REVIEW: The Maze Runner (And a YA series rant)

5/10 - Da do run run, hey! Da do run run!

I hate movies like this. By that I mean movie-franchises like this, movies that are build to be part of a trilogy or whatever. There's something so infuriating about a film that intentionally is left incomplete. It offers no sufficient climax to the audience. Perhaps there is an action climax on some level, but certainly no emotional one.

I think the failings of The Maze Runner can be attributed in part to the failings of the novel in creating a series. Part of what works in the Harry Potter series of novels is the school story framing device. It provides a clear timeline for events to build up, and conclude. The Hunger Games features an annual event that play out over the year culminating with the Games themselves. These things are tremendously helpful in creating expectations, creating suspense, and allowing the audience to be included in the emotional journey. It ebbs and flows with the natural catharsis of life. For young adult series' like Divergent and The Maze Runner, that don't have that framing device, the narrative becomes a never-ending series of events that build, and build, and build and break. It's not as satisfying and it doesn't draw in the reader to the next adventure. Divergent had a somewhat okish climax and conclusion, but left the audience to fester in frustration at plot holes, and unfinished stories lines A poor 'hook' for the next film. At least it had full and complete story beats and a conclusion of the action. I've read the books, and they go downhill quickly. The Maze Runner isn't so fortunate. It's as if they took the first act of a film and dragged it out to create a two hour movie where almost nothing happens.

The essential problem with a movie that sets up for sequels is it's need to create questions without providing answers. What ends up happening is I cross my arms and look pissed off, knowing that when they say things like "I don't know who I am" that they will never get addressed in the course of the film. Let's be clear: That's fucking bullshit. A movie should be able to stand and walk on it's own two legs, sequel or not. This film cannot. If you take The Maze Runner for what it's worth, without considering it to be part of a series, this movie crumbles. It's got about as much story content as a 22 minute TV comedy. That's unacceptable.

I know I shouldn't keep comparing this franchise, but lets be honest if it wasn't for the success of the other YA novel adaptation film series's then this movie would have never been made. So lets compare it to The Hunger Games. In The Hunger Games, the world is introduced as part of what shaped the protagonist. When Katniss gets entered into the Hunger Games, that's the turning point and she experiences the Capital, the people there, the games, who runs them, and what meaning they have. Then she gets into the games, and a bunch of crazy shit goes down. In The Maze Runner, there is no setup or introduction. The protagonist is a blank person. We experience the glade and learn about the maze over a painstaking first half of the movie where no information is the only information. Then they go into the maze and ... that's it. All the questions of who these people are, what motivates them, why they are doing this, what their purpose is, nothing is answered. I don't even have a clear view of the characters by the end of the film because they literally don't know themselves. It's beyond frustrating to know that it's going to take 3 movies for this series to tell the story that should have been told in 1.

In conclusion, there are some special effects and some great kid actors (along side a bunch of really, really terrible ones) and you'll have to spend another $30 worth of movie tickets to find out what really happens.

IMDb - The Maze Runner (7.0)
Wikipedia - The Maze Runner
Rotten Tomatoes - The Maze Runner (63%)
Amazon.ca - The Maze Runner

REVIEW: Wit & Remembering Mike Nichols

Mike Nichol's is a filmmaker who will go down in history as one of the greats. His work as a film director has been beyond inspiring to me. For 50 years his work in the industry has been pushing boundaries and telling unique stories with some of the most memorable characters of all time. Many know him as the man who brought The Graduate to life. An utterly iconic film that brought Nichols an Academy Award for Best Director. He also won several Tony's over the years for his theatre work on Broadway, winning Best Director 6 times over. He's one of 12 people known to have an EGOT, an Emmy, Grammy, Oscar, and Tony, an illustration of his outstanding achievements in media over the years.

What I truly find remarkable are the films that prominently feature women in film. Over the years Nichols has developed a body of work that reflects strong women, through complex and engaging characters. From Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? to Working Girls, to Silkwood, to Closer, to Heartburn. Nichols showed that shattering stereotypes can create remarkable characters that persist in our cultural memory.

With the passing of the legendary Mick Nichols I wanted to explore a film in his repertoire that I had not before seen. Wit is one of only two writing credits on Nichol's IMDb page, for an HBO film he co-wrote with the wonderful Emma Thompson. It's the adaptation of a play by the same title by Margaret Edson.

9/10 - If you cry at the opening of Disney's Up then NEVER watch this. I cried a river. 

In it's most simple form, Wit follows the diagnosis and treatment of a philosophy professor's ovarian cancer.

The majority of the film is composed of monologues by Dr. Vivian Bearing as she reflects upon her treatment, and her life. She shares her love of the English language, and the poetry she spent her life dedicated to teaching. As her treatment progresses her dignity is diminished and the philosophy she recollects learning and teaching takes on new meaning.

Make no mistake, Wit is not a nice film. It's not funny, or sweet, or warm. It's brutally honest and never wavers or offers relief. It's sharply intelligent with a precise and concentrated use of language. It's utterly emotionally draining. And yet this film is also beautiful, inspiring, and touching.

As heart wrenching as it is to watch, Wit is a tremendously honest movie experience. Mike Nichols reigns in the audience with a focused and unflinching view of the raw emotions Vivian feels. I was utterly enraptured by the film. With the lyrical poetry that Vivian spoke, and the way the events were presented as experiences, I simply could not break away from this film. Without question, Emma Thompson does some of the best work of her career. The whole film relies on her ability to convey the exact emotions of the present moment and she does so brilliantly.

Here is a fantastic review by Roger Ebert.

IMDb - Wit (8.2)
Wikipedia - Wit
Rotten Tomatoes - Wit (80%)

REVIEW: Chef

6/10 - Are you hungry? You will be...

Chef is part passion project and part paint by numbers. Writer and director and star Jon Favreau created this film about how leaving his job as head chef in a well respected restaurant brought his family together to help him launch a food truck.

It's actually quite a good film. There's plenty of heart with a touching relationship between father and son, and lots of support from the friends and family in the supporting cast. It's beautifully shot with exquisite scenes of cooking that will certainly leave any audience drooling, I also like the integration of technology in this film. Often movies that try to utilize social media come across like an advertisement. In this case, the web is part of the universe we all live in, with both real implications and the ability to walk away from it. The focus stays on what's important, without getting too involved in tricky explanations.

