Annual: The Films of 2016 - Part III
Now we get to the good stuff!
EVERYTHING I'VE SEEN IN 2016
20) Joshy
What can I say? I LOVED this movie. This was a very small, friendly little indie flick with lots of (semi) big names. If you're familiar with the world of comedy (and Comedy Bang Bang), you might be familiar with some of these faces and while the plot is as moving and funny as the 90 min. run time requires, it's the cast that holds the entire thing together.
Without spoiling an introductory plot twist (I didn't see it coming at all and therefore was able to enjoy the script's mechanisms moving forward), the film is centered around the every-man protagonist Josh (Thomas Middleditch) and his buddies while they all stay at a house out in the woods for a "boys weekend getaway" as troublemaker Nick Kroll (always playing the troublemaker) consistently puts throughout the film. From there the story takes off in what is essentially just a clash of awkward funny dudes trying to have a good time. They proceed to meet chicks, sneak in hot tubs, play nerdy board games and bond over the importance of relationships (real precious stuff) but as I said, the heart of the film lies entirely with the cast. Everyone from douchey Kroll to best bud Adam Pally, to the geeky-awkward Alex Ross Perry to show stealer Brett Gelman; these dudes roll off each other with such natural chemistry you'd think this is who they actually were and that the film was just the real-life result of their being together.
What can I say? I LOVED this movie. This was a very small, friendly little indie flick with lots of (semi) big names. If you're familiar with the world of comedy (and Comedy Bang Bang), you might be familiar with some of these faces and while the plot is as moving and funny as the 90 min. run time requires, it's the cast that holds the entire thing together.
Without spoiling an introductory plot twist (I didn't see it coming at all and therefore was able to enjoy the script's mechanisms moving forward), the film is centered around the every-man protagonist Josh (Thomas Middleditch) and his buddies while they all stay at a house out in the woods for a "boys weekend getaway" as troublemaker Nick Kroll (always playing the troublemaker) consistently puts throughout the film. From there the story takes off in what is essentially just a clash of awkward funny dudes trying to have a good time. They proceed to meet chicks, sneak in hot tubs, play nerdy board games and bond over the importance of relationships (real precious stuff) but as I said, the heart of the film lies entirely with the cast. Everyone from douchey Kroll to best bud Adam Pally, to the geeky-awkward Alex Ross Perry to show stealer Brett Gelman; these dudes roll off each other with such natural chemistry you'd think this is who they actually were and that the film was just the real-life result of their being together.
Granted there's not much to the film itself; there's no special film making qualities, the camerawork is average (not to mention the washed out look insinuates no one colored the film) but with a film like this there's no need for the extra toppings. The script is so genuine and the cast is so coherent; so naturally in sync that very early on you feel like you could just watch these characters chill and live their lives and have nothing really happen (which kinda is what happens) and the end result would be just as pleasing, but because those highlighted qualities are so strong the film doesn't require any more legs then the ones it already has.
Bottom line: Because the film relies on genuine simplicity and because that simplicity is justified as well as it is with Joshy, from all the jokes and one liners to the legitimately heartfelt moments, the film knocks it out of the park even for being nothing more than a light, genuine comedy with some dark humor and foul language. And sometimes, for 90 minutes, that's all we ask for. And for that, we thank you.
Grade: B
DISCLAIMER:
I aplogize for the excess amount of word vomit that's about to take place...
I've never, maybe in my life, EVER struggled so hard rubbing against critics, colleagues, friends, enemies, random naysayers and internet trolls who serve no other purpose than to be the absolute lowest scum of the earth, than I did upon watching the DC sequel to 2013's Man of Steel; the long awaited gargantuan of a super hero brawl, and what would eventually become the most controversial comic book movie of 2016; MAYBE of all time. That movie featured the likes and eventual, actual title of Batman vs. Superman.
15) Hacksaw Ridge
Mel Gibson (again!); I'm not here to talk about Mel Gibson as I did with Blood Father but if there's one veteran actor-director who needs to be recognized in 2016, it's Mel.
I'm not going to talk about the controversies behind the man's public slander because then we wouldn't be talking about movies. That said, all personal conflict aside, I cannot deny the sheer raw talent Gibson possesses and watching Hacksaw Ridge reminded me how much I've missed seeing Gibson's work, even if only strictly as a director.
Hacksaw Ridge is a traditional war movie at its core. It depicts graphic war violence and fallen heroes who fight and will to die for their country and for one individual, with that will to die, also the will to serve while giving up violence completely.
Andrew Garfield stars as real-life veteran Desmond Doss who during WWII has such a strong faith; the literal will to follow the word and laws of God so strictly, that he finds a loophole in the military system which allows him to go to war while refusing to touch a weapon and it is Garfield's ability to play such a timid, meek character yet such a strong-willed, determined Christian who opts to go directly into battle, that serves as the catalyst for the entire film.
Now don't get me wrong. When I say the movie is faith-driven that doesn't mean it's a "religious movie." It's pro-God and anti-war, for sure, but don't confuse Hacksaw with the likes of those mid-budget Christian-based movies that were made for Christians by Christians. Hacksaw Ridge is BRUTAL, depicting some of the most graphic war-violence I've ever seen on film, sometimes even more than Saving Private Ryan, which is wildly ironic considering the entire moral behind the film is centered around anti-violent matters. It's an important movie and, if can be handled, should be seen by everyone.
The way the film juggles uncomfortably realistic, loud war scenes with the strong, quiet, compassionate characteristics of faith is incredible and what separates Ridge from other faith-based films is it never once feels like it's shoving religion down the audience's throat. It doesn't go out if its way to attempt to convert anyone into a believer. It instead just wants to show how far one man is willing to go driven by faith alone and how much of an impact one man has on an entire group of non-religious folk; it's an inspiration which depicts a miracle of a true story and the craft is so raw and yet so moving, and it's all completely due to Mel.
If anything, the movie serves as proof that Gibson deserves to come back to Hollywood even if it's only behind the camera. His swift direction is reminiscent of the heartfelt brutality and inspiration of Braveheart and with Hacksaw, he delivers one of the best war films in nearly a decade. Of course it doesn't rank with the likes of Private Ryan but it's easily the most faith-driven war I've ever seen (faith-driven and not tacky) and that alone makes it more original than any traditionally chummed out war movie to come out since the days of Ryan. Andrew Garfield has never won me over with his acting but he's believable as the title's hero and he plays a real trooper here (pun intended), even if he is briefly out-shined by the likes of Vince Vaugn and Hugo Weaving (side note: every movie without Hugo Weaving is instantly slacking).
