YoungCriticMovies Reviews

Mission: Impossible - Rogue Nation (2015)

Mission Impossible: Keep Building Up a Franchise While Adding An Artistic Tone

[8/10 · 2 October 2015]

It's hard to make a good spy movie nowadays. It feels as though everything has practically been done already. With a franchise like Mission Impossible, which tries to top itself with every successive film, the audience's expectation bar is set even higher. However, what defines a regular moviemaker from an artist is that an artist always strives to go beyond. In that sense Christopher McQuarrie might have taken the first step to be considered an "auteuristic" director; of course we can't really define a director based on only one film, but his most recent outing: Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation certainly projects high hopes for his future.

Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation tries to raise the stakes like no other M.I. film has done before. That's why the film starts with the Impossible Mission Force (IMF) being not only hunted down by a terrorist nation known as 'The Syndicate," but also being shut-down by its own government after the many protests of the handling of missions from the CIA chief Alan Hunley (Alec Baldwin). The IMF's top agent Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) goes rogue after IMF is shutdown because of the CIA's unwillingness to believe the existence of "The Syndicate." Ethan Hunt must go solo with the help of a few of disavowed IMF members including Benji (Simon Pegg), Brandt (Jeremy Renner), and Luther (Ving Rhames) to show the world the threat they keep denying.

But people go to M.I. movies in order to see extreme missions that are well…. impossible. The last outing had Ethan Hunt climb the tallest tower in the world. To top that (pun intended) there are two stunning scenes in Rogue Nation; one near the beginning of the film has Hunt clinging to a plane's wing as it takes off (a stunt that Tom Cruise pulled off on his own); and the other has Hunt hold his breath under water for three whole minutes to change a memory stick in an enormous cooling cylinder with an incredibly strong current. So this film does its job and tops the other great M.I. stunts seen in M.I. 3 and M.I. Ghost Protocol. But that's not what surprised me.

What really surprised me was the incredible balance that director McQuarrie was able to achieve. He held off the action sequences long enough so that they didn't burn out quickly, something that other action films pour in excess and make us lose interest and admiration in the stunts and choreography. The comedy also was toned down a bit from the last film. Simon Pegg's comic relief is more accurate due to less quantity and more quality. I certainly was fearing that the franchise and their comedic take might have taken a wrong turn and move towards the cheesy Fast and Furious style, but McQuarrie was able to stabilize that. The director also was able to make the film smart. What I mean by that is that the decisions taken by the agents aren't the predictable sort you get in your typical movies; the characters actually looked as though they were highly trained and their quick thinking and innovation catch the audience off-guard and it certainly surprises us and reminds us of why we enjoy spy movies in the first place. Finally there was a round of hommages that McQuarrie features throughout his film. Ranging from a thrilling opera sequence similar to that of Alfred Hitchcock's The Man Who Knew Too Much, to a play with names and character arcs paying tribute to Casablanca in very subtle ways.

As for acting Tom Cruise more than holds his own. His intense performance shows us that he is truly an eternal movie star who still has it in him to keep up with us. Simon Pegg and Jeremy Renner are both solid as well, but the real revelation here was Rebecca Ferguson. Rebecca Ferguson plays Ilsa Faust whose allegiance the characters and audience are always doubting (is she a double agent? Triple agent?) It's hard to act your character acting under pressure, and Ferguson makes it look so easy! Not only that, but she manages to keep you guessing where her loyalties truly lie until McQuarrie finally deems it opportune to let you know. Such an actor is any director's dream. I also enjoyed how she wasn't at all used as a romantic interest at any point; she was equally as important and significant as Ethan or Benji's characters, something that is sadly not common with female roles.

So in the end not only are there various auteur brush-strokes throughout this movie, but you also see McQuarrie raise a franchise's already high level and we enjoy a set of incredibly great performances. Indeed it is an extremely enjoyable film. It's just a bit sad (or not) that you stop believing that any impossible missions exist.

A Perfect Day (I) (2015)

Perfecto: A Spanish Film That Exemplifies The Resurgence of Spanish and Foreign Cinema

[8/10 · 2 October 2015]

Foreign films rarely get the proper recognition in the English speaking world, be that the US or Great Britain. Only recently have foreign films been allowed to compete in categories other than Best Foreign film at the Academy Awards and the Golden Globes still relegate them to the Foreign Film category. If we look at the box-office results we see an even more drastic condition. The highest grossing foreign film of all time in the US is Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, which made $127 million, something the small Pitch Perfect film achieved in 2011 which much less effort. But being shunned from awards and shut out from the box office doesn't mean foreign films don't have quality, just look at the great Italian films Cinema Paradiso or Life is Beautiful, or at Jacques Tati's film repertoire, Almodovar and Amenabar in Spain, Michael Haneke in Austria, and the great master Miyazaki and Kurozawa in Japan. This brings us to A Perfect Day the newest film from Spanish director Fernando Leon de Aranoa. The film is made by Spaniards, told in English, and takes place in the Balkans, a very curious mix, which nonetheless produced one of the best films of the year.

A Perfect Day tells the story of a group of aid workers working in the midst of the Balkan crisis in 1995. We have Mambru (Benicio del Toro) the group's unofficial leader and head of security, the wisecracking B (Tim Robbins), the rookie Sophie (Melanie Thierry), and their translator Damir (Fedja Stukan). The film opens with Mambru trying to take a dead body out of a town well. It's the body of an obese man, which later symbolizes of the dreading weight that the group is trying to relieve without help from the UN or the locals, all trying to help a country they barely know. The story intensifies when Mambru picks up a lost local kid named Nikola (Eldar Residovic) who had his soccer ball stolen by bullies, and finally Mambru's ex shows up (Olga Kurylenko) to evaluate the situation in the Balkans. Essentially the movie is a road-trip through the Bosnian countryside, letting you catch a glimpse of the situation that the locals lived in (and still live in today).

What most surprised me about A Perfect Day was the incredible balance it has. When touching upon the subject of war, it is very easy to be extreme. Extreme in the sense that you show a gore- fest and lots of blood and death, or an extreme where you try to cover up everything and have only descriptions from characters of passed events. A Perfect Day achieves its goal of brutalizing war with simple acts, like when a kid pulls out a gun when fighting over a ball, or when a store-owner can't sell his rope because he has them reserved for hangings, or when a shy adolescent watches over an empty warehouse, but is spurred with hope for protecting its flag. It is these little details littered in the story that really give you the sense of suffering and dread that can be seen in times of war.

In terms of the acting, it was also very well balanced. You had Robbins as the comic relief, and Del Toro as the speaker of truth. Both actors give an incredible performance, with visible yet admirable improvisation. Meanwhile the supporting cast also is incredibly solid. The more known names of Olga Kurylenko and Melanie Thierry do a fine job, but the surprises here were in the local actors: Fedja Stukan and Eldar Residovic who both give incredibly raw and layered performances that have us longing to console them, yet you never once pity them in the undignified sense.

Then the cinematography is also very simple, but yet contains a few flourishes and Director of Photography Alex Catalan (Marshland, Unit 7) gives the movie a cold almost wintery look that makes the message and harshness of the story fall sharper and hit you harder.

Finally, the script was incredibly witty and quick. The character development in the two hours of running time is so smooth you barely notice it, but when comparing the characters at the beginning and at the end of the movie you see how subtle Leon de Aranoa was (especially with the character Sophie). The dialogue is absolutely delicious, with the best being quirky exchanges between B and Mambru.

