Annual: The Films of 2016 - Part II

Welcome back! 

For starters...

Part I was lost in a fire (we hardly knew ye), so here's the breakdown.
I will be ranking every film I saw in 2016 up until this point.

So here is the gist of  the rankings for Part I:

40) Yoga Hosers - Grade: N/A (something far, far worse than an F)

39) X-Men: Apocalypse - Grade: F

38) The Legend of Tarzan - Grade: D-

37) Sausage Party - Grade: D

36) Central Intelligence - Grade: D

35) Suicide Squad - Grade: D+

34) Star Trek Beyond - Grade: C

33) Jason Bourne - Grade: C+

32) Sing Street - Grade: B-

31) The Lobster - Grade: B-

Let's get to it then...

EVERYTHING I'VE SEEN IN 2016

#40-31

#30 - 21

30) Captain America: Civil War

LOOK HOW ANGRY AND COOL WE ALL LOOK

<-------------

  

I'm gonna get clobbered for this one, I know it. But here 'goes...

If there's one thing comic book movies have become, especially in 2016, it's tiresome. This year featured at least six different major comic book adaptations on film including two from DC and four from Marvel. Of those four, two of them were independently produced by Fox Studios (both in the X-Men universe, one of them creating their own separate spin on the X-Men universe [Deadpool]). The other two films were part of the episodic Marvel Cinematic Universe (AKA the MCU) that's been ongoing since Iron Man debuted in 2008 and has since exploded into a fanboy phenomenon of films since The Avengers broke the box office in 2012. Out of those two films, one of them was talked about as the greatest chapter in the MCU. That film was Captain America: Civil War and it indeed featured a packed out, super-star-studded showdown led by the likes of Iron Man facing off against Captain America, and it indeed was a whopper of a film (broke the box office; received critical praise from just about everyone) and if you've stuck around for this long, you owe it to yourself to see Civil War, if not for mere completion of the MCU viewing over the last eight years. That being said, I'll be the bad apple of the bunch, and I'll just beg the question I feel needs to be asked... What was the big deal here?

   Before you jump the gun, yes I am bitter about the fallen empire of DC's films (I'm one of the few who truly, legitimately enjoyed Batman v Superman [I'm literally never going to live it down]) so of course I'm biased in contrast to my love for DC's fallen heroes, but I'm also not completely ignorant and I can admit that there's no competition... Marvel's films are simply better; They always have been. That being said, I love both franchises and upon watching Civil War and hearing other people's responses to the film, I truly couldn't help but feel like I was watching a different movie.

  It's immensely entertaining for sure and it's absolutely worth a watch if only for the high-adrenaline action sequences but for starters, there are other films in the MCU that are simply better. The original Iron Man has a much better character arc, the first Avengers features MUCH more balanced chemistry between characters and action and Guardians of the Galaxy deserves an encore with its fusion of self aware humor and definitively extensive characters (not to mention it introduced a brand new, ginormous, galactic universe without making it feel overstuffed). All the aforementioned films in the MCU are just better; Hell, Winter Soldier is better. At least that film really worked as a political thriller. I'll even go as far as to say that every film post Avengers (2012) pales in comparison to all of the previous Phase One entries (everything from the first Iron Man to the first Avengers), and Civil War has not changed my opinion. It felt more like an excuse to get multiple characters pitted up against each other in a silly episode of "fun fighting," rather than a legitimate step forward in character development and storytelling. People have said that they thought the film balanced twelve or so major characters more evenly than Batman v Superman's attempt at trying to balance just two. Others have said that with just fifteen minutes of screen time, newcomer Tom Holland put on a better Spider-Man than the two previous actors (in five full length Spider-Man movies) COMBINED. Now I'm not saying these people are flat-out wrong but I just want to know A) what Kool-aid people are drinking and B) where I can get some, because I just don't view the film with those kinds of beer goggles.

  Civil War is entertaining of course and that's truly what counts about. It's as packed out with characters as a film can get, and the film does indeed do a decent job at juggling them (a very difficult task considering it's a whole damn lot to keep a track of) but at the end of the day, with the exception of Iron Man, Cap and newcomer Chadwick Boseman's Black Panther, you could axe almost every single supporting character here. The only reason Panther or Holland's Spider-Man are worth your time is because they're brand new characters so the film wanted you to get to know them more than the others (as a result they've actually been written great parts). But literally, axe anyone else this round... Sure, you need Bucky AKA The Winter Soldier since he's the catalyst which separates "Team Cap" vs. "Team Iron Man" (when did this become a Twilight movie btdubs?), but after three films featuring him now, Bucky is STILL one of the most poorly developed characters doing absolutely nothing but walk around as this silent brainwashed warrior (granted, he's badass for sure) who the writers have no idea what to do with... and yes the plot demands other characters like the ultimate villain who ends up pitting our heroes up against each other but that villain (Zemo) is also arguably one of the most one-dimensional villains this franchise has ever come up with (Enchantress from Suicide Squad is a more memorable villain [I'm not kidding]).