I cannot say I particularly loved this movie. There's something bizarre about the plot that frustrated me as a viewer. This is meant to be a story about bottoming out, and finding what's really important. He embarks in a much smaller venture, cooking out of a food truck with his family. My problem is how he got to that point. Jon Favreau doesn't seem to like conflict. Scene after scene, characters are trying to lift up Carl, characters that shouldn't help him are going out of their way to help him.

There's a point halfway through the film where Favreau's Iron Man buddy makes a one scene appearance as the eccentric ex-husband of Carl's ex-wife. After some circular discussion, Chef Carl Casper walks out with a food truck. Seriously. Someone is going to have to explain that to me. It's like a bizzaro-world version of the Ex-Wives Club formed in the middle of this movie and through the magic of cinema, Carl got to move forward with his dream.

That's exactly the sort of thing I hate seeing in a movie. An entertaining scene is still not good if it's pushing forward an illogical plot. What's the message being presented here? Carl didn't have to work to get what he wanted. Was it meant to illustrate that buttering up to the first husband of his ex-wife is the same as relying on family? It's just so disjointed and improbable to me that it makes me out of the movie.

For a film written by, directed by, and starring the same person, it's surprisingly well paced. There's a lot of charm and chemistry between the cast which bails it out of some of the more improbably exposition scenes. It's a movie universe you want to live in, for more reasons then just the food.

IMDb - Chef (7.3)
Wikipedia - Chef
Rotten Tomatoes - Chef (88%)
Amazon.ca - Chef

REVIEW: Let's Be Cops

4/10 - Near unwatchable. 

You know what I hate? A film that has a good premise but doesn't know how to get to that setup in a realistic way.

In this case, the concept is the guys from New Girl run around as cops. Great. How do we get there? A pretty piss poor series of events. It's the plot a 8th grader would write - One is a video game developer who has cop uniforms because... he wants to make a cop video game? And the cops just hand over uniforms for that sort of thing. Then they make their own cop car. For real. They just get a car and make it into a cop car. That's a thing, I guess. Deadbeats who can't get their lives together decide to realistically fool the cops with little to no motivation.

The best thing I can say about this movie is it puts some scenes of fun things to good music.

There are some delightful cameos that I won't spoil. Natasha Leggero is on of my favorites, she's a gem. The casting in general is quite well done. Jake Johnson and Damon Waynes Jr. are really fun together.

But for real, don't see this movie. I can't imagine what kind of train-wreck this would be if it didn't have such a great set of leads. The plot is virtually non-existent. There's nothing original about the scenarios they find themselves in. Everyone plays their lines mildly funny but there really is nothing inherently funny about the story.

What's actually a little worrisome about this film is how similar the story is to the 2013 buddy real-cop movie The Heat. If the intention is to write a movie about idiots pretending to be cops, it's should't culminate with them actually being great cops. Even 21 Jump Street didn't have any moments of them being great cops. This movie is just a mess. No intention, no story, no great moments, no great laughs.

IMDb - Lets Be Cops (6.7)
Wikipedia - Lets Be Cops
Rotten Tomatoes - Lets Be Cops (19%)
Amazon.ca - Lets Be Cops

REVIEW: Labor Day

7/10 - I want to live with Kate Winslet and Josh Brolin forever. 

I read the Labor Day script some time last year, as a fan of Jason Reitman. I'm always impressed by the real sense of humanity he injects into his films.

Labor Day is a drama about a young boy with his agoraphobic mom who become entangled with an escaped prisoner over labor day weekend. It's one part coming of age story, one part suspense, and one part romance.

This is one of those movies that I really like, even though I'm aware it's not great. I really love the dimensional characters. Rarely do I enjoy child actors, but Gattlin Griffith is great at carrying this film. His character reflects the dimensions of a young boy who struggles with family, his need to care for his mentally unwell mother, his own growing feelings for his classmates.

This film presents a complicated scenario in simple ways. Scenes are in themselves quite boring but the slow development creates a wonderful bond with those characters. Labor Day is crafted in a way that the actions tell the story and the narrative enhances it, a rarity in films with prominent narration. The illustrations of pain and hope are really beautiful, and even though it sides on trite and predictable, For me it's saved by the sincerity of those characters who in-themselves might be contrived, but together are music.

To be perfectly honest, I probably would have rated this film higher if it wasn't for the constant up and downs between heart-jumping tension, and the mundane. The scenes intended to evoke powerful emotions were terrific but if left me wanting more from the scenes that were not. Labor Day feels like reading a novel (perhaps the one it's based on) as you delve entirely into the life of another, capturing so many details and small interactions. A wonderful idea but not necessarily great for impatient audiences.

If you're looking for a drama with a lot of big dramatic moments, look elsewhere. Moreso, if you are the least bit cynical this will be the best movie to watch and complain about for the next 3 months. The romantic adventure, healing past wounds side of this film borders on sugar-mountain cliche. I'm sure there are many who viewed it as being sickly sweet. I'm only cynical when it comes to the big action flicks, for this I was a hopeless romantic and totally bought in.

IMDb - Labor Day (6.9)
Wikipedia - Labor Day
Rotten Tomatoes - Labor Day (34%)
Amazon.ca - Labor Day

REVIEW: The Giver

4/10 - Some books just shouldn't be adapted into movies.

The Giver is a NOVEL that's been a young adult staple for many years. It tells a story a young boy who lives in a world of sameness, who learns that our unique differences need to be valued.

This book is probably not one I ever would have even remembered reading if it wasn't for this film adaptation. If there is one major film trend right now it's Dystopian films, so it makes sense that they would try to cash in on the movie version. On paper The Giver seems like the perfect model for the teen sc-ifi genre. As a movie its a total flop.

I'm not sure I understand how the fantastic cast got roped into such a poor production, but the acting is the only saving grace for this poor excuse for a film. Meryl Streep is pretty fantastic. Katie Holmes commits, Jeff Bridges and Alexander Skarsgard play their parts well. But they should all delete this IMDb listing if they get the chance. The kids in this film are laughable in their roles. The dialogue is dry and uninspired, and story doesn't come close to achieving the depth of ideas that the novel evokes. The special effects were just embarrassing. It's a little bit painful to dig through this movie for a forgettable ending.

In my opinion, the problems they faced came down to a poor script adaptation. Their society is built on sameness and not allowing unique features. With the exception of the protagonists younger sister, none of the characters were in any way memorable. They had no personality, which is a symptom of having no personality. Rules and character motivations just appeared and disappeared without any build up. The guy's two close friends were both kind of annoying and awful. I didn't really care about the mission Jonas goes on because the city didn't seem worth saving.