In the end this film, again, exemplifies that "there is life outside the US" and that foreign cinema (in particular Spanish cinema) is growing and cultivating fresh crops of new artists. And in a world of war and sorrow, art is sometimes the only window of hope.

Terminator Genisys (2015)

Terminated Franchise: The Third Installment Flops Critically and Fails To Reboot the Franchise

[5/10 · 20 July 2015]

Some films are not necessary. After Terminator and Terminator 2: Judgement Day people thought that the Terminator franchise should have stopped. Of course you can't blame the studios after two big box office successes. So Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines happened and it was terrible and what's worse: completely unnecessary. So you would be surprised that a fourth Terminator (Terminator: Salvation) was greenlit, and unfortunately it was terrible as well. So when we come to Terminator: Genisys, you don't see the point in franchise anymore. Clearly the studio prepped up a negative response to where the franchise had been headed, so they take advantage of time traveling and try to change the whole story of the whole franchise, but instead of helping reboot the franchise it simply makes us shake our heads.

Terminator: Genisys picks up before the events of the first film (Terminator of 1984) take place. In the post-apocalyptic world, the war of humans vs. machines is nearly over and John Connor (Jason Clarke) is leading the human side to victory. However, he finds out that the machines (led by the computer program Skynet) have sent a killer robot (Terminator) to murder John's mother: Sarah Connor (Game of Thrones' Emilia Clarke) before John is even born. So John sends one of his best men, Kyle Reese (Jai Courtney), to stop the Terminator from murdering his mother. BUT there is a twist in this part of the story. Apparently when Reese arrives, the Terminator sent back has already been "taken care of" by Sarah Connor and… another Terminator (Arnold Schwarzenegger) who an unknown person from the future sent to protect Sarah. However, there is still a T-1000 liquid robot (which has the exact same visual effect quality as the T-1000 in 1992's T2) after them, plus there is a whole lot of time travelling left to do.

The bad thing is that the film tries to be smart and thinks it achieves it. Unfortunately there are so many illogical problems and paradoxes regarding time travel that I would think it unfair to count it when rating the film. The writers didn't seem to have mapped out the time travelling aspects at all; they were too focused on creating new one-liners and fitting explosions into the story.

I think that another big problem in the film is the casting. Now the biggest challenges in the cast were probably John and Sarah Connor, since they are the most charismatic and iconic characters of the franchise, and in that aspect I feel that the respective actors (Jason and Emilia Clarke – no relation) did a fine job; they clearly tried very hard to avoid previous actors' shadows and they ended up succeeding. However, we need to talk about Jai Courtney. Courtney plays Kyle Reese; a role which Michael Biehn brought to life incredibly well in Terminator; so well that he made Reese an omnipresent character even after he disappears from the next two Terminator films. But Jai Courtney not only failed to rise to Biehn's status, he completely flopped in every aspect of acting. Now I don't normally like to shame on actors like this, but Courtney felt: as if he was being fed lines between the edits of the scene, he didn't seem to understand what he was saying, no one bought his reactions, and his chemistry with every other actor was invisible (and this is surprising since he is a couple with Emilia Clarke and she plays his love interest in this film). So unfortunately Courtney ruined most of the scenes he was in, which were practically all of them (he's the narrator). We also have a supporting cast, which seemed to be ignored on purpose. J.K. Simmons, the Oscar-winning actor was given a role so small, that if you blink you might miss it. And then you have the Doctor Who alum Matt Smith, who was a big part in the marketing of the film, but he ends up getting seconds of screen time (I'm totally serious, count it if you go see this film: he doesn't reach a minute on the screen).

The only thing that worked in this film was what has always worked in the other Terminator films: "Ah-nuld." Arnold Schwarzenegger is a better actor than most people credit him for. Of course I can't really judge him in this film since he's been playing this role for over 30 years, but he's had some nice turns in indie films like the recent Maggie and if we look even farther back he succeeded in Total Recall and even had a comedic turn in True Lies. Anyways, Schwarzenegger gives his Terminator an emotional battle to deal with. He teases the audience as we see him struggle to comprehend if he is actually experiencing emotion as a machine. He certainly displays more emotion than Jai Courtney. Schwarzenegger also brilliantly delivers his burnt out lines: "Get out" and "I'll be back," and adds a bit of sarcasm to his role that relieves the audience with some humor. Essentially he is the only actor who truly understands this film and gives it his all.

Overall the film is carried on the shoulders of Schwarzenegger, and even so that is not enough. The film ends up being another typical blockbuster that will probably be forgotten in a few days. If you do end up seeing it, just try to forget that it's connected to the first two Terminator films, out of respect.

Magic Mike XXL (2015)

No More Magic: A Film Which Throws the Script Out the Window and Lacks Cast Dedication

[5/10 · 20 July 2015]

Magic Mike XXL, the sequel to the much-lauded Magic Mike is exactly what you were expecting the first film to be. When Magic Mike came out in 2012, many were surprised by how director Steven Soderbergh was able to humanize and bring tension and emotion to a story about male strippers. However, with Soderbergh not directing the second film, the story turned into an audience-pleasing film that prioritized abs over the script quality.

Magic Mike XXL picks up with Mike (Channing Tatum) having finally started his own furniture building company (a dream he was working towards in the first film). The company is miniscule; so much that Mike has only one employee whom he can barely pay. But given the circumstances, Mike is happy, this was what he had always wanted. However, we see in brief flashes that Mike does miss doing his "magic" and dancing on "the stage." During a particularly impressive scene Channing Tatum dances to "Pony" in his wood shed, sliding and spinning around tools and planks erotically. Coincidently during a surprise reunion with his aging stripper ex-coworkers he is convinced to go to the Myrtle Beach stripper convention and dance with the boys one last time.

The film's script is not worth analyzing, the director: Gregory Jacobs clearly wanted to focus more on physical comedy and dancing than anything else; unfortunately this makes the non-dancing scenes completely eternal and pointless. Regrettably, there are very few dancing scenes as well; besides the woodshed there is also a gas station dance that had everyone cracking up as Joe Manganiello's character tries to make a cashier smile on a bet, and then there is the stripper finale. There really is one good non-dancing scene which takes place at Andie MacDowel's character's house, but that's mainly because of the good acting from MacDowel (yes I was surprised she was in this film as well), Matt Bomer, Amber Heard, and Channing Tatum.

The cast does seem extremely uncomfortable throughout the whole movie; even Channing Tatum wasn't really giving it his all, and it felt as though director Jacobs hadn't had a strict hand with his actors. Also many actors felt lost, I for one suffered as Matt Bomer struggled to make his character's actions seem rational… and as he tried to dance. The only actor who was giving it full passion and felt like he was having the time of his life was Joe Manganiello, and it's unfortunate that his time to shine was in such a blunt movie. The cast had the female supporting additions of Jada Pinkett Smith, who was overused and a scene in her house dragged far too long, the surprising and afore mentioned Andie MacDowel (underused, but stealing the show when she was given the chance) and Amber Heard (had 2 minutes where she showed some spark).

So in the end Magic Mike XXL ended up being what us cinema critics were hoping it wouldn't be. Disappointment? Yes. Entertainment? A little. Abs? A lot.

