PODCAST: The Breakdown of the Legacy of Star Wars

Well, well, well.  We are less than a week away from one of the most anticipated movies in the history of cinema.  It is more than just a re-visit to a franchise, but a cultural event that has dominated social media and found its way into the news cycle.  What am I talking about?  The Force Awakens, the latest in the Star Wars Saga.

After the lingering dismay of the prequels, it is difficult to think that there could be such a rebound for Star Wars as we are seeing right now.  People lining up for tickets to the premiere have to be in line for a minimum of twenty four hours for a single ticket, and another twenty four hours if they wish to purchase a second one.  Around the home of the Oscars, there is four blocks of streets inaccessible to traffic, with tents already set up for the big event.

On this episode of The Movie Breakdown, Christopher Spicer and I talk about the legacy of this franchise, from what it meant to us as children, to the evolution of film that it sparked, to creating the idea of movie merchandise.  Sure, we have seen some films in theatres lately, but reviewing them seemed a little secondary to taking the time to discuss just how much George Lucas' films have affected the cinematic landscape.

You can find the podcast here, or you can also get it on iTunes.  If you like the iTunes route, which I certainly do, make sure you subscribe to catch all of the latest episodes of The Movie Breakdown.  You can find it on iTunes here.

We hope you enjoy the conversation about Star Wars as much as we did.

P.S.  Han always shot first.

REVIEW: Spotlight

What could I say after watching Spotlight?  That was the question that I had for myself when I returned from the theatre yesterday at midnight, sitting down at the keyboard to write the review.  The thoughts and emotions were so prevalent that I needed to get them out, but all I could do was just stare at the blank document and wonder.  What was worse about humanity?  The people who commit evil acts, or those who know about them and cover them up?

To be sure, watching Spotlight is no easy task, as it tells the story of a team of investigative journalists who worked for the Boston Globe and exposed systemic child molestation and cover ups in the Catholic Church.  It was difficult watching scenes where the team interviewed survivors of sexual predators, and it was equally difficult seeing scenes where the journalists deal with the weight of what they were uncovering.

What is remarkable with a film like this, or Ryan Cooler's Fruitvale Station, is the ability to take a true story where the outcome is known and still be able to take the audience through the story and leave them feeling new emotions when the end credits role.  This is thanks to both Spotlight's screenplay (penned by Josh Singer and Tom McCarthy) and the directing stills of McCarthy.  We are brought into a very real world, which makes the emotional punches much more powerful and difficult to bare.

One thing that Singer and McCarthy do well is to keep the story clean, ridding it of anything that would be otherwise thrown in to make the leads more well rounded and shining.  We almost never see them outside of their working environment, and only get small visions of what their home lives are like.  The story is about their job, and the toll that it takes as well as their determination to tell the full tale of what is happening within the Catholic Church, and by keeping the script lean every shot and scene brings strength to the narrative.  This aspect felt similar to Anton Corbijn's A Most Wanted Man.  There will be times where I cry out that I want to know more about characters, who they are, and revelations about the different aspects of their lives, but there are also times when what we learn needs to be specific, and this is one of those times.

Assisting the great directing script is one of the best ensemble performances I have seen in a long time, perhaps since last year's Birdman.  The two hour and nine minute film puts on display the full abilities in subtlety and nuance of talents Michael Keaton, Mark Ruffalo, Rachel McAdams, Liev Schreiber (possibly the best performance of his career), and Stanley Tucci.  Through each of their roles we gain an understanding of the humanity involved in searching for a dark truth.  They are all vulnerable at times, and all portray flaws and faults that are believable to their characters.

It really is a technically brilliant piece of work.  The set designs are such that you feel like you are sitting in the actual locations where the story started breaking.  While it nails all the points of what a movie should be from the physical side, it is the emotions that it leaves the audience with that is the true magic of the movie.  It is not all sunshine and lollipops in this film.  It's content is dark, and the characters are believable, thus the feelings we are dragged through can be draining, painful, and haunting.  I doubt that I will ever be seeing this movie again, but be sure to know that I am glad that I sat through it as I learned more about a true story and got a different glimpse into humanity.

