Movie Review: Hacksaw Ridge

Details: Released in 2016. Runs for about two hours and twenty minutes. Stars Andrew Garfield. Directed by Mel Gibson.

Gibson triumphantly returns with this World War II movie. The thing about WWII movies is that the best WWII scene has already been shot, and that is Spielberg’s Normandy beach scene in Saving Private Ryan. No other film has since come close and anyone who’s tried has come up short. In order to make another WWII movie that can hold a candle to Saving Private Ryan, a filmmaker would have to approach it an a new, unique perspective. That is exactly what Gibson does here.

The premise is this: Desmond Doss joins the army as a medic and a conscientious objector. Due to his religious beliefs, he will not hold a gun nor will he kill. Doss must overcome the disdain of his fellow soldiers as well as the horrors of war as he maintains his beliefs, no matter the danger.

It’s an incredible story made that much more incredible by the fact that it’s based off a true story. One thing I appreciated and which is lacking from many other films that are based off true stories is that at the end of the film, you get interviews from the people the characters were based off of and from Doss himself. The interviews compounded the emotional impact for me and gave me a greater appreciation of the film overall.

It’s just such a ridiculous tale that I think, without the real world scenes at the end of the movie, this story might just be too hard for the audience to buy into. Anyways, that’s enough about the real world aspects of this film.

The best performance here was obviously by Andrew Garfield, with Hugo Weaving in close second. They may have been able to find somebody better suited to be a drill sergeant, but Vince Vaughn does just fine.

The true star here is the directing. Gibson tells a great story that truly explores the key experiences that end up shaping a man like Desmond Doss. From childhood, to adulthood, Doss grows to become a man of faith and conviction. There are certainly the “horrors of war” scenes, as is necessary in a good war film. What sets this story apart is that it is told from the perspective of a pacifist, and yet Doss is a pacifist who recognizes the necessity of war. This is a story about a person who must reconcile his beliefs with the harshness of reality. It is about a person who decides that he will not back down or compromise, even if it costs him his life.

Part of my appreciation for this film comes from my own personal bias towards stories like this. I love stories where an underdog overcomes great tribulations, all in the pursuit of some ideal. This is exactly that kind of story. I certainly shed a tear at certain points when the opposition seemed strongest and Doss, even still, stuck to his convictions. I don’t cry for most kinds of tear jerking stories, but a person overcoming overwhelming odds in the name of his ideals, that just starts the waterworks.

Score: 8/10 A good movie that tells a decidedly different WWII story from Spielberg’s Saving Private Ryan. Gibson has told a story which needed to be told and I’m very glad he did.

Movie Review: Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them

Details: Released in 2016. Runs for about two hours. Stars Eddie Redmayne.

I’ve never thought the Harry Potter movies were great. I never thought they were good. They were just satisfactory, tolerable even. Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find is, in my opinion, the same sort of movie. It’s not a bad movie. It’s not great. It’s just satisfactory.

The premise is this: Eddie Redmayne plays Newt Scamander, a member of the ministry of magic who specializes in magical animals. He comes to America to relocate a magical animal and send it home when he comes across a plot that puts all the wizards in 1920’s New York City in danger.

The first thing you should know is that this is not Harry Potter. Anyone coming to watch this film will obviously be a Harry Potter fan, and they will be undoubtedly disappointed by what they find. With that said, if you have no familiarity with the Harry Potter Universe, again, you will be disappointed if not completely lost. So we reach this conclusion: the only people who should watch this movie are Harry Potter fans and they will most likely be disappointed by the film.

It’s not all bad though. Eddie Redmayne delivers another believable performance, as do the rest of the cast. It’s unfortunate then that the plot of this film is so bare bones and establishes so little. If you’ve read other reviews, you’d be familiar with the opinion that this film merely sets up the inevitable sequels that will follow. Those opinions are right. Nothing happens here other than a shallow exploration of Newt Scamander and the American magical community. It’s all just set up for the next money grubbing sequels.

Score: 4.5/10 It’s sad to me that I know this film will make a ton of money simply by being tangentially related to Harry Potter. As a stand alone film, this movie is pretty shit. However, if you stamp something with the Harry Potter logo, the sheep-like masses will likely throw money at it. I do not recommend this movie for Harry Potter fans and especially for those who are not fans. Do yourself a favor and watch something else.

