jeffdrollins Reviews

What We Do in the Shadows (2014)

Good, but never reaches its full potential

[7/10 · 10 February 2015]

There's a filthy, lived in authenticity to the afterlives of the vampires who serve as the subjects of What We Do in the Shadows, the New Zealand comedy-horror mockumentary from writers-directors Taika Waititi and Jemaine Clement. If you're at all familiar with these names then you've had your ear to the ground of the irreverent indie comedy circuit of the past decade. Clement is one half of the popular HBO musical- comedy duo Flight of the Conchords and Waititi has enjoyed critical success with his films Boy and Eagle VS Shark, the latter of which Clement co-starred in. Their unique comedic voices seem like a perfect fit to bring a strange project like What We Do in the Shadows to a niche audience but breaking through to the mainstream may prove difficult.

What We Do in the Shadows introduces its simple premise at the start: a documentary crew has been granted access to film the lives of four New Zealand-based vampires in the months leading up to the annual Unholy Masquerade Ball. Waititi stars as the group's defacto leader, the delightful dandy, Viago. He shares a house with Vladislav (Clement) – a centuries old count in the vein of Dracula, Deacon – a relatively young vampire and self-described "wild card" of the group, and Petry – an 8,000 year old abomination that pays homage to Nosferatu's Count Orlok with his grotesque appearance and preference to hiss and growl rather than deliver dead-pan observations on his night-to-night lifestyle. Viago, Vlad, and Deacon are fun to hang out with, especially when there's a squabble over chores (dishes gone unwashed for five years), but it's Petyr who steals every scene simply by sitting there looking hideous and out of place.

A monkey wrench is thrown into the gears when a potential victim, Nick (played by Cori Gonzalez-Macuer), is instead turned vampire by Petyr and moves in with the group. There's a general dislike for the newcomer by our undead heroes and the film uses that as its principle plot thread. But there's much more to What We Do in the Shadows including a subplot about Deacon's female servant who longs for eternal life, Viago's long lost love of his youth, Vladislav's cuckolding at the hands of his greatest nemesis referred to only as "The Beast" and the added confusion of Nick's best friend Stu, a human the entire gang likes a whole lot more than Nick. Throw into this a rival group of werewolves and the Undead Masquerade Ball we've been teased and you'd think, "this sounds like one hell of a movie!" That's what I thought going in, but there are myriad issues with the whole of What We Do in the Shadows.

The numerous subplots in this film tend to unfold in a linear fashion which immediately made me wish I was watching a television series based on this very movie where self-contained episodes could explore these interesting ideas more thoroughly. That the entire cast of characters is so interesting actually works against the overall plot of the film which ultimately becomes less interesting and unsatisfying just for taking us away from what we want to see in an effort to usher the film along. In short, I want to get to know more of these characters and the movie just won't allow it.

Of course, the biggest issue with What We Do in the Shadows has more to do with unfulfilled promise. There are some incredible sight gags (vampires fighting in mid-flight, over the top gore that recalls Monty Python and the Holy Grail, and a lot of hilarious make-up and character designs), but most of the traditional setup and punchline jokes fall flat. There aren't any groaners here but I didn't find myself belly laughing at a single joke in this film and, for a comedy, that's disappointing. Often times I find myself nodding and thinking, "Oh, I can see why that's funny," but that doesn't really count as being legitimately funny; there are more echoes of comedy in What We Do in the Shadows than actual comedy.

Still, with its imaginative visuals and fascinating characters, What We Do in the Shadows is certainly worth visiting, if only to see it firsthand and wonder what might have been. I'm not accusing anyone involved with this film of incompetence or lack of ability; just the opposite, in fact. What We Do in the Shadows is a hair under 90 minutes long, the perfect length for your standard comedy. But there's nothing standard about this film and it may have benefited from padding its run- time so as to more fully flesh out these characters and the world they inhabit. Better yet, as mentioned before, I'd have loved to watch this film unfold over several 20-minute episodes on cable. There's no use being angry at Clement and Waiti for the missed potential of What We Do in the Shadows. After all, they're only human.

Black or White (2014)

An entirely inconsequential film

[3/10 · 29 January 2015]

With the recent tragic and racially charged events in Ferguson, MO and New York City (just two among many other incidents throughout the country), discussion of race and race relations is as relevant today than it's ever been. Black or White aims to add its two cents to the racial discourse and I ask this: Who's better suited to push the boundaries of the discussion on race in America than Mike Binder, a 56- year-old white man who directed the mid-90s perennial classic Blankman? I kid, I kid – sort of.

Binder's surrounded himself with a first class cast, with Kevin "Draft Day" Costner leading the pack as Elliott Anderson, a newly widowed grandfather and primary caretaker for his 9-year-old interracial granddaughter, Eloise (played by the adorable and incredibly talented Jillian Estell). Academy Award winner Octavia Spencer plays Eloise's estranged paternal grandmother Rowena "Wee-wee" Jeffers much like you'd expect a character with that name to be played (read: sassy, tough-but- motherly, etc). Also on board is Anthony Mackie (Captain America: The Winter Solider) as Rowena's brother and high-powered attorney, representing both her and her son Reggie (Andre Holland), Eloise's absentee and troubled father. Mackie represents one of only two characters with any shred of common sense in the whole film, the other being Elliott's friend and law partner, Rick (played by comedian Bill Burr). Burr and Mackie are relegated to the sidelines for most of the film but when they do appear on screen it makes for some of the most interesting and least predictable moments in Black or White.

Elliott harbors a general hatred for Reggie, whom he holds personally responsible for the death of his daughter, Eloise's mother, during childbirth. This hatred extends outward toward the rest of Reggie's family, albeit in a much more diluted sense, which culminates in the narrative at the center of Black or White. With the death of Eloise's grandmother Carol, Rowena argues, the young girl needs to have a maternal figure in her life. Since this is a movie that eschews common sense whenever it's convenient to the plot, Elliott simply will not stand for something so ridiculous and rebuffs Rowena's attempts at reuniting the girl with the rest of her family. From there she seeks the help of her lawyer brother, her son comes back into the picture, and Elliott Anderson – a high-powered attorney himself – starts drinking heavily as their day in custody court draws nearer and nearer.

The first thing I noticed about Black or White, aside from the predictable beats that it landed on, without fail, every time, was how skewed and one-sided the film was in favor of Costner's flawed-but- righteous white grandfather. Whether he's doling out street life- lessons to the aloof Reggie or justifying his use of a certain word that had my audience clutching their pearls, Elliott Anderson is meant to be some kind of white hero who tells it like it is. Do ignore the fact that he's a raging alcoholic and, as the film suggests, iced the relationship with his daughter due to her sexual involvement with a black man. Also ignore the fact that Anderson is able to care for Eloise full-time due to his social and economic status and the freedom to take off work as he pleases. But please, please hold it against the black characters on the other side of the equation. They're not to be trusted or given any sort of pass for their moral indiscretions or lapse in responsibilities. Reggie, in particular, is demonized and painted as helplessly flawed, a black hole of a man who brings down everyone in his orbit. If it weren't for the top notch performances, these frustrating characters would sink the film entirely before the plot could do it for them.

Let's talk about that plot, shall we? Without wandering too far into spoiler territory, I can say that not only does this film's plot go everywhere you'd expect it to, it does so in a downward spiral the likes of which I haven't seen in some time! Things actually start off fairly promising! The relationship between Elliott and Eloise is already established, so we avoid any unnecessary and drawn out origin tales of the events leading up to Carol's death. Despite not knowing how to brush his granddaughter's hair or that she needs to brush her teeth (huh?), this feels like a true grandfather-granddaughter relationship based off the wonderful chemistry between Costner and Estell. But once the rest of the cast starts dropping by for a swim, things start going South by the minute. Every time you're fooled into investing yourself into the film, emotionally, Binder's direction does an about-face and reminds you, "Hey! This is a movie!"

Characters do mind-boggling things for the sake of pulling at your feelings but in the case of Black or White, rather than inciting tears or concern, it usually only manages to elicit annoyance and eye rolls. There are deus ex machinas, horrific music cues, pointless flashbacks, the works! The third act falls apart quite spectacularly with not one, not two, but three courtroom speeches in which I was left wondering, "What point were you trying to make, exactly?" And that sentiment carries all the way back to the beginning of Black or White. What is the point of this movie and for whom was it made? Again, I'm avoiding spoilers but simply put – there's no reason for this film to exist. Not only does it add nothing to race conversation, it adds nothing to anything at all. Black or White is an entirely inconsequential film.