  When Joss Whedon steered the Avengers' ship in 2012, he balanced GREAT humor and excellent character development that when characters were having fun and cracking jokes amidst the devastating world-ending action, it was refreshing and original. It felt like a true comic and Whedon knew how to juggle it all. But here we are in 2016, and Earth's Mightiest Heroes are STILL taking comical rib-jabs at one another only this time trying to "kill" one another (I use quotes because there's no real stakes here since no one's actually trying to murder each other). And the Russo brothers, as gifted as they are, do attempt self aware humor; they have throwaway lines where Black Widow is fighting Hawkeye and one of them, pinned to the ground, exclaims "We're still friends, right?"; a moment played for cheap laughs. Tom Holland does a great job as the wise-cracking web-slinger but even Falcon makes a joke to young Spider-Man, "Ya know kid, during a fight there's usually not this much talking," an UNBELIEVABLE irony given the fact that during most of the action sequences, especially the big airport fight (the most entertaining part of the whole flick no doubt), our heroes create nothing but a wildly chaotic joke-fest. And when Paul Rudd is the funniest character out of his ten minutes playing Ant-Man than anyone else throughout the whole film, it's a sign that maybe the attempted humor everywhere else gets to be a BIT worn out.

  Of course the film tries to savor whatever emotions it ever pretends to contain by using plot mechanisms to severely injure certain characters (but never actually kill them) and threaten Cap and Iron Man's relationship with an end-of-movie twist during the climax, but the film simply does not demand enough serious, emotional investment in anything going on in order for me to take the film seriously as a viewer. And that's where I get lost in the critical reception this movie gets praised for. There's NOTHING at stake; the humor is often corny and keeps me grounded in fantasy-land; why should I care about anything happening when it's all silly action sequences, one after the other? Much of it is reduced to popcorn-induced nonsense, not to mention that after all the "devastation" the film's plot commits, the reset button is hit so everything can go back to normal as if it were a weekly sitcom (I understand this writing mechanism is for viewers who will inevitably tune in to the Infinity Wars finale without seeing CW, but come on).

  That being said, I can't be totally ignorant... the action sequences are breathtaking at times. The end result feels similar to last year's Furious 7 in the sense that the movie's worth paying for, if only for the action sequences. Hell, you could remove every sequence of characters sitting still and talking chitter-chatter about politics and overly dramatic disagreeing and if you only strung together action scenes, you'd still have a decent movie. I mean, the hand-to-hand combat is excellent and at the end of the day, as I've said, almost no one is taking themselves too seriously. It honestly helps keep the film fresh and light with a constant wink at the ridiculousness of grown adults wearing costumes arguing with each other. 

  At the end of the day, though DC is plummeting fast, we are all living in the same absurd fantasy world of superheroes and nothing more. Fanboys need to shake the notion that Marvel's films are flawless. You can't rip apart  Suicide Squad for being a sloppy movie and then defend Age of Ultron as a perfectly constructed film because that would just be redundant. 

  That said (Bottom line:), if we're analyzing Civil War as a standalone film, it's good for sure (you'd have a lot of trouble following the plot had you NOT seen the previous films in the MCU); it's immensely entertaining, but it's also rather silly and the actual civil war at hand does next to nothing for the overarching themes of the franchise. You'd be ignorant to be in denial about the film's positive aspects but compared to other films in the MCU, how much replay value will it really hold in comparison to Guardians or the original Avengers?

  Sure, that's just my opinion but outside of the Russo brothers' brilliantly shot action sequences, the only time the film truly impressed me was when I saw a superimposed 19-year-old Robert Downey Jr. for a flashback sequence which was so believable it was gave me nightmares. 10 points for photoshop! 

Grade: B-

29) Kubo and the Two Strings

When it comes to animated film companies, people think Disney; Pixar. There's no other competition. Sure, Dreamworks is sort of the red-headed stepchild of Disney but Disney's dominated the animated screen for decades, if not longer (in 20 years Disney's debut Snow White will turn 100 years old... Yeah. Life is fast and grim and over in the blink of an eye). THAT BEING SAID, LAIKA Studios has very quickly given Disney and Pixar a run for their money over the last decade or so. With films like Coraline, Paranorman and Boxtrolls, they've showed with their stories and more importantly their animation, that they are climbing high and fast to making some of the more notable animated films in some time. Of course the caliber is not matched but when Pixar's focused on Cars sequels, films like Kubo remind us what quality animated films truly LOOK like.