Bottom line: Mel Gibson should do every war movie from now on and while it's not gonna change the game, Hacksaw Ridge brings something different to war movies and that alone make it worthwhile.
Grade: A-
Grade: B+/A-
Not to make a misdemeanor of high school flicks, but for a movie about nothing more than an awkward girl going through a coming-of-age year in high school, this movie simply has no right being as good as it is and as much credit is due to upcoming writer-director Kelly Fremon Craig, even more credit is owed to the incredibly talented Steinfeld.
As the lead role of awkward Nadine, Steinfeld doesn't just play Nadine; she is Nadine. Ever since I saw her in True Grit, she always stood out to me and Seventeen pushes her from solid supporting actor to fully deserved spotlight. This part was made for her and she completely consumes and embodies not just the character but the sole representation of awkward teenage girls everywhere. Steinfeld's spirit is addicting and her ability to literally become Nadine could not only earn her an Oscar nom but it could become an inspiration to young, awkward girls who struggle daily as Nadine does (how precious). Her part is so believable that it strikes a feeling that goes beyond any limited John Hughes comedy (Hughes is an obvious influence for the film); it's believable.
11) Arrival
When it comes to the sci-fi genre, I'm very much so almost-always game; it's one of the easiest genres to sway me (I have an Achilles heel for horror but I also accept that often the purpose of horror isn't to be good). When I saw the previews for Arrival, I knew I'd be in for something big. Everything about it looked spectacular: the atmospheric shots, the eerie giant orb-like spaceship, Dennis Villeneuve's name in big, bold letters (director of Prisoners and Sicario), Amy Adams being Amy Adams, etc. and upon watching the film, I was both moved and conflicted. The film itself wasn't too confusing (though there are a couple spaceship-sized plot twists) but I was more taken aback by how different the film was, not just from the previews or Villeneuve's prior work but from the average sci-fi genre.
Visuals/Soundtrack: A+
19) Don't Breathe
If there's one thing 2016's sub-par list of movie entries has proved, it's that horror movies are well on their way to making an insane comeback, and it's not because they're doing anything different per se, rather they're creating a new spin on the classic horror genres making them feel fresh and alive again: The Witch was an under-appreciated dissection of classic folklore on witchcraft; Green Room turned a seemingly predictable hostage situation into a deadly, violent revenge thriller and Don't Breathe gives entirely new meaning to the term breaking and entering.
In order to enjoy Don't Breathe at all, you must accept the absurdity of the events that transpire once our heroes vigilantes break into the house of a blind, old man. The premise alone almost sounds comical: A group of young crooks break into an old, blind guy's house; he wakes up; blind old man happens to be ex-military (uh-oh!) and attempts to murder said young crooks.
That alone sold it for me and honestly, my only major disappointment with the film is that the old man wasn't just a regular dude who wanted to kill these kids simply because they broke in and tried to rob him... I guess that would have been too easy. As it turns out, there's a fairly big twist midway through the film that reveals the man's true motives and (for me at least) it took away from the entire menace that made him so terrifying in the first place. Granted, Stephen Lang (villain from Avatar) is still a horrific presence regardless and he's the entire backbone of the film, even with the film's eye-rolling third act, but don't be fooled. The movie's job isn't to make you question plot mechanisms, logic or third-act twists; this movie is dead set on getting your pulse pounding and to make you feel like you had fun by the time all this irrelevant misery has ended.
The movie is not logical; it's madness. It features idiotic, one-dimensional characters with cardboard motivations; a barrage of cliches that make us actually root for the old blind man to kill all of these kids. And once the killing actually starts? The decisions the characters make and the events that transpire are so nonsensical, it's impossible to actually take any of it seriously.
And that's the point. Don't watch this if you're gonna be one of those schmucks who yell at the fictional characters on the screen, "What are you doing?! That would never happen in real life!" If you're one of THOSE kinds of people, then you are the lowest scum of moviegoers and I pity your lack of suspension of disbelief.
Don't Breathe is trying to accomplish nothing more than to entertain you. It's closer to an 80s B-horror movie than any of the modern day garbage churned out as of recent. It's a throwback to a simpler age of horror movies where wise-cracking moviegoers wouldn't question the logic of a murderous break-in; They simply accepted the maniacal events that transpired once people started killing and honestly, the film works best when it's not trying to make sense of anything; the pulse pounding scenes of quiet intensity; the dreaded moments of sheer terror.
The aspects I actually found more impressive than anything else were the uses of lighting (or lack of rather); night vision; cinematography tricks and unique location setting within the house in order to make me believe that most of the film was happening completely in the dark.
Bottom line: There was clearly a lot of creativity that went into the thought process of how to execute a film like this. It doesn't have to feature an outstanding plot because the craft behind the making of it is just so good. Perhaps it's my love of horror and my accepting of the pure film making aspects that drove this film from beginning to finish but I was mesmerized by the glorious stupidity of the events that transpired because behind all of it was horror; real, gritty, pure, pulse-pounding, adrenaline-fueled horror and if you're a fan of horror, that's all that's going to count.
Grade: B/B+
18) Blood Father
Two words: Mel f**king Gibson (I understand that's three words but hot damn). The man has gotten such a bad rap over the last few years and I'm not defending him. Who he is as a person and some of the questionable decisions he's made; the controversial statements he's released; all of these terrible, terrible things related to the man personally have reigned down on his career, so much so that it's a shame people don't talk about his acting any more. And why should they? What's the last truly relevant thing the man has done? SIGNS? LET'S BE HONEST. Over the last decade the man has either done smaller roles in fine but forgettable films (The Beaver) or made absolutely outrageous cameos (the near-mustache-twirling villain in Machete Kills). Today we remember him for what's closer to the former than the latter but without Mel? There would be no legitimate reason for Blood Father to exist.
Let me start by saying that no one will even know what this movie is. Only people who have been trailing Gibson's work will catch any wind to this unknown nod to trashy B movies and Gibson is the beating heart and soul of this gritty little picture.
As far as the film in itself goes, it lacks almost zero originality. Gibson plays a divorced ex-con/recovering alcoholic with a teenage daughter who ran away from home, ran with the wrong crowd and is now running twoards big trouble; Spanish thugs with tattoos show up for money, try and kill her, and Gibson fights back. Boom. End of film. No but really, that's not even spoiling anything because A) you've heard that film pitch before (or one just like it and B) the movie ain't about that. Not even a LITTLE bit; the film isn't even slightly concerned with the plot mechanisms. The movie is, if anything at all, a glaring look into Gibson as an actor beyond his glory days.