Mortdecai (2015)

The first terrible movie of 2015

[2/10 · 26 January 2015]

Ladies and gentleman, it only took three weeks at the box office, but we officially have our first terrible film of 2015: the inert, impotent art-heist comedy, Mortdecai. Mortdecai stars Johnny Depp as the insufferably cheeky rogue at the center of the film and I often found myself wondering, "What did we, the movie-going public ever do to you, Johnny Depp, do deserve such abuse?" I never got my answer but I did get my fill of Depp hamming it up like a prize pig at the 4-H Fair. Depp's Charlie Mortdecai is an unholy marriage of Ralph Fienne's M. Gustave from The Grand Budapest Hotel (mustache and all) and… Mr. Magoo, the blind, dithering old man who wanders his way in and out of trouble by way of happenstance and dumb luck. This obnoxious combination of otherwise hilarious and fun characters (on their own and not in the hands of Johnny Depp) is at best devoid of any charm and at worst a constant reminder that you could be doing something, anything more productive than watching Mortdecai. Things I'd have rather done than watch Mortdecai: Take apart all my IKEA furniture and then put it back together. Watch nine hours of Steve Harvey reacting to contestant answers on "Family Feud." Open a credit card with an enormously high interest rate. Eat a live rat. But I can't put all the blame on Depp here. Despite his erratic performance that fluctuates from over-the-top madness to tediously dull (often times in the exact same scene), a good amount of scorn has to be placed on director David Koepp (Stir of Echoes, Secret Window) who clearly has no idea what to do with this story. Koepp's style of direction is akin to putting on a tailored suit and then slipping into a pair of house slippers. There's a visual style to his sets and characters, but once the pieces start moving, everything goes out the window. There are only a few action sequences in Mortdecai but all of them look atrocious, almost as though you were watching a poorly rehearsed local theater troupe on opening night. It's embarrassing considering the pedigree of performers that make up this film and also Olivia Munn. I compared Depp's Charlie Mortdecai to Ralph Fienne's character in The Grand Budapest Hotel earlier not only because it's an accurate comparison, but because Depp is seemingly doing a bad impression of the dapper, profane concierge. I'd love to know how much of Fienne's performance, if any, Depp (or Koepp) may have seen during the time between Grand Budapest's production wrap in March of 2013 and Mortdecai's first day of filming in October of that same year. I'm not making any kind of wild accusations, only pointing out that the similarities in performances is uncanny save for the Depp's complete inability to endear himself to anyone in my screening.* Keeping in mind that Mortdecai is based on a four book series of British novels written in the 1970s, perhaps this kind of story – and humor – is just not suited for American audiences in 2015. We're meant to laugh at Charlie Mortdecai's quasi-effeminate, sometimes-incompetent gentleman rogue, but it's so hard to get a grasp on the character's motivations and rationalizations that you just end up throwing your hands up and saying, "Whatever!" And even after I threw out any sense of emotional investment in the characters or the story, Mortdecai still failed to deliver any kind of satisfying experience that even MOR comedies like last year's Happy Christmas delivered in spades. It's frustrating to come down so hard on a comedy, especially when it's clearly trying to be funny (I sincerely hope you like mustache jokes), but Mortdecai is such a complete failure across the board that I see no other option other than merciless slaughter via movie review. When it's not busy humorlessly mugging for the camera, Mortdecai has its nose to the grindstone in an effort to bore audiences to tears. It's a dreary, sleepy comedy caper whose only redeeming qualities are its quick pace and a few fun scenes with a game Gwyneth Paltrow taking the reins for a moment. Early in the film, Ewan McGregor's police inspector Martland asks himself, after realizing his new case will require the help of his nemesis and art expert Charlie Mortdecai, "Why did it have to be art?" No worries, old boy. It's not. * I was the only one in the theater.

R100 (2013)

A wonderful exploitation film for the 21st century!

[8/10 · 20 January 2015]

Five minutes into R100, our main character is explaining to a tall woman in a trench coat what his favorite part of Beethoven's "Symphony No. 9," is. Mid-sentence, she stands up and delivers the man a roundhouse kick to the jaw. And from that moment on, the madness and manic energy of writer/director Hitoshi Matsumoto's (Symbol, Big Man Japan) latest film continues to pick up momentum, further spiraling outward into something truly unique and twisted. But let's compose ourselves and wind things back a bit.

R100 introduces us to department store salesman Takafumi Katayama, played with wide eyed longing by Nao Ohmori (Ichi the Killer). Katayama's wife has long been comatose and he takes care of their young son with help from the boy's grandfather on his mother's side. It's a loving family dynamic that exists in the shadow of the matriarch's impending death. Katayama visits his wife in the hospital daily, bringing her fresh flowers and making promises of the future, but he knows there isn't one. They all know.

And so, to help relieve the heartache and make him forget his woes, Katamaya joins a strange club known only as "Bondage." The rules of the club are simple: membership lasts one year in which various dominatrices will visit you at random and you must always be submissive and you may never cancel the contract during that year's span. As wonderful as all this sounds, things take a turn for the worse at the halfway point and Katamaya finds himself, as well as his family, in grave danger.

Matsumoto plants us into Katamaya's shoes for nearly the entire run of the film. We explore a Japan that is almost completely drained of color, save for the sickly jaundiced grays and yellows that cover everything. As dreary as that sounds, it makes for the perfect canvas for his parade of unique set pieces and characters to be introduced. We meet these otherworldly dominatrices (The Queen of Voices, The Saliva Queen, The GOBBLER!) one by one and the strangeness never feels alienating because Matsumoto's sense of humor is always present. It transcends any language and cultural barriers by just being outlandishly funny as well as consistently surprising. Without giving too much away, there exists a subplot that calls into question the film's very existence. It's funny and, again, surprising. You're always on your guard during R100, never knowing what will be the next logical step the people in this world take.

Building its foundation on the central ideas of David Fincher's The Game and Fight Club, R100 continues to string together ideas seen in western cinema, somehow resulting in a completely original piece of art. Roger Moore-era James Bond, Kill Bill and countless 70s kung-fu films make up the DNA of R100, but rather than coming off as derivative and lazy, it's clear that these nods are meant as a homage to the films that inspired a young, imaginative director to tell new and exciting stories. It's actually kind of sweet in its own deranged way.

This is a film you have to see to even begin to fully comprehend anything I can say about it. That said, it is also admittedly, "not for everyone." But if you have a passion for the bizarre and unexpected, this is certainly your movie. R100 manages to be shocking without insulting its audience's sensibilities. It's an exploitation film for the 21st century; a patchwork of ideas from every corner of western (and eastern) cinema made into a single, wonderfully told story of pleasure and grief. Also, there are dominatrices with guns.

Paddington (2014)

Effortlessly brings ideas from the past into the present day!

[7/10 · 16 January 2015]

Author Michael Bond's series of children's books based on Paddington, the impossibly polite and mischief prone bear who hails from "darkest Peru" have been a literary staple for over half a century. He's been the star of numerous animated television series over the decades but it wasn't until this year that the beloved bear would make his debut on the big screen. And so I went in to Paddington with two questions on my mind: Does Paddington the film give this children's literary icon the proper launch into the world of movies it deserves and, more importantly, do movie audiences in 2014 even care about a relic of the past like Paddington?

To answer the first question, yes! Paddington is a fantastic family film that manages to deliver its overall message of "families stick together" without being too cloying or sickeningly precocious in doing so. It also boasts a terrific cast featuring Hugh Bonneville (Downton Abbey) and Sally Hawkins (Jane Eyre, Never Let Me Go) as Mr. and Mrs. Brown, the loving parents whose home Paddington finds himself being welcomed into. Bonneville's Mr. Brown is a surly, straight man, spewing some of the film's funniest lines in his deadpan English droll while Hawkins acts as the proverbial "heart" of the Brown family, always eliciting smiles rather than eye rolls. Nicole Kidman chews the scenery as the scheming villainess Millicent intent on capturing our ursine hero to put on display in her museum.

Kidman's turn as the film's villain is menacing but justified, something that is almost unheard of in a children's movie. Her character has motivations that are fully realized and thought out, a trick the film pulls off time and time again. That is to say, this film is a tight and concise work of fiction with all the pieces falling into exactly the right places with nary a single hanging thread to be tugged. It's solid storytelling done in a way that truly serves the quality of the source material and pays homage to past rather than sprint headfirst into a brick wall in the name of bringing Paddington into the future.