Rating - 4 out of 4 stars

2015 Brings Some All-Time Greats

It is impossible to dispute the fact that October and November this year have been brutal on a number of movies entering theatres.  There have been a large number of flops, and only a few films have shown any kind of staying power.  For someone like me who enjoys taking in films and seeing the good ones prosper, it has been a bit of a depressing time.  Especially when a quality film such as Steve Jobs does so poorly that it fell behind the poorly reviewed Jobs starring Ashton Kutcher.

While it has been a sad time for the box office, with October and November trailing the same months last year by 36% and 35%, it is not indicative of the quality of films that have been released this year. With Star Wars just around the corner, I am sure that we will end up seeing a record breaking year in the box office.  Regardless of how dismal October and November have been, or what is to come in December, 2015 will be a year always remembered by me.

It is so rare these days that one sees a movie that feels like it will be an all time classic, and even rarer when I would sit down and watch a movie to be left thinking, "I think this is one of my all time favourites."  Well, in 2015, I can say without doubt that I experienced that four times, with four different genres of film.  Each of those four films easily found a way into my top five of their genre, and I figured it was time to give them some shine during this period of cinematic slump.


Ex Machina

This is a film that I have already seen three times this year.  I was enraptured by the trailers for it, and it felt like there was going to be something exciting about this movie.  Exciting is hardly the best way to describe it.  Awe-inspiring, jaw dropping, and mind blowing are all hyperboles that I would quickly lend to this slow burning piece of science fiction mastery.

The script, the cinematography, and the acting are the true stars of the show, which looks at the topic of artificial intelligence in a unique way.  It is absolutely captivating from beginning to end, and is thought provoking about the idea of what is actually natural, and what is science, and where those lines blur together.   It culminates into one of the chilling finales (or 'chinale,' as I like to call it) in recent memory.  This is one for all fans of science fiction to check out, and one that deserves a ton of Oscar nominations, although I am sure next to none will fall its way.


It Follows

When I saw 2014's Australian horror, The Babadook, I was beside myself because I had seen what was easily the best modern day horror.  That title and award lasted for only for the two weeks it took me to see It Follows.  It is easy to watch It Follows and see it as a solid horror movie without noticing all of the depth that went into the filming of it.

Very early into the film, it is clear that writer/director David Robert Mitchell is a first class fan of the genre.  All of the shots are framed in the style of a 1970s horror film, and the dialogue fits well into that category as well.  Just like The Way, Way Back, the environment that the characters are in is a timeless realm that clings to the past while being in the present.  Possibly the biggest achievement of this film, other than being legitimately scary, is the score.  Rich Vreeland composes flowing pieces for different moments of the film which have similarities, but also draw on classic horror soundtracks from the past.  Some are quick to note the references to John Carpenter in the score, but there is so much more represented, from Psycho to Friday the 13th and everything in between.

Move over Rosemary's Baby, you just got bumped from my all time top five horror list.


Inside Out

Yes, this movie cracks my top five animated films of all time, and even takes the number one spot.  I cannot think of another animated feature that has all of the fun, complexity, and depth of Inside Out.  While it is a great family feature, it speaks directly to teenagers and adults through its explanation of how the human mind and emotions work together.

Besides the fun story, beautiful animation, and funny moments, it was the thought behind it, and the touching moments that make this movie a masterpiece.  On top of all of that, you have terrific voice acting that adds such joy and vibrance to the film.  If there really is a better animated film out there, and preferably one that doesn't portray women as needing a prince to save them, I have yet to see it.


