Login

BANNING · 10-17-2016, 06:05 PM

Based on this thread, I saw The Town last night. Very good, and I love that Ben Affleck loves Titus Welliver as much as I do. I hope Ben never stops directing so Titus never stops working. Very excited for Live By Night now.

Maxy · 10-17-2016, 06:12 PM

Quote:Originally posted by Spangle@Oct 17 2016, 03:08 PM

Looks like the closest to me is 1 hour and 41 minutes away. Live in Connecticut.

https://www.amctheatres.com/food-and-drink/...fork-and-screen

Seems like it's not really a thing up north too much.

Ah that sucks :( there's one in Downtown Disney that I frequent quite a bit. Food at that one is pretty meh but still nice to have a steak or seafood or ribs while watching a movie. There's also Studio Movie Grille, not sure if there's one of those close, same deal, better food though

***Hallsy*** · 10-17-2016, 07:01 PM

Quote:Originally posted by Maxy@Oct 17 2016, 03:12 PM

Ah that sucks :( there's one in Downtown Disney that I frequent quite a bit. Food at that one is pretty meh but still nice to have a steak or seafood or ribs while watching a movie. There's also Studio Movie Grille, not sure if there's one of those close, same deal, better food though

We dont get steaks in Canada, hmm.

Maxy · 10-17-2016, 07:24 PM

Quote:Originally posted by McJesus@Oct 17 2016, 06:01 PM

We dont get steaks in Canada, hmm.

It's basically a full restaurant at AMC. They also serve personal pizzas which are surprisingly good

Spangle · 10-17-2016, 08:38 PM

Quote:Originally posted by BANNING@Oct 17 2016, 06:05 PM
Based on this thread, I saw The Town last night. Very good, and I love that Ben Affleck loves Titus Welliver as much as I do. I hope Ben never stops directing so Titus never stops working. Very excited for Live By Night now.

The Town is so good. No lie I squealed like a teenage girl watching Twilight when I saw the Live by Night trailer. It looks too fucking good.

GCool · 10-17-2016, 08:48 PM

Quote:Originally posted by Maxy@Oct 17 2016, 05:24 PM

It's basically a full restaurant at AMC. They also serve personal pizzas which are surprisingly good

I was pleasantly surprised when I saw Star Wars late last year :lol:

Pris · 10-17-2016, 10:27 PM

Finally watched The Imitation Game while doing math hw, appropriately. Fantastic movie about a pretty fascinating character in history. But y'all probably know this because I am very late on this train :lol:

Justice · 11-06-2016, 05:13 PM

Ryan Gosling's performance in Blue Valentine 10/10

Spangle · 11-07-2016, 11:37 PM

Been a while since I last updated, so this update will take a while.

[Image: Zombeavers_film_poster.jpg]

3/10 - Boy, if anything showcases the decline of Nickelodeon, it is this misguided and unfortunate movie for acclaimed children's cartoon, and a personal favorite, The Angry Beavers. When I supported this Kickstarter in favor of #4seasonsandamovie, I had such high hopes. When I heard that Dag and Norb would be bringing back their typically childish banter and terrific theme song for a feature film, I marked my calendar. I could not be more excited. The end result of this film left me wondering if director Jordan Rubin had ever seen the source material or if he just saw it and decided to discard it entirely. I want my money back. This is the last time I ever support a Kickstarter campaign for a beloved television show.

One of the major problems of this is the special effects. I was fine with going with live-action for the film. While the original cartoon was obviously not live-action, I thought it could be an interesting move. Plus, with the success of current CGI live-action films, the beavers should have no problem being the recognizable Dag and Norb, right? Wrong. Instead, these beavers look like puppets and really do not act like they did in the show. Where is the banter? Hell, I do not even think they spoke. All I saw was beavers nodding at one another every once in a while and surrounding some cabin in the woods. Fortunately, the same measure of brotherhood from the show is found in the film, as Dag and Norb, as well as all of the other beavers in the forest stick together.

One of the most shocking elements of The Angry Beavers Movie is the violence against beavers. While I agree with the film's approach of showcasing the problems associated with humans moving into the forest and harming beavers, I did not expect the violence. One character, Smyth (Rex Linn) warns the three main female protagonists of the fact that families are around, so they should cover up. Not only do Jenn (Lexi Atkins), Zoe (Cortney Palm), and Mary (Rachel Melvin) continue to run around in revealing clothing, but the film showcases so much violence against beavers and dogs that one must wonder if the film itself remembered that this was a family movie. For kids who loved the television series, we want to show our nieces, nephews, children, or random children, our favorite show as a movie. Yet, this will do nothing but convince those same youngsters that we are really weird.

That said, the humor is pretty much the same, as far as I can remember. Lots of beaver inside jokes and adult references that kids will not understand, thankfully. For this element, Jordan Rubin does a bit to overcome the violence and nudity, yet this is still not a film I can recommend for family viewers.

On the positive side, the film does a brilliant job to turn the humans into beavers. I was particularly moved by the scene in which Jenn grows a tail and bangs it on the ground like the rest of the beavers. At the end of the day, we are all beavers. We are united as one. Zombeavers, for all of its faults, definitely gets this important message across.

While violent and a diversion from the beloved Angry Beavers television series, the film still showcases the same anger from the beavers and the trademark comedy of the series, while also demonstrating the harm that can be caused by human involvement in the environment. Though this is not the film I expected when I popped in The Angry Beavers Movie, Zombeavers could be far worse. I just wish it was not based on a kids movie, for fear of children seeing the film.

7/10 - Brought to life by director Stuart Gordon, Re-Animator is a thoroughly twisted, off-the-wall horror comedy that really has to be one of the weirdest films I have ever seen. Featuring a mad scientist, Herbert West (Jeffrey Combs), who discovers a way to bring people back to life with...well...some side effects, Re-Animator places its tongue firmly against its cheek as it has a terrific time with over-the-top gore effects, killer dead people, and glowing liquid.

The greatest accomplishment of the film is its blending of horror and comedy. Though I would be hard pressed to call this one truly comedic, it does work in the comedy well, especially at the end. Just as you are horrified at what is transpiring between Dr. Carl Hill (David Gale) and Megan Halsey (Barbara Crampton), you can not help but laugh. Gordon knows how absurd it all is and he is not afraid to knock you over the head with the ludicrous nature of the plot. This all culminates with a bombastically comical finale that does provide thrills as you watch the characters try to escape from the undead.

Yet, the film is decidedly a horror film. With terrific gore effects and a knack for putting you on edge or flat out disturbing you, Re-Animator earns its scares. In particular, the sequence in which Megan tries to find the cat belonging to Dan Cain (Bruce Abbott), the scene is incredibly tense. The scares throughout are bolstered by the score from Richard Band that not only clues you into the tense moments, but also makes those moments all the more effective. Gordon's greatest tool, however, is the sense of mystery and atmosphere he manages to create in the film. From the onset, you see this mad science occur and the result it has. Thus, this immediately puts you on edge and Gordon never let's go with consistently unsettling sequence after unsettling sequence. The score definitely helps this, but not nearly as much as the visual horror presented on-screen. Of course, the funny part comes in when the horror is juxtaposed by real science (the study of the brain) and watching Dr. Hill peal back a head is just as horrifying.

As a whole, Re-Animator is a scary and mildly comic that most certainly entertains from beginning to end. Its off-the-wall nature is probably its most divisive element for me, however. Though funny, it just gets too odd and too far gone, which is why I was not wowed by this on an initial viewing. Further tests on a fresher mind would ideally present better results because, as it stands, my mind is anything but fresh right now.

9/10 - Carol is undeniably a revelation. A subtle romantic film, Carol's power is exquisitely defined in the expression on Therese Belivet's (Rooney Mara) face upon seeing Carol Aird (Cate Blanchett) for the first time. The look of love at first sight, as if Carol were the answer to questions Therese had been subconsciously asking her whole life, the film's beauty and elegance is defined in that look. This film is the answer to the question: What is the most authentic romance film in years? Though I may not be gay or a woman, the romance here transcends any boundary between humanity. In this, director Todd Haynes crafts a truly universal romance film that is for the entire world to behold in awe.

The same look on Therese's face is shared by Carol at the very end. As Therese walks slowly over to her and Haynes expertly uses slow motion to emphasize the moment, the look of subtle peace and joy highlights what this film does so well. It is not a teenage romance in any way. It is not excessive. It is not over-the-top. It is not cinematic love. Rather, it has a raw authenticity that is truly impossible to ignore. Instead, it consumes you and absorbs the viewer into this lush world that makes you experience the same love and pain as the characters.

This authenticity is translated into the screenplay, which is a thoroughly poetic and moving experience. The characters of Therese and Carol are so well defined, it is as if they are real human beings and this is merely their tale. The real emotions of love, pain, joy, and hurt, demonstrated by these women is impactful to the very core. However, its real success comes in the dialogue. Therese constantly shooting down Richard (Jake Lacy) and his offers to go away to Europe with him, while immediately accepting an offer to go away with Carol. The encounter between Carol and Harge (Kyle Chandler), in which Carol explains how having her daughter only for a short amount of time and being true to herself is better for her daughter than having her all the time and "living against her own grain". Carol not only is a revelation for its power in terms of LGBT romance, but also in its communication of its character's feelings. Instead of explicitly telling you how they feel, it leaves it open for you to pick up on their intentions. Above all of other elements, this is what makes the film feel so authentic. They act and speak like real human beings who express their feelings, but not directly. These women leave bread crumbs for the viewer to figure out what really makes them tick. Not only does this indicate incredible trust given to the audience by Haynes, but it also highlights his trust in the writing and the actors to convey meaning.

Visually, the film is equally as stunning. Cinematographer Edward Lachman's camera is a magnet for beautiful shots. The heavy reliance upon reflections and mirrors is what truly caught my attention the most, especially when considering when they are utilized and the overall meaning of the film. Carol, above all, is a film about being true to one's self. Carol could have stayed with Harge and kept her daughter. Therese could have married Richard. Yet, neither felt truly satisfied in that life when without one another. Lachman captures this in his use of reflections. In one particular sequence, Therese goes with Carol to visit her home, with Richard bidding Therese goodbye before she leaves. As they drive, reflections abound. Symbolically, this most closely represents the double life being led by these women. A mirror merely reflects who you are, but is not you true self. It is other. This reflection is Therese's life with Richard. The camera then juxtaposes these shots with her in the car with Carol, highlighting how that is her true self. She is meant to be with Carol and it is her path to happiness.

Lachman and Haynes also use a notable color scheme for the entire film, with many shots being covered with an apparent green filter. These shots are accented by the heavy use of brown, red, and yellow. Interestingly, when Carol first visits with Therese, she is wearing red. However, after her daughter is taken from her and the two women see each other once more, it is Therese wearing red. As red often represents passion, one must assume that this is foreshadowing. Initially, Carol was the one pursuing this relationship. Therese knew she was infatuated with her, but was not confident enough to pursue her. Carol, meanwhile, had experience in the area and did pursue her. However, once her daughter leaves, she is more concerned with being reunited with her daughter, not being with Therese. The opposite is true for Therese, who has blossomed and is filled with passion and wonderous feelings for Carol.

Finally, the cherry on top of the film is the score. Carter Burwell's score hits all the right notes and truly highlights the setting and feelings of the film. This is a very cozy and warm film. The colors certainly highlight this as well, as does the setting. With the green and red clearly representing Christmas, the brown and yellow for me felt like a fire. The score and this color scheme bring about feelings of warmth, as one sits next to a fire on a cold day around Christmas. This feeling is universal and one that everyone knows, but is hard pressed to be able to put into words. Yet, Carol encapsulates this feeling and spreads it around for all to be embraced within.