Ted 2 (2015)

Tedibly Irregular: A Film That May Be Hilarious To Some and Insultingly Boring To Others

[8/10 · 20 July 2015]

I did not like the first Ted movie at all; I completely loathed it and found it an insult to everything imaginable, with not even having a core message attached. So I was extremely surprised to find myself crying of laughter at Ted 2 and I can only come to one conclusion from that; and that is that Seth MacFarlane's comedy is directed at a specific age group, and I just happened to grow into that demographic.

Ted 2 starts with the stuffed-animal-come-to-life: Ted (voiced by Seth MacFarlane) marrying Tamie Lynn (Jessica Barth) whom he met at work in the supermarket. We also have John (Mark Wahlberg), Ted's best friend ("thunder buddies") who mopes around for a year because of his divorce from his wife (played by Mila Kunis in the first film). After the honeymoon stage of Ted and Tamie Lynn's marriage, things start to fall apart really fast. So in order to save their marriage they decide to have a baby, and after an attempt at insemination and adoption Ted is stripped of his human rights and is labeled "property" by the state of Massachusetts. This leads Ted and John to sue the government for Ted's civil rights with the help of junkie lawyer Samantha (Amanda Seyfried). There are also minor, almost cameo appearances from John Slattery and Morgan Freeman in supposed supporting roles.

Seth MacFarlane's comedy basically consists of being as offensive as possible to everyone. He sort of mocks when other comedies try to maintain a balance of political correctness and making fun of people; so given that if you're going to see one of his films you have no right to complain that he was offensive because that's MacFarlane's cinematic signature. If we don't take the offensiveness and references to Hitler and 9/11 personally you actually find the film to be very funny. Although as I said before, the comedy is specifically directed at the young 18-35 age demographic; the pop culture and even political references were aimed for that restricted age group alone to understand. And so because of that, if you fall outside the intended demographic you will be forced to look at the story for entertainment, and the story is extremely lazy. Basically Seth MacFarlane (who directed and wrote the film) thought of a bunch of funny situations and figured out how to string them together, which is why the film is a court movie/ road movie/ conspiracy film all at once. So of course if you're forced to look at the film's story you will hate the film. But since when does one go to a comedy to admire the way the story was structured? One goes to a comedy to laugh at funny situations, and hey if the story is amazingly structured then all the better. But it's unjust to judge MacFarlane's comedy differently than other general more conservative comedies; in fact I almost admire MacFarlane's comedy style, it's extremely risky and basically is begging people to criticize him for it and that is hard to do in the film world for anyone.

In terms of the acting I was very surprised by Amanda Seyfried, who had been off the map of mainstream movies since Les Miserables. I have to say that her role in this film is unlike anything I had seen before; I was used to more conservative comedies like: Mama Mia! or even Mean Girls from her, so when I saw her in this dirtier and certainly more vulgar role I was both surprised and impressed. Seyfried exposes herself to basically be made fun, and she really holds out and almost accommodates her style of acting to the film and their respective actors, so that she was one of the best parts of the film. Wahlberg acted exactly the same as he did in Ted, and that means: he was funny. In fact, I would argue Wahlberg is more of a comedic actor than he is a dramatic actor. Certainly the only dramatic film he went above notable was in The Fighter. But he mostly shines in comedies as opposed to dramas, hell even in The Departed he earned an Oscar nomination for being the constantly angry and sarcastic police officer that was constantly ripping laughs from all of us. As for MacFarlane he was clearly having a blast voicing Ted. I only have the small tic of wanting to have seen more John Slattery and Morgan Freeman, but then again the trio of main actors worked so well on their own, it might have been better to not touch anything.

So in the end it's kind of hard to evaluate this film. I guess that if you're younger than 18 or older than 35 you certainly will not enjoy this film, but if you are in that age group, you will have a really good time.

Minions (2015)

Minion$: The Prequel/Spin off Proves that Minions are Great as Supporting Characters Only

[5/10 · 20 July 2015]

Money over art --this is the undisputed law that Hollywood has churned up, and you can't blame them: who doesn't like money? Unfortunately the audience takes the toll when they are delivered disappointments. Something else that one sees throughout all of Hollywood is the inability to know when to stop. Minions proved to be the perfect showcase for these two ubiquitous aspects of Hollywood.

Minions is a prequel/spin off of the loved and critically acclaimed Despicable Me movies. In Minions we are told about the origin of Gru's (Steve Carrell) yellow, banana-loving helpers. The minions' objective in life is to serve the biggest and most evil villain of them all, so throughout history we see them serving (unsuccessfully) such figures like a T-Rex, a caveman, Count Dracula, and even Napoleon (I'm glad they didn't show the minions in the 40s). After decades of inactivity in the North Pole, three brave minions decide to set out and find a new master. These minions are Kevin, Bob, and Stuart, and they trek through all sorts of environments and finally reach 60s New York City, where they find out about Villain-Con where all of the world's villains will gather for an annual convention including the infamous Scalett Overkill (Sandra Bullock).

I have to say that the first half of the film had me mesmerized and laughing at the minions and their arguments in gibberish. I can't blame the studios for doing a minion spin-off, since the yellow characters completely stole the show in both Despicable Me films and they were a commercial hit. However, carrying a film out entirely on their own is much more of a challenge than brief sparks as supporting characters. And unfortunately the minions' humor burned out at the halfway point of the film. The story itself, which had been so sophisticated and surprisingly intricate up to that point suddenly took a turn and became a predictable childish lump. The humor started to go on a loop so that every joke was used at least four times by the time the film ended. And I think that this was such a problem because the filmmakers were trying to extend the runtime in order for this to be qualified a film and not a short.

However, I don't want to shame the filmmakers at all; it's hard to make a film where the main characters speak a mixture of gibberish, Spanish, Italian, French, and English. I actually admire the bold move of taking basically "mute" characters (in the sense that all their dialogue doesn't mean anything) and telling a story in a simple enough way that children can understand it.

But even so you cant help but feel that the second half of the film is extremely forced, so much that it takes down the entire film with it. And the ending is too fairytale-ish and ties all the loose ends a bit too conveniently. So overall the film is a bit of a let down, with a strong first half and weak second, but even so it's worth seeing the admirable work of the directors and writers by placing "mute" characters in their lead roles.

Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)

Furiously Majestic: George Miller Reboots the Series with A Beautifully Entertaining Film

[9/10 · 18 May 2015]

Here's a question: can an action film ever be considered art? Usually with big blockbusters such as Avengers or the Fast and Furious series, explosions are paired up with corny dialogue. Never do we see a film that treats this genre with respect and is willing to take risks. The last time such a movie, of the action/blockbuster genre, was able to achieve such balance and quality was probably with Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight Rises. But we have another savior, in the shape of mastermind George Miller; his latest installment in the Mad Max series: Mad Max: Fury Road, might compete to be one of the best films of the series, and I will be bold enough to say that it is one of the best films of the year.

Mad Max: Fury Road achieves such a high caliber due to the incredible simplicity of its plot and the lack of unnecessary sub plots featured in today's action flicks. Fury Road avoids telling the entire backstory of our main character Max (Tom Hardy replacing Mel Gibson), and simply jumps straight into the action with Max being captured and held prisoner. We are in post apocalyptic Australia (although the film was filmed in Namibia due to the very rainy season that Australia had). In the original Mad Max films of the early 80s, the main concern then was a nuclear apocalypse, while this film sticks more or less to that apocalyptic theme, one can't help but look at the dry landscapes and relate them to the climate change epidemic we are facing. With Max prisoner to an oppressive leader of survivors named Immortan Joe (Hugh Keays-Byrne), we move on to the story of Imperator Furiosa (Charlize Theron) who ends up being the true main character of this story. Furiosa is a loyal and celebrated commander of Immortan Joe's army of War Boys. However, as the story opens we see Furiosa betray Immortan Joe and steal his personal Breeders (women slaves used to feed and reproduce the survivor population). A chase ensues and Max, being used as a blood bag, for an ill soldier named Nux (Nicholas Hoult) is taken along for the ride.

