grade: B-
Going Clear - Grade: A+
24) Joy
One word: David O. Russel; Two words actually: Jennifer Lawrence. Okay, neither of of these make up the amount of words that can be said in order to form the perfect cocktail of a movie. But I'm sad to report that where Russel and Lawrence are usually a powerhouse of a director-actor combo (Oscar winning Silver Linings Playbook and American Hustle), they seem to miss the mark almost entirely in their latest film which ironically couldn't be any more joyless than its title suggests, and no I'm not talking about the story.
Let me be clear and only because I have such a strong passion for Russel and his outstanding talents letting out his cage of some of the best talent this age of Hollywood is waiting to break out of.
I've loved the man's work since Three Kings when Mark Whalberg was a mere twinkle in David's eye. I thought The Fighter, Playbook and even Hustle were among the ranks of some of the BEST movies of their years; FINALLY a director who could give Christian Bale MORE to do other than BE Batman, training an incredibly believable Oscar winner who channeled his schizophrenic days of The Machinist; FINALLY someone who sparked the actual raw talent in Jennifer Lawrence rather than showcase her in the stale, cardboard Hunger Games earning her her first Oscar and yes, FINALLY, someone who knows how to stick big names together, give Bradley Cooper ACTUAL work to do and did a complete satire on the conning gangster era of corrupt money, flashy jewelry and so many jerry curls (it appears many people missed the point of American Hustle) but I found this man to be an actual modern day creative GENIUS of film. He wrote characters that interacted with each other like you were watching an ACTUAL family fight in your own living room; his use of situational dialogue and quiet direction in his brilliant actors were enough to deem him one of the best writer-directors of this century (it's not as long as it sounds; just cool to say). And honestly, I'm not gonna flag Russel for making one dud; hell, if you can even call this a dud. And that's the most frustrating thing about Joy. It's not BAD; it's just not up to speed with nearly ANY of Russel's work, and for a movie that's pretty much Jennifer Lawrence: The Movie! You think the end result would be a LOT better. And unfortunately it can't go without mention.
As a lover of things I love (how proper of me), I'm usually in denial when things get stale. I stick up for most of the X-Men movies, yes even The Last Stand and Origins: Wolverine because even if it's just for entertainment value, it's REALLY hard for me to take something into canon and say that it's bad (I can admit when it's not very good). I've found personal, mental loopholes to accept some sequels as simply non-existent. Believe me, it's much easier for me to say "oh, you mean Mission: Impossible 3? The sequel to Mission: impossible??" because when it comes to the wonderfully memorable Mission: Impossible 2, it's much easier for me to say "it didn't happen," rather than accept John Woo taking a huge dump on Tom Cruise's face (though some would argue his face already looked that way to begin with)... But we're not here to talk about Mission: Impossible. That happens in a different paragraph.
My point is, Joy isn't bad enough to dismiss from Russel's filmography; in fact, there's plenty to enjoy about Joy that I'll have to defend if I'm gonna bring it down at all.
For one, Lawrence is outstanding as always. At this stage of the game she's America's sweetheart; every man wants her and every woman wants to be her (or at least be her friend). She's just impossible to not like. Sure you don't need to swoon over like most people (me) but you can't deny there are things to like about the chick; She's a strong independent woman who don't need no man. Alright, getting off track here.
Lawrence is phenomenal and yet you can't help but feel like you're watching her in an improv class or something. Nearly EVERY scene she's in, she's raging all these emotions towards things big and small. It's as if she's possessing the characters on the soap opera shows her mother is glued to. Every action and reaction Joy has is outlandish and dramatic. I understand the history and how it was hard for women to just be women even merely a few decades ago, but Lawrence is acting as if she was memorizing story boards instead of going off a well written script for her to collaborate with her co-stars. And that's where my first big complaint comes in: the lack of co-stars.
Now I'm not saying the film doesn't have a big cast (nor does it need one); everyone as big as De Niro or as small as Bradley Cooper shows up. It has enough of the Russel veterans to be acceptable as a "Russel movie," the only thing is severely lacks is the chemistry between any of these actors because the spotlight is solely on Lawrence and without those group dynamics, the film loses its footing pretty quickly.
About a half hour in it started sinking in. We follow Lawrence in struggle after struggle; De Niro isn't around as much and at some point you can't help but wait for Bradley Cooper to show up. I admit it; I was bored. And not by the story; the story seems to be intriguing for what little (but significant) it has to say. But I was missing the actor-on-actor dynamics; the tension; the humor; the drama; the electric feel of Russel's normal work; it was all missing. And yet Lawrence, like I said, has never seemed more dramatic than she does here. People can slam American Hustle all they want (like I said, I think most people missed the point) but one thing no one can deny is that the entire cast had MAJOR equal chemistry. Their chemistry was the entire fuel which crackled a film which essentially had a ginormous plot that boiled down to nothing. The biggest complaint you'll hear about Hustle is that "nothing happened," but as much as those characters planned and plotted and yapped about "the Shiek," or the Sherman suite at the Plaza hotel, the movie was NEVER about the top secret "plot" it was ALWAYS and WILL always be about the characters and Joy lacked just about every character, with the exception of Joy of course, that made all of Russel's previous films not just outstanding but truly memorable.
As far as Joy's plot, people have compared its personality to the idea of a non-canon continuation of Hustle; a movie about nothing but a satire on the time period and the way people helped change and leave an impression on the era they were living in; for Cooper, that was once making sure his jerry curls looked snazzy for the disco, for Joy it's about (essentially) standing up for women's rights. Now don't get it twisted, Joy isn't about women taking a stand for being able to vote or get more money or anything too political but Joy essentially strives to be seen equal with men as a salesman; as a salesPERSON. Joy wants nothing more than to take care of her family while being able to invent something and defend money and ownership to the values that rightfully belong to her whether it's over a mop or her family.
Yes you'll hear people say "it's a movie about a mop," and while they're not wrong it's also a movie about a woman building her way up as an inspirational fighter so that her damn mop can be sold and there be no copyright or distribution or money issues over it dammit (MOPS NEED LOVE TOO)! Yes, the movie is about a mop and yes it's more than that but honestly, unless you see the movie all the way though (at more than two hours), it doesn't matter how much Russel has to show; by showcasing Lawrence and pretty much only Lawrence and showcasing Lawrence fighting to sell mops there's only so much O. that's desired for in that Russel, that the man attempts to punch in all of our chests.
Because at the end of the day, Joy's life is like a roller coaster and as bad as things get, there's really nothing actually at stake. Joy's situational endeavors CONSTANTLY flip-flop from beginning to end of the film and as all good movies are SUPPOSED to flip-flop, Joy's situations become almost predictable (SPOILER ALERT for anyone actually interested in seeing this but not really because I'm sort of joking):
Joy has kids! but Joy's marriage doesn't exactly work out... Joy wants to sell mops! but she gets mocked for her idea... Joy gets the opportunity to sell mops! but she doesn't get any love.. Joy goes bankrupt... But then Joy gets a second shot at selling the mops! Joy has success!! Joy gets money!!! Joy's relative dies... Joy gets lots of money! But then Joy goes broke.. Joy puts up her second mortgage... Joy goes REALLY broke.... But then Joy finds out she's being scammed(?)... Joy gets revenge?? Kinda??? Joy gets money again... !
SPOILER OVER (?)
And without exaggerating, trying to keep that as spoiler-free as I could without driving my point into the ground, that's LITERALLY the whole movie.
It's not BAD or necessarily predictable but every time Joy's situation goes bad, it gets fixed in the vey next scene. We don't have enough time feeling bad for Joy because her life is so up and down and it all happens so quick. And I understand it's a movie so it needs to have a limited runtime (and by the end, you'll be relieved when the movie's finally over) but it's a little ironic that Joy's life KINDA plays out like the soap operas her family is addicted to. It's all SO overly dramatic and amounts to SO, so little. And it's a shame because between Lawrence's acting (strong though ironically not her best), the cinematography, the soundtrack; ALL things Russel has nailed in the past, all these positive aspects can't save the film from the lack of the washed out script and the aggressive but misguided direction. It's as if Russel found an old boring story and wanted to do a satire on it. For those reasons the film works (hell it was nominated for Golden Globes' Best Comedy/Musical); It works for many of the same reasons that Hustle works except Hustle has just about everything going for it that Joy lacks.
It almost feels like an incomplete film or the beginning of something much bigger; something with a legitimate purpose, which is super ironic considering Joy Mangano was KIND of an important real-life person and yet a movie about fictional con artists from the 70s is INFINITELY more interesting. I dunno. I see what Russel was trying to do and by most other filmmaker's standards, Joy is a fine movie; but this is Russel we're talking about. I'm not one for comparing previous projects; each movie should just be its own thing; but Russel's set his bar so unbelievably high, scoring Oscars and nominations for everything he touches, that it's almost impossible to not be disappointed by Joy. Even if you end up accepting the movie as its own thing (and on its own, like I've been shoving down your throats, it's NOT BAD) it's just kinda stale. We already know Lawrence is good and we already KNOW Russel can show believable actor-on-actor dynamics when he tries, but in the end, beyond all its successes and all of its flaws, it's still just a movie about a mop.
Grade: C
23) Sisters
Tiny Fey and Amy Poehler: Two of the biggest female names in comedy today. It's nearly impossible to not know who they are; SNL alumni, brilliantly self aware, tongue-in-cheek writers and arguably two of some of the most revolutionary comedians for women in Hollywood. AND they're best friends. And when the two of them are together they are an unstoppable powerhouse of comedic force; in fact, it almost seems too perfect of a concoction that would make it impossible for their movies to suck. At least you'd think that, right?
Before I delve into it, no I didn't think Sisters was bad but I won't beat around the bush. For Fey and Poehler, it could be better; SHOULD be better; much MUCH better. I don't know if it's because they don't have enough creative freedom to write the scripts they should be writing or if the improv schtick doesn't quite roll as well as it does with the likes of Will Ferrell and John C. Reiley.
But then again, it sesmed like Sisters at least had (somewhat of) a script; at least a LOOSE script with morals and values amongst all the debauchery (which there's plenty), where Step Brothers is literally Adam McKay saying to Ferrell and Riley, "OK! You're step brothers. You want nothing more than to kill each other but then you find common ground and become soul mates. GO!" and let them do their thing because they naturally roll off of each other's one liners and situations so frighteningly well, that they could probably pull off an improv stage show based on the film and it would never-not sell out.
But getting back on track and sticking with Fey and Poehler, there is NO disrespect to their chemistry. The sparks are there and very well lit and even though they share no resemblance, the two really could be believable sisters and it's about time someone stuck them together again. However, like Baby Mama, you just can't help but wanting the movie to simply be better. And while the end result of Sisters isn't any form of a failure due to its brilliant leads, you can't really blame director Jason Moore who nailed it with Pitch Perfect or screenwriter Paula Pell because she writes for SNL, the very playground Fey and Poehler's success grew up on. But the end result is in fact head scratching because while there are plenty of belly laughs (yes, I laughed out loud but that really means nothing), the writing is simply lazy.
So maybe Pell is to blame but you can't get away with feeling like you were cheated out of what should have been more than a "house party movie" or more cleverly, "a frat-house movie for old people," because even though the getting-old morals ring clear as a bell, we've seen this movie before. Many, many times.
Essentially the film boils down to Fey and Poehler throwing one last party in the house they grew up in before their parents sell it. They invite their entire high school senior class and then some, everyone now old and lame, but then the drugs and kegs and Asians show up and all hell breaks loose... And that's literally the entire film. 80% of the movie is this ginormous party where everything goes wrong and there's about 20% of valuable morals squeezed in with tongue-in-cheek humor about getting older, moving on and taking responsibility for your actions as an adult. The problem is that majority chunk of the film where all the crazy sh*t happens at this party. Characters get trashed. Characters accidentally consume drugs they didn't intend on consuming. Things break. Things get destroyed. It's tiresome even writing about it and while Fey and Poehler truly crackle with their lit chemistry, the situational humor is simply rehashed, gross, crude and unnecessary, even for comedic sake. Not that the movie is too offensive (though not for the faint hearted; it bears a hard R rating with its never ending excessive jokes about sex, drugs and everything else you wouldn't want grandma to hear about), but it's just ridiculously outlandish and all TOO familiar, in the end making you laugh but more with pity than with surprising humor.
But don't take it the wrong way, there are a solid few moments that almost drove me to tears (one moment in particular involving our sisters' parents trying to play off like they weren't in the middle of having sexy time in their condo. There's a seashell involved. You will laugh out loud at it). There are PLENTY of laugh-out-loud moments but you laugh at them like you're laughing at an old favorite sophomoric comedy that you've seen a thousand times. The jokes are boiled down to the situational; almost all of them, and it's not the kind of movie you're gonna watch over and over again because the situations that happen are just better in other movies.
The movie isn't BAD by any means. It's just a sad case of could-and-should be better. It's brilliant at what it gets right and Fey and Poehler prove that they're a legitimate powerhouse of comedic women and the end result proves their talent even if the movie feels talentless sometimes. In the end, it is what it is. And what it is is crude. And it involves pushing crude women into the spotlight for a couple hours. It'll almost remind you of Bridesmaids only it will feel more like a so-so spinoff of Bridesmaids. And in the end, when you're reminded of Bridesmaids, you're gonna go back and watch Bridesmaids. It's science.
Grade: C+
22) Terminator: Genisys
21) Furious 7
In case you were wondering why people can't stop talking about the latest dino-mite blockbuster (and why it's breaking The Avengers' box office numbers), look no further because I will do the best of my ability to walk you through the reasons as to why this just might be the biggest surprise hit of the entire Summer.
First things first, and arguably the most important notion worth noting, is the nostalgia factor. No matter which way you look at the film, it's a Jurassic Park movie which is something worth pointing out in and of itself. For one, it's not only been fourteen years since the last (and almost franchise-killing) JP movie, Jurassic Park III, and make no mistake, Jurassic Park III is absolutely terrible and the epitome of a craptastic movie. JP3 commits the sin of not only being a bad third entry in a trilogy (a curse that has plagued trilogies since The Godfather) but it puts a salty taste in one's mouth when looking at Jurassic Park of all things as a franchise. Because what it all harks back to is that glorious first carnivorous incarnation, and it's nothing short of near-flawless. Based off of Michael Chrichton's popular novel, Steven Spielberg brought to life one of the literal greatest movies of the 20th century. With groundbreaking technology in computers (and f**king puppets!) and an intense and immensely entertaining story, the original JP not only still holds up but it's still the king of dinosaurs when it comes to the archaeological dig of blockbuster films. No one needs to refresh anyone's memory of just how good the original Jurassic Park is but if you haven't seen it in a while, I strongly suggest you rewatch it (because it's quite literally that good). Flash forward through an underrated sequel (that's sadly just not great) and like I said, a third entry that almost deemed this franchise extinct, and here we are 22 years to the day after the original dino-tastic flick stomped its way through theaters and we're left with an entirely different beast all on its own.
With newcomer Colin Trevorrow in the director's chair and Spielberg once again in the producer's chair (which means nothing since he "produced" JP3), things were skeptical from the start. All the trailers promised new so-so looking special effects (1993 effects are arguably still better in most places), seemingly wildly looking eccentric action sequences and a Frankenstein-of-a-plot involving some failed experiment of a brand new dinosaur, and just about nothing in these teases of a return to Isla Nubar seemed truly exhilarating in the way the original quest to the island of misfit people-who-get-eaten-by-dinos seemed, over two decades ago. But what I respect about Trevorrow's decisions and ultimately his final product is that he made something that, while paying nods to the original, is literally and ironically a beast on its own two feet.
Trevorrow has said in interviews that the original Park is one of his favorite movies and the last thing he wanted to do was copy Spielberg's style because he's simply not Steven Spielberg. Now with that, when you venture out into the jungles of Isla Nubar for another tour of this doomed park, I want you to watch it with the 20153D glasses beer goggles that the filmmakers insist you wear when watching this new flick, since apparently there are a few ground rules established on this new venture out to the park, that will eventually help your experience become more enjoyable:
1) First things first, remove as much of the Jurassic Park franchise from your mind will still keeping the original nods in tact while enjoying a trip down memory lane.
No seriously, the new film couldn't be more different than any of the previous JP films including the iconic original. Save for the fact that Trevorrow has blatantly said that the new film's canon completely ignores the second and third entry (and for good reason too), World's established universe couldn't be more different in terms of style, tone, cinematography, acting, editing, you name it, from any of the previous films. In fact, it's shockingly different and almost frustratingly skeptical at first. Our new characters (ridiculously obnoxious kids) start at their home during Christmas time and end up on tropical Isla Nubar literally within the first five minutes and everything is painfully rushed save for the nods to John Williams' famous score. Once the movie picks up it progressively gets better (and there's some sprinkled nostalgia circa 1993 sprinkled around the middle act) but keep in mind the film is just a totally different end product. Spielberg is out of the director's chair and it desperately shows. Colin Trevorrow knows this; his script knows this; and once the audience knows this, it will make the whole thing a lot easier to swallow. Which brings me to my next point:
2) Treat Jurassic World the same way you treat any of the later Fast and Furious sequels.
This one's not a joke. Towards the end of the second act; somewhere betweenPterodactyls Pteranodons terrorizing the innocent tourists (and Jimmy Buffett) and a helicopter of bad guys flying over the sea while a grizzly looking gunman with beard and cigar shoots one of these flying dinos out of the sky (maybe he didn't have a cigar but he might as well sport one), I had a painfully sharp realization that this movie's just gonna do whatever the hell it wants to do whether we like it or not, but more importantly, I was still having fun. Yes, the stakes are upped and the action is outstanding but this is just simply not Jurassic Park as I stated (please refer to the first bullet point) but because Trevorrow embraces that, he embraces it to every degree. Whether it's helicopters crashing, gyrosphere's spinning out of control and carnivores eating the sh*t out of some poor hapless sons a' b**ches, the movie almost never once truly takes itself seriously (especially in the horribly goofy though still fist-pumpingly awesome final act). In FACT, by the film's final climax, you won't be able to watch it without having a cheesy smile on your face (or without shaking your head). There's a line that's most definitely crossed towards the end of the film's climax that's just a tad too outrageous and impressively stupid. But before you shake your fists in furious anger, remember that the highest April gross of all time is now a 2015 movie that features Vin Diesel leading a crew of people that PARACHUTE out of a PLANE, IN CARS. No one in their right mind can watch a movie like that without laughing at it (at least on the inside) and Jurassic World is essentially no different than a Furious sequel and the reason behind it is that, again, the film never stops being fun. Have some Godforsaken FUN with the movie; accept that it's NOT even remotely close to Spielberg's classic; let it entertain you and I can almost promise that you will walk out of the theater a more pleased moviegoer.
3) Embrace the cliches, embrace the irony and evolve with a new era of a prehistoric age in modern society.
After writing all this nonsense, I now respect Colin Trevorrow as a director, even if he's very, very low on the respect list when it comes to directors. One of the main selling points for the man and why he wanted to tell this story was based on the notion that in the technologically advanced age as evolved as the world we live in in 2015, Trevorrow was akin to the idea of an image where a kid is bored and texting while standing in front of a giant window with a T-Rex behind it. It sold him and it gave an ironic birth to his storytelling that even he might not be too aware of.
Now, I tend to give directors too much credit sometimes when I'm on board with their works but lesbihonest... A story about a group of scientists who use technology to recreate dinosaurs and plan a new attraction for their dino-mite-theme-park as a means by creating something "bigger, scarier, more teeth," ("cooler" as BD Wong so gracefully puts it) and in the end, isn't it slightly ironic that these characters, the park owners, feel that their tourist-audience is bored with dinosaurs and have a thirst for something new to keep them on their toes? In the end, isn't that WHY we not only demanded a new Jurassic Park movie but why we're also so split on it?
I've heard every single kind of criticism on Jurassic World from "best movie of the year," "better than the original," to "an abysmal mess," "one of the worst movies of all time," a movie somehow worth seeing MULTIPLE times in the theater and also a movie that disrespects the memory of Spielberg and ruins his original classic film. People can't decide what they want and they will ALWAYS nitpick because as all good moviegoers know, you "can't touch an original!" The entire Indominous Rex plot line is a ginormous representation of the industry and audiences wanting and "needing" more in this age where we're already so damn spoiled. One of the characters who works at the park says something among the lines of "they're dinosaurs, isn't that enough?" when in actuality, he's just a mouthpiece for the creators, possibly even for Spielberg, saying "we gave you something groundbreaking; how do you really want us to top it?" and Jurassic World is their answer.