Overall, Carol is a truly brilliant work from Todd Haynes that I must rewatch. With tremendous performances from Rooney Mara and Cate Blanchett, terrific direction from Haynes, lush visuals, and an equally moving score, this film checks every box.

7/10 - After being left stunned by my first Mario Bava film, Black Sunday, this one was a bit of a step back. Exploring themes of sadomasochism and female sexuality in the 19th century, The Whip and the Body is a gorgeously crafted horror flick that just never felt too horrifying. Rather, it was a sad and moody film that explored Nevenka's (Dalilah Lavi) eternal torment at the hand of Kurt (Christopher Lee). Try as she might, she is unable to escape his clutches or his whip. For this element, the film is wildly successful in creating nuanced characters with thematic importance. Yet, as a horror film, this one fails in comparison to the previous Bava film I have seen.

Black Sunday hypnotized me and was a truly horrifying experience from beginning to end. It had atmosphere. It filled me with dread, awaiting what was around the next corner. This one lacks the same dread, since you know it is Kurt and all he wants to do is whip Nevenka and get revenge. And he's all about done whipping Nevenka. Though I love the gothic feeling crafted by Bava, with the opening honestly feeling along the same lines as the design of a Scooby-Doo episode, what with the dark castle setting and obnoxious amount of armour statues. While the film does provide good depth to its themes, it lacks any sense of mystery. As the characters try to figure out what is going on, the audience is left out of the fun since we already know what is going on. The end result is slight annoyance that the film refuses to catch up to where the audience already is, in terms of understanding the plot.

Yet, the film is still absolutely beautiful. With terrific production design and a thoroughly blue color scheme to emphasize the emotional pain and torment of Nevenka, this is a pretty film. The design of the castle and the surrounding area that we see is pitch perfect. This goes hand-in-hand with the small details around the home that give it period detail and really picks you up and drops you in the 1800s. The costume design is also very good and captures that same period detail.

In terms of the acting, it is an Italian film from this era. Thus, there is dubbing and awful dubbing at that. After having seen a few Italian films from this time period with dubbing, it is something I have learned to cope with. That does not mean it is not still distracting. Otherwise, the acting is still quite bad, as it is incredibly over-the-top and melodramatic.

Overall, The Whip and the Body most certainly feels as if it was directed by Bava with many of the same traits I loved in Black Sunday. However, it just lacked the same atmosphere and fear of that prior film. While its themes are incredibly sound and, arguably, better than in Black Sunday, the overall lack of tension leaves the experience feeling incredible hollow and undercooked. As an aside, is it just me or does Bava have a thing for large breasted women with jet black hair who open their eyes incredibly wide quite often? Pretty specific "thing", but through two of his film, the lead looks like the exact same woman.

9/10 - This bombastic, enthusiastically crafted musical highlights just about everything one must love above old age Hollywood. With Jane Russell and Marilyn Monroe in the leading roles, Howard Hawks' Gentlemen Prefer Blondes is the perfect blend of sensuality during the code era, brilliantly choreographed musical set pieces, great music, and stellar comedy. Unlike many modern satires or comedies, Gentlemen Prefer Blondes understands balance and, as a result, it is a light, airy, and easily digestible piece of old Hollywood that has possessed the power to entertain audiences for years. Much like Russell and Monroe in the film, the film knows its beauty and it is not afraid to use this trait.

Telling the story of Lorelei Lee (Monroe) and Dorothy Shaw (Russell), two showgirls headed to France, Gentlemen Prefer Blondes most certainly benefits from the chemistry between its two leads. While Russell certainly does crack some subtle jokes along the way, she largely plays this one straight, as compared to Monroe's ditsy and silly blonde. Though stereotypical, the film certainly never outright mocks her and does show Lorelei to be quite intelligent. Rather, the film almost feels as though it is a critique on men who fall for women's looks and care very little for every other element. This point is driven home at the end by Lorelei as she explains that a woman is criticized for wanting a rich man and nothing else, while men are excused for wanting nothing but beauty.

The classic music, including "Diamonds Are a Girl's Best Friend", is obviously pure perfection. Filmed with energy and fun, Russell and Monroe's performances of the film's series of musical numbers land each and every time. Obviously, they are highly implausible as all musical numbers tend to be, but each scene benefits from this infusion of musical high note adrenaline. Russell and Monroe are clearly charismatic and use this charisma to full effect, with the end result being the audience's entertainment. The choreography for the music is also stellar. As with all musicals of this era, it is extravagant and flushed nearly white with light.

Comedically, as mentioned before, this one is on point. Subtle, smart, and witty, this one had me in stitches more than a few times. The comedic delivery from the entire cast was great, while also never distracting. With many modern Hollywood films, every makes jokes and nobody is there to refocus the jokers on the plot. It is a joke-off and the film suffers as a result. Here, the film never loses sight of the end goal and keeps things humming along, it just has a good time along the way, which is thoroughly entertaining.

Overall, Gentlemen Prefer Blondes is a classic for very good reason. Terrific music, great comedy, and typically brilliant direction from Hawks keep this one from showing its age.

3/10 - When one cannot speak, it is said that the "cat has their tongue". In Lucio Fulci's Cat in the Brain, a self-reflexive and self-referential horror film starring Fulci himself, a cat has his brain. Though the film literally shows a cat eating fake brain at one point, this "cat in the brain" is only figurative. Starring as himself, an Italian horror director, Fulci is plagued by visions of horrible murders that either happened in his films before or are occurring in the one he is currently working on. Yet, while the film is quite disturbing with its graphic violence, it is never scary.

As my first Fulci film, I was very disappointed. I expected a scary, though visceral slasher film. I got the latter, but not the former. Instead of crafting any sort of atmosphere, Fulci relies solely on graphic imagery to get the job done. His assumption is that if he shows enough carnage, the audience will get the point that this is a horror movie. In this area, the film is undeniably a failure. Even worse, the kills come quick, easy, and cheap like fast food. Much of this film is Fulci being haunted by his visions, yet it often feels like it is just Fulci walking around and two seconds later being horrified at a vision. The plot simply goes nowhere with no depth to any area of the film. Instead, it is an exercise in tedium and repetition (not only does the film cut drastically to hallucinations, but the same hallucinations occur repeatedly).

Honestly, Cat in the Brain had to be a very easy film to write and direct for Fulci. Partially based on himself and blended with films he has already completed, it is quite clear he put very little effort into making this one standout on its own in any fashion. Instead, he is fine relying on past footage to try and create fear, assuming it would translate to this film. Unfortunately it does not. Yet, in spite of this, this level of self-reflexivity is an incredibly compelling concept that, if properly executed, could be a good film. This is not that film, however.

Overall, Cat in the Brain may appeal more to diehard Fulci fans, but this was clearly a bad idea to watch as my first film from him. That said, I do not think it would be scarier if I saw his past work. At the end of the day, this is a slog to get through even at an hour and a half. Unscary and tedious, Cat in the Brain may be as weird as most Italian horror films, but it lacks the atmosphere and scares to bring it all together.

8/10 - Sergei Eisenstein would have loved this film. Heavily relying up Eisenstein's theory of montage - in particular intellectual montage - to tell its story, Nicolas Roeg's Walkabout is a film about a young boy (Luc Roeg) and a girl (Jenny Agutter) who get lost in the outback only to find an aboriginal boy (David Gulpilil) doing a "walkabout". However, beneath the surface, there is far more at work. Roger Ebert considered the film to be about the mystery of communication, while dismissing the "parable about noble savages and the crushed spirits of city dwellers" as being just a surface reading of the film. While he may be right that it is on the surface, he did miss what I feel to be what the film is truly about.

At no point does the aboriginal get painted as "noble". He helps the young boy and the girl throughout the film, but that is not inherently noble. Even at that, the mating ritual he performs for the young girl, presuming she would just have sex with him, is a bit much. On the part of the "city dwellers", their spirits are a bit crushed, but that is hardly the most compelling part about their characters. Rather, for me, Walkabout is a comparison between the life of the "elites" and the "savages". Seemingly two vastly different groups, many consider this to merely be Roeg relying upon juxtaposition. Contrarily, it is him utilizing intellectual montage to emphasize the similarity between "us" and "them". Though the aboriginals may appear to be different, the similarities are impossible to ignore. For example, Roeg expertly uses a shot of the aboriginal boy killing a kangaroo and gutting it to drive this point home. Cross cutting between this scene and a scientist doing the exact same thing, the film essentially argues, "What is the difference here"? The only difference here is that the aboriginal boy respects and loves the animal. The scientist merely discards the animal.

This point is driven home again as we are shown to be the true savages, if there are any. As two hunters kill water buffaloes and leave them there to die without even touching them again, the aboriginal boy is shocked to his very core. This scene seems to have a huge impact upon the boy. Though many write off aboriginals as "savages" - and there are some that could meet whatever criteria you want for the word "savage" - people living in "society" are equally as "savage". Except, it is socially acceptable to kill animals in the fashion that we do with no respect for them or their habitat. When we are shown images of an aboriginal killing and gutting an animal, we feel disgusted. Yet, we do the same thing just not nearly as viscerally and are never subjected to seeing our food treated this way.

The beauty of the hunts conducted by the aboriginal boy are further driven home by intellectual montage. Cutting between the aboriginal hunting various animals and the girl swimming nude in a body of water, Roeg aims to drive home the similarities between the two. People can appreciate the beauty of the human form quite easily, but the method and strategy of the hunt is equally as beautiful. Though violent, there is a certain artistry required to get it done swiftly and easily. Through this sequence, the film highlights that though society is repulsed by the hunt, it is ludicrous because it is as beautiful as the human form.

For the girl and the young boy, they are incredibly uptight initially. The girl constantly pushes the boy to wear his shirt and not get his blazer dirty. It is almost as if she is tone deaf to the fact that she is lost in the wilderness. Yet, by the end, she looks fondly back on her time lost with her younger brother and the aboriginal boy. Essentially, she learns to let loose and not be so focused on appearances. Rather, she learned how to become a "savage" by the very end and not repress herself against experiencing new things.

A beautifully shot and scripted film from Nicolas Roeg, the film truly soaks up the beauty of the Australian outback and captures the isolation of the ordeal. In the process, it paints a beautiful picture of how, though we have different approaches to life, there is very little difference between those who live off of the land and those who merely live on the land. At the end of the day, we are human and the same on the inside (read: skeletons).

Spangle · 11-07-2016, 11:41 PM

7/10 - Paranormal Activity is an incredibly divisive horror film, largely because of its slow pacing and found footage feature. These combined will lead many audiences to hate a film. Yet, Paranormal Activity makes terrific use of its found footage element, though it suffers from stupid character syndrome. While incredibly scary and those scary parts cannot be downplayed in the least, Micah being the stupidest man alive really did hamper my enjoyment of the film from the get go.

While relying heavily on jump scares to elicit fears, these jump scares actually effective. Jump scares tend to be predictable, but that predictability comes from being able to see the entity in question. Paranormal Activity leaves you in the dark on this front, never showing the demon that has haunted Katie since she was eight years old. For this, director Oren Peli demonstrates knowledge of the fact that the thing that goes bump in the night is a lot less scary when you know what it actually is. Though we know it is a demon, the shroud of mystery it is blanketed in keeps it from ever being anything less than scary.