What is most impressive about this film is that the majority of special effects used for the explosions and flying cars were not CGI (according to IMBb 80% of the special effects were live stunts). I think the risk alone of that by the actors is enough to earn my respect. However, the explosions themselves were panned to look beautiful; this paired with the either heavy metal soundtrack or Verdi makes most of the fight scenes feel majestic.

George Miller is an aged director (70); he's made various great films including the original Mad Max trilogy, and the more family friendly Babe and Happy Feet. What is most striking about Fury Road is the lack of dialogue. Apparently Miller had composed the film using storyboards first, it was only after that that a screenplay was written. And I think it's the fact that Miller created the story visually first that makes this become a precise spectacle.

This lack of dialogue also allows our actors to display the frantic paranoia that verges on insanity. The performances from Tom Hardy and Charlize Theron are amazing, but the true surprise here is Nicholas Hoult. Hoult is probably better known for his role as Beast in the new installments of the X-Men franchise; in Mad Max he plays a crazed War Boy who has Max as his prisoner and blood bag. Hoult portrays his character with a restricted insanity so that he seems scary enough, but one does pity him. Tom Hardy plays Max with more grunts than dialogue, and when he does speak he uses a voice that recalls his role as Bane in The Dark Knight Rises. However, after such scarring moments of his past one cannot blame Max's character for having gone… well, mad. So in that aspect, Hardy does a good job in handling the role. As for Charlize Theron, she plays Furiosa with a composed viciousness; since she is not objectified in this film as the attractive female that she is, she was able to show the range of her acting chops with more ease. In fact the majority of the second half of the film was filled with a womanpower that was appreciated and, in the apocalyptic setting, didn't seem forced at all. It was only in some points that the actors felt a little lost amongst the chaos so that some character development doesn't end up being too realistic.

So in conclusion, Fury Road is the perfect reboot/sequel to the Mad Max trilogy. The beautifully created action sequences along with and explosive pace are enough to make one feel goosebumps. George Miller you've done it again.

Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015)

Age of the Blockbuster: Marvel Restrains its Director From Taking On A Auteristic Tone

[7/10 · 18 May 2015]

It's always hard to make sequels, especially sequels of highly successful films. The Avengers was a worldwide phenomenon back in 2012, it became the third highest grossing film of all time, and it established Marvel as the powerhouse of blockbusters. What was so successful in the first installment of The Avengers was its ability to bring so many stars together for one film. Director/writer Joss Whedon had managed to gather the likes of Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.), Captain America (Chris Evans), Thor (Chris Hemsworth), the Hulk (Mark Ruffalo), Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson), and Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner). For the second go round, Whedon had a more challenging task of appealing to comic fan-boys, cinematic critics, and the stars themselves (with the every growing cast, screen time is becoming more difficult to administer), all while topping the first film. However, Whedon has magically managed to pull off a film that achieves a kind of balance in all of these aspects with the second installment of The Avengers, The Avengers: Age of Ultron.

Age of Ultron finds our Avengers saving the world yet again from the decaying terrorist organization Hydra (last seen in Captain America: The Winter Soldier). Iron Man (aka Tony Stark) talks with the Hulk (aka Bruce Janner) about the possibility of creating an AI army that would be able to protect the world from any more alien threats; as Tony Stark puts it, it would be "like a giant suit of armor around the world." However, we all know what happens when you deal with AI: it always ends up turning on its creator. Tony Stark's first experiment, Ultron (voiced by a perfect James Spader) breaks from the confines of Stark's computer named Jarvis (voiced by Paul Bettany), and decides that the main threat to the earth is the humans themselves. Ultron is also able to recruit other super humans: the mind reading Scarlett Witch (Elizabeth Olsen) and the super fast Quicksilver (Aaron Taylor- Johnson). The only ones that can stop Ultron are the Avengers (duh). So voila, great plot and high stakes!

Whedon hasn't signed on for the next two Avengers films in the saga, and the thing is: I can't blame him. Marvel wants a clear-cut blockbuster, but with Ultron you can see brief sparks of Whedon's wit and art; something, which you could also notice was being restrained by Marvels magnates. The problem with caging up a director that wants to take risks is that the film itself risks falling into dullness. Fortunately Whedon was able to slip a couple of his brushstrokes; we especially see this in possibly one of the best scenes in the film when all the Avengers attempt to pick up Thor's hammer. It was one of those awkward almost Tarantino-ish moments. These brief flashes of Whedon help make the film slip into being an enjoyable and quality blockbuster. But the big challenge for this film was balancing the huge cast, while keeping the story moving forward. No matter how skilled of a director you are, to achieve that task with perfect marks is impossible.

I think that Whedon's big victory here was giving the new cast and lesser-known characters more screen time. Elizabeth Olsen, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, James Spader, and even Jeremy Renner, Scarlett Johnasson, and Mark Ruffalo trumped the likes of Robert Downey Jr. and Chris Evans who we usually end up sick with by the end of the movie. This screen time shift allowed the audience to delve into small characters, but it also allowed for the narrative to not become redundant with the previous film. Whedon's handling of the cast was magnificent. You could tell he kept all of his actors happy by giving them a chance to actually act. He manages to get a romance conflict between the Avengers, and other emotional stakes are set with family, children, and especially each other. This adds to the humanity and to the audience's care for the characters, so that you can tell that if one of them perishes, you will be devastated. The best part of this emotional upping, however, was that Whedon pulled it off without sounding cheesy!

In terms of the acting, what I most appreciated was how serious the cast took their characters. It didn't feel like a Fast and Furious film where you refer to the people on the screen by the actor's name. In this blockbuster there were actual characters, who were deeply crafted and very multilayered. This character development also helps this film differentiate from the first film, and it keeps the audience's intrigue.

However, one must not go into these films expecting to see a film as legendary and exceptional as The Dark Knight. Marvel's objective with its films is to simply make you marvel at their visual effects (see what I did there), and to keep you coming for more. With Age of Ultron, we see Marvel apply this logic. An unfortunately it ends up making the fight scenes elongated and even repetitive. But hey! What are you expecting from this type of film?

In the end Whedon manages to pull off a satisfying sequel that moves the Marvel universe closer to its final clash of the Guardians of the Galaxy and Avengers franchises. The blockbuster in requirement in Age of Ultron ends up sucking up too much of Whedon's freedom so that there is much less story in the film than there should be (for a two and a half hour film). Even so, the film is entertaining so you are never left bored for more than a couple of minutes, and while the jokes are starting become tacky like in the Die Hard and Fast and Furious films, most of them were able to hit home.

Ex Machina (2014)

Ex cellent: An Incredibly Acted Film Whose Ideas May Be Too Advanced for Most Audiences

[9/10 · 5 May 2015]

Every once in a while we get a film that is ahead of its time, to the point that the audience and most critics disregard it as a foolish fantasy. The most recent example I can think of is 1998's The Truman Show, which showcased a man's life on TV for everyone to see. Most people thought this was absurd, but today Reality TV is one of the biggest TV genres in the world, a genre that consists of watching people's lives. Ex Machina is another of these ahead-of-their-time movies, in that it talks to us about our possible future with artificial intelligence. Yes, I can already hear you complaining that there have been hundreds of films before dealing with A.I. (including the recent Avengers: Age of Ultron), but none of those A.I. films actually took a realistic approach, Ex Machina does.

