Review: The Gambler

4/10 - When did Marky Mark turn into Kevin Bacon?

I'm not sure why I was supposed to watch The Gambler. Did people think it was a good movie? Is it a comedy? Is it a drama? It's like a movie that just came into existence and disappeared just as quickly. Which makes sense because even after seeing it, because I still have no idea why this movie was made.

From what I gather, this was a remake. That's important because in the context of 2015, this is an irrelevant movie. I can't see this movie getting made on spec right now and getting any attention. It's a movie with an irrelevant story about irrelevant characters for today.

The plot rundown is something about Marky Mark being a rich baby who has a wicked job as a professor but gambles away everything he earns, and screws around with one of his students.

I think the biggest take away from The Gambler was how much I am becoming skeeved out by Hollywood. The very talented Brie Larson plays the young innocent love interest. And while their relationship was somewhat inappropriate within the story, because he is a teacher and she is a student, all I could think about was the idea that she was probably birthed with "Good Vibrations" playing in the delivery room. This age gap is becoming so common, and the more I see it the more awkward I find it. It's easy to look at the context of each relationship in each movie individually and justify the age gap as being part of the story, but it's something that happens so often it's really a gross trend that I'm not a fan of.

Back to the movie itself, I can't decide if I think Marky Mark gives a good acting performance. With a lot of unintentional condescension, I found myself impressed that he could spout out long poetic lines while his literature professor character lectured his class. There were no scenes of him running with a gun while explosions were going off in the background. which is pretty much the only reason he does movies anymore. I totally loathed his character though, and I largely attribute that to his utter lack of charisma and charm.

Jessica Lange, on the other hand, is a gift to the world. Although she is not a major character, all of her scenes come into sharp focus with her presence. Frankly, this movie is worth watching for the pleasure of watching Lange slap the Froot Loops out of Marky Marks mouth.

Overall The Gambler about reckless people making poor decisions, without any consideration for the consequences of their actions. There's nothing sympathetic about a character with an endless supply of cash who's problems come from gambling that money away, especially considering the state of the American economy today. I actually found that the higher the stakes were, the less I cared about the outcome of story. As interesting as some of the set pieces and scenarios were, they were so underutilized with a plot that cannot possibly resonate with the audience.


IMDb - The Gambler (6.1)
Wikipedia - The Gambler
Rotten Tomatoes - The Gambler (46%)
Amazon.ca - The Gambler

REVIEW: The Imitation Game

Best Picture Nominee
Best Adapted Screenplay Nominee

8/10 - Like a paint-by-numbers Oscar flick

In 2014 Graham Moore won the Academy Award for Best Adapted Screenplay for The Imitation Game. This was the first movie he had produced into a feature film. His short but moving speech revealed his own struggles as a kid, not having a place in the world.

"When I was 16 years old, I tried to kill myself because I felt weird and I felt different and I felt like I did not belong. And now I’m standing here and, so, I would like for this moment to be for that kid out there who feels like she’s weird or she’s different or she doesn't fit in anywhere. Yes, you do. I promise you do. You do. Stay weird. Stay different."

A beautiful speech that gives insight into how he was able to create such a fantastic script. The Imitation Game is a film about the life of pioneering computer scientist Alan Turing. His brilliant mind ostracized him socially, compounded by the fact that he was openly gay during a time when homosexuality was illegal. Turing gets recruited to help crack the Nazi enigma code and help save his country. The same country that cruelly punishes him for being gay. Moore may not have experience working as a military code-breaker, but his own life experience helped create a remarkable tragic figure on screen.

The Imitation Game really is a remarkable film, if almost too polished. It creates a lovely balance of intriguing character with high stakes intensity. This simply is a display of Cumberbatch's talents to create a nuanced character. If you ever heard the advice, "don't show the work" this is exactly what makes Benedict Cumberbatch's portrayal wonderful. Every moment embraces this character effortlessly. I was also surprised by Keira Knightly as well, who has never been a memorable actress to me. The film also has a good share of twists and unexpected surprises that makes it more than just a character study.

