IanAJohnson Reviews

Terminator Genisys (2015)

This film was too convoluted and poorly written

[5/10 · 10 July 2015]

Terminator Genisys is the fifth installment in the Terminator franchise. This one attempts to spice up the timeline by placing two more terminators far enough back in time to interfere with the events of the first film. I am going to come straight out and say that this is not a terrible film, but it is a terrible Terminator film. The first thing that bothered me was the casting. Not a single actor that portrayed a franchise character (other than Arnold Schwarzenegger of course) felt like the character they were supposed to be playing. The acting wasn't bad; it was just off. Not only is that off-putting, but this by far the most convoluted plot in the franchise. One of the subtle beauties of the previous films is that while time travel is involved, each film takes place chronologically after its predecessor. Skynet tries to kill John Connor's mother, then John as a child, then it runs into him as an adult. This might not seem like much but it keeps the time travel incredibly simple and vague. There was no way for the audience to determine whether or not it is possible to change the future in the long-term (a major philosophical question that the franchise asks the audience). This film removes that aspect completely and in doing so completely screws up the timeline so any time you look back on it, it makes no sense. There are sections of the plot that prove that the future can be changed and others that suggest otherwise. There are a few clever nods to the originals that clean up some of the messy logic, but they typically come across as forced or rushed. The writing is just about awful. There are some clever ideas at times, but every one of them is either rushed, leads nowhere, or is so convoluted or obtuse that it just brings the film down. Even the interference with the first film comes across as rushed and irrelevant. You never even find out who sent the two new terminators back or why they where sent back! The action sequences are well shot, but generic. They typically just involve people doing things that were done once or twice in previous films several times, removing the 'Wow! They just did that!' vibe. Plus there was an over-reliance on C.G.I. While there is C.G.I. in the previous films, there are a lot more practical effects than you might realize. This can be an entertaining flick if you turn your brain off and just watch it, but I can't recommend it because it is supposed to live up to its predecessors! The first two films are science fiction classics, but this one will be forgotten in just a few months. If you can't add anything good to the franchise, don't make a sequel.

Inside Out (I) (2015)

This film was funny and had a refreshing lesson to tell.

[8/10 · 6 July 2015]

Inside Out is the story of a little girl named Riley and the little voices inside her head that control her emotions. After Riley's family moves to a new home, the emotions in her head (Joy, Anger, Disgust, Fear and Sadness) begin to experience some technical difficulties and question the purpose of Sadness. While trying to keep Riley in check, Joy and Sadness get separated from the group and have to try and get back to headquarters before Riley has an emotional breakdown. While I have found the last few of Pixar's films have strayed from their audience (either focusing too much on the children or the adults), this one is a return to form. While there are more then enough jokes meant for children and there are just as many meant for adults. I laughed quite often. The art style is perfect for the concept and the casting was perfect. There is a lot to like, but my favorite aspect of this film is the moral lesson that this film teaches. Not only is the lesson incredibly useful to not only children and adults, but it is truly helpful and a lesson that not a lot of people focus on. There are not many flaws with the film. Most of my complaints are nitpicking at best. The biggest one I have is with the structure of the plot and not the plot itself. It suffers from what I call Armageddon Syndrome (named after the first film that I noticed having this particular issue). A good plot is supposed to slowly increase tension and progress through a series of important moments until it reaches a climax where it them calms down and resolves. Armageddon Syndrome is where there seems to be little to no progress until the final climax. The plot in Inside Out just looped itself for a majority of the film until it felt like finishing. This made the movie get a little boring at times. Joy and Sadness would try some method to get back by going to locations that signify different parts of the human psyche, would fail, and try again until no more jokes and puns could be made. While this is a major, glaring issue with the film, it doesn't detract all that much since the writing is so good. The best way to think of this film is like a road trip across the country. The destinations are fun and memorable, but the drive between them is kind of boring and repetitive. Despite this I highly recommend watching Inside Out.

Jurassic World (2015)

This film was thrilling and enjoyable, but couldn't let go of the past.

[7/10 · 14 June 2015]

Jurassic World is the fourth installment of the Jurassic Park franchise and deals with what would happen if the dinosaur theme park eventually opened. I am a huge fan of the first two Jurassic Park movies (the third one was only okay…) and their narratives on the relationship between man and nature so I was excited to see what this movie could add to that. There is a new narrative that I think actually adds quite a bit to the lore of Jurassic Park. The writing was quite good. There are quite a few scenes that focus on the creation of the dinosaurs in the park and humanities illusion of control over them. Unfortunately there are also a lot of small details that ignore major concepts from the first two movies, especially in the theme park ride designs. Not a single one of the rides shown in this film would last a day in the first two films, and some of the designs wouldn't even work in real life (like giving the customers control over the safari vehicles that allow them to move into the animals' territories instead of an automated path or tour guide). There are also many small plot points that were taken straight from the first film. Despite this, once everything begins to fall apart and the focus falls from the attractions, the film really picks up and keeps going till the end. This film is more of a disaster flick than a survival flick, but it manages to feel like a survival movie for most of the core scenes. Most of the characters are well done. They are simple, yet relatable. The only problem I have here is the two brothers. They had a small story arch that was way deeper than it needed to be and in the end went nowhere and did not resolve itself. The special effects were fantastic and while there were times where it was obvious that C.G.I. was involved, there were more times when I couldn't tell if I was watching an animatronic dinosaur or a C.G.I one. There were many great tense moments that really dragged me in and kept me there. If you were a fan of the first couple of films, you will probably enjoy this one. It isn't as good as the first two, but still excellent.

Ex Machina (2014)

This film was deep, thought provoking and tense.