The Giver isn't a total waste of time. It's a good lesson on how nothing is a sure bet, and sometimes even Meryl Streep isn't fabulous. (Jk, she was still fabulous. Movie was still stinky.)

IMDb - The Giver (6.7)
Wikipedia - The Giver
Rotten Tomatoes - The Giver (35%)
Amazon.ca - The Giver

REVIEW: How to Train Your Dragon 2

5/10 - Of all the most unnecessary sequels, this is one of the most unnecessary. 

If you missed America's favorite Cat-Dog then you'll be happy to see toothless, the firebreathing domestic cuddle-bug return to the big screen. Surprisingly, the entire cast of the original How to Train Your Dragon returned to this animated franchise along with a few other delightful cast additions.

Here are some stray oberservations as I watch the movie live:

-Why did they have two introductions? They introduce all the minor characters playing quidditch or something, and then they introduce Toothless and Jay Baruchel doing some stunt flying for giggles. Reminds me of the Frozen introduction where they opted to have a music intro that was entirely unrelated to the rest of the movie.

-Running theory: Since they decided to "man-up" Hiccup, I'm operating under the impression that this is the puberty edition of the franchise. Let's see how this pans out.

-Am I supposed to like this Astrid character? She seems like Bad News Bears to me.

-I hate villains that are bad for the sake of being bad. In this case, Drago is described as being "a bad man without conscious or mercy."

-HIS LONG LOST MOTHER?! Come on. Sometimes people just don't have parents. I'm a little irritated by this.

-I've reached the point in the movie where I wish I hadn't started. It's beginning to ruin essential plot points of the original film. The first movie tells a great story about one boy changing the world. None of this unexplained rivalry business. No rewriting history. This sequel is about some bullshit.

-The idea that the mom couldn't come back home because she sided with the dragons is making my eyes twitch. Why did these people listen to a kid in the first movie, and not her years before? Somebody? Anybody?

-These super-mega dragons remind me of when Pirates of the Caribbean had the Kraken in one of the sequels. It was a great idea to talk about but stupid on film. This alpha-predator idea is stupid. It also doesn't really feel like an increase in stakes, it feels like they're cheating and rewriting the rules.

-Nope. I'm over this parental bullshit storyline. They ruined this franchise for me. This is bad, lazy writing. Boo. I'm booing this movie. Boo!

-Honestly, this Alpha Dragon bit is infuriating to me. Protection and loyalty? More like contrived and ineffectual.

Alright so that was majorly disappointing. For a sequel that has been receiving so much critical and audience praise, I was incredibly bummed out. It's not a sequel that adds anything to the original, so the unnecessary factor is high. There were no major themes, particularly none that bettered the original film. Many of the minor characters have no purpose or value other then being brought back from the original.

There's a side of me that does understand why people would at least enjoy this flick. For an animated adventure it clicks along and motivates the audience to root for the hero.

It's just not for me, and never will be. I may have to rewatch the original in the future to scrub my brain from this nightmarish hell.

IMDb - How to Train Your Dragon 2 (8.2)
Wikipedia - How to Train Your Dragon 2
Rotten Tomatoes - How to Train Your Dragon 2 (92%)
Amazon.ca - How to Train Your Dragon 2

REVIEW: I Know That Voice

7/10 - Now available on Netflix (Cause you won't see it anywhere else)

I like documentaries.

This is a nice documentary.

It's not particularly enlightening, or opinion changing. It doesn't reveal some seedy underbelly that you were unaware of.

It's a movie that features people who love their jobs, talking about their jobs. They just kick it, and tell funny stories, and talk about the things they like and don't like.

If you like watching people talk about something they are passionate about, then this will be enjoyable for you. It's pretty inoffensive. It's fun to watch actors who look nothing like their animated characters just suddenly bring to life this familiar life. They overemphasize the difficulties of their job, and the challenges they face. They also share some delightful stories of surprising little kids with the voices they do.

I found this to be a little big long and dry in places. I suspect they didn't go out of their way to get the rights to any actual animated works because almost no footage of the actual animated works are featured. I've watched a few documentaries that suffer from this, but it can be a little tedious to watch people get interviewed on a couch for two hours. Having those great visuals breaks it up. That being said, they feature every great voice actor you can think of, along with many big names in the animation community from Mark Hamill to Matt Groening. It's a lot of fun to see someone break out the Sponge Bob Squarepants voice on the drop of a dime.

You don't need to be a big fan of animated series' to enjoy this, but it helps. It's got a feel good vibe, without actually being a success story of any kind. It's just an enjoyable watch that won't challenge you on a lazy Sunday afternoon.

IMDb - I Know That Voice (7.5)
Wikipedia - I Know That Voice
Rotten Tomatoes - I Know That Voice (No Rating Yet)
Amazon.ca - I Know That Voice

REVIEW: Godzilla

7/10 - RAAAAAWWWWWWRRRRRRRR

So... I'm not a huge fan.

In recent years a ton of hype around a budget remake has proven to be a bad thing. They aren't inherently bad films, they just tend to be boring. Take a good, classic concept and water it down with excessive CGI and bad leads. To be honest, I was anticipating this 2014 Godzilla remake to be Pacific Rim part two, which would be a nightmare for me.

When it comes down to it, I don't like movies where it turns into a puppet show. If all the action and drama surrounds CGI monsters smashing CGI cities, it doesn't actually have any impact anymore. It should be incredible and awe-inducing but instead it actually deminishes the high stakes because it's so far removed from reality. There are no real-world, personal impact for a movie like that. There are no characters in danger, only puppets. That's actually why I'm a big fan of Cloverfield, but we can save that for another day.

You may have noticed, however, that I gave this film a higher rating. How deductive of you, congratulations you have fantastic reading and recollection skills.

Godzilla does have many strengths that have defied the shitty genre of military based action films. fighting some equally terrible big bad. It manages to ground the film with a single character and his family who's been impacted by the Godzilla-events. There is some minor "out smarting" that always has to happen to make a protagonist seem worth while. It even manages to make the scale and might of these beasts (because spoiler: there's more than one) seem monumental.