If there is a flaw in The Imitation Game it's the film's total lack of flaws. Turing says the right things at the right time, and it lost some appeal to me for that reason. Here's the scene where he says something funny. Here's the scene where he does something heroic. Here's the scene where he says a wise proverb. It's a difficult thing to criticize because if I was writing a movie I would want to create a script as tight as this was. However, some charm lost as the overall effect is very much the Hollywood standard without a unique flare.

Like Interstellar, this is a movie that seems to be plagued by a public need to identify inaccuracies. I stand by my belief that this is a movie. It's not a history lesson, nor a biography. Movies have no obligation to be accurate. They only have an obligation to entertain people, largely through fictional stories. If The Imitation Game was a launching point for you to research the life of Alan Turing or his achievements, or the enigma code, or the history of gay rights then the movie did a fantastic job.

I'm not sure if I think this was the year's best picture. As much as I enjoyed the historical fiction of Alan Turing and the Enigma code from The Imitation Game, I don't think it pushed the boundaries of storytelling the way some other films did this year. It certainly is a fantastic film, worthy of being seen and talked about, but a bit too much of a replication of The King's Speech and other historical films to be a stand out for me. Everything about The Imitation Game screams that it was made to win awards. Perhaps it should win them, but I don't value that very much as a movie-goer.


IMDb - The Imitation Game (8.1)
Wikipedia - The Imitation Game
Rotten Tomatoes - The Imitation Game (89%)
Amazon.ca - The Imitation Game

REVIEW: Interstellar

10/10 - Epic is a really good word for this movie

Christopher Nolan is a director that built his name on action adventure movies that brought audiences to new worlds with imaginative concepts. Coming off films like The Dark Knight and Inception, the expectations for his sci fi space opera were quite high.

Interstellar is a journey that takes the audience from a dystopian future to the limits of outer space. It's the ultimate cowboy movie, throwing a good ol' farmer into a new territory, looking to claim land for the US of A. This whole film has the feel of being bigger than this movie, bigger than it's story. Perhaps even bigger than Nolan could wrangle. It is a fantastic cinematic experience though, perhaps the best of the year. It hands the ability to infinitely discover the universe to the audience. Interstellar truly feels like a masterpiece, worthy of a grand scale.

The story itself is about Cooper (Matthew McConaughey) a NASA engineer turned farmer who struggles to raise a family during an environmental crisis. Coop gets recruited to join a mission to explore a nearby wormhole, as they believe nearby planets could help save the dying Earth. It's a mission to provide a future for the son and daughter he leaves behind.

What sets Interstellar apart is that it doesn't just tell a story, it shares an experience. We tend to break films down into categories, in order to decide whether they were worthwhile. Story, acting, special effects, audio, what was good and what was bad? In any film, Interstellar included, those specific areas can be picked apart and examined as a contributing part to the film as a whole. In this film, I was so enraptured with the rabbit hole we had been thrown into, that it seemed rather irrelevant to pick apart the individual areas of technical design. The overall effect was so powerful and storytelling so innovative that I felt as though I was a part of the mission the astronauts were on.

For the sake of the review, I'm obligated to share those criticisms. The emotional story was a bit uneven, and I left with more questions about Coopers family then I had answers. At some points conversations felt long, and claustrophobic.

The biggest issue seemed to be the trouble in bridging the science fiction elements to an audience of people without physics degrees. Part of that comes from the desire to tell a story with an explanation grounded in reality but also, science fiction in film seems to arise a bizarre sense of entitlement for scientific accuracy. I get where this comes from, we want to trust and believe in the universe so that story lives on. I can only presume some journalists didn't get the "fiction" part of "science fiction" because I've read a thousand articles desperate to point out minute scientific inaccuracies.