Is this truly the best movie of the year? Absolutely not; not even close (for me, that trophy is currently held by Mad Max and the only movie I see dethroning it is Episode VII later this year but only time will tell) but is it a good movie? Yes. Ridiculous? Of course! But in order to serve a Spielbergly spoiled audience, we truly did need something bigger, scarier and more teeth. I WILL say this and it's not necessarily a backhanded compliment to World but there are no gymist kids who dropkick any raptors here; no T-Rex's stampeding the streets of L.A. and NO cringeworthy scripts, goofy special effects, Spinosauruses killing any T-Rexes or ridiculous raptors who communicate with humans and show sympathy... Okay so some of that is a lie.
AND ON THAT LIE, I want to say that the real stars of the film are in fact Charlie, Delta, Echo, Blue and alpha male Chris Pratt... They carried the film for much of the running time and are part of the reason that the last half hour kept me on the literal edge of my seat.
So BEFORE you go out bashing Jurassic World, have some damn fun but don't try and make it out to be a wanna-be A+ of a new cinematic classic here folks... Chris Pratt rides a motorcycle through the jungle leading a pack of trained velociraptors to take down a cloned Frankenstein abomination of a T-Rex that was "cooked up in a lab"... If that doesn't sound like a damn good B movie to you then you clearly don't know how to be entertained by the movies.
18) The Man From U.N.C.L.E.
16) Creed
14) Straight Outta Compton
22) Terminator: Genisys
In an age where sequels, prequels, reboots, remakes, references, homages, do-overs and semi-do-overs exist on the shoulders of some formerly more popular film or franchise in order to cash checks (i.e. Please see: Jurassic World, Furious 7, Avengers Age of Ultron, Star Wars The Force Awakens, Mad Max Fury Road, just to name a few), NONE of the former take the cash cow cake as loudly or as obnoxiously as this year's latest addition to the never-terminated Terminator franchise, Terminator Genisys.
That's right folks, there was a fifth Terminator film that came out this year (oh yeahhh) and rather than hitting the re-do button entirely (we'll get to the time travel stuff in a moment), the franchise instead attempts to stay within a (very loose) canon of at least the first two Terminator films, and hey look, Arnold Schwarzenegger is back (and OLDER THAN EVER)! Yes kids, there's quite a bit to talk about with the latest T-800-gun-totin', time-travelin', zero-sense-makin' (and zero-f**ks-given) Terminator flick and at the exact same time, there's really nothing new to say. What can honestly be said that's worth value, time, words? We're talking about g**damn Terminator 5 folks. It's outRAGEOUS that we live in a world where there are FIVE movies about the time traveling Terminator universe; five basic attempts to stop Judgment Day and five times the attempt to smash the box office using old-ass Arny Schwarz. I could sit here for a long time and just talk about how ridiculous it is that essentially Terminator 5 is being discussed about in the same word vomit as Fast & Furious 7, but I won't because I'm already starting to run around in circles. INSTEAD, I'll actually attempt to dive in why this latest T-flick actually works (as much as it doesn't) because I gotta be honest... It's the best Terminator film SINCE 1992's T2: Judgment Day. Now, is that saying much going up against the crappy carbon copy T3 and the godawful gritty but soulless Terminator Salvation? ABSOLUTELY not. However, there are enough saving graces to give the film a legitimate recommendation (and I'm not kidding). So let's start the show.
For starters, right off the bat, the film is a painfully obvious homage to the original James Cameron classic. Everything about the atmosphere of the film REEKS of that blue filtered 1984 sci-fi robot-violent universe. The cinematography, set design; the dark, dystopian grittiness, it's all there. The inevitable suspicion sneaks upon me: Could it be..? Is it possible that someone's made a Terminator film that could play as the true third movie in the franchise? A trilogy capper that could actually make me forget T3 and Salvation as if they never happened? Oh wait, there's Jai Courtney being TERRIBLE like he is in everything. Alright, continuing...
Within the first ten minutes, not even, the film shows us the infamous time travel machine that people and androids alike appear from, buck-naked, as they travel through blue, sci-fi lightning to a new time period. Following the T-800 (now brilliantly photoshopped with Arnie's face on a new body builder to make him look like his 1980s original self) is crappy Jai Courtney now playing the role of Kyle Reese. The original events of the T-800's arrival happen almost shot for shot, beat by beat, as they did in 1984 but then suddenly everything changes because, time travel (because, reasons). Emilia Clarke shows up as a younger, hotter (though not quite stronger) version of Sarah Connor (though no one can beat Linda Hamilton, LESBIHONEST), someone says "come with me if you want to live," there's some cool references to the liquid metal androids (yada-yada-yada) and we're off on a new adventure that jumps from 1984 to 2017 and beyond.
Now, if I were to continue to describe the events of this film, I'd get clobbered. No one would ever read my sh*t again (how any of you are still here is a mystery to me sometimes) but I'm also gonna do my best to avoid major plot points simply because this is bar-none one of the most convoluted time travel movies I think I've ever seen. Ever. Now I get it; I totally understand what the goal was with this movie's intentions in the time travel nonsense. Essentially, the filmmakers tried to pull an X-Men: Days of Future Past and use time travel as a method to erase old (and often very misguided) sequels while creating a new canon for any future installments so people can enjoy what they're watching as a standalone picture while keeping (mostly) everyone happy with the sloppy but somewhat consistent franchise. The PROBLEM with Genisys is that by creating a new timeline, we stay within the boundaries of the new story but when trying to even attempt to keep within the rules and subplots of even just the first two movies of the franchise, the time travel is all over the place and can cause major brain damage to anyone who tries to piece it all together (long story short: it doesn't work). Genisys' biggest accomplishment in "fixing the story with time travel" is also the film's biggest flaw. There's a literal point, once our characters make their way to 2017 (which is when the end of the world is now supposed to happen, AKA New Judgment Day: Judgment Harder) where old Kyle Reese is meeting young Kyle Reese and there are jumbled memories and flashbacks and flashforwards, where you can't help but just throw your hands up and give up. No matter which way the writers attempt to justify it, and they attempt (a couple times), the movie's plot points make NO damn sense. Now cast that aside, and you'll start to have a good time watching.
Save for the overload of subpar CGI, bizarro character-changes, and that hot mess of a plot, there's actually quite a bit to enjoy here. For one, nearly the entire film rests on Arnie's shoulders. Unlike T3 where he was clearly being shoehorned into a crappy copy of T2, here Arnie's old man Terminator actually makes sense. Given the nickname Pops, Arnie's T-800 has been reprogrammed, at some point since or before 1984, where instead of the villainous killing machine he was in the original, he's here known as 'The Guardian,' essentially a much kinder, old-man version of who he was in T2. And as he states numerous times in the film, he's old, not obsolete; a very clear nod to the franchise itself, and honestly, amidst all my nagging about the convoluted time travel sh*t, it's easily the most fun movie to watch since Arnie was outrunning the T-1000 on a motorcycle wielding a shotgun with one hand in Judgment Day. Aside from Arnie, the supporting actors give their best; Emilia Clarke REALLY tries on the tough girl suit and can't quite fit, and Jason Clarke actually gives a pretty plausible spin to John Connor's new dark side, but they all pale in comparison to Schwarzenegger. Now, is his performance enough to actually literally carry the movie? Of course not, but luckily the writers (at some point) said f**k it, let's just have fun with the nonsense.
If I were to make a comparison to a franchise comeback attempt, I'd have to compare it to the inevitable Jurassic World; both films take an old, beloved franchise that features a phenomenal first movie with some rocky sequels, and attempts to make a new sequel while keeping a standalone movie on its own. Unfortunately, both films also suffer from a delirious case of déjavú or reliving an excellent ride except all of the ride's original twists and turns are either totally mimicked or replaced by less quality loop-de-loops. Look, I'm not necessarily bashing either film but it's clearly exhausting to try and revive an old fan base with a brand new environment and both of these films SLIGHTLY pull it off (Jurassic World does a slightly better job, if only because aside from the score and like two set pieces, the director threw out the original manual entirely and completely did his own thing with the formula). The tragedy here is that so much of Genisys tries to BE in line with the first two Terminator films and the reality is, without that gritty R-rated sci-if robot violence (the new flick is PG-13 and no more edgy than Real Steel, yes, the Rock-'Em Sock-'Em Robots movie starring Hugh Jackman) the movie is immediately in its own, smaller, subdued and subpar category.
But again, I GET IT; They needed to rebuild an audience and PG-13 will build bigger numbers because of the wider audience range; they needed an old face to go with the familiarity of the days of aught for diehards; they needed to use time travel to tie up loose ends while staying in canon with whatever-the-hell canon James Cameron attempted more than 20 years ago, I GET IT, but throw away all the flaws; treat this like you treated Jurassic World; let it pay cool yet crappy homage to the much superior film that came before it, and you JUST might have fun on this new robot of a ride; it's got thrills, swift action, some ACTUAL humor (not enough to be distracting but enough to keep the end-of-the-world crap from feeling too heavy), and honestly, it's ridiculously entertaining. Does the end get a little too bonkers? Absolutely. The last 20 min. of the movie is nothing but a headache, between two Terminators goin' at it in loud, obnoxious, CGI action while weaving in the stupid A.I. subplot of 'Genisys' (oh look, Matt Smith is KIND of a robot); it's complete ludicrous, but AGAIN, leave your brain at the door, because bullsh*t subplots aside, it's a FUN movie to watch.
And maybe that's why Jim Cameron himself has deemed this the unofficial, actual third movie in the franchise and the only one that lives up to his first two glorious films (at least there's hope for someone); perhaps it's the fact that big-budget directors are FINALLY starting to let up on the heavy, dark, gritty wannabe attitude towards their stories (not everything can be The Dark Knight nor should it), and honestly the fun shows and more importantly it shines; it not only shines but it COMPLETELY outglows the "dark and gritty" (yet empty) Terminator Salvation and honestly, looking at the direction the franchise was going, I'm glad someone even attempted to revive this old, not obselete, franchise and kept it from being totally annihilated into irreversible termination. Let's just hope the sequels (God willing) will do a better job to clean up this franchise even more.
Grade: C+
21) Furious 7
I can't even begin to talk about the seventh installment of the Fast and Furious franchise without sounding redundant, self aware and flat out ridiculous. There's no need for me to flesh out the history at this point. This is the sixth sequel to 2001's drag racing teen-beat action movie The Fast and the Furious starring the likes of an absurd Vin Diesel and a mediocre Paul Walker. And yet, somehow, some way, here we are fourteen years later mourning a loss of one of our pit crew and celebrating a finale of many absurd sorts.
To even begin to endeavor in the film's plot and history would come off as offensive. No one needs to read a plot summary or refreshment of any of these films in order to establish whether they're going to see the latest installment. Like I said with the sixth, if you need to read a review to determine whether or not you should attend a Fast and Furious sequel, you simply shouldn't be attending at all.
These movies are cake, folks; whipped cream. These movies are the epitome of mind-numbingly stupid action for the sake of giving audiences the adrenaline rush of action movies that's been going on since Schwarzenegger yelled "get to the chopper," roughly three decades ago. They exist to entertain and the most impressive aspect of these last three films is that they entertain to a degree that reaches unbearable heights (pun intended, you'll see), almost no limits and absolutely no sign of stopping any time soon, each installment being more rightfully absurd than the last.
But this last Fast and Furious entry is a special kind of absurd; it's a balls to the wall, logic out the window, rules out the door kind of absurd. With new horror-director craftsman James Wan at the helm of the director's chair, audiences are treated to a very special kind of absurd. Because, you see, with Wan taking control over this franchise he takes the stakes and the action to an unbelievable and often almost unbearable sense of ludicrous; a notion that rapper Ludicrous himself couldn't rap himself around having become a four-time movie star when it comes to this franchise.
Yes, folks, an actual franchise that's as centered around the importance of family as it is the idea of criminals becoming loaded weapons behind the wheel of a car (bonus points: take a shot any time anyone in this franchise mentions "family" and you'll blackout by the time the credits roll), Furious 7 is a ridiculously unstoppable force. And before I start running around in repetitive circles, let me establish that this unstoppable force; this behemoth of a film is at the very least entertaining; more entertaining than it has any right to be. The film is a glorious mess but a popcorn loving mess. It's the kind of mess that's almost too much to take in whether it's at the literally unbelievable stunts to Vin Diesel's one-liners. The movie reaches such a point of lunacy that it's almost as if Wan is spoofing everything The Fast and the Furious stands for. He launches cars out of planes, parachuting through the sky and has Diesel drive one of the world's rarest cars through three different sky scrapers. He takes action to a point of hilarious notions that are literally impossible to take seriously, whether it's The Rock flexing out of a cast or Diesel stomping cracks into pavement in order to trap his nemesis physically and metaphorically underneath the villainous rubble. The film is a special kind of stupid and a mind-numingly absurd exercise in action sequences and that's all it is from start to finish.
But oh boy, what action sequences they are. I'd be lying if I said some of the scenes weren't breathtaking as ridiculous as they all are. Once you give into the absurdity of these stunts, the quicker you will come to enjoy this "final installment;" this "one last ride," And whether you enjoy one character more than the last, it's a guarantee that someone will mention the importance of representing Paul Walker's tragically final role in film before his passing. Aside from the fact that he had an eerily similar looking brother to fill in the gaps where Walker couldn't (and the fact that Walker's face was digitally superimposed on said brother-body double), Walker does get a nice tribute in the end. The film's script is actually very clearly centered around his death and you can tell they almost changed much of the pacing of the film due to his passing. It's a tragic endeavor given he's been the protagonist of this entire franchise while Diesel has been the front man and face of all the action.
And in the end, all that counts is the action, each stunt topping the last. Whether cars are being driven off cliffs, down mountains or through buildings, it's clear that once this Fast gang gets behind the wheel, they furiously drive their way to becoming nothing short of their own kind of Avengers. In fact, as a franchise, Furious 7 is the closest we might ever get to a "super hero movie" given that this band of merry men and a couple slightly merry women are an unstoppable threshold of unbeatable do-gooders... Who do some bad in order to serve some greater good. Whether it be at the hands of scene stealer Kurt Russel or with the assistance of an almost entirely out-of-commission Dwayne Johnson, Vin Diesel and co. are a lethal force of fast justice that must all come together to take down a furious Jason Statham (having way too much fun with these puns, forgive me). Speaking of Statham, his presence stakes the notion even more so that this franchise is clearly following the footsteps of The Expendables in order to serve a cold dish of non-stop, unbelievable action at the hands of big, likable stars kicking ass sevenfold.
It's unbelievable. It's outrageous. It must be seen in order to be believed, and the fact that it's annihilated the box office, not just compared to previous Fast films, but worldwide (biggest April opening EVER) is a truly outstanding accomplishment. For a movie this big and dumb, it's actually mesmerizing at how well crafted the action sequences and stunts are. I mean, hell, without those, we'd be stuck with the horribly melodramatic soap opera of insanely stupid relationships whether it's between Walker and the once again useless Jordana Brewster (still very attractive!), or the aggressively stupid resurrection of Michelle Rodriguez and her even more mentally challenging amnesia storyline with Vin Diesel... So it's a damn good thing we at least have action this entertaining. It's the one thing that's fast or furious enough to keep this franchise afloat this long and by God, the action is so stupid and so heavy that it's almost too much to take in; so much so, that if it were me, I would throw in the towel right now on a high note (I mean, I personally would have thrown in the towel with Fast Five but as any sequel shows, the box office will always trump anyone who tries to put an end to a story by any means). But we really should call it a day, folks. Walker has passed. All the story lines from the previous films are tied up. UNLESS every future installment features The Rock flexing out of a cast, there's really no reason to go on. Just let it go. End on this excuse for a high note, be done with all the glorious nonsense and drive off into the distant sunset on a long, winding road to heaven.
UPDATE: 'Fast and Furious 8' gets a 2017 release date.
...Forget that last bit.
Bottom line: If you've been a fan this long, going for "one last ride" is inevitable (and it's a nice send-off for Walker if you care at all) but even if you've never watched a single 'Fast' or 'Furious' film, you can still have a good time.
WARNING: Leave your brain at the door.
Grade for Stunts: A
Grade for The Rock: A+
Grade for Everything Else: F
Overall: B-/C+
Grade for The Rock: A+
Grade for Everything Else: F
Overall: B-/C+
20) Avengers: Age of Ultron
If you're anything like me you're mentally unstable when it comes to all things opinions on movies. You're either willing to ruin a dinner conversation over Star Wars and whether or not Han shot first, or you're not. And that doesn't mean you love movies more than someone else, you just might be more passionate (or you might be a crazy person). You might have really unnaturally strong opinions on movies and whether or not you can justify your opinion by simply saying "the movie sucks," OR you might just weigh in the middle and not really have much to say at all. I mean, why do we care so much about sharing our thoughts on mass media and fanboy culture when in the end it all amounts to so, so little? Because it creates entertainment dammit (and everyone loves entertainment), so if you're ANYTHING like me, you were at least entertained by the latest blockbuster, sequel and arguably one of the biggest movies of the year (not to mention one of the biggest comic book movies of all time); the long-awaited, highly anticipated Avengers sequel, and as is the case with most movies I see (and am inevitably unsure about my thoughts and feelings upon initial viewing), the latest chapter in the Marvel Cinematic Universe has me stirred up enough to stew my thoughts and I'm fairly certain that after all the hype and all the box office Hulk-smashing, I've finally come to terms with how I feel about it all (just maybe).
In short, I liked it; I often loved it. At times I even thought it was downright criminal for a movie to be this good. There were feeble glimpses of it being not only better than the first but standing alone as one of the best comic book movies ever (please hold your opinions for the end).
But alas... one can't create a full opinion on a film based on glimpses and pieces; it's more of how the film balances as a whole; as an ensemble, from beginning to finish. And once all is in fact said and finished, the film is in fact flawed; very flawed; flawed but fantastic. And with all the working pieces here (and there are more pieces than an Ultron-sized army), a film and a filmmaker can't be blamed for trying to do it all and throw in the kitchen sink and still make it good (rarely anyone can get away with the kitchen sink and make a great finished dining room of a product) but I'm here to tell you folks that the latest Avengers flick is worth noting because it's probably the closest we'll ever get to THIS much kitchen sink while almost getting away with it all... Almost.
So kick back and let me waste your time if you're willing and able because I'm going to break down exactly what Age of Ultron amounts to as a comic book movie, a sequel, a rich character study, an embroiled sequence of action set pieces and ultimately as a film.
Sure, I could do what many critics do and make this all easy for moviegoers to swallow by lumping the film into 'what worked, what didn't work' categories but that also wouldn't do the film proper justice so let me just start from the beginning and see where my rant takes me.
Spoilers be damned!
Right from the get-go, from the first opening sequence, the film instantly feels different. In fact, the film feels different enough that it's almost jarring to think of this as a continuation in Joss Whedon's style in writing OR directing. The action sequences are quicker, arguably sloppier and yet often slicker as Earth's Mightiest Heroes engage in a comically well orchestrated and synchronized mid-battle with a not-so-secret HYDRA militia that's apparently just been chillin' out in the snow in the middle of the woods. One can't help but start raising some questions right from the start; who the hell are these villains and how was it enough of a threat to call for a reunion for the likes of Iron Man and friends? Is this a continuation of Winter Soldier's HYDRA threat or is this just some secret group that's been waiting to strike since The Avengers made a name for themselves three years ago?
The action right off the bat is astounding and is definitely a precursor to all of the impressive action set pieces that will eventually follow. The first action sequence is also campy and sometimes a little too corny for its own realized good. And suddenly we remember that this IS in fact a Joss Whedon movie. The comfortable state of putting campy heroes in good hands is back in our minds as we watch our heroes all strike a fancy action pose at the exact same time, all in row, for a brief symmetrical point in ridiculous slow motion, before they strike a blow to the once-Nazi organization of baddies and Whedon's style suddenly becomes clearer than ever. One can't help but recall the days of Buffy or Firefly where Joss enjoys putting his characters in a more comically corny light once they've become confident in who they've eatablished themselves as: "superheroes." In one sense it adds a much needed camp that comic book movies call for and yet it also instantly and completely separates itself from a sense of grounded reality that can be seen in any likes of Nolan's The Dark Knight. In a sense, Whedon is very much so throwing down the Mjölnir hammer in establishing the most comicbook-like universe as humanly Whedonly possible.
And that's entirely the point folks. Above all else, Whedon wants to ensure the audience that before it can be deemed as anything more or less, this is very much so "a comic book movie," and with the first opening scene he makes it abundantly clear.
The tone of the film isn't just different, it's purposeful. While it can be argued that Ultron suffers from the inevitable mid-franchise uselessness (much like Iron Man 2 in the Iron Man trilogy), the film, as many good sequels should do, propels our characters forward even if it doesn't propel much of the overall story forward (a frustrating point I will touch on later). But nevertheless one thing the movie does remarkably well is it serves as a really good sequel.