Ex Machina begins with a coder named Caleb (Domhnall Gleeson) who wins an online competition to go and meet his company's founder, Nathan (a spectacular Oscar Isaac). Caleb works at a company named Blue Book, a search engine à la Google, which supposedly is used by 90% of Internet users. Caleb arrives at Nathan's estate via helicopter and finds out Nathan lives in a Bond villain-like fortress, which we later find out is a research facility. Nathan wants Caleb's help on his newest invention: a robot with artificial intelligence. Caleb is to perform the Turing Test (a test to determine if a computer can think like a human brain) on Nathan's A.I. robot named Ava (played by a great Alicia Vikander). As Caleb begins testing Ava some doubts begin to come into the audience's mind: are Caleb and Ava forming a bond? Is Nathan to be trusted? And the film relishes on your skepticism and confusion.

Ex Machina was written and directed by first-timer Alex Garland, and he does a spectacular job. He not only keeps us guessing throughout the film, but he manages to pull off a very unexpected ending that leaves the audience in shock when the credits roll. What I also loved from Garland was the incredible intellect and culture that he trusted his audience to have; he begins quoting Oppenheimer, makes references to Einstein and Greek plays, and analyzes a Pollock painting. This not only adds extravagance to the script, but it also makes the audience feel as though they aren't being treated like ignorant people, who need to have everything simplified. The characters are also crafted in a very unique way, which, added to the great casting, made the film all the more enjoyable.

One of the biggest behind the scenes successes of this film is the production design. The set is incredibly attractive, it keeps it small so that the budget doesn't skyrocket, but it also adds a layer of extravagance and an even red, green, and blue color palate. Nathan's "smart home" is futuristic, but is also kept believable and realistic. The set also surprisingly help transpire the gloomy ambient of the film.

But I think that the person who outshines in this film is Oscar Isaac. Alicia Vikander is given the flashier role of the robot, and don't get me wrong she does a great job, but Isaac was given a more supporting role which could have been shunned to the side, but instead Isaac invests himself passionately into Nathan's character making him one of the most likable characters on screen. Vikander, meanwhile, was finally given her big break. After years of playing small supporting roles in films such as Anna Karenina and Seventh Son, she was given a challenging and shinier role in this film. It's hard to play a robot, for those roles you either voice over a CGI figure or you're Arnold Schwarzenegger. Vikander was able to keep the audience in doubt and awe as see she is clearly seen as a robot, but slivers of humanity escape flicker in her once in a while, tempting both Caleb and the audience to grow skeptical. Her movements as a robot are also expertly calculated, having taken ballet classes when she was younger, Vikander was able to achieve mechanical movements with ease and grace. And we finally arrive at Gleeson, who has a different case from those of Isaac and Vikander.

Domhnall Gleeson (son of the Irish actor Brendan Gleeson) has taken a steady road when choosing movies and it has led him to become a stable actor in such a shaky business. He first came onto our screens as Bill Weasley in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, and then went on a string of more independent films with Richard Curtis' About Time and starred opposite Michael Fassbender in Frank; he even shared some screen time with Keira Knightley and Jude Law in Anna Karenina. More recently he's been moving to more big budgeted films, which even so still retain quality and independent fervor, this was the case with Angelina Jolie's Unbroken. With Ex Machina Gleeson has been able to find a midway point between big budget films and indies, and he's found that it's here where he feels most comfortable; you notice this in the film and it allows Gleeson to take on the challenging role of Caleb with more boldness than anticipated.

This liberating Gleeson along with the great Vikander and Isaac make the story flow incredibly smoothly, which along with the witty and spectacular script make this one of the best films of the year (so far). It leads me to ask myself if it could pull off a Grand Budapest Hotel (last year the Wes Anderson movie premiered in spring but made it as a big player to the Academy Awards). But then again, this may be a little too advanced for today's Academy to digest.

The Water Diviner (2014)

Film Diviner: Crowe's Directorial Debut Proves to Be An Extremely Successful One

[6/10 · 20 April 2015]

Russell Crowe can direct. The Australian actor has transformed himself in one of Hollywood's best, after consecutive roles for which he was Oscar nominated in The Insider, Gladiator, and A Beautiful Mind (he won for Gladiator). He's continued to cement himself as a quality actor with more recent roles in films such as Cinderella Man, Noah, and most recently The Water Diviner. With The Water Diviner Russell Crowe took on the extra role of directing, for the first time. With Crowe's leadership The Water Diviner turns out to be a quality, greatly paced, and very entertaining film.

The Water Diviner is inspired by actual events. It tells the story of an Australian farmer named Connor (Russell Crowe), who lives with his wife Eliza (Jacqueline McKenize). The couple lives in an extremely dry part of the 1919 Australia, (Region of Victoria) where it rains every so many years. In order to survive and maintain his crops, Connor resorts to a divine ritual that helps him locate underground pockets of water, which he later transforms into wells. At night we see Eliza persuade Connor to "read to the kids" after Crowe finishes a chapter of Arabian Nights the camera pans to three empty beds. We soon learn that Connor's three children volunteered to fight for the British in World War I, but they never came back. The last that Connor had heard of them was from the bloody battle of Gallipoli in Turkey; the army had given them up for dead. However, after a drastic turn of events in Australia, Connor decides to go to Turkey to look for his sons.

What surprised me most was the incredible balance that the film had, it doesn't rely on one facet to carry out its story: the acting was great, the script was witty, and the length and pace were perfect. A first time director is expected to fall on a cheesy and "safer" route; inexperienced directors also tend to make longer movies to "have more to show." Crowe, however, managed to put together a great team that stayed true to Crowe's and their cinematic beliefs.

The acting is exceptional. What I most appreciated about it was that it came from lesser- known actors. Apart from Russell Crowe, the rest of the cast was comprised mainly of Turkish and Australian actors, amongst which Cem Yilmaz and Yilmaz Erdogan shine out by playing Turkish military officials. We also have notable performances from Jai Courtney, who adds a bit of star power (is known for Divergent, Jack Reacher, A Good Day to Die Hard, and is in the upcoming Terminator: Genysis) but plays a more minor role, and a fantastic Olga Kurylenko (known for Oblivion) who holds her ground against Crowe with a challenging role of a hotel owner who believes her husband (who was also in Gallipoli) is still alive. The actors give each other space, and Crowe resists hogging the screen, this gives the cast and the film the great balance mentioned before.

The script really surprised me. It could have been easy to take this true story and make it extremely cheesy and tacky for the general audiences (like Unbroken did), but the dialogue ended up being extremely smart, daring even to crack a few original jokes. Historically it's also accurate, which gives me a relief since period pieces sometimes sloth over history research. But what worked really well was the unpredictability that the script maintained. At first you start guessing ("oh he's gonna end up with her," or "oh he's going to find his sons and its gonna be all great"), but the script pulls you this way and that so that you end up doubting your predictions and are on the edge of your seat for nearly the whole film. The script also took a bold move in combining a war story with a road story. The film could have messed up the scale and abused one story theme too much, but, again, the film was able to achieve a great balance that ends up being the key to its success. What I especially liked about the script was how it never takes on one biased perspective. It doesn't frame all the English as good and all the Turks as bad. There is a mix of each (just like in real life), and that balance of perspective not only allows for a more believable story, but it also gives proper respect to both historical sides, something not normally seen in Hollywood films.