Frankly, we need a better outlet to explore our fascination with great movies, than to credit or discredit the film with educational tidbits of astrophysics. "Debunking" the scientific accuracy only serves to undermine the outstanding achievements of this film.

From beginning to end, Interstellar is an outstanding movie. It utilized every aspect of film making to give the audience an experience never seen before. From the silent explosions in space, to the shocking affects of gravity on a new planet, Interstellar pushed the limits of what humans can experience by putting it on the big screen. If there is ever a film worthy of putting down your phone and offering it your fullest attention, this is it.

IMDb - Interstellar (8.7)
Wikipedia - Interstellar
Rotten Tomatoes - Interstellar (72%)
Amazon.ca - Interstellar

REVIEW: Life Itself

8/10 - It eluded us then, but that's no matter - tomorrow we will run faster...

Life Itself (2014)

In 2013 when Roger Ebert passed away, something interesting happened. There was undeniably a massive loss felt by many people who Roger had touched, but the wave of grief went far beyond his friends, family and colleagues. There was a struggle to articulate why his loss was so profound. Ebert was a pop culture icon as a film critic, his job and his work is something that's largely impersonal. For example, I've read at least a hundred film reviews this week for different movies and I don't think I could even give the name of one off hand, let alone tell you anything about their personal life. For so many of us, Roger Ebert represented something different. His work cultivated a personal relationship with the public that separated his job from his life.

That's what made Roger special. His job was to give opinions, but he gave us honesty and sincerity. He was a passionate person, and wasn't ashamed to be outspoken and vulnerable. That quality is rare. His gift for writing that reaches deep down to the heart of the matter, made him stand out. In a culture that has rejected poetry and fine arts, movies have become our outlet and reflection of selves. Ebert brought an art back to that medium. He elevated what films were and reminded us that while we go to be entertained, we are writing our own historical narrative and searching for humanity.

The documentary Life Itself was released in 2014 but it took me some time to come around to see it because I anticipated I would be crying throughout. The film is based on Ebert's own memoir that was released in 2011 of the same name.

Siskel and Ebert: At the Movies

The documentary began filming in 2012, and is filled with new footage, his own stories and jokes, exerts from the book, interviews from friends and family, pictures and old clips. It chronicles Roger Ebert's life from a young man with the gift of the gab, to his cancer treatment and dealing with having his voice literally taken away from him. It's an insight into his life with Chaz, Gene Siskel and At the Movies, and the ups and downs of his life.

Although there isn't a lot of terrible revolutionary information or shocking new scenes that I've come to expect with contemporary documentaries, there is a lot to enjoy about this film. Particularly, admiration for his generosity and tenacity. It wouldn't be a interesting film if he was portrayed as a saint and nothing else, however it's easy to see how he became such a likable figure even at his worst.

At 2 hours, Life Itself was a longer documentary than I was expecting, but I recommend it wholeheartedly. It is, without question, a movie designed to pull at your heartstrings, but I might venture to guess, that's the reason most people see it anyways. I'm not sure if there will ever be a critic so renowned as Ebert, and this is certainly a tribute to his legacy.

Two thumbs up.

IMDb - Life Itself (8.0)
Wikipedia - Life Itself
Rotten Tomatoes - Life Itself (97%)
Amazon.ca - Life Itself

REVIEW: Big Hero 6

7/10 - Way to go Disney, you didn't totally mess this one up!

Disney's Big Hero 6

After ripping apart Frozen for the past year I was hesitant to even approach Big Hero 6 fearing it would be the far stupider step child of an already dumb family. What a terrible metaphor. I digress, Disney animation has cranked out some pretty poor family films in the last few years, with movies that have lots of shelf appeal and no substance. Big Hero 6 looked to be about the same. And after hearing Doug Loves Movies refer to the infamous "YEAAAAHHHH SCIENCE" line ad nauseum I was expecting something along the lines of Wreck It Ralph. A movie painfully paint-by-numbers.