If you are like me, and you are immune to the hero shots and slow motion running away, then you will appreciate that Godzilla has some beautiful moments of quality. Bryan Cranston and Aaron Taylor-Johnson are quite compelling in otherwise stiff roles. There is a lot of "background" provided to the monsters and where they came from. The military reaction is fun to watch, even if its cheesy at times. It rides a fine line between turd and terrific. As much as I despise CGI replacing the need to even film a movie, the impact of the destruction was really well done.

As a whole, not a lot makes sense. In fact, nothing makes sense. Here are my current qualms with Godzilla:

Why was Godzilla a second class citizen in his own movie? For real, he wasn't even the big-bad.

Was the audience supposed to follow the bullshit alpha-predator history that was spouted? Because none of that made sense. Also, would the worlds leading scientist on whatever the hell Godzilla is, really hinge his bets that one monster will defeat the other and everything will be sunshine and rainbows after that? That's not real. Nope. Don't buy it.

What about the fact that various branches of the military just took Aaron Taylor-Johnson on a few trips around the world? All because he asked nicely? That was cringe-inducing at some points. He would literally walk in a room where the worlds fate was being handled and say "hey guys... Can I get a lift back home? I can do that bomb stuff, I promise." Really. That's how the military works.

Abandoning the kid halfway through the film was a bizarre move. It was as if the second half of the movie didn't have time for those annoying "human actors" so they just disappeared from the story.

I also have major issues with the ending. If Godzilla rose from Hades to hunt those other monsters, he should have done what predators do when they finish hunting. They eat! He's probably super hungry now, because he went back to bed without dinner. You all know you would have loved to watch the cleanup.

For all my complaining, it wasn't a bad film. There are great environments, lots of surprising twists and turns. The moment on the train tracks reminded me a lot of the magic that Jurassic Park had. That's something I wish other movies in the same genre understood. You'll never be able to shake the audience with scope and scale of a big monster. The same audiences have sat through too many Transformers movies, a thousand Marvel films, and we are sick of seeing the side of a skyscraper fall off. It doesn't mean anything. By innovating and showing exactly how terrifying that would be, the monsters feel much more real. Godzilla should never be a monument. Gareth Edwards comes close to unleashing that beast.

IMDb - Godzilla (6.8)
Wikipedia - Godzilla
Rotten Tomatoes - Godzilla (73%)
Amazon.ca - Godzilla

REVIEW: Transcendence

2/10 - I wrote this rating line before I even saw the film.

This film is evidence that Johnny Depp only stars in incredibly bad movies. Exponentially bad. On this rate he'll star in the next Transformers.

There's some irony in that, too. It's genuinely difficult to relate to Depp's character. Depp himself is so frequently real-life cartoon characters that it's difficult to see him as anything else.

After about 20 minutes of Transcendence I've realized that I don't care about Johnny Depp or his wife. They're boring and incredibly uninteresting. I have no idea what the stakes were supposed to be but they're not compelling. By 40 minutes in I decided Tron with it's hockey helmet costumes was more realistic.

I can't quite decide where the failure was, but there is a total collapse in communicating the narrative of the film. Within the first few minutes a terrorist attack happens in our heroes laboratory! This brilliant scientist is dying! There's a last minute effort to scan his brain, but will it work?! All these are exciting monumental events that should make for a great film. Instead it comes across as blase. The most exciting events were shot in the most mundane, boring way possible.

Perhaps it's the heavy handed cerebral concepts that cause Transcendence to backfire. Even if you buy into the premises, it's somehow too premise heavy. The audience gets hit over the head with warnings of the dangers of advancing technology. Even it's own internal logic is a stretch. Characters and consequences falls by the wayside to the need to illustrate minor details. There's nothing that engages the audience whatsoever.

For example, there's a scene where FBI agent Morgan Freeman approaches Evelyn who was just ripped away from her home. He says "I know you're angry, Evelyn." She replies with a rational conversation. She doesn't act angry or say anything an angry person would say. I'm not entirely sure either one of those characters had any attributes of being human. I can't name a single character trait of any character in the film. They just do things.

Transcendence is a thought experiment of impulses without ever telling a story worth telling. Neither the characters nor the concept are ever explained clearly. Instead of eliciting questions about the ethics of technology and it's role in manipulating humanity, I'm questioning how this film fell flat on it's face. It's an emotionless movie that mistakes a challenging concept with challenging the audience.


IMDb - Transcendence (6.4)
Wikipedia - Transcendence
Rotten Tomatoes - Transcendence (19%)
Amazon - Transcendence

REVIEW: Captain America: The Winter Soldier

8/10 - The polar opposite of Iron Man 3

Back in 2011 when Captain America: The First Avenger came out, I had some mighty expectations for the Marvel franchise. Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk were great. Loved both, as everyone did. Iron Man 2 was a bit wack-a-doodle. Thor was never going to be my cup of tea, and it turned out to be a snoozefest. They cast one beast of a man to stare at during those long boring Asgard scenes, so I forgave them.

Captain America represented something different. It had the potential to do what Incredible Hulk did, tell a more grounded story. They both have similar backgrounds, having been experimented on for the military, being isolated and unable to exist in society. Taking the super out of the hero might be benefitial to the franchise.

Sadly, Captain America: The First Avenger was as unwatchable as an action movie can get. It was long and boring, with poor character development, stiff dialogue, endless sequences and storylines that seemed to go no where. It felt as corporate as a movie can get. It was the idea of a movie that had no soul or purpose.

Before I even saw a trailer, I judged The Winter Soldier as being the same. The biggest cliche in the superhero universe is to face off against an enemy who is an evil version of the hero. Hulk fought evil Hulk. Thor fought his brother. Wolverine fights evil wolverine every few years. Iron Man fought other iron men in three different movies now. Captain America actually broke from that mold in battling Hydra and it was a huge flop for me. The Winter Soldier would clearly be an evil Captain America and I would be asleep.

I'm glad I revisited and gave The Winter Soldier a chance. Yes, The Winter Soldier is an evil Captain America. No surprise there. What did surprise me was how great of a movie this turned out to be.

The fresh blood of the Russo Brothers without question revitalized this franchise. The cinematography is some of the best in the franchise, with clean and simple setups for scenes that still look quite "comic book" iconic. There is somewhat of a Bourne Identity quality to parts of the film, with handheld camera shots and realistic sets. They don't fear staring an action sequence in the eye, allowing the audience to follow the fights. They also don't fear the dialogue heavy exposition scenes, a frequent failing of Marvels. Instead of presenting dumb, condescending dialogue for the sake of moving along the story, characters actually represent their own point of view. Interpersonal conflict doesn't solely exist with gun fights.