Though its scares can be seen coming at times, the actions take by the demon remain unpredictable and keep the viewer on edge throughout. Plus, some details thrown in such as past experiences and the photo really add additional layers of terror to this found footage franchise's first entry. In this way, the film keeps you guessing and though you know something weird is about to go down, you never quite know what is about to happen. Thus, when it does, Peli's debut film still manages to freak the hell out of you.

However, the film is handicapped by Micah being stupid. Though Dr. Fredericks says to not communicate with the demon or antagonize it, he decides to do both. As the film shows, this was a truly bad strategic move. Fortunately, the demon gets his revenge and puts the audience out of its misery when dealing with Micah. Had the film not been so enjoyable or truly bone chilling, Micah's stupidity would have undermined the film even further.

As it stands, Paranormal Activity is a truly scary found footage horror film that does take a bit to get to the good parts, but once it does, oh boy do they ever work.

6/10 - Alden Ehrenreich. Jeremy Irons. Viola Davis. Emma Thompson. Thomas Mann. Emmy Rossum. Zoey Deutch. Alice Englert. A talented cast of actors appear in this mixed bag of great, good, bad, and awful that is Beautiful Creatures. Greenlit in the aftermath of the Twilight earthquake and directed by Richard LaGravanese, Beautiful Creatures has some elements that really win you over and make the viewer forget any possible connection to Twilight. Other moments remind you that this is a young adult film crafted to appeal to teenage girls who loved Twilight, while only intermittently providing enjoyment for the sacrificial lamb of a boyfriend. Yet, for film fans, Beautiful Creatures is not wholly unredeemable and, actually, by the end I had quite a good time with this one.

First, the negatives. Beautiful Creatures often resembles Gilligan's Island, in terms of its script with this cast of actors. Much like the actors in Gilligan's Island, the cast of Beautiful Creatures is left stranded on an island with nothing but some magic powers to try and claw their way back to shore. Somehow, they occasionally do, but this does not stop the writers from having Emma Thompson gleefully exclaim, "Well slap my ass and call me Sally!" This line is actually said in the film by Emma Thompson's character, Sarafine Duchannes. That said, much of the bad writing comes courtesy of the film's attempts to appeal to its target demographic. Telling the story of a high school boy, Ethan Wate (Ehrenreich) who falls in love with Lena (Alice Englert), Beautiful Creatures is essentially the reversal of Twilight. Here, Lena is a "caster", which is essentially a witch, but not called a witch. As a 15-year old, she is nearing the time when she will be claimed on her 16th birthday. Her mother, Sarafine, is a dark caster. She uses her powers for evil. Ridley (Rossum), her cousin, was also claimed for the dark side and is now a siren (some inspirational casting right there). Women are doomed to be claimed based on their own internal inclinations. Men, however, can switch. This is the case for Lena's uncle, Macon (Irons). Though a dark caster, he turns to the light side for Lena's sake to try and keep her light. This is all important because whether she goes dark or light will determine the fate of the universe. The more I write this, the more it feels like Star Wars dropped into the modern day with some Civil War flashbacks (women in the Duchannes bloodline are cursed to be dark because of some Duchannes woman in the Civil War who brought her mortal significant other back to life). As you can tell, this one gets a bit outlandish at times. Yet, it remains always watchable even when the film refuses to own its silliness.

As one review I read stated, the film needs a bit of "Tim Burton's charm". This is certainly fair and while, given his present output, he probably would have dropped the ball, Beautiful Creatures as directed by Tim Burton would be a way better film. This outlandish plot leads to a lot of playing it straight. Yet, unintentional humor is afoot in this film and is indiscernible from actual jokes. The actual jokes do work quite often here, but the amount of unintentional humor really does hold this one back from transcending expectations even further. This is where Burton would have come in, as the film would have felt light and silly in spite of the serious consequences of the plot.

Romantically, the chemistry between Ehrenreich and Englert is actually very good. They can charm you socks off with the idealistic look at love and romance, which really captures the element that can make teenage romance films so watchable at times. It does not hurt they are solid actors, though the dialogue does do some damage to their acting skills in this one. Thematically, the film is incredibly tight. With romance films, the film's approach to love is what always captivates me the most. Here, Beautiful Creatures effectively shows the duality of love. Rather than spelling it out for you, the film uses visuals and character actions to showcase how love can single-handedly lead you out of the darkness, but love and the pain it can cause can throw you into the fire. The climactic sequence, even if it has some clunky dialogue, really does nail this theme very well and, more than anything else, this portion made me the most satisfied. In terms of religion, the film takes an interesting approach. The first hour seems very anti-Christian, but the second half clears this up entirely through Viola Davis' character, Amma. A keeper, or protector, of casters, Amma is a Christian. Through her the film showcases that, while casters may be written off as abominations of Satan by the overly Christian community, it only makes sense that if God created everything, he created them as well. This feels shockingly close to my argument for evolution and rectifying it with religion. For this, Beautiful Creatures is even better in my eyes. With regards to its themes such as sacrifice, the film does suck quite a bit. I like the message, but given that it literally has a Priest explain it to the audience, it felt as if LaGravanese doubted the audience could understand this element of the film.

With its special effects, Beautiful Creatures does some really cool things from eyes changing colors to full on transformations or simply cool witch tricks, Beautiful Creatures really proves to be a stunning visual film that, even if the themes do not work for you, the visuals will most certainly deliver. The film showcases many different effects throughout and each one is incredibly well executed and looks, above all, believable.

Overall, Beautiful Creatures is a mixed bag. With a great approach to depicting the nature of love and the risk inherit within it, as well as great special effects, the film ever-so-slightly overcomes the script issues and the reliance on young adult cliches.

6/10 - A step back from the original, Scream 2 is a solid sequel that maintains the same level of thrills and mystery of the original, but much of the experience feels entirely hollow. With Sidney (Neve Campbell) now at college, a copycat killer has decided to follow her and finish what the original ghostface had started. An expertly crafted analysis of horrible horror sequels, the influence of film in real world violence, and horror movies as a whole, Scream 2 is a good satire, even if it is not nearly as scary or funny as the original.

Back for their second rodeo, Sidney is joined by familiar faces Randy (Jamie Kennedy), Gale Weathers (Courteney Cox), and Dewey (David Arquette). The band is back together, yet they do not seem to have much of the same energy or power as in the original. For example, the smaller role played here by Randy is unfortunate, as he was the source of a lot of the fun of the original. While everyone was scared speechless, Randy kept things going with horror movie references or playing whodunnit with the cops. There is a little bit of that here, but after a while, the film opts to ditch the whole mystery solving element that made the original work so well and instead just focus on scaring you.

On the scariness front, there are some solid moments. Director Wes Craven knows horror and he is not afraid to display this skill-set in Scream 2. A sequence in which Gale tries to escape Ghostface with Dewey is incredibly tense and terrifically shot. From beginning to end, this scene is laced with tension and really highlights just how scary the Scream franchise can be in its own right. However, as we reach the climax, though it is surprising who the killers are, they just feel like reaches. The twists just feel tacked on to try and make references to the original and, as a result, feel entirely like fan service. Ironically, a killer promises they are not like every other 90s killer only to then take 15 hours to finally try and kill their intended victim. Though Scream 2 is willing to call out conventions, I guess they decided to forget that one was a convention as well.

Additionally, the red herrings here are quite obvious and never quite work. Much of the cast is thrown under suspicion, but whenever somebody asks, "What if you're the killer?", you can feel the air escape from the movie a bit when you realize that there is no way they could be the killer. Instead of building mystery and suspense, the film immediately tries to assist the audience in jumping to conclusions about who the killers are and then tries to play on those red herrings at the end. Yet, the audience, hopefully, has realized they are not be believed which makes some of the end reveals completely unsurprising.

This said, Scream 2 most certainly entertains and though a step back from the original, a lot of the playful spirit of the film is there as Craven toys with and mocks horror cliches. The end results are some pretty comical moments that really land. This ferocious blend of horror and comedy does prove incredibly entertaining and this is what makes Scream 2 so incredibly watchable. Even when the mystery elements flounder and fail to deliver the same suspense as before, the film does have some surprises along the way that do land quite well.

Scream 2 is an entertaining film, but just feels like a hollow exercise of re-doing what made the original good. It retains the majority of the terror and the comedy, but the mystery of the original is gone as is the manic fun that made it such a good satire of the genre. Here, things are a bit gloomier and, as a result, not nearly as good.

3/10 - Ending on a major high note with a speech from Morgan Freeman about justice and decency. A take down of society, victimization culture, abuse of the power of God, and abuse of the power of position, the speech is elegantly written and truly powerful. In another film, it would be merely the cherry on top of what should have been a truly delightful pie. Yet, in The Bonfire of the Vanities, it is wasted. Yes, people in this misguided comedy-drama from Brian De Palma are indeed vain and greedy, but nobody is decent. Everybody is out for themselves and the final speech from Freeman's judge essentially positions both Sherman McCoy (Tom Hanks) and Peter Fallow (Bruce Willis) as being decent people. With the evidence we have, they are certainly anything but, even if they are innocent.

Telling the story of Sherman McCoy, an adulterous Wall Street hot shot, The Bonfire of the Vanities largely concerns the duration of a very public court case. The case, which accuses McCoy of running over and leaving a young black man to die in the Bronx, comes from a place of great hurt. For the community, they are looking for justice. However, as Sherman was not driving the car, rather his mistress Maria (Melanie Griffith) was driving, justice is on a downward spiral towards being miscarried. Told through narration from Peter Fallow, a journalist and author, the film attempts to paint Sherman as a truly sympathetic character. These attempts fail from beginning to end as the audience remembers that, at the end of the day, he is a liar, cheater, and a wholly indecent human being. Sure, the Reverend and the District Attorney are as well, so Sherman should not go to jail, but that hardly makes him decent.

What makes Sherman all the more indecent is how he is freed. Though the truth comes out, he must lie to do so. Naturally, to nobody's surprise, he does lie. With Freeman's powerful speech coming after, it is almost as if De Palma is trying to argue that Sherman, despite all his faults, is still decent because he told the truth (as far as who was actually driving is considered) and that is all that matters. As there is more to a person than one simple achievement, the audience is left entirely unconvinced and instead practically repulsed at Freeman's speech. All of the elegant writing and all of the astute criticisms of society are lost. Instead, the ending leaves us feeling as if the film is a champion of the powerful who may cheat through life, but as long as they tell the truth in court, they are good to go. No problems with them whatsoever.

For the Peter Fallow character, ignoring that he is a drunk, Willis just does not work. How anyone could buy Bruce Willis as a journalist is beyond me. There are very few roles where Bruce Willis fits and about 95% of them concern him holding a gun. The other 5% is him being a child psychologist, which oddly works well. As a writer, Willis does not fit the bill. That is not to say, however, anybody fits the bill here. Freeman does a good job as the judge, but it felt like the entire film was actually a silent film the 1920s where overacting was the norm. It was if De Palma realized that the film was not nearly as funny as it should have been for a dramedy, so he decided to have everyone overact and talk weird to try and make it funny. This effect does not land and instead is wildly distracting.