That brings us to my second question presented at the beginning of this review. Do audiences care about Paddington in 2014? I argue, before the box office tallies have been announced, that yes, there will always be a place for high quality children's entertainment. Of course, the makers of Paddington have hedged their bets by putting the CGI used to bring Paddington to life at the top of their budget. This bear looks wonderful and not once did I find myself questioning the plausibility of an animal and humans interacting as though it were perfectly normal. Of course, no one else in the film raises that question either which only bolsters the fun, cartoonish tone of Paddington.

What could have turned out being a disastrous bastardization of a classic piece of kid's literature in the vein of The Cat in the Hat and Where the Wild Things Are instead manages to be something completely unexpected: a film that effortlessly brings ideas from the past into the present day while never sacrificing what made them work in the first place. Paddington has all the charm, humor and good intentions that its hero has embodied for over five decades and is one of the best children's book adaptations since The Iron Giant. Paddington arrives in England with only a suitcase and a note that reads, "Please look after this bear." Director Paul King and everyone else involved with Paddington have done just that.

Gone Girl (2014)

High brow pulp - one of the best films of 2014

[8/10 · 30 December 2014]

In 2012 Gillian Flynn's third novel took the literary world by storm. It became a bestseller with the aid of nothing but high praise from the likes of NPR, The New York Times, Publisher's Weekly and all the other usual suspects book readers look to for guidance. Gone Girl was seemingly the only thing people were reading that summer and yet when it came time to hand out literary awards, it was completely shut out of the conversation. This is likely due to the fact that those awards are rarely given to any novel that is so neatly slotted into a single genre, in this case mystery. But Gone Girl had become such cultural juggernaut that it was inevitable that it would be adapted for a wider audience (read: moviegoers). And so, just two short years after its initial release as a novel, we have our Gone Girl movie and it is better than any pulp mystery has any right to be.

No stranger to adapting bestselling novels, David Fincher (Fight Club, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo) is really the only director that could have done this film justice. He dives head first into the plot, allowing the thread to unravel slowly, deliberately, but steadily from the get-go. Despite the fact that the plot of Gone Girl boils down to a husband being considered as the prime suspect in the disappearance of his wife despite them having a seemingly perfect marriage, Fincher wisely lets the story do the talking and at a running time of 145 minutes there is, surprisingly, a lot of story to tell. Fincher doesn't get fancy with artistic camera movements, stylized segues between time and place or even establishing shots. Everything is presented as matter-of-fact with a simple line of text that tells us where we are in the story before disappearing into the frame. He also presents to us a world that is cold, sterile and nearly devoid of color – a clever way of letting us see the color of these seemingly lily white and, at first glance, bland characters slowly come to the forefront revealing many fascinating and horrifying secrets and motivations.

Speaking of the characters, this is a stellar cast. Ben Affleck plays Nick Dunne as though he is perpetually annoyed at the world not catering to his emotional needs as he sees fit. In her book, Flynn describes Nick Dunne as having, "a face you want to punch." If anyone in Hollywood exemplifies that trait better than Affleck, I'd have to see it to believe it. But the real star of Gone Girl is Rosamund Pike as the titular missing person, Amy Dunne. Everything about this character is a mystery not the least being what her fate may be. Pike's physical appearance is at once sexy, yet alarmingly blank. There's something behind those tiny, dark eyes but what is it? Fear? Longing? Either way, this is pitch perfect casting, from the prime players to the supporting cast featuring Kim Dickens, Patrick Fugit and the surprisingly enjoyable Tyler Perry as celebrity defense attorney Tanner Bolt.

Flynn adapted the screenplay herself and because of that, this dialogue flows as naturally as possible, despite its pulp origins. Her prose is tight, self-aware, and always riveting; it urges you to keep turning pages in order to reveal the next shocking piece of the story. Despite the fact that Flynn trimmed a lot of the novel's fat from her screenplay, there are some issues that still remain: an abundance of clunky narration, a couple of characters left flapping in the breeze and what some may feel is a less than satisfying ending. Still, Gone Girl has such a fun, intriguing story to tell, you'll be eager to forgive its sins. Flynn's nearly airtight screenplay paired with Fincher's remarkable ability for presenting a compelling visual narrative treats us to a seamless transition of this material from the page to the screen. So seamless, in fact, that much like the book before it, people will be talking about Gone Girl to one another long after they finish watching the film. And while this isn't exactly high brow entertainment, Gone Girl, in both its book and film versions, is comparable to ordering a cheeseburger at the fanciest restaurant in town. Yes, you're still biting into ground beef but the cow from which it derived grazed on the tallest, most nutrient rich grass in the region and the chef who prepared it has made a career of surprising critics with comfort foods that appeal to the most sophisticated of palates.

The Imitation Game (2014)

A mediocre passing glance at Alan Turing's life

[5/10 · 30 December 2014]

What a fascinating subject Alan Turing is for a biographer! He's considered the godfather of computer science, a verifiable genius mathematician – some would call him a prodigy. He, along with his team of code breakers, helped win World War II for the Allies by building the world's first complex reprogrammable computer that enabled them to decrypt Germany's coded messages that included strategic coordinates among many other top secret information. And oh yeah, he was gay and eventually committed suicide after being ordered by a court of law to cure himself of his homosexuality by taking experimental hormone treatments among many other horrific methods. But enough about all that, we've got a war to win!

Director Morten Tyldum was obviously taken by Turing's entire life story and who could blame him? The bulletpoints above only begin to chip away at the myriad layers of the man. That Tyldum set out to chronicle Turing's life isn't the issue; that he chose to whittle it down to a tidy hour and fifty-five minute melodrama is where you can start to point fingers. But I hope you have a lot of fingers because The Imitation Game has more issues than that.

Turing is played by Benedict Cumberbatch (Sherlock, Star Trek: Into Darkness) with all the subtlety of a cannon being fired off in a tea room. He's a powderkeg of ticks and twitches that actually gives his character the only nuance that this script will allow. Yes, Alan Turing is a character in The Imitation Game, a biopic about Alan Turing the human being. Other characters include: the entire cast – also representing real human beings who actually existed – consisting of Kiera Knightley, Matthew Goode (Watchmen, Match Point), Charles Dance (Game of Thrones), Rory Kinnear (Penny Dreadful, Skyfall) among others. While there's nothing wrong with these performances per se, it's distracting from start to finish just how aware you are that these are actors giving performances. There's no room to just breathe and lose yourself in the human drama without constantly being nudged by the film itself, urging you to behold that very human drama playing out on screen. Knightley's performance rises to the top of the heap by default based on the fact that she just doesn't have as many bombastic lines of dialogue as her costars.

We spend the first half of the film being introduced to everyone – literally. In fact, much of The Imitation Game is made up expository dialogue, right down to the bitter end, which we'll get to. We're told who's who, who does what, and so on by way of characters stiffly (or, in some cases, exaggeratedly) announcing this information for the sake of the audience. We're given facts and dates and endless information that you almost forget this is supposed to be a movie and not a basic history lesson for children. Ideas and phrases are introduced and repeated, ad nauseam. Again, distracting from the narrative and instead frustrating and annoying to anyone actually paying attention, which the film specifically asks of us in its in media res opening sequence.

It's unclear how many hands were in the pot during the production process but The Imitation Game has the feel of a collaborative effort gone wrong. It seems as though Morten Tyldum only wanted to tell the story of Turing's war effort (crack the code, win the war) but this film isn't satisfied with just showing us that. We go back into Turing's past, we jump toward the end of his life, we're all over the place but we don't flesh out his character nearly enough during these sequences for it to have any significance. Why even bother delving into the man's past or future when you can't even bring him to life – at no fault of Cumberbatch's – during the era you've dedicated the most film to? Once again: distracting and frustrating. Even in the end we're treated to a half-assed title card informing us of what ultimately happened at the end of Turing's life. Yes, you read that correctly. The most tragic part of Alan Turing's story is relayed to the audience via text on the screen. This not only reeks of studio involvement, it just flat out reeks a stench of which I can't accurately describe.

The Imitation Game is an incredibly uneven film with terrific actors belting out ham-fisted lines and gorgeous cinematography shoddily edited together and curiously paced. When it's not hammering you over the head with its big ideas, it's zipping through the man's life like a high school student cramming for an exam. I'm reminded of Ed Harris' Jackson Pollock biopic, Pollock which set out to earnestly tell the story of a misunderstood genius but ended up falling prey to many of the same pitfalls as The Imitation Game. I honestly don't think anyone set out to make a mediocre film here, but that's just what it ends up being. Hopefully a film will one day come along that can crack the code of Alan Turing's incredibly fascinating life story but The Imitation Game is not that film.