There is some fantastic chemistry within the film between Chis Evans and Scarlett Johansson. By that I don't mean romantic chemistry, I mean they show mutual respect for one another and illustrate their history on the battlefield. I have a tremendous appreciation for a film that supports a male hero with a female who doesn't turn out to be a love interest. I don't think I can express that enough. They built a relationship on trust and it wasn't remotely sexualized. That's not to say there isn't a love interest, but all the women in this film are able to stand on their own accomplishments. Agent 13 is introduced and even though her role is small, she packs a punch. Cobie Smulders returns as Maria Hill and once again stands her ground as being one of the best supporting characters, seemingly replacing Agent Coulson for awesomeness. Peggy Carter is also revisited, as Steve Roger laments her loss. She never was, and never will be a damsel in distress, a love interest more than capable of fighting her own battles.

Sure, there are plenty of cliches and logical fallacies. There's a heavy handed theme regarding drone killings, something one would think should be tackled under the Iron Man titles, but hasn't been. There are some sluggish moments, usually involving sentimental flashbacks, but every superhero needs to be grounded at some point. There are problems, but not like the page 1 rewrite the first movie needed.

This is one of the best Marvel movies to date, in my opinion. It successfully navigates a multitude of storylines because of the great cast of characters it follows. It doesn't even feel like it should have been titled The Winter Soldier. The story felt complex and important, unlike the MacGuffin universe Thor lives in. The direction and editing were a massive improvement. I think their biggest success was sustaining and surprising an audience after cranking out a Marvel movie ever 20 minutes. Captain America: The Winter Soldier felt like more than just a fun adventure, it had a theme and purpose. It actually feels like it stands on it's own, outside of the Marvel universe.

IMDb - Captain America: The Winter Soldier (8.2)
Wikipedia - Captain America: The Winter Soldier
Rotten Tomatoes - Captain America: The Winter Soldier (89%)
Amazon - Captain America: The Winter Soldier

REVIEW: Butter

4/10 - I guess Butter carving sounds interesting. But it isn't. 

Butter is a great movie on paper. It's got a great cast, likely due to the great script. In fact, the script is so good it won a bunch of awards as a spec. On paper, it sounds like a fantastically funny, heartwarming, complex story.

As a movie it's pretty meh all around.

It's not politicial enough to be a biting satire. It's not funny enough to be a comedy. It doesn't follow through with it's attempts to be smart. This is a film overflowing with potential that falls flat on it's face.

As much as I love Jennifer Garner, and think she's actually quite funny in the role, it's the wrong casting. Her character is a larger than life scheming southern belle, who's hunger for power has corrupted all morals. Jen's southern accent wafts in and out, and is just too unlikable.

Somehow that's representative of all that goes wrong with this movie. The choices made in the production of this movie weren't necessarily wrong, but they weren't big and bold enough. Everything feels a little wishy washy. I have a suspicion that a lot of the smaller story lines were neutered to make room for the main story.

For example, Olivia Wilde's character Brook is a stripper. She seduces the home grown and wholesome Bob Pickler in a moment of weakness. Then she stalks him for the rest of the movie, demanding her money. In order to extort the money, Brook joins the butter carving competition. As interesting of a monkey wrench as she is, her character just collapses upon itself by the second half of the movie. Her paper thin character has no where to go so she disappears.

At best, Brook is intended to be a foil for Laura. Brook comes from nothing, and is able to make the moral choice in the end with every reason not to. Laura is privileged, and makes awful decisions. But it's a totally ineffective comparison because they have no business being in the same movie together. Their story lines don't ever meet or impact each other in any significant way.

What's frustrating is that the setup is there for so many great potential story lines, but practically all of them dwindle away into nothing. Without any follow through the movie is nothing but a drag.


There are some great moments that I can appreciate as a writer. When the signups are happening for the butter carving competition, there is a long rope maze of an entrance way. As each character enters the room to sign up, they tackle the rope maze a different way. It's a subtle detail, and I find it delicious to reveal character that way. Unfortunately the one thing that scene doesn't do is make me laugh.

Butter is a good movie if you want to see what goes wrong in a script from page to screen. It's not enough to rely on selling points like big characters and an unusual setting. Without a worthwhile story, and maybe even more importantly, without jokes this movie is a big miss.


IMDb - Butter (6,3)
Wikipedia - Butter 
Rotten Tomatoes - Butter (33%)
Amazon.ca - Butter

Sarah Does Survivor!

Cross Promotion time! Sarah Does Survivor is my examination of every Survivor season in chronological order. Check it out if you like exhaustive essays on 14 year old tv shows!

Check it out here:
Sarah Does Survivor

______________________________________________________________________

It was controversial, it was a hot trend, it was event television. The premier of Survivor wasn't tentatively met with hot anticipation and eager criticism. Magazine covers referred to CBS's summer lineup of Survivor and Big Brother (also premiering in the summer of 2000) as "Voyeur TV" the term "Reality" television used with equal shock value. (.... Read the full article here)

______________________________________________________________________

REVIEW: The Monuments Men

4/10  - Like Ocean's Eleven during WW2! I bet no one has made that joke yet...

George Clooney can pitch one hell of a movie. When George is explaining how great this movie is going to be, everyone listens. Hell, based on the trailer I was sold. Unfortunately he's a better seller then closer. This movie sucks. Big time.

It's difficult to pin down exactly the failure of a film like The Monuments Men. Technically the direction is beautiful. The cast is pretty solid all around, maybe not idea for the roles in my opinion, but memorable characters nonetheless. It's hard to fault the writing when it's based on a true story, and it's quite an uplifting unbelievable story. But you know what? I'm going to blame the writing, sorry Georgie.

The script is lacking any suspense, and frankly any direction. The narrative is so filled with self worth and nostalgia that it looses the audience halfway through. It's as if the pride of telling this particular story is supposed to make it an inherently better story. I actually think this story would be great if told by the right person. The threat of Nazi soldiers bearing down should be paramount. But it's not just you their after, the value of the cultural heritage that they would also destroy. It's a story with mountains of potential.