Sequels have been hard to peg since the dawn of film. When it comes to cult-favored Blockbusters sequels usually tend to go in one of two directions. On the one road, the sequel can up the stakes and double up an extra serving of story, character development and add brand new elements to shake things up in a totally different way leaving a much bigger and arguably better movie as a whole (these examples can be seen with Aliens, Terminator 2 and The Dark Knight) while down the other road the sequel can feel bigger and arguably more entertaining but ultimately does little to nothing for the overarching themes or plot devices for anyone or anything (these tropes unfortunately exist in the likes of The Matrix Reloaded, Mission Impossible 2 or like I said, Iron Man 2); they're movies that won't leave you bored but you're guaranteed to walk out with almost nothing on your plate of fanboy fulfillment. Strangely enough, Ultron serves as a perfect medium between these two camps. Now don't take either party so drastically. I'm not comparing it to the groundbreaking evolution of Aliens nor am I deeming it the trainwreck that is Mission Impossible 2. But everytime Ultron succeeds at being the better sequel there are at least double the moments that don't make it worthwhile.
And on a very important note we address the notion that Ultron is very much so just an endless sequence of moments; awesome moments but they're not much more than fluff. Where the original Avengers built character development by tearing the team apart and bringing them back together for moments on a giant heli-carrier-fortress or among the streets of Manhattan, the film never lost its vision; its purpose; its goal of building upon previous films' introduction of these individual characters and bringing them together as a team for the first time. There's something that's just magical about seeing something so glorious on the big screen that made us feel the way we did when we watched these heroes in the form of Saturday morning cartoons.
But as I stated, the moments that occur are nothing less than awesome. For one, the long awaited 'Hulk Buster' scene was as joyous and mesmerizing as the trailers hinted. On the one hand, how many times are we gonna see Banner get mad and trash the place as seemingly no one can stop him before it starts becoming old news? On the other hand, it's the first time Hulk was unleashed in Manhattan as a bewitched hethan of the true monster he really can be and with Whedon's clever plot devices, Tony Stark is that sole person who can keep the jolly green giant down. The scene is a perfect capsule as to how great some of these moments actually were. Where Iron Man 2 was a lifeless middle act full of some cool sequences, here the mindless action scenes were actually given some extra thought. From Ultron's first attack on the group as they try and lift Thor's hammer (one of the better scenes I might add) to the wonder twins mutants Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver using their abilities against the group, to the final CGI-ridden finale, the moments were memorable, and they almost never lost the heart or vision of the story along the way, ALMOST in a way the first film did flawlessly.
Speaking of Vision, one of the most notable traits of the film, for better or worse, were the new characters and Whedon's juggling of all characters old and new. Rumor has it the original cut of the film was over three hours long and Whedon had to do some serious fat trimming in order to keep audiences focused. This aspect of playing with so many different characters was equally one of the film's greatest strengths and weaknesses. On the one hand, we had the wonder twins mutants--f**k it, the twins; the twins were handled surprisingly well. The shining star out of the two was clearly Elizabeth Olsen's Scarlet Witch, for obvious, unspoiled reasons. But she's also the more talented of the two and whether it be the script or the acting, she sold her part better. On a side note, for any fanboys and girls in the audience, for the record, while I appreciated Aaron-Taylor Johnson's take on the role (and take on his ridiculous foreign accent), I have to say that Evan Peter's version of Quicksilver in last year's X-Men DOFP was far more entertaining and undoubtedly more impressive in his comical 10 minutes than Johnson's near two hours of screen time here. That should say enough about the dispute regarding them including the character in both franchises.
The other new character I didn't think I would dig too much but I did was The Vision. I can't talk too much about the character without completely spoiling a major plot in the third act for those who have yet to see it, but Paul Bettany's persona of a mix between man and machine was outstanding and the mix between CGI and costume for him was flawless for the character. He's truly a blast and I wish he got more screen time, even if he does sort of act as a lazy writing tool for a helpful last minute plot device.
And SPEAKING of lack of screen time, as far as new characters go, I gotta give a big hand to James Spader for pulling off Ultron with merely a voice. The man has never failed to impress me, even when he was playing a simple dick on The Office, and here he somehow embodies a character that's believable and unbelievably badass as a full computer generated character, and being the title villain of the story, Spader literally gives it his all. The man is cast perfectly, it almost makes me mad they couldn't use the actual man himself in the film. However, his voice captures and fully embodies Ultron making him one of the most darkly comical and threatening villains this side of the Marvel Cinematic Universe has ever seen. His sarcasm and intimidation nearly matches the actual Spader man himself and he's always a blast to watch, even when he's fulfilling the cliche villainous tropes. It's just a shame they couldn't give him more of shred of character development.
In fact, while I'm on my rant about Ultron, I want to tie in a piece of brilliant character development between he and Tony Stark (and I'll use this to tie in our actual lead characters). The fact that the character of Ultron is ultimately treated as a "son" to Stark gives the film and the Iron Man story so much gravitas that it didn't even hit me until after the movie was finished. The themes of creator to creation, and ultimate father-figure to son, between Stark and Ultron, definitely rang a bell that sounded like an age old classic of Frankenstein's monster, but it also spoke a little more to me. The fact that Stark has as many daddy issues as he does with his own dead dad makes his creation of an ideal "perfect son" give Tony even more of a shred of character that continues to blast forward with each film Downey Jr. reprises. In fact, the entire movie in itself is a direct nod to Stark's success and failures as he attempts to establish true, self sustaining artificial intelligence and the fact that Spader adapts Tony's wit and sarcasm, as well as his hunger for power, makes their bond that much more ironic and it's with that father-son bond, and with this film, that reminds me that I will most definitely miss Downey Jr. more than any other Avenger when all is said and done.
And speaking of the other Avengers, let us not forget the reason we're here before I take up the length of this ranking with Marvel-nonsense. The primary characters are used sparingly thanks to the run time fighting with character development and like I said, Whedon ALMOST misses the mark with giving his team players equal credit but in the end, he does a stand up job even if it's all only just an appetizer preparing us for this apparently ginormous galactic two-part battle with Thanos (and it better be the best damn battle we've ever seen). So let's break it down.
Captain America takes the spotlight of being the literal captain of this team though he gives up much of the spotlight due to his outstanding presence in last year's Winter Solider. His relationship with Natasha (Scarlett Johansson) is briefly built upon their last adventure in WS but almost immediately squashed by her upcoming romance with Banner (Hulk). Banner's romance with Natasha is the only real worthwhile romance of the film and while Johansson and Ruffalo have legitimate chemistry, the heavy script gives their romance no time to actually bud. Hulk has worthwhile anger issues that sprout from his inability to have a real relationship but it's all left on a cliffhanger. Meanwhile, Hemsworth never seems like he's NOT having a blast as Thor, the Thunder God, though his performance more than anyone else feels shoehorned in the second half due to a random-ass magical cave-pool side-storyline that feels wildly out of place. The only Avenger who's given true three-dimensional character development in the film, and deservedly so, is Jeremy Renner's Hawkeye.
It is here that I would like to address the disputes between fanboy filmmakers (Whedon) and mega-budget studios (Marvel) and I'm pretty sure I'm about to nail exactly why the film works just as much as it doesn't.
Between acts one and two of the film, if the film were to have an intermission, the gang ends up at Hawkeye's unknown farmhouse upstate near the mountains to keep safe in hiding from their enemies. It is here that both the team and the audience are introduced to Hawkeye's secret home life of Clint Barton who has a family and lives on a farm. Thor has a vision of something bad going on in the spiritual realm of Asgard and like I said, dips to go to his cave pool, and the rest of the gang lays low to recover, regroup and move forward.
This segment of the film is not only the only part where everything pauses to take a breather but it's also the core as to why we care about these characters and what they're fighting for. So the story goes, Whedon came to a head-to-head collision with Marvel Studios about which pieces of the film to save and which to leave on the cutting room floor and it came down to cutting the cave or cutting the farm. Now I sort of understand why Marvel wanted to keep the cave subplot (apparently it's a tie-in for the next movie and Marvel LOVES Easter eggs that tie in to their next movie) but Whedon apparently had to fight through Asgard and back in order to keep as much of the farm as possible, and honestly, I get it.
Because Renner was so absent from the first film, they wrote this farm subplot for him, giving him the extra growth in equal character development but Hawkeye's home life also represents the core existence for why these heroes fight; it's the mission and it has been from the start. By showing us that Hawkeye has a home life, we instantly care for him to make it out on the other side, every fight, every time. And the fact that he lives on a farm, upstate New York, makes the idea of him living the all American Dream (flannel and all) that much more worth fighting for.
And in the end, that's why these characters fight. Tony wants to perfect artificial intelligence so they can have the best defense, so they don't have to fight; so they get to go home. This point is stated throughout the film and it is the driving force of what makes the story work. Ironically, Marvel shoehorning in characters and plot just to be there end up making the end result feel bloated and cluttered (apparently the very important cave scene had layers of depth in already trimmed deleted scenes).
By the time we reach the film's climax, we have nearly an hour to go before the CGI-ridden battle is done and we're already exhausted. It's entertaining but really, what separates this story from the previous entry, or any of the stories? As stated, the action sequences are astounding but with what gravity? Some characters die but none we're actually truly invested in. In the end, one can't help but feel like the film is the final result of eating too much thanksgiving dinner. It's great going down; lots of great parts, but it just feels bloated when it's done. Don't get me wrong, I'm not slamming it but for a film already so apparently trimmed, it could easily do without so much that was included (even aspects I couldn't even touch upon, like the inclusion of the spectacular Andy Serkis or the unavoidable cameos from Sam Jackson and other favorites, because honestly I just don't care to talk about it).
The film is exciting, worth watching; filled with some small but rewarding character development, and packed with action sequences, but with the exception of that Hulk-buster scene, it's just fluff. And by the time we're done, most of the Avengers feel broken enough to take time off from whatever it is they're taking the time to do. Between Hawkeye's family, Thor's ghostly visions and cave-pools and Hulk's need to feel like he can't harm people, everyone kinda just peaces out and I can't really blame um. A friend at work said the movie should have been titled 'Avengers: Two Weeks Notice,' or the ample 'Avengers: there's good stuff here but this is mostly just the sh*t that needs to happen before things get really bad' and honestly, what's it building to? The big bad, cartoonish Thanos? (Nice post-credits Thanos sequence by the way, "looks like I'll take care of them myself!" OH WILL YOU TAKE CARE OF THEM YOURSELF?) The movies are starting to hit a wall of all bark and no bite; they need a real threat; a truly three-dimensional villain aside from Loki who truly rises the stakes and if Thanos can't deliver, then Ultron's hype will be even less worthwhile than it seems already.
I'm hopeful for better things to come and like I've stated, the movie is great, but it doesn't surpass Guardians or Winter Soldier by a long shot. And for a movie this bloated and jam-packed and to feel ultimately so thin is just a shame. But it'll only get better. It has to.
Grade: B/B-
19) Jurassic World
In case you were wondering why people can't stop talking about the latest dino-mite blockbuster (and why it's breaking The Avengers' box office numbers), look no further because I will do the best of my ability to walk you through the reasons as to why this just might be the biggest surprise hit of the entire Summer.
First things first, and arguably the most important notion worth noting, is the nostalgia factor. No matter which way you look at the film, it's a Jurassic Park movie which is something worth pointing out in and of itself. For one, it's not only been fourteen years since the last (and almost franchise-killing) JP movie, Jurassic Park III, and make no mistake, Jurassic Park III is absolutely terrible and the epitome of a craptastic movie. JP3 commits the sin of not only being a bad third entry in a trilogy (a curse that has plagued trilogies since The Godfather) but it puts a salty taste in one's mouth when looking at Jurassic Park of all things as a franchise. Because what it all harks back to is that glorious first carnivorous incarnation, and it's nothing short of near-flawless. Based off of Michael Chrichton's popular novel, Steven Spielberg brought to life one of the literal greatest movies of the 20th century. With groundbreaking technology in computers (and f**king puppets!) and an intense and immensely entertaining story, the original JP not only still holds up but it's still the king of dinosaurs when it comes to the archaeological dig of blockbuster films. No one needs to refresh anyone's memory of just how good the original Jurassic Park is but if you haven't seen it in a while, I strongly suggest you rewatch it (because it's quite literally that good). Flash forward through an underrated sequel (that's sadly just not great) and like I said, a third entry that almost deemed this franchise extinct, and here we are 22 years to the day after the original dino-tastic flick stomped its way through theaters and we're left with an entirely different beast all on its own.
With newcomer Colin Trevorrow in the director's chair and Spielberg once again in the producer's chair (which means nothing since he "produced" JP3), things were skeptical from the start. All the trailers promised new so-so looking special effects (1993 effects are arguably still better in most places), seemingly wildly looking eccentric action sequences and a Frankenstein-of-a-plot involving some failed experiment of a brand new dinosaur, and just about nothing in these teases of a return to Isla Nubar seemed truly exhilarating in the way the original quest to the island of misfit people-who-get-eaten-by-dinos seemed, over two decades ago. But what I respect about Trevorrow's decisions and ultimately his final product is that he made something that, while paying nods to the original, is literally and ironically a beast on its own two feet.
Trevorrow has said in interviews that the original Park is one of his favorite movies and the last thing he wanted to do was copy Spielberg's style because he's simply not Steven Spielberg. Now with that, when you venture out into the jungles of Isla Nubar for another tour of this doomed park, I want you to watch it with the 2015
1) First things first, remove as much of the Jurassic Park franchise from your mind will still keeping the original nods in tact while enjoying a trip down memory lane.
No seriously, the new film couldn't be more different than any of the previous JP films including the iconic original. Save for the fact that Trevorrow has blatantly said that the new film's canon completely ignores the second and third entry (and for good reason too), World's established universe couldn't be more different in terms of style, tone, cinematography, acting, editing, you name it, from any of the previous films. In fact, it's shockingly different and almost frustratingly skeptical at first. Our new characters (ridiculously obnoxious kids) start at their home during Christmas time and end up on tropical Isla Nubar literally within the first five minutes and everything is painfully rushed save for the nods to John Williams' famous score. Once the movie picks up it progressively gets better (and there's some sprinkled nostalgia circa 1993 sprinkled around the middle act) but keep in mind the film is just a totally different end product. Spielberg is out of the director's chair and it desperately shows. Colin Trevorrow knows this; his script knows this; and once the audience knows this, it will make the whole thing a lot easier to swallow. Which brings me to my next point:
2) Treat Jurassic World the same way you treat any of the later Fast and Furious sequels.
This one's not a joke. Towards the end of the second act; somewhere between
3) Embrace the cliches, embrace the irony and evolve with a new era of a prehistoric age in modern society.
After writing all this nonsense, I now respect Colin Trevorrow as a director, even if he's very, very low on the respect list when it comes to directors. One of the main selling points for the man and why he wanted to tell this story was based on the notion that in the technologically advanced age as evolved as the world we live in in 2015, Trevorrow was akin to the idea of an image where a kid is bored and texting while standing in front of a giant window with a T-Rex behind it. It sold him and it gave an ironic birth to his storytelling that even he might not be too aware of.
Now, I tend to give directors too much credit sometimes when I'm on board with their works but lesbihonest... A story about a group of scientists who use technology to recreate dinosaurs and plan a new attraction for their dino-mite-theme-park as a means by creating something "bigger, scarier, more teeth," ("cooler" as BD Wong so gracefully puts it) and in the end, isn't it slightly ironic that these characters, the park owners, feel that their tourist-audience is bored with dinosaurs and have a thirst for something new to keep them on their toes? In the end, isn't that WHY we not only demanded a new Jurassic Park movie but why we're also so split on it?
I've heard every single kind of criticism on Jurassic World from "best movie of the year," "better than the original," to "an abysmal mess," "one of the worst movies of all time," a movie somehow worth seeing MULTIPLE times in the theater and also a movie that disrespects the memory of Spielberg and ruins his original classic film. People can't decide what they want and they will ALWAYS nitpick because as all good moviegoers know, you "can't touch an original!" The entire Indominous Rex plot line is a ginormous representation of the industry and audiences wanting and "needing" more in this age where we're already so damn spoiled. One of the characters who works at the park says something among the lines of "they're dinosaurs, isn't that enough?" when in actuality, he's just a mouthpiece for the creators, possibly even for Spielberg, saying "we gave you something groundbreaking; how do you really want us to top it?" and Jurassic World is their answer.
Is this truly the best movie of the year? Absolutely not; not even close (for me, that trophy is currently held by Mad Max and the only movie I see dethroning it is Episode VII later this year but only time will tell) but is it a good movie? Yes. Ridiculous? Of course! But in order to serve a Spielbergly spoiled audience, we truly did need something bigger, scarier and more teeth. I WILL say this and it's not necessarily a backhanded compliment to World but there are no gymist kids who dropkick any raptors here; no T-Rex's stampeding the streets of L.A. and NO cringeworthy scripts, goofy special effects, Spinosauruses killing any T-Rexes or ridiculous raptors who communicate with humans and show sympathy... Okay so some of that is a lie.
AND ON THAT LIE, I want to say that the real stars of the film are in fact Charlie, Delta, Echo, Blue and alpha male Chris Pratt... They carried the film for much of the running time and are part of the reason that the last half hour kept me on the literal edge of my seat.
So BEFORE you go out bashing Jurassic World, have some damn fun but don't try and make it out to be a wanna-be A+ of a new cinematic classic here folks... Chris Pratt rides a motorcycle through the jungle leading a pack of trained velociraptors to take down a cloned Frankenstein abomination of a T-Rex that was "cooked up in a lab"... If that doesn't sound like a damn good B movie to you then you clearly don't know how to be entertained by the movies.
For now, just be thankful that we have another JP. Does it top the original? No chance in hell. The fact that people are going around actually saying Jurassic World is BETTER than Jurassic Park is straight up movie-blaspheme and just plain offensive to moviegoers. But if there's one sequel that should be accounted for, even if it feels tonally and completely different from its roots, it's this. Life found a way and for what it attempts to do on its own two claws, it all somehow works.
Bottom line: Remove as much of the original as you can from your mind (except for when it pays homage), don't take the movie seriously at all, have some damn fun with it, and you'll enjoy it for what it is.
Grade: B/B-
18) The Man From U.N.C.L.E.
Guy Ritchie's style has never been boring. His films are pretty consistent; always a visual treat at the bare minimum and a hyper stylized mix of action, humor and quick stories with constant twists and turns at maximum. Everything he's done from the cult followed Snatch, to the surprisingly successful Sherlock Holmes, to the disappointing (in my humble opinion, shut up) Rock'n Rolla; all of his movies are at least FUN to watch and UNCLE is no different. In fact, it might be one of Ritchie's more fun but uniquely stylized films he's ever made. The sad truth with his latest is that it doesn't go without flaws. There are a few key missteps in truly making its way to the finish line, but it gets there at a fun, explosive rate and at the end of the day The Man From U.N.C.L.E. is an absolute BLAST from beginning to finish.
There's really nothing bad I can say about the film. The pacing and attempts at humor in the film are arguably pretty distracting at times but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't grinning from ear to ear for most of the film's run time. Taking place in the 1960s, Ritchie brings a hip personality to this hyperactive universe of spies, guns, babes and cars; our heroes trek on secret missions with the confidence of James Bond and their operations tend to sail pretty smooth, almost flawlessly, even when their plans end up failing and the characters end up almost-dead (which happens frequently). I can't complain, the film has a spunky personality as most of Ritchie's films do. While it's a 1960s spy-espionage action movie, it's by no means a film to be taken too seriously. In fact, the jabs at humor and slick action keep the feet of the film pretty light, often at too safe of a haven for a movie of this kind of semi-edgy caliber.
While Ritchie is usually known for his sharp, R-rated vulgarity filled with cusses and violence at a higher-than-PG-13-rating, here his men (and one woman) from UNCLE exist in the world of PG-13 boundaries and as such are tied down to certain restrictions that would normally be expected from a no-bounds R-rating. For 1960s swinger-spies, the chiseled, muscular leads and beautiful, sexual damsels in tight 60s leather and edgy fashion (that will indeed turn heads) feel somewhat restricted. Even when the film constantly alludes to the sexuality of the film's atmosphere and tone (or explicit scenes of characters getting dressed after spending the night together), the movie's still a little too safe. Not to say the film needs sex scenes or anything (an throwaway tool I usually feel distracts from the plot [unless it's driving the plot]) but for a movie trying to exploit its big sexy cast and atmosphere, the whole movie ends up feeling more prude than it would like to be.