[9/10 · 8 June 2015]

Ex Machina is a psychological thriller about a man who is sent to an isolated building in order to test an artificial intelligence and prove that it is self aware. This is an incredibly small, yet powerful film. There are three main characters (the man, the creator, and the A.I.) and something like two side characters (a pilot that drops off the protagonist, and an assistant that doesn't speak). All of the main characters are so well written and developed. They feel so real, deep and interesting. The pacing is very slow and deliberately so. The dialogue is very specific and concise, so there were many segments of silence used to allow the audience to think about what is being said. The film is aware of the audience and gives them time to think. While many artistic and intellectual films don't care if the audience isn't aware of whatever metaphors the film makers had in mind, this film took some time to explain and introduce metaphors and left it to the audience the find out why the metaphor is relevant. I left this film feeling smarter, like a learned something that I wanted to learn more about. The film asked deep questions and gave a couple little insights to guide the audience to what might be an answer. I was constantly interacting with a non-interactive medium. The script was so smart and aware of what kind of movie it was… one could say the film is self aware. There are parts in this movie that tackled ideas that are typically only seen in fan discussions and theories. Not only that but it was tense and well acted, leaving me blind to what was going to happen next. I was blown away by this film and while the ending was not as strong as the rest of the film, I still have to recommend seeing the film.

On a side note, there is some full female nudity in this film. I occasionally read a couple of content guides to prepare for rated R films. The content guides for this film are quite wrong in my opinion. Yes, there was some full female nudity, but none of it is erotic, and it is in very small scenes. There was even a mention of why it is necessary. If you are sensitive to nudity in film, do not worry about this film. Some scenes might drag longer than you want (yet still brief), but it is very tastefully done.

Poltergeist (2015)

This film had it moments, but was unjustified in its reason to be made.

[4/10 · 8 June 2015]

Poltergeist is a remake of the 1982 horror classic. A family moves into a newly developed neighborhood and begins to witness paranormal activity in their home. This family has three children, so I was a little nervous as to how the two youngest ones would perform on screen. In the end the acting is only okay… Sam Rockwell gave my favorite performance, but the little girl was just inconsistent. The little boy had some really good scenes and development, though. There are a couple of really scary moments that tensed me up, but in general I saw most of the scares coming. There are some well shot moments that brought the tension up, but most scares were predictable to the point of boredom. There is also an over-reliance on C.G.I. which always brings the scare factor down. Some of the C.G.I is actually quite poor for a film that was released in 2015. There are even moments of forced humor near the end that deflate almost all the tension that the film was building up. For all remakes I have a small list of reasons that I find are necessary to justify the existence of the films themselves: the film must be a second attempt at a poorly made film, the film must take the original concept and point it in a new direction, or the film must introduce an old idea to a new audience. Let's find out how this film handles these. The original was not poorly made, so number one is invalid. While the original had its problems, it did so much right that most of the flaws can be overlooked. To this day I still remember almost every paranormal scene in the original. This new film also fails at taking the film in a new direction. Almost EVERY SINGLE aspect of the original appears in this one. While there are a few changes that I do think made the plot slightly better and somewhat more believable, there are just as many changes that I feel bring it down. One of these problems with the plot involves how quickly many of the plot points are covered and massive jumps on reasoning are made and never confirmed to progress the plot. It feels like a cliff notes plot of the original so that more time can be spent on the paranormal. This gives me the feeling that writers felt like the audience already knows the plot, so flying through the plot points would prevent the audience from ignoring the it; if that is the case, the film fails number three as well. Therefore I decree (because I have that kind of power) that this film had no reason to be remade other than to make money. Remaking movies is always a gamble, but remaking what is considered by many to be a classic is practically suicide. Every moment that was recreated from the original was not nearly as good or memorable. That is why the original is a classic. If you have not seen the original, watch it instead.

Tomorrowland (2015)

This film was original, but fell flat.

[5/10 · 8 June 2015]

Tommorowland is the story of a young woman and her journey to find a futuristic city where anything is possible. This desire comes from a mysterious pin that somehow came into her possession. This pin creates a hologram-like projection of this city when she alone touches it. There are a lot of positives to this film. All of the acting was quite good; even the children gave good performances. There are a lot of original concepts shown in the city of Tomorrowland, though at times the C.G.I. became incredibly noticeable. The cinematography was quite impressive at times, too. Clearly a lot of talented people were involved in the making this film. Unfortunately there are a few large problems that brought the experience down. First of all, there is the plot. The first two-thirds of the film are quite good. It's kind of a mystery plot that slowly exposes the details to keep you guessing and invested. The problem is that the mysteries are often quite obvious and you can guess most of them immediately. This is a kids' movie, though, so I'll kind of let that slide. On the other hand, the final act of the movie completely fell flat and became VERY preachy. While I enjoyed the monologue given by the villain a lot, it isn't related much to the previous parts of the film. There also appears to be a problem with the city of Tommorowland, but that problem is unclear and never explained. If you are the kind of person that notices small imperfections in continuity, you will go nuts watching this. There are small errors everywhere, especially in the latter half. Initially tachyons allow people to see the past, and then just a few minutes later they allow people to see the future. The rules of reality alter themselves to justify the plot. This movie gives me the feeling that a director had some good ideas and a solid plot, but the Disney studio got their hands in the project so he had to add some forced lesson to teach children and lots of product placement. I've been to Disneyland before and have been in the Tommorowland section of the theme park. It has a couple of rides that seem to have fallen out of the times. This movie is clearly a commercial to reinvigorate that section of the park. I don't use the word commercial lightly. Inside the city of Tommorowland you can find Space Mountain and other structures found in the happiest place on earth. Not only that but there a scene that takes place in a sci-fi hobby shop with enough Star Wars memorabilia to choke a Sarlacc. This is disgustingly lazy advertising. While these are large and annoying issues, the core film is still pretty good and a lot of heart went into it. I don't expect it to be a classic, but the film is alright.