What really happens in The Monuments Men is quite dull. There are two obvious plots that are laid out like train tracks at the beginning. There are some illustrious men recruited for this covert mission. The reputation of these men lies solely in your ability to recognize them as actors and attribute them a reputation you feel is worthwhile. Then the value of the art is somehow minimized as well. One particular statue is given personal emotional value, which I suppose should raise the stakes for all the art, but that doesn't really happen. Converse to the intention of giving the art more meaning it seems to actually lose meaning as the story progresses. The movie's ultimate downfall is it's lack of opposition. This is clearly a worthwhile mission, and the enemy in this case seems to be apathy. No one wants to help these guys save the art. There might be a war going on that's keeping them occupied, but who knows really, they're a bunch of jerks for not helping. Some Nazi's sort of get in their way, but it's all a big shrug. They show up and get it done.

One of my favorite films in recent history is Argo, another loose adaptation of factual events. Like in The Monuments Men it's quite obvious how the ending will turn out if you've paid attention to history at all. Argo manages to make the audience compelled to the great characters through giving them high stakes and great motivations. Another film that might compare is Ocean's Eleven which also plays a fast and loose game with the audience of high stakes for a big payout. The failing of The Monuments Men lies entirely in it's inability to raise the stakes. Had this been a nail biter at the end, many other flaws could have been forgiven. This movie is like getting halfway through Oceans and watching Danny Ocean lay out the plan to film the vault ahead of time and steal the money pretending to be the SWAT team. There would be no reason to watch the ending. No suspense. No intrigue.

This has been a bit of a hot-topic lately but I'm also way over the all white male cast thing. Along with The Grand Budapest Hotel, The Monuments Men is a film with a notably large cast, meant to be a ensemble. When you lineup an ensemble cast and it's all the same race, gender, and age range, that's disappointing. I'm sure the argument for historical accuracy could be made, but let's be honest. The Cate Blanchett character is a throwaway meant to represent nothing but a female prize who needs to be saved. It's all just a little too safe and easy. Is it really that scary to change the point of view everyone once in a while? The movie, like the cast, is just too bland.


IMDb - The Monuments Men (6.1)
Wikipedia - The Monuments Men
Rotten Tomatoes - The Monuments Men (32%)
Amazon.ca - The Monuments Men

REVIEW: House of Games

10/10 - Who does he think he's dealing with, here? 

Reviewing movies often means reviewing new movies, since that's what most people's first instinct is to look for when they want to see something. What's new and being talked about. This review is a little something different. Less a review and more a recommendation.

House of Games is renowned author/ playwright/ screenwriter/ amazing writer of everything David Mamet's directorial debut. You might recognize his name from Glengarry Glen Ross.

The film is about a Margaret Ford, a psychiatrist who investigates the life of one of her patients, involving her in illegal gambling, con artists, and all kinds of shady dealings. It's a quality thriller because while Margaret is a foreigner in this world, she's smart and capable. It's both a journey and a puzzle. Combined with Mamet's snappy dialogue, this is a great watch.

Often I find when watching older movies (Older meaning older than say 10 years) I find myself distracted particularly by stylistic and pop culture trends. That's why I don't watch a lot of classics. I know, shoot me. But it's true. I don't want my takeaway to be a commentary of the popular genre that made that film relevant when it was made. To me, movies that are genuinely rooted in a quality story tend to live a longer shelf life. It's the argument I would make about why Clueless is a better movie than She's The Man. One tells a legitimate story, the other is a setup for jokes.

What makes a film like this resonate through the years is that it's deeply rooted in story. House of Games views like a stage play with emphasis on characters movements and dialogue, and limited sets and props. As a film, it's engrossing and diabolical. The emphasis on human psychology feeds the audience even if much of it is pseudoscience. There's something to be said about really examining human nature, like in House of Games. It's a study that can lead to endless stories and will never age.

In addition to just being a great watch, it's a tightly paced film, and I'm fascinated with the almost scientific structure. It's really a great movie to study.

If you haven't seen House of Games, track down a copy. It's a rewarding 90 minutes, not just for movie buffs and critics, for anyone looking for a film they can sink their teeth into.

IMDb - House of Games (7.3)
Wikipedia - House of Games
Rotten Tomatoes - House of Games (96%)
Amazon.ca - House of Games

REVIEW: Bad Words

7/10 - It's good to be funny. 

Perhaps this is just my perception at the end of award season, but the movie industry has swung so far in the direction of big movies. Comedies have to be the funniest movie ever made. Action movies have to be about the end of the world. Drama's have to be the most dramatic movie ever. It's become a contest for extremes, which can be okay, but leaves little room for small budget movies.

Bad Words is one of those movies that doesn't fit into the extremes. It's a lower budget film, that's just funny. It's not the funniest movie ever, it's not the craziest or most original. It's enough to just be funny. Personally I think that makes it worth seeing, because most comedies can't even get that right.

This film is Jason Bateman's directorial debut with this comedy about a foul mouthed 40 year old trying to win the nation's eighth grade spelling bee. Being a fresh new director who has acted in plenty of uninspired films, Bateman really sets his flag post with Bad Words making sure every shot it is a little bit different than normal. With lens flares, moving cameras, and coloration this movie had a distinct texture that developed the mood and excitement. I was happy to see the direction add to the film and the comedy. It goes a little bit overboard at times, but I would rather see experimental direction, than not enough.

In the film, Bateman's character Guy is that too smart for his own good character. He's far more manipulative than mean. Guy is the anti-hero who battles the adversity he created himself. It's somewhat of a fantasy fighting against the establishment, or authority. It's like when you re-enact an argument in the shower, and you think of how amazing it would be to tell people how you really think, well this movie is that reality. He's picking a fight with people, who didn't even know he was angry with them. As a premise this would verge on irritatingly dumb if the jokes didn't land.

I suspect for an "adult" comedy due to language alone, this is going to disappoint a few. This is not a movie that should compete for vulgarity against other recent R-rated comedies. For others it will be predictable. This is the perfect example of a movie that will get critically panned for reasons that I cannot deny, and yet it still was an enjoyable movie for me.

I was thrilled with the array of characters, Kathryn Hahn finally being recognized in a diversity of roles. Allison Janney is spot on as the spelling bee administrator. My only real complaint about this movie is that I wished these minor characters had more rounded out storylines. None of the minor plots seem to come to a resolution, only the main plot does. I do, however, wonder if they need to. I wanted to see more Allison Janney because I love her as an actor, and I wanted to see her have one final scene in the movie, but that doesn't necessarily mean the story called for it. I also wanted the hilarious Ben Falcone to have a funnier role, since he is a talented comedian, but again that didn't detract from story. Perhaps it's not the movie industry who demands more and better, maybe it's me too.