More so than the sexual prowess of the film, the physical atmosphere of some scenes even feels limited. Don't get me wrong, there's great, intense action, some violent moments and many characters die (some in horribly hilarious, gruesome deaths) but you can't help but feel like Ritchie is the man behind the curtain keeping us from the potential film that dares to push a little further; be just a little edgier. Then again, this is a film based on an actual 1960s British television series that children watched so I understand the restrictions, and for having those restrictions, Guy hits out of the park whatever balls he's allowed to hit. The film is a phenomenal balance of swift action; chase scenes by cab, truck and boat, shootouts in buildings, mountains and planes; it's a showcase of confident, self aware humor (though like I said a tad TOO much), a tight script that keeps you guessing just as much as predicting (some of the cliches you can't not see coming but hey it's supposed to be the 60s and it's supposed to feel corny, right?), and like I said, a sexy universe of attractive people being spies and sneaking around and whatnot. It's FUN and that's the bottom line.
Like I said, the film doesn't go without its own flaws, holding itself back a bit (though once you accept the restrictions you'll forget about the movie you think you want it to be) but as much as it might hold back, the film also very curiously does a little TOO much at times. Like I said, the attempts at humor work most of the time but there are painfully clear moments where Ritchie essentially stops the film completely for a big joke or a scene of humor that's intended to showcase something absurd for the audience to be aware of before the characters are. There are two very specific moments that come to mind that portray moments like these (one involving a boat chase and one involving a bizarro electric chair) and while both moments made me laugh out loud it was a total distraction from the narrative. HOWEVER, this isn't a true complaint being as they were two VERY Guy Ritchie moments and the laughs were not only self aware but very much so intended. And save for the fact that there's an entire rescue mission subplot tacked on at the end that's pretty much offscreen (it's an absurd montage) and played off like a big one-note joke, it's all almost like Guy is loosening up and telling the audience to relax and have fun with it, the same way you would with a Sean Connery Bond flick.
And that's the one major difference between UNCLE and Bond; while both are corny 1960s spy flicks portraying unrealistic heroes doing unbelievable stunts taking out bad guys and scoring hot chicks and not breaking a sweat, UNCLE knows it's ridiculous. While I am by no means taking any shots at Bond with any Golden Guns (spoiler alert: I loved the new Bond that everyone else hated so you can all suck it), I can't help but compare the ridiculousness of the franchise and how UNCLE takes the camp of Connery's flicks and gives them a fresh spin with constant winks to the absurdity of this kind of universe; Because the cool, groovy 1960s spy universe DIDN'T exist, and where 007 gave a more serious (but still knowingly ridiculous) take on the "fun spy" genre, UNCLE never expects you to step in their time period once without checking your brain at the door.
It's a movie that's strictly fun and because it's committed to having so much fun, it holds itself back. Like I've said, it's distracting but it ultimately doesn't hurt the film. It's a remake of a campy 60s TV show about spies and the movie plays out exactly as that. The only major difference is that the style has been completely modernized by a flashy director who really KNOWS how to do flashy style. Ritchie breathes life into an otherwise forgotten franchise of spies, babes, guns; all that jazz. It's a FUN movie and it doesn't dare try and be anything else. Could it have had more of an affect with its hip take on this world? Absolutely, but it's already jam packed with SO much (it's like five Sean Connery Bond flicks crunched together, on speed) that it's hard to feel like you've been cheated. Have fun with it; take it for what it is and like the other Guy Ritchie flicks, you should have a hell of a time.
Grade: B
17) The Night Before
The Judd Appatow gang will forever be known as 'The Judd Appatow gang.' Without him, not many of these guys would have launched so successfully. Seth Rogen is not only pretty much the face of this group but literally owes the majority of his career to the man who united him with James Franco on TV's Freaks and Geeks, nearly two decades ago, birthing one of the weirdly close male to male relationships this age of Hollywood has ever seen. What's good about this group of individuals is that they've all really branched out over the years. Rogen expanded his career into comic book territory with the memorable Green Hornet and Franco went medieval on our asses with the notorious Your Highness... Alright, so maybe they haven't exactly branched OUT but they're branching somewhere. All it to say is, this group hasn't lost their schtick that made them all click so well in 40-year-old Virgin or Knocked Up 10 or so years ago. Not only do they still click but they're really finding their footing in making certain comedies work really well and the latest holiday outing is no exception.
In 2011, director Jonathan Levine gave us a beautifully underrated film called 50/50. To this day I don't understand how more people aren't talking about it. It's bar none one of the more perfect blends of bro-humor and legitimately emotional drama. Perhaps it's the screenplay pegged by Will Reiser, real-life cancer survivor and writer of the realistic story; Perhaps it's the charm of JGL (Joseph Gordon Levitt) who's great in literally everything; Perhaps it's both, but something just really works about 50/50 and The Night Before (or TNB as it will be easier to write out) definitely tears a page out of Levine's playbook in mixing that humor with the emotional and more "serious" matters. Now, without Reiser; without a story about cancer, the movie is much less dramatic and much more necessarily "warm and cheerful" for a Christmas movie... If you call characters freaking out about drug combinations, having babies, being a failed football player or having dead parents warm OR cheerful. Make no mistake, TNB know when to be serious (at times) but this is, in every way, VERY much so a comedy first and foremost. And during the holidays, we could use a little comedy.
The movie plays out like a Charles Dickens story with bookend beginnings end endings; Christmas songs (like Miley's Wrecking Ball) mysterious ghastly janitors (played by a stoned, creepier-than-ever Michael Shannon) who produce three visions representing ghosts of past, present and future for our three leads (all struggling with either the past, present or future) and of course the morals of being a good person.
Yes it's hard to feel like a good person watching a movie so crude, filled to the brim with sex, drugs, alcohol, debauchery, dick pics, Miley Cyrus; but the movie also has a joyful spirit beneath its Scrooge-like spirit. By piggybacking off of a story where JGL lost both of his parents on Christmas Eve when he was young, his two best friends (Seth Rogen and Anthony Mackie) make a pact to take him around Manhattan every Christmas to get sh*t faced and cause debauchery (because only the best friends know that's the best cure). But being in their 30s, our heroes know it's time to be adults and put some past traditions behind them, as each deals with their own personal holiday hell on Christmas Eve of 2015.
One of the biggest tropes of any Appatow-related movie is the painfully realistic moral that ends up pulling the rugs from under the feet of most 20-30-something-year olds and those morals usually tend to be centered around how much getting old sucks.
It started with Virgin, showing that among the humor of Steve Carrell never having gotten busy, that at some point, the comic book dolls need to be put aside and let someone care about you for who you are instead of being afraid of moving forward, while still acting like a man-child. That moral stayed with so many of these actors in so many of these roles because it's just so damn relatable. While yes, sometimes these guys just wanna be slapstick or pay homage to horny high school juvenile delinquents (Superbad) or pay homage to ridiculous pulpy crime-action flicks while still being a stoner movie (Pineapple Express), even some of the goofier movies share these morals about the realities of growing up. Sure This is the End was a total spoof on the apocalypse and these Hollywood a-holes but it's also KIND of a movie about friendship and where the line is drawn in being a decent human being. My point is, these guys are way more important to comedy than credited because they give new morals and standing grounds for dudes who just wanna be dudes and have trouble moving on in that terrifying world of adulthood. Is it coincide that Forgetting Sarah Marshall is probably THE most realistic breakup movie from a guy's perspective that's out there? Absolutely not. These guys know morals in their comedy and TNB is in that ranking.
Yes the movie is like 85% goofy and impossible to take seriously but the undertones of the characters' struggle; Mackie dealing with blindly following his present fame while ignoring his family; Rogen dealing with not being ready to become a future father and JGL dealing with a past accident killing both of his parents; all themes, past, present, future, all reflect the characters dealing with letting go and moving on from their biggest fears And as ridiculous as the movie is, those undertones are at first ignored by the characters and then brought into light when they need be and when it works, it's really legitimately heartfelt and believable. Is it hard to take seriously when Seth Rogen is high on cocaine making video diary entries to himself in the bathroom about how mortified he his to be a dad basically saying "f**k that baby," in a hilariously laugh-out-loud sequence? Not really, but sometimes that's how these filmmakers get through the issues the characters go through.
And for what it is, it works. It doesn't quite balance humor and drama the way 50/50 does so well and it's not as laugh out loud and self aware as This is the End but it's funny as hell, poignant when it needs to be and works well as a Christmas movie that's bound to have good replay value. No it's not quite as funny or rewarding as Trainwreck (Judd's latest outing) but it's worthy enough to put on your shelf with all the other Appatow-style movies.
Grade: B+/B
16) Creed
Now here's a film that simply just shouldn't have been as good as it was. With six Rocky movies under the heavy weight belt, Creed had a lot of muscle-heavy expectations on its shoulders in order to become more than simply "the Rocky spinoff," and by God I think they've done it.
When we get to Star Wars (and we will), we're gonna talk about how The Force Awakens is sort of a reboot of the original Star Wars while still being its own independent sequel and really its own movie on its own two feet. Creed is essentially given that exact same treatment. Creed is more or less a beat-for-beat storytelling of the original 1976 Rocky when Stallone ran up those famous Philly steps all that time ago. What you wouldn't expect from what is essentially a modernized carbon copy of the original classic is that it's ACTUALLY a pretty damn good movie. In fact, and this to all the Rocky fans out there; the ones who take the entire franchise into canon (and have their own personal ranking for the films); I will even go as far as to say that Creed is the best Rocky movie to happen since the original, nearly 40 years ago (I'm not kidding) and it's all because of that first original script proving that old methods of storytelling not only still work but they arguably work better than they ever have.
Again, I'm tempted to go into detail about how genius The Force Awakens is for using A New Hope as the bone structure for the new movie's script but I'm not here to talk about Star Wars (really... I'm not). I'm here to talk about Creed and how it's living proof (along with Star Wars) that the original formula is fresher than ever, because honestly, Creed works for those same sequel/reboot reasons in the sense that there's enough of a difference to be different enough in order to make an enjoyable movie.
And what an enjoyable movie it is. The first and biggest result of that is the outstanding Michael B. Jordan who's literally impossible not to like. For new, young, upcoming actors, Jordan has proven time and time again that he's a legitimate powerhouse of acting. We saw it in Fruitvale Station a few years back and we're still seeing it today. Honestly, he's good enough that with the proper direction, he could be winning Oscars someday. Am I saying he should have been nominated for Creed? No, but if I am gonna jump on the controversial #Oscarsowhite bandwagon, I will say that while I'm not going to comment on the matter, it's an absolute shame this movie didn't receive more nominations. While Best Picture might have been a stretch the movie is an achievement enough that we should be talking about it even if it's a talk as small as discussing how much this resembles the original Rocky.
And it pays homage beautifully while, again, being its own damn thing. By following Apollo Creed's son we not only tie into the franchise but we give young Creed a chance to step out of his father's shadow which ends up being a huge chunk of the character motives.
But the homage is simply fantastic and instantly nostalgic for anyone who knows and loves the original Rocky.
Stallone plays an old man phenomenally (hey look, he's acting like himself and not pretending to be a 30-something-year-old gun toting macho; and LOOK, an Oscar nomination!); he plays it like Mickey played Rock's trainer all that time ago but much less spiteful and bastard-like, and YET Stallone STILL doesn't play old-man mentor better than Harrison Ford did this year (sorry, not gonna talk about Star Wars. Last time I promise). The other aspects are the same yet different; everything is totally modernized, urbanized and portrays modern black culture in the city in a ridiculously accurate way (these are positive aspects, don't worry); the physical training sequences are similar but with slight changes; the soundtrack features more hip-hop (while BRILLIANTLY incorporating the old Rocky themes in there; one of the better surprises and homages in the film); the love story is there and the tension is high (Dear White People's Tessa Thompson once again plays a stubborn gal and plays it phenomenally even if her singing isn't [spoiler alert: it's not her singing]) and the whole thing just really works.
Just when the story starts to feel predictable, they really pull a fast one on you (characters end up in different situations than you'll expect going in) and honestly, while the whole film is a long love letter to Rocky, it all ends up being enough of its own story that you're ready for this torch to be passed and by the end, if you're a true Rocky fan, you'll wanna see Michael B. Jordan reprise his role of young Creed for at LEAST two more movies. The movie isn't flawless and not a top contender for 2015, but it really is THAT good.
Grade: B+
15) Bridge of Spies
If you were to ask most of the world to name a director, the first name they'd spit out would be Steven Spielberg, 99 times out of 100. The man is a legend and there is no need to delve into his past filmography in order to make a point about his movies today. What I will say is that for a director who was known for being a legend circa 1970s and 80s, the most impressive feat in his career is that he's still pumping out some of the world's best movies four decades after he became a somebody.
Okay, so maybe not WORLD'S best anymore but Lincoln's cinematography is good enough to make you actually believe that you're living in the 1850s and Daniel Day Lewis is good enough to win his third Oscar (one of the only people to ever do so) and ACTUALLY make you believe you're watching footage of the REAL Abraham Lincoln. My point is, Lincoln was Spielberg's last movie and it was STILL pretty gnarly (if you don't have the patience of a nat) and it's safe to say that Bridge of Spies might be one of the best movies the man has ever made.
Now let's dive into what that actually means for JUST a moment. I'm not calling it Saving Private Ryan, Jaws or Schindler's List but Spies reminds the world WHY Spielberg is SO. DAMN. GOOD. EVERYTHING from the lush, nearly unsaturated cinematography to Tom Hanks' acting (hell even the Russians' acting), to the tense, dark moments that LITERALLY make you feel like you're in Soviet Russia; moments that pull you right in as if you were watching a movie from the 1950s in a film class, Spies is a throwback to the days that birthed cinema and I'm not talking about stupid Birth of a racist Nation, I'm talking about the pre-1970s; I'm talking film noir days; days when films exploited political, diverse themes using visual of shadow and snow to TELL the story rather than meaty dialogue; Spies plays out like a Humphrey Bogart film but more brooding, more serious (more modernized); for f**ks sake, the movie uses REAL, ACTUAL mise en scène! An ACTUAL term in film I haven't used to describe a modern movie, not since the days of film school YEARS AGO.
To even start talking about Spies would just take up too much time because I'd end up treating it like a damn essay for film class. In a sense, that's the most tragic part of my film writing and critiquing because I'm over here wanking movies like Mad Max and Star Wars (before you get up in arms I'll defend both of those movies faster than you will) when films like Bridge of Spies remind us why movies got SO good. Everything about the film is treated like it's been taken out of the best filmmaker's text book and that's exactly why I love it just as much as I'm willing to boot it to beyond the Top 10. If it makes any sense at all (and it probably won't), the film is in fact so GOOD as a "film," and not a "movie" that it doesn't top my list and it's simply because I'm ignorant. I'm living in 2015 and I'm a consumer of flashy showy explosions. Hell, I OWN. ALL THE TRANSFORMERS movies. Know why? Because they're FUN (to an extent) so go on. JUDGE ME. My point is, I feed into America's waste-pipeline of garbage movies that don't require anything more than explosions, boobies and maybe a few laughs along the way (hell, isn't that what we all want?) but Bridge of Spies represents the long, lost age of golden cinema and I'm STILL not calling it Spielberg's best. If anything, it's his most nostalgic film. The man's a historian (and one thing Spielberg LOVES is history) but more than a throwback to a historical event, Spies is a throwback the historical, technical aspect of true, crafted filmmaking. And it's just sad because even THEN, the movie's STILL not good enough to be best movie of the year and I'll be honest. It doesn't really deserve that award. But its CRAFT and LOVE for the craft is completely unmatched by any other film or filmmaker this year. It's more proof that Spielberg will literally go down in history as one of the best and if you can handle his change of pace in slowing down the action and focusing on the drama (each film slower than the last) and only if you're a TRUE lover of film; ONLY if you actually love the craft behind each picture; the framing, the shots, the lighting, the mise en f**king scène, then watch Bridge of Spies. And EVEN IF you don't know what any of that means, watch the film anyway... You might be pleasantly surprised.
Grade: A+
14) Straight Outta Compton
Easily one of the most unexpected surprises of 2015. No joke. I mean for a movie about N.W.A. it's FAR better than it has any right being. In fact, whatever your expectations are, the movie will exceed them. There's no other way to put it but blunt and in the end, who doesn't wanna share a nostalgic blunt with the likes of Ice Cube, Dr. Dre and Eazy E?
Straight Outta Compton is bar none of the best movies of 2015 and anyone who would have predicted that prior to the film's release would have been laughed at all the way to California and back. Perhaps that's why the end result is such a surprise; You don't even realize just HOW good it is until it's over. It's got it all; a young, rebellious drama representing one side of the teenage dream; it's a success story; a nostalgic trip to hip-hop fans; a love letter to the streets and origins of rap and the radical change the record industry went through in the late 80s and the influence that was impacted from the likes of Dr. Dre; the movie captures young, broken dreams; it's incredibly intense, laugh-out-loud funny and it's also ridiculously tragic. The movie packs literally EVERYTHING in there for your viewing pleasure while also being respectful as a biopic to the young hip-hop artists of a previous generation and to nostalgic viewers everywhere.
There's literally not a bad thing to say about it; sure the run time could have been a little trimmed but this is also documenting more than ten years of hip-hop history; and what a history it is.
From the opening shots of E running from the cops after a money (and potentially drug) trade goes south, the movie begins with a literal bang. As each character is introduced, we instantly dive into a backstory and thus a world of hip-hop that hadn't previously portrayed such an elaborately intense history of the founding members of N.W.A. Each character more unique than the last, even the lesser known members like DJ Yella and MC Ren, ALL get phenomenal screen time and enough fleshed out development in order to truly feel like three-dimensional characters. The spotlight of the leads is obviously given to the youths specifically portraying Eazy E, Dre and Ice Cube's own son playing Ice Cube (and he's actually really good). Everyone else shines but those three own the movie. Dre is portrayed as a truly emotional dude behind what seems like a cardboard personality (even in real life the Doctor always seems like he's half asleep), Cube is essentially the heart and soul of the film; somewhat the glue that holds it all together (and like I said, Cube Jr. actually does a stellar job playing his dad), but the real reason to look at any of the acting is Jason Mitchell's Eazy E. Holy sh*t, I don't know where this kid came from but if someone's gonna get more work after this film, it's him. He DRIVES every emotion with 100% and is totally believable from beginning to finish. He ranges all the feels from the laughs to the tears and if you're going to watch this for the acting, watch it for him.
The other supporting characters are phenomenal as well (from Oscar loving Paul Giammati to cameos from Snoop and 2Pac [the Pac character is frighteningly accurate proving that the man is CLEARLY still alive in secret and hasn't aged since 1992]) but another reason the film is to be noted outside of the fleshed out characters, and the actors who give them a fresh spin, is the actual aspects of what make it a great film. Now like I said, we're still talking about N.W.A. here (shocking I know) but this is ACTUALLY a well made film. I honestly wouldn't even be surprised if it was nominated for a couple oscars (a COUPLE). The cinematography is absolutely nothing to shake a stick at, though it's one of the few films of 2015 to crush a box office and avoid CGI entirely (that 2Pac though... He might be Photoshopped...), but the real strengths of the film come from behind the camera. The writing is absolutely outstanding, from small to big character developments to drastic changes in plot, keeping the stakes high, but F. Gary Gray's directing... Now there's something worth noting.
I'm gonna skip the funny part where we talk about the irony of Gray directing Ice Cube's little script called Friday in 1995 (although Compton not only pays homage to Friday but they even throw in a brilliant "bye Felicia" joke) and jump right into the idea of Gray truly knowing every corner of the hood. Now, Compton is no Boyz N Tha Hood (though the influence is strong with this one) but Gray clearly knows how to unlock the hood and really get those shocks BUMPIN' (in terms of directing of course). I'm not calling the man a critically acclaimed director but for his style, he knows EXACTLY what he's doing and like I said, Compton IS good enough to probably be nominated for some stuff. His true talent here is that he transformed some of these actors into these characters. Sure the set designs, tone and pacing were all in focus, but Gray's real accomplishment is turning Dr. Dre and Ice Cube into fully fleshed out characters; it's more than a mere accomplishment. I think the reason I give him and the film so much credit is because the movie just had so much potential to be SO bad. Coming from an N.W.A. fan, my opinions might be biased (you wanna fight about it?) but I also kept my expectations for this film in check. Again, not to sound like a broken record, but we are still talking about a film ABOUT the hip-hop group N**gaz Wit' Attitude... And it's a REALLY solid film. It blows my mind. I just didn't think the film would hold the quality it does but it does and it does WELL.