Overall the film gives us a peek at Russell Crowe's possible directing career. Could he be the next Clint Eastwood? It's a little too early to make such bold predictions but, nonetheless, he's on the right path.

Furious 7 (2015)

Furiously Tragic: The Film Sends Off Its Deceased Star Paul Walker In a Tender and Tearful Way

[7/10 · 13 April 2015]

I don't think a lot of people have said this phrase: "I cried during a Fast & Furious film." I have the honor of being one of the few that will claim ownership to such a statement. The latest film in the Fast & Furious action franchise, Furious 7, will be prominently known for being Paul Walker's final film (he tragically died (how else?) in a car crash on December 1st, 2013). The film serves not only as entertainment for the audience, but also as a proper send off for the 40-year-old.

You don't go to see a Fast & Furious film expecting to see a cinematically logic and quality film. You go for the sake of awesome (and very unbelievable) action sequences. I have to admit, the franchise deserves credit for never failing to surprise us. This seventh film stuck thematically with flying cars (out of: buildings, parking lots, airplanes, etc.) and having this thematic idea is what keeps audiences going. The premise and stakes for the story start simple enough; Deckard Shaw (Jason Statham), Owen Shaw's (Luke Evans) older brother, seeks revenge after the events in Fast & Furious 6 left his Owen comatose. Fast & Furious 6 ended with Han's (Sung Kang) death at the hand of Deckard. In Furious 7 we pick up with Deckard continuing to avenge his brother and hunting down the remaining crew that battled his brother: Dom (Vin Diesel), Brian (Paul Walker), Letty (Michelle Rodriguez), Roman (Tyrese Gibson), Tej (Ludacris), and even the, now mother, Mia (Jordana Brewster) and the policemen Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) and Elena (Elsa Pataky). As self-defense the crew gets back together and goes on a search for Deckard. Apparently, Deckard is a hard man to find (was in the British Special Ops). This is where the plot complicates. The American government, represented by Kurt Russell and John Brotherton, employs the crew in order to find a device called "God's Eye" which is "a tracking device on steroids" as Russell's character explains, and uses all the electronic and connected devices in the world to track someone. From there on the story complicates immeasurably. The plot is forced to places ranging from LA to Azerbaijan, and the incredibly hard to find Deckard appears in every heist Don's group does.

As said before, it would be cruel to judge this film in contrast with the likes of Boyhood or even Interstellar. Instead, one should simply sit back and enjoy the incredible stunt work. The acting is fine as far as I'm concerned (Vin Diesel needs to learn to enunciate), the cinematography was acceptable and in some places daring (when filming fight scenes and car chases). The film is a fun ride that one goes for diversion rather than immersion. Speaking of diversion however, the Fast & Furious franchise is also known for having made Tyrese Gibson a comic. The script, however, is so scrappy that the jokes are as good as last film's "that's not a plane, that's a planet!" (when talking of a large plane). Tyrese's comic lines are extremely forced in this film, although more than once they end up working (A couple are bound to end up working right?)

But this film is different from the other movies in the franchise. Paul Walker's death is present throughout. People trying to spot his doubles or his CGI scenes shouldn't be looking at Paul Walker, but at his castmates' facial expressions. You can tell which scenes were filmed after his death by the look his cast-mates give the computer image or double they are working with; looks of mourning, of love and admiration, of longing. The last scene brought me, and the rest of the audience, to tears. We see the film and co-stars give Walker the send off. The lines spoken in the final minutes aren't acted out, the actors weren't speaking to Brian, they were talking to Walker.

We see Walker get into the first car his character owned in the first film. We see him smile as he prepares to race Diesel. A smile we've seen so many times, but which now is ghostly and touches us more than ever. The film ends with the message "For Paul" in the clouds.

But as Vin Diesel says in the film, "it's never goodbye."

The Divergent Series: Insurgent (2015)

Insolent: A New Director Goes Off the Rails To Appeal to the Masses and Make More Money

[5/10 · 7 April 2015]

Hollywood loves money. But we've known that for years; since Hollywood's beginnings in the Golden State. Last year Divergent set up a movie franchise that looked to follow the success of The Hunger Games and Harry Potter. The first film was a success not only commercially, but cinematically as well. Director Neil Burger captured the Young Adult novel feel and dealt with the adaptation expertly and passionately; and the audience saw that. The audience can tell when a movie has been made with love and when it had been made for money. Unfortunately with Divergent's sequel, Insurgent, a change in director and strategy has led the franchise astray, into the greedy realms of Hollywood.

Insurgent picks off where Divergent left off, naturally. The once peaceful apocalyptic city of Chicago has been thrown into chaos. The factions that had been made to divide people and their roles in society, trembles and is on the verge of breaking. Our heroes Tris (Shailene Woodley) and Four (Theo James) seek refuge from the evil "President Snow-like" Jeanine (Kate Winslet). Jeanine is hunting Four, Tris, and other escapees from the Dauntless faction who uncovered her evil plan to establish herself as a dictator. Four and Tris, along with Peter (Miles Teller) and Tris' brother Caleb (Ansel Elgort) are looking to join up with the rest of the Dauntless. The plot thickens and there are various back-stabbings, near deaths, and a lot of fights. The franchise however has taken a step in the wrong direction in trying to appeal to the general audience, seeking more eye-candy and action sequences. You can almost tell (without having read the book) that director Robert Schwentke is going off his book source. The buff-up plan includes: cast additions to add star power (Octavia Spencer and Naomi Watts), early-on and ubiquitous fight sequences, and (this is debatable) female objectification.

Now, females in cinema are, and always have been, extremely objectified, so there's no point in justifying that this film shows this for the first time. But the film does find extra guilt in that it stands as a PG-13 film. Fast & Furious is R, the audience is mature and goes in expecting women to be treated that way, but the Insurgent audience is made up of forming tweens and teenagers that aren't expecting anything more than a passionate kiss. Sex scenes and girls in crop-tops, completely throws off the "woman-power" feel that the first film achieved.

Then we have the fight sequences, which are forced upon us every 2 minutes, at which point you begin to feel as if the writers got lazy and stopped writing dialogue. The CGI is used forcefully as well; you lose interest in the story and are simply lost in floating, crumbling cement houses. Through that the sake of logic and even interest in developing or exploring characters is been completely lost. And when you lose characters, you lose the whole story.

As for the added star power, it's completely unnecessary. You have Oscar winner Octavia Spencer and Oscar nominee Naomi Watts in roles whom barely take up 15 minutes of movie time combined. It's a waste and a silly excuse to add more names to your movie poster.

The acting was handled terribly. The entire supporting cast is given a script with adialogue that is so scrappy that they themselves don't know what they're saying. The poor Theo James, Ansel Elgort, and even Naomi Watts struggle hard to make sense to the audience. The only actors who manage to save themselves due to obvious improvisation and skill are Shailene Woodley and Miles Teller; two of the biggest rising stars of today whose charisma keeps the film together.