When I say the plot isn't important I mean it. That doesn't at all mean the film is boring; quite the opposite actually. The issue is that all the B-movie cliches of chase scenes and blood money and revenge have all been done before but Blood Father is a reminder of why we love films like that in the first place. And as far as father-daughter revenge flicks go, think low-budget Taken... But in the lowest scum of the desert... featuring Breaking Bad villains. That's the closest you'll get to an idea of what to expect when watching so yes of course it's enjoyable but again, the defining driving force here is Gibson from beginning to finish.
The rest of the cast is decent, sure. The daughter-character plays desperate and tough just well enough to be forgettable and William H. Macy is reduced to a role that's pretty much a spread out cameo. But Gibson, my LORD; it's not even that he's a total badass (and he is); a gun-toting, motorcycle driving, father-driven force for justice; it's the pure charisma the man brings behind his killing and ballistic revenge; it's that emotional, driving force that his daughter brings out which make him human, that make him such a joy to watch.
This isn't like watching Terminator where you're taken aback by how badass Arnie Scwarz is that he's scary. Sure Mel can play tough guy all on his own (this time with a full grown gray beard to keep the man in him even more manly), but it's his human motivation for keeping his daughter (the only shred of good that's left of him) alive and well, and to see the daughter go down such a dark path absolutely breaks him, and yet he's driven to do whatever it takes, to hell and back, to get all ex-con on these niños and kick some ass. GIBSON STYLE. He feels like a God-given revenge machine with a human heart; that's what keeps him as terrifying as he is believable.
And like I said, the daughter's acting doesn't make a difference, it's her character existing that keeps a heart driven Mel so mean when the wrong people mess with her. This girl's all that's left of his family and Mel sells the angry father card well enough to keep the movie entertaining for it's less-than-90-minute run time no matter how unoriginal it all feels.
Bottom line: The bleak grit to Mel's character is all the film needs to be worth even just one viewing. It doesn't need to be long or groundbreaking; it just needs to be a reminder that Gibson's got some life in him yet, even if the glory days of Braveheart are long behind him.
Grade: B
17) I Am Not a Serial Killer
Everything about this movie is absolutely brilliant. The biggest crime the movie commits is that it didn't make itself more known and because of it, the movie will probably never be talked about.
Based on the book of the same title, I Am Not a Serial Killer is unlike most other movies particularly because it's tackling multiple genres at once. For starters, it is indeed a horror movie at its core.
Young Max Records (you may remember him as the little bastard in the terrible, terrible live action adaptation of Where the Wild Things Are) is a walking sociopath named John. People are weary of him; they despise him; they fear him. The only person close to John is his mother. None of this is really important. What's important is that Christopher Lloyd of all people is back; Doc Brown himself has resurfaced and he plays one of the strangest, creepiest, most fascinating roles I think I've ever seen the man take on. As the whimsical old man Crowley who lives next door to young John, Lloyd plays the part like many old people do: quietly, eerily and questionably. The real hook of the film is when grizzly murders begin happening in the small town and John suspects old man Crowley is behind them.
If I go too much into the film I'll be spoiling but let's just say it doesn't go where you think it's headed. Just when the film seems predictable, it surprises you. Young John studies Crowley from afar almost admirably and once the murders start happening more frequently, the film becomes a different beast entirely.
The genres, as I said, are totally interchangeable. The dialogue and scenery suggest much dark comedy; the murder-mystery aspect of the plot make it a thriller, but at the core of the film's bone structure is horror. It may not seem like it at first, but once you get to the last 20 minutes, it's difficult to not see this dark beast for what it is and in the end, much of it is actually fairly unpredictable.
I think what got me most with the movie was just how much it was able to crawl under my skin. I had no idea this movie even existed until the weeks before it came out and even with a limited release, I had no expectations going in.
Bottom line: IANASK is a neat, dark little thriller that chugs along and for a film that eventually does get pretty gory, it's got a lot of personality. In fact, it's got more heart than any horror movie I've seen over the last couple years, but that's also due to the fact that much of the film strays far enough away from the horror genre that it has real room to breathe as its own, personal little gem of originality. The film's layers run deeper than you'd expect and while it's not exactly mind blowing or particularly scary, it's thrilling and surprising; surprising enough for anyone who wants to venture out into bizarre, dark territory; dark territory with a soul; might be a bit of a monster of a soul, but a soul nevertheless.
Bottom line: IANASK is a neat, dark little thriller that chugs along and for a film that eventually does get pretty gory, it's got a lot of personality. In fact, it's got more heart than any horror movie I've seen over the last couple years, but that's also due to the fact that much of the film strays far enough away from the horror genre that it has real room to breathe as its own, personal little gem of originality. The film's layers run deeper than you'd expect and while it's not exactly mind blowing or particularly scary, it's thrilling and surprising; surprising enough for anyone who wants to venture out into bizarre, dark territory; dark territory with a soul; might be a bit of a monster of a soul, but a soul nevertheless.
Grade: B+
16) Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
DISCLAIMER:
I aplogize for the excess amount of word vomit that's about to take place...
I've never, maybe in my life, EVER struggled so hard rubbing against critics, colleagues, friends, enemies, random naysayers and internet trolls who serve no other purpose than to be the absolute lowest scum of the earth, than I did upon watching the DC sequel to 2013's Man of Steel; the long awaited gargantuan of a super hero brawl, and what would eventually become the most controversial comic book movie of 2016; MAYBE of all time. That movie featured the likes and eventual, actual title of Batman vs. Superman.