This homage to hip-hop is phenomenal. It's better than Notorious and 8 Mile (and I love those two films). It takes hip-hop, tells the proper story, and keeps the audience ENGAGED. Fact of the matter is, you don't have to like N.W.A. You don't even have to know who they are. Hell, you can HATE hip-hop and STILL find the movie enjoyable (though it's of course very R-friendly filled with coarse language, gun violence and partial nudity so be warned); POINT IS... Straight Outta Compton is one of the most immensely enjoyable films of 2015, fan or not. Whether you like hip-hop, biopics or just the idea of a brief history of music, GO watch this movie. Laugh, cry, inspire, express yourself; Compton's worth celebrating.
Grade: A-
13) Trainwreck
Two words: Amy Schumer
Those are two words that will completely determine the outcome of this movie for you and for me, the meaning of those two words were completely transformed after walking out of this movie.
Of course it must be dually noted that Judd Appatow's direction and the use of Bill Hader & friends helps the film a LOT, but this entire film rests on the back of Ms. Schumer and I gotta say damn, does the film manage to not only stay afloat but it actually ends up being the biggest comedic surprise of 2015.
Maybe it's because my hatred for this woman did a complete 180 over the course of two hours or so (it's Judd so you know the script has some meat on its bones) but I came out of the theater a new fan of this gal, not necessarily because I found her funny (and she's funny alright) but because I totally dig and respect her as a writer. Now I know Amy's known for being the head writer and star of her Comedy Central sitcom Inside Amy Schumer, and while I had a pretty good handle on the notion of her doing sketch comedy, I had NO idea she could write such real world characters in this broken world of 2015.
Lemme have my moment and ride this train for a sec; when I say she's an excellent writer, I literally cannot emphasize it enough and part of why her script works is because it's loosely based on who she is as a person. Yeah, she's dishing up a satire on the rom-com genre and does a brilliant flip-flop with the gender switch (the rom-com formula usually consisting of a desperate female chasing a very difficult or stubborn male, and here the roles being reversed), but Schumer's also very clearly putting out a semi-tragic yet very realistic message for herself and to broken people everywhere and that there will be a point where you can't be alone and can't push EVERYONE away anymore, and her character arc (though purely 100% comedic) rings that notion all the more true and she does it in a way where she's laughing at herself and therefore the audience is laughing at AND with her.
To call the film brilliant would be giving it a TAD too much credit but as far as comedies go, it's one of the most sincere, genuine and honest comedies to come along since Judd was in the spotlight as a writer. Of course the man's hand in direction keeps the flow of the film consistent and fresh but like I've said, the film belongs completely to Schumer and she's not afraid to stand up and say "hey, I've f**ked up; I've made mistakes; I'm shameful and I don't want to change" and keeps the stubborn attitude of young adults who exist EVERYWHERE today, and that's why the film is important. Among ALL the noteworthy occurrances; the vigorously embarrassing sex scenes, the possibly gay John Cena, the John Cena's midget-sized penis, the brilliant-as-always Bill Hader, the Lebron James being a shockingly likable supporting actor (as himself), this is Schumer's self commentary on LIFE; on life after being alone, life after meaningless sex, life after death and losing people close, and not just losing people but pushing people away; people we love, and though I'm making it sound like an Oscar contender (Cena does deserve some kind of award), it's an HONEST testament on life and getting through the struggle and Schumer literally hits all these points and captures lightning in a bottle.
It's bar none the most genuine, sincere and laugh-out-loud movie of the year. It knows how to hit you right in the feels but knows how to keep an honest laughing streak no matter how rough the going gets, truly in the fashion of Judd's greatest hits, and it's all due to Schumer. You'll forget how much you pretend to hate her or how annoying she is because she's a damn good writer and plays a clumsily accurate version of herself way better than she has any right being. Bring a friend; bring a lover; bring yourself; but pay attention. It's the best comedy of 2015.
Grade: A-
12) Spectre
Bond. Craig Bond. Welp. There's a lot to say about 007's latest outing and yet not much at all. Let's start with all the backlash and I'll be the one to address the elephant in the room. Were people THAT surprised that Spectre turned out the way it did? Were we really THAT spoiled by the sheer goodness of the mixture of realistic modern movie traits and cartoonish "Bond" personality that Casino Royale and Skyfall had to offer that we can no longer accept a Bond movie for being a BOND movie in 2015?
I've never been more baffled by a movie's backlash than this past year's latest James Bond flick. I literally cannot wrap my head around it. Since Craig has donned the bow tie (almost a whopping 10 years ago [calm down, time], each Bond film has progressively crawled more and more towards the persona of the Sean Connery days with each inch; every Bond film progressively gets more ridiculous and absurd in that lovable way Connery made the early 007 flicks out to be in the 60s and all the tropes are here today; campiness, unrealistically awesome action set pieces; throwaway Bond-girls; outrageous plots; cartoonish villains; if anything Spectre is arguably the most "Bond movie" out of the entire Daniel Craig saga and therefore one of the most "Bond movies" of all time. As Craig has slipped into more confident shoes (Skyfall being the first time he REALLY felt like Bond), he seems more and more a perfect fit for his Aston Marton of a role and like I said, Spectre's about as "Bond" as it gets.
It's a bit of a contradiction to complain being that what made Craig so likable as Bond when he started is that his first outing as 007 was bar none the most realistic outing Bond has ever been in. Yes it was still over the top in action set pieces sometimes but Casino Royale featured a Bond who could hurt and feel and fall down and actually fall in love and feel HUMAN emotion; for the first time in 007 history, James Bond felt like a REAL person. But you can't have Craig cry over a dead girlfriend who betrayed him in every Bond outing in order to get audiences to believe the story. You gotta make James feel like BOND. And though it was a bit of a hiccup to get there (looking at you Quantum of Solace), by the time we get to Skyfall, we feel as though we've seen the perfect balance of every-man Daniel Craig and cartoon hero James Bond. I've made the argument that Skyfall truly might be the PERFECT Bond film but we're not here to talk about Skyfall.
And it's a shame that the first thing people think when they see the latest outing is, "well it's not as good as Skyfall," and honestly folks, what Bond movie IS as good as Skyfall??? The reality is that critically acclaimed director Sam Mendes peaked by setting his Bond-bar about as high as James can go. At least in the 007 universe, Skyfall is an unrealistic act to follow. There's almost no WAY anything to come after would be better. So of COURSE there's gonna be backlash due to inevitable comparison. But can we stop being ignorant for just ONE moment and talk about how ridiculously awesome Spectre was during the moments when it was ACTUALLY awesome?
First and arguably most importantly: that opening scene. Not only probably the best part of the whole film but one of the best opening bits of ANY Bond film. The Day of the Dead sequence was both eerie and suspenseful. And the fact that these awesome stunts were done in ONE TAKE? Thanks Birdman Bond. Sold. No really. If that opening sequence didn't do it for you, nothing else in the movie would. The action set pieces are beyond outstanding and not just in that first scene. Let's NOT talk about the train sequence because it's simply too awesome. Where the last outing saw Bond fight on TOP of a train, here he fights INSIDE a train, vs. f**king Batista mind you (and it's about as awesome as it sounds). If there's one thing to note about the movie's positive aspects it's the action sequences and set pieces shot on the never-better cinematography. The film also makes good use of its actors including a show-stealing Christoph Waltz as the villain who ironically feels like he's simply not in the movie enough (unless he's a lead, that's always the case with him though).
At the end of the day, it's a Bond movie through and through. And like I said, it's more of a throwback to the silly Connery days more than any 007 flick in the Craig era. Bond feels unbreakable again. Yes it can be seen as a flaw (like I said, insane backlash) but Bond once again feels like he can do no wrong even when he's "on the brink of death." It's what made us love the incarnation of the Bond character more than five decades ago and it's what makes Spectre not only tolerable but unstoppable.
Does the film have flaws? Way more than you can count on two hands. But if that's the case then take into account every Pierce Brosnan flick (save for MAYBE Goldeneye and that's partially because the N64 video game made it even more awesome); if that's the case, then call out 90% the Bond flicks because if you pick them apart, they ALL have ENDLESS plot holes. Like I said, what makes Skyfall and especially Casino work is that they balance realistic expectations and exhilarating situations better than any previous 007 outing. Spectre is simply a love letter to the do-no-wrong Golden days of Bond (and I'm talking 1960s Golden).
Is it a LITTLE ridiculous that Bond travels location to location, sometimes crossing different countries, meeting this person who leads to that person, when he could have merely cut a conversation in half and asked "where's the ACTUAL final destination I need to get to," rather than play into the treasure hunt of asking person one to give clue #1 to person #2 who will have clue #2 and string you along 6 different characters before you realize you could have just asked the first guy where the hell his daughter was, rather than go on an unnecessarily wild goose chase and fall in Doctor Evil's grasp once again. It's easily the film's biggest flaw and it's a LITTLE frustrating but it's BOND; you're gonna follow him no matter where he goes.
The flaws definitely don't stop there. When it comes to Bond rules, there are the minimum requirements and not just the plot mystery; not just the Bond villain but the Bond girls and holy hell, Bond girls have NEVER felt more shoehorned in a Bond film than they do in Spectre. Save for the fact that Craig gets to live the ultimate man's dream and f**k Monica Bellucci just after she's grieved over her dead mobster-husband (and then she's never seen again), but poor Léa Seydoux (she's the new Bond girl. Don't even ask me how to pronounce it) really gets the sh*t-end of the stick here. She's essentially a plot device (as are most Bond girls) in the sense that her father was an important criminal from Quantum I guess and he needed Bond to protect her from some villainous threat and she inadvertently ends up following around Bond, gets angry with him, follows him around anyway and the two proceed to fall in love. James even has a "I'm gonna give it all up just to be with you" moment with this cardboard piece of hot foreign woman. But at the end of the day, and believe me I am NOT complaining, what purpose is there for this chick to be present in this movie? JJ Abrams referred to Harrison Ford as nothing more than "a sexy piece of luggage" in Return of the Jedi and didn't want him to feel like that in The Force Awakens so he gave him the plot-twists the character needed in order to make him not feel useless. And we're not here to talk about Star Wars (that comes later 😏) but for f**k's sake, this Bond chick might be one of the more actually useless Bond chicks in recent memory. She's hot sure (it's part of the job description) but she truly does nothing to drive the story or the characters (save for like I said, ONE plot device). My favorite use of the useless Bond girls are the ones that have the balls to kill them off. When Eva Green is killed off at the end of Casino Royale you're in denial. You refuse to believe it. Because that relationship was actually built up and BELIEVABLE. A Bond girl is killed off in the very beginning of Skyfall. The rugs were pulled from under our feet and it WORKED. I guess after all is said and done, Mendes wanted to keep one Bond girl around. Just a shame she had the least to do and she'll disappear before the next movie.
With all that said, it's part of the Bond routine and having a useless Bond girl is not a new trend to happen to 007. Aside from that, yes you can complain that Waltz wasn't utilized properly as the Bond villain and was treated to a similar fate as Benedict Cumberbatch in Star Trek Into Darkness but I love the man and thought for the few moments he was in the film, he made it all the better.
In the end, Craig's never been in a movie that's felt MORE like Bond. No it's not as exhilarating as the last outing and ironically the end sorta just fizzles out and it's all not as exciting as it builds itself up to be, but it actually ties all the previous Craig-Bond movies together stringing together a pretty cool weave of twists that makes you appreciate all of the bumpy ride we've been on thus far (yes, you might even appreciate having sat through Quantum... MAYBE). Either way, stop being ignorant. It's 007. It's gonna be ridiculous and this is bar none Craig's most ridiculous outing yet. If they stop here, will it be a fitting end? It's possible. But the world's always gonna crave more James Bond... Unless you're Die Another Day... When you're Die Another Day, you may feel that it's more than okay if 007 hangs up the bow-tie for good. Luckily, Bond's been properly (sort of) rebooted since that mess, and even if Craig steps down after this, it's been a hell of a ride to be alive during a 007 saga that actually works.
Grade: B+
11) Black Mass
There are a couple legitimate reasons to really give Black Mass credit that it deserves but the one gleaming notable aspect worth noting is Johnny Depp. Now I'm not gonna dive too deep into Depp's history since most people are educated on it but in short, Depp kinda gave up around the early 2000s (around the time he really jumped on the Burton bandwagon), and when I say he gave up I'm not saying he wasn't good or even fun to watch (quite the opposite actually) but once the man earned an Oscar nomination for Captain Jack Sparrow (and why wouldn't he? He's the glue that holds any of those movies together), he dove into a silly land of cartoon characters; Willy Wonka, Mad Hatter, Captain Jack in THREE Pirates sequels (the last being a one-man show and it was quite dreadful); hell, even his outing in Sweeney Todd is admirable but almost feels phoned in. Now like I said, I don't think these performances are BAD persé; Depp tackles each of his roles better, by only barely trying, than MOST people in Hollywood who are putting on their best Oscar faces. I just don't think I speak for myself when I say we simply wanted the old Johnny back; Ed Wood, Edward Scissorhands; hell, Gilbert f**king Grape was more of a showcase for Depp's acting. Point is this man is a BRILLIANT actor regardless of any controversy you'll hear of him being overrated. Depp's not bad at all, he's just been forgotten; lost in the black and white canvas of Tim Burton's mediocre resume (I love the man as a director but Burton's an entirely different ballpark and I'm not gonna talk about him today). The people just wanted to see DEPP again; they wanted something legitimately memorable since the first days of Captain Jack, and mind you that was almost 13 years ago. So where does that leave us today (well, in 2015)..? The answer is Black Mass.
The movie got panned critically (though critics seemed to like it more than audiences since most of America's audience snoozed at the lack of Bay-explosions and cardboard acting from half naked women (not that there's anything wrong with that but there's a time and a place) but before I dive into the movie itself, the most important aspect worth talking about is Depp because honestly, this has got to be Depp's best performance in almost two decades (almost) and I'll even go as far as saying it's one of his best acting roles ever.
By taking on the persona of one of Boston's most notorious gangsters, Whitey Bulger, Depp signed on for something FAR darker and much more unsettling than most of his resume. In short, Bulger partnered with the FBI to get away with dirty deeds and to say these dirty deeds are donder cheap is an UNDERSTATEMENT. Now I don't know how accurate the actual story goes, but if the real life Whitey was anything remotely close to how he was portrayed in the film or the book, then there's no question that Bulger really must have been a ruthless, cold blooded son of a b**ch and Depp swallows the role striking the fear of God in his audience. He takes "dark and gritty;" an essence of pure evil, and makes it so frighteningly realistic and unsettling that his character could almost be ranked with the likes of a famous horror movie icons. One of my favorite bits was from the first trailer where he's sitting at the dinner table commending the house chef on how delicious his steak is and how he's dying to know "the family secret recipe;" without spoiling anything, it's one of the more brilliant scenes of directing and one of the better pieces of the film that I almost wish they didn't include it in the previews so I could be fully immersed in the moment in the theater. Ironically it's also that scene alone that sold me on seeing the movie.
And make absolutely no mistake, going into the movie, it's PRETTY dark. As Bulger rises to power he becomes more ruthless, piling up the body count, each kill more disturbing than the last. There's definitely a touch of that Goodfellas spirit where Whitey brutally murders someone one moment and is helping his old lady neighbor with her groceries the next and again, it all comes back to Depp. The man completely consumes Bulger and slips into the eerie persona of a pale, white haired, glassy eyed, cold killer to the point where Depp is almost unrecognizable, and I'm not necessarily talking about his appearance. He's a terror to watch and anyone who's been hopeful to see Depp actually act again will smile like a little school girl at all the ugly violence (if you can handle it) simply because THIS is the Johnny Depp you've been waiting to come back to.
But don't mistake what I'm saying, I loved Black Mass; I certainly enjoyed it more than most people who watched it, but if you're gonna classify it as a gangster movie, tread lightly because it's no Goodfellas. Black Mass is closer to the tone of Depp's 2009 Public Enemies (big difference being that Mass doesn't suck), and what I mean by that is that it's violent sure, but it also takes its sweet time, especially in the last act, and that's really my only complaint. The movie builds and crackles with Depp's mean streak of becoming a notorious crime lord, but somewhere along the way it's almost like the filmmakers didn't know how to end the movie. I'm sure they wanted to keep the story as accurate as possible but the movie sorta builds and builds and then kinda just fizzles out. Not that there's anything wrong with that but the result is more of a quiet, brooding Zodiac than a bloody, climactic Godfather, and somehow Black Mass is kind of a weird medium but for the story of Whitey Bulger it works and when it works it works pretty damn well. And that's the reason it's worth noting. People complained it was "boring" without actually watching the movie. People went in expecting "gangster" as a gun toting heart-stopper when the personality of the film is more of a slow burning thriller.
In the end, you may question why you cared to ever learn about Whitey Bulger at all, but with Depp's performance it doesn't matter who Bulger was to begin with, because Depp makes him believable enough to be a character you're going to fear and you're going to love to fear him; you won't even realize that you'll love seeing Johnny actually ACT again. He won't win any Oscars for it but he sure as hell reminds us why we ever raved about his acting in the first place.
Grade: B+
10) The Walk
It's a shame that The Walk didn't get more of a wider release because it's bar none one of the best movies of the year. I sort of understand the reasoning behind the smaller releases because at the end of the day, it's still a movie about the World Trade Center and that will always be a sensitive subject but for the person who boycotts this movie because it's a movie that depicts the twin towers at all, you're simply ignorant because it's ironically one of the most respectful, beautiful tributes to the WTC that we'll probably ever get on film in our lifetime.
For what the film attempts to achieve, it's simply perfect. Is it a perfect film or my #1 pick or even top 5? No, but for the goals of making a movie depicting the true story of the daredevil from France who dreamed of walking his tightrope between two of the world's tallest towers (at the time, being the 1970s), then yes, what the film dares to accomplish in that department, it's flawless.
Everything from the sensitive but sincere story, down to the actual script and monologues, to the outstanding direction and cinematography, including its mind blowing use of 3D technology; every piece of filmmaking that went into this is treated with absolute care and precision and the final result is literally breathtaking.
Of course the film stars the endlessly likable JGL and his depiction of French tightrope walker/dreamer/crazy person is a warm and welcoming protagonist. Hell, the whole movie feels pretty fuzzy due to its PG rating but make no mistake, it's still a ridiculously intense movie, especially if you shelled out the extra dollars for the 3D featurette.
I've never been a big supporter of 3D; it's gimmicky and doesn't help drive the story. The only reason 3D should be used if it's accenting a film universe and engorging its audience in a realistic world that's demanded to be seen in expanded dimensions and when it's not only shot in 3D but actually intentionally crafted in 3D, it works really well. These examples include films like Gravity, Avatar, Hugo, hell even the 3D conversion for Titanic made all the difference in the world, because at the end of the day, the 3D helps tell those stories whether it be in space, on an alien planet or in a train station (okay so Hugo's not as easy to argue but Marty's cinematography never fails and his shots are worth the glasses gimmick); MY POINT IS. The Walk is no different. And once we reach our nail biting climax, you'll understand why the 3D makes an enormous difference. And while the finale really is the only reason to accent the 3D, the whole movie plays out like a whimsical children's book that you'd tell kids for generations and because it's told that way, the end result is genius, and that's all due to ol Robby Zemecks.
Now Robert Zemeckis used to be a household name; I won't be arrogant, his name is STILL pretty household. His most recent flick, 2012's Flight earned both a Best Pic nom and a Best Actor nom from Denzel the man Washington. So I'm not saying his films have become shabby by any means, but prior to that the man's been known for Back to the Future, Cast Away, Forrest Gump and arguably his best film, Who Framed Roger Rabbit. The man was a B-level Spielberg and his films were outstanding. And I can't blame a director for not keeping a hot streak. Hell, even Spielberg's films are some of the best on the planet (even this past year is a contender) but at the end of the day, no one's talking about War Horse regardless of all of the nominations it earned and some of Zemeckis' films have the same result. But what makes The Walk work is that the film was very carefully treated, like I said, as a bookended fairy tale of sorts, almost like how Marty treated Hugo, biggest difference being that The Walk is an entirely true story.
And what a story it is. The journey of Philippe Petit is a peculiar one but more than it being an exhilarating life-risking stunt, it also really happened.
The closest thing we had to a live action telling of this 40-year-old event is the documentary Man on Wire, which is phenomenal in its own right but it still doesn't take you into the story. It accounts for what really happened and it never stops being interesting (I mean we're talking about a man walking on a rope between the Twin Towers) and although there's footage and interviews with the people surrounding the story, we never get the backstory; the motivation. Sure it's scattered here and there but what makes The Walk worth it is that even if you know the outcome of the story, the film still makes you feel like you want him to succeed as if he was really going to fall to his death. It grips you and pulls you in, leaving you at the edge of your seat and in the end, isn't that what movies are supposed to do?