On a side note, let me mention the advertising campaign. I really liked how little it showed us about the plot. More production companies need to advertise more like this; but, there is a slight problem that I had with it that I feel could have been easily fixed. The marketing campaign asked consumers the question, "What is Tomorrowland?" I feel like it should have asked, "How do you get to Tomorrowland?" The actual location that is Tomorrowland is not very important or expanded upon, but the story behind it and the path to get there was. By having he audience try to answer the wrong questions, it might make some people disappointed that their questions are not answered. Other than that small nitpick, I really enjoyed how this film was advertised. It showed as little as possible and kept the big moments in the theater.

San Andreas (2015)

This film was cheesy, but entertaining.

[5/10 · 8 June 2015]

San Andreas is a disaster film about the largest recorded earthquake happening along the San Andreas Fault. There are three sub-plots used to portray different aspects of the earthquakes. First there is a small team of seismologists at Caltech used to explain why the earthquakes are happening and what to expect from them. Next, there is Ray Gaines, a soon-to-be divorced helicopter-rescue pilot and his soon-to-be ex-wife as they look for their daughter in an action-packed sort of way. Finally there is Ray's daughter, Blake, and a couple of survivors as they try to escape Los Angeles with more of a survival focus. This is an over-the- top movie and that is exactly what it needed to be but in that respect it missed something, though. They constantly mention that the largest earthquake ever recorded was a 9.5 on the Richter scale (a scale that has been obsolete and replaced since the 1970's by the way), but the earthquake in this film is a 9.6. Why not make is an 11.3 or something because the effects of this earthquake were much more destructive than the one in real life (and yes, I am aware of the logarithmic scale that theses models follow)? This is the kind of movie where you shut your brain off and just watch the colors on the screen oblivious to what the colors represent. Granted, the colors are pretty and the C.G.I. is pretty good… most of the time. When I was starting to watch this movie, there was an introduction sequence with some girl in a car that fell off the road. The C.G.I. was awful and the motion of the car defied so many physical laws that Isaac Newton rolled over in his grave. It got much better after that, but it was not a good first impression. Just about nothing is original here. A lot is taken from 2012 and The Day After Tomorrow, with a tiny bit taken from Twister. Like most disaster movies there are sections of the film dedicated to character development so that you care for the protagonists. In this film that fails incredibly hard. I didn't care about anyone; not even a little bit. It's not that these people are unlikable, its just that every word that comes from there mouth is the cheesiest and most clichéd dialogue a person can possibly write. A large chunk of the dialogue is just a person asking a question followed by a long pause and an ambiguous and unhelpful answer. "Who do we tell?" "…Everybody." "Where are you going?" "…To get our daughter back." It just goes on and on. Overall, the film is fun, but incredibly shallow, inconsistent, predictable, and cheesy.

Aloha (I) (2015)

This film was well acted, but jumbled.

[5/10 · 8 June 2015]

Aloha is a complicated film to summarize. Our protagonist is Brian Gilcrest, a washed out military contractor who is returning to Hawaii after over a decade to look over some ceremony. He is introduced to many people from his past, such as his lost love, Tracy, who is now married to another man and has two children. He is attached to a super optimistic liaison of sorts, named Allison Ng so the local military can keep an eye on him. Once this was established, things seemed to just happen. Relationships formed, truths were revealed, conflicts arose and other events just sort of happened. I felt that the flow of the film was quite poor. I liked many of the scenes in the film, but many of them just popped into the plot and felt either forced or unnecessary. The best way to describe this phenomenon is to say that if you where to show someone any three random scenes from the film without context, the viewer would probably like most of them, but in the context of the film they feel off and disjoined. The trailer pulled this effect off rather well. Almost every film ever made uses foreshadowing. These tiny and subtle hints that reference the future can add tension and can be used to play with the minds of the audience. In this film, however, most attempts at foreshadowing were too obvious and overdone. This made many of the plot points predictable. I could expand further on how many of the plot points felt forced, but the film briefly talked about the future being a force that directs life in unknown directions, so I'll let that slide. There are many positives to this film, though. The acting is really good. Every actor is on their A-game. There are a lot of characters in this film, but since most of them are well characterized they all remain memorable and feel like more than just random people used to fill up the plot. Some people have subtle and not- so-subtle quirks and personality traits that bring them to life very well. There is also this underlying feeling of peace underneath all of the conflict that happens. It's like the islands of Hawaii are characters as well. In the end, there is a lot to like and a lot to dislike and your enjoyment of the film will be based on what you look for in films.

It Follows (2014)

This film was very suspenseful and had a great premise.

[7/10 · 8 June 2015]

It Follows is a small horror and suspense film vaguely about a haunted S.T.D and the young woman that has to avoid the inevitable consequences of a supernatural presence. There is a small set of rules that the horror behind the film follows. There is a being that targets a single person and stalks them at a slow, yet constant pace. This presence never stops, and cannot be killed. It has the ability to change its appearance at will to any person it finds suitable. It is possible to change its target by having its current target have sex with someone else, making the other person the new target. Only the current target and those who have been the target before can see this being. Once the presence reaches the target, stuff will happen and it will then go back down the line and stalk the previous target. The beauty of this concept is that the protagonist is never safe and always on the run. This gives the entire film a natural drive and constant sense of dread. While this is technically a horror film I wouldn't call it scary. It was very suspenseful and I was on the edge of my seat for most of the film, but I didn't have any trouble sleeping after I saw it. The over all structure of the film is built upon small scenes that jump from location to location with a heavy metaphorical overtone and lots of silent and subtle moments. While some might call the film slow and jumbled. I found it's slowness to be an effective building of tension and its many short scenes make predicting when this being would actually show up very difficult. This sense of overwhelming fear is made even more effective by slow, yet long takes and some really good cinematography. I have very few problems with the plot. The first issue is that there is a heavy reliance on metaphor, and so much of the plot is subtly told that the possibility of missing something is incredibly high. I do respect that the creators of the film expect the audience to pay attention, but there needs to be some straightforward foundation to build metaphors on or else they can be interpreted in so may ways that people will get lost at times. On the other hand, not finding these metaphors still leaves a straightforward and simple plot, but there is a complex plot hidden inside that allow of people will miss on the first viewing. This might not even be a flaw to some people. One final nitpick is that the parents in this film are almost never seen and never directly interact with the plot. While this might be a throwback to older horror classics it is a trope that I think needs to go away. I still do recommend watching this movie. I was constantly on edge and the subtle storytelling kept me focused and interested.

Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015)

This film was too much fun to critique.

[9/10 · 19 May 2015]

Avengers: Age of Ultron is the second time we have seen the Marvel universe's greatest heroes come together on screen. I typically try to think about films critically and pick apart as many pros and cons as possible; however, I enjoyed watching this film so much that I turned that part of my brain off while watching. Is this a prefect film? No, it isn't; but I had so much fun watching everything unfold that I didn't care. Is this professional? It's not, and I don't plan on saying this often, but I don't want to critique a movie like this because I don't want to bring such a entertaining experience down in my memory. The characters are well developed, the overall universe is not afraid of moving on and changing things, people grow and learn, the action scenes are excellent, the villain evil, yet likable, and I could go on and on. Is it better than the first movie? Is some ways it is and in other ways it is not. Overall I definitely think it is a worthy sequel. I was entertained from start to finish and was left wanting more.

Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)

This film was stylish, but desensitizing.

[7/10 · 19 May 2015]

Mad Max: Fury Road is the next installment in the Mad Max franchise after a thirty year gap. In this film a damaged man named Max runs into a group of people trying to escape an evil cult leader and is forced to help them escape. Before I enter the review I want to mention that I have never seen any of the previous films in the franchise. From that perspective I found the film kind of exhausting… From a technical standpoint, it is just about flawless. The action scenes are absolutely incredible to behold. The visual style is unique and the character design that goes along with it is perfect. The world building of the post-apocalyptic wasteland is really good. The film clearly shows an in depth society of people that have rallied together to not only survive, but to live. Most of the action looked practical which only made the action even more enthralling. The problem I had with the movie is that there was so little plot and character development (and what was given to us was given way too late) that I begin to ask why I should care about these people over the other survivors. Sure, their adventure might be more exiting, but I know so little about them and what I did know was so generic that I just didn't connect with them. This might not be an issue if you have seen the other films. A possible exception to this is Furiosa, the main character of the film. Do not let the title mislead you; Mad Max is not the main character. He just shows up and helps out. The entire plot is driven by Furiosa and all of the big characters moments where with her. There were some interesting moments dealing with a cult member, but it felt like all of that character development happened off screen. Most of this development is done though body language, grunts or generic responses of questions I had been asking myself for more than half an hour. The main villain was well designed, but other than being an abusive cult leader, I know nothing about him. I don't even remember his name. Some might praise the minimalist plot but since the other two hours of the film was pure action, I began to become desensitized to it. I love to eat chocolate, but if I only eat chocolate for a week I'll get sick begin to want healthier food. The same goes for action in movies. Action scenes mean more if there was build up. Again, this is not a bad movie, but I just could not get invested in what was happening enough to really care. While this might be a landmark in terms of visuals and action, it is lacking substance in its plot and characters.

Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2 (2015)

This film was lazy and not funny.

[1/10 · 27 April 2015]

Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2 is the story of a down-on-his-luck mall cop who is invited to Las Vegas to attend a conference celebrating the best mall cops in the country. While he is there, a high class criminal is planning to steal priceless art located in the same casino that Paul is staying in. This film is quite terrible… just about everything it tries to do falls flat. First off, we have Paul Blart himself. He feels like a knockoff of a knockoff of Jacques Clouseau from the Pink Panther series. When Paul needs to be an oaf, he is, and when he needs to be skilled, he is. There is no consistency in his character. There is a scene early on in the film where he can't hit targets about five feet in front of him, while later he can hit moving targets from twenty feet or more away. There is no consistency, so whenever the good guys win or lose; it is because the writers said that they do and not because they actually would have. The overall plot has no flow either. Instead of letting comedy naturally flow into the plot, the entire movie will stop to try and tell a joke every five minutes just for them to fall flat and drag on, consistently. The first five minutes alone managed to make my opinion of the first movie worse. There are numerous subplots, all of which lead nowhere, are completely irrelevant or feel incredibly forced. I can't stress the word 'forced' enough. Why would Blart be invited to this conference if he hasn't done anything in six years? Why would a villain shoot an empty Segway? Why would Blart put on angel wings while being chased? There are no real explanations that would make sense. Instead of creating unique and fresh jokes, standard jokes that we have seen a hundred times in much better movies are shoved into the plot instead. This makes the movie incredibly predictable. I can't give this movie just a single star because I smiled (not laughed) once or twice and there were one or two shots that I liked; however, avoid this movie at all costs. I never laughed once, the plot was lazy, and the acting was pretty bad.

While We're Young (2014)

This film was boring and cluttered but had good ideas.