Alexander and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day (2014)

A short, silly family friendly movie

[26 December 2014]

If you've seen the trailer for Alexander and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day then you, like I, have looked into the eyes of the beast and have seen the end of days. The good news is that the trailer is a false prophet! Alexander and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day is nowhere near the generically bland family friendly slop that the trailer promises. That's not to say there aren't problems with the film, but much like everything good about Alexander, even they surprised me.

Loosely based off the 1987 children's book of the same name, Alexander has to make a full length film out of 32 pages of source material. While the book is focused on its protagonists titular Very Bad Day, the film shares the wealth of misery with his entire family. After Alexander (Ed Oxenbould) experiences a bad day at school where he learns that a much more popular boy is throwing an over-the-top birthday party on the same day as his, he gets gum in his hair, sets his lab partner's notes on fire and endures a host of unfortunate incidents. Later that day he discovers that his entire family has had an absurdly successful day; his dad (played by the film's MVP, Steve Carell) has an interview for a great job designing videogames, his mom (Jennifer Garner) is up for a promotion at her book publishing firm, his older brother (Dylan Minnette) is taking the hottest girl at school (Bella Thorne) to prom and is set to ace his driver's test the following day and his older sister (Kerris Dorsey) is starring as Peter Pan in her school play tomorrow. Alexander makes a birthday wish at midnight that his family experience a bad day much like the one he just had and from there, the majority of the film deals with the fallout of this magical birthday wish.

As I said, the trailer to Alexander promises a cloying family affair full of lessons learned, working together, and stale after school special type goody-two-shoes lecturing. And while Alexander certainly aims at delivering the message of family sticking together when things get bad, it doesn't do it in the way the trailer suggests. This film is rife with physical humor, toilet humor, slapstick gags and a few clever lines of dialogue generally delivered by Carell. In short, Alexander is surprisingly funny for adults and kids alike. Even Dick Van Dyke gets to spend a little time on screen telling kids that it's a-OK to take a dump in a pool. Please be advised that I didn't say this was high-brow humor. I merely said there are laughs to be had so long as you're not going in to the theater expecting anything as subversive as Toy Story or The Boxtrolls. It also helps that this is such a likable cast, you get the sense that everyone on screen truly enjoyed themselves and that really goes a long way in the overall enjoyment I had as a moviegoer; the fun is infectious and never feels forced.

The only real issue I have with Alexander is a subplot that involves a character drinking an entire bottle of cough syrup and then using the hijinks that ensue as fodder for comedy. I find this incredibly irresponsible simply because this is a movie for children and pre-teens. Given that prescription and over the counter medication abuse is an actual real world issue, I have a hard time forgiving that Disney would allow such subject matter in their film. Of course, having a discussion with your kids about how this is not a good thing to do isn't a bad idea, I just don't feel it's the job of a movie prominently featuring poop jokes to be the catalyst for such a discussion.

All in all, Alexander and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day is a fun movie that will keep kids and parents tuned in for the full 81 minutes. It's short, silly and has a positive overall message without bludgeoning you over the head with saccharine oversentimentality. Take your kids, laugh at the cartoonish nonsense that unfolds on screen, savor its family values message and then have a serious discussion with your children about robotrippin'. Sounds like the makings of a great weekend to me!

Force Majeure (2014)

At once hilarious and heartbreaking

[9/10 · 26 December 2014]

Tomas (Johannes Kuhnke) and Ebba (Lisa Loven Kongsli), the two central characters in Ruben Östlund's razor sharp marital dramedy Force Majeure, talk a lot about talking. They step outside of earshot of their two children to supposedly have an important conversation but instead just stare at one another, neither one able to articulate to the other exactly how they feel. This is a family with obvious wealth and high social status that is at the same time burdened by the realities of maintaining that lifestyle – Ebba remarks to a friend she runs into on vacation that her husband has found the time to spend 5 days with his family instead of working. She spouts this information with a venomous tone, making sure Tomas can hear her loud and clear. That is how these two communicate and it makes for a hilarious (and beautiful) stroll down passive aggressive lane the more the odds become stacked up against this couple. Pulled into Tomas and Ebba's black hole of marital bliss is Mats (Kristofer Hivju of Game of Throne's) and Fanny (Fanni Metelius), friends of Tomas and Ebba who join them halfway through their vacation. They are forced to play couples therapists after Ebba – from the safety of the company of others and a decent wine buzz – confronts Tomas about his behavior after a forced avalanche almost buried their entire family the day before. This awkward situation forces Mats and Fanny into a seemingly endless conversation about instinct and what it means to be a man, the likes of which Ebba desperately desires to engage in with Tomas but is simply unable to due in part to his stubbornness and her willingness to swallow her frustrations indefinitely.

The masterful contrast illustrated between these two couples is as much a result of the writing as it is the performances. These actors revel in their characters' obliviousness to their own shortcomings and it's simply a joy to watch them rage against their own instincts, be it a subtle twitch of the eye or a complete emotional breakdown. Tomas' reserved, short burst pulses of vague dialog are fun house mirrored to Mats over explanation of his feelings and what he hopes is a clear projection of his own masculinity. The tension is all so tightly wound and claustrophobic that if it weren't for the expertly paced bits of absurd comedy, you'd have to take an anti-anxiety pill two thirds through the film.

As if all this weren't enough, Ruben Östlund uses the French Alps setting of Force Majeure to full affect. In between each of the five days these characters must endure their vacation together, Östlund intercuts a vignette of the mountainside. Sometimes we see it in full morning light with the breathtaking slopes still untouched by skiers. Other times we see it at night, dimly lit and the sounds of explosions echoing through the valley as controlled avalanches wipe the slate clean of the skiing that had took place the previous day. These vignettes are accompanied by dramatic symphony music that recalls Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey (with its whitewashed visuals and bombastic musical cues). These micro breaks in the film's tense narrative make it all the more hilarious when they appear and then immediately drop us back into the emotional grinder.

Force Majeure is one of the best films I've seen all year. It took home the Jury Prize at Cannes this year and will almost certainly add many more awards to its shelf. It is a true cinematic experience. At once hilarious and heartbreaking with characters you can choose to either root to failure or redemption, still having a good time regardless of the outcome. There is a critique of the way we conduct ourselves in our relationships but it never indicts the audience, instead pointing the finger at the characters they're watching. For that, the film successfully gets us to examine ourselves by comparison to its own protagonists without making the whole affair unnecessarily nasty just to make a point, a la Funny Games. You owe it to yourself to see this film.

Breathe (2014)

A film you have to experience for yourself!

[26 December 2014]

You may remember Mélanie Laurent from her wonderful performance in Quentin Tarantino's 2009 nazi revenge fantasy, Inglorious Basterds. In that film she portrays the lone survivor of a Jewish family who was slaughtered by the Nazis. She ultimately gets her revenge in a stunning scene that takes place in a movie theater with a home movie playing – her laughing face being projected onto the screen – as the Nazis meet their demise in a bloody malaise she had a hand in orchestrating. Laurent has moved behind the camera for Breathe (her feature length debut) and it's no exaggeration when I say that this film is even more powerful than the one her character in Inglorious Basterds created. Starring Joséphine Japy as Charlie, a high school senior who sparks up a hazardous friendship with the new girl in school, Sarah (played by Lou de Laâge). Charlie's parents relationship can be described as tumultuous and, at times, downright abusive, with her timid mother (Isabelle Carré) always being on the receiving end. This behavior has spilled over into Charlie's world, affecting her view of her own parents as well as the way she seeks out companionship amongst her peers. And while this could all have played out like a hammy "very special episode" of prime time television, instead we get an excellent character study of complex personalities coming together and tearing each other apart.

Breathe is, above all, a story about toxic relationships and it handles that issue with the care and seriousness it deserves. Charlie and Sarah's friendship is based on uneven ground with Sarah always having an upper hand. She's a villain, for sure, but there's more to her character than an unexplained desire to cause pain. She's a victim, just as Charlie's mother is a victim, just as Charlie herself is a victim to Sarah's own behavior. These people are different sides of the same coin and Breathe subtly illustrates how this pattern of abuse and submissiveness is learned and passed down from generation to generation. It's beautifully devastating once you see the paths these characters are intent on walking down become clearer and clearer.