So, when I put on Big Hero 6 it was because I was looking for something wafer thin, and as light and fluffy as a cloud. To my surprise, it's actually not a bad story.

Hero, a robotics-loving/prodigy kid. His older brother, Tadashi is working on a robot project of his own at his university, a personal healthcare robot named Baymax. Some spoilerish stuff happens and the group of friends band together with their robotics know-how to save San Fransokyo.

First of all, San Fransokyo. That's where they live. A semi-futuristic version of San Francisco meets Tokyo. That also means many of the main characters are Asian inspired white people. There's something about white washing the characters that doesn't sit well with me. It would have been nice to see some racial diversity in a Disney movie, aside from aliens and talking animals. It doesn't really help that all the friend characters are themselves MASSIVE cliches.

Main Cast from Disney's Big Hero 6

The robotic lead, Baymax is like someone made a robot out of a Wii U. It's got none of the
functionality you actually want in a robot, and it's "non threatening hug-able" appearance is accompanied by soft lights and synthetic tones. It's an inflatable Wii Fit game.

Once you get past that, the fantastic performance by Scott Adsit makes Baymax a great character. His actions are a reflection of the person who did the programming and that's a delightfully fresh approach to robots on film.

I really enjoyed the overall story arc and the approach to themes in this film. It's a collision of violent vengeance with compassion and healing. Although there are some annoying cliches that come with an "origin story" the superhero aspect is somewhat of a b-plot. It's an excellent adventure movie along the lines of How to Train Your Dragon. It's charming with a lot of humanity.

Big Hero 6 also won the Academy Award for Best Animated Feature this year so congratulations! You beat The Lego Movie because it wasn't nominated.

• IMDb - Big Hero 6 (8.0)
• Wikipedia - Big Hero 6
• Rotten Tomatoes - Big Hero 6 (90%)
• Amazon.ca - Big Hero 6

REVIEW: The Grand Budapest Hotel

Best Picture Nominee

Best Original Screenplay Nominee

3/10 - I don't like this movie. 

I literally don't know how to review a movie so polarizing, when I'm on the hate side. Actually it's not even polarizing. It's pretty much unanimously acclaimed. I just straight up don't get it. 

I've enjoyed a few Wes Anderson movies, like The Life Aquatic and Fantastic Mr. Fox. They were ok. I get the two two dimensional stylization. I understand that some people love it and think it's the bee's knee's. I'm on the side of loathing one word defined characters and paper thin plot lines. 

The Grand Budapest Hotel is about some random stuff that I didn't care to follow. I swear to god, I watched this movie twice and that's the best I can come up with. A bunch of white guys run around, some of them have guns. I don't know what to say. It was like watching a foreign film without subtitles. 

For me, I simply cannot connect to an endless stream of identical characters who all look and behave the same. Compound that with my utter lack of interest in following the story of these people and I'm done for.

I've watched a lot of movies. I've seen a lot of weird stuff. I usually try to get the weird stuff, and understand the point of view, even if I don't like it. This movie... The Grand Budapest Hotel is a brick wall. This is going to a concert to see a band and getting a puppet show. 

This is not the movie for me. I hope it loses everything. Sorry not sorry. 

IMDb - The Grand Budapest Hotel (8.1)

Wikipedia - The Grand Budapest Hotel

Rotten Tomatoes - The Grand Budapest Hotel (92%)

Amazon.ca - The Grand Budapest Hotel

REVIEW: Whiplash

Best Picture Nominee
Best Adapted Screenplay

9/10 - At least half the audience left thinking they were jazz music experts.

Whiplash was the surprise sleeper hit of 2014 for sure. I'm pretty sure if you asked people on the street they would be like "uhhh I think it's a movie?" For a film nominated for Best Picture it's certainly not making waves the way best picture films have in the past. But you know what? None of the nominee's this year have been big movies. So maybe it was just a weird year all around.