[4/10 · 20 April 2015]

While We're Young is primarily about a middle-aged couple that meets a younger couple and becomes infectiously addicted to their lifestyle. It is also a commentary on the implied truthfulness of documentaries, the gap of generational habits, changing social protocols and many more topics that I probably missed. This is a very difficult film to review. There is a reason that I wait a day or two after seeing a movie before writing a review on it and movies like this are why. It is necessary to let the small details sink in and to digest them for a while before spitting out an opinion. First of all, the characters are well written and feel like real people. They are flawed and yet somewhat likable. Their problems are real and their reactions to these problems are realistic, too. It is very easy to relate to the problems that the older couple goes through because they are problems that most people have gone through or will go through at some point in their lives. The story starts off well enough and the mingling of these couples is interesting to watch but the biggest problem with the film is its organization of the events that follow. Events just happen in a seemingly random order and the importance of these events is questionable at best. There are enough ideas in this film to fill two or three others; but the problem with that is that there is little focus. The focus changes so often that I am often bored by seemingly random and filler dialogue before I realize that this dialogue is important to some commentary about the human condition that doesn't need to be in the film and had nothing to do with the previous focal points. There is a point in the movie were a character critiques a film by saying that it was boring, too long, and that there were lots of topics that, while interesting, did not need to be there. That is my exact opinion of While We're Young. It is true that there are many interesting arcs that go into the plot. The issue is that there is no overarching one that carries the audience through them. Calling them arcs might be misleading. Most are more like slopes that just go up and end without resolution and those that do come down and resolve do so unsatisfyingly. The depictions of the younger generation (typically hipsters) are so over-exaggerated that it can take you out of it. While this film claims to be a comedy, it isn't very funny. I chuckled more at the over-the-top oddness of the hipsters than I did at any joke. There is a ten minute scene full of people tripping on hallucinogens and puking in trashcans that tried to be funny, but just came off as uncomfortable and disgusting. The film has many good ideas, very few, if any, are fully realized or properly presented. However, to keep a clean conscious, I cannot give this movie an absolutely terrible rating because it tried to bring up topics that are somewhat tabooed by modern society and did spawn a couple heated debates and conversations afterward. A movie that tried to do something new and failed is more honorable than a film that tried something generic and failed.

Danny Collins (2015)

This film had human characters in tough situations.

[6/10 · 13 April 2015]

Danny Collins is the story of an aging musician who receives a long- lost letter from John Lennon telling him to not give in to fame and to strive to write from the heart. This letter forces him to look back on his life. He begins to regret selling out and decides to cancel his current tour and sort his life out by reuniting with his son and writing some new songs. I rather admire this film. The characters are well developed and flawed. They don't feel like typical movie characters but rather act like real people. Their conversations don't flow perfectly at all times, there are awkward pauses and the topic of the conversation doesn't always flow in the desired direction. These flaws really attached me to every central character in the film. All of this was portrayed with great talent by just about every actor on screen. Humor was injected quite often and skillfully into dialogue to keep a rather sad story hopeful. The pacing was well done as I was never bored and wanted to see what was going to happen next after every scene. Sure some scenes moved slower than others, but I felt that the slower moments were utilizing tension to make the payoffs feel more satisfying. While some of the events can be seen as a little cliché, they are typically done in original ways that make the clichés feel fresh. Unfortunately the final moments of the film fall apart. It's not like what happens is terrible or out of character or anything that negative. It's just that I feel that the film ends a little earlier than it should have. A rather large stumbling block appears towards the end of the film and it is not resolved in a satisfying way, if at all. The focus of the film completely changes and several plot points that were building up the entire film just end without resolution. While this doesn't completely ruin the film by any means, it does drop my grade a couple of points. If the film had continued for another ten to fifteen minutes to resolve some of these issues I would have loved this film. Still, I did enjoy watching the movie and would recommend watching Danny Collins if you want a good character driven story as long as you understand that the ending might fall flat.

Woman in Gold (2015)

This film was compelling and had emotional weight.

[8/10 · 6 April 2015]

The Woman in Gold is based on the true story about a woman, Maria Altmann (Helen Mirren), and her lawyer, Randol Schoenberg (Ryan Reynolds), as they attempt to reclaim ownership of an extremely valuable painting (along with a few more) form the Austrian government nearly fifty years after it was stolen by the Nazis. This film has three distinct parts that intertwine through the duration of the show. First, there is a family dynamic that focuses on the emotional stress of the current situation on everyone's personal lives. There is a strong connection between Randol and Maria that grows over time and is given time to grow in these segments. Second, there are flashbacks that dive deeper into Maria's past and emphasize the importance of the artwork as well as explore parallels between the past and the present. Finally there is the trial itself, which is where the action of the conflict lies. This is the least important, yet still necessary part of the story. The percentage of time given to these segments would be around 40/40/20, respectively. While you might be surprised how much of the story takes place in the past, it really does drive the plot. There are many white-knuckle scenes and heart wrenching moments that really add to the film. The past is just as important as the present in this movie, and that is exactly what the film is trying to say. Helen Mirren, as always, was amazing in this film. She was subtle and drove many of the scenes that required raw emotion. Ryan Reynolds was also very good and his role in this film might have been his best performance (from what I have seen). Actually, all of the actors did a fantastic job here. Everyone was on there A-Game and gave it everything they had. There was great chemistry between Mirren and Reynolds which made their characters' connection even more compelling. Reynolds was able to subtly change his character as the case slowly changed his motivations. While, yes, there are a few clichéd scenes that were put in there for emotional levity and drama, but they don't really take much away, if anything. This was an excellent film and I highly recommend it.

Home (II) (2015)

This film was cute, but fell flat.