All of this said, De Palma's camera work is inspired at moments, though he feels largely restrained here. Compared to his better works such as Dressed to Kill or Snake Eyes, De Palma just feels entirely neutered and given the problems this film went through to get made, I am not surprised. However, his love for tracking shots is clear, especially in the opening sequence. Though entirely superfluous and a dumb inclusion (really, the whole Fallow character is useless, except for the one thing he does that actually helps the plot, but anyone could have done this), this tracking shot is stellar. Starting off with an absurdly well done tracking shot is always a good move and it is very much the case here. While it may not be needed and compared to one of the more recent films that I have seen from De Palma (Snake Eyes) that uses this same feature, it adds no character development. That said, it is nice to look at and so I like that it is there. Additionally, he uses split screen at least once and it is well done, but again, comes in a scene that does very little for the film.

A film that seems to want to try to take down every part of society - the money hungry, the rich, the vain, the greedy, the power hungry, the blacks, the Jews, the whites, the etc. - The Bonfire of the Vanities takes down none of these. In spite of a good speech from Freeman, the film undermines its meaning by trying to get the audience to become attached to its yuppie and repugnant protagonist, McCoy, or its alcoholic loser, Fallow. For this, The Bonfire of the Vanities is a clear miss. I can only hope the novel is not this bad.

2/10 - In rating this film so lowly, I must endeavor to explain that everybody needs to watch Congo at least once in their life. How bad can a film about a team going to the jungle to discover a hidden city, diamonds, and return a gorilla to its home, actually be you ask? Well, in this film, a talking gorilla is far from the weirdest thing that exists. As Amy the talking gorilla (she uses sign language, which translates into words from a voice box...) is having nightmares and draws the forest, her trainers Peter (Dylan Walsh) and Richard (Grant Heslov) resolve to return her to her home in the Congo jungle. During a presentation to attempt to get research funding, a Romanian investor named Herkermer Homolka (Tim Curry) notices an eye in a painting by Amy that is the exact same as one in a ring he had that depicts the eye of Zinge, a lost city of King Solomon said to be overflowing with diamonds. As such, Homolka forks over the cash and off the go. But not so fast! A team from some communications company is already in the Congo jungle and is attacked and killed by killer apes! Karen Ross' (Laura Linney) greedy boss, set on finding diamonds to make some kind of weapon that can pierce the moon (...) dispatches her to find the missing research team and the diamonds.

From here, the film really becomes all the more insane. Up to the point described, it is merely a jungle adventure film blended with some kind of statement about capitalism at all costs. Many a good film has had a worse start. What makes Congo bad really comes later, once they leave for the Congo. Here, Amy the gorilla drinks a martini, the team fights a band of killer apes who were trained by the original diamond miners to be guard dogs only to turn on their masters, and of course the team finds the diamonds. Having killed the killer apes, the team is set to turn back, but not before Karen Ross shoots a satellite with the gun to stick it to her boss. She shot a satellite. Somehow, Congo descends from a solid adventure romp to a ludicrous science fiction film that could have only been concocted after a night of heavy drinking and even more gratuitous smoking. Yet, her shooting a satellite down without first locating it is not the most impressive marksmanship in the film. Together with Munro (Ernie Hudson), their guide, the two of them shoot down heatseeking missiles with flare guns. This is one of those movies.

Somehow, the bad in the film can only continue as Ernie Hudson and Tim Curry sport the weirdest accents in the history of film. I have no idea what they were supposed to be, but if they were supposed to be Congolese and Romanian, respectively, they missed the mark. The special effects of the gorillas are bad at the very best. And by bad, I mean that the apes in 2001: A Space Odyssey, a film that came out nearly 30 years prior, were far more realistic looking. These look like the apes one finds in a grainy shot of Bigfoot that even six-year olds can spot as being just a man in a gorilla costume. The gorilla from that really weird episode of Spongebob looks far more representative of the species than the ones found in Congo. For a primatologist, Dr. Peter Elliott has no idea he has been working with a man in a gorilla suit this entire time.

Additionally, the film is brought down further with classic 1990s cheese, from bad jokes to just generally bad dialogue. The 1990s are often plagued with attempts to recapture the glorious one-liners of the 1980s and Congo most certainly tries. Not necessarily with one-liners, but with an attempt at a witty script. Instead, it comes off as incredibly awkward and weird rather than any type of humor recognized by humans.

Following an interesting beginning and a seemingly harmless plot, Congo smokes a few too many joints on the way to the finish line and becomes an absurd and off-the-wall disaster that must be seen to truly be believed. If the thought of Laura Linney shooting down a satellite or shooting flairs at heatseeker missiles sounds like a good idea to you, it may be time to sober up.

7/10 - Far too low-key to be anything incredible, Complete Unknown appears to have been quite divisive amongst critics, while entirely despised by audiences (27%! on Rotten Tomatoes from the audience right now). For me, I am apparently one of the few who actually found Complete Unknown to be entirely riveting. Far from a conventional mystery, Complete Unknown tells the story of a woman, Alice (Rachel Weisz), and her reunion with her old boyfriend Tom (Michael Shannon). Having gone 15 years without contact after Alice (then Jenny) dropped off the face of the Earth, Complete Unknown is a film whose mystery is not a crime. Rather, its mystery is who is Alice? What is her past?

A woman who cycles through identities whenever bored, Alice could be written off as merely yet another unlikable protagonist. Yet, it is in fact a story of transformation. For Alice, a woman who is deeply unhappy in her own skin, changing her identity and location grants her a new lease on life. Yes, she burns bridges and many write her off as a pathological liar, but at the center of her is a woman looking to find herself and where she truly belongs. Having tried a buffet of personalities and careers, the film manages to actually be quite harrowing as a character study into this troubled woman. Initially, we - much like the supporting cast - despise her and are confused about why she is lying left and right. It is only later that we realize this is not merely some mystery thriller about a mysterious woman. Rather, it is a tragedy. It is a tragedy about somebody searching for themselves and failing to come up with a suitable answer.

it is for this very reason that the ending is what it is and also why many reject this film. Audiences demand clarity and satisfaction from an ending. Complete Unknown leaves more questions than answers. Though the ending sequence is brilliant with a terrific use of focus racking from director Joshua Marston to visually show us Alice transforming and starting anew, it is far from gratifying as a viewer. This may not bother me personally, but many will find fault with this type of conclusion. Yet, what more can be asked of a woman who frequently drops her life and leaves without a trace? Much like the other characters, they are left with no answers and clueless as to who and where she will be next.

Though an incredibly short film, Complete Unknown develops Alice's character incredibly well, while also doing a good job developing the character of Tom. A disenchanted man who feels himself failing at a job that provides no rewards, his wife - Ramina (Azita Ghanizada) - is set to head to jewelry school across the country. Yet, he is uncertain whether he wants to stay at his dead end job or follow his apparently dead end marriage to California. Similarly to Alice's story, the audience is left not knowing what will happen to Tom. However, this really adds to the mystery and the discussion. For both of our characters, their lives are wholly unsatisfactory. Though in different ways, both are still trying to find themselves and identify what they are meant to be doing in life. This is not something that can be concluded in a film, nor are there any answers that our characters have as of yet. It is here that Complete Unknown is elevated from unremarkable indie film to a thoroughly compelling film that deserves to have an audience.

Featuring good lead performances from Rachel Weisz and Michael Shannon as always, Complete Unknown is an unpredictable and unsatisfactory experience. Those searching for clarity will find none and left hating the film. Those willing to go along with the film and embrace the mystery of life will find that what the film lacks in answers, it more than makes up for it an expertly crafted character study about two tragic figures on the path to nowhere.

[Image: MV5BZmM1MzFiOTAtNGQ5MS00ZTgzLTg4YmEtZDhl...68_AL_.jpg]

[Image: MV5BZmM1MzFiOTAtNGQ5MS00ZTgzLTg4YmEtZDhl...68_AL_.jpg]

4/10 - This lovingly crafted film that attempts to be a poetic take on the ghost story, I Am the Pretty Thing That Lives in the House is simply not that scary. Much of the film's big scares seem promising and director Oz Perkins' commitment to not cheapening his product with jump scares or easy cliches is admirable, yet the film just about amounts to nothing. Admittedly, this makes sense given the nature of the story of it being a "ghost story within a ghost story". I am fine with it amounting to nothing, but in terms of being a horror film, the film simply never delivers the goods.

Starring Ruth Wilson as Lily, a hospice nurse assigned to watch over Iris Blum (Paula Prentiss), the film depicts Lily's encounters with a ghost, Polly Parsons (Lucy Boynton) that iives in Ms. Blum's home. As she comes to learn, Ms. Blum is aware of the ghost and even wrote about her in her many horror novels. The film, while also being an exploration of Lily's learning about the history of the home, is also the conclusion to a story told in the film about Polly and how she became a ghost. The film seeks to dive deeper into the ghost story, rather than relying upon a fear of the unknown. Instead, it seeks to delve into the ghost and showcase that the real horror is those things are tangible and real, not the fake. Unfortunately, the film is wrong. At least in this case.

Never justifying its already short length, I Am the Pretty Thing That Lives in the House is an exercise in atmospheric tension. It is in this arena that Perkins does battle and he dominates the competition here. Utilizing a truly haunting score, great visuals, and an everlasting sense of dread that captures every ounce of weight in this home, Perkins knows atmosphere. He delivers this atmosphere and stretches it out over 90 minutes of slow burn horror. Typically, this sounds appealing to me and I do love a good slow burn horror movie with great atmosphere. Yet, this particular film just drags. It hits the halfway point and then just decides to repeat scares, visuals, and creepy voiceovers. In the way it is constructed, the film honestly feels as though it is only 40 minutes in length, with the final half dedicated to telling the same story, but in reverse order and slightly altered to display the difference between then and now.

Written poetically, the writing aspires to be something the film is ultimately not. Hinting at being a deeper explanation of the emotional torment a soul experiences that could cause them to stay in a home, the film instead opts to not explore this. Instead, it is largely just 80 minutes of scary music, tension, and Lily trying to get a television to work. Though the initial and closing voiceovers certainly try to hint at discovering the secrets buried within the walls of a home, I Am the Pretty Thing That Lives in the Home never justifies that pretty thing still living in the home beyond vague mold and a death. If dying a violent death in a home is enough for the soul to remain confined within its walls, then I feel like I knew this already based on other horror films. Essentially, though it sounds as though it is trying to take a poetic and exploratory approach to the haunted house film, Oz Perkins' work merely treads the same ground as past works.

As a whole, there is a lot to like about I Am the Pretty Thing That Lives in the House. Filled with tension and a good scare, as well as capable acting performances, the film will certainly work for many. Though I love a good slow burn horror film, this one does not quite fit the bill and lacks any sort of pay-off, both as an exploration of the genre and as a horror film.

Spangle · 11-07-2016, 11:45 PM

[Image: 220px-TwitchOfTheDeathNerve.jpg]

8/10 - Highly influential upon its release on decades of slasher movies and their bad sequels, Mario Bava's A Bay of Blood is still as shocking as the day it came out. During its initial screenings, audience members and even actor Christopher Lee were left revolted by the material. Yet, it is in this shock that Bava creates his most visceral, yet truly scary film. Even better, unlike bad slasher movies, A Bay of Blood is not reliant upon its bloodshed. It certainly causes significant shock and leaves the audience reeling, but it is not the only tool of the trade. Rather, Bava injects the film with a sense of dread and atmosphere that makes the kills feel more closely aligned with a release, rather than the pay-off. Of all the strengths in A Bay of Blood, that has to be the most important and it is why this film has lived on.