Damien Chazelle wrote and directed this semi-autobiogrpahical film, which frankly makes me a little terrified of him. It's a film about an aspiring drummer named Andrew (Miles Teller) who's ambition while attending a prestigious music college lands him in front of the most intimidating man to ever hold one of those tiny conductor batons. J.K. Simmons plays Fletcher, the conductor, teacher, mentor, and living nightmare who demands greatness from his students through insane threats of violence.

It really it a compelling story. The journey that these musicians take really is comparable to the rigors of athletics, as the film so graciously points out. It's an examination of dedication and what it means to have personal stakes in something you're so driven and passionate about. We've all seen the sports movies about sacrifice but the music industry doesn't usually get depicted in such a way. Typically on film, musicians are just gifted natural born talents. I think Whiplash sort of throws that in the face of the audience. Everyone has something to prove, but are you going to do the work to get to the place where you actually can prove it?

What really strikes me about this kind of film is how perfectly the tone enhances the storytelling. For a minimalist movie about two characters, there are some vivid images and scenes of tension that I just can't shake. The concept of jazz music being the source of so much conflict seemed like an oxymoron before I saw the film, but the sharp and surprising musicality fits wonderfully into a story that does the same.

Don't even get me started on JK Simmons. What a perfect role. Whiplash is one of those great movies where you actually forget it's a movie because those characters are so real, with such an honest and genuine performance. Fletcher is a truly unpredictable character. I can't think of the last movie I saw that featured anything close to that.

I do hope Whiplash wins a few trophies on Oscar night. As a film, it's perfectly succinct and brilliant. It's a real modern drama, without needing to be a historical period piece, or human tragedy. Whiplash is dark and thrilling, with a story every bit as worthwhile as those other typical drama winners.

IMDb - Whiplash (8.6)
Wikipedia - Whiplash
Rotten Tomatoes - Whiplash (95%)
Amazon.ca - Whiplash

REVIEW: St. Vincent

8/10 - What are you waiting for a paper invitation? 

This is one of my favorite movies of 2014. It's also probably my favorite Bill Murray role of the last 10 years. It's also probably going to get reviews saying it's mediocre and predictable. Even so, I don't care, St. Vincent just hits me in the right way.

The rundown is this: Bill Murray plays Vincent, a misanthropic asshole who smokes and drinks, hangs out with prostitutes and has lost all him money gambling. His new neighbor Maggie movies in with her kid Oliver. Vincent ends up hanging out with Oliver, watching him after school while Maggie works long hours trying to support her family as a newly single parent.

I'm just going to say this now. If you are the least bit cynical or go in expecting beginning to end belly laughs, you'll be disappointed. Fortunately I'm a big softy deep down, so coming of age combo-love your family drama is right up my ally.

What I found refreshing about St. Vincent is that the characters are not trapped inside the vacuum of the protagonists journey. All the characters in this film come from different backgrounds, and have different conflicts in their lives, different with points of view, and all grow and change by the end. No one is a villain for the sake of being bad, or good for the sake of innocence. It's almost the opposite of Chef, where there were clear character roles and good things happened making the audience feel good. In this case, the character roles fluctuate and major obstacles come up in an unexpected way. But it still makes the audience feel good. 

Like I said, Bill Murray is fantastic. It's nice to see actors out of their comfort zones, and Bill Murray has fallen into this trap of playing characters almost exactly like himself. While his charm does a huge favor in this role to make an unlikable character more palatable, Vincent is something out of the ordinary for him. Melissa McCarthy too. I can't remember McCarthy ever playing a straight role. She's a mom, a nurse, she's struggling, she's real. For someone who normally play's characters so over the top they are basically cartoons, this is a fresh revelation. When I read the script I was in total disbelief that Naomi Watts would work in her role, and she definitely changed my mind. It's a great cast who really surprises. I think it's a real credit to writer/director Theodore Melfi who got the best out of this pool of talented actors. 