Call it a guilty pleasure. I'm not gonna fight anyone about it anymore because I'll never win. I'm throwing in the towel; waving the white flag; I surrender. I'm not going to try and further convince anyone out there that BvS is a good movie, even on an absurd B-movie level. And if you hated the film; absolutely loathed it, I won't tell you you're wrong, BUT haters can suck it and no, this isn't because I'm a DC fanboy (refer to the Suicide Squad rant to get my feelings on that); this isn't because Captain America: Civil War came out only mere weeks after BvS and people blindly wanked it when in all actuality, it was nothing more than a bonafide comedy-action flick featuring some of The Avengers rolling out the same shenanigans as last time; No, no. This is because I legitimately don't understand where the flack for this film comes from. I can get behind people b*tching about Doomsday and Eisenberg's Luthor (even though I blame marketing more than anyone involved creatively) but now that the Ultimate Edition is out and the world can view the cut of the film the way it was originally intended (which won't convert any of the naysayers but makes an incredible difference in the narrative) I truly, from the bottom of my heart, don't know where the spiteful, blood boiling hatred for this movie comes from. The last half hour is loud, belligerent and filled with ugly CGI but it certainly doesn't weigh down the brilliant (yes brilliant) first hour or so of the film and if you'll let me, I'm going to take ONE last dive and unravel the mystery behind the successful failure of Batman v Superman.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First things first, let me be the first in line to say that this film does NOT go without its flaws... The pacing is often very jumbled; the narrative at times very dismantled (dream sequences within dream sequences which are actually REALLY happening within said dream sequences, etc. It's a hot mess)... On top of that, the editing confused the hell out of people (the original cut gets REAL sloppy at times)... That also doesn't go without the other favorite criticisms; Eisenberg will always be Eisenberg... Martha will always be "MAR.THAAA!!!"... Doomsday will always be a LOTR cave troll-Ninja Turtle hybrid, etc. etc. (I will cover all of this soon)... That goes without saying, I've seen the original cut three times in full and the Ultimate Edition twice now because I'm just a maniac (so it's almost unfair for me to evaluate the film given I know it better than most level headed, sane, normal people) and I gotta say, at the end of the day, the negative qualities definitely do NOT overshadow the positives...
Now I'm not suggesting the Ultimate Edition needs to be seen nor that the original cut should be viewed more than once (any truly good film should reflect a positive impact the first time) but the people who go out there badmouthing the movie clearly have that foul taste in their mouths for literally any reasons they can come up with, whether due to being given what was promised as "the greatest gladiator match in the history of the world" over the course of a disappointing eight minute fight; they were pouty that a movie about Superman seemed to feature him so little and so lifeless; they got upset about "9/11-style destruction," Jesse Eisenberg acting like he has Aspergers and most of all (and most confusing of all), people consistently got their panties in a bunch because they misunderstood a climactic twist in the narrative involving the mothers of the two main heroes...
I mean. The "Martha" twist alludes to the breaking point of Bruce Wayne becoming the villain of the story and hearing a name that happened to be the name of his dying mother triggered his humanity to remind him how in murdering Superman he was about to become no different than the low-life thug who murdered his parents and left them to die in the gutter... That IS the point, right guys? COME ON.
Listen folks. It's not that I'm necessarily defensive of the movie, it's more that I'm completely baffled by the absurdity audiences are coming from when they throw around their reasoning for disliking the film. Give me a legitimate reason the whole movie is "dumb" and then we'll talk. I have no qualms with legitimate aspects of the film that people didn't like but at least give me something that actually happened in the movie.
As far as other negative qualities the film may share, the rest is almost entirely subjective.
As far as other negative qualities the film may share, the rest is almost entirely subjective.
People hate Jesse Eisenberg's take on Lex Luthor; that one I get. Me personally? I kinda like his take on the role. Yes, it feels a little bit like he's trying to put a Heath-Joker spin on the role and the "madness" feels a little more maniacal and unbalanced (and sometimes it's just a bit much) but with every viewing, his role grows on me more. That being said I can't argue people's downright hatred for the role. Eiseinberg simply (really) rubbed some people the wrong way. I get it... How people in 2016 find Gene Hackman's cartoonish take on the same role from 1978 much more acceptable than this though, that one's beyond me.
The Doomsday bit during the climax of the film is the only bit for me that's a little overkill. Save for the fact that the Doomsday character was given the Venom treatment (circa Spider-Man 3) by being shoehorned in the last twenty minutes of the film when his iconic appearance should have been saved for a legitimate Death of Superman story, the whole subplot feels forced, rushed and the whole thing is just plain loud and barbaric. I completely get that after the "big" super brawl between our heroes (that lasted only so long), the plot demanded a reason for the dynamic duo to team up against Luthor so I understand the use of Doomsday but the big CGI apocalyptic destruction is just a BIT too overwhelming and treacherous.
The Doomsday bit during the climax of the film is the only bit for me that's a little overkill. Save for the fact that the Doomsday character was given the Venom treatment (circa Spider-Man 3) by being shoehorned in the last twenty minutes of the film when his iconic appearance should have been saved for a legitimate Death of Superman story, the whole subplot feels forced, rushed and the whole thing is just plain loud and barbaric. I completely get that after the "big" super brawl between our heroes (that lasted only so long), the plot demanded a reason for the dynamic duo to team up against Luthor so I understand the use of Doomsday but the big CGI apocalyptic destruction is just a BIT too overwhelming and treacherous.
But speaking of "the big fight" between Supes and Batman, I need to address the marketing for a moment.
I'm not going to try and say I wasn't disappointed by the lack of screen time regarding the big fight between the son of Krypton and Gotham's Bat (it was the catalyst for the film's entire buildup after all) but then again, how much can one really do with an ongoing fight between the two? There's only so many shots of Kryptonite Supes can take from Batman before there's no other Achilles heel for the character. There was literally only so much they could perform with the given material.
That said, the film's hype spent more than a year teasing audiences with a fight, leading us to believe we would be watching a movie centered around a physical fight when the entire thing is much more of a personal conflict than physical (sounds like a cop-out, I know) but the ads were literally BILLING the movie with tag lines and hashtags, #WHOWILLWIN? not to mention there was an avalanche of online promotion featuring "the big fight" and fan-based articles with breakdowns of who would win in an actual fight between Batman and Superman based on comic book history and statistics, so of COURSE once we do reach the big brawl, it's a bit of a letdown that it wasn't anywhere nearly as big as we were led to believe. This I completely blame marketing for because the film simply wasn't what was advertised.
The film we got instead, and this is the hook for my belief in Zack Snyder's work here, was ironically a much different and much, MUCH better flick than what would have been a big B-movie-brawl (even if a big B-movie-brawl is what Snyder was going for during the film's climax). The film works because it's that internal, personal conflict that is very much so politically based in the first half of the movie and in the end and it's that aspect that is the entire catch 22 of the division between Batman and Superman and for me it's absolutely brilliant. For me, that first hour of the film (all the political buildup most people found to be a baffling snooze fest) was on par, if not better than anything Marvel Studios has put out (up until a point).