However, what is even more compelling is the story the film tells. Quite convoluted at times, Bava does cast it aside in favor of pure horror throughout, but its thematic implications are riveting and add another layer to this classic. Depicting the corruption of youth, as well as how sins such as greed and lust can lead one to corrupt themselves, A Bay of Blood is an incredibly spiritual film. Though it is devoid of references to God or anything of that like, the establishing shot of a cross (okay, not exactly a cross, but it is in the shape of a cross) sets the tone for the rest of the film. In fact, one character even mentions how a man with a "sickle" is coming, in many ways alluding to the angel of death and the righteous hand of God. Given the actions of every single character, it is not hard to imagine this being a situation akin to Gomorrah, except set by a bay. From teenagers escaping for a weekend to sex and debauchery to various plots to kill for the ownership of the bay, as well as using lust to purposely deceive, the characters in Bava's A Bay of Blood are certainly not without sin.

Yet, it is in this element that Bava certainly could lay claim to creating many of the cliches that would be expanded upon it later suburban slashers such as Halloween, A Nightmare on Elm Street, Friday the 13th, and Scream. If you have sex, you may as well consider yourself done for. However, these films do hedge their bets. Everybody does not die in those films. Rather, somebody manages to escape and may even commit one of the mortal sins of horror: sex or the desire for sex. For Bava, this most certainly rings true as all who appear nude, want sex, or have sex, wind up dead in this film. He certainly does dial it up a notch by not really even having a protagonist. Instead, we follow various characters who all wind up meeting their fate by the bay. One could argue that this is in opposition to later slashers. Whereas those films hold up their protagonist as innocent and pure, Bava's film shows that there is nobody without sin and, before long, innocence will be destroyed by the evil that surrounds.

In terms of horror, A Bay of Blood delivers. It is scary, haunting, and shocking. From beginning to end, the film takes its time to get to the promised kills by taking the time to build an atmosphere that leaves you on edge all the way to the end. The kills are not cheap, nor are the scares. Instead, they are well earned and while the audience can feel them coming, the inventive and shocking methods that Bava uses to eliminate his characters always has an impact. Yet, the one element that could have used additional work is on the characters. There are so many and the film is so short, it is hard to keep them all straight. I have no idea what their names were and what did not help is that a few of the guys look exactly the same. This can be confusing and if the other elements were not so strong, it would have seriously hampered the overall impact the film hand on me.

Overall, A Bay of Blood is a tense and atmospheric slasher film that demonstrates why Mario Bava is considered a master of the horror genre. Though vastly different from his gothic works, A Bay of Blood retains the same craft and ability to make the audience feel truly unsettled by what we are witnessing.

8/10 - The Fly by Kurt Neumann is vastly different than The Fly by David Cronenberg. Though both tell the same story of a scientist who discovers the ability to teleport both objects, animals, and people, but falls victim to his own invention, they are handled in wildly different manners. Yet, both are quality films, even though I would say that I prefer the original.

Taking a more comical approach to the audacity occurring on the screen, Neumann's film is classic 1950s science fiction paranoia horror. Paranoid about inventions and newly coming age, the film is dripping with an uncertainty for the future. Its horror comes not in the transformation (though that is a large part of it), but mostly in the fear of what humans are truly capable of creating. For Cronenberg, his version relies heavily on paranoia as well, but in regards to the body. As always, his films rely upon body horror and showing us the transformation of our scientist from man to fly is the horror of that film. In Neumann's version, the transformation is drastic and relies upon shock. Cronenberg's remake has a long, drawn out transformations where the scientist slowly becomes the fly, rather than immediately.

For the 1958 version, the film does take on a comical approach, especially when we see Andre Delambre (David Hedison) as the fly. With one hand a fly hand(?) constantly showing it has a mind of its own, the results are both hysterical and horrifying. Yet, though it is more aimed at being somewhat cheesy, the film's oddly horrific climax that is simultaneously sickly funny and petrifying, really underscores the fact that this is a horror movie at its very core. Compared to other 1950s science fiction films I have seen, The Fly is far less focused on making you laugh at its absurdity than making you fear its absurdity. Though it is about a scientist, the focus on the family unit that surrounds him makes the pain and suffering feel far more intimate and near than other films of the era.

The special effects of the film are actually not that bad and never really show their age. Yes, Andre is just wearing a mask, but the effects surrounding his experiment are no better or worse than Cronenberg's remake less than 30 years later. This is certainly due to the film relying upon more low-key, flashing lights-focused effects that will never truly age. Rather than huge explosions or engulfing diners (The Blob), the film's effects are limited to a small box that flashes.

Overall, The Fly is a terrifically entertaining science fiction horror film that is equal parts scary and absurd, often times simultaneously. This is where the success of Kurt Neumann's film comes in as it still retains the appropriate paranoia and fear, just emanating from a different source than in the remake.

8/10 - SPOILERS

Criticized as derivative, Equals' general premise and location certainly fit that bill. Depicting a world in which there are no emotions, Equals focuses on two people who begin suffering from "switched on syndrome", which causes them to begin having emotions. These two - Silas (Nicholas Hoult) and Nia (Kristen Stewart) - fall in love and must try to subvert "the collective" and escape detection to contain their romance. Impeccably shot and acted, the beauty of Equals comes at the very end and is what cements it as a good film. Though initially derivative in premise, the film does not focus in on the science fiction. Rather, it is a stripped back look at forbidden love and romance and the end result is an incredibly powerful and tender, even if a touch cold, romance film.

While its story can often resemble Romeo + Juliet meets 1984, Equals rises above this simple presence to look at love rising above all challenges. However, prior to this, the film establishes a tender and moving romance with impeccable dialogue. Often told through montage by director Drake Doremus, the scenes of Silas and Nia falling in love are terrifically written. As the film visually shows various aspects of the relationship, the dialogue overlaying the visuals highlight the discovery and interest one feels when falling in love. Simple questions such as, "Have you always had these freckles?" or "What did you look like as a kid?" make this relationship really land and feel thoroughly authentic. It is in here that Equals finds much of its power and what makes its forbidden element all the more foreboding. These are two people that feel something and the world is out to make them stop feeling. Yet, what they feel is no naked and real,

However, the stellar dialogue in the beginning of their relationship is no match for the ending sequence and final shot. Having resolved to run away, it is discovered by "the collective" that Nia is pregnant. Fortunately, she and Silas had made friends in health and safety who helped get her out. However, to do so, they made it seem as though she had killed herself. What follows is a Romeo and Juliet-type situation where Silas, convinced Nia has killed herself, chooses to get the injection to cure his "disease". Yet, upon discovering that Nia is alive, the film really hits its high note when Silas begs Nia not to give up on him. He still loves her and, in spite of the injections, will try to fight back and show it, while still following through on running away. This leads up to the final shot of the film in which Silas slowly puts his hand on Nia's. A largely open-ended ending, as we do not know what will happen to them once they reach the "peninsula" - a place allegedly inhabited by primitives - but still it reveals enough about the true point of the film: the romance. No matter the future challenges, this couple is dedicated to one another and will attempt to overcome these challenges. At the very center, is a mutual love for one another, even if both are not capable of demonstrating it, which is a truly beautiful conclusion to the film.

Coated in blues and drab whites throughout the film, Doremus graces the film with occasional bursts of orange saved for moments when our two protagonists look longingly at one another. The implication is clear, yet visually, the impact is tremendous. The color scheme is honestly beautiful to look at and highlights the depression, isolation, and loneliness experienced before emotions in the film, as compared to the constant pulse of emotion once Nia and Silas have found one another. As for the acting, Hoult and Stewart are astounding. Not only is their chemistry electric, but their passion and clear love when talking to one another is all the more powerful due to their commitment and delivery.

A film that rides of aesthetic, Equals is a derivative science fiction film, but it is not a science fiction film. Rather, it is a romance set in a dystopian world and its romance is anything but cliche. Instead, it is raw, powerful, and impassioned, which lifts the film above any of its major faults such as the pacing.

7/10 - Frankenstein is a hard film to review because it really lacks the horror that likely left the original audiences trembling. Much of the film is iconic at this point and, as a result, the best part of watching this film on Amazon is the X-ray feature. The little tidbits along the way really improve the viewing experience of a film such as this, because the film is so aged. Yet, in many ways, the film has aged quite well. In particular, the make-up is shockingly not bad and looks as creepy as always. Plus, though the impact of the horror is gone (seeing the monster drown a girl is nothing nowadays, if this were modern, he'd drown her and then slit her throat for good measure), the film knows horror. It may no longer be scary, but you can tell director James Whale knew what would work on the audience and heavily utilized these elements to petrify the viewers.

Yet, in watching the film, it is almost more akin to tragedy than anything else. The Monster is just dumb and recently dead. His panic as the townsfolk burn the windmill is hard to watch and really the portion of the film that had the biggest impact upon me. This is bolstered by Boris Karloff who, though he says nothing, does a great job communicating the pain and terror the Monster feels throughout the film.

Frankenstein is no longer scary. Yet, the original audience had to be petrified. I like to imagine they showed this and the video of the train approaching the camera as a double feature back in 1931. That audience would have had no idea what hit them.

6/10 - Highly influential on films such as Alien and Halloween, which are undeniably classics, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre was not quite what I was hoping for. Though the final chase really terrifies, the proceeding hour and 20 minutes made me laugh more than anything. Admittedly though, this element was not helped by remembering an episode of Spongebob in which Patrick tries to get an injured Squidward to get jellyfishing with him and keeps instructing him to "firmly grasp" the net, though Squidward cannot. Seeing the scene here where this messed up family tries to get their grandpa to do the same thing left me in stitches. As for the film itself, it is highly flawed, but its thematic discussion and overarching message is its greatest achievement.

A vegan film if there ever was one, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre is a film about five kids who unknowingly wind up in slaughterhouse. It may not literally be a slaughterhouse, but figuratively, it fits. Inside the home of this weird family are bones, slaughterhouse tools, and slaughterhouse killing methodologies. The symbolism is furthered when the kids first begin dying by simply walking into this home like lemmings right after the other. Unbeknownst to them, they are walking to their violent death by chainsaw, head bashing, freezing, or being strung up on meat hooks. The violence is hardly ever shocking, but the situation is intended to be. Given the earlier discussion about cows and slaughterhouses, it is clear that Hooper intended the film to be a wake-up call for meat eaters as to the conditions the cows experience as they die. If it shocks you when you watch humans die this way, the same should apply to animals. This thematic element is incredibly powerful and, though it will not curb my actions, it is a unique approach to an issue that many are passionate about.

Though its themes are incredibly strong and well thought out, the film just never scares beyond the end. Until then, the character's stupidity shines through and then Franklin is so annoying that by the time he is slaughtered, I am rooting for Leatherface. Nothing brought me more joy than watching him be shut up. He was so annoying and whiny, it ruined everything. Yet, he is not the only one guilty of ruining proceedings, as the acting is distractingly bad and not just in a typical bad fashion. Halloween has bad acting. The acting here is a step above that.

On that note, the unintentional comedy is strong in this film, even down to the very last shot. The shot, depicting a frustrated Leatherface spinning around with his chainsaw is hysterical. Also hysterical is the black guy at the end who just disappears. Hooper cared so little about him that he did not even bother to let him hop in the truck too or at least die on-screen. From beginning to end, there are sequences that make you laugh, even right in the middle of tension. A perfect example of this is Sally getting clothes-lined by a branch as she runs from Leatherface. A horror cliche by now, here, it is truly funny.

Overall, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre has aged poorly and may have once been petrifying, but by now, it is far from anything. However, in terms of influence, few films match its impact. Plus, thematically, the film is incredibly sound with a clear and positive message that makes sense and is bolstered throughout the film.