Movie Review: Gone Girl

Details: Released in 2014. Runs for about two hours and a half. Stars Ben Affleck and Rosamund Pike.

A while back I tried to sit through a viewing of this movie and failed miserably at it. It was just unbearable to watch. It was cheesy, and corny, and melodramatic, and everyone in the film was so stupid and pretentious, as was the writing for this film. Anyways, I watched The Girl on the Train and kind of enjoyed it, so I decided to force myself through this movie and to try to keep an open mind doing so.

As with The Girl on the Train, I thought this film was okay. Like that film, Gone Girl played out in exactly the overly dramatic, campy, hyperbolic way that I expected it would. I wrote a little about this in the review for The Girl on the Train, but I just did not relate to the motivations of the characters or their decision making. Does no one in these films know how to communicate? Please, if anyone is reading this and is having problems with their significant others, don’t come up with an elaborate plan for murder, just talk it out please. Don’t be as fucking stupid or overly dramatic as the dumb fucks in this movie. I felt like I was watching the rationalization of a thirteen year old teenager rather than the decision making of well off, full grown adults.

Anyways, the premise is this: Ben Affleck plays a husband who comes home to find his famous wife missing. A media circus promptly ensues as Affleck has to maneuver around accusations of being responsible for his wife’s disappearance.

When I first tried to sit through this film, the part of the movie I walked out on was when the media started getting involved and I realized that this was going to be a film on public perception and the role the media plays in our society. I just did not want to watch a film about gossip and sensationalist media. Now, that I’ve actually seen the whole film, I can now say my fear were exactly right. This is a film about murder mysteries and daytime gossip trash T.V. And yet, I was still somewhat entertained.

I think the biggest problem is that this film does not target the demographic I belong in. I feel like this film is, like The Girl on the Train, targeting bored housewives who spend their days reading mystery or romance novels and sitting around watching entertainment news shows or reading the gossip magazines. In fact, a character actually formulates the grand master plan by reading murder mysteries and using the strategies found in those books. It’s a vicious cycle of stupid. I just wanted to shout at the screen, “Why the fuck didn’t you just get divorced?! You had a fucking prenup! In fact, why did you marry such a dumb/fake/crazy fuck in the first place?! Be better judges of character you fucking children!!”

Watching this kind of stuff just gives me stress because I deal with this kind of stupid in real life. I don’t watch movies to stress myself even further with campy, unrealistic dialogue and immaturity and psychopathy I can find in my own work place. I watch movies to feel better or feel something I can’t find in my real life. This movie mostly gave me frustration. I already have plenty of that. Plus, the dialogue and plot progression made me cringe with their campy-ness and melodrama.

The one thing I did enjoy, like in The Girl on the Train, was the familiar faces of the cast. Tyler Perry, Doogie Howser, and the lawyer from Jack Reacher, at least at the time this movie was released, did not have the star power of Ben Affleck. it was still was nice to see them in these roles. The actors did a fine job with the material they were given.

Score: 5/10 I know lots of people loved this movie and I understand why. Films like this are not my cup of tea and are not the reason I go to theaters. I didn’t feel like I was all that entertained, nor did I gain anything by the end of the movie.

Movie Review: The Girl on the Train

Details: Released in 2016. Runs under two hours long. Stars Emily Blunt.

A while back, I went to a friend’s house and had the chance to watch Gone Girl. I sat for about twenty minutes and decided that this movie was pretty shit. It was that dialogue. It sounded like something written by a bored, disconnected housewife with not real concept of how people actually spoke. It watched like the fantasy of a mother of four, aspiring to rise to the level of romance of crime novels that she read in her spare time. It was cringe worthy.

So I gave up and never watched it again. Fast forward a year or so and now another movie in the same vein has been released. I did some research and found that this movie is not a sequel nor based on any books written by the author who wrote the book that Gone Girl was based on. However, this is clearly a movie seeking to replicate the success that Gone Girl achieved. With an open mind, I decided to give it a watch and that no matter how much I cringed from the corny dialogue and plot points, I would give the film a chance and watch it to the end with an open mind.