I can't recall a single film that has been able to so vividly capture the experience of adolescent friendship gone sour the way Breathe does. At several points I caught myself actually having to slow my own breathing down as I had gotten so worked up over what was playing out on the screen. This film brings you back to adolescence and the heartbreak that comes when friendships fall apart and betrayal becomes something real rather than just a thing you read in books and see in movies. This is due in part to Laurent's beautiful directing, framing shots to perfectly reflect Charlie's isolation from everyone but Sarah, blurring the edges of her life and solely focusing on the object of her desire. But the true verisimilitude of Breathe comes from its two lead performances.

Japy and de Laâge are just outstanding in their respective roles. Breathe wouldn't be able to pack such a powerful punch without the presence these two actresses bring to the film; they are so genuine in the skin of these characters that it's hard to believe you're not watching these events unfold as a member of their inner circle. These are two breakout performances occurring at once in the same film and for that, Breathe is really something you have to experience for yourself.

Before I Go to Sleep (2014)

A generic psychological thriller with superb leads

[5/10 · 19 December 2014]

From the opening scene until the end credits I found myself asking the same question: "What are Nicole Kidman and Colin Firth doing in this movie?" I'm sure I'll never know what drove these two to pursue having any part in Before I Go To Sleep, but I can say that we, the audience, should be thanking them. Were it not for the presence and skill they lend to their roles, we'd be in for one incredibly unpleasant sleepwalk of a movie. Kidman plays the part of Christine, a woman in her 40s who wakes up every morning having no memories of who or where she is. Her husband Ben (Colin Firth) has meticulously collaged a photo essay of her life on the bathroom wall, detailing the last 20 years that she cannot recall. They reenact the same routine every single day with the same result – Christine will not retain any of this information. That is, until a mysterious Dr. Nasch (Mark Strong) begins phoning Christine after Ben leaves for work every morning (there doesn't appear to be weekends in this world). Nasch supplies Christine with a digital camera and urges her to record her memories in the hopes of sparking some kind of breakthrough. And naturally, because this is a movie, Christine is not to tell her husband about the camera or her meetings with Nasch.

Borrowing ideas from Memento, Groundhog Day, and even Regarding Henry, Before I Go To Sleep never rises to the level of any of those films. It fancies itself as a modern thriller, big twists and all, but the screenplay never piques your interest any further than, "What is going on here?" and once we find out, a resounding, "Who cares?" will be heard across cineplexes. That's the problem with modern thrillers in the first place; hinging your film on a big reveal that might not be satisfying is a risk that could leave you high and dry. M. Night Shyamalan is still paying for the sins of his twistcapades and Before I Go To Sleep's director Rowan Joffe is no M. Night. His bland direction and derivative visual instincts have all the artistic distinction of a hand stenciled turkey.

Fortunately for us, we do get to spend the entire film with actors who can make even the most boring material seem interesting. Nicole Kidman and Colin Firth are fascinating as this couple who are existing in a state of perpetual arrested development. The film makes the mistake of assuming its plot is what is holding our interest but really all I want is for Kidman and Firth to interact. Even when they aren't in the same room, their presence is felt. The aforementioned Dr. Nasch is also a fascinating character that is bolstered by a strong, reserved performance by Mark Strong (Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy). Again, that is only meant to come off as praise for the performers and not the filmmakers. This is rudimentary filmmaking that just so happens to be wrapped around some excellent players.

Before I Go to Sleep is a stalemate of a movie if I've ever seen one. On a technical level it's an absolute bore. Its generic look, sound and feel would render it completely inessential if not for such fine and convincing turns from everyone on screen. I can't recommend it but at the same time I can't find it in me to ward off all ye who dare to enter. Appropriately, Before I Go To Sleep is the kind of film you can watch before bed and forget all about in the morning.

Horrible Bosses 2 (2014)

An unnecessary but funny sequel

[7/10 · 19 December 2014]

Hollywood's strategy of wringing every last ounce of life out of a successful idea via sequels, prequels, spin-offs and the "partification" of films has been discussed to death. At this point I'm almost as tired of having that discussion as I am seeing the subject at hand play out in real life, over and over again. It is with this mindset that, upon seeing the trailer for Horrible Bosses 2 for the first time, I loudly sighed in my theater seat and thought to myself, "Why the hell are they doing this?" And despite the actual answer being EASY MONEY, after actually seeing Horrible Bosses 2, I can honestly make a case that maybe – just maybe – these people actually wanted to get together again and make a funny movie for the sake of comedy. Exhibit A: The jokes are solid and, in most cases, funnier than the first film's. Part of that is a result of just letting a joke breathe and flourish naturally via timing and delivery. One gag in particular regarding the use of walkie-talkies nearly made me choke on my popcorn specifically because of how well it was executed through dialog alone. The first Horrible Bosses was more comparable to The Hangover films in that a group of white guys get in over their head and endure insane circumstances, each one more outlandish than the one before it. This time around, while we're still very much in the Hangover spirit of storytelling (I use that term in the loosest of senses), the film is much more reliant upon the comedic chemistry between our three leading men. That leads me to…

Exhibit B: This cast is simply fantastic. Reprising their roles as Nick (Jason Bateman) the straight man, Kurt (Jason Sudeikis) the womanizer, and Dale (Charlie Day) the fool, the three stars of this film bounce lines off one another like bumper cars to increasingly hilarious effect. Bateman shines brightest and that speaks volumes on his talent considering he's been playing variations of this role for nearly his entire career without the shtick showing any signs of wear – at least as far as this film is concerned. Sudeikis and Day get to play human cartoon characters the entire film and it simply just works. Also back is Jamie Foxx as the criminal consigliere, "Motherf***er Jones." While this character did nothing for me the first go-round, this time I find myself enjoying his dimwitted power plays and Big Gulp inflected sit- downs. Jennifer Aniston also returns as her sex-addicted dentist from the first film and gets to appear in the funniest scene of Horrible Bosses 2. Newcomers Chris Pine and Christoph Waltz also bring a welcome exaggerated Big Business brass ballsiness element to the film's central plot that just makes the story that much more relevant. Speaking of the plot…

Exhibit C: This story is conducive to comedy as well as being socially relevant. Nick, Kurt and Dale have created a product that Christoph Waltz agrees to help manufacture. Once the order has been completed, Waltz's character then cancels the order in a strategy that will allow him to purchase the product at pennies on the dollar once our three heroes have to claim bankruptcy. In a climate where we are mistrusting of the unscrupulous 1%, this plot has a sort of resonance that hits home with modern movie goers. I'm also fairly certain that more folks can relate to being screwed over by their boss (or the boss's conniving underling) than they can to their mega-hot co-worker trying to seduce them against their will. Basically, this film corrects every issue I had with the first one in that it unifies the protagonists motivations with the audience's desire for them to stick it to the man. It reaches across the aisle and finds a middle ground we can all agree on – and then it amps it up to mach speed by way of kidnap, hostage taking and much worse.

With all this praise you might think I'm ready to call this a modern comedy classic. I'm not. Horrible Bosses 2 has problems. It's not shy to rely on gross-out gags, it has no shame in reprising jokes from the first film (albeit sparingly so), and it might as well have been directed by Apple CEO Tim Cook because, as Erik Walkuski of ScreenCrush noted in a tweet, Horrible Bosses 2 looks like it was filmed on an iPhone. That is to say there is no personality to the look of the film. It just is. While that's not a major concern for a comedy, it does leave a bit to be desired in the aesthetics department.

I present my case that Horrible Bosses 2 is a win for everyone. Hollywood will make a nice payday while being able to say, "See! People want more of the same" without a hint of irony to be found. Audiences will get to laugh for a straight 110 minutes in the company of characters they already know they like spending time with based on the success of the first film. And although this could mean "more of the same" is all we're ever going to get, I'd like to put a positive spin on things and hope that maybe someone behind the scenes is paying attention. Maybe, just maybe, someone will pick up on the fact that this film is better than the first because it's actually just better in every sense of the word. Probably not though. *a football hits me in the groin and a laugh track explodes from an unknown dimension*

Big Hero 6 (2014)

Inspiring, gorgeous and fun

[8/10 · 19 December 2014]

Walt Disney Pictures' latest animated feature Big Hero 6 is based on a Marvel comic – a first for the company. The titular team was created in 1998 and has only appeared in what amounts to a handful of comic book issues. This obscurity ends up working in Disney's favor as they were given the freedom to tweak and mold Big Hero 6 into something that is much more family friendly than your typical Marvel fare without being beholden to some nonsensical reverence to the comic's roots. Yes, there are lessons to be doled out here and positive messages abound, but Big Hero 6 is so much fun and its "big message" so earnest and culturally relevant that these life lessons actually strengthen the film rather than provoke unintentional eye rolls. Big Hero 6 stars Hiro (voiced by Ryan Potter) as a child science prodigy who, in the film's early scenes, is content using his abilities to hustle in the underground world of "bot fighting," which is exactly what you imagine. Hiro's older brother Tadashi (Daniel Henney) pushes him to be more than just a back-alley robotics hustler and brings him to his school to hopefully persuade him into enrolling. It is there that we are introduced to Tadashi's classmates, all of which possess a very specific science-based skill: The cartoonishly meticulous laser expert Wasabi (Damon Wayans Jr.), adrenaline junkie and daredevil Go Go (Jamie Chung), bubbly chemistry expert Honey Lemon (Genesis Rodriguez), and the lovable slacker known as Fred (T.J. Miller). We also get to meet Professor Callaghan (James Cromwell) and his ethically unsound adversary, Alistair Krei (Alan Tudyk). It's worth noting that all of this tablesetting and introduction of heroes and villains occurs in the university's aptly named Exposition Hall – one of many clever sight gags in a film loaded with them. It is also here that we're introduced to the real star of Big Hero 6, Baymax – an inflatable robot whose sole purpose is to provide medical care to people.