7/10 - At this point, I am convinced that I will enjoy any schlock labelled as a coming of age comedy-drama. Mystic Pizza is no exception. Though hardly groundbreaking, Mystic Pizza is a Portuguese-infused film that may have landed better because, having been to Mystic and driving around this area, it felt so near. In addition, though there are incredible faults in the script, the elements it does well certainly outshine the negatives. The end result being a sweet and charming coming of age film that made me want pizza.

Telling the story of Kat (Annabeth Gish), Daisy (Julia Roberts), and JoJo (Lili Taylor), three girls working for Mystic Pizza, the film showcases their life exploits and their romantic dealings, all with varying success. Kat, the brains of the group and headed for Yale with astronomy, certainly missteps the most in love with Tim Travers (William R. Moses). Daisy, meanwhile, is the wild, crazy, directionless one of the group that, as the film reveals may be lost, but is no far off than Kat or anyone else. In her dealings with Charlie (Adam Storke), certainly shows her flair for the dramatic and rash impulses, but certainly learns from her experiences. Jojo, in her relationship with Bill (Vincent D'Onofrio), also demonstrates significant growth from a girl afraid to grow up to a full-grown woman ready for the future. As a whole, the women in this film are all incredibly written and, while they can be a bit stereotypical at times, the film never looks down upon them. Their actions are clear and explained. At the end of the day, they act entirely like real people with real problems. Rather than typecasting any of them, the film shows us why they take the actions that they do.

Additionally, the film really does a great job eliciting laughs. Though the drama is well-constructed and believable, Mystic Pizza is a feel good movie above all else. And, in that department, this 1980s charmer certainly delivers. With enjoyable characters, the film is simply a true joy to watch. Even if it was not, seeing 1988 Matt Damon ask his mom what the green stuff in his food is, will always be worth it, regardless of in what film it occurs.

The acting is stellar. Led by Gish, the strong cast all deliver stellar performances with Gish being the clear standout amongst the women. Among their significant others, D'Onofrio does a terrific job and brings the right passion and emotion to his role. Though his character is limited in screen time, it is well-written and he makes the most of it. Damon, however, does still the show with his one line, it must be said.

Despite the positives, Mystic Pizza is pretty run-of-the-mill for coming of age fair. Though it is well-executed, none of its scenarios or characters often exceed past clear cliches. While the writing does offer explanations and motivations, as it should, the characters still often run aground thanks to a storm surge of cliches. Those who will not enjoy the cliches of the genre would better off passing on Mystic Pizza. Moral boundaries, class issues, and the marriage question, permeate the film and the film offers no new insight on any of them. It offers no criticisms, rather it simply portrays its characters in these situations. In many ways, this is quite noble. However, as a film, it does feel a bit stale in that regard. Fortunately, a film that relies upon as many cliches as Mystic Pizza must handle them well to still be good and the film accomplishes this.

Overall, Mystic Pizza is a terrifically acted film that is fun to watch, funny, and a feel good experience. Not challenging cinema in the least, Mystic Pizza is merely a pleasant film that will likely leave your memory soon after you watch it, but that is hardly a bad thing.

7/10 - Telling the story of Carlito Brigante (Al Pacino), a former drug overlord looking to go straight, Carlito's Way is a truly riveting film enthusiastically brought to life by Brian De Palma. However, it is dragged down by cliches, narration, and forced poetry. Amidst the sea of gangsters, De Palma and writer David Koepp try to break new ground in the genre, but wind up falling short. Fortunately, as always, the film is incredibly watchable, thrilling, and well acted, even if it never really succeeds in the way I had hoped before watching.

One of the greatest accomplishments of this film is De Palma's direction. Scarface never worked for me too much. It was pretty good, but simply far too over-the-top and off-the-wall. Here, Pacino plays Carlito far more restrained and the film benefits from this for sure. However, De Palma manages to milk far more tension out of this film than in Scarface. This tension comes from two sources/scenes. The first, in which Carlito's lawyer David Kleinfeld (Sean Penn), waits for an elevator as the Italians close in for the kill, is incredibly tense. Using quick cuts, the film ramps up the tension by artificially lengthening time. Though it is just an elevator that is about to arrive on the floor, De Palma drags the scene out considerably by cutting between the flashing light, Penn's face, and the approaching Italian. These quick cuts let the scene's tension build and build to the point where it is practically spilling over. Even though the film as a whole is derivative and you know what is coming, this scene in particular still manages to surprise you.

The other scene in which De Palma's ability to foster tension is highlighted utilizes his famous tracking shot. Here, it follows Pacino as he runs from the Italians through trains and Grand Central Station. In particular, the tracking shot actually comes in at Grand Central Station and is far more brief than typical De Palma tracking shots, but works all the same. Incredibly tense as Pacino races through the train station and tries hiding all over the place, this sequence leaves the audience on pins and needles waiting to see how it turns out.

In that sequence and others, Carlito's Way shows that De Palma's flair for the dramatic has certainly not diminished since Scarface. Updating the famous shootout sequence from The Untouchables (lifted from Battleship Potemkin, admittedly) with escalators. This one action set piece in particular is exuberant and incredibly well-executed. The sequence is tense, dramatic, and highly cinematic. In many regards, it is one of the better choreographed action set pieces I have seen in a good while.

Acting-wise, Pacino is good, not great. Penn is fine, though hardly Academy Award nomination worthy as was thought at the time. Luis Guzman, Penelope Ann Miller, and John Leguizamo, round out a good supporting cast that leaves little to complain about. However, what one can complain about is Carlito's Way simply not adding anything genre. Yes, it is unique to focus on a gangster as he tries to save up to split for the Bahamas, but the situations he finds himself in are not. Even then, it is shown from the very beginning that things do not work out (I hate when movies start with the end). Pacino's narration, though helpful when introducing characters, does not add much. In particular, the one at the end is very much distracting as it seems as though De Palma and Koepp realized their film was not ground breaking at all and tried to force in a monologue about getting away. Its observations are clear and add nothing to the film. Even Pacino sounds unconvinced by his end monologue that is over-written and self-indulgent.

Yet, Carlito's Way is so well-directed, it is impossible to look away. Dripping with tension and easy to watch, the film's runtime flies by and never leaves you wondering when it will end. Rather, by the time it is over, you wish it would go on a bit longer. However, it is not without its issues, compared to De Palma's past gangster work, Carlito's Way just feels so safe and unassuming that it cannot help but disappoint to a degree.

8/10 - A beautifully sweeping epic, Cold Mountain is a true accomplishment from director Anthony Minghella. In watching this, it becomes all the more tragic that he died about eight years ago with Cold Mountain being one of his final directorial works. At least, in his wake, we are still able to cherish this visual beauty. However, the brilliance of Cold Mountain is not just skin deep, as its epic sweep all encompasses a tremendous romance amidst the Civil War and, in this, the film also discusses the impact of the war on the South and the loss suffered by those at home. Plus, though not strictly a war film (it is, but it is not the film's main focus), Cold Mountain also offers brilliant battle sequences to go along with every other positive offered by the film.

Cold Mountain is a film some have compared to Homer's the Odyssey in structure. This is certainly fair as the film tells the story of W.P. Inman (Jude Law) and his journey to return home to Ada Monroe (Nicole Kidman) during the Civil War. Suffering injuries, escaping those who will capture deserters, and crossing paths with a collection of individuals, Inman's journey is long and arduous. Among the tremendous cast that cross paths with Inman and Ada include Renee Zellweger, Eileen Atkins, Kathy Baker, Brendan Gleeson, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Charlie Hunnam, Natalie Portman, Giovanni Ribisi, Donald Sutherland, Cillian Murphy, Jack White, Ray Winstone, Taryn Manning, Emily Deschanel, and Jena Malone. Essentially, this cast is stacked. Every supporting character is played by somebody who eventually blew up, was a veteran actor, or was a relatively fresh face in acting. How they managed to get such a good cast together is mind blowing.

The film's main focus - the romance between Inman and Ada - is tremendously written by Minghella. Each line is precise and chosen well. The end result is a romance that, though the characters rarely share the screen with one another, is incredibly well-crafted and realistic. Though they barely know one another, their connection to one another is beautifully brought to life through the words of Minghella that breathes air into the lungs of the film. Even when things slow down (and they do slow down) and the film drags, the romance here keeps the film chugging along and taking on all challengers.

Visually, the film is stunning. From shots, such as Inman staggering to Ada alongside two towering snow-covered rocks, to the battle sequences, the cinematography of this film is terrific. The best part here is the framing, especially in that aforementioned shot. The result of shots such as this is a film that feels as poetic visually as it is verbally. Minghella clearly expended a lot of time focusing on his word choice in writing this film and it shows in the sweeping, verbose communication in the film. However, the visuals are the same way. The film's shots match its beauty step-for-step and often exceed it with a willingness to just slow things down and let the odd, romantic beauty of the war in the South soak in for the audience.

The battle sequences express this same beauty, especially the opening one when the Union bombs the Confederacy. The billowing tower of smoke and fire, as well as the ensuing battle that occurs in a cloud of dust and blood is pure eye candy. Minghella's camera lingers in this sequence quite often, offering a sort of juxtaposition between the beauty of the shot and the brutality of the war. Nobody was spared in battle and, as a result, nobody was spared at home. In this film, Minghella does not waste any violence. Though often brutal, his film is about bringing to light the suffering of those in war and those at home. Given that many war films focus solely on those in battle, this is a breathe of fresh air for the genre. In this goal, Cold Mountain is entirely successful, particularly in the sequence with Sara (Portman). A single mother with a baby who briefly takes in Inman on his journey home, she asks Inman to simply lay next to her in bed where she begins openly weeping. The specific pain and suffering experienced by those at home is obviously spoken about openly in the film, but never described verbally. Rather, it is always told visually with one slight written hints. This is one of the greatest accomplishments of the film, as it manages to delve in this often overlooked topic and offer great insight, without having to stand by and attempt to explain the pain. Instead, it makes it more realistic and intimate by simply showing it to you.

A brutal, beautiful, and truly sweeping epic, Anthony Minghella's Cold Mountain covers the Civil War like few films before it had. Covering battle, romance, and the life of those in South, the film plays no favorites, shows the good and bad of both sides, and covers its topics with grace and ease. It will be too slow for many, as evidenced by the public reaction to the film since its release. However, for those willing to let the film soak in, Cold Mountain is a poignant and moving experience.

Spangle · 11-07-2016, 11:48 PM

9/10 - SPOILERS

The Cook, the Thief, His Wife & Her Lover is an absolutely mentally depraved film from director Peter Greenaway. Technically astounding, the film plays with taboos left and right and, in line with this, was nearly X-rated upon its release. Taking place over a series of evenings at a high-end French restaurant, the film focuses on the characters mentioned in the title. Albert/"The Thief" (Michael Gambon) is a violent, abhorrent gangster who is loud, brash, rude, and incredibly abusive towards his wife. The poor woman subjected to being his wife is Georgina/"His Wife" (Helen Mirren). As she suffers from the abusive relationship she cannot escape, Georgina lands in the arms of the smart, educated, well-read Michael/"Her Lover" (Alan Howard). However, this relationship is doomed from the very beginning. Richard/"The Cook" (Richard Bohringer) helps to conceal the affair from Albert, who owns the restaurant in which everything occurs.