The premise is this: Emily Blunt plays a drunk, emotionally damaged divorcee who, during one of her drunken blackouts, may have witnessed or even caused the murder of someone else. She doesn’t know and spends the rest of the film sussing through her memories and trying to figure it out while getting her alcoholic life back on track.

After sitting through the film, I can honestly say that it was all right. This film is essentially the spiritual sequel to Gone Girl. In other words, it features a strong, female lead with a dark world view. There are elements of murder, mystery, and romantic drama. Like Gone Girl, the dialogue sounds like it was written by a bored, middle aged house wife for other bored, middle aged housewives. It’s clear to me as I was watching it that I am clearly not the demographic that this was aimed at. However, I did still derived some entertainment from it.

I think the main problem I have with films of this genre, along with other dramas or even horror movies, is that I just don’t identify or relate to the characters, nor can I agree with their actions. One of the reasons I dislike horror movies is because the characters keep doing stupid things I would not do. Oh, a murderer is chasing you in the dark? Then we should split up! Dark alleyway ahead? Let’s go explore it! There must certainly be no monsters in there! I find this kind of decision making just fucking stupid and that’s how I felt about the decisions the characters made in this film. They just kept doing stupid shit that made their situations worse. For instance, in the opening sequence Emily Blunt sits in a certain place on a train where she can watch couples and drives her crazy since she’s a divorcee. At the end of the movie, she moves forward by sitting on the other side of the train so she can avoid seeing those couples. Why couldn’t you just fucking do that earlier and avoided all the fucking crazy you later unleashed you dumb fucking bitch!?!?! Just change your fucking seat!!!

I guess that’s why I like movies that take place in different worlds or unrealistic settings. Watching idiots make such bad decisions over and over again is just frustrating. I mean, there are enough idiots like that in real life, I don’t get any enjoyment from paying and watching that kind of stupidity on a big screen.

The one thing I did like from this movie is that, like Gone Girl, the cast is filled with a great number of familiar, B-list actors. It’s always fun trying to identify  where you’ve seen certain actors before and seeing them in this kind of campy, murder mystery. Off the top of my head, I saw Jennifer Aniston’s husband, an assassin from an old Bourne identity movie, that guy from Dracula, and the female lead in one of the Mission Impossible films. It’s really fun picking them out. Emily Blunt is probably the only A-list actor here and is, accordingly, the lead in the film. Additionally, all the actors put up fine performances with Emily Blunt looking more disheveled and crazy than I’ve ever seen her.

Score: 6/10 An okay film. Not my cup of tea, but I can see why a lot of people would like this kind of movie.

Movie Review: Arrival

Details: Released in 2016. Runs for around two hours. Stars Amy Adams and Jeremy Renner.

Arrival is a movie that relies entirely on its big reveal. It’s like The Matrix or Fight Club in that if the big reveal/ending is somehow revealed to you, watching this movie becomes infinitely less meaningful. This movie only works because of the big reveal. Accordingly, I will do my best to avoid any narrative elements and plot points in this review.

So what can I talk about? Well, this film is undoubtedly classic science fiction film. Starwars, despite arguments to the contrary, is not classic science fiction. Starwars is fantasy that takes place in space. Star Trek is science fiction as is Arrival. Classic science fiction takes thing like space travel, time travel, alternate dimensions, aliens, etc., and not only takes us on a journey to the fantastic, it is introspective. Science fiction is supposed to take a fantastic idea and use it to examine the themes of our own lives. Classic science fiction says something about the state of our existence. In the Arrival, there is not only aliens, but there is a clearly message being conveyed about the nature of our own existence. I greatly enjoyed this message or how the film tried to express it.

The premise is this: a renowned linguist is recruited to try and communicate with aliens that have landed on Earth.

The film goes into some elements of how language works, but not to deeply. I think this was the right approach and avoided the mistake Interstellar perpetrated. Most people are not experts in language or physics, so what a film should do is to lightly go into a subject, just enough to give the audience a taste but not enough to bore the audience. Arrival achieved this balance.

The cinematography is great. Some great shots of the space ships and landscapes. The film felt very epic at times.