IMDb - Bad Words (7.1)
Wikipedia - Bad Words
Rotten Tomatoes - Bad Words (64%)
Amazon.ca - Bad Words

REVIEW: 20 Feet from Stardom

9/10 - Prepare your roof because it's gonna get blown off. 

I couldn't wait to watch this documentary exploring the backup singers and music culture that happens behind the curtain. I love music docs, whether it's home movies of what a band filmed while on tour, or the ongoing history of a person, place, genre, etc. 20 Feet From Stardom illuminated a history of the industry I had never heard of before. 

This doc follows the lives of some of the greatest singers you've never heard of. These black women revolutionized the music industry and never stopped trying to live their dream, making music for a living. Some of these women experienced the soul crushing heartbreak of having their voice used for a track that had massive success being marketed by a different singer. This isn't the feel-good movie you're hoping it to be, it lays down the disappointing reality that often even when these extraordinary talents get the opportunity to feature their voice, not everyone will be selected for the fame machine.  

Some of the stunning women featured in this movie include Merry Clayton, who recounts some of the most memorable stories of her work as a featured or background singer. She manages to professionally walk the line of being the biggest diva in the room with her voice. Darlene Love proved herself to be a musical pioneer, with a powerful story of struggle to fight for that which she was passionate for. The beautiful and level headed Lisa Fisher will knock you out with the sounds she creates. As well as the young Judith Hill is bursting with talent as seen from both Michael Jackson This Is It, and Season 4 of The Voice. Its an incredible cast of brilliant women, who frequently outshine guest appearances by Sting and Mick Jagger. 

The movie chronicles the ups and downs these women have felt in the industry, from the stereotypical start as the daughters of preachers across the board, to launching the success of others, and finding the passion for their job being able to stay on stage even if they are not the headlining act. It's debatable whether everyone wants to be a solo artists with their own success because the incredible longevity in their careers has proven them to remain sharp, and level headed individuals with well tuned instruments. The craving they express, though is for recognition. The painful retelling of Darlene Love recording 'He's a Rebel' only to have it race up the charts with The Crystals lip syncing is devastating. 

This documentary touches on so many great moments, being about the struggles of women of color, and the hardships in pursuing your dream. Like Searching for Sugar Man, there is something really intrinsic about the unstoppable passion some people have. It's both inspiring and fragile. As a woman, and as a music lover, I'm so thankful I was able to experience the stories shared by this film. 

20 Feet from Stardom won the 2013 Academy Award for Best Documentary. 

IMDb - 20 Feet from Stardom (7.5)

Wikipedia - 20 Feet from Stardom

Rotten Tomatoes - 20 Feet from Stardom (99%)

REVIEW: Searching for Sugar Man

10/10 - I wonder...

Two men try to track down what happened to their favorite 1970's recording artist. It's a simple premise, but this story retells the events that span over 30 years or so. The artist in question, Sixto Rodriguez, released two albums to little fanfare in the United States. In fact, other than the album's producers it seems like no one has heard of him. Those who had heard of him, really believed in him and yet he was a commercial failure. Through bootlegging and anti-establishment protests, Rodriguez's two album's became quite prolific in South Africa in the 90's. He became a music icon in that part of the world, and the mystery of who he was bloomed from this unexpected popularity.

If you intended to watch this film, which I highly recommend, then do yourself the favor of not researching Rodriguez or anything about this movie before watching it. This is a movie best watched blind. It's an experience of learning about this artist and digging into his background with those who make the doc.

Everyone should see Searching for Sugar Man. It has this remarkable universal appeal, because it tells the story of a man who had nothing besides his great passion. Rodriguez was a sort of vagabond. He performed from club to club, often turning his back to the audience. Fans who recognized that passion kept his music alive in this far away police state, where his albums sat with other iconic artists. It's a story that shouldn't be real, it should be preposterous. This journey of discovery is something with so much universal appeal, I think anyone who offers their time to this film will be satisfied.

Without fail, the film is engulfed by the very music that inspired it. I found it easy to see what others saw in his music. There is a familiar warmth, emotion, and ease to his music. I also have a great appreciation for a documentary like this that illuminates beautiful visuals. It can be difficult to break the mold of sit down interviews and archival footage, but Searching for Sugar Man strives to be visually inspiring. The combination of those two elements, the sounds of Rodriguez and the sights of South Africa, give this movie a unique texture that's quite memorable.

The documentary shares both a beautiful people story, and the fascinating experience of discovery. It's quite touching because it really is a remarkable story. These are the kinds of stories that reach out and remind us that individuals are capable far beyond the reach we assign to them. I feel like this is the kind of story that audiences need to have, not just to enjoy, but to fill their souls.

Searching for Sugar Man won the 2012 Academy Award for Best Documentary.

IMDb - Searching for Sugar Man (8.2)
Wikipedia - Searching for Sugar Man
Rotten Tomatoes - Searching for Sugar Man (95%)
Amazon.ca - Searching for Sugarman

REVIEW: Blue Jasmine

Best Original Screenplay Nominee

8/10 - Way better than expected. 

This review was a long time coming. It was one of the first Oscar nominated movies that I watched, but I've been stewing on how to phrase my review for a long time.

First and foremost, I've never liked Woody Allen movies. I typically don't relate to that slow, cerebral uncertainty that fuels his many dozens of movies. After 2-3 that did it, I stopped watching his movies. Maybe I judged his body of work prematurely, because this was quite a great movie, but I'm still not particularly interested in watching more of his movies.

The other reason to preface this review would be because of the controversy that has surrounded Woody Allen during this years award season. I'm not interested in dancing with the veil that the morals of the individual should have some reflection in how we perceive their work. I found myself quite frustrated with the fact that over and over again Cate Blanchett would get on stage, having won awards for this movie, and praise the great female roles that were being written, and over and over again she would be overshadowed by media coverage of a 20 year old scandal.

So. Having said that. Blue Jasmine is a movie about a rich woman going poor. That's too simplistic of a definition for a movie this complicated, but there it is. Under the surface layer, this film is about a woman who has protected herself in layers of narcissism, and her need to rebuild relationships. There are some terrific performances supporting the infallible Cate; Alec Baldwin, Louis C. K., Sally Hawkins, and Bobby Cannavale. It's a stunning cast that scrambles around Jasmine as her world unravels. This movie is not just about social class, but it's about empathy and understanding of individuals for whatever position they are in. It's of the typical Woody storytelling, with lots of talking and big characters. This movie explores fantasy and reality, what is selfish and what is selfless. It's quite engaging and interesting, if not a bit dull at times. I had a hard time understanding what was happening to the characters, but some of that was probably intentional.