  Kubo is by no means a film that needs to be heavily talked about but with its homage to cultural roots and its stunning animation, there's no way it won't be recognized come Oscar season.

  The story's not even really worth going into detail, not because it's bad (near orphan boy uses magical family heirlooms to embark upon a quest with charming creatures to vanquish evil, to restore peace in his homeland and to find purpose in his life), but because had the film not been animated the way it was, it wouldn't be as notable as it is. With the stunning use of claymation and stop motion, Laika studios breathes life into an old fashioned animation which harks back to the nostalgic days of Wallace and Gromit.

  Of course the story of Kubo is one to behold. It's got memorable characters (Matthew McConaughey plays a giant samurai beetle and he's hilarious) and the movie is filled with homage to Japanese culture and the importance of family tradition and carrying on a legacy (and some of it is terribly sad). Sure the themes don't sound original but by the film's end it's hard to not gaze upon the richness of the raw, dark storytelling that's not filtered for children. Not to say the movie isn't for children but unlike many other colorfully silly animated movies these days, Kubo wears tragic, moralistic integrity in ways that haven't been seen since the renaissance age of Disney (AKA the early 90s).

  Bottom line: In the end it all comes down to the love of the craft and the craft is often reminiscent of the claymation caliber represented during the glory days of Nightmare Before Christmas. Granted, it's not QUITE that caliber of Nightmare but for an animated movie, Kubo is more welcome than the likes of Trolls or The Angry Birds Movie any day of the week. If there's only one animated movie to watch in 2016, it's this one.

Grade: B/B+

28) Everybody Wants Some!!

Whether you want to view it as "a film by Richard Linklater," or as a spiritual sequel to Dazed and Confused, you'll get something out of the latest loving tribute to the nostalgia of a past era.

  The end result of Everybody Wants Some feels much closer to the latter than the former making it in vein of the classic tribute to the hazy days of the 1970s (this time it's the 80s) more than an emotional roller coaster of a character study featuring the likes of Ethan Hawke (AKA Linklater's other films).

  If Dazed was a trippy love letter to the young freedom of the 1970s, EWS is a very sporty blast from the past discovering the young mischief of the 80s and the similarities between the two films are absolutely uncanny.

  I gotta tip my cap to Linklater because more than most things, he knows how to capture the details of an era but more so knows how to capture rich characters and really knows how to tell a true coming of age story, and his latest 80s baseball flick about college guys chasing college girls and making the most of their youth tackles all those departments flawlessly. The only problem with the film's formula, and it really has nothing to do with the film itself, is that it's almost an exact replica of its 1970s predecessor.

  If you've seen Dazed and Confused, you've seen Everybody Wants Some; plain and simple. I don't mean you know these specific characters with these specific stories but if you know Dazed then you'll know precisely what kind of character arcs they achieve in their own situations and you'll recognize the all-too-familiar tropes of this specific kind of coming of age tale featuring a 1980s post Rock-n-roll era of college mishaps.

  And I'm not blasting EWS in any way, shape or form. It's actually one of the more pleasing films in a wasteland of 2016's disappointments and the end result is refreshing. The frustrating part of the experience is literally just how much the film feels like Dazed, even if it's only as a spiritual sequel.

  And the formula is pure and simple: horn-dog youthful males getting drunk and high, gawking at their hot, scandalous co-eds; partying, getting laid, bonding and living an era where rock music once ruled the world (the soundtrack is phenomenal as expected). On paper it's great, and like I said, compared to other flicks this year, the movie is a pleasant surprise but it's truthfully hard to soak it all in if you know its predecessor as well as many people do (Dazed has since become a cult classic). Granted, in time, EWS is bound to become its own classic all by itself; it's filled with consistent laughs, one-liners and genuinely memorable moments, even if the film really doesn't have a clear plot. Linklater is always much more invested in the characters who are living in an era rather than living in a contrived plot, therefore he doesn't really try to create a plot at all, allowing the many fleshed out characters to actually breathe and feel human and be relatable; a quality that's literally gone missing from many films over the years.

  Bottom line: The film is an enjoyable experience and if you're nostalgic, love the 80s, love film, or just love Linklater, it's almost impossible to not enjoy EWS. Is it anything outstanding beyond a brilliant character exercise that accurately captures an era? Absolutely not, but if everybody wants some, there's definitely some here for everybody.

Grade: B

27) Keanu

An honest surprise and yet a completely expected experience, life after Key & Peele proves that... Well, that there actually just might be life after Key & Peele... At least on the big screen.

  Anyone going into this movie needs to evaluate one question: Are you a fan of the Comedy Central cult-followed K&P TV series? If so, see Keanu; If not, steer clear, and if you absolutely hate the show, avoid this one like the plague, because the end result of this movie is essentially a 90 minute Key & Peele sketch.