Aside from a few scenes, all of which are certainly important, the film very rarely leaves the confines of the restaurant. This allows Greenaway to have a lot of fun with colors and his camera. Though the rooms barely change from the kitchen to the dining area to the lavatory, the colors vary dramatically. This is highlighted initially when Georgina, dressed in all-white, is in the all-white bathroom. In the hallway is Michael, dressed in red and consumed by the red walls behind him. Georgina, in the time it took from leaving the bathroom to the hallway outside of it, is wearing red clothing (same shirt, etc, but now red). This type of color change occurs rapidly, but each area has a defined color. The bathroom is cloaked in white. Often symbolizing goodness or some sort of purity, Georgina may use the room to initially begin her affair with Michael, but it is a sort of safe haven. This remains even when Albert bursts into the bathroom. Leaving the door ajar whenever he is in the room, the translucent red light from the hallway pours into the bathroom covering the entranceway.

Meanwhile, in the dining area, everything is red. The location in which much of the vulgarity that spews from Albert's mouth is uttered, red in the film most often symbolizes danger. Whenever the room is cloaked in red or Albert is wearing red, those around him best be careful. This color scheme is transferred to the room in which Georgina and Michael hide in the book depository (one of the few scenes outside the restaurant). There, they are served by a young boy who Albert assaults. Naturally, the boy is seen wearing the red coat that is standard among the waiters.

Another color of notability is green. Seen most often in the kitchen area, the location winds up being the site of many of the trysts between Michael and Georgina. As such, it becomes a sort of safe haven away from Albert in which they cannot be reached. For example, one sequence in which they have sex in the kitchen, the duo are doing so in an area covered by a green tarp. Green often symbolizes safety and, for much of the film, this is very much the case. It is also logical then that Georgina is not often seen wearing green around Albert, rather red is her color of choice. With Michael, she can be seen wearing green and this could certainly be tied into the discussions regarding her issues with fertility. As green is a symbol for fertility or harmony, this coloring indicates an internal preference for Michael over Albert, rather than merely a skin deep love. As such, when she is asking Richard as to whether or not he thought she and Michael had love between them, it is clear the answer is yes. While Richard responds with sexual acts he had witnessed them engage in, the true answer is that there was a certain degree of mutual harmony and tranquility between them that did not exist between her and Albert due to the danger he causes.

Finally, black is often discussed and shown in the film. One of the most common instances is Georgina's lingerie. However, Richard also discusses black food and how it is priced higher due to its connection with death. Richard reasons that people wish to eat death to show that they have conquered it. At the very end, when Georgina kills Albert, she is wearing all black. These all clearly tie in with one another and discuss the very obvious - death. For Michael, Georgina's lingerie would mark his death and be his ultimate demise. For Albert, food would be his ultimate demise, as would his wife, who serves as a sort of "angel of death" in the film.

The film is often cited as being an allegory for Thatcherism in Britain. As a non-Brit, I cannot comment. However, there are certainly social criticisms in the film, given the excessive discussions regarding the education and the non-educated. Frequently, Michael is put down by Albert for reading. In particular, Albert exclaims that Michael may be the only person to have read a certain book, whereas everyone in the restaurant had read the writing on the bathroom stalls. While hiding from Albert in the book depository, Michael reasons that he and Georgina are safe there because, "Does Albert read?" Additionally, references to Georgina being an avid reader are made and one of Albert's gangmembers, Michael (Tim Roth), is often mocked for being stupid. The young boy who is assaulted by Albert, Pup (Paul Russell), is also an avid singer. His singing is reminiscent of the choir and certainly cements him as a member - to a degree - of a social elite. Here, it feels that there is a certain class war occurring within the film in which the educated and upper class are being attacked by the uneducated lower class (not financial class). Yet, at the end, the upper class manages to get the upper hand. Not only does Georgina force Albert to humiliate himself by eating Michael, but she puts a bullet in his head. If this is an allegory for Thatcherism, then the clear conclusion is that Greenaway certainly feels as though the lower classes have consumed themselves and destroyed Britain through the creation of a "welfare state". This lines up with Albert humiliating a man at the very beginning and then being declared a "cannibal" upon being shot by Georgina. Not only has he eaten a part of Michael, but he has figuratively consumed those in the same social class as himself.

Technically, Greenaway's camera work is practically light and airy. Floating through the rooms and exposing the set's boundaries. The end result is a thoroughly engrossing and visually rich film that is impossible to look away from. A film that is often cited as incredibly formalistic, this can certainly be seen through this very camera work, though tied in with the score from Michael Nyman. Often bombastic, Nyman's score is allowed to build within scenes through the long takes and gliding camera work from Greenaway. Utilized often during scenes in which Albert is having an outburst in the restaurant, the combination of the long take and Nyman's score create incredible tension. Though the story alone creates significant tension, the film's source of conflict often arises in its composition. Another example of this being in the kitchen. Whenever sequences occur here, there is a significant amount of visual collisions. Historic examples of this include Eisenstein's Battleship Potemkin or Herzog's Aguirre, the Wrath of God. In his film, Greenaway often showcases people walking in every which direction. The end result is a chaotic scene that does not abide by the 180-degree rule and, similarly to scenes of cannibalism, causes extreme discomfort for the audience.

Controversial upon its release, The Cook, the Thief, His Wife & Her Lover is a truly rich thematic film with incredible explorations of domestic abuse and class issues in Britain. Through bold filmmaking and exploration of taboos such as long, drawn-out scenes of nudity and cannibalism, as well as a willingness to cause audience discomfort through editing, the film benefits. Plus, a tremendous score that is given room to breathe, tremendous camera work, and glorious costume design, the film is a breathtaking work that is worthy of its acclaim.

8/10 - Upon hearing comparisons between the works of Jacques Demy and Damien Chazelle's forthcoming musical La La Land, I knew I had to watch some of Demy's work in anticipation of that film. My first - The Umbrellas of Cherbourg - certainly matched and exceeded my expectations. A musical about life, love, and loss, The Umbrellas of Cherbourg is a beautifully written film that is imperfect, but gorgeously crafted. Operatic in style, The Umbrellas of Cherbourg features no grand set pieces nor any single song. Rather, it is written as a typical film would be, except it is sung. The end result is a beautifully written film that may lack true character development, but its music is so brilliantly put together, it is easy to turn a blind eye to its flaws.

Telling the story of Genevieve (Catherine Deneuve) and her relationship with Guy (Nino Castelnuevo), a man who is set to leave for war in Algeria, The Umbrellas of Cherbourg shows both the dark and light side of love and marriage. Demy's film does not shy away from showing the pain it can cause and the torment it leaves Genevieve with when Guy leaves for war, but the film equally shows the ecstasy and joy. The end result is a sweet film that feels endlessly watchable and thoroughly enjoyable. Though not truly dreamlike - like La La Land has been described - The Umbrellas of Cherbourg does have a certain airy and light feeling to it. This is matched by the largely bright color scheme of the film, which has the impact of making the film feel truly vibrant. This vibrancy is matched the sung dialogue. Had this been a spoken film, it would have lost much of its impact. As it stands, the singing bolsters the beauty of the rest of the film and breathes life into it as a whole.

However, The Umbrellas of Cherbourg is far from perfect. Though beautifully sung and brilliantly acted - especially by Deneuve - the film's characters leave much to be desired. By the end, it feels as though things speed along too quickly in the story and things just happen. This leaves many dramatic sequences feeling quite hollow and emotionless for the audience, as they are far too sudden to have a true impact. Yet, individually, its characters are terrific. Well-written and able to communicate often without speaking, the film's characters seem incredibly real and authentic both in 1960s France and the modern world.

Musically, the film is great. All of the actors complete their singing lines terrifically and the score - which is a constant in the background - is fantastic. The music certainly, as mentioned before, contributes to this light, airy, and warm feeling the film radiates. Though the plot can often depict somewhat traumatic experiences for the characters, the film never ceases to be a pleasing and comfortable experience. This is, in large part, thanks to the music that provides a degree of pleasure that escapes explanation.

As a whole, The Umbrellas of Cherbourg - the first film I have seen by Demy - is a tremendous experience. A romantic musical, the film depicts both the good and the bad side of love with equal passion. The music and the signing are tremendous and wind up covering up the main negative of the film, which is the far-too-quick pacing of the story towards the end of the film that removes much of the emotional impact it could have.

7/10 - Director Anton Corbijn turns Joy Division lead singer Ian Curtis' life into an artistic wonder in Control. A depressing and dark film, Corbijn's black and white film with killer cinematography breathes life into a film that would otherwise be a pretty typical musician biopic. Okay, it is still a typical musician biopic, but it does look really good. Telling the story of the rise and fall of Curtis, including his infidelity and epilepsy that led to his suicide in 1980, the film is a truly harrowing journey. The serves not just as a showcase for Corbijn, but also his actors led by Sam Riley as Curtis, Toby Kebbell as the band manager Rob Gretton, and Samantha Morton as Curtis' wife Deborah. Together, even when the film slows, the trio makes the film eminently watchable.

However, the star here remains the cinematography. In particular, there is a shot through a window of Curtis with the reflection of what he can see in the mirror. A truly striking shot, it is a microcosm of this beautiful film. The black and white adds a degree of character to the film that makes it feel appropriate for the era, with this smokiness to every shot. Who better to add late 1970s British rock scene touches to the film than Corbijn, who has become far more well known for his work in the world of music than in film.

In terms of acting, Control is a real showcase. Sam Riley plays Curtis brilliantly. Through each sequence, you can see the darkness closing in on him as he spirals further and further out of control. Though he tries to escape, there was never any hope for the man as the walls closed in all around. At home, he had broken his relationship with Deborah. On the road, he felt extreme guilt when he slept with Belgian journalist Annik Honore (Alexandra Maria Lara). With the band, his epilepsy wreaked havoc while Joy Division gained more and more notoriety that he could not cope with. Riley brings these elements to life in his portrayal of Curtis and it makes his transformation from a typically energetic teenager to a dark and depressed man in his early 20s all the more harrowing. As the band manager, Kebbell is energetic and truly charismatic. Whenever he is on the screen, his performance makes the character truly magnetic. As Curtis' wife, Samantha Morton plays a heartbroken and tormented Deborah. Her brilliance is subtle throughout the film, but truly realized in the final sequence when she finds Ian dead. Her emotion and power as we hear her find him is a terrific close to the film.

Yet, Control is not perfect. Far too slow and moody, Control feels emotionally distant from beginning to end. Though Curtis certainly was a distant person, this does not make for a great film. While there is more than enough to like about Control in spite of this distance, it does prevent it from becoming an even better film. As a result of this distance, the film also feels incredibly cold. When things happen, except for at the end, it lacks the emotional punch required to make the film a truly lasting experience. Instead, Control winds up being a good biopic of Curtis with great acting and cinematography, but no lasting power.

As a whole, Control is a good film that could have been better if it let us into its world a bit more. That said, it remains a terrific look at the harrowing descent experienced by Ian Curtis that culminated in his suicide at the age of 23. However, as musician biopics go, though Control is quite good, it never really rises above the crowd.

8/10 - Broadcast News was a great satirical film when it first came out in 1987 and this still applies 29 years later in 2016. This a real testament to both how news has always been bad and the accuracy of the criticism tossed at the news. A truly biting satire, Broadcast News takes a look at ethics, entertainment, and "real journalism", as well as the role of each within the news. The end result is a funny and truly witty film with terrific acting and writing.

Led by William Hurt in the acting department, Hurt's Tom Grunick is a moron. Yet, he is charismatic and knows how to read the news well. Thus, he rises quickly within the news world and women trip over themselves to meet him. Grunick, however, is clueless as to what causes his success and has no idea what he is doing minute-by-minute. Hurt expertly captures this aloof quality of the character and it is the basis on which his entire performance is based. In every moment of his life, Grunick is lost and a mere look at Hurt's face clues you into the degree of his confusion. This is why his performance is so good.