Baymax (voiced by 30 Rock's Scott Adsit) provides the film with a majority of its comic relief. The puffy balloon design of the character is played for laughs often and the animators really let their imaginations run wild here. The film has a great understanding of physics and, as you might imagine, there are plenty of physically amusing things you can do with a balloon. Now picture that balloon having the ability to speak with the voice of a trained comedic actor because as great as those bits of physical humor are, the real charm of Baymax lies in Scott Adsit's vocal performance. He delivers his lines in a deadpan, matter-of-fact cadence that is both childlike and maternal in nature. It's an odd pairing of traits but it really works for such a unique character whose only desire is to heal, at all costs. With Baymax, we have the ultimate comedy presence on screen; he is both the foil and the straight man and that makes for a comedy act that never grows tiresome.

Anyone looking for the depth of The Incredibles should keep searching because you won't find it here. The rest of the Big Hero 6 team can't really compete with Baymax's wit or charm but they really don't have to. This is an animated team that functions much better as a team (Baymax included) than as individuals. Not that they're boring, per se, but these characters are more or less types rather than fully fleshed out heroes like Pixar's aforementioned team. Fortunately, teamwork is one of Big Hero 6's messages and so it's likely that these specific, one dimensional supporting characters are meant to shine a light on the greater good of teamwork rather than that of the individual. Still, it's frustrating when you've seen other films champion the idea of teamwork while handling the supporting cast much better.

The main message of Big Hero 6 is this: don't take the easy way just because you can. It urges its characters (and hopefully the audience) to solve problems by looking at them at another angle, to use your imagination and think creatively. This point is made no fewer than a half dozen times in the film and I couldn't stop myself from smiling at every occurrence. Maybe it's just my personal bias or maybe it's because I've never seen a film so eagerly invested in inspiring its kid- centric audience to actually think but I loved Big Hero 6 for this reason above all. The excitement of having a logical breakthrough is treated as being one of the greatest feelings one can have and I'd be lying if I said I disagree. This is a movie you can actually feel great about letting your kids watch approximately two million times before they become treacherous adolescents.

Despite some glaring black holes in the plot and a montage set to the abysmal sounds of Fall Out Boy, Big Hero 6 is a whole lot of fun. It's got heart, humor, and action and looks absolutely beautiful. This is a stellar animated film that will not only keep your kids entertained, but possibly inspire them to do much more than sing "Let It Go" in a cacophonous shriek for the rest of their childhood.

Happy Valley (II) (2014)

A fascinating, infuriating documentary

[7/10 · 19 December 2014]

he titular "Happy Valley" that director Amir Bar-Lev's fascinating documentary about the Penn State sexual abuse scandal focuses on sits right in my back yard. Growing up the son of a rabid college football fan (go Temple!), I spent dozens of freezing cold Saturday afternoons watching my father's pitiful Temple Owls get their asses handed to them. Several of those beatings came at the hands of Joe Paterno's Penn State Nittany Lions (that's pronounced "Nit-knee"). My father hated Joe Paterno. "He's an a**hole," he would tell my 10 year old self. My grandfather, a Temple alumni and highly regarded high school football coach, actually knew Joe Paterno personally. He was much more diplomatic. "He thinks he's God," is how he put it, if I recall correctly. And so, my opinions on Joe Paterno, Penn State and their fans have been likely influenced since the day I was born, making me an easy mark for Bar-Lev's slyly biased documentary.

For those unfamiliar with the horrific events that surround Happy Valley, it goes like this: in 2011, Penn State football assistant coach Jerry Sandusky was accused and convicted of 45 counts of sexual abuse to minors that occurred between 1994-2009. Sandusky met his victims through a non-profit charity for wayward youths he funded called "The Second Mile," earning their trust through various predatory means (free games, meals, attention they weren't getting at home). As if that weren't horrible enough, it was eventually revealed that someone had caught Sandusky raping a boy in the showers, alerted head coach Joe Paterno who in turn alerted his superiors. And then nothing. No police. No disciplinary actions. No justice. And that's what Happy Valley takes aim at. We can all agree that Jerry Sandusky is a monster, but what of the revered man who played a part in just letting the monster roam free, enabling him to damage more lives than he already had? Shouldn't he have to answer for his part in all of this? The answer, if you're a Penn State football fan, is a resounding, "NO!"

Bar-Lev populates his documentary with folks who are varying degrees of pro-Paterno. From his own immediate family who will defend their father's legacy and character to their own graves right down to the flustered Penn State football fan sitting in front of his bedroom wall scrapbook of Penn State pendants, posters and plaques complaining about everyone getting bent out of shape about this whole thing and not focusing on what really matters: football. Rather than force a reaction from his subjects, a la Michael Moore, Bar-Lev takes a page right out of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart's book and simply lets them talk and talk and talk until they hang themselves with their own words, not even realizing it in most cases. It's a funny trick, for sure, but after the 5th time you see it unfold you kind of get the point. These people are blinded by their fandom, biased by their own admiration for Joe Paterno. From the fans who traveled to take a photo with the since removed bronze Joe Paterno statue to the fans who rallied and then rioted when Paterno was fired from his head coach position in the aftermath of the FBI report that detailed his involvement in Sandusky's web of nightmares, these people will not stray from St. Joe's side.

But who is Joe Paterno and why does he have this effect on people? Happy Valley does its due diligence to give a little bit of history on Paterno and his good deeds throughout the years. That juxtaposed with video of the frail, fragile coach during his last few months make a case that he was a good man, flawed, but rooted in good intentions. Of course, we all know the old adage about good intentions and where the road they're paved in lead to. I believe they lead to the Orange Bowl, according to this gentleman with the Penn State logo painted on his naked torso.

In the end, Happy Valley is a fascinating look at this culture of fandom that even my own football-obsessed father can't reconcile. To be so blinded by winning at all costs that you'd sacrifice the innocence of a child… it's tragic and infuriating. And that's the feeling you'll get while watching this film. I only wish that it wasn't as one-sided, albeit ever so subtly, so that the other side's case wasn't presented in the condescending tone it is. Of course, how are you supposed to defend someone embroiled in a conspiracy of this nature without looking like a complete asshole? These are the kinds of problems us Temple fans never have to worry about.

The Babadook (2014)

A wonderful, wholly original horror film

[9/10 · 19 December 2014]

When we talk about the "greatest" horror films ever made, chances are titles like The Shining, Rosemary's Baby, Halloween, Carrie and The Exorcist are the first ones to be name checked – and for good reason. These films were all made by acclaimed directors interested in far more than just scaring audiences. Instead of barraging us with "jump scares," a horror trend that just won't die, these movies took the fears and anxieties that we as humans are forced to face at one point or another and personified them. Fear of being a parent, fear of the responsibilities of growing up, fear of being punished by a higher power, etc. The ability to put a face on our worst nightmares is what hits a nerve with horror fans and gives these films their power. In that respect, Jenifer Kent's feature directorial debut The Babadook deserves to at least be considered among the aforementioned sacred cows of horror.