Mad Max: Fury Road

This film is the only reason why I didn't mention Inside Out as being my favourite film of the year.  Director George Miller returned to the Mad Max franchise thirty years after Thunderdome with a visually stunning masterpiece that is a definitive example of how to properly handle special effects.  With a blend of practical stunts and CGI, the whole film is perfect eye candy.  The post apocalyptic future never before has looked so good.  In fact, I doubt that any movie has looked so good.

Yes, there is a very simplistic script here, but that is alright.  Does everything in the world need to be complex?  It is more about the madness that the world has turned to, the power grabbing and the gap between those who have and those who are used.  It is essentially one long car chase, and it never grows tired and boring, thanks to the story that shapes it and the varied sequences that are unveiled.  As a straight up actioner, there are few that can ever rival this one.  Easily it is one of my top five favourite action films of all time and my favourite movie so far of 2015.

REVIEW: Creed

The good news about Creed is that if there were people wondering if a Rocky spin off would end up turning into a story about Rocky Balboa getting back into the ring 'one last time,' your worries are unjustified.  The story truly focuses on the tale of the illegitimate child of Apollo Creed, the man who died in the ring at the hands of the vicious Ivan Drago and who challenged and then mentored Balboa.

The young and talented actor Michael B. Jordan plays the role of Adonis Johnson, the up and coming boxer who wants to carve his own path and does not want to make it based solely on the name of his father.  The secret cannot stay hidden forever, and the moment it comes out it is the wet dream of the manager for the soon to be jailed light heavyweight champion "Pretty" Ricky Conlan, played by boxer Tony Bellew.  This is not the first time in the Rocky franchise that the choice to have professional boxers in the cast, and it pays off well as Bellew is able to adequately be the villain that is needed to our hero to face and overcome.

But is the movie really about beating someone and becoming the champion?  Absolutely not.  The movie is a character story, with boxing just being the means for which our protagonist develops and learns about himself.  Michael B. Jordan flexes (pun kind of intended, I guess) his talents as he adds an enormous amount of depth to his character, with the solid script from director Ryan Coogler and Aaron Covington making for an intriguing story with an emotional character arc.

One of the best things about this film, outside of the action in the ring, that is, is the chemistry between Jordan and Sylvester Stallone who returns to play the legendary role of the Italian Stallion, Rocky Balboa.  He is a supporting character this time around, and he hits into it more naturally than any of the films since Rocky.  He is written not as a one dimensional character, and he proves to audiences once more that he can act with the right script and the right director.  There are a lot of very touching and emotional scenes between the aging boxer and the new blood who just wants to prove to himself that he is the best.

The directing of Ryan Coogler is one of the main take aways from this film.  Creed is completely stylistically different than his only other feature film, Fruitvale Station, but from what you see on the screen you would think that he had done this kind of film many times before.  He shows a mastery of using dialogue, cinematography, and score to allow the emotions of the film to ebb and flow along with the story.

The action in the film feels like first nature to Coogler.  One of the boxing matches shows incredible ambition and talent as it is made to feel like one continuous shot through out the entire battle, with the camera weaving around the action in the ring and following the boxers to their corners between rounds.  This is the incredible work of cinematographer Maryse Alberti, who also showed an skillful eye in this year's The Visit.  There may not be any talk of her being up for an Oscar for this role, but that boxing sequence alone demands that people give her respect.

Everything with this film comes together to bring audiences a fun, emotion-fueled boxing movie about an underdog working to over come.  It is not just about winning, but about knowing who you are, and what it is that you are fighting for in life.  There is just too much entertainment and talent shown in this movie to not enthusiastically recommend it.

Rating - 3.5 out of 4 stars

Box Office Predictions: The Good Dinosaur, Creed, and Victor Frankenstein

A few days ago I wrote a post on Creed, a spin off of from the popular (and aged) Rocky franchise.  After talking about the film itself, it is time to take a look through the realm of the mystics and forecast just how it will do in the box office this weekend.  Along with it, Pixar's The Good Dinosaur and Fox's Victor Frankenstein are opening as well.