People have blamed the movie for "playing it a little too safe" but it's treated like a theatrical experience, intro, outro, monologues and flashy-showy tricks both from the actors and the filmmakers and THAT's why the movie is excellent. It won't be for everyone, but it indeed plays out like a story Georges Méliès would tell. In that sense, yes the film is more in tone with Hugo and not just because or the PG rating and like I said, for what it attempts to accomplish, it's flawless.
Watch this film folks. In 3D if you can. But even if you can't, it's still phenomenal. It's a loving tribute to New York and pays tribute to the Towers in a way that might bring tears to your eyes and not because you're sad about their fate but because you remember how beautiful they were and how crucial New York is to this planet and how a landmark as iconic as The World Trade Center will make you cherish the wonderful surroundings life has had to offer, even if it was only for a window of time. This movie does that. That's what makes it so special. And that's what makes this one of the best films of the year.
Grade: A
9) The Martian
Arguably one of the most talked about films of 2015 probably also falls under the category of most "Hollywood" films of 2015 in the sense that's got all the elements to make most people swoon over it: It's kind of an underdog story; American man stranded on a quest by himself, left for dead on a distant land, and an asinine plot is cracked to save him and win the day. Don't be mistaken, I'm not calling the film predictable by any means, especially if you read the book of the same title but Ridley Scott's The Martian is almost impossible to not enjoy from any standpoint.
The story is instantly likable; a NASA explorer is stranded on Mars after a freak accident leaves him for dead and he must find a way to not only survive but somehow make his way home to planet Earth. The PG-13 rating keeps the movie safe enough for just about anyone at any age to enjoy, (though it's not as crude or cynical as its more R-rated adapted novel) and to put in short, the script, the brilliant direction and the outstanding cast hold this movie together... To sum it up, it's essentially EVERYTHING you could want from a movie.
Let's dive into the two biggest aspects of the film: Matt Damon and Ridley Scott. A few actors have really been showcased this past year often being the ones responsible for carrying their film on their shoulders all by themselves; Johnny Depp in Black Mass, JGL in The Walk, DiCaprio in The Revenant, and in the end, The Martian belongs to Matt Damon more than any of the film's laundry list of phenomenal supporting actors and I gotta say, everything is okay in the end, not because of the final result of the plot but because this is the best Matt Damon has been since Jason Bourne. The man has always been one of my favorite actors but he also doesn't need to DO much to be likable. He's just a naturally likable actor, but that doesn't give the excuse that not all of his movies have exactly been Good Will Hunting over the last 15 years and essentially it's okay that they haven't been, because while some of them are ridiculously enjoyable (Bourne) and some just really aren't (We Bought a Zoo), the man's never had to prove his acting but with The Martian we're reminded why we ever gave a damn about him when he was crying out his teenage angst to beardy Robin Williams in a therapy room all that time ago. Essentially the task Matt Damon is given here is to be Tom Hanks in Castaway... but in space... and be funny. And honestly, if that's how the movie was billed, people would have had an idea of what they were getting into. But everything from his cocky one-liners to his true struggle, the man holds it all together and does one of the more bang-up jobs he's done in years.
Like I said, the other aspect to praise is Ridley Scott. Now, as a LONG time Scott fan, I'll be the FIRST to admit that the man KINDA has a bit of an ego complex that isn't necessary. Especially nowadays. YES, he made Alien, Blade Runner and Gladiator (literally some of the greatest films of ALL TIME) but as of lately he's also made the backlashed Exodus, the split-down-the-middle Prometheus (I LOVE Prometheus so you can all go to hell) and The Counselor (bet you forgot THAT was a thing, huh) so all it to say, the man doesn't exactly have the biggest Johnson in the room. However, you can't resent a director for not hitting home runs every time. And I guess Ridley got some kind of wakeup call because The Martian is also one of RIDLEY's best movie in years, yes years. What he does with Damon in his set pieces is outstanding and once he snowballs it all in such a fantastical plot surrounded by a brilliant cast, an "impossible plot" and a genius disco soundtrack, Ridley's direction has never been more sharp or acute. It's actually pretty astounding that the movie is well over two hours long and for pretty much being about a guy who logs videos of himself in a space station on Mars, the film breezes by. Yes, by the last half hour or so you wonder when it's all gonna end but each scene builds upon the last making the pacing of the film refreshing and it's all held together really tightly by Ridley's hand. You go Ridley 🍬
And while those are the two most important aspects of the film, we can't forget our set pieces, VFX, cinematography and BRILLIANT ship of a supporting cast ranging from the more important Jessica Chastain, Jeff Daniels and Chiwetel Ejiofor to the less important Kristen Wiig, Kate Mara and the near cameo of Donald Glover (his one scene alone is memorable enough but you only want more of him). Every person involved, big or small, is supportive. Sure you could have thrown this movie together with almost anyone you want, with the exception of Damon, and the movie would probably still play out the same but it's because the cast is quick, energetic and has real chemistry that makes them consistent even a little bit (and the end result is a lot more than a little bit). They're all fantastic.
The only issue the movie has, and it's not really a complaint, is that the final result sorta plays out exactly the way you want it to in the end. Now I'm not spoiling anything so don't shoot the messenger. I'm simply, vaguely saying that as intense as things get (and sometimes they get VERY intense, VERY unexpectedly), there's ALMOST no actual stakes at hand. Yeah, it's sort of a suicide mission but the movie doesn't cross into nearly enough dark territory to make the threats appear realistic... The movie plays out very realistically (to the point where people thought this was based on a true story. Google it) but the notion of "is Matt Damon gonna make it home, is he even going to survive?" is answered by Hollywood tropes filled with "warm and inspirational" moments. I'm not at all calling any of it BAD but when it comes to survival stories, this Martian is no Revenant. And again, that's not a BAD thing; they're two TOTALLY different survival stories; hell, The Martian book is labeled as a COMEDY. The Golden Globes even categorized it under "Comedy/Musical," right along with the joyless Joy.
Just take it for what it is folks. It's an EXCELLENT film you'll wanna watch over and over again. It's gonna be the big Hollywood favorite because it's just so damn likable. Is it Jurassic World likable? Not to most folks, but this is also a movie that's taking itself seriously, even when it's being funny.
Just watch the movie. It literally has something that everyone can enjoy. It has all the aspects of being a great film while just being plain enjoyable for anyone who doesn't giva damn about any of the filmmaking aspects. It does what movies are supposed to do and make you believe in something unbelievable.
No really...
No really...
Grade: A
8) Inside Out
One word: Pixar. There's really no better word to start describing an animated film more positively than Pixar. I'm not gonna talk about Pixar's history. They proved that their shiny armor is not entirely flawless (*cough cough* Cars 2 *cough cough*) but no other company has pumped out animated films better than they have, EVER. Their partnership with Disney was the best thing for the company and since 1995, some of the all time greatest animated films have dawned from this behemoth of an animation company and 2015 doesn't prove to be an exception.
With a few hiccups over the years; Cars 2, Brave, Monsters University (all ranging from terrible [Cars 2] to good but not as good [Monsters University] to a decent attempt [Brave], Pixar made a bold move and decided to take the year off but came back strong with two movies this past year and while I didn't see The Good Dinosaur (and heard it felt like the release should have been delayed because it inevitably fell inside Inside Out's much more dominant shadow), I was once again reminded, from this original Summer release, why Pixar has the household name that they've worked for all these years and not only is Inside Out going to steal Best Animated Picture for the year of 2015 but it will also go down as one of the best movies Pixar has ever made (I'm not kidding).
If there are two things Pixar knows how to do extraordinarily well, it's make their audiences laugh and make them cry. These two things usually happen because more than almost any other group of animated filmmakers, the guys over at Pixar know how to make a person FEEL. And the most ironic part of the affect a movie like Inside Out has on most audiences, which has you feeling all kinds of feels for 90 minutes (the demographic of feelers being full grown adults), is that this is a movie ABOUT feelings.
And what feelings they are. While the main focus is on the relationship between Joy (Amy Poehler) and Sadness (Phyllis Smith from The Office), the movie also plays out Fear (Bill Hader), Disgust (Mindy Kaling) and Anger (Lewis Black) and ALL of these characters not only have phenomenal chemistry (and voice-acted flawlessly) but they each drive the story to really make you feel nearly every kind of emotion up and down there is to feel when getting sucked into storytelling.
And what's brilliant about the storytelling is that the audience is following young girl Riley, moving from her old home as she's entering her teenage years. Not only is Riley moving, which is a huge deal for any kid to have to leave a comfortable, familiar environment just to have to start all over again, but this is also the beginning of the most crucial developmental years of this young girl's life. She's NEVER been a more emotional basket case of feelings than she is at the heart of this film's story. And the filmmakers tap into exactly that kind of anxiety that comes with change that not only makes the storytelling good but relatable. Almost ANY person over the age of 18 can tell you they felt even a SMALL aspect of what Riley goes through simply based on her drastic shift of emotion throughout the film but it's also an incredibly thought provoking film for children. By characterizing feelings, you open up hundreds of ideas in using your emotions to tell a story (literally!) and the end result literally couldn't be better.
I can keep it short because there's nothing to say about this movie that hasn't already been said. If you're a human person with human emotions this movie will make you laugh out loud and if you give into movies like most moviegoers do, you'll be fighting back tears. This a movie about FEELINGS and ALL it does from beginning to finish is make you FEEL. It's feelings within feelings. It's the INCEPTION of feelings! And it's brilliant. You'd be ignorant to not want to see this movie. In fact, it's probably one of the most important animated movies you will ever watch.
Now stick with me, I called it important. I'm not calling it The Lion King here folks. Because of the movie's values and themes and moral about accepting the inevitability of change and legitimately growing up is a tragically beautiful thing and Inside Out captures it better than almost any other animated movie you can think of, and yet somehow, some way, it's STILL not as good as its predecessors. Don't get me wrong, I am NOT bashing this movie (I LOVE this movie) but to be blunt, it's not as heartfelt as Toy Story, it's not as compelling as Finding Nemo, it's not as eye opening as Monsters Inc, and it's not as majestic as The Incredibles (but hell, what animated movie is?). It's not that there's anything WRONG with Inside Out, it's just that Pixar's hall of fame still outranks it. But while that's the case, this is bar none the best Pixar movie since Up, maybe even better. I know that's bold as hell, but the movie is a reminder that Pixar is once again untouchable and consists of the best animated filmmakers of not just this generation and the last, but of all time. And that little tiny reminder inside your my head; that little feeling you I have, it exists because of Inside Out. Go see this movie right now. You owe it to your feelings.
Grade: A
7) Spotlight
Well here's an unlikely gem that's bound to surprise you if you can tolerate talkative dramas. You really need to have he patience to withstand this one folks because it's literally just a movie of people having conversations. That's it. For two hours. If you can handle that, you'll adore Spotlight for the sheer fact that it's probably one of the best films about journalism since All the President's Men and it tackles a topic that's even more an elephant in the room than the movie itself; it exposes and exploits disturbing, unspeakable, horrific actions that have been taking place over the last 40+ years and Spotlight is the film to uncover all the hidden truths of what is probably one of the biggest news stories of all time.
Now when I say it's a movie of just people having conversations I mean that the movie is all dialogue; there's no break for action, exposition (not physically anyway), heroes, villains (unless you're counting real life heroes and villains who are deemed as such based on the horrific stories being uncovered), no action, no big spectacles, no CGI, no explosions, so it's BASICALLY no Hollywood, and yet the ironic part is that it's easily one of the better films of 2015.
The movie is quite literally entirely dialogue based from beginning to finish. Yes, things happen but those things are a groundbreaking news story slowly shuffling along and it's shuffled by some of Hollywood's most likable actors working today. Everyone from Michael Keaton to Rachel McCadams to Mark Ruffalo to even roles that aren't as much in the spotlight like Stanley Tucci and Liev Schreiber; EVERY player involved is outstanding and the chemistry is worth noting. In fact, if Best Ensemble were a category at the Oscars, I'd be more than okay with seeing this one nab that award. The cast is just that good and they work well together like they were the real people they were portraying during these dark truths being revealed among the streets of Boston.
What makes the film not only believable but horrific is that this brilliant script come to life by such solid actors is tragically a true story. It uncovers one of the biggest scandals America has ever faced, dealing with the Catholic Church covering up the abuse of children by nearly 100 priests (and this was only the first story). Everything about the material is sensitive and the film is treated as such but what makes it equally rewarding is that they don't hold back. Rather than go into graphic, obscene imagery, the film uses purely dialogue to discuss how unspeakable, grotesque and mortifying these occurrences were and still are, leaving only imagery for the audience to create in their own heads (which can often be much worse than what's put on screen) and it's because the film treats these events with such care and precision, it makes you feel the struggle like you were one of the reporters. Due to the source material alone, the film isn't exactly easy to watch. Sure it's rated R, only for language, teetering on PG-13 status but the reality is, to come across in an importantly impacting way, the film had to cross some lines in order to make their audience feel uncomfortable, even if that uneasiness only comes with merely dialogue.
But the dialogue is brilliant and the fact that the film unfolds just like a news story is nothing short of brilliant. As the characters find out more details regarding their story, so does the audience. We never have any knowledge of the unfolding events before our characters do and that's part of what makes the whole story not just intense and compelling, but real.
Spotlight is truthfully a picture that should be seen by everyone not just because it's an incredibly well crafted film but because it's an important piece of modern day history. The fact that the churches got away with so much is mind boggling and the reporters' actions show that they're just as disturbed by the source material as the audience. It's a film that shakes your faith because it reminds you just how f**ked up the world can be, even inside the doors of the holiest places in the world.
Yes we remember Boston Globe and the Spotlight team and will continue to recognize them because of this film but because it was done in such a way, and NOT in a way that beats you over the head with guilt ridden morals and exposition to make you feel bad; to attempt to force you to cry; to be nothing more than pure Oscarbait. Spotlight is much more than that and proves all on its own that it doesn't need to bank on its sensitive subjects in order to get its point across and STILL nab a few Oscars come the end of the month.
No it's not my top pick this year but I'm also a sucker for my childish entertainment and you'll see that at the end of this list. But much like I felt with Bridge of Spies, I respect ALL the craft that went into the final product, make no mistake, and I WILL say that Spotlight is probably one of the most important films of 2015 and one of the more important films out there. And like I said, as far as being one of the best movies about journalism, it doesn't quite beat All the President's Men, but it comes PRETTY damn close.
Grade: A
6) What We Do In The Shadows
I don't know how to even start describing this movie; It's absolutely outrageous. It's a mockumentary, a satire, an homage and above all else, it's a bat-sh*t (pun intended?) insanely hilarious original comedy.
What makes this movie such a hidden gem of movies is that it's a literal hidden gem. So many people don't even know of this movie's existence and it's all the more special because of it because it's bar none one of the most satisfying movies you'll see all year.
Having taken time from the cult followed Flight of the Conchords, funny man/New Zealander Jemaine Clement birthed this brilliant satire on vampires; all different kinds from all different generations and honestly, for what it attempts to spoof, it might be one of the best vampire movies ever made, if not one of the most satirically accurate.
I'll admit, as much as I love mockumentary style filmmaking, it's become a lazy writing tactic over the years. It's an easy out because all someone needs to do is showcase a funny scenario and have the characters make confessionals about it, speaking everyone's minds, and voila! A recipe for comedy. The problem is that since The Office, this style has been so overused that it truly requires real talent to make it stand out these days. Sure the characters and scenarios can be funny, but if the structure of your story is stale, no matter how many ludicrous events or outrageous confessionals are thrown in, the end result will also be stale. Luckily Jemaine and friends have really done their research.
While the characters all live together, in the style of something out of The Real World, and mostly everyone is a pretty boy of sorts (vampires having to be romantic and all), the mythology of this vampire group harks back a few hundred plus years dating back to a history of their oldest living roommate, Peter, who essentially resembles a horrifying really old-withered version of Nosferatu, and the results of all these different generations of vampires living together ensues in absurd brilliant antics that can't help but make an audience member giddy, whether they're a fan of vampires, horror, comedy or just film in general. The film is appealing whether you're a fan of the genres the film attempts to parody, but it works on its own right as a faux documentary.
And by playing out the legacy of all these vampires, their mythos and personal story lines never get old whether it's one vampire promising his human assistant that he'd turn her immortal or whether it's a sad vampire longing for the love of his life, a human from a nearly 100-year-old relationship. Everything about the mythology just works and what's great is because it's a comedy, Jemaine and the gang know how to really laugh at themselves. For example, whenever the characters get rowdy and are about to get in a scuff, they often will fly (yes fly) into the corners of the living room, hissing at one another, ready to have themselves and old fashioned flight fight. But the absurdity of that is unmatched by the actual sight of the actors dangling in mid-air awkwardly hissing each other. You literally can't do anything but laugh out loud. The mythology even digs deep enough for belly laughs that they showcase the rivalry between our protagonist vampires and their fellow werewolves (yes, WEREWOLVES) who are not only seen as sworn enemies but as stuck up panzies, causing the kind of immature name calling and mocking the way jocks do to nerds in high school. Conchords' Murray may or may not show up. The end result is fantastic.
But most importantly it's the satire on the genre of it all. Yes it lampoons any kind of vampire mythology you can come up with (they've done their homework) but it also really tackles that persona of gothic horror seen in films almost one-hundred years ago and seeing these elderly vampires in immortally young bodies, in 2015, is just funny. Whether they're going out to nightclubs or trying to understand the Internet indoors, these vampires are just never NOT fun to watch. They tackle all kinds of vampire mythology that you wouldn't even think about. They're out to lampoon the mixing of generations old and new with such an ancient idea of these pretty blood-sucking vampires and to see it play out in modern day is just plain hilarious.
The humor whizzes by and the writing is just absolutely brilliant. Jemaine has always proved he knows how to do comedy and his stone-faced always-serious Count Vladislav parades a gang of unlikely vampires who are some of the more likable (if not embarrassing) characters you'll see in a film all year. They all have exceptional chemistry and the events that transpire are utterly ridiculous at points. It's truly the actors' ability to be able to keep a straight face in these situations that make their scenarios so damn funny.
And honestly, even if you're not big on mockumentary-style, if it sounds interesting even a little bit, don't miss it. It's one of the more entertaining films you'll watch. It's one of the better lampoons out there, it's a loving tribute to gothic vampire mythology and it's honestly probably one of the best, if not funniest, mockumentaries since Borat. If it sounds up your alley at ALL, you'd be a fool to pass up on it.
Grade: A
5) Steve Jobs
Holy hell, Danny Boyle. Holy hell, Aaron Sorkin. Holy HELL, Michael Fassbender. I have no words. That's a lie; I have many words. But really, what can I say? Steve Jobs is so much so a film; an ACTUAL FILM, in EVERY essence of the word, it reminds me why I settle for movies that just aren't this good. I know by starting with that I'm really blowing it up (and it's not even my #1 pick) but let me break it down real quick.
We need the Summer entertainment (Jurassic World); we need the comedies (Trainwreck); we need the stupid (Jurassic World), but when it comes to the drama; I'm talking nail biting DRAMA, any film that's released after September is fair game and totally unpredictable. 90% of Best Pics occur either in December or the last couple months leading up to December and with Jobs coming out in the late fall, I had a feeling; just an INKLING, with the people involved, that we'd see some nominations and honesty, even though the big ones are listed, I'm not even that mad that it didn't get nominated for more because at the end of the day it harks back to those core essentials: Boyle directing Fassbender reading Sorkin. Even just WRITING those names together smells like Oscar to me, and honestly, all white awards aside, it's just the perfect blend of what makes a movie a GOOD-ASS movie. Remember a little while back I was talking about how misguided Joy was? How, even with a household writer-director guiding a household name, essentially it was all just a failed attempt at something great? Ok, well even if you didn't read that, in short, Joy completely fails at almost everything Steve Jobs succeeds in.
I'm not kidding. The movie is two hours long and it's, no joke, just characters talking in different rooms (usually before Jobs is about to launch his next big dream product); TALKING... THAT'S IT. Steve Jobs could VERY easily be a stage production and it would succeed too. Obviously that credit goes to Sorkin. The man's writing is SO razor sharp, so slick and ridiculously quick, if you nod off for a minute, you could miss a big chunk of conversation. What's brilliant is that the man takes three hours worth of material and crams it into a smooth two hour three-act structure. The story really only takes place in three major locations (or one location dressed up in three different eras) and let's the actors do their talking. This is where the stars, but mostly Fassbender, come into play.