On the other hand I see why it's easy for people to get lost. First of all, the film picks up right where Man of Steel left off so for starters the movie is most definitely a sequel and can't be fully realized without that entire first film (so if you didn't see MOS, good luck) but more importantly it's the events of MOS which paint Superman as a threat to mankind; an unstoppable force with no apparent weakness; a true villain. This leads to the politics within the character where we see tons of faux news footage and debates as to whether or not Superman can be or should be trusted due to the fact that he has unlimited power and answers to no one's rules but his own. This sets in motion the already brewing darkness that Bruce Wayne has embellished in the 20-or-so years he's been playing the part of The Dark Knight (at this point we see a much darker version of Batman) and his conflict with Superman is completely fueled by the idea of this alien being a threat to mankind, thus engaging in conflict. And honestly, it's that political aspect of the film that I find legitimately brilliant.
We're seeing characters we already know and love so dearly being thrown in such a controversial ringer that the outcome provides characters within these comic book heroes that make them feel new, unique, three-dimensional and simply believable (yes, we're still talking about Batman v Superman here. I'm also a lunatic).
I'm not going to try and say I wasn't disappointed by the lack of screen time regarding the big fight between the son of Krypton and Gotham's Bat (it was the catalyst for the film's entire buildup after all) but then again, how much can one really do with an ongoing fight between the two? There's only so many shots of Kryptonite Supes can take from Batman before there's no other Achilles heel for the character. There was literally only so much they could perform with the given material.
That said, the film's hype spent more than a year teasing audiences with a fight, leading us to believe we would be watching a movie centered around a physical fight when the entire thing is much more of a personal conflict than physical (sounds like a cop-out, I know) but the ads were literally BILLING the movie with tag lines and hashtags, #WHOWILLWIN? not to mention there was an avalanche of online promotion featuring "the big fight" and fan-based articles with breakdowns of who would win in an actual fight between Batman and Superman based on comic book history and statistics, so of COURSE once we do reach the big brawl, it's a bit of a letdown that it wasn't anywhere nearly as big as we were led to believe. This I completely blame marketing for because the film simply wasn't what was advertised.
The film we got instead, and this is the hook for my belief in Zack Snyder's work here, was ironically a much different and much, MUCH better flick than what would have been a big B-movie-brawl (even if a big B-movie-brawl is what Snyder was going for during the film's climax). The film works because it's that internal, personal conflict that is very much so politically based in the first half of the movie and in the end and it's that aspect that is the entire catch 22 of the division between Batman and Superman and for me it's absolutely brilliant. For me, that first hour of the film (all the political buildup most people found to be a baffling snooze fest) was on par, if not better than anything Marvel Studios has put out (up until a point).
On the other hand I see why it's easy for people to get lost. First of all, the film picks up right where Man of Steel left off so for starters the movie is most definitely a sequel and can't be fully realized without that entire first film (so if you didn't see MOS, good luck) but more importantly it's the events of MOS which paint Superman as a threat to mankind; an unstoppable force with no apparent weakness; a true villain. This leads to the politics within the character where we see tons of faux news footage and debates as to whether or not Superman can be or should be trusted due to the fact that he has unlimited power and answers to no one's rules but his own. This sets in motion the already brewing darkness that Bruce Wayne has embellished in the 20-or-so years he's been playing the part of The Dark Knight (at this point we see a much darker version of Batman) and his conflict with Superman is completely fueled by the idea of this alien being a threat to mankind, thus engaging in conflict. And honestly, it's that political aspect of the film that I find legitimately brilliant.
We're seeing characters we already know and love so dearly being thrown in such a controversial ringer that the outcome provides characters within these comic book heroes that make them feel new, unique, three-dimensional and simply believable (yes, we're still talking about Batman v Superman here. I'm also a lunatic).
And I'm not going to make this out to be a Marvel vs. DC debate (there is no debate; Marvel makes the better films) but it's because I truly feel that as of late, Marvel's characters often lack such strong development in their own conflicts that I can't get behind the love with Civil War over BvS. The irony there is that those two films share more than just a few similarities. I just happen to simply feel that the conflict between heroes in BvS is more justified and more believable than the one in Civil War (again, lunatic). Sure, CW may be a more well put together film in the end but as I've stated, it just doesn't take itself seriously enough for me to get as involved in the conflict.
And sure, BvS does try to be a little way TOO serious but at least it was ballsy enough to be dark and tonally different than the more lighthearted, comedic approach to any of Marvel's recent flicks. Clearly people were turned off by the "dark" and because of the film's backlash, it caused trouble for DC's studio productions for the likes of future projects like the critical abortion that was Suicide Squad.
All controversial topics of failure aside, what people can't deny is what the film legitimately got right. Ben Affleck is literally the best Batman to be on screen yet (okay that one's subjective but I personally won't hear otherwise). Every time he was on screen the film was instantly more enjoyable. On the other hand, Gal Gadot is reduced to little more than a glorified cameo but she killed it and made Wonder Woman not only NOT campy but believable (AND she's hot so it's a bonus). Sure, Henry Cavill plays a bit of the backseat in his own sequel (Ultimate Edition gives Kent's reporting much more of a thick motivation) but I'm also more than okay with this being more of Bruce's story than Clark's (it is loosely based on the popular Dark Knight Returns comic after all), and regardless of how short the action is, the fight between the two heroes was simply excellent to see on screen for the first time (the action sequences during Batman's climactic warehouse fight were simply breathtaking and better than any hand-to-hand combat sequence done by Chris Nolan).
The reality is, even with the Ultimate Edition (which patched up SO many of the film's plot holes), BvS won't receive the love it deserves until it inevitably becomes a cult classic, even if a very, very small cult classic, among desperate comic book nerds everywhere. Do I think that the hardcore Marvelites ultimately couldn't get on board with the movie simply because it's DC and DC's been bound to fail consistently on the big screen from the beginning? I think that's definitely a part of it, but that's also not why the movie bombed. People had problems with the movie; it's flawed AF... Yet when folks like me are raving about a movie that fans and critics alike burned and rebuked like the plague, the minority are clearly in a very rare and deranged league of their own.
And yes, moral of the story; Bottom line: I'M A CRAZY PERSON. I know I give the movie too much credit but I truly believe that the movie people have been bashing this year is not the one that we received. It's not superb but it's NOT terrible. Enjoy it for exactly what it is. That said, I think WB shouldn't have been so afraid to release the Ultimate Edition as the definitive, original version but it doesn't matter now. What's done is done. And while the future of DC may look grim as its life hangs in the balance of Zack Snyder's hands for a third round, we'll literally only be able to imagine what's in store for our endangered species of The Justice League from here on out. But here's hoping it gets better... If not, at least those who gave Batman v Superman an honest chance can cherish it for what the film truly did right, instead of complain about all the little things people claimed it did wrong.