I'm a big fan of St. Vincent. It might be a bit paint by numbers, a bit cliche, and a bit saccharine but I like a movie that doesn't shy away from those elements. It's easy to be critical of a movie that relies on sentimentality but that doesn't take away from the quality of the story. At the end of the day I was rooting for the kid, laughing at the jokes and enraptured by the ending. Isn't that what we watch movies for?

IMDb - St. Vincent (7.3)
Wikipedia - St. Vincent
Rotten Tomatoes - St. Vincent (77%)
Amazon.ca - St. Vincent

REVIEW: Boyhood

Best Picture Nominee

Original Screenplay Nominee

8/10 - You can film yourself aging while you watch this movie, too!

Boyhood is what I'm calling the clear front runner for this year's Best Picture race. For cinematic innovation it's deserving. Considering how the last decade has gone for movies (badly) it really is a triumph of filmmaking. You will notice however, it's not getting a perfect score because if I'm being honest it's kind of boring and I'll never watch it again.

For those few people unawares, Boyhood is Richard Linklater's latest film. It's a literal coming-of-age drama that follows a young boy, Mason and his family over the years until he departs for college. This is fresh on the heel's of Linklater's successful third installment of his Before series, Before Midnight. The Before series brought audiences into brief moments that were decades apart. Boyhood assembled a film crew for a few scenes every year for 12 years, culminating in a three hour movie concentrate of what childhood looks like. It's almost a polished version of what some of the mumble-core (Ugh I hate that word) movies have tried to accomplish. Drop the viewer into the mundane reality of life, not the elevated fantasy that most films portray.

That leaves my paradox. Watching the cast, namely Ellar Coltrane, literally go through boyhood is the hook. If you were to describe this movie, as I did, you would only talk about that part. But the time between filming is not the point of the movie. There is a real plot. Which isn't about Ellar growing up. Except it sort of is, it's about Mason Jr. growing up. The family goes through a lot of changes. It's about his parents separation, their new relationships, the step children, the ups and downs of puberty. It really is a pseudo documentary that seems to only observe the life of a boy in relevant periods of time, culminating in great personal growth for all the characters and illustrating the struggles and hope in every day life.

I can't quite decide where I land on Boyhood. To some critics, this film is a revelation. And as someone who watches a lot of movies I totally get that. Boyhood breaks the standard movie mold, really pulling on the heartstrings of certain generations (Like those with kids Mason's age or those kids who are Mason's age.) I think many people will leave feeling satisfied with the nostalgic quality of this film. On the other hand there really isn't much of a tangible story to follow and the extremely long three hour time frame is going to turn off many movie goers. This is a film so raw in concept, very humble and endearing, and yet it's inaccessible to so many people. The sentiment I've heard about this movie is "Yeah, I've heard about it. No I'm not going to see it." Which is sort of a shame that this is where we've landed. I'm not going to lie, the lack of "story" is a big turn off for me, too.

Regardless of whether it's an underrated masterpiece, or an overwrought eyeroll, I wish we had more movies like Boyhood. The last few years have made me quite frustrated with the movie scene. There are award dramas that come out at Christmas, Summer action movies, early Spring comedies, and very little innovation. It's all become quite safe. Audiences are being told to anticipate their movie purchases years in advance regardless of whether the film will be any good, and lower budget movies are being swept under the rug. I'm glad that movies like Boyhood and Birdman are doing so well this season. Nothing against Selma or The Imitation Game but they are literally only funded because of the award season cash in. It's nice to see a passion project come to life every once in a while. This is a good passion filled movie. Let it recharge you.

IMDb - Boyhood (8.3)
Wikipedia - Boyhood
Rotten Tomatoes - Boyhood (98%)
Amazon.ca - Boyhood

REVIEW: Wild

9/10 - Not nominated for Best Picture or Best Director? What an oversight. 

Last night I cleaned my kitchen. Took a nice hot bath. Made a cup of tea. Got in my PJ's, with blankies and my puppy on the couch, ready for snuggles. Then I turned on this movie and was unable to look away. 