Amelia (played by Essie Davis) is a single mother to her six year old son Samuel (Noah Wiseman). Her husband was killed in a car wreck while driving her to the hospital to give birth to Samuel. Six years later she still hasn't dealt with the trauma of losing her husband, repressing her grief and by extension many of her other emotions. This has resulted in her not being the mother she wishes she could be or even living a life with any kind of joy or happiness present. Her son has taken to bouts of tantrums, lashing out violently at anyone who threatens the life he and his mother have come to know as "normal," getting himself suspended from school and ultimately being an albatross to Amelia. What's more, he is prone to sleepless nights, fearful of monsters under the bed or in the closet. This leads us to one fateful evening when Samuel asks Amelia to read him a story before bed. The story, of course, comes courtesy of a mysterious book bearing the name of the film, The Babadook (with wonderfully creepy illustrations by Alexander Juhasz). Mr. Babadook threatens to show the reader "what's inside" and scare them to death. From this point on, the horror ramps up both inside the confines of their home and out in the real world but I'll leave that for you to experience.

Kent goes to great lengths to create the isolated world that our two main characters exist in. Even when they step outside, a feeling of claustrophobia is present. This is a world only inhabited by mother and son despite how many people may come and go in and out of their lives. This suffocating relationship can only lead to bad things happening and – SURPRISE! – they do, but what makes the horror of The Babadook stick is that these characters are fully realized and not just types.

Essie Davis is simply amazing in this role. She gives a demanding, emotional performance that asks her to shed many layers over the course of the film's 90 minutes and never hits a sour note. As a sleepless, desperate mother at her wit's end she excels, lashing out at her son and then immediately realizing and regretting her outburst and trying to absolve herself with ice cream. I defy you to find me a parent who hasn't had an identical altercation with their own child. You get the sense that she wants the best for Samuel but knows that she can't deliver, at least in her current station in life.

The other side of this coin is Noah Wiseman's turn as Samuel. He has been clearly coached to be our resident "creepy kid" but in this case his creepiness is part of his charm rather than a trait meant to illicit fear. Samuel is not the monster under the bed, he's the one who has to protect his family from that monster. Wiseman's wide eyes and shrill screams terrify us, sure, but we're scared for him. This isn't Omen 9: The Shithead – this is relatable horror, whether you're looking at it from Amelia's point of view or Samuel's. They're both helpless but they're both fighting, nonetheless, against forces aiming to destroy them both.

My only gripe with The Babadook is the look of the creature itself. Mr. Babadook appears to have been ripped right out of some generic J-horror ghost movie, specifically bringing to mind The Grudge – a comparison it pains me to make as I really loved this film and really hated The Grudge. Mr. Babadook moves with a quickness that brings to mind a cockroach scurrying away from light. This would be more effective had we not seen this kind of creature design over and over again for the past decade or so, but I digress. To dwell on the look of the monster is to miss the point of the film all together and deprive yourself of a truly terrifying and satisfying experience.

The Babadook is exciting because it not only understands great horror, it delivers on its knowledge of the genre without being meta (Scream, Cabin in the Woods). This is an original, confident horror film that will only get better with multiple viewings. On top of that, we now have to keep our eye on director Jennifer Kent, as she is surely going to be churning out some excellent work in the wake of the praise this film has been getting all year. The Babadook may very well be a launch pad for Kent and is absolutely a film that will be talked about when discussing great horror, at least when I'm participating in the conversation.

Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014)

A fun, subversive Marvel film that isn't Guardians!

[8/10 · 15 December 2014]

"Wow!"

That's the word that continually prefaced everything I had to say about this movie once the lights came up in the theater. Not since seeing The Dark Knight have I left my seat feeling like I just watched a comic book movie transcend the usual pitfalls that plague the genre, becoming something else entirely. During the drive home I couldn't shut up about the movie. It felt like I was a hyperactive kid who had just seen something completely new, original and exciting. In other words: Captain America: The Winter Soldier is just amazing.

I'm not going to spoil anything that isn't already presented in the promotional materials for the movie, but a very brief synopsis goes like this: After the catastrophic events that take place in the climax of The Avengers, S.H.I.E.L.D. has taken the initiative to drastically up the ante on national and global security. Super soldier Steve Rogers (aka Captain America aka Chris Evans aka Pete Pectorals) has to decide whether he wants to continue working for the organization all while facing off against a mysterious new enemy known as The Winter Solider (Sebastian Stan aka Noob Saibot). Of course, he has a little help from his old friend Black Widow (Scarlett Johannson in posterior-hugging leather) and new partner in crime fighting, The Falcon (Anthony Mackie aka Will Smith in Independence Day). Will they save the day? Well there's already a Captain America 3 announced so it's safe to assume they will, however you definitely want to see how they get to the next sequel.

Now that that's out of the way, allow me to gush further on about how fantastic this movie is. Let's start with the action. There's a lot of it. A LOT OF ACTION, I say! Most post-Bourne action scenes are shot very tight with the camera making ADHD movements. With The Winter Soldier you know exactly what's happening on screen. Every kick, punch, flip, slap and tickle is crystal clear, making the fight scenes absolutely riveting and engrossing. The Winter Soldier shoots its action tight, but with great focus. I was literally squeezing my armrests during several scenes, something I haven't done since Gravity.

Action is the real star of this movie, but I have to shower praise on everyone on screen. The entire cast is invested in this world 100% and it makes for a great viewing experience. Chris Evans just oozes charm as a confident Captain America and his one-on-one scenes with Scarlett Johannson seem more realistic and grounded in reality than most action thrillers that aren't based on comic books. Samuel L. Jackson actually shows up for work as Nick Fury (something that cannot be said about his recent appearance in Robocop) and Anthony Mackie is fun, funny and endearing as former "pilot" turned superhero. Oh by the way, they got Robert Redford to co-star in this movie. That is a BIG DEAL. The Sundance Kid himself just starred in a blockbuster Marvel movie. Of course he's phenomenal in it. Everyone is.

The flaws in this movie are very minor. One issue I had was that there are several pieces of dialog that are so campy that they do remind you that you're watching comic book characters come to life, but not in a cool way. This is obviously forgivable though since anyone expecting Elizabethan prose should lighten up. I only mention it because most of the dialog in this movie is fantastic and it was jarring to hear a line that seems ripped right out of an overly dramatic speech bubble. Another thing I noticed (and I'm hesitant to even call this a flaw) is that it might serve you well to watch both Captain America: The First Avenger (no kidding) and The Avengers before you see this movie. You might also want to have at least a basic understanding of the world of Captain America. I'm only saying this as a response to the fact that a majority of the audience I watched this with "oohed" and "ahhed" with glee at several things shown or said on screen that I didn't have the slightest idea about. Obviously neither of those issues negatively impacted my movie experience.

I referenced The Dark Knight earlier in this review as a comic book movie that transcends the genre. That's exactly what Captain America: The Winter Solider does, just as adeptly. Where The Dark Knight was clearly a crime movie with capes, this is an espionage action thriller that just happens to have guys dressed in costumes with superpowers. It even draws on our current real world situations with the NSA, Wikileaks, Edward Snowden, Julian Assange, and company, and spins them into an enthralling action flick. This world seems plausible because it's an exaggeration of the world we live in now. There is an air of verisimilitude to The Winter Solider that truly makes us wish we had a Captain America of our own.

Comic book fans and comic book movie fans should see this movie. People who hate comic books should see this movie. To be perfectly honest I can't think of any group of people who shouldn't see this movie. It's fun, hypnotic and endlessly entertaining. If this is a prelude of what this summer's movies have to offer, it's going to be a great year for blockbusters.

Veronica Mars (2014)

Like watching TV in a theater

[5/10 · 15 December 2014]

I never watched Veronica Mars when it was on UPN (and later the CW network). It aired from 2004 to 2007 and during those years nearly all of my TV habits revolved around watching LOST, talking about LOST and ravenously eating up all the LOST theories that were floating around the internet. I vaguely remember Veronica Mars and that's primarily due to a poster advertisement hanging outside the mall arcade by the main doors. Even if I hadn't been obsessed with LOST, I can tell you that after watching Veronica Mars: The Movie, this was not a show I would have been tuning in to week after week. I chose to go into the movie completely cold. I wanted to judge this film as just that, a film. The only preparation I made was to watch the trailer which didn't really tell me a whole lot other than this was definitely not something I would go see on my own accord. The good news is that you don't have to have any prior knowledge of this movie's universe. It swiftly lays out the all the exposition you need right in the first few minutes without feeling too clunky or forced. Score one for the movie.