Although Blue Jasmine was nominated for Best Original Screenplay, it strikes me as a Best Picture nominee. This is a filmmakers story, not on the page but in the eye. The Academy Awards recognized this work with the Best Actress statue going to Blanchett. I'm of the opinion that this award belongs to Allen. This was the best female character written, this was the best female driven film this year.

IMDb - Blue Jasmine (7.4)
Wikipedia - Blue Jasmine
Rotten Tomatoes- Blue Jasmine (91%)
Amazon.ca - Blue Jasmine

REVIEW: Delivery Man

BLOGGER NOTE: Yeah, this wasn't an Academy Award Nominee. The weekend of the awards, I smashed my laptop, thus putting the breaks on any unnecessary computing. I have a few more Oscar nom reviews to do, but it might take a little while longer than I intended. In the meantime, here's something completely different.

6/10 - More like "Meat Truck Man" amirite? 

Delivery Man is based on a french movie called Starbuck, that a good reviewer might have watched before writing a review. I'm not a good reviewer. 

The mixed reviews for Delivery Man are accurate. It's a great concept with a great cast, but I kept thinking there are so many missed opportunities in this film. Missed chances for comedy, for a more dynamic plot, for more interesting characters. One of the reasons I think writer/directors are not always a great idea. This was well written, and well directed, but a separate voice might have improved this film tremendously. 

Here's the plot rundown: Vince Vaughn as David Wozniak, donated sperm under the pseudonym Starbuck for many years, and then 20 years later all the many hundreds of kids he helped produce decide to try and find him. 

The first 10 minutes of this movie are so dreadfully boring that you might wonder if you accidentally started watching a real life documentary about depressing jobs in America. I went on Wikipedia to double check that it was, in fact, meant to be a comedy. Typically, Vince Vaughn spearheads comedies that cater to his strengths, fast talking absurd situations. Surprisingly, this is neither and I wished it was. Despite Vince Vaughn being naturally funny, and Bobby Moynihan playing his younger brother, nothing is particularly funny until Wozniak's friend Brett shows up, played by Chris Pratt. Somehow the movie gods shined upon his role because he injects the first moments of laugh out loud comedy. Chris Pratt really shines in this movie being effortlessly hilarious in a movie so nuanced, more seasoned comedians fell flat.

Cobie Smulders play's Wozniak's girlfriend, Emma, a cop. My first gut reaction is to throw my arms in the air, overjoyed by the fact that Emma is a cop. She is casually playing a role typically reserved for males on screen, showing that her character has her own life with consequences, and it's not the butt of a joke. That being said, Cobie is hilarious and she doesn't get the chance to make a single joke in the whole movie. She's a buzzkill, ruining the momentum in every scene she's in. It's not really the fault of Cobie who is a great actress, but rather the fact that David's life with Emma represents the serious steps toward adulthood and responsibility and that's not so funny. Every scene does not have to be comedic, but they do have to be entertaining. 

I was also quite put off by the fact that every one of the kids in this movie who David helped create, considers him their "real" father, or "biological" father, or something to that effect. Granted the movie proposes that of the many hundreds of children that David helped create, only a smaller percent chose to actively investigate his identity. I also understand that this movie is about David accepting fatherhood through very extreme circumstances. However, I was desperate for someone to stand up and remind those kids that they had their own real parents. Not adoptive parents. Parents. These kids had families that choose to have kids and choose to get pregnant through this method. At what point is it okay to imply that real parents who raised these kids are not as important as someone who provided the DNA but never wanted kids themselves. Again, that's not the point of the movie. I just felt like it was a strange message to put on the screen, pretending that their real parents don't exist. Also, can we talk about why his kids are 80% male?

I've been doing quite a lot of complaining, but this isn't really a bad movie. Many of these complaints stem from the fact that this feels like a great movie in disguise. With some more polish and punchier jokes, it would be a great comedy. This is a movie about family and fulfilling the desire to be a better person. It's quite heartfelt and there's nothing wrong with a movie that can put a smile on your face. This is one of those movies that tries to discover the unbridled optimism in everyday life, and that's why I go to the movies. 

IMDb - Delivery Man (6.4)

Wikipedia - Delivery Man

Rotten Tomatoes - Delivery Man (39%)
Amazon.ca - Delivery Man

REVIEW: Dallas Buyers Club

Best Picture Nominee

Best Original Screenplay Nominee

9/10 - Alright, alright, alright.

Sometimes I hate the 'drama' genre because it often refers to movies that are just not funny, or not exciting, and not interesting. Dallas Buyers Club is such a deeply emotional, touching story, that you remember why 'drama' is the Academy favorite.

I had no idea what this film was even about before I saw it. For those as ignorant as I was, Matthew McConaughey plays Ron, a blue collar guy who is diagnosed with AIDS, while living in Texas in 1985. His refusal to accept this death sentence leads him to discover his hospitals drug trials, and the drugs unavailable in the United States due to FDA regulations. The cast is rounded out with Eve, a doctor treating AIDS patients played by the wonderful Jennifer Garner, as well as the undeniably talented Jared Leto playing Rayon, a transgendered woman who is also HIV positive.

I don't have a whole lot to say, it's one of those movies that beautifully encapsulates someone's life and struggles, and how can you critique that? It's quite difficult to get through at times because it's very gritty and raw. It was hard for me not to get emotional when someone is fighting for their life. Matthew McConaughey and Jared Leto were those characters through and through. The role of Ron was really the role of a lifetime for McConaughey, who never faltered. They both deserve all the praise and all the awards. I also thought the direction and script were particularly outstanding. It's rare to see a character drama like this move alone at a quick pace with interesting events happening. Rarely did the movie stop to dwell in emotion, which it easily could have.

Dallas Buyers Club is really great. It's the story of frailty, and the story of fighting. I don't think wide audiences are going to flock to a movie directly about the effects of AIDS but those who do will be rewarded with a bold and haunting story.

IMDb - Dallas Buyers Club (8.0)
Wikipedia - Dallas Buyers Club
Rotten Tomatoes - Dallas Buyers Club
Amazon.ca - Dallas Buyers Club