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: Mr. Holmes

6/10 - Wasps?! Not in my backyard. 

Sherlock Holmes has become a massive media icon. The modern day BBC miniseries, Sherlock stars Benedict Cumberbatch as Holmes. Elementary, a CBS procedural features Johnny Lee Miller portraying Holmes in NYC. Other shows like House, Forever, and The Mentalist are essentially re-imaginings of Sherlock Holmes. Among the absolutely massive list of Sherlock Holmes films that have been created over the years, the 2009 Guy Richie franchise Sherlock Holmes was a recent success starring Robert Downey Jr. It's hard to get away from Holmes, whether it's in a summer blockbuster, straight to DVD movie, or a Japanese puppet show. The list of actors who have portrayed Sherlock Holmes is both impressive and infinite.

Added to that list is now Sir Ian McKellen.

Mr. Holmes is a family film about Holmes during his retirement. He returns to a home where he is cared for by his housekeeper, the underutilized Laura Linney, and her young son played by Milo Parker. Two immediate things came to mind when I began watching this film.

The first was "My GOD Ian McKellen has aged!" which I felt was a sentiment shared by many in the audience. Don't fret, he's actually playing older than he is in real life, if you can believe that. They hired a 70 year old actor to portray a man in his 90's. Hollywood has some fabulous makeup artists, and Ian McKellen is not as fragile as he appears in this film.

The second thing that struck me as unusual was that this was a live-action family film. Do those even get made anymore? Animated films have become so wildly popular (thanks to Pixar) that they have really swamped the kids film market. When I think back to all the great family films from the 90's it becomes really clear that they aren't being made anymore, just big budget blockbusters with a PG rating. Mr. Holmes is somewhat of a call back to that old fashioned idea of a family movie. Not a cheesy comedic kids movie, but a family film for everyone.

If you're wondering why I've spent most of this review talking about the context of Mr. Holmes as a movie, and not the movie itself it's because I found this film utterly forgettable. The characters were quite limited, and the emotional story for the leads was a bit strange to me. Holmes evokes images of the detective, someone only interested in cold hard facts. This Holmes tale is saturated with sentimentality. Holmes seems to bond with this young boy more than he ever did with his partner Watson, someone he worked with closely for many years. I also felt a disconnect between the three story-lines, as they felt like separate stories that didn't enhance one another.

Ian McKellen, however, gives a truly stellar performance as Sherlock Holmes. His character transforms from a younger version at the height of his career, to an older and frail man who needs tending to. He gives a sincere performance with tremendous subtly, without ever condescending the audience. I only wish there was a franchise of Sherlock Holmes films wherein McKellen could reprise the entire history of the fictional character.

Laura Linney and Milo Parker round out this cast as mother and son. Laura Linney is one of those fantastic actresses who tends to fall off the radar. I really enjoyed her acting in this, but I thought her role was a bit flat. I wish she had been given the opportunity to bring more depth to that character. On the other side of that coin, young Milo Parker as Roger is a delight. He is as much the main character of this story as Mr. Holmes is, and he does a great job carrying much of this film.

While the expectation for a jaw-dropping mystery reveal is somewhat unfair, the mysteries in this story simply felt unsatisfying. Perhaps I'm being heavily influenced by the previously mentioned Sherlock Holmes installments, but I don't think I would praise any film with such a wishy-washy ending. That being said, this film is a far way from being unwatchable, and I actually believe many audiences will enjoy Mr. Holmes. McKellen is brilliant, and it's a tense and fascinating story that isn't often portrayed on screen anymore. It's just not for me, someone who over thinks the plot.

IMDb - Mr. Holmes (7.6)
Wikipedia - Mr. Holmes
Rotten Tomatoes - Mr. Holmes (87%)

REVIEW: The Search For Freedom

4/10 - What's love got to do, got to do with it?

Why do people like extreme sports? What is it that drives people to them? That's the premise of this documentary, finding out from athletes what draws them to these sports that put them at risk.

Needless to say, viewing this at the  Maui Film Festival where surf culture reigns king, the movie did quite well.

I would like to know how this documentary came to be. It mashes together footage of athletes from all parts of the globe without ever giving time to introduce them, introduce the sport, or explain why we are watching it.

From the top of snowy mountains with skiers racing against avalanches, to the hot beaches in Hawaii where surfers tame the tides, this film tries to be inclusive of everything that would be considered an extreme sport, including skateboarding, mountain biking, sky diving, snow boarding, BMX, and wind surfing. Perhaps the biggest flaw was not focusing on a few in depth examples of extreme sports. Instead it touches briefly on all of them. No, really. All of them.

It hops from sport to sport, athlete to athlete, with only generic comments about the rush they feel to connect the scenes. This movie is dense with sports interviews, and thin on context. This movie is desperate for a narrator.

Despite it's sloppy execution, there are some great moments that illustrate the way sport culture has evolved and the level of accomplishments that have been achieved. Legends like Tony Hawk discuss his career in skateboarding, in direct comparison to the children who are making those same achievements today.

Really, it's the jaw-dropping cinematic shots that tells the story. These athletes are driven, passionate people who are often viewed as social outcasts for their discipline and dedication to the sport. The slow motion, high def scenes of those athletes rocketing through the air on skis or skates is enough to explain that thematic question. The footage captures a palpable adrenaline rush that fuels these athletes more than anything else. That's something that resonates with thrill seekers.

Seeing those scenes of the highest heights that can be reached through extreme sports, one thing is clear. There doesn't need to be an explanation to get it. It would have been nice if there was one, though.

Rotten Tomatoes - The Search for Freedom
Film Website - The Search for Freedom

REVIEW: Live from New York

5/10 - I got a fever... And the only prescription... Is another movie. 