Veronica Mars is an excellent finale for a show that never truly got one. That this movie even came to fruition is evidence enough of its fans love for the show; they're the ones who funded this thing after all. The film's director, Rob Thomas (not the J.O. with the mullet from that band) and star, Kristen Bell (yes, the blonde who married the other guy from MTV's Punk'd – not Ashton though) put the film on Kickstarter with the goal of raising two million dollars. It went up to nearly six million! That's some intense fanboy love. What's more, I sat in a packed to capacity theater for an advance screening of this movie. That speaks volumes as to how much fans of the show care about what happens to these characters seven years later. Score another one for the movie.

So how is the movie? Well, that's where the problem lies. This isn't really a movie. This looks and feels like a 107 minute episode of Veronica Mars. That's not to say anything bad about what I watched on the movie screen other than I should not have been watching it on a movie screen. This is television through and through. This is made evident several times, utilizing such TV tropes as:

Insinuating sex with characters kissing and breathing into each other's face while indie music from 2005 plays. A sex scene which is literally just two legs sticking out of the bed sheets. A dramatic event occurs and the screen fades to black as if we're about to watch a Pepsi commercial. I'm not saying this doesn't make for good television, but it is television all the same. That fact will not stop fans of the show from buying tickets, however. And why should it? They've already paid to have it filmed, what's another $10 to see the whole thing through to the end?

Fans of the show will absolutely be satisfied with what they see and most likely enjoy every minute of it. A majority of the people in attendance were adults in their mid-to-late twenties. Many of them were probably fans of the show before they could even drink a beer. That same demographic are also most likely to go to the movies. What I'm getting at here is that this two-part television miniseries, filmed for six million dollars, has a very good chance at being a huge hit. Add another point to the movie's score.

The issue I'm having is that this is a film review site and I'm charged with reviewing films. That Veronica Mars is an entertaining and satisfying piece of television can only carry it so far. As a movie, this will not do. As a movie, these characters and their motivations are wafer thin. As a movie, the plot doesn't really work. So how do I rate this thing?

As a movie it's a 4.

As a final episode to a TV series it's an 8.

I'm just going to have to split the difference.

RoboCop (2014)

Your prime directive is to stay away from Robocop.

[2/10 · 15 December 2014]

The big dumb action movie is an integral piece of the cinema world. Everything about it is larger than life and it provides audiences with an escape that is far more unbelievable and fantastical than, say dramatic masterpieces like The Godfather or critically acclaimed comedies like Annie Hall. The best big dumb action movies give us an invincible hero to root for, a super villain to hate, and enormous stakes at hand. Die Hard, Terminator, Aliens… these are all big dumb action movies that people dissect, discuss and debate over. Robocop tries to stumble its way into the lineup of big dumb action movies but the end result is just dumb. There's nothing truly big about this movie, save for the ED-209 robots that appear once in the very beginning of the film and then of course once again at the very end in the only actually exciting sequence of the entire movie. This film takes place in Detroit, a major American city, and yet it doesn't feel like we're in a city. In fact, I don't really know where we are half the time. Most of the film takes place in small places (The Murphy home, police headquarters, a lab in OmniCorp that nearly every single character somehow has access to??!!) It's a very claustrophobic experience for no discernible reason.

Robocop is also very short on action. There are a few explosions throughout, but short of a training sequence set to the tune of "If I Only Had a Heart" from The Wizard of Oz (get it? Don't worry, if the joke flew over your head you'll get the chance to hear it again 376 more times before the credits roll) and the final confrontation at OmniCorp headquarters, this movie is a bore. Of course I'm speaking for myself here. You might find footage of Robocop riding his motorcycle exciting. If so, great news! There are no less than 5 different instances of Detective Murphy cruising around on his hog. Remember when I said there were several explosions? At least 3 of them are the exact same scene of Murphy's death. It's as if director Jose Padilha thought we forgot what happened in the first 15 minutes of the movie so he threw us a bone and reminded us at various intervals throughout.

What Robocop excels at is DUMB. This movie is dumb right down to its core which, like Alex Murphy's, is just barely holding on to life and sure to die without the assistance of modern technology. Let's touch on what's left of Murphy after the first time they show him explode. His face, heart and lungs are all kept going by some kind of respirator and then for some bullshit fan-service pandering reason… one hand is kept alive? It looks ridiculous just floating there by itself, truly a sight to behold, and for what? Just to say to the fans, "Hey remember his hand from the first movie? Am I right? Movies, huh guys?" This film does a lot of fan-service nods to the original that tend to take you right out of it entirely. That would normally be a bad thing, but since the original Robocop is far superior to this turd, any and all distractions are welcome.

Speaking of distractions, Samuel L. Jackson puts on his Frederick Douglass wig and pops up every once in a while to do a Bill O'Reilly impression. He's a right wing pundit who hosts his own show where apparently all he talks about is how America needs robots on its own soil to keep crime down. I get that they're going for satire here because the original movie is satire. The original Robocop is not a big dumb action movie. It's a smart, biting satire of crime, violence, urban decay and our overreactions to them as a fearful society. That this movie even attempts the satire of the original is at worst insulting to the audience and at best laughable.

Let's talk about pacing for a minute because the filmmakers never bothered to. At no point during this movie did I have any sense of when or where. We jump forward weeks and months at a time. I know this because it says so on the screen but I don't feel like we've gone anywhere. For a film that moves forward in time as often as it does, maybe you should have had more than two outfits for Michael Keaton to wear? It honestly feels like you're watching SNL jump from one sketch to another. There are no segues, no lead-ins, no dramatic lingering shots. It's just here's a scene, here's another scene, here's another scene. And it goes on and on like that the entire time. At one point I wrote the following in my notes: "What is going on??"

In the end Robocop utterly fails to draw you into its world because it doesn't even know what world it wants to live in. It's kind of an action movie but not really. It's kind of doing satire but you should totally take it seriously. It's got a little sci-fi but then completely bails on explaining any of the mysteries that angle proposes (emotions interfere with the software, no one knows why). It feels like the director saw a picture of Robocop, looked it up on Wikipedia and read the first paragraph then got distracted by an ad for the new season of Cougar Town and outsourced the screenplay to the Youtube comment section.

Your prime directive is to stay away from Robocop.

Bad Words (2013)

Bad Words is a goofy but clever enough comedy

[6/10 · 15 December 2014]

Of all film genres, comedy has to be the hardest to succeed at. Just take a look at the IMDb Top 250 and you'll only find a very small handful of comedies listed. The public consciousness is fickle when it comes to what it finds funny in any given decade resulting in an onslaught of identical comedies every few years. It seems like the ones that are always looked back on fondly are either entirely original (Ghostbusters) or throwbacks to what was funny at least ten years prior (Superbad). Jason Bateman's directorial debut Bad Words is the latter.

Bateman himself plays Guy Trilby, a loser with a high IQ and a knack for being able to spell every word in the dictionary. He's got a chip on his shoulder (the movie strings you along until the end before revealing why) and dedicates his time and energy into humiliating the participants (and their parents) of the Golden Quill National Spelling Bee, enrolling himself using a loophole in the contest's rules. He is aided by reporter Jenny Widgeon (Kathryn Hahn) who he has promised to reveal why he's doing what he's doing as long as she can keep him in the contest and pay for his lodging and meals. He also finds a new friend in Chaitanya Chopra (Rohan Chand), one of Trilby's child opponents.

This film is a throwback to the original Bad News Bears and the more recent Bad Santa in that it pulls most of its laughs (and there are a lot of them) from being downright nasty to children. If that isn't something that makes you laugh, you are wrong. While I'm not calling Bad Words a classic, I am saying it nips at the heels of the movies it's paying homage to.

Everything about this film's premise works because the cast hit their mark scene after scene. The comic delivery is nearly flawless any time you have Bateman and Hahn on screen together. A reoccurring gag between the two of them keeps getting funnier rather than inciting groans. Ten year old Rohan Chand is excellent as a precocious over-achiever who really just wants a friend; however, don't let that last sentence fool you into thinking this is a feel-good movie. This film is mean, especially to kids. It's not until the very end that there's any kind of warm and fuzzy feeling, which still doesn't come at the expense of any possible jokes. At a trim 88 minutes, this movie is also the perfect length to get maximum laughs out of a very specific topic.

The only complaint I can give Bad Words is that the pacing seems frantic and scatter-shot in its third act. Things seemingly happen just because they need to happen at that exact moment to get us to the end of the movie. If this were a high concept sci-fi movie or a film that demands attention to every detail I would hold that against it, but it's not. Bad Words is a goofy but clever comedy that earns enough good will throughout that you can forgive it for not sticking the landing as smoothly as it could have. While it's not perfect and certainly not a classic, I couldn't sleep at night if I didn't recommend this movie.