[4/10 · 30 March 2015]

Home is the story about an eccentric citizen of a cowardly alien race (named Oh) and his interactions with a young girl (named Tip) who is trying to find her mother. This movie has very good intentions. Almost every movie designed for children has a moral lesson to teach and this is no exception. Home deals with being different, standing far outside of your stereotype, being brave in situations that seem like they will end in failure, the familial bond of a parent and their children, and coping with negative emotions like anger and sadness. I must applaud the introduction and overall concept of this film. It went to places and executed ideas that I was not expecting and was excited to see. The first twenty minutes of the film surprised me and made me want to know what was going to happen next. The alien technology was uniquely simplistic in its design and it was fun to see it all work. Unfortunately the film does not execute the plot or characters very well. This is not a family film; meaning only the children will enjoy it while the adults will probably not. The overall tones of the plot are cookie-cutter. A few scenes felt very forced like they needed some sad moment or heartfelt moment so they just threw one in there. Most of the jokes fell flat and relied on the aliens (known as the Boov) not knowing what earth objects are supposed to be. While it was kind of cute to see them eating footballs and wearing tires as headbands, it gets old fast. Most of the humor unfortunately just doesn't work. The characters are inconsistent in their motives and personalities. Tip spent a few weeks looking for her mother and still had hope that she will find her, but later in the movie when she believes she is in the same neighborhood as her mother she gives up after about five minutes. Tip and Oh initially stay together due to a mutual agreement but stay together later for no other reason than they need to stay together for the movie to continue. The voice acting was fine, but I have to talk about Jim Parson's performance as Oh. He is just playing the character of Sheldon from the Big Bang Theory, where the only difference is that Oh wants to make friends. There is nothing substantial added to the character to make him unique. There is also an odd use of music in this movie. At many moments, all sound will fade and be replaced by the soundtrack. This might not sound like much but it just felt like a music video instead of a movie. People will be crying and all of that will fade into a song that ruins the emotional weight of the scene. In the end, children might enjoy this movie, but parents will probably not. Nothing is consistent and scenes are set up just for a flat joke to arise or forced emotional moments to happen, but the pretty colors and silly aliens should keep very young children interested.

P.S. I have received a lot of hate for critiquing child films so harshly. While it is true that children are easier to please than adults, it does not excuse flaws in their movies. That is what makes movies like the Lion King and How to Train Your Dragon so special. They have realistic characters with flaws and personalities and the plot flows seamlessly from one scene to the next. They are good movies that happen to portray content that is inoffensive enough for children to watch.

The Divergent Series: Insurgent (2015)

This film was enjoyable but messy.

[5/10 · 30 March 2015]

Insurgent is the sequel Divergent and follows Tris and her friends as they attempt to prevent Jeanine from taking over all of the factions in the city and killing all Divergents. I rather enjoyed Insurgents predecessor, Divergent. Of all of the young adult book-to-film adaptions that are currently in progress (Hunger Games, Maze Runner, etc…) it is my favorite. It was far from perfect, misplacing stupidity with bravery at times and taking quite a lot from Harry Potter; but it was a decent movie that brought me into its world and attached me to its characters. Insurgent continued many of its predecessor's strengths. The action scenes are well done and shot well without using shaky cam. There were new characters that interested me and added a bit to the world. The plot is kind of a mess, though. The first half of this film just sort of happens without any reasoning or main objective to focus on. As the film continues, inaccuracies from the first film begin to appear. The characters that I liked on the first film were stoic and didn't stand out like they did before. Some characters perform actions that don't quite make sense (like a villain shooting at a freight train from a distance with a pistol). A McGuffin is introduced, certain people have information that is suddenly important wasn't before and how they got this seemingly ancient information is left to the imagination. In short, the setup was kind of a mess. It didn't even reintroduce important plot points and left me a little lost. The second half of the movie picked up, though, and gained focus and kept me interested until the end. It had moments where I had no idea what was going to happen next and there was important character development for Tris. It also took a lot from other movies, too. While the first movie had several parallels to Harry Potter, this one has quite a few from the Matrix and Inception (as well as more from Harry Potter). The ending was quote poor in my opinion, and was quite similar to Maze Runner in that prior plot points don't seem to make sense and tie up with the ending. While it is possible that the next installment could answer many questions in a rational way, the ending just fell a little flat. I would go further in detail but that would reveal massive spoilers. Overall this movie is just okay. It isn't great, but it isn't bad. It is not as good as the first movie, but still fine.

Cinderella (I) (2015)

This film was a decent update to a classic story.

[6/10 · 15 March 2015]

Cinderella is yet another telling of the classic Disney fairytale. I have to be honest; I was not looking forward to seeing this movie. I am very tired of all the remakes out there and I feel that Disney is in a little slump right now. So how did I feel about this one? Just wait and see (or read the title of this review). This is definitely a retelling of Disney version of this story. There are several glimpses at people and animals that are obvious throwbacks to the original cartoon. While some were rather nice and small, others were too obvious and detracted from the film. I am mainly talking about the mice. They have a somewhat pivotal role in the film and there is quite a lot of focus on them. If you have never seen the original, I feel like it would feel out of place. All the animals are normal, but there are four mice that eat in a table setting and act more like people. The characters are much more developed. In fact, there is some emphasis on certain people that make the events that transpire later mean more. This gave the film some much needed impact. I was actually impressed with this. The romance was believable and even though it was still a little shallow, there was good chemistry there and I feel like it could have blossomed into a real relationship. There was good reasoning to why these people were attracted to each other. The acting was fine. Kate Blanchett, the evil- stepmother was very good and stood out against everyone else, who all did a pretty good job. There are a few liberties taken from the original. They are all acceptable to me because don't drastically change the important parts of the film. However, some of them were supposed to add tension to the film and almost all of them failed. Some of the dialogue and humor was off. I feel like a few sentences were added for some affect but don't mesh well with the rest of the film, or even the same scene (If you've seen the movie, there is a good example of this when Cinderella gets the blue dress). I must congratulate the film, though, on reviving that old fashioned Disney magic that so many modern adaptations have lost. Many scenes really brought me back to when I was just a kid and watched the classics on V-H-S. In terms of being a remake, I think it is just okay. It paid homage the original, and added a lot to it and updated it to a modern audience. Plus it has been over sixty years since the original was released.

Chappie (2015)

This film was a good idea that failed in execution.