This is the first time that Pixar has released two films in the same year.  Back in the summer, Inside Out became an enormous success both critically and in the box office.  It scored 98% on Rotten Tomatoes and opened to $90 million.  One could guess that this will be another knock out of the park by Pixar, but there is a chance that it won't be quite as successful as Inside Out.

For starters, it is not fairing as well on Rotten Tomatoes, currently sitting at 81%.  Now, that does not necessarily mean anything for a family feature such as this, but it is interesting to note that the audience rating is pretty much the same, with 80%.  Twitter traffic is also relatively low for a Pixar film, with BoxOffice.com reporting that the Twitter activity mirrors that of Hotel Transylvania 2, which opened to $48 million.

I won't play the standard maths and say that it will translate proportionally to The Good Dinosaur, but I will say that all things considered, it looks like this will not be the holiday weekend breakout film that perhaps Disney was hoping for.  It is Thanksgiving weekend of a fall season that has seen a lot of movies flop, but I don't think that will be the case here.  I expect a decent opening weekend for Pixar's latest.

The Good Dinosaur Opening Weekend Prediction - $63 Million


Let's pretend that the name Sylvester Stallone is not attached to Creed.  His name has meant next to nothing in the box office the past number of years, so it would do a disservice to the potential of this movie to lean on his drawing power.  He does play a role in the film, but it is not by getting in the ring 'one last time,' and instead plays a mentor, but in a movie that looks better than when he mentored Tommy 'Machine' Gunn in the fifth and cartoonish Rocky movie.

This time around, the story is less about Rocky Balboa, and more about the son of Apollo Creed, Adonis Johnson (Michael B. Jordan).  It is hard to base any interest from the general public off of Jordan's name, and let's try to forget for the moment that he was in this summer's (less than) Fantastic Four.  Critics know just how talented he is, and mainstream audiences are about to find out.

Right now it is boasting a tremendous 92% on Rotten Tomatoes and has seen a very effective and emotionally stirring promotional campaign.  Audiences are loving it (giving it 96% on RT), and it is that kind of appreciation that I think could turn into good word of mouth that will give this film a boost over the course of the weekend, allowing it to exceed expectations.

Creed Opening Weekend Prediction - $30 Million


And last we have Victor Frankenstein, a movie whose trailers make it difficult to take the film's chances seriously.  Having stylized movies is a risk, and this one may not pay off at all.  Audiences are currently liking it more than critics, but I doubt that will help out the film.  Stylized reimagining may have worked for Sherlock Holmes, but something tells me that the character of Holmes is much more intriguing to the public than that of Frankenstein.

Victor Frankenstein Opening Weekend Prediction - $7.5 Million

Is Rocky Balboa Ready to be Relevant Again?

With the upcoming film Creed,  I can't help but ask if the aging boxer Rocky Balboa is really something that audiences care about at all.  The movie follows the life of Adonis Johnson, the son of Apollo Creed.  For those who are not familiar with the Rocky franchise, Apollo Creed was the challenge for the underdog Balboa to over come, turning from foe in the ring to good friend.

Sylvester Stallone is a far distance from the cinematic draw that he once was in the eighties.  In 1985, his films Rambo: First Blood Part II and Rocky IV were second and third in the box office respectively.  The characters were cartoonish, but it played well with the general thirst for cheesy action that movie goers had during that time period.

A lot has changed in the thirty years that have passed since then.  The kinds of films that Stallone was known for now have a difficult time even getting wide releases, and when they do, they end up in the dumping grounds of the winter or mid August.  The name of Stallone itself means nothing for ticket sales, with each of his three 2013 releases (Bullet to the Head, Escape Plan, and Grudge Match) all falling short of ten million dollars in their opening weekends.  Even the revitalizing franchise of The Expendables only made $15.8 million its opening weekend last year.  No matter who he is teamed up with, his films just don't have the appeal that they once did.