The reality is, even with the Ultimate Edition (which patched up SO many of the film's plot holes), BvS won't receive the love it deserves until it inevitably becomes a cult classic, even if a very, very small cult classic, among desperate comic book nerds everywhere. Do I think that the hardcore Marvelites ultimately couldn't get on board with the movie simply because it's DC and DC's been bound to fail consistently on the big screen from the beginning? I think that's definitely a part of it, but that's also not why the movie bombed. People had problems with the movie; it's flawed AF... Yet when folks like me are raving about a movie that fans and critics alike burned and rebuked like the plague, the minority are clearly in a very rare and deranged league of their own.
And yes, moral of the story; Bottom line: I'M A CRAZY PERSON. I know I give the movie too much credit but I truly believe that the movie people have been bashing this year is not the one that we received. It's not superb but it's NOT terrible. Enjoy it for exactly what it is. That said, I think WB shouldn't have been so afraid to release the Ultimate Edition as the definitive, original version but it doesn't matter now. What's done is done. And while the future of DC may look grim as its life hangs in the balance of Zack Snyder's hands for a third round, we'll literally only be able to imagine what's in store for our endangered species of The Justice League from here on out. But here's hoping it gets better... If not, at least those who gave Batman v Superman an honest chance can cherish it for what the film truly did right, instead of complain about all the little things people claimed it did wrong.
Grade: B-
Ultimate Edition: B
Ultimate Edition: B
15) Hacksaw Ridge
Mel Gibson (again!); I'm not here to talk about Mel Gibson as I did with Blood Father but if there's one veteran actor-director who needs to be recognized in 2016, it's Mel.
I'm not going to talk about the controversies behind the man's public slander because then we wouldn't be talking about movies. That said, all personal conflict aside, I cannot deny the sheer raw talent Gibson possesses and watching Hacksaw Ridge reminded me how much I've missed seeing Gibson's work, even if only strictly as a director.
Hacksaw Ridge is a traditional war movie at its core. It depicts graphic war violence and fallen heroes who fight and will to die for their country and for one individual, with that will to die, also the will to serve while giving up violence completely.
Andrew Garfield stars as real-life veteran Desmond Doss who during WWII has such a strong faith; the literal will to follow the word and laws of God so strictly, that he finds a loophole in the military system which allows him to go to war while refusing to touch a weapon and it is Garfield's ability to play such a timid, meek character yet such a strong-willed, determined Christian who opts to go directly into battle, that serves as the catalyst for the entire film.
Now don't get me wrong. When I say the movie is faith-driven that doesn't mean it's a "religious movie." It's pro-God and anti-war, for sure, but don't confuse Hacksaw with the likes of those mid-budget Christian-based movies that were made for Christians by Christians. Hacksaw Ridge is BRUTAL, depicting some of the most graphic war-violence I've ever seen on film, sometimes even more than Saving Private Ryan, which is wildly ironic considering the entire moral behind the film is centered around anti-violent matters. It's an important movie and, if can be handled, should be seen by everyone.
The way the film juggles uncomfortably realistic, loud war scenes with the strong, quiet, compassionate characteristics of faith is incredible and what separates Ridge from other faith-based films is it never once feels like it's shoving religion down the audience's throat. It doesn't go out if its way to attempt to convert anyone into a believer. It instead just wants to show how far one man is willing to go driven by faith alone and how much of an impact one man has on an entire group of non-religious folk; it's an inspiration which depicts a miracle of a true story and the craft is so raw and yet so moving, and it's all completely due to Mel.
If anything, the movie serves as proof that Gibson deserves to come back to Hollywood even if it's only behind the camera. His swift direction is reminiscent of the heartfelt brutality and inspiration of Braveheart and with Hacksaw, he delivers one of the best war films in nearly a decade. Of course it doesn't rank with the likes of Private Ryan but it's easily the most faith-driven war I've ever seen (faith-driven and not tacky) and that alone makes it more original than any traditionally chummed out war movie to come out since the days of Ryan. Andrew Garfield has never won me over with his acting but he's believable as the title's hero and he plays a real trooper here (pun intended), even if he is briefly out-shined by the likes of Vince Vaugn and Hugo Weaving (side note: every movie without Hugo Weaving is instantly slacking).
Bottom line: Mel Gibson should do every war movie from now on and while it's not gonna change the game, Hacksaw Ridge brings something different to war movies and that alone make it worthwhile.
Grade: A-
14) Hunt For The Wilderpeople
This little film seemed to come outta no where and I don't believe anyone expected just how good a simple movie like Hunt For The Wilderpeople would be. The movie is small, simplistic, yet completely engaging and often funny as all hell. Think of a New Zealand Wes Anderson... that's Hunt for the Wilderpeople; the attention to framing and camerawork; the cartoonish escapist plot; the snappy humor (the foreign jokes); the awkward moments you can't help but adore... it's all here.
From writer-director Taika Waitit (What We Do in the Shadows; one of the funniest satires I've ever seen), the film is zany and smart. The humor is often quick and easily missed but holy sh*t, if you pay attention to all the little moments, Wilderpeople will actually make you laugh out loud.
Sam Neil is great as a grumpy old man ("Uncle Hec" as he's referred to) who essentially gets lost on a wild goose chase through the wilderness with a fat, little New Zealand kid but it's that kid, newcomer Julian Dennison, who is the film's beating heart and soul as young Ricky. And sure pitting together a grouchy, elderly figure with a wise-cracking, trouble-making youth isn't exactly an original concept but the chemistry Hec and Ricky share is undeniably gold.
The reason the film works at all is because of how fun it is to watch the two leads run around getting themselves in and out of trouble. Director Waititi keeps the film tight and briskly paced; no moment too short, no lingering too long. The film works for exactly what it sets out to accomplish and with the quirky humor the film constantly nails from beginning to finish, one realizes what a breath of fresh air it is to see a film so foreign feel so new and welcoming.
Wilderpeople succeeds for the same reasons Wes Anderson's films do. No matter how dramatic things seem to get, the film is constantly in a self aware state at just how comedic this world gets. Amidst any death or hopeless treachery, the film's atmosphere is constantly keen on being humorous and not for the sake of being humorous, rather than shedding humorous light in an otherwise often dark and cruel world.