  I for one was a casual fan of the show; I've seen most of the episodes while it was on the air and during the majority of most of the show's run, I found their humor to never-not be entertaining, even when some of the sketches felt like they dragged on too long and others were just plain dreadful.

  That being said, when Key & Peele is good it is on POINT. I will say that love 'em or hate 'em, Keegan Michael Key and Jordan Peele have mastered their craft and when they're funny; actually, truly talented in their craft of writing jokes, they completely knock it out of the park.

  The film isn't by any means a by-the-books good movie but K&P's style never aims to be good, it aims to make you laugh whether with decent satire, over-the-top action sequences, or overly stretched running jokes. And for the end result feeling like one long, desperately stretched out sketch, the movie does well with the little material they have to go off of and like I said, some of it is legitimately laugh-out-loud funny.

And in the end, Keanu feels a lot like the way the show did in general; genuinely funny for the most part, filled with some worthwhile laugh-out-loud moments, some jokes falling very flat, but overall a funny enough experience to watch at least once... If you're a fan... And maybe if you're easily swooned by adorable kittens.

 Bottom line: Not really worth a watch more than once or twice for the average moviegoer, but an absolute must-see for the die hard Key & Peele fans. 

Grade: C+/B-

26) Eye In The Sky

Now this just might have been the first legitimate Oscarworthy film to be released in 2016. It came out in the spring time when crappy comic book movies were battling for the box office; a time of darkness when almost nothing coming out appeared to be anything beyond "okay" or the somehow worse "kinda good" (when it's not a straightforward thumbs up or a thumbs down [much of this list], it's a nightmare for sick people like me to touch up on). But then Eye of the Sky came out and it was a total surprise, if anything due to the simple fact that it's a movie featuring people doing almost nothing but stare at screens for 90 minutes Skyping each other, which is impressive considering the movie is good enough to probably take home an Oscar or two.

  Off the bat, we have the impressive as always Helen Mirren. I know we're at a point where people roll their eyes at the recognition these powerful female actresses receive (like Mirren and Meryl Streep) because they're just so damn good at their craft but you gotta give credit where credit's due and Mirren is excellent here as a high ranking military official who gets to shout at a crying Aaron Paul over headset. Paul's good; not Breaking Bad good, but who is? Mirren's amazing and while I'm sure she won't receive any love come Oscar season, she alone is one of the reasons to not miss out on this one.

  The film's also recognizable for how the filmmakers juggle the plot. I just want to point out here that the director this round is Gavin Hood... Director of the infamous X-Men Origins: Wolverine. I'm honestly glad I didn't see his name until the final credits because I almost feel like I would have judged the film before watching... I don't know how the man does it but if he continues to make more films like this, he's gonna have no problems getting more work. Hood's style is actually significantly unique for this film, mostly in part of shooting what is essentially one singular plot and like I said, having many characters just stare at screens for 90 minutes of the run time. What Hood does with the tension is so crafty, even the Beastie Boys wouldn't know what to do with this "snip-the-red-wire or blue-wire" type-level situation (ALL "Crafty" puns intended). But seriously, the way the adrenaline builds, especially being centered around pretty much one story line is nothing short of impressive.

  As for the plot itself, I'm not one for politics, especially ones that are centered around justice vs. injustice of war, but the situation that's presented is 100% believable, plausible, authentic and has all the more reason to pull on your heart strings.

  Without spoiling of course, on one side of the fence we follow the military and their highly sophisticated tactics of drone warfare (ranging from two-foot planes to artificial birds and bugs; it's cool as hell even if it all seems absurd); on the other side we follow a normal, middle Eastern family who live in a village, very specifically right near a suspected location where terrorists are plotting the latest suicide bombing like it's going out of style. The plot kicks in once the innocent daughter of the kind, middle Eastern family is selling bread just outside of the terrorist's bombing location, which would happen to make this exact location the military's primary target.

  I'll leave the rest up to you to see for yourself because the film sparks much, MUCH room for political debate on warfare tactics and whether or not it should be okay to create said warfare where innocent civilian lives are located, yada yada yada (morals) and the film features a LOT of debate (hence Mirren's yelling, Aaron Paul's crying); the film also features the late Alan Rickman as a military officer in his very last role. It's certainly not an overtly strong role of his but it's a solid last note for him to go out on.

  There's not much room for discussion beyond the plot of the film because were I to discuss further, we'd be discussing politics, not a film.