The premise of a documentary looking at the history, highlights, low-lights, and impact of the long running sketch comedy show Saturday Night Live is something the world was definitely looking for. Thankfully SNL celebrated it's 40th anniversary and mostly did that with a 3 hour television special. No need to go to the movies!

It was a big of a challenge to separate this documentary from the 40th anniversary television special, that aired in February. If you enjoyed one, you'll enjoy the other but there's only so much SNL to reminisce on.

Part of what separated the documentary Live from New York was putting SNL is a larger context. Political impersonations were compared directly to footage of the figure in question, a nice way to show the impact of the show. They showed your favorite sketches, and featured interviews from a variety of cast members. It was a nice way to look back at the evolution of television over the years.

However, this movie is all nostalgia and good feelings, without a lot of critical thinking, and definitely no big revelations. It's a perspective on SNL with rose-colored glasses that undermines some of the issues that have plagued the shows history, like drug abuse, sexism, racism, and dismisses them as being unimportant. Instead of acknowledging those unpleasant truths, it relies on the content of SNL sketches being enough to entertain the audience with little else to say.

Live From New York is an enjoyable watch, because it's a "best of" featuring great moments that cause belly laughs. As a movie, it's quite hollow.

IMDb - Live From New York (6.8)
Rotten Tomatoes - Live From New York (48%)
Film Website - Live From New York

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: Burt's Buzz

6/10 - A story of an old man and bee's wax.

Burt Shavitz.

As you can predict from the image on your lip balm, Burt is a dirty hippy through and through. Now approaching 80, he lives a reclusive life on a farm in Maine. As his company became a massive corporation, his lifestyle never changed. He hangs out with his dog and wood stove. Oh and his name is associated with a billion dollar corporation, but whatever.

To be fair, this is a documentary about Burt. Burt just happens to be associated with Burt's Bee's. This is not a docu about lip balm company in any way. I suppose it is in a little way, but there isn't really a sufficient story about Burt's Bees to call that the focus of the movie.

Burt has done a lot of fascinating things in his life. He was a successful photojournalist, an activist, he was a bee keeper (duh) and reluctant business man, now he's the face and spokesperson for a company he has no stock or investment in. What's even more interesting is how reclusive his life is. It felt a bit like the documentary crew had a difficult time finding people to talk to about Burt. He is very isolated, and is quite content to live that way even after spending stretches in 5 star hotels.

That being said, Burt is also the kind of person you can size up immediately. What you see is what you get. I found this film to be a bit aimless, as they tried to unveil facets of his character that were quite clear from the beginning. Without any revolutionary or unbelievable scenes, this movie ends up a bit boring. While the concept and the person might be memorable, the movie itself isn't.

IMDb - Burt's Buzz (6.5)
Rotten Tomatoes - Burt's Buzz (73%)
Amazon.ca - Burt's Buzz

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: The Interview

6/10 - Yeah yeah, Sony Hack, terrorist threat, controversy, blah blah. Don't care.

You know what's weird? The thing that stood out to me the most about The Interview is the production value. Really outstanding sets, costumes, graphics. Great editing on quick montages. Good music, lighting, cinematography, everything. Scenes that could have been bland were spruced up with a healthy budget to create great visuals.

I don't care much for the actors, jokes, or story though.

I will confess, this is another movie where I read the script before seeing the film. Perhaps that deflated some of the story and comedic elements? You can judge.

I feel like this is The Hobbit of comedy. All the elements are there, to make a funny film. On paper it should work. But with too big of a budget and too much confidence it's lost the whole reason people wanted this movie to begin with. They thought they were making another Jump Street or This is The End but instead they ended up with something messy and boring.

The Interview is a perfectly mediocre film about regular schmucks getting thrown into international espionage. James Franco plays an exaggerated Ryan Seacrest type entertainment reporter, and Seth Rogan plays himself? Is Seth Rogan best buds with Ryan Seacrest? I'm not sure. I think in this film Seth was supposed to be a producer or something, but he really just played himself. It opens with some really hilarious scenes showing Franco interviewing celebs and uncovering the best juicy gossip. I'd watch a whole movie of just that. Then they get thrown down a rabbit hold of interviewing the dictator of North Korea and being fuck ups about it.

I'm not sure what exactly turned me off from this movie but I think it's somewhere in the combo of unmemorable jokes and a weak plot. At the end of the day this concept lends itself to some serious political satire. I'm not sure if making fun of Kim Jong-Un in a pre-school way is really sufficient. I also found in the script, there was greater emphasis on the fact that as the dictator of North Korea the population was suffering inhumane atrocities, and they were heavily manipulating their image for the these two media representatives. The final cutting of the film doesn't go near the oppressed people aspect, perhaps because it's a mood killer, but then it's harder justify Kim Jong-Un as the ultimate enemy.

I also found myself frustrated that The Interview is self aware enough to comment on the use of women solely for male seduction, and yet every woman in the movie is only there to seduce a man. What can you do?

I think the best things to take away from The Interview are Randall Park and Diana Bang. Both actors were great in their roles and were quite funny. Something that isn't easy when this film is a vehicle for Franco and Rogan to be funny.

So The Interview gets a big pass. If you saw the trailer you probably saw about as much memorable material as their is in the whole film. It's not an offensively bad comedy like We're the Millers, and I wouldn't be surprised if someone out there enjoyed this film. It's just not my cup of tea.

Wikipedia - The Interview
IMDb - The Interview (7.1)
Rotten Tomatoes - The Interview (51%)
Amazon.ca - The Interview

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

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: 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: 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