[4/10 · 8 March 2015]

Chappie is the story about a robot that is given the first true artificial intelligence and can learn like a human can. Chappie is created by a scientist at a company that produces police scouts to help keep crime at an all-time low. He is competing with a man who believes that there should be no A.I. because of their unpredictability. As this is happening, Chappie falls into the hands of some gangsters and is brought up and taught to be a criminal. Already the plot is too convoluted. The script in this movie is just a mess. Characters act paradoxically and all of the criminals are just crazy cartoons. Motivations are inconsistent and nobody is as smart as the movie wants you to think they are. There are numerous moments that leave you in disbelief because they just go in the most unbelievable directions. There are moments that ask the viewers to care for despicable people and it just doesn't work. On the other hand Chappie looks phenomenal. The special effects are top notch and look as real as possible. Chappie is a very sympathetic character and you feel for him and want him to succeed. There are some really cool concepts and moments, but all of them are misused and poorly handled. For every one thing that I love in this movie, I can think of two more that I hate. Even the ending was anticlimactic and didn't satisfy or answer any questions. There was so much potential in this film, and some of it was fully realized; it's just that so much more was terrible and it left me upset at all of the waste. Unfortunately, I cannot recommend Chappie.

The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel (2015)

This film made me feel good, but lacked focus.

[6/10 · 8 March 2015]

The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel is about a group of elderly people who now live in an old-folks home in India, and its manager. This is the type of movie that follows the paths of ten plus people as they deal with their respective issues. I would recommend watching the first movie before watching this one. While it is possible to understand what is going on without it, there is little to remind the viewers of the personalities that live in the hotel. Most of the plots are unrelated to each other. In the first movie, the characters mingled with each other and learned from each other, but in this movie, they typically remain separate, so the film feels choppier. Like any anthology, some plots with entertain more than others. Some of them feel very forced, while others feel very natural. There are numerous 'coincidences' and forced plot points that drag for a while before resolving immediately and disrupting flow. Despite this, all of them deal with being afraid of what you want and learning to actually live instead of just existing until you die. There are lots of small details that feel unimportant until later. This is typically a strength in my eyes, by there were just so many details that led to such small rewards that I began to not care as much. This is an enjoyable film that is not as good as the first but is still an entertaining, fell-good story about living life to the fullest.

What We Do in the Shadows (2014)

This film was hilarious and unique.

[7/10 · 2 March 2015]

What We Do in the Shadows is a low-budget, horror comedy about a small group of vampires that live in an apartment together in modern day New Zealand. The plot focuses on how these vampires adapt to a new vampire joining their group. The four initial vampires consist of Deacon, Petyr, Viago and Vladislav. Each of these vampires come from drastically different backgrounds and range from a couple hundred to a several thousand years old. This variety in backgrounds allows the characters to be very unique and it makes their interactions funny and interesting. This movie has one goal and one goal, only: the make you laugh. The plot is not very deep and can sometimes lack flow, but the jokes are consistently funny so you really don't care. The film is shot like a documentary. Characters will occasionally talk to the camera similar to Modern family or the Office. The quick cuts and explanatory dialogue allows fantastic comedic timing. The special effects are low budget but are most of the time done very well. Some of the camera tricks are very impressive and make the scenes feel quite real. The flying effects are quite poor, though. It is obvious that the actors are just suspended by wires. This might seem like a negative, but the way it is portrayed on screen makes it quite hilarious. There are a couple of brief action scenes which are done well enough. The chases can get quite shaky, though. This is a rated R film, but the graphic material was handled very well. There are a few f-words, but they are rare enough and used to appropriate places most of the time. The blood is so over-the-top and silly that it didn't bother me at all. If there is anything that would be extremely graphic, it is blurred out. I wasn't expecting much when entering the theater, but I left thoroughly entertained. If you want to laugh and if don't care that the plot is somewhat irrelevant then you will have a blast.

Paddington (2014)

This film was quite charming.

[7/10 · 2 March 2015]

Paddington is based off of a series of children's books and is about a talking bear that travels to London to find a home. He has never been in an urban environment before so he has no idea how to interact with others in the modern world. He is then discovered by some random family and taken into their home. First of all, this movie was based on a storybook and it is very aware of that. The characters all have the vibe of a storybook character; not quite real, but real enough to connect to. They are somewhere between a caricature and a real person. Watching the movie feels like reading a picture book to a child. The family is interesting to watch, with each person adds a little more charm to the film. The focus of the family is completely on the father, though. He experiences all of the growth and character development, but the other family members assist that growth rather well. The C.G.I is very, very good. Not only does Paddington almost look real, but there are some other very clever visual effects that really add to the movie. These clever uses of transitions and computer generated effects that add this hint of fantasy to the film. One of my favorites involves the use of a doll house to help explain the family dynamic. This is definitely a family movie because it will appeal to both adults and children. While most of the slapstick comedy is meant for kids, there is a lot of situational comedy that will crack up adults. There is a villain subplot that is initially just tacked on but comes together by the end. The villain is a taxidermist that wants to stuff Paddington and put him in a museum. At first I didn't buy the villain's motivation at all. The only thing special about the bear is that it can talk and has a personality. Stuffing it and putting him on display doesn't seem like a smart thing to do, but by the end there is a decent justification for it. In the end I really enjoyed watching Paddington and would recommend it.

Still Alice (2014)

This movie was very emotional and well acted.