  And the film as a film is absolutely brilliant. You don't even realize how quickly it goes by and that characters are literally Skyping each other for the grand majority of the run time. The craft and use of cinematography is unique (the editing is also really worth noting as the story jumps from Skype screen to middle Eastern village. Editing is something I usually never comment on but it's worth noting here), but the film's plot and its stretch of the plot is bound to tug on your heart strings whether you're "Born on the Fourth of July" or whether you're a gung-ho war dog.

  Bottom line: Of course there's been better flicks this year but if you're looking for your Oscar drama, your serious politics, your Helen Mirren fix; basically, if you're trying to get away from all the cheap, crappy, repetitious, Blockbuster garbage, Eye In The Sky is bar none the best place to start. 

Grade: B+

25) The Accountant

  Most big actors hit certain strides in their careers. Many of them start out when they're fairly young; early to mid twenties. From there, they usually have a streak of their glory days for a bout a decade or two... then they start going gray. Growing up, I've watched guys like Matt Damon and Brad Pitt go from being shiny young heartthrobs to glorious silver foxes who chase Oscars, and almost NO one is as desperate or deserving of the present-day spotlight than Ben Affleck.

  Beloved by most, loathed by many, Ben Affleck has come back with a vengeance and HARD these past 5+ years. From directing The Town to winning Argo, to being the best f**king BATMAN Hollywood has ever seen, Affleck is well on his way to make the MEAN comeback and The Accountant shows no signs of the Bat slowing down any time soon.

  Say what you will about The Accountant; people are either gonna like or dislike it; no middle ground. I personally thought it was very entertaining but I was also able to buy into the film's absurd premise.

  If you can get on board with Affleck playing a highly-functioning autistic assassin then you'll blindly look past the film's flaws as I did. That being said, there aren't many flaws in the film itself, more so in the execution of a premise as shaky and conflicting as The Accountant. The film itself is actually very pleasing once it kicks into high gear. The action sequences play like a mentally handicapped cousin of a Bourne movie (no pun intended?) and Affleck puts on one of his better performances of his latter days. It's not necessarily going to be recognized come Oscar night but for Affleck, it's a GOOD performance.

  The film also does a decent job juggling the sensitive material given. Thankfully, given the subject of autism, the film doesn't bash you over the head with ANY moralistic PSA nonsense to make you feel guilty and it mostly sticks to being a straight-up action movie. Of course it doesn't all go without some minor bumps in the road. Some of the roles and performances seem a bit jumbled (Jon Bernthal puts on his best Nicholas-Cage-villain impersonation and JK Simmons is almost given nothing to do) but Anna Kendrick is good and surprisingly not a forced, useless love interest (her chemistry with Ben goes against all expectations and when the two are on screen together they're delightful to watch) but as I insinuated before, the reason worth talking about the film is for Affleck alone, not the film itself.

  And as I said, Affleck's good. The reason I keep bringing it up is because he is the essential weight to the entire film, not because he's the lead actor but because if his performance didn't click, the whole movie would have failed. If Affleck couldn't deliver a believable performance as an autistic person, everything about his character would have felt awkward and the movie just wouldn't have worked. It's not like when Sean Penn went full retard for I Am Sam; Ben playing autistic is not only safer it just works better.

  As for the people who couldn't buy into Affleck playing autistic, I don't blame you. It's not easy to recommend a movie that's very heavily centered around one major aspect of the film that doesn't sell to everybody. Granted, as I said, if you can suspend your disbelief, you won't be bored. 

Bottom line: As an action movie, the movie does what it needs to. As for the other aspects, Ben Affleck does math; he puts on a stellar, intimidating performance. More importantly, he kills people in all kinds of creatively violent ways. That's when the movie is the most fun to watch.

Grade: B-/B

24) Hardcore Henry

Ah, yes, the feature-length GoPro ad; the first-person-shooter turned into a film for those too lazy to play the games themselves. "Why would I watch this garbage when I can play XBOX and have a much better time?" you may ask. If you've made up your mind regarding how you feel about Hardcore Henry before you actually see it, don't take my word on it. The movie's not really gonna change your opinion; not because it's a bad movie (it's certainly not very good) but because on the outside (and on the inside), this truly is nothing more than a giant GoPro ad and first-person-shooter video game experience. And for some, that's exactly what they're looking for.

  On paper there's nothing about Henry that will convince you it's worth watching other than the potential adrenaline rush you'll get watching this thing and the ONLY reason it ranks higher than anything I've ranked thus far, is because I've never quite seen anything like it.

  Here's a simple analogy: Are you a roller coaster person? Then go watch Henry. Does the thought of roller coasters make you want to throw up? Stay far away from Henry.