As producer Jane Craig, Holly Hunter is also tremendous, however. The exact opposite of Grunick, Jane is the smartest person in the room. She knows it and expects everyone else to know it, yet she finds it burdensome that she can be so overbearing to those around her. There is also a significant chip on her shoulder for being a woman in a man's world, which certainly shows. Through Jane, writer/director James L. Brooks explores what it is like for a woman entering this scenario and Hunter really brings her to life. At every turn, she feels as though she is being challenged or tested by those around her and the end result is a certain neurosis she appears to be plagued by. It is as if she is about have a mental breakdown due to the chaos she attracts due to her demeanor. Hunter does a great job balancing the brilliance of Jane with her challenge to fit into this unknown world.

Albert Brooks is also quite good, though often upstaged here. Yet, he really shines through in one scene with Jane in which he expresses his feelings for her. Here, Brooks reveals the true nature of his character, Aaron Altman. Always the smartest in the room as well, Altman is unlike Jane in that he never fulfilled his potential. He was book smart, but not street smart. As the opening shows, he has always said the wrong thing at the wrong time, no matter how old he was. He certainly expects the world to cater to him and he is not afraid to show it, even when it comes to Jane. Yet, his brilliance is clear and he is very talented at his job. Brooks does a great job at making the character truly funny at times, especially with his delivery. At the same time, he balances this terrifically with his superiority complex at work and inferiority complex in love.

The romance here is also incredibly well developed, even if there is no pay-off, which is fine. Though the characters have incredible chemistry, the film would have been disingenuous if it had that big pay-off at the end of every romantic film. Tom Grunick is a jerk. Aaron Altman is a jerk. Jane is better off on her own without either of them and James L. Brooks is not afraid to end his film in this fashion, which certainly takes a lot of guts in the world of film. However, much like her approach to journalism, Jane must stay true to herself and not compromise her own values for the sake of somebody else. This shines through and even if it feels unsatisfying because we have been trained to expect a certain thing from romances, it is the correct ending for the film.

Funny and full of criticism of the news media, Broadcast News is a terrifyingly true film, both in its criticism of the journalists in this country and of romance.

7/10 - Elvis & Nixon may not be the most challenging piece of cinema ever released, but it is a very one. With two terrific lead actors in Michael Shannon and Kevin Spacey, Elvis & Nixon is based on a single image of Elvis Presley and Richard Nixon in the White House. The rest rises out of an imagined reason for the meeting. In doing so, the film manages to delve into both Elvis and Nixon as people, serving as an interesting look at both of them, even if the story itself is not really true. However, what it lacks in truth, it makes up for with comedy. A smart and witty film, Elvis & Nixon is incredibly well-written as a comedy with lots of little references to real events and outright jokes. The end result of all of this is truly enjoyable hour and a half.

As Elvis, Michael Shannon is loud, boisterous, and magnanimous. However, he does not shy away from the internal struggles facing Elvis and the status of being a celebrity. Though far from unique in this, the film does a good job to evoke feelings of sympathy for "The King". Remaining deified to this very day, he is rarely looked at as a person and the film does a good job to make us feel for him on a personal level. He is not just some kooky rock star who wants to be a federal agent, he is a real person and nobody ever gives him that time of day. Shannon's performance is truly magnetic and really carries the film on his shoulders.

As Nixon, Kevin Spacey is equally terrific. Though a lot of it is reminiscent of Frank Underwood in House of Cards, his Nixon feels quite accurate and stoic. Watching his transformation from when he is first told about Elvis wanting to meet him to when he actually meets him is quite comical. Yet, Spacey makes it feel authentic and really captures that "not cool but want to be cool" essence that many people have, especially when in the presence of somebody cool. Spacey's turn here also provides many laughs, especially at the end when he is twirling the gun. There is a certain simplicity to the style of comedy in the film and Nixon captures most of the best lines in this one, with Spacey making the most of it with good delivery and timing.

However, in saying this, while the film is quite funny and a good look at both of its real life protagonists, Elvis & Nixon is an incredibly slight film. Coming in at just an hour and a half, Elvis & Nixon is largely just focused on this meeting and setting it up, while pretending to develop of a background relationship/issue for Jerry Schilling (Alex Pettyfer), who is an associate and friend of Elvis. It can certainly drag as you just want them to get to the meeting. The romance background, which is barely looked at, is clearly there to just add some further dimension to the film, but even with that here, Elvis & Nixon rarely makes the case for being a feature-length film. While I did really enjoy my time with it, it probably would have been even better as a short film (40-50 minutes in length maybe), allowing it to be more focused on the photograph and meeting, rather than adding fluff to make it longer.

As a whole, Elvis & Nixon is a very funny film that may be a little too long for its story, but thanks to Shannon's Presley and Spacey's Nixon, the film is incredibly easy to watch.

7/10 - Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children is an absolutely wild film with a suitably outrageous ending. Fitting Tim Burton's narrative and visual style perfectly, this film tells a story of a world in which people with "peculiarities" exist. However, this world is under attack from "bad peculiars" who seek immortality. A pretty typical set-up masked by an unusual setting and unusual characters, the film still proves to be a unique treat. If nothing else, it is the most realistic portrayal of Florida ever put to film.

Focusing on Jake (Asa Butterfield), a seemingly ordinary kid who comes to learn his peculiarity, which he inherited from his grandfather Abe (Terence Stamp). As a child, Abe told Jake stories about Miss Peregrine (Eva Green) and all of the children under her care in a remote island in Wales. By the time he passes, it is time for Jake to take over protecting Miss Peregrine and the children with his unique and peculiar ability to see monsters. As they are invisible to everyone else, this skill is invaluable when defending the children from the "bad peculiars".

Though its general plot seems relatively new, it does nothing truly inventive with this set up. Good versus evil, boy meets girl, big fight at the end, conflict, conflict, and more conflict. Even its time loop element is hardly unique and the film more than likely violates every rule it sets forth regarding time loops, making one wonder why they even bothered in the first place. The beginning takes too long and there is a moment where Miss Peregrine is talking to Jake in the garden and I realized just how much the opening drags. The battle can be a little over-the-top and silly. The ending is rushed and wildly predictable, while adding unnecessary details. Asa Butterfield is quite bad in the lead role with some lines coming out worse than others. Getting words out of his mouth is like squeezing a nearly empty ketchup bottle, just trying to get that last drop out. In other words, it is like his mouth fights against the words.

All of that said, I quite enjoyed it. It is simply a wildly imperfect film. The final battle, though over-the-top, fits in with the wild narrative and the moral of the story here - bravery - is quite nicely handled. Even better, all of the peculiar children are utilized in the battle and before the film. I heard some criticism towards a lack of focus on many of the children and this is true, though everyone does get their moment in the spotlight. When you see what some of these kids can do, it also does prove to be a very nice surprise. This film also has a very intriguing world that is worthy of further exploration with a lot at play and, though unoriginal in how it uses its world, the world itself is incredibly original. Burton and writer Jane Goldman do a great job putting the world created by Ransom Riggs on film and instilling it with this weird, fun, and youthful energy. The concept of time loops is one that certainly demands further attention and the film does a good job at evoking a sense of mystery with everything it reveals to Jake and the audience about this world.

Even better than all of those positives, however, is the special effects. A true visual treat, though this one is far less grounded in plotting than Burton's past films, its visuals are still top-notch. The sequence from the trailer of the girl blowing air to remove water from a shipwreck is simply incredible, but really most of the special effects are terrific in this film. It really causes a true suspension of disbelief and creates a sense of wonder when the film shows what tricks it has hidden up its sleeves.

As a whole, Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children has proven to be an incredibly divisive film. The critiques are not wrong and the film is greatly flawed. Burton's best films previously had a sense of being weird and fantastical, yet still eminently real and authentic. They occurred in the real world to otherwise average people. This film, however, is simply just weird. However, it is just as enchanting as his past works and welcomes you with open arms to delight in the peculiarity of the world of this film. Thus, while not as good as his past works, the film remains a delight to behold and experience in spite of its many faults.

3/10 - Sorry, but I hated this one. Directed by Daniel Scheinert and Daniel Kwan, Swiss Army Man tells the story of a man, Hank (Paul Dano), who is lost on an island and set to kill himself. However, right before doing the deed, he sees the dead body of Manny (Daniel Radcliffe). Through talking to Manny, Hank explores his loneliness and depression, as well as his own self-esteem and self-image. When talking about this and how it is okay to be unique, Swiss Army Man ultimately winds up just being creepy and weird. It had a chance to be profound about a broken man being saved, but instead opts to just shock audiences with a farting corpse.

There are a few positives in Swiss Army Man. Paul Dano and Daniel Radcliffe are both spectacular. Plus, whenever it remains focused on examining what makes Hank depressed and run away to this island (well, not really an island), the film is largely quite successful. Typical, but moving and a tremendous character study. Additionally, the music in the film is great with a truly terrific score that elevates otherwise mundane moments.

Yet, that is about all that counts in the positive column for Swiss Army Man, a film that tries to turn farting into a cause. Relying on both fart and penis jokes to steer the film home, it is also simply an incredibly dumb movie. Hank goes to kill himself, but as it is revealed, he was merely in the woods behind a neighborhood that happens to go by an ocean. Even worse, when it is revealed that this Sarah Johnson (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) in his phone is just some random girl who he stalks and has a picture of in his phone, it spoils the film even more. Until that point, I could write it off as an irreverent and weird film. But at this point, it was a truly creepy film. It wants us to feel sorry for this guy who creeps on this girl so much that he knows exactly where she lives and turns up in her backyard? No way. No thank you.

Plus, it even serves to spoil the rest of the film. While it was far too weird for me throughout, the scenes of Hank describing love to Manny were quite funny and filled with enthusiastic moments. Yet, since they use Sarah for much of this, it loses any of its luster. When they were joking around and just using a made up name for some swimsuit model, it was whatever. Once they started using a real person that Hank stalks, this moment lost all of its power and wound up just revealing the disturbing and truly chilling level of his obsession with this girl.

However, had this not even happened, Swiss Army Man had lost me. A little bit of weird and quirkiness is fine by me. Yet, this film dials it up to 11 with the weird and by the fourth time Hank used Manny's gas for some purpose, I knew this was not my kind of film. In defense of this film, everyone said this was not simply a film about a farting corpse like some made it out to be. Having seen the film now, they are right. It is a film about a creepy stalker who uses some corpses gas to not kill himself. Not exactly a winning combination.

Swiss Army Man can brush shoulders with profundity and comedy, but winds up ruining it with over-the-top weirdness and creepiness. Yes, it is okay to be weird. Yes, it is okay to be weird. However, I do not have to accept a film that begs me to like a stalker with an obsession for some girl he has never met. A truly ugly and thoroughly juvenile film, honestly.

Spangle · 11-07-2016, 11:49 PM

Quote:Originally posted by Justice@Nov 6 2016, 05:13 PM
Ryan Gosling's performance in Blue Valentine 10/10

BLUE VALENTINE IS SO FUCKING GOOD

Legend · 11-08-2016, 02:16 AM

Holy crap this thread is amazing

Spangle · 11-08-2016, 10:26 AM

Quote:Originally posted by Legend@Nov 8 2016, 02:16 AM
Holy crap this thread is amazing

Sarcasm?

Navigation

Extra Menu

About us