I have to say the only aspect that saves the film is the ending. The film deviates from the dreadful mainstream course and goes back to adapting the final pages of the book. Of course the credit here goes entirely to the author Veronica Roth, but nonetheless it helps make the film edible, and at least leaves you with a good aftertaste. C

Kingsman: The Secret Service (2014)

Kingvaughn: The Kingsvaughn: The Director Brings a Quality Action Film and Makes Colin Firth an Action Star

[8/10 · 24 February 2015]

Young Critic 2/18/2015 It's nice to have these kinds of surprises in the winter season of rubbish. Along with Paddington, the wide release of American Sniper, and now the surprising and bold Kingsman: The Secret Service it's turning out to be a good winter season. Going in to see Kingsman, I expected the typical action-spy thriller with the high stakes, stunts, and evil villain, but I wasn't expecting an artistically directed film with a perfect contemporary plot and courageously pushed comedy. Director Matthew Vaughn did it yet again with the help of veteran and rookie actors who pushed out of their comfort zones.

Kingsman is adapted from a comic series that was first published in 2011. The premise of the film is that of a young English troublemaker named Eggsy (Taron Egerton) who is recruited by a Kingsman agent named Galahad (Colin Firth). The Kingsman service is basically a continuation of King Arthur's knights. They are an organization more secret and discreet than MI6, and their work goes largely unrewarded (Galahad's office is covered with the front pages of newspapers the day after all his successful missions). Eggsy is tested and evaluated along with other recruits to fill a vacant spot of a murdered Kingsman. As Eggsy trains we find out that the assassination of the Kingsman agent is Silicon Valley billionaire Valentine's (Samuel L. Jackson) fault. Valentine has an evil plan that actually ends up being less absurd and is worrying for most of the audience; it plays around with our ubiquitous smart phone usage and with the climate change problem. Valentine's plan (if you don't mind my revealing it) is that through his phone products he can trigger a violent and uncontrolled part of the human brain that would cause an unfiltered surge of violence. This evil plan would cause death and bloodshed, but it would also get rid of the problem of overpopulation, global warming, and even extinction animal species. As Valentine says: "Humans are like a virus. When you get a virus your body heats up, trying to kill the virus, and that's what the earth is doing." The smart line made me think of global warming in a way I hadn't before. Now of course I'm not defending or rooting for Valentine and his plan at all, I would much rather cheer for an awesome fighting Colin Firth.

The genius of this film comes from director Matthew Vaughn. His film resume includes Kick- Ass and X-Men: First Class, both really good films that also stood out from other action films for their boldness and originality. I admire Vaughn for being so risky with his films; in Kick-Ass he went on to mock the very genre that was becoming the highest grossing and most popular genre in the world. With First Class, he retook the decayed ­X-Men franchise (and a superhero film) and revived it by unerringly replacing the whole cast, making it a prequel, and mixing the historical, dramatic, and comedic genres. With Kingsman he avoids falling into the standard clichés, by riskily conducting his action sequences (one is a huge massacre in a church, another depicts a woman tearing down a door wanting to murder a child, exploding heads at a cocktail party that turn into fireworks) and he doesn't shy away from adult humor (usually coated or avoided by action films that want to play it "safe"). His touches of auteur-ship are seen and faintly remind us of Tarantino with scenes such as the exploding heads one, which is tuned to "Pomp and Circumstance," or with the snappy and extremely smart dialogues that seem out of place, but ground the characters' humanity. But the greatest feat of all is that Vaughn avoids being predictable, some important characters die, which you don't expect at all and there are some unseen betrayals. These surprises make us be on the edge of our seat, actually fearful for the stakes of our characters.

But having a great director only takes you so far; the spectacular cast was a big factor in attracting an audience and keeping their rapt attention. The star of the marketing campaign for the film was Colin Firth, but you would never expect Colin Firth to be an action star. Firth was known for his gentlemanlike roles in all his films from Love Actually to Pride and Prejudice and even in The King's Speech. In Kingsman he plays a badass secret agent, but nevertheless the role is suited for him (that's meant to be a pun). The Kingsman service is unique in that their agents dress in expensive suits and carry umbrellas, heavy rimmed glasses, and gold watches and rings. Firth fits perfectly into this agency, it was almost made for him. He succeeds not only by pulling his own stunts, but also by maintaining a cold and straight face throughout the entire film, smirking once or twice after some awesome stunt or another. If I may be so bold it was the first time that we've seen the wide range of Firth's abilities, he had been enclosed previously to one type of character. We also have the more than worthy Taron Egerton, who plays the lead role and whose transformation from London lowlife to gentleman agent is extremely smooth. I hope to see more of him, be it in future Kingsman films or in other films. Finally, we have very notable contributions from supporting actors: Michael Cane and Mark Strong, who both are Kingsmen in the film. And of course we have Samuel L. Jackson, having the time of his life playing a villain with a lisp and cackling evilly.

The great chemistry in the cast along with the spectacular and bold directing from Matthew Vaughn make this a needed tribute to the 007 films that at the same time spawn a quality and enjoyable franchise. B+

Top Five (2014)

Top Trash: A Film That Gives Us an Insight Into Chris Rock's Hopes and His True Skills

[4/10 · 10 February 2015]

Young Critic 1/20/2015 This film brings me to an incredibly delicate subject: race. I will try and treat it with proper care so that no disrespect is dealt. Top Five is the film that Chris Rock has been waiting to do his whole life, there were no studio filters and this causes for some trouble.

Top Five is almost an autobiography of Chris Rock, more so than Birdman was of Michael Keaton. Top Five is the future that Chris Rock wants, he doesn't want to be considered as "the funny guy," he wants to move on to be a dramatic and respected actor. The film thus follows the fictional Andre Allen (Chris Rock) who is followed around by The New York Times reporter Chelsea Brown (Rosario Dawson) for 24 hours. The cast includes multiple cameos, which although impressive, are completely mishandled.

Chris Rock is a funny guy, he is a great stand-up comedian, but when it comes to film he has been shunned to supporting roles (witness his small role in Grown Ups and Grown Ups 2). So Rock decided to strike out on his own, but as he wrote and directed Top Five we saw that although he is creative, he doesn't have what it takes. To start out the cameos where extremely mishandled. To have stars like Kevin Hart, Tracey Morgan, Cedric the Entertainer, Whoopi Goldberg, Adam Sandler, Jerry Seinfeld, and DMX you have to know when to inject them. It seemed to Rock as if the moment a star confirmed they would be cast is the next extra on the list. The actors and their roles weren't matching up. Kevin Hart, one of the greatest comedians of today, was extremely misused and given less than two minutes on screen; and putting Whoopi Goldberg in a strip club? Are you out of your mind! It was almost insulting to the stars that were appearing. And as for the acting it was absolutely catastrophic: Chris Rock was very disappointing, but the rest of his cast were all mild 2 minute interjections. The only exception was Rosario Dawson who was the only actress, besides Rock, that appeared in more than one scene. There wasn't much to compare. Even so, the actors themselves were mumbling the few lines they had so that half of the script is lost in the actors' mouths.

Then there is the matter of the whole story. The backbone of the story is good: a star seeking truth within himself, the troubles with drugs, overarching egos, etc. The actual dialogue and direction of the story however was so messy that Rock resorted to sex jokes for 80% of the film. There was such an excess of sexual references and unfunny scenes that made you uncomfortable and were completely unnecessary. John Cleese, the famous Monty Python member, once said, "The reason why I stray from making of sex jokes is that the only reason people laugh is because they feel uncomfortable." There is no actual humor in an orgasm. Meg Ryan's famous scene in When Harry Met Sally was funny not because she was pretending to have an orgasm, but rather because of the subsequent smart line afterwards "I'll have what she's having." Rock's humor was solely focused on the first part of that famous scene.