Bottom line: The film is bound to make you laugh out loud mere moments after you feel like you may cry. It sets out to be as goofy as it is heartfelt. It's a zany and often absurd film but it never strays too far from its mission to take you through the wilderness of genuine, comedic wit. The film has a much different feel to it than your average American movies and what it does with the tightly paced quirky atmosphere, it proves we could use more movies like this one.
Bottom line: The film is bound to make you laugh out loud mere moments after you feel like you may cry. It sets out to be as goofy as it is heartfelt. It's a zany and often absurd film but it never strays too far from its mission to take you through the wilderness of genuine, comedic wit. The film has a much different feel to it than your average American movies and what it does with the tightly paced quirky atmosphere, it proves we could use more movies like this one.
Grade: B+/A-
13) The Edge of Seventeen
If you were to describe The Edge of Seventeen to most people, you'd probably lose them before you were done pitching the film. The idea of a teenage girl struggling to get through high school simply sounds unoriginal and uneventful. That being said, the way Seventeen was done; the pure craft that went into it, not to mention the undeniable talent from Hailee Steinfeld, is some of the most remarkably realistic (and often very funny) from any film depicting anyone in high school, in recent memory.
If you were to describe The Edge of Seventeen to most people, you'd probably lose them before you were done pitching the film. The idea of a teenage girl struggling to get through high school simply sounds unoriginal and uneventful. That being said, the way Seventeen was done; the pure craft that went into it, not to mention the undeniable talent from Hailee Steinfeld, is some of the most remarkably realistic (and often very funny) from any film depicting anyone in high school, in recent memory.
Not to make a misdemeanor of high school flicks, but for a movie about nothing more than an awkward girl going through a coming-of-age year in high school, this movie simply has no right being as good as it is and as much credit is due to upcoming writer-director Kelly Fremon Craig, even more credit is owed to the incredibly talented Steinfeld.
As the lead role of awkward Nadine, Steinfeld doesn't just play Nadine; she is Nadine. Ever since I saw her in True Grit, she always stood out to me and Seventeen pushes her from solid supporting actor to fully deserved spotlight. This part was made for her and she completely consumes and embodies not just the character but the sole representation of awkward teenage girls everywhere. Steinfeld's spirit is addicting and her ability to literally become Nadine could not only earn her an Oscar nom but it could become an inspiration to young, awkward girls who struggle daily as Nadine does (how precious). Her part is so believable that it strikes a feeling that goes beyond any limited John Hughes comedy (Hughes is an obvious influence for the film); it's believable.
The character of Nadine isn't just a part; it's a real person. The trials and tribulations she suffers throughout the film's all-time-lows, from social awkward norms to failing at connecting with boys, are so unbelievably relatable to the point where you as a high-schooler identify with one of two aspects: you either knew a Nadine or you were a Nadine, and the real empathy and struggle of the character, again completely rests on Steinfeld's shoulders.
Sure the supporting cast knocks it out of the park as well (Woody Harrellson absolutely steals every scene he's in); of course it's got a phenomenally clever and funny heartfelt script, but the movie belongs entirely to Steinfeld and she is the backbone; the core essence of the film's success. Without her, the film simply doesn't work.
Bottom line: We need more movies like this. Everything from the much deserved R-rating; from the script to the direction, it all deserves a hat off to newcomer writer-director Fremon Craig. That being said, it's Steinfeld who is only gonna keep going places from here. She and the film are absolutely outstanding and this is the kind of heartfelt coming-of-age flick that deserves original respect and demands replay value. It may make you thankful high school is over but it'll transport you back in ways you couldn't imagine. Watch this movie.
Grade: A-
Grade: A-
12) Manchester By The Sea
Every year there will be films which go out of their way to depict nothing more than drama; raw, emotional, heartfelt, human drama. Often these kinds of films are focused not on plot but on the character; the mere lingering moments in which a character is either transformed or purely defined in their ways and as far as characters go, Casey Affleck embraces and embodies the feeling of grief; absolute loss; a hopeless roadblock of isolated loneliness, and Manchester By The Sea captures sorrow in ways most films cannot accomplish.
With beautiful shots of Boston's atmosphere, the world of Manchester always feels cold and cloudy, every scene portraying an overcast winter day. The cold atmosphere is obviously a front for how cold the movie actually gets (10 points for imagery). With a plot loosely centered around the death of a family member, Manchester follows Affleck playing Lee Chandler who defines the loneliest kind of person there is. If I were to describe the reasoning behind the man's sorrow, it would give away too much as the film relies on plot twists every act of the script or so which build upon the result of his character's being, but what Manchester accomplishes through Chandler's grief is raw, realistic and absolutely soul crushing.
Of course the movie has bright spots; comedic moments here and there and lighthearted developments of the post-grieving process but the message of Manchester is far more concerned with showing just how difficult it is to move on from grief, sometimes alluding to the idea that for some people it is seemingly impossible. It's a personal reflection of loss and though the film tries to keep the audience feeling positive in such a dark reality, it's equally out to remind them how bleak life can get and that no matter how much people try and sober a situation, sometimes the loss is too great to a point where it can completely break a person, permanently.
When I say Casey Affleck embodies the feeling of grief, I mean he lives and breathes it. The man is so believable, it would come as no surprise if he were to be nominated as the broken part of Lee come January. As a matter of fact, the whole cast works really well from Kyle Chandler as the trying brother to Michelle Williams as he heartbroken wife. The film ends up being more about Chandler's relationship with his troubled, teenage nephew more than anything else but again, it's Affleck and his will to be so completely isolated from everyone else in his miserable world that is the absolute highlight here.
The film is a near perfect adaptation of real, raw human emotion even if the editing is a tad sporadic and sometimes irrelevant. There are one too many snippets in the final cut that don't directly drive the plot or characters; people staring into space, opening fridges, manning the family boat; nothing really actually impacting anything other than the visual bleak world of small town Boston, and I understand the purpose to linger in said soul-crushing world to really make you feel like you're taking a walk in the characters' shoes; the white-washed cinematography; the cloudy skies; the gloomy atmosphere, it's all to draw you into the sad state of Lee's life, but as far as editing goes, the film easily could have trimmed at least 20 minutes. This is my only true criticism.