  When I say that the film is an adrenaline rush, it's no exaggeration. Think of Crank, starring Jason Statham; Imagine someone trying to do a new Crank for a modern movie-going generation, while keeping the film original. The solution is Hardcore Henry and as I said, it's only worth talking about because of its originality. I'm not referring to the story, the characters or anything that makes a normal film memorable because the filmmakers clearly had one intention and one intention only: to thrill. Every other element that should normally count is thrown completely out the window entirely so that the filmmakers can do everything in their power to make you go "that was awesome," and they don't exactly fail their mission to do so.

  The fact that the film was done entirely with stunt men (and perhaps a few phony computerized sequences [you'll know them when you see them]) is an impressive feat in itself. The plot is chocked up to something silly like, Henry is chosen for some experiment where he's kind of a super-bionic human (think Cyborg from Justice League). But the plot's not important. Essentially, Henry wakes up to a betrayal and something bad with his kidnapped girlfriend, and he's left for dead or whatever so now he's got a vendetta against some mad scientist who represents a white-haired Tommy Wiseau (again, none of this is important). Once Henry is unleashed and we see the world from his POV (the film is supposed to essentially be from the point of view of a camera in Henry's brain [or through Henry's eyes]), the film truly is like a roller coaster; building with its ups and taking you for a spin in all of its downs. The camera work (if you can even call it work) is the reason alone to see the film and once it's all done, you may never want to watch it again. But that's okay.

  The film is a bit of a gung-ho mess but also sort of revolutionary in its sense of never having been done before; the style is sloppy but incredibly fun. Think of Blair Witch or Paranormal Activity. They played audiences like the plots were actually happening, due to the way it was filmed. Henry kind of has that same advantage; not because anyone will believe it's real (though much of the stunts are 100% authentic) but because the filming of it feels so new. There were rumors of Harcore Henry getting a sequel ("Hardcore Henry 2: Henry Harder"?)  but even the mere idea of a sequel already turns me off. Sure the filmmakers were self aware enough in their graphic violence (very graphic. VERY violent), taking full advantage in their stuntmen killing and blowing things up as the anonymous Henry, but beyond 90 minutes, the hook for the film is already lost. Once you, as a filmmaker, have convinced me, the moviegoer, to shell out money to watch a full length action movie filmed from the POV of a GoPro on a stuntman's head, and have me actually enjoy the final product, is an achievement all by itself. There's no other destination I want you to take me beyond that; 3D? Maybe. 4D? Sure. Make a Hardcore Henry interactive ride? Why not. Expand on the film making experiments even further; the possibilities are (almost) endless.

  The point is (Bottom line:), for a movie as kinda crappy and forgettable as Hardcore Henry, the filmmakers accomplished what they set out to make. If you're in for a thrill, see the damn movie. Leave your brain at the door. You're either gonna be totally for it or totally against it. You won't know until you give it a try. When it's over, be done with it. It's nothing more than a fun experiment and it'll probably be damn-near impossible to recreate this movie going experience once the inevitable sequels and inspired films come out over the years. Had it not been filmed the way it was, it wouldn't have been an experiment at all, but today it was. And for that, we thank you.

Grade: C+

23) Hail, Caesar!

Ah, the Coen brothers.

If you want to know my feelings on the Coen bros. check out the extensively analyzed rant I went on to see just how much I've grown to love and cherish their work as filmmakers (you probably won't, but hey, that's why you're here today!).

 For starters, Hail Caesar! had one of the better trailers of last year. It appeared to be a wildly fun, upbeat romp with a star studded cast that would exploit 1950s Hollywood. It simply looked incredible. The result of the actual film itself only truly resembles, from beginning to end, the star studded cast and the exploitation of 1950s Hollywood satire. Nothing else about the film itself actually captured that lightning in a bottle the trailers hinted at.

  Now what does that really mean? That the film's not a big, fun, upbeat romp? Well, yeah actually... The film is actually rather droll, boring and will be a complete turn off to nearly every person on the planet who's not completely invested in the idea of 1950s Hollywood satire; people who are so invested in film making in every sense of the word that they live and breathe it. You'd need to be a crazy person with your affection for film (and appreciation for classic film at that) to even give this movie a legitimate recommendation. All that to say is, I very much so enjoyed Caesar... But I'm also a crazy person.

  Now don't get me wrong... I'm neither saying the film is strictly for "film people" nor am I saying I wouldn't recommend it to anyone outside of that bubble, but if there's one thing the trailers were, outside of being wildly fun and extensive, they were misleading. In the end, the film isn't this adventurous chase of Hollywood stars gallivanting to find the kidnapped titled character as played by the beloved George Clooney; instead this is more of a film within a film, criticizing the phony romanticism of 1950s Hollywood when Charlton Heston ruled the golden age of cinema. 