The other 20% of jokes are a little more controversial to speak about, which is why I ask you to read the following keeping in mind that this is solely cinematic criticism and nothing else. The rest of the non-sexual jokes were solely directed and enclosed to one ethnic group. Now I'm not saying that I didn't laugh during the whole film, there were two or three gags, but most of the intended jokes I didn't get because they were in reference to a cultural viewpoint I didn't possess. What I'm trying to say is, not that a mostly African- American audience only understood this film, but rather that it almost purposely shunned other ethnic groups from such "inside jokes." Now at first this doesn't seem to be wrong in any way, Chris Rock could do whatever he wants, it's his film after all. But the cinematic problem here is the whole point of cinema.

A movie theatre is a place where you can sit with dozens of other strangers and where appearance, race, belief, socio-economic status, and even intelligence, doesn't matter. In movies the magic is that a bunch of strangers can share a journey and laugh, cry, and be scared together. Chris Rock almost viciously broke this whole purpose by enclosing his film into a small audience.

But what really struck me was how heavily praised this film was, by both critics and audiences. Not only that but in the Toronto Film Festival it was bought for the highest price out of any of the other films. The high expectations, the disastrous directing, and the terribly crafted script made me want to brainwash myself after seeing this film. Hell, even the music was the exact same song over and over again. I'm very, very, very disappointed Chris Rock, to the point that I recommend you don't direct again. He better thank Rosario Dawson and the Birdman-like plot for raising this film below a complete failure. D-

Unbroken (I) (2014)

Partly Broken: A Film Whose Faults Are Covered Up By Great Directing and Performance

[6/10 · 13 January 2015]

I missed these journeyed and inspiring World War II films. I thought that the stories had all been dried up, but Louie Zamperini's story surprises us all; how could such a story not have been told before? Angelina Jolie's bold directing surprises us, Joel and Ethan Cohen's script satisfies us, and Jack O'Connell shocks us as 'the next big thing.'

Unbroken tells the story of Louie Zamperini, a son to Italian immigrants, who as a kid was a troublemaker and thief. Zamperini's brother pushed him to try out for his school's track team and there we see that Zamperini is a born runner. As the years go by, Zamperini (Jack O'Connell) is recruited for the US Olympic team that would compete the 1936 Berlin games. However, as WWII breaks out, Zamperini is drafted into the army. During a mission in 1943 Zamperini's plane crashes at sea. Zamperini along with the pilot Phil (a great Domhnall Gleeson) and new recruit Mac (Finn Wittrock) are left at sea for 47 days. The three men spend those days being harrowed by sharks and shot at by occasional Japanese planes. The group is finally rescued, but by a Japanese ship. Zamperini is then subjected to the torture and abuse of a prisoner-of-war camp officer, Watanabe "The Bird" (Takamasa Ishihara).

The film is powerful and the performances are noteworthy. Jack O'Connell's charisma not only is reflected in Zamperini's character, but it drives the whole film and keeps the audience glued to their seats. Domhnall Gleeson also surprises us as he defines himself as quick-learning actor. Gleeson started from a miniscule role in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, but has progressed and moved into more interesting characters in movies like About Time, Frank, and Calvary. Now in Unbroken he might just break into the B-list acting category, it will be only a matter of time before he breaks into the A-list. However, not all the acting was great. There were some serious casting mistakes in Zamperini's brother both as an adult and as a young boy (Alex Russell and John D'Leo respectively). Both actors have very few lines, but they say them in such a way that it makes them sound extremely cheesy and non-credible. It's a shame because it ruins the scenes of Zamperini's childhood. Meanwhile in the prisoner-of-war camp the actor playing The Bird (Takamasa Ishihara) is a little to exaggerated. Ishihara is actually a Japanese pop star, and not a professional actor, and while his acting is more than acceptable, his passion at times is too much and it throws the movie's balance off, creating a character that is unreasonably evil. When researching the actual person I learned that The Bird tortured his prisoners because he was bipolar and jealous of not becoming an officer having come from a wealthy family where he was used to having everything he wanted. Ishihara doesn't give his character depth, The Bird doesn't end up being human, and this lack of background and reasoning for his cruelty makes the relationship between him and Zamperini seem almost comical.

Finally, in regards to the film's script, while written by two professionals like the Cohen brothers, it seems a little lazy. The lack of depth for some characters and the wispy dialogue throughout is disappointing. However, the ending for the film is what disappointed me most, not the actual factual ending, but the way that it was ended. The final ten minutes seemed extremely rushed, confusing, and outright slothish, not to mention a little cheesy. However, in the end, Jolie's directing choices keep the film respectable and intriguing, which along with O'Connell's incredible acting is enough to cover up the mistakes. Unbroken ends up being the inspiring story it aspired to be.

Into the Woods (2014)

Into the Looong Woods: A Film that is Ruined By An Elongated Ending

[6/10 · 13 January 2015]

There is a difference between an opera and a musical. A musical has intermittent songs, and an opera has intermittent dialogue. Into the Woods seemed to not know the difference, it called itself a musical, but it had scarce dialogue. While this could have easily been ignored, the identical songs and music caused for the "musical" to be droning. I only managed to distinguish two songs from the rest. As for the story, it was all fine and enjoyable until the final act, which seemed as if the studio had forced Stephen Sondheim, writer of the original musical for Broadway, to add a final act to his "musical" causing the ending to seem forced, lazy, and rushed.

Into the Woods mixes many of the classic fairy tales such as Little Red Riding Hood (first timer Lilla Crawford) and the wolf (Johnny Depp), Cinderella (Anna Kendrick) and her prince (Chris Pine), Jack (Les Miserables' Daniel Huttlestone) and the beanstalk, and Rapunzel (Mackenzie Mauzy). All the fairy tales are stringed together when a baker (Begin Again's James Corden) and his wife (Emily Blunt) are tasked to get an item from each of these famous characters in order to lift a curse on them that a witch (Meryl Streep) created, preventing them from having children.

All the technical aspects are thrilling, from the set and costumes to the makeup and even the CGI. In fact the editing was incredibly astounding in the first 20 minutes with fast, fluid, and dizzying cuts that made one admire the freedom in cinema. However, as time went on the creativity faded and the editing ended up being much more straightforward and conventional, something that disappointed me a little.

The acting is notable too. James Corden is finally given his big break after he bursts in his role in Begin Again. He is pushed to his limits acting and singing, but even so he is able to excel in both. Meanwhile Meryl Streep surprises us again, you'd think we'd be used to it after 18 Oscar nominations (including three wins). Streep actually plays her first witch in Into the Woods, and her singing capabilities shown in Mama Mia! are elevated as she showers us with an outstanding voice and performance. As for Emily Blunt, she also shines by being one of the few that takes her role seriously, unlike Chris Pine who sought to survive his role through humor. Anna Kendrick and Johnny Depp have roles a little too small to properly analyze them, but even so they seemed to be having fun.

The problem with the film was its conclusion. About three fourths of the way into the film it seems to all be wrapping up perfectly and enjoyably, but the film seeks to overly exert its originality and in doing so it bores and drags its audience to the finish line. The film's last quarter ends up being eternal and with uninteresting twists. Such a shame that such an original idea could be marred with a simple 25% of the film.

The film starts off with much energy and promise, but as time goes by one can almost see that the actors, editors, and even director wanted to just get the film over with and get on with something else. Too similar to what the audience feels like watching the film.