Honestly, I want DiCaprio to take home Best Actor this year more than anyone (even more than he does), just because he's really deserved it at this point, even if not for The Revenant (but that will come later) but as much as it pains me to say it, if Fassbender beat him (and he wouldn't; if anyone would it would be youthful Redmayne again) I wouldn't be that mad. And at the end of the day it's because Fassbender's just THAT good. He's one of my favorite actors to really pop up in the 21st century (him and Hardy; Hardy will come later) and I've been saying for too long that the man's gonna need a damn Oscar. I'm mad that I missed out on Macbeth but I'm not discouraged because Fassbender's gonna keep getting work and he's gonna KEEP being awesome. Jobs is no exception; the man is OUTSTANDING from putting on his American accent to bottling all of his mad rage and brilliant frustration; the man is a f**king powerhouse of acting and he could do a one man show on stage and it would sell out instantly (he's LITERALLY just that good). Call me ignorant but Fassbender's the kind of actor who can support a whole film on his back alone and with Jobs, he pretty much does exactly that. Make no mistake, Kate Winslet is an incredible supporting character and even though his role is small, Seth Rogen plays the discouraged work partner/friend of Jobs in a way that hints at Rogen's abilities at actually being able to take a role seriously. Everyone who takes part does a phenomenal job (pun intended?) with what they're given from Jeff Daniels to even the smallest of characters. Every actor utters their brilliant lines and it stands out, which of course helps due to the accute and ridiculously curious direction of Danny Boyle.
Now Boyle's always been unpredictable but his movies have never NOT been interesting. From his earlier, grittier days of Trainspotting to his influence on horror with 28 Days Later to his Hollywood Bollywood hall of fame hitter, Slumdog Millionaire to his literal one-man James Franco show, depicting real life 127 Hours, Boyle's movies are NEVER boring and for a movie that's pretty much just Steve Jobs yelling at people like a crazy person, this might be one of the more exciting movies Boyle's ever done, not because what's happening is exciting exactly, but because the intensity never lets up from the opening to closing credits. Boyle harnesses an energy together for his films that honesty ranks him among the best of the best. When most people think of the best directors out there, Boyle's never a first to come to mind but he holds together a film in ways most common directors can only dream of doing and as much as I don't like using one film's success to bring another's down (nearly impossible in this age of sequels and remakes), I can't help but just feel bad that there was an attempt to make a Steve Jobs movie, only a few years ago. Being pretty much direct-to-DVD and starring Ashton Kutcher, Jobs was a misfire of a movie begging to be made properly. I don't LIKE to think that Boyle and Sorkin got together after that movie came and bombed but I'm 97% positive that's exactly what happened. But as of now, all of that's in the past and will soon be quickly forgotten because THIS Jobs isn't just BETTER, it's one of the best movies of the year.
EVERYTHING about this movie works on every scale and if you're a dialogue junkie (Tarantino fans anyone? Don't worry, we'll get there soon), you will fall HARD for this movie. Fassbender is simply electrifying as the intimidating, possibly maniacal inventor of Apple. Boyle's direction is tighter, swifter and better than he's been in years and Sorkin proves yet again he's one of the best screenwriters on the planet. Whatever your opinions are on the man or the Mac, you're gonna wanna see this for the movie.
Grade: A+
4) The Revenant
And now we've finally arrived. Not my number one pick but one of the most talked about movies of the last couple months. I hate being a movie hipster and bragging about knowing of/liking movies before they blow up, but I knew The Revenant was going to be really special from the moment I saw the first preview, and it was due to QUITE a few things that we're about to address.
Perhaps it was that the previews were spattered with Alejandro González Iñárritu's name (which you should try and say ten times fast) with the bold text "FROM THE DIRECTOR OF BIRDMAN," (not just last year's Best Pic winner but another film I blew up MONTHS before it even came out); perhaps it was the lush of the outstandingly REAL cinematography (I know that's a weird word to describe cinematography with but there's so much CGI taking place for legit camerawork nowadays that it's always a joy to take note of when it's ACTUALLY filmed, and when it looks damn good), but for me, and you all saw it coming, the REAL reason I went bananas for the release of this movie was due to my man Leo.
Now, make no mistake, I'm gonna bring this all to a screeching halt to talk about him (if you wanna stop reading, now's a good time because if you're not rolling your eyes yet you will, but DiCaprio is a person worth talking about and this movie's just more proof that he IS that good but it's also ridiculously obvious that the man is literally DYING for an Oscar (and I can't even make a "pun intended" joke because it's a LITTLE too close to home). The man ate raw meat, crawled in the dirt, survived outrageous weather conditions and spoke in a native language more than his natural English language and THAT'S ONLY WHERE IT STARTS. But I'm gonna save more talk for when I break for Leo. Let me get to the actual film before I put you all to sleep with my man-crush on this dude (shut up).
And HOLY HELL, what a movie this is. I know I tend to blow up movies when I truly like um (anyone who knows me knows that I'll defend Interstellar as one of the greatest movies of all time even if it is very flawed at times) but hot DAMN, I expected to be blown away and The Revenant STILL molested my expectations like a grizzly bear (too soon?).
Honestly, the best word I can use to describe the movie is brutal and perhaps there is no better word to describe it, but don't let anyone tell you different; when it gets brutal it gets f**king BRUTAL. Now, I know what some of you are thinking out there. "It's not THAT bad, he says." OK, well I'm talking GENUINE expectations and not for people who can tolerate graphic horror and violently abysmal situations on a day-to-day basis. The movie is not just graphic but depressing and savage. And it's very important that anyone who does watch the movie understands that the graphic, violent, spineless, raw, realistic events that transpire are done with two intentions (in my eyes): one, to justify revenge (because vengeance is something so powerful, it will make you wish the most gruesome death upon any character who hurts your lovable protagonist EVEN if that gruesome bastard is Tom Hardy) and two, to showcase what life was ACTUALLY like on the brink of the beginning American civilization. It's one of the most crucial aspects that make the film deeper and the whole experience WAY more realistic than most of Hollywood's audiences are used to.
Getting to the nitty gritty (pun intended), the film is definitely gritty as f**k because Iñárritu is reminding us that no, this is not Hollywood. This is what life was actually like and the end result is so compelling; so electrifying that its intensely lifelike atmosphere is realistic enough to make it not only hard to watch, but enough of a capture of an era that if schools allowed it (which they would never), they would show this film in history classes. It's literally THAT convincing. Like I said, perhaps it's the lifelike cinematography that can't go without mention.
Because if Hateful Eight doesn't win best cinematography (and it won't), the winner should be (and most likely will be) The Revenant. I applaud Iñárritu SO damn much because of his efforts in not just the films themselves but down to the pure LOOK of the film. It's the very essence of what film IS. It ALL boils down to visuals no matter which way you twist it; Great actors reading great scripts directed by master filmmakers HONESTLY can only boil down to so much without cinematography. To not focus on cinematography, your director would need a script and actors that would have to be good ENOUGH that if you were to just stick a bunch of characters in a room for three hours and just have them talking, your movie would still be considered one of the best pictures of the year. It would take a very specific kind of talent to produce a film like that and get away with it. Sure enough, there was a film to accomplish exactly that, this year... But that film was not The Revenant.
On the contrary, Revenant is almost completely speechless. There's little to no dialogue from beginning to finish and when there IS dialogue, it's mostly in Apache. This film piggybacks so much on visuals that without them, you simply wouldn't have a movie. And one of the most impressive feats of Iñárritu's latest gem, is that he shot every single FRAME with natural light; everything from the sun-filled sky to the grey clouds to the rain and snow to the light by fire, the film literally uses no lights and ALL means of natural light to give the film THAT much more of a realistic feel to it. The lush visuals are breathtaking whether it's shots of a snowy mountain afar or if it's a continuous chase by horse through woods. The film is exhilarating based on visuals alone but also because of how real it all was making this one of the most difficult and challenging movies to be filmed in recent memory.
I understand it's received flack for such an impressive accomplishment (nothing gets away without criticism it seems) but one reason The Revenant is definitely worth noting is because of just how hard the movie was to make. Leo has said it; Iñárritu has said it. The movie was a b*tch to make and the end result is all the better for it. Whether it be by natural lighting or Leo eating bugs (I don't know, did he?), everything in the movie is as raw and gritty as humanly possible with no use of CGI, props, faked elements or anything to pull the illusion of the real world over the audience's eyes... Except for the bear of course. That was CLEARLY a guy in a bear costume (duh).
But if we're gonna bring it all full circle and address the bearded, desperate elephant in the room, let's finally bring it back to the reason why we're here: Leo.
He's the hottest topic right now and generally around awards season because he's more or less become an inside joke to the Academy and to anyone who tunes in because the man can't seem to win a damn award when everyone knows he deserves one, and it's not necessarily because those geezers at the Academy are being dicks, I think it really might be that he's getting out shined by the competition... Now hear me out. No one wants the man to win more than me but let's review the resume for a hot sec. DiCaprio has been nominated 6 times (SIX) and has never won. That's more nominations than most actors achieve in their lifetime and DiCaprio's still fresh in his youth (alright, not YOUTH but he ain't old) and since he was first recognized as a child, DiCaprio's clearly received love from all sides even if it's gotten to the point where the Academy is just stringing him along. And let's analyze the roots for just a moment:
Everyone can agree that Gilbert Grape was the first time DiCaprio proved he wasn't just a good kid actor. Sure he went full retard but he did it not by being offensive but by being convincing. But alas, DiCaprio was just a small child and Tommy Lee Jones needed to remind the world he existed for a reason (can't fight Jones).
Leo didn't really make himself known again till Titanic blew up and Kate Winslet apparently proved more worthwhile of a nomination (but I'm refusing to speak anymore on Titanic).
In 2004 the Academy recognized Leo as an adult and they did him good. When he was recognized for The Aviator, someone finally gave him the recognition the man deserved. In fact, to this day I will still defend Howard Hughes as DiCaprio's best acting role to date (watch it again. Tell me I'm wrong). The problem with that was it was also the same year they nominated Jamie Foxx as Ray f**king Charles (RIGHT, let's not argue that one).
Many will argue Leo should have gotten SOME love for The Departed but that movie was filled with so much damn talent that arguing the rest of the cast and crew over him isn't really that hard to believe (not acceptable but it is The Departed we're talking about).
In 2006, Diacaprio was recognized for Blood Diamond, a ridiculously underrated film of his that I MIGHT argue he should have gotten over Forrest Whitaker for Last King of Scotland but even with that wonky eye, Whitaker did kill it... Again, might be up for debate.
In 2012, Leo wasn't even recognized for his sickly twisted role of Calvin Candy in Django Unchained and I don't wanna talk about it because it will just make me upset. The Academy REALLY dropped the ball there.
And In 2013, DiCaprio was a major chunk of why people were talking about Wolf of Wall Street and arguably carried much of the film on his own, but that was also the year Matthew truly found his McConaughey in Dallas Buyers Club.
So what's my point? DiCaprio's been really good all these years and you should blindly support him even though Revenant isn't his best acting? ...in a sense, yeah.
It's kind of a shame that it's sort of a Martin Scorsese-Departed situation where the Academy should just give the man his award because he's paid his dues already and deserves an award for just being the person he is and it's sad to report that because Leo DOES deserve the award, EVEN it's not for The Revenant (but by God, he better get it).
Look. I'm not bashing the role by ANY means. In FACT, by speaking very little (and when he does, it mostly being in Apache), DiCaprio REALLY struggles like he were actually left for dead and by doing it in many beats of silence, he almost achieves what Tom Hanks did in Castaway, silently, all those years ago... Except DiCaprio's not Tom Hanks.
Look. It's like what I was just saying about Marty's Departed syndrome. Departed is an EXCELLENT film; One of my FAVORITE Scorsese flicks. But as everyone knows, Marty should have had the Oscar locked in by Goodfellas (and Goodfellas was 1990!).
My POINT is, whether they finally give DiCaprio his dues (and they should; outside of Fassbender there's no one else worthy of eternal glory [not even gonna talk about Eddie Redmayne. Don't even bring it up], DiCaprio has DESERVED this award already EVEN if you can rightly justify the competition that's defeated him all these years.
Because in the end, The Revenant is ALL about DiCaprio... SURE it's plenty about Iñárritu... Hell, it's VERY much about Iñárritu. While I won't rave about it as much as Birdman (I love Birdman so much), The Revenant MIGHT be Iñárritu's magnum opus... I literally just said I liked Birdman better but I'm also not ignorant. The Revenant is PHENOMENAL. It's filled with pure, gritty brutality showcasing the era of a lost civilization that's reminiscent of Apocalypto (and almost matches it), and Apocalypto is one of the greatest movies out there. If anything this very film IS Iñárritu's Apocalypto. Sure maybe it won't be as well remembered come a few short years but this could be where Iñárritu peaks. Everything about it is a film lover's dream. From the cinematography, the score, the acting (and not just Leo but Tom Hardy who proves again, he's a badASS, diving right into character with every role he consumes (we'll get to Hardy soon, don't worry); The Revenant is WHY you love films. If you can handle the brutal relentlessness of such an intense (and sh**ty) time to live in, you'll appreciate the effort and energy it took to make this little gem. It just might take home Best Picture this month and might sweep all the major awards but even if it doesn't you still owe it to yourself to see it, if you truly love movies, because The Revenant is not only simply outstanding but truly one of the best pictures of 2015.
Grade: A+
3) The Hateful Eight
Quentin Tarantino. Ho.ly. Sh*t.
JUST when you thought. That Quentin Tarantino. Couldn't get AAANYmore "Tarantino." He went and did something like this... And TOTALLY REDEEMED HIMSELF.
Not that Tarantino ever needed redemption, he's one of the only filmmakers whose resume may be smaller than others but has had a consistent hot streak since the early 90s with not ONE bad film (even the less remembered Jackie Brown and the B-movie Death Proof are excellent films in their own right [in their OWN right, stop being ignorant]). Tarantino doesn't need an intro because he's f**king Tarantino. He's gonna do literally whatever the hell he wants and he's created such a legacy over the years that what was once considered a cult following is a now a mass-media audience earning the man Oscars. He's made it folks. Tarantino has literally done it all and if he were to tap out now, I'd be heartbroken but completely okay with it.
Hateful Eight is so ridiculously worth talking about I don't even know how I'm supposed to do it. The fact that this movie received mixed reviews at ALL, let alone the people out there who didn't like it, BAFFLES me; Absolutely baffles me.
Now I GET if you're not a Tarantino fan (the game, with his films, is usually "you're a follower or you're not;" you're either 100% on board or 0%. It has been that way from the very beginning), but if you claim yourself as a Tarantino fan; I'm talking someone who adores and collects and rewatches his films with love and adoration as a true FAN, I can't wrap my head around you not falling madly in love with this film. It's not only THAT good but it's also arguably the MOST Tarantino movie Tarantino's ever made. And saying that wouldn't have made sense before watching the film. But let's dive into the history for ONE sec.
Originally written as a stage production (and you'll understand why when you see it), Hateful 8 was conceived as a sequel to his last film, 2012's Django Unchained, to be deemed something like Django In Hell, or something like that. Either way, it was intended as a sequel and I GUESS God Himself heard about this idea, didn't like it, allowed for the script to be leaked and brought production to a screeching halt.
You all know the story (if you're a Tarantino fan). Tarantino was PISSED. And out of retaliation, he said he wasn't even gonna do the project anymore. EVERYONE got upset. "If I can't play with it, no one can" was essentially the rule he had made... But as all great parents do, they forgive and find a way to make us feel better again. Time passed. Tarantino reshopped the story and for excellent reason: he was clearly making a better story. Flashforward to 2014. Tarantino had his stage production... Sort of. With a wicked cast (puns in all directions) and a WICKED screenplay, Tarantino hosted a limited production of a stage reading for what would later become the film, The Hateful Eight. Flashforward to December 2015. Said film is released and like I said, holy Santa Claus sh*t. I haven't even BEGUN speaking on the film itself and I'm already blowing my own mind thinking about how good it is. And I know you're probably thinking "why is it not number one, then?" Well folks, I'm ignorant, stubborn, a creature of habit and need to give love to the things I love most like I were beating a dead horse. SPEAKING of dead horses, let me get into the film already.
Let's start with the idea of walking into this film. Being presented as a limited "roadshow" with overture, intermission and shot on "glorious 70mm film," the actual experience of Hateful 8 was an unforgettable one. Tarantino literally treated this presentation like you were living in the old west (or in the 70s drive-in, growing up with his pulpy taste) and it all shows. Now if you were like me, your first thought upon hearing of 8 was probably "Tarantino just did a Western, we don't need another one right now," and if you're REALLY like me you'll watch this film and realize how ignorant and just how wrong you were all along.
What makes 8 not just tolerable as "another western" by Tarantino, but truly excellent is that it really stands on its own two feet, completely separate from Django. While yes it could be argued that the two are alike, or could even exist in the same universe, the films actually couldn't be more different and that's the first reason why you'll be thankful that the film wasn't treated as a sequel to Django. Where Django was an adventurous romp filled with revenge and played out like an homage to 70s action heroes who were untouchable, Hateful 8 literally treats itself like a play filled with some of the most despicable people imaginable playing some of the meanest, filthiest, most offensively foul characters Tarantino has ever written (it's right there in the title after all), and they're all locked in one house together slowly brooding in what becomes a gory game of Clue.
You see, what makes Hateful 8 so damn special is that it's a throwback, not just to Tarantino's earlier work but to old films and actual stage productions where the primary focus is on the actors and the script rather than the flashy visuals. And while Tarantino really loves flashing his visuals in his B movies, he's NEVER been one to rely on gimmicks that make most generic blockbusters so popular yet lifeless. One thing Tarantino has gotten better at is cinematography and while Hateful 8 is no Basterds or Django, the camerawork is still outstanding though, outside of the glorious 70mm, this is the first time I can recall in recent memory that the score outweighs the visual (composer Ennio Morricone's simplistic themes are both haunting and memorable and the man deserves an Oscar for his work here). ALL it to say is, outside of the recognizable traits in visuals and score, this is still a Tarantino and in the end, the movie works because Tarantino gets to do what he does best: write and direct.
Part of why I want to be a writer-director so badly is because Tarantino gives me reason to. He seems like he has a blast with every picture he works on but his content is QUALITY and for giving the art of "the B movie" an A+ makeover makes him one of the more talented writer-directors to ever explode out of Hollywood. His craft is literally untouchable and Hateful 8 might be one of the best scripts the man has EVER written.
By sticking 8+ horrible characters in a room together and have them exchange nothing but dialogue for three hours, Tarantino has done the impossible and made what sounds like the most boring night ever one of the best films of 2015 and one of the best films he's ever made. I know I'm REEEALLY hyping it up right now but as a lover of the classic medium of film, no other Tarantino movie has felt more like an actual FILM than this. Maybe it's the the throwback feel of it all; maybe it's literally just the dialogue, but if Basterds was Tarantino's visual canvas of a masterpiece, Hateul 8 is the mouthpiece. Of course he's known for creating exposition with colorful, vibrant (not to mention bloody as all hell) imagery; I literally just referred to Inglourious Basterds as a canvas and hell, just LOOK at the Kill Bill films; it's an art student's wet dream. But like I said, it all comes back to the script and the end result is like watching the world's deadliest chess game.
I honestly think Clue is the better board game analogy; the first half of the film is all set up and the second half is ALL payoff. Over the course of three hours (yes it's long, shut up) we spend JUST enough time getting to know our characters so that we don't really know exactly who we trust or who we WANT to trust and when we get to that point (in act two, once characters start getting picked off), Tarantino has us exactly where he wants us. And the screenplay for this LITERALLY couldn't have been better. There's literally nothing more I could have asked for from the story. In terms of a screenplay, it's literally flawless. Perhaps it's just because I'm a true sucker for dialogue but this is the CLOSEST Tarantino has felt to his roots, based on screenplay alone, since the days of Reservoir Dogs. In fact, one could argue that this is just the western version of Dogs and I would support that argument.
I haven't even begun to talk about the cast and I'm already excited with what I have so far. You don't even need to know who's in it to enjoy it. In fact, if I were to go into the full cast you'd be spoiled by the cameo surprises and I HATE spoiling great things for good people. With that said, everyone from despicable Kurt Russel to show stealer Samuel L. Jackson, EVERYONE is phenomenal and are part of one the best ensembles of 2015. And honestly, outside of Jennifer Jason Leigh playing Daisy, one of the grossest women I've ever seen in a film (who puts up with so much sh*t from beginning to finish that she deserves an Oscar for her toleration), the only real part of the cast I need to break for is Sam Jackson who produces his best Tarantino monologue since Pulp Fiction (I'm not kidding. You'll know it when you see it and you'll probably start crying of laughter when you do. You might even feel guilty for laughing so hard at it, but you'll feel less bad when everyone around you is laughing/crying just as hard as you are).