  What I mean by that is the film isn't even focused on the plot that's presented. There are endless sequences that drag on glorifying filmmakers on set shooting actors living in a lost age of smoking cigarettes; filling the specific frames swooning their love interests while directors are showing cynical, sarcastic life behind the rolling cameras; literal scenes after scenes of characters playing filmmakers having all kinds of trouble shooting their scenes, whether due to frustration with their actors or due to abrupt interruptions in their very theatrical portrayals of dance-choreographed musical numbers. These said sequences have nothing to do with the actual film itself, other than to establish the lead characters and the Hollywood world that they live in.

  There is a bright side though... Speaking of theatrical portrayals and establishing characters, out of the entirely enormous ensemble (huge cast), the surprise shining star here is actually none other than Channing Tatum, proving all the more that the man deserves some legitimate work even if it's only in comedies that know how to write him well (I'm being completely serious). Playing the part of an actor who portrays a sailor (as well as a small role in the 1950s communist movement) Tatum steals the show 100% for whatever little time he's on screen. The rest of the cast does a decent job with what they're given and some actors are reduced to mere cameos (Jonah Hill is in exactly one scene) but Tatum is the hidden gem here.

  And of course, being a Coen bros. film, the movie has many highlights. The satire is brilliant and the homage to a lost age of Hollywood is a clear, loving tribute, even if way too much of the film's "plot" is spent on these fictitious film sets rather than investing in the actual story line they present.

  Caesar is worthwhile if you're a fan of the Coens, a fan of film (especially classic film), or a fan of the whole idea of film satire. That being said, this is also probably the Coens' weakest film in years. Not since Intolerable Cruelty has a CB film felt so filled with potential and yet has a final result of "meh" or worse, "it was pretty good" at most, rather than the expected broken down analysis as to why it should be ranked as another Coen bros. classic. Hell, even Burn After Reading could be constructively criticized and picked apart; even a little bit, where outside of the use of unique cinematography, Caesar rarely ever feels like anything other than an experiment on straightforward satire; a decent representation of communism and the idea of communists secretly controlling Hollywood (these elements were obviously stripped from the trailers to lead you believe the movie would be more entertaining).

 Bottom line: At the end of the day it's good for what it attempts to accomplish, even if it is one of the weaker chapters in the Coen bros. collection. If you're a fan of their work (or simply a Coen bros. completist [this guy]) you owe it to yourself to watch Hail Caesar! and make up your own mind about it, but outside of the bubble containing the cult-like fascination with the Coens (as well as the fascination with satire in true, legitimate film making), I would recommend this one to very few people.

Grade: B-

22) Rogue One: A Star Wars Story

When George Lucas sold the rights for Star Wars to Disney for $4 billion, audiences knew they were in good hands. Not to create  discussion about Lucas but after years of sub-par prequels, tainted additions to the originals and no clear plan in sight for any sequels, the future of Star Wars was in about as good hands as anyone's but George's. Last year Disney re-launched Star Wars with their first big project and regardless of one's opinions on Episode VII, it reigned in substantially positive criticism not to mention it quickly became one of the highest grossing movies of all time. Their second project, while repeating a much smaller history, is also quickly becoming a success even if for very different reasons this time.

  Rather than launch the story forward in time (The Force Awakens takes place 30 years after Episode VI), Disney's now turning back the clock, and rather than go TOO far back (no Hayden Christensen or Jar Jar Binks here), Rogue One takes place just before the original 1977 Star Wars film (Episode IV, for those keeping track).

For my in-depth, irrelevant review on the next chapter of the saga in the galaxy far, far away, refer to here. (Or don't. Whatever.)

Because I've ranted about it already, I'll get right to the point.

  Rogue One is a film made solely for Star Wars fans; an Easter-egg filled picture that rewards the audience based on how big a fan they are. Plain and simple: The more familiar you are with the 1977 original, the more you'll get out of R1. Where last year, Force Awakens made an impression on people who've never even seen Star Wars, this time Rogue One will truly stand out to the die hard fans.

  That's not to say it's unenjoyable for the people who don't walk around in Wookie costumes at conventions, but it also wouldn't be a stretch for someone who's not a fan to wonder why they should care about a plot that surrounds stealing plans for the Death Star. The film is a complete fan service first and therefore is recommended to the fans first. It's a response to all the crying that fans made last year when they felt that Force Awakens either felt too new or on the contrary, copied too much of the old. It's actually a pretty genius bounce-back on Disney's part considering Rogue One is the ultimate grand scheme to rope in the hardcore nostalgists who want nothing to do with anything post Return of the Jedi (or for some, post Empire Strikes Back).