Bottom line: The film is incredibly important. It's depressing but shows small glimmers of hope. It never goes out to inspire audiences or show them a cut and dried story. It's not very feel-good; It's anti-Hollywood, and with its ability to be as raw and realistic as Manchester gets, it often reminds you what truly quality films are supposed to look like, even if that quality is relied entirely on grief and loss. There aren't many films that accomplish their goals the way Manchester does and for that, it's indeed one of the more recognizable films of the year.
Grade: A
11) Arrival
When it comes to the sci-fi genre, I'm very much so almost-always game; it's one of the easiest genres to sway me (I have an Achilles heel for horror but I also accept that often the purpose of horror isn't to be good). When I saw the previews for Arrival, I knew I'd be in for something big. Everything about it looked spectacular: the atmospheric shots, the eerie giant orb-like spaceship, Dennis Villeneuve's name in big, bold letters (director of Prisoners and Sicario), Amy Adams being Amy Adams, etc. and upon watching the film, I was both moved and conflicted. The film itself wasn't too confusing (though there are a couple spaceship-sized plot twists) but I was more taken aback by how different the film was, not just from the previews or Villeneuve's prior work but from the average sci-fi genre.
Arrival is such a difficult movie to peg because you can't just call it an "alien movie," and even when comparing it to your run-of-the-mill sci-fi movies, there's not much out there that's really reminiscent of the kind of straightforward, bone-chilling sci-if that's present in Arrival, even if it was heavily influenced by bigger films to come before it. The film is about extraterrestrial life and questions why aliens have come to Earth but if you think you're walking into Independence Day, you're going to want to reconsider what exactly it is you're walking into.
And that's kind of the hook for the whole film; you can't really prepare for the kind of experience you'll have from it because unlike other loud, big budget sci-fi movies, Arrival is personal, intimate and much more structured around human emotion rather than a galactic alien invasion. If anything it's closer to Spielberg's Close Encounters, considering the film is much more concerned with exploring the human beings' reactions, communications and ultimate connections with the E.T.s instead of dwelling into heavy fantasy realm of how any alien life form can look, think or even react to us.
Speaking of the aliens, one aspect of the film that was unbelievably impressive was the vastly different approach to the design of the aliens in their appearance and in their communication. SO many films in the past have depicted aliens in such similar form to human structure often with two legs, two arms and maybe a big head or four eyes to seem foreign alien. The giant squid-like behemoths in Arrival are mysterious, haunting and believable even down to the way they communicate. Director Villeneuve actually worked with a team to come up with a legitimate language that can be interpreted through the aliens' octopus-like ink spray and it's these small aspects of the film that make it all the more believable.
But the film isn't really about aliens, an irony considering their arrival is the catalyst for the entire film. The film is actually much more focused on Amy Adams as the educated linguist character who works with Jeremy Renner as the techie mathematician character and while Renner and the supporting cast do well with what they're given, the film belongs entirely to Adams.
If I dive too much into her character I'll eventually get into spoilerrifc territory but she essentially carries around a grieving depression which is depicted almost entirely via flashbacks and visuals alone. This is a much more traditional take on storytelling in film and here, it's a brilliant aspect because it's an emotional branch for the audiences to connect with Adams without any of the characters verbally acknowledging her pain. It seems like a small script choice but it has a lasting impact which ultimately comes full circle by the end of the film. The film belongs to Adams and Adams alone. She knocks it out of the park and the journey throughout the film is hers, even more so than the galactic strangers whom she encounters. The aliens are essentially a giant roadblock in her life to get her to start questioning the bigger, more philosophical trials and tribulations she faces as a strong but lonely woman in this confused world of war and poverty and that's what makes them special (so precious).
Speaking of the philosophical mumbo-jumbo, I need to get cynical for only a moment and address a reaction I had during the film's ending. I refuse to spoil anything because the film truly is worth the watch (you'd be a fool to not watch it at least once), but let's just say there's a couple MAJOR twists that happen by the film's end and most moviegoers were impressed with. Now, I'm not flogging the film at ALL. The lush, gorgeous cinematography; the atmospheric shots of these 1,200 ft. egg-looking ships hovering over earth in a still and ominous manner as if it were a cloudy Tuesday morning; the eerie and haunting soundtrack; it's chilling, and the way the film was actually structured is incredible. But let's just say, by comparison, the big twists were often reminiscent of Interstellar's "book case" take on the fifth dimension in the sense that if you're not fully committed; if you're not 100% on board and absolutely devoted to suspending your disbelief, the film has potential to lose you completely and almost have you roll your eyes at the twist (and this is coming from the guy who had Interstellar as the #1 pick of 2014). You won't understand what I'm talking about until you see for yourself, but it's the kind of twist that demands a lot from the viewer because if you don't buy into it, you won't be blown away by the end result of the film.
But far-out plot twists aside, the film isn't about the end result. The ending is more icing on the cake for a film which is far more of a moral on communication than anything else. It's entirely focused on creating intimate, friendly relationships with foreign, galactic beings and using communication as a fundamental tool to understand and connect with them. It's actually one of the more believable, and one of the best uses of human-alien communications I've ever seen depicted on film.
Sure the communication aspect eventually gets to a deeper, more personal level and poses political morals about our planet's countries communicating worldwide (so we can end wars and work together and yada yada yada, peace on earth), but the film works best when it's Adams against the aliens. Her relationship with them and her means to connect with their ways of life are thrilling and moving and if you are one of the people who buy into her character arc and accept all the movie's plot-twists, you too will be moved, like many who rave about this movie.
Make no mistake, Arrival is not a fast paced action movie. It's pure, thought provoking sci-fi down to its very bone structure. Everything about the movie fuses literal science with brilliant fiction and creates a much quieter and deeper story of an alien-arc than the likes of Mars Attacks (though Mars Attacks is a lot funnier).
Bottom line: Arrival features a very original take on aliens and yet at its core is a bleak, often depressing depiction on human beings; the inner workings of our soul and how that affects us working together as a planet. It's hokey but it actually gets its message across without beating the audience over the head and it's the kind of smart sci-fi that just might get you thinking about the film and these philosophical questions of life that have plagued mankind for centuries. Though on a much smaller scale, it is the deep rooted issues which the film brings to light, aliens or not, and by challenging moviegoers on that more personal, intimate level with those issues, the film is unlike anything in the sci-fi genre, but as far as groundbreaking, kooky sci-fi goes, Interstellar is still the better movie.
Visuals/Soundtrack: A+
Grade: B+/A-
-End of Part III-