In regards to the editing, I’ll just say that while most of it is good, some of it felt gimmicky. This film attempts and achieves something that I both appreciate and felt gimmicky to me. After seeing what was done in this film, I’m probably not going to appreciate any other films that attempt something similar for the near future.

The actors are fine. In order to convey the tone and message this film attempts, their performances needed to be a little muted. I get that. I don’t think anyone should win any Oscars for their performances though.

Score: 7.3/10 It’s hard to say whether or not I’d recommend this film. I enjoyed it, but it is a one trick pony. Once you get the reveal, you may want to watch it again to see it from a different perspective. Otherwise, it’s a one and done, kind of like Cloverfield. The entertainment value of this film lies in watching it in that first, unspoiled viewing.

Movie Review: Mechanic: Resurrection

Details: Released in 2016. About one and a half hours long. Stars Jason Statham and Jessica Alba.

This was not a good movie. It’s a sequel to the original Mechanic, also starring Jason Statham, which came out in 2011.

The premise is this: Jason Statham plays an elite assassin who specializes in killing people and making it look like an accident. A girl he likes, played by Jessica Alba, gets kidnapped by someone who forces him to kill three targets and make the kills look like accidents in order to save Jessica Alba.

The best part of the movie was the opening sequence. There really isn’t much plot here, which would be fine if the action made up for it. The action didn’t make up for it unfortunately. Just a visually boring movie.

Score: 3/10

Movie Review: Sausage Party

Details: About an hour and a half long. Came out in 2016. Stars Seth Rogan and Kristen Wiig.

What the fuck did I just watch. I don’t think I hated the movie, but I certainly did not love it.

The premise is this: all the food in this supermarket is sentient and worship humans like gods. The food eventually learn the truth that humans kill and eat all the food at the supermarket and they must stand together to face the threat of the humans.

It’s a trippy story with lots of racial and sexual jokes. This is definitely an R rated movie that is not for kids. I didn’t really enjoy it. It’s just too far out there. The jokes also kind of fell flat for me.

Score: 3.5/10 I applaud the movie studio that approved the financing for this movie, but it was just too weird for me.

Movie Review: Doctor Strange

Details: About an hour an fifteen minutes long. Stars Benedict Cumberbatch, Tilda Swinton, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Mads Mikkelson and Rachel McAdams.

The feeling I had after watching this movie was… disappointment. What a waste of an opportunity. I walked into this movie expecting something along the lines of Antman; I was expecting a modernized, original twist on the old Doctor Strange origin story. I was expecting an introduction to the mystic arts. What I got was a retelling of Robert Downey Jr.’s Iron Man movie, except with magic. This is an entertaining movie, I just wasn’t surprised or wowed to the level I was in Ant-Man. There is just very little original ideas in this movie that haven’t been done in other films, and what is done just doesn’t deliver.

The premise is this: Doctor Stephen Strange is a brilliant, arrogant neurosurgeon that gets into a car accident and destroys the nerves in his hands, ending his career as a surgeon. Strange starts looking for a cure for his ailment and in his search, he meets the Ancient One, a powerful sorcerer. The Ancient one teaches Strange magic and Strange takes on the responsibility of protecting the Earth from mystical threats.

There’s a lot about this movie that I didn’t like, so we may as well start with the acting. This isn’t Cumberbatch’s best performance, but he is adequate. I will say that I quickly forgot about his English accent after a few minutes into the film. Mads Mikkelson and Rachel McAdams are underused and just a waste of good talent. Chiwetel Ejiofor has a surprisingly involved role, which is great considering the caliber of actor he is. The acting is still pretty unimpressive here despite all these big names.

The writing is disappointing. As I wrote earlier, this is just an attempt at retelling the old Doctor Strange origin with no twist or modernization. Ant-Man was a heist movie mixed into a superhero movie. Captain America: Winter Soldier was a political-spy thriller mixed into a superhero movie. You’d think Marvel would recognize these successes and try something new with the tone and style of this film. Unfortunately, they don’t. They have the same jokey, jolly, not serious style from Iron Man, Avengers, and Guardians of the Galaxy, which really doesn’t support this subject matter. Some of the jokes in this film are so bad they just kind of ruin the moment and make the film look like that dorky kid in class who tries too hard to be funny, who can’t read the mood. I think Doctor Strange could have been an incredible supernatural or horror film, something along the lines of Constantine. Unfortunately, what we get is a movie tonally similar to Iron Man, but with magic.