I highly recommend anyone else who wants to watch this film to do the same. Not only was it a nice Sunday night, this movie is highly deserving of your focus and attention. And you will probably also need something to snuggle. 

Wild follows the story of Cheryl Strayed as she hikes across the west coast of the United States via the Pacific Crest Trail. It's a story of her learning to deal with her past, as the journey on the hiking trail reflects the journey her life took to get to this point. You might even call the hike the b-plot because the "flashbacks" are really the focus of the film. 

As a screenwriter, I also read the script, which wasn't nominated for an Oscar (I'm supposed to be reviewing those movies right now.) I have a ton of appreciation for a script that's entire purpose is to illustrate an internal struggle. That's not an easy thing to do. There was no voice-over narration saying "Hi, I'm Cheryl and today I started hiking!" or massive physical transformation. It's a story about a woman reflecting on her life, fondly remembering love, and regretting mistakes, dealing with deep soul-crushing pain, and avoided memories of heartache. There's a movie in here that follows Cheryl chronologically, I'm sure. That's not this movie. Wild isn't about what happened to her in the past, it's about her dealing with it in the present. 

The only major difference from script to screen I noticed was the hike itself. The script seemed to emphasize more the difficulties of the hike, but that's difficult to express on screen and if more hiking had been included in the final cut of the film I'm sure someone would have made a Lord of the Rings joke about her hiking to Mordor. 

There is really something wonderful about the relatability of Cheryl in this film. Women are so often portrayed as either strong and cold, or weak and flirtatious. This is as close to the female "every-man" as I've seen on screen. Her character reflects the way people are composed of contradictions. She's a character full of love, compassion, and empathy, but also makes selfish and impulsive decisions. She struggles to deal with things that are hard to deal with. She doesn't have the answers. She has to make hard mistakes to figure out who she is. So rarely are women given the opportunities to see those stories told on film, even though this one made for one fantastic film.

Reese Witherspoon is vulnerable and raw, but also optimistic. She brings so much dimension to this already complex character. Laura Dern is undeniably charming, as she often is on screen. Her moments in the film are brief but haunting. I've always felt like she was an underrated actress. I think Jean-Marc Vallee brought out some quality performances from the cast. 

So yes, I highly recommend Wild. It fits somewhere outside the normal convention of film. It's a drama that isn't agonizing. It's a female-driven film that doesn't dwell in romance. It's a biographical memoir told in an unconventional way. This is what I like about independent films. Sometimes going just a few steps outside of the 'expectations box' can lead to wonderful things. 

IMDb - Wild (7.4)

Wikipedia - Wild

Rotten Tomatoes - Wild (90%)

Amazon.ca - Wild

87th Annual Acadamy Awards Rundown

Here are a selection of the nominees from this years awards. I'll try to review as many of these as I can and see what shakes out. I'm already predicting a few categories: Boyhood for Best Picture. Many of these, I've also read the screenplays for so perhaps that will work into my review. Worth nothing that Gillian Flynn was shut out of the nominations for Gone Girl. I was also quite surprised Wild wasn't nominated for Best Picture.

Best Picture

American Sniper

Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)

Boyhood

The Grand Budapest Hotel

The Imitation Game

Selma

The Theory of Everything

Whiplash

Adapted Screenplay

American Sniper (Jason Hall)

The Imitation Game (Graham Moore)

Inherent Vice (Paul Thomas Anderson)

The Theory of Everything (Anthony McCarten)

Whiplash (Damien Chazelle)

Original Screenplay

Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) (Alejandro G. Iñárritu, Nicolás Giacobone, Alexander Dinelaris, Jr. & Armando Bo)

Boyhood (Richard Linklater)

Foxcatcher (E. Max Frye and Dan Futterman)

The Grand Budapest Hotel (Wes Anderson)

Nightcrawler (Dan Gilroy)

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: 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: 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: 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: 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