[7/10 · 23 February 2015]

Still Alice is about a fifty year old woman who finds out that she has early-onset Alzheimer's disease and her experiences dealing with it. To begin, the acting was fantastic. Julianne Moore excelled at performing the subtle nuances in the degeneration of both her mind and body in small and incremental steps. It was one of those performances that made me forget I was watching an actor at times. For those of you who are nervous about Kristen Stewart's performance, she was fine; not great, but acceptable. Like every movie she is in she just acts emotionally distant but it works for the character she plays here. Each member of Alice's family was introduced tremendously well in a dinner scene were the personalities of all of them were expressed almost immediately without feeling forced or awkward. The story is very well told, with best part of the storytelling being in the cinematography. This movie says a lot without actually speaking. When Alice is walking around and begins to forget where she is, the background will begin to lose focus and blur, losing the audience as well. There are several techniques similar to that that really brings the audience into Alice's shoes. The plot is very similar to The Theory of Everything. The protagonist gets a disease and has to drastically change their life in order to compensate as their relationships and way of life deteriorates. Before I put more emphasis on my opinions of the plot, I want to put some stress what kind of a movie this is. This movie is an experience, and not really a story. It excels at everything in terms of sharing the experience of developing this disease with the audience, but the story elements just sort of sit on top of that. If you saw Gravity, you might know what I am talking about. The movie focuses on the experience that the main character is going through instead of the story involving the character. Do not think that this is a negative; it is just a different type of movie. There are several small arcs that appear as the film progresses, but most are not really stressed enough or carry enough weight for me to be invested by the end. There is also a weird shift in focus about half way through the film which made it feel like two different movies. The first half is all about Alice's mental decline and her struggle with that. The second half focuses on the family and their struggle. While both halves are well told the shift in focus made then ending feel anticlimactic and unsatisfying. In order to remain spoiler-free, all I will say about the ending is that it didn't get to me as much as I think it wanted to. It tried to make me feel good about something that was not developed enough for me to care. In the end, I definitely recommend seeing this movie.

Seventh Son (I) (2014)

This film was incredibly clichéd and predictable.

[2/10 · 15 February 2015]

Seventh Son is a fantasy movie about an apprentice being brought up to defeat an evil witch that is terrorizing the land. Unfortunately there is not much that I can praise about this film. The action scenes are filmed rather well. There is little to no shaky cam and the choreography is fine, but the sequences are performed rather poorly most of the time. While I enjoyed a couple of sequences, most were just boring. The special effects are fine. They are not great but not bad enough to really hurt anything. The acting is quite poor. Everyone speaks in an over-dramatic and stoic way. Jeff Bridges speaks in a weird mumble similar to his Rooster Cogburn impression. Think up your most generic fantasy characters. Are you done? Good. They are all in this movie. There is no character development at all. Every generic character remains generic for the entire duration of the plot. Any of them could be killed and I wouldn't care. Certain information will arise involving these characters but this information is almost always irrelevant. The apprentice can see visions, but they are useless. There seems to be something special about being the seventh son of a seventh son, but in the end it doesn't really mean anything. It just goes on and on. This movie brings up so many topics and ideas but they all lead nowhere. Now, think of your most generic movie plot. It probably involves some prophecy, and unstoppable evil force, some old wizard with a beard and his apprentice. Don't forget the random mythical creatures, demons and ghosts (and ghasts). Chances are that the plot you just made up in your head has more originality than this film. There is even an extremely forced romance that has no emotional weight or substance at all. I love the fantasy genre. There can be so much fun to be had in it, but everything in this movie has been done so much better in other films. So much of this movie is just unbelievable. A group of top trained assassins can be taken down by a single farm boy with less than a week of training. People survive the most impossible odds constantly. People will be surprised buy things that have happened several times before. Certain plot points will only be brought up at exactly the right time to seem relevant, but in the end that information is useless and makes no sense. There is a very small underlying idea of fate and destiny but it was just tacked on like everything else. This film is a perfect example of quantity over quality. There are a ton of ideas, but none of them are fully realized.

Kingsman: The Secret Service (2014)

This film was funny and action packed

[8/10 · 14 February 2015]

Kingsman: The Secret Service is a British secret agent film that calls back to the old spy films, especially the James Bond series of films. There is a lot of fun to be had in this film. The acting is great all around, even the small characters that only have a minute or so of screen time are up to par. In terms of the plot there are very few issue I had with it. The training segment was cool but there was almost no training shown on screen, just tests that took place between the training. This made it kind of jarring to see a people gain tremendous skill so fast. The music is fun and fits extremely well into the fun, over the top action scenes. This whole movie is very self-aware about how over the top it is. There are many times in the story where characters will reference old spy movies and bring up how clichéd their current situations are. The dialogue is very witty so most conversations are very interesting to listen to. There are many interesting and unique characters that I loved watching interact with each other. Some of the accents can be a little thick so I may take a little time to get used to. The action is not to be taken seriously. If you've seen the trailer you know what I am talking about. People will be hit in the face and flip a couple of times before hitting the ground. This is definitely a positive; the film definitely gained a lot from that. The villain's motivation is kind of dumb, but you can get into it because of the self-awareness of the movie. The action scenes are phenomenal. While they can be a little shaky, you can definitely see the immense skill that went into them. The editing of the action is very original and blew my mind. Be warned that this movie definitely earned that R rating. This is the source one of two real negatives with the movie. The language is just filthy but does not feel like it had to be. I am perfectly fine with some F words during action scenes. I'm sure that if I was fighting for my life I would curse, too. The problem is that people cursed constantly, even if it wasn't necessary. It didn't feel natural when people would curse about small, irrelevant things. If you want an example of a movie that utilizes cursing is a realistic way, then watch the movie Chef, or V for Vendetta. I typically don't care too much about this but there was so much cursing in inappropriate places that it began to bother me. The gore on the other hand was fine. Yes, it was pretty gross and shocking, but the film did it rarely enough and never lingered on it for long enough to really bother me. There was a very unnecessary (and very brief) nudity scene at the tail end of the film designed to be funny, but just came of as awkward. My final complaint is rather small but there is one product placement for McDonalds that was so obvious and in your face that it took me out of the scene for a while. Be sure to stay for about minute after the credits roll because there is a little scene that concludes a somewhat important arc.