  All that to say is; Bottom line: The film is genuinely good even if it feels slightly useless. The attention to detail alone is outstanding making it feel like it literally fits in with a 1977 timeline. The more you know A New Hope's little details, the more you'll pick up on R1's abundant nature of references, details and countless Easter eggs. If you're not going to pay money to watch the astute references Gareth Edwards (Godzilla 2014) constantly places throughout the film, it's all worth it for the last half hour, if not for the last five minutes. If you can excuse some jarring CGI replacement for actors who are now either old or dead, you'll be able to accept the movie for any other flaws. And save for the fact that this is a Star Wars movie featuring some ACTUAL wars (and spectacular battle sequences), the ending alone will make you appreciate the 1977 original even more than you already do. It's such a fan-serviced ending that it'll make you wish the movie would just fade into A New Hope and keep playing until we all get old and die while the inevitable legacy of Star Wars outlives us all.

Attention to Detail: A+

Grade: B

21) Morris From America

  Every now and again it's a breath of fresh air to get away from all the loud, expensive Blockbuster excess. Sometimes the lower budget, higher quality indie-style flicks can be a pleasant surprise. Sometimes, they rub me the wrong way (The Lobster); Other times they give me the things I truly want out of a film, and Morris From America reminds me of quality film making at its very best.

  Make no mistake, Morris is not a big, exciting flashy-showy picture; it's arguably one of the further things from "Hollywood" you'd expect from a typical film in the modern age. The film is actually about as simple as simple gets.

  A 13-year-old kid from New York (newcomer Markees Christmas) is trying to find his place in the world as he and his father (Craig Robinson) make their way living in Germany. From there the film explores the awkwardness of growing up, falling in love and not fitting in (how precious). The themes apply to both Morris and his dad, while Morris is obviously the film's centerpiece. The end result of the film's mechanisms are no different than your average run-of-the-mill story, except for the one glaring difference in that Morris is a film that truly cares about its craft.

  Unlike many big budget flicks that just throw money around for expensive faces and pretty explosions, yet lack the qualities that make a film truly memorable, Morris uses real, holistic character development and life-like experiences in struggling to fit in and grow up to make the title character and his dad feel like real people you'd meet walking down the street.

  And speaking of those characters, both knock it out of the park 100%. Craig Robinson truly is a surprise in branching out from just being 'the funny guy' (and don't get me wrong, he's one of the funniest people on the planet without even trying) but he brings genuine, grounded character to Morris' single father; a heartfelt, believable dude who's trying to cope with loss and struggle as he tries his absolute best to raise his son; Robinson nails the role and makes me want to see him do more serious stuff, but it's actually newcomer Markees Christmas who kills it as the fish-out-water thirteen-year-old from New York who's just trying to fit in, in Germany of all places. The kid is an absolute pleasure to watch; we feel his struggle; his pain and the kid doesn't seem like he's acting at all. Whether he's attempting to rap or talk to girls, young Morris is a completely believable kid in this confused age of growing up in the modern age surrounded by drugs, sex and alcohol (and Germany's no stranger to the party scene). The kid may not get an Oscar nom, but he should have no problem getting work after this.

  The two leads drive the film so much that any time the film feels weak (rarely), it's completely rectified by the acting and the film works best when father and son are on screen together. Their tension is totally believable and they sell the script with every moment they share together.

  That being said, the story is also just as important as the actors playing these memorable characters, and the "little kid in a big world" story line had so much potential to be generic and phony and every chance the film had at being a cliche, it surprisingly stayed raw and genuine throughout the film's run time. Granted the New York characters of Morris and his father clash against the very foreign world of Germany but that's entirely the point. And rather than turning the script into a comedic underdog show where Morris uses his street personality to become popular amidst bullies and young love interests, the film constantly keeps him grounded in his awkward budding of becoming a young adult. The script is tragic but real. Every moment at breaking reality and following the Hollywood tropes (the film often gives way to these opportunities) the film reminds us of a world we live in where some people just have trouble fitting in, no matter where their place is in the world.

  Bottom line: Morris is one of the more genuine films of the year and we need more films like it. It's actually rather strange in this age to be so swamped by comic book movies, cash-cow sequels and loud, explosive action flicks; popcorn movies; they've taken over cinema and I won't be a hypocrite; I'm on that train and I love me a good, big obnoxious movie where I can leave my brain at the door, but it's even stranger to be so off-put by a film such as Morris From America; a film that reminds us where the true heart in the craft of film making actually exists; a film that cares deeply about its characters, script, story, cinematography, all to not be an "art film" (the film often feels very artsy) but to be a film told by an artist. Upcoming director Chad Hartigan explores film making in cherishing ways that have been lost in this age. That's not to call Morris anything out of the ordinary but in such a noisy time of movies, something as simple as this little film (that will probably go completely unnoticed) is something of a special occasion.

Grade: B

We're halfway through this madness!!!

-End of Part II-