So, with some pretty dismal numbers leading to an undeniable conclusion that his time of being a draw is long gone, why are we about to see Rocky arrive on screens once again?  Is it just an aging actor refusing to let go?

That does not appear to be the case here.  For the first time in the Rocky franchise, Sylvester Stallone is not writing the story, but leaving that task to the film's director Ryan Coogler and Aaron Covington.  Coogler may have only one film under his belt, but that doesn't mean that he is over his head with this potential blockbuster.  In 2013 he released his first feature film, Fruitvale Station, which won over critics and audiences and showed his abilities as both a director and writer.

What made Fruitvale Station so powerful was the focus on the final day of Oscar Grant (Michael B. Jordan) in a 'based on true events' story that leads to Grant being shot by a BART police officer on new year's eve in 2009.  With a true story such as that, the audience knows exactly how it will end, with the sound of a gunshot and the lead dying.  However, even with the outcome known, Coogler gets us so invested in the character of Oscar Grant that we beg for the inevitable to not happen.

It is that skill that he brings with him to Creed, in a movie that looks to be a character story of Adonis Johnson, who is played by Michael B. Jordan, making this the second time the two have teamed up together.  With Coogler's directing and writing combined with the incredibly powerful yet nuanced abilities of Jordan, it is not surprising that critics are praising this film.

This could be the wisest cinematic move that Stallone has done in recent memory, and that involves the passing of the torch to the next generation.  It felt as though his past movie attempts were about keeping the spark of the action hero alive in him, something that the ticket purchasing public could not get into.  Now, with him playing the part of mentor for an up and coming super talent, movie goers have a Stallone movie to be excited about once again.

PODCAST: The Breakdown of The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 2

If you read my review of the movie The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 2, you already have an idea of just how I felt about it.  However, if you would like more in-depth analysis of the film, as well as the thoughts of my podcasting partner in crime Christopher Spicer, you can check out the podcast as we debate the finale of the popular series.

On the same episode we discuss the latest James Bond film, Spectre, as well as Noah Baumbach's 2015 release starring Ben Stiller and Naomi Watts, While We're Young.  On top of that, we look at director Guillermo Del Toro's first english language film, Mimic.  Topping it off is the Mike Tyson produced documentary, Champs.

The podcast can be found here, or you can also find The Movie Breakdown on iTunes now, where you can subscribe and keep up with the latest Hollywood films.  There will be some big shows in the future, including an upcoming special episode where we look at the influence of the Star Wars films.

REVIEW: The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 2

When sitting down to watch The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 2, it was very difficult to not think of of a television show where the opening would have the narration, 'previously on a very special episode of Blossom.'  The reason being, the first half of the film ended so abruptly without a conclusion that it could own as an individual film.  Normally in a film series the movies should still have an element that makes them viewable as a stand alone feature, but that was not the case in the cinematic division of Suzanne Collins final book in the Hunger Games series.

It points to a bit of a fad, and problem, in modern movie story telling.  Franchises, especially ones that are extremely successful, are difficult to come by.  The solution to this by studios is to bleed the content as far as they can.  The trilogy, as we once knew it, is dead.  Even The Avengers have a ridiculous two part third movie.  I call it ridiculous because there is no main source material that they are sticking with, so why not just make two more movies instead of creating a part one and a part two?

What this exhausting extracting of material leads to is films that feel like they have more in them than is needed.  The best example was the completely unnecessary Hobbit 'trilogy' which did everything it could to recreate the success of the Lord of the Rings series from a singular book that was written in a much different tone and could not translate the same way.  It was obnoxious and downright boring at times.

I personally really liked the first half of Mockingjay, as it was a good character story about the pressures faced by Katniss Everdeen.  The main issue was that blunt ending.  However, when watching the recently released final chapter, the problem of dividing the book into two parts became even more clear.  There were many scenes that felt like filler to justify the two hour plus run-time, and these scenes did nothing to service the central tensions that faced young Everdeen.