What I did like about this movie were the visuals. There is some really trippy imagery going on. Unfortunately, a corny, unsatisfactory story made it hard for me to immerse myself into this movie.

Score: 5.8/10 Okay movie. Not great. Had high expectations and was disappointed. Felt very derivative to the other Marvel movies and increased my superhero movie fatigue. You can tell there were a lot of good ideas here, the execution just wasn’t exemplary.

Movie Review: Jack Reacher: Never Go Back

Details: Stars Tom Cruise and Colbie Smulders. About two hours long.

I’d read a number of reviews before watching this movie and they mostly say that this movie was terrible. They said it was worse than the first. Now that I’ve watched the film, I can honestly say it was not that bad. I enjoyed it. In my opinion, this movie was about as good, if not slightly worse, than the last Jack Reacher movie. So I thought it was good. However, before watching this film, you need to keep in mind that this is a very specific kind of movie that seeks to achieve a very specific thing for a very specific segment of the viewing public. There is a high chance you won’t like this film.

This is an action film in the vein of the old, cheesy action films of the eighties. The plot is not that believable. The premise is this: Jack Reacher, a wandering, retired former military attorney wanders America solving crimes. In this movie, Reacher goes to Washington DC in hopes of hooking up with a military attorney he’s been in contact with. When he gets there, he finds that she’s been arrested and involved in a massive conspiracy the resolution of which requires Reacher to fight and shoot and kill a whole bunch of people.

It’s really a silly plot, but if you walked into this movie expecting something serious or Oscar worthy, you’re in for disappointment. You are watching this movie because you like Tom Cruise. This isn’t his best performance, but his charisma comes through and is enjoyable. Colbie Smulder is great and does the best she can with such an odd script. But mostly, you’re here for the action. The action in this movie is not crazy nor as random as the first Jack Reacher movie, but still enjoyable. I thought it was a fun film, as long as you don’t take it too seriously.

Score: 5.8/10

Movie Review: Suicide Squad

Details: Movie was about two hours long. Stars Will Smith and Margot Robbie. Released in 2016.

Watching this movie gave me flashbacks of the Fantastic Four movie. The main problem here is the same thing in that movie: too many ideas. There were just so many ideas thrown into this movie and not given enough time to flesh out. The result is a film that looks cool in a trailer, but doesn’t really have any substance.

There’s a lot to address with this movie. Firstly, we have to address that dialogue. My goodness, were there some cringe worthy lines spoken in this movie. Pretty much every line spoken by Harley made me cringe. They just did not give proper motivation to each of the characters so that everyone just looked like they were repeating lines.

Which leads us to the acting. The acting is pretty shit. I mean they’re trying, but you can only do so much with such a bare script. Will Smith probably did the most believable job, which isn’t saying much. Jared Leto’s Joker got a lot of publicity prior to the movie’s release, but he barely got any screen time to fully present his character. In the few scenes that he was in, he really wasn’t that great. He was just okay. Margot Robbie’s Harley Quinn also received a lot of publicity, but, again, every line was cringy and the only thing she is good for in this movie was as eye candy. Even as beautiful as she is, her looks couldn’t salvage this movie.

The main reason this movie sucks so bad is the story. Again, too many ideas and no explanation or exploration of any of them. It just feels like they are going down a checklist of things you want to put into a comic book movie without any plot points or scenes that support it. It’s just a badly written script altogether. Furthermore, a lot of the plot points did not make any sense. The characters did a whole host of conflicting actions that made no sense. Really, the motivation for the whole movie and for assembling a suicide squad made no sense.

The only good part of the film were the visuals, and they weren’t even that great.

In regards to the music, many well known songs were used, maybe too many. It just made the tone of the film feel too eclectic and varied. There was no real core theme or cohesion to this story. Just a bunch of ideas taped together.

Score: 3/10 This movie tries very hard to be cool, but just ends up embarrassing itself. It felt like a collection of scenes that was just not worth watching. I would just wait for Ben Affleck’s Batman movie. I have yet to see a movie directed by Affleck I did not like.