I don't know what else to say folks. It's one of the most despicable, ruthless, bloody, bitter films consisting of 90% outrageous dialogue and 10% gory surprises. It does exactly what movies are supposed to do: make you feel, even if that feeling is disturbed and even more disturbed by how excited you get by all the brutal violence and graphic, violent, racist, relentless content the movie has to show but that's also why it's important to recognize because this isn't JUST a movie. It's a Tarantino movie and if you really are a fan, The Hateful Eight is guaranteed to make you giddy like a little school girl. Your thirst for blood and dialogue will be quenched once more.
Grade: A+
2) Star Wars - Episode VII: The Force Awakens
Well this one will come as no shock to any of you (at least any of you who know me). It's Star Wars folks... I LOVE Star Wars. I LIVE for Star Wars. And while I do defend the prequels, I'm not COMPLETELY ignorant. I fully understand that original Star Wars is the BEST Star Wars; old Star Wars is everything unique and simply complete in what makes not just a movie good but a franchise memorable.
I'm not gonna dive into my rants about what is arguably THE most popular franchise of ALL TIME. I've written three separate pieces depicting films from three different generations of the Star Wars, including this latest film which, if you're looking for even a shred of how I feel about it, please read
However, for those too lazy or unmotivated, I will give you a recap of what I thought of the latest and it comes down to this. As I said I love the entire franchise but I obviously praise the originals and perhaps my love for originals is the exact reason my love for the latest Episode has me more excited than a sweaty nerd with acne, standing in line at Comic Con, because in the end folks, this FEELS like old Star Wars. In a way, with only a major makeover, this IS old Star Wars.
I can keep it short because I've spewed out all my thoughts in my previous note but essentially I can boil it down to very little and still get my point across: THIS is the Star Wars you know. THIS is the Star Wars you love. THIS is the droid Star Wars that you're looking for.
Everything about the new film is treated with so much care and precision, it LITERALLY feels like a legitimate continuation of the old stuff (some will even argue it feels TOO much like the old stuff). The personality of the film; the humor; the adventure; the true blue thrills (some very blue); it's all here, filled with excitement and within fifteen minutes, it does more with the material given than the prequels could do with three full three movies. It does quite literally everything the prequels couldn't in not only making a Star Wars movie feel fun again but ACTUALLY making it feel like Star Wars. The spirit and the energy of the original is back; it's a huge throwback to the glory days of adventurous heroes and truly evil villains, even if these new heroes and villains are just starting to develop. In fact, the whole story still needs to develop because everything feels ridiculously fresh again.
One thing people can't argue is that no matter how much it feels like old Star Wars (and I'll address the haters in just a moment), the entire gloss of the original trilogy has a makeover with complete homage and throwback to what made the initial films so special nearly 40 years ago. The set design, the special effects, the costumes, weapons, ships; it's all updated. Everything about Awakens is completely modernized but modernized featuring characters, references, homages, PUPPETS, and little f**king nooks and crannies from the previous films that you won't even be expecting. The movie is a thrill and a ridiculously respectful love letter to Star Wars and what made us all fall in love with Star Wars in the first place.
And for the people who DIDN'T love the new flick? Give me a LEGITIMATE reason; none of this "it's a remake of A New Hope," crap because if you compare the two films, they're REALLY not the same thing. Yes, JJ Abrams wanted to make the new film feel enough like ANH without actually rebooting it because you can't just reboot Star Wars. He did it in a way that feels about as close to a solid reboot but it really isn't. It's literally titled "Episode VII." Does the film start with our hero leaving a stranded desert planet to find their destiny and does the film end with the Rogue squadron blowing up the Death Star? Kinda, yeah... Okay, sure it's a little all-too-familiar, even for diehards but look at literally EVERYTHING that happens in between; hell, just dissect the character arcs alone for these new (and one old) comers: Finn rebelling against his Storm Trooper heritage just to do the right thing; simplicity; a story literally ANYONE can get on board with. Poe Dameron; a dude with a small but ACTUAL purpose who's doing more than just flying around, taking orders (Rogue squadron characters with ACTUAL story lines); Han Solo coming out of retirement to face his demons from his past in order to help make a better future (NO one would have expected that from Han by the end of Jedi); Kylo Ren, a seemingly clone of Vader at first but turns out to be outrageously tormented and flawed (it's PART of the character. He's SUPPOSED to be whiny and not at his peak. STOP COMPLAINING AND OPEN YOUR DAMN EYES), and REY; Daisy f**king Ridley coming out of NOWHERE to prove to be not only the strongest female protagonist Star Wars has EVER had (yes, more so than Leia) but takes this new trilogy by her bow-staff thing to prove to be one of the better actors and characters to come out of this entire franchise. She's ridiculously likable, completely believable, and she's smokin' hot. You literally have perfect ingredients for Star Wars characters and this is literally only the beginning of a brand new era.
If ANYTHING, the parallels between beginning and ending of both films (New Hope and Force Awakens) are to be bookends to the franchise, paying homage to what MADE A New Hope so damn successful in the first place. And as far as success goes, history looks to be repeating itself because guess what. The Force Awakens is on its way to making $2 BILLION worldwide. So CLEARLY if this is history repeating itself, it's really not a problem and it seems like the majority of the world agrees. So stop being ignorant for TWO seconds.
It's Star Wars folks. Normally I'd say you know if it's for you or not but for the first time in Star Wars history (in my lifetime), I'm seeing things happening that I've never seen happen with this franchise before and it's that people are getting on board left and right; people who don't like Star Wars; people who have never even SEEN Star Wars. I've heard MULTIPLE cases of people I know, who've wanted absolutely NOTHING to do with Star Wars, and have trekked to the theater out of curiosity from all the buzz and have come out liking the movie. The same thing happened with when JJ rebooted Star Trek in 2009 and now the man has captured lightning in a bottle TWICE. For some, this is the first time Star Wars has been good in 32 years. For others, this is the first time Star Wars has been good EVER. And THAT's what makes this film so damn special. If you haven't seen it yet, WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR? Sure it's not the most flawless film of 2015. In fact, many of the films on this list that rank below it are BETTER (more well crafted) films... But this is Star Wars, folks. And GOOD Star Wars. It gets a free pass because this isn't just a movie, it's an occasion; It's a time to celebrate... We have STAR WARS again... And this time, the whole world is getting hyped about it... That hasn't happened in over THREE decades. It's a time to be alive, folks. May the Force be with you.
Grade: A
(Grade for being a great Star Wars movie: A+++)
1) Mad Max: Fury Road
We've finally made it folks. We're here; the end of our furious road of fury. That's right war-boys, roll your eyes if you're rolling, because I did it. I gave Mad Max the number one spot, you know why? Because it's MAD MAX; it's Mad f**king Max and it's bar none one of the most extreme, outrageous, bananas, gung-ho, bat-sh*t crazy pieces of an action-movie masterpiece that you might ever see in the course of your miserable lives. You see, Mad Max isn't just a movie. It's three helpings of an experience. EVERY detail, little and big (and ginormous as well as everything in between) is worth noting here because this isn't just your average action movie. Hell, it's not your average movie period. And somehow, some way, George Miller not only resurrected his franchise from nearly 40 years ago, but he made a stand alone movie that has set the bar for action movies everywhere and even if it ends up with only a cult following down the long, furious road, it JUST might stand the test of time. There's literally, quite literally, no words I can use to describe the experience of this movie...But let me do my best.
But where to begin? Sure I could dive into the history of Mad Max as a character and as a film franchise. A lot of people still aren't aware that the original Mad Max was a movie that came out in the 1970s starring a little actor by the name of Mel Gibson who would later star in a trilogy living in this mad, mad world conceived by maniacal director George Miller. Sure I could dive into how the new film kinda connects to the old and makes you appreciate how Miller's gritty style has not only been unaffected by nearly four decades but that Miller's style is bigger and stronger and more on fire than it's ever been to the point that if you get too close to this film it could burn you alive; sure I could talk about all of that but I don't want to take away from the spotlight that is the idea of stand alone film, Mad Max: Fury Road. Because, you see, Oscar show runner (nominated for multiple Academy Awards, including Best Picture) Mad Max: Fury Road isn't just my top pick for 2015; it's also undoubtedly one of the quite literal BEST action movies of all time.
Bear with me for a moment folks, as we dive into this desolate wasteland of such a beautiful, disastrous masterpiece of a film. The movie is literally almost every damn thing you could want in an action movie. It's a post-apocalypse movie; it's a survival movie; it's a two-hour chase scene; it's got cars, guns, guitars, flame throwers, guitar players playing flame-throwing guitars; a brilliant lineup of novelized characters: desert heroes; war-lord villains; damsels in distress; vigilantes; slaves; deformed, bearded midgets smoking hookahs ([insert picture] THIS thing); it's also got violence (MEGA violence); stunts; explosions; REAL authentic explosions, and explosions that aren't shoehorned in because the movie sucks (quite the opposite actually); I'm talking LEGITIMATE stunts, camera rigs, ACTUAL car flips, TRUCK flips and actors swinging by poles as explosions and fireworks are happening right behind them. It's the most eventful, nutty, borderline INSANE movie of the year; hell, of the last TEN years and nearly ALL of it is practical, authentic, choreographed and strays far from CGI as much as humanly possible (okay, we'll let the big sand tornado-thing slide).
The movie is a GOLDMINE for action-lovers; a feast for the eyes and ears. The score is big, loud and triumphant. The camera work is ridiculously professional and insanely impressive considering, like I said, how much of it was captured on actual film rather than in front of a green screen. Everything about the way the movie looks and feels is mind blowing. It's a zany ride (literally) of vengeance and explosions and yet, it's the furthest thing you'd get from the likes of a similarly pitched Michael Bay film.
As a matter of fact, Fury Road is further away than any big action blockbuster you can probably think of. In fact, the tone is much closer to the likes of The Warriors, than Book of Eli. Yes the post-apocalypse in the desert look seems stale but I promise you a film has never felt more fresh; The mood is dark and brooding but the pacing never lets up. The action quite literally almost never slows down. The characters are ruthless, relentless and unpredictable. There's just SO much to point out. There's so much going on in this universe that's so outrageous, you'd almost feel like it's a branch of a fantasy epic among the high ranks of Lord of the Rings... If Lord of the Rings had a love-child with Twisted Metal and Iron Maiden. In fact, I think you could ague that Fury Road is one of the most "metal" movies you'll probably ever see in your lifetime. From the rock-and-roll rebelliousness the film wears, spawning from a lost era of punk, to the literal metal guitarist strapped to the front of a truck, spewing fire with each electric note, right down to the very costume design, set design and sheer look of what the world would look like if we all survived the zombie apocalypse during a death metal festival where a bunch of Misfits fans took advantage of a bunch of Insane Clown Posse fans (I LITERALLY couldn't make this stuff up) And in FACT (last "in fact," I swear), you could PROBABLY even argue that the look and feel of this movie would seem closer to surviving a zombie holocaust if said holocaust was the zombie cult classic Return of the Living Dead. But this movie doesn't JUST have the appeal of a death metal rage to it. On the contrary, it often FEELS like an actually QUALITY film and THAT's what makes it stand out so hard.
Could Fury Road have not tried so much with top notch filming aspects and STILL have found their audience? Of course. This is America. We THRIVE off the look of a gung-ho action spectacle where we can leave our brains at the door and enjoy explosions and mindless tomfoolery from bland actors so long as there's fast paced action sequences and the promise of some female skin that's hot enough that it will threaten to burn us alive; that's the winning formula folks; it doesn't have to be Citizen Kane for most Americans to get on board... Except for the fact that Fury Road demands a little more than your parched thirst for mindless exposition and if you REALLY delve into the film, it demands a LOT more, so much so to the point that Fury Road just MIGHT be the Citizen Kane of action films.
Am I calling Mad Max the thinking man's movie? Absolutely not. The plot is simplistic and easy enough for children to follow. But the style and the subtext has SO much craft behind it, that based on visual (and like I said, score) alone, the film is an utter masterpiece. I mean, if we're being honest, the actual essence of what makes a film a film; an enjoyable medium to reach through to audiences was and is based on the visual, first and foremost. Obviously script and score and all the aspects of what makes a movie a good movie needs to be present in order to stand out but based on visual alone, Mad Max is like a biker gang's Mona Lisa. The contrast between old, dirty, rusted cars zipping through smooth, brown-orange sand against the backdrop of a lush, blue sky is a visual treat in itself; hell, the exaggerated color palette alone is worth watching but this film is visual candy and like I said, the fact that most of the shots and stunts are real and practical makes the craft respectable to a degree tenfold than whatever you could imagine going in.
The movie almost plays out like a cartoon; that's how gonzo the action and visual medium of it all ends up. It doesn't feel real; It's totally theatrical. It completely sucks you into their desolate wasteland of a future you don't want to live in and yet can't help but be mesmerized by all of its dingy, disgusting, beautiful glory ACTUALLY captured on film. And whether Miller intended it or not, the man made a despicable picture that really feels like a grade-A film.
Everything from the acting (whether it's Tom, the MAN, Hardy being nearly silent the whole picture [and can we just give him an Oscar already? Please???], or whether it's front leading lady Charlize Theron) to the score (big and bold; beautiful but haunting; intense yet emotionally gripping) only adds to what I've said regarding the real, ravishing cinematography and the impressively practical stunts. Everything about the film's final results will feel like a magic show being pulled over your eyes because in 2015, 2016, we're so desensitized as to what authentic quality film ACTUALLY looks and feels like; we're so spoiled by CGI (and often, not very good CGI) that we often forget what a REAL hand-made film IS, and Mad Max is a throwback to the trickery of legitimately practical filmmaking that dates all the way back to George Méliès when he took us to the moon, over 100 years ago. I know you may think I'm being ridiculously dramatic and REALLY blowing the film up more than it deserves but the fact that Mad Max is "an action movie," living in a world of ENDLESS stereotypes where action = crappy, garbage excuses for what should be riveting, captivating, truly THRILLING "action," makes the film not only harder to sell, but makes the end result THAT much more convincing. Mad Max does for action movies what should have been happening in cinemas since John McClane stopped thirteen terrorists on Christmas Eve, almost 30 years ago. Mad Max dives into the world of hyper-violent gonzo action that pulls you from reality and thrusts you into the apocalypse and does it without being unbearable or noisy (sure it's one of the loudest movies of the year but it doesn't rely on big action or loud sound effects to make up for the qualities that actually make it a GOOD flick); the movie is cleverly crafted and KNOWS it's an action movie and KNOWS it's bonkers and George Miller KNOWS he was going bananas when he made this. The man threw in everything including the kitchen sink as well as the store that sells the kitchen sinks, because he knows he can with this kind of movie and still come out on top. Mad Max doesn't take itself TOO seriously because it simply doesn't have to and ironically it's more emotionally compelling and immensely convincing than many of the critically acclaimed dramas to come out this year.
It is what it is folks. It blows much of the competition outside the water for 2015 and it's made such an explosion in Hollywood that critics have noticed it too. For the first time in recent memory, an action movie; a literally labeled action movie by genre, is being recognized by the Academy and while many would argue that the Academy's opinion means total sh*t, it cannot be argued that it's a nice change of pace to see a movie like THIS get nominated over much of the usual forceful tear-jerker Oscarbait that ends up trying too hard and really, the whole experience is a breath of fresh air.
Is Fury Road going to take home any of the gold come the end of the month? Probably not. If anything, it will be for visual, special effects or sound effects... Maybe costume design or set design, but it doesn't matter. In 2015, a lot of people were CLEARLY not being ignorant and paying attention to an action movie done right. And perhaps it's because it just feels so long ago since we've seen one of this caliber, but we really are lucky to be living in an age where movies like Mad Max are coming out because there's so much carefully planned craft that goes into it that the whole experience ends up being so, SO much more than what has been stereotyped today as "an action movie." Action movies today have been boiled down to Expendables movies: loads of fun; untouchable, buff heroes; cartoonish, cigar chewing villains; the occasional babe; LOTS of gun-toting violence. But movies like that are also nothing but air, supported by only helium in a shiny balloon. Mad Max is the giant tattoo needle from hell that pops the balloon. And Mad Max is pretty much a testament to action movies everywhere, setting a new pedestal for how action movies SHOULD be, raising its bar so ridiculously high that someone's really gonna need to do some serious planning and crafting in order to even come close to the caliber of pure awesomeness and badassery that IS Mad Max because, while it might not be crowned Best Picture of the Year (my money's following the crowd and going with The Revenant), Fury Road just might go down as one of the actual greatest action movies of all time. What a lovely day.
Grade: A+
And there you have it! The END!
And are you honestly surprised? I gave hard love to Star Wars this year and followed the cult crowd in hailing Mad Max as an action movie masterpiece. Tarantino still swoons me and DiCaprio can still do almost no wrong in my eyes. Michael Fassbender and Tom Hardy are still two dudes who need more spotlights so they can nab some Oscars. Speaking of spotlights, we learned that priests are bad, Michael Keaton is good and Rachel McAdams is still hot even though her appearance ranges her from playing high school mean girls to important young-middle-aged women. Sequels are still popular and resurrecting franchises was a big deal this year. Johnny Depp resurfaced in a worthwhile role even if people end up forgetting the movie. Tina Fey and Amy Poehler still prove to be some of the funniest women on the planet even if their latest movie isn't completely worthy of their talents. Most horror movies still suck, Jurassic Park is still high in demand and James Bond isn't (though both arguments are up for debate). Seth Rogen and friends are still pumping out decent comedy even though Judd Apparow's baton has been rightfully passed on to Amy Schumer, while Schwarzenegger donned the Terminator sunglasses one more time and almost everyone forgot about it.
Apparently there were memorable things that I missed out on too. Brie Larson won the hearts of millions (and maybe even the Oscar) and Brooklyn proved to be an award-nominated place to live. Adam McKay has flocked from the Anchorman newsroom to make an Oscar worthy comedy of a legit, true news story and apparently Will Smith had a concussion that was bad enough to have his wife boycott the Oscars. Ron Howard made "Moby Dick but Not Really," and a little movie about robots called Ex Machina is apparently one of the best sci-fi movies of the century. More Hunger Games were played, J.Law's acted was put through the ringer, and I think we're supposed to start caring about Shailene Woodley.
But back to the point at hand. We got more Tarantino, we got more DiCaprio, WE GOT MORE STAR WARS (AND GOOD STAR WARS [I know, I know, shut up already!!!]). I can't be contained folks. Things were a tad mediocre this year over all but it's also not difficult to please me. The things that were good were REALLY good and surprisingly there wasn't too much out there that was notably terrible (granted I stayed away from most bad movies this past year but even I was curious about The Visit. Still missed out on Krampus though 😔).
Anyway, for the gems, it was a goldmine of worthwhile memories. We got a new Jurassic Park movie even though the result is the furthest thing from the original (yet it's still more entertaining than either JP sequel to happen before this). Pixar came back HARD even if it was only for one movie this year. We felt the urge to laugh our asses off and cry our hearts out yet again (and that hasn't happened since Toy Story 3). Jemaine Clement has not only proved worthy of a future career beyond Flight of the Conchords but he made one the best mockumentary spoofs in years. Vin Diesel was proud of driving cars for a seventh time.
What can I say? It was a small, limited, very exclusive list of movies I dove into this past year and for the few and far in between, it was awesome. The small, few pieces that I will note, I will bash over everyone's heads until they agree with me (ie: "Star Wars is the BEST, no arguments acceptable, DiCaprio deserves an Oscar even if he doesn't, Mad Max is God's gift to action movies, *brainwash * BRAINWASH * etc * ETC * ETC * !!!! 👀 *). It was a smaller year for me but I really wasn't that disappointed. There's not much I'd truly recommend but you're also talking about the guy who still hasn't seen Kingsmen even though it came out LITERALLY a year ago. I slack but I stick to what I'm devoted to. I enjoy my taste and if I can waste your time and MAYBE even entertain you for a bit, then I've done SOMETHING worthwhile with all this word vomit, AM'I'RITE!?!?
Anywho, that's all for now, HAPPY NEW YEAR!
2016 Checklist
(I'm excited for ALL these movies equally)
- Hail, Caesar!
- DEADPOOL!!!
- 10 Cloverfield Lane
- Batman v Superman
- Captain America: Civil War
- X-Men: Apocalypse
- Star Trek Beyond
- Jason Bourne
- Suicide Squad
- Doctor Strange
- Fantastic Beasts
- Rogue One
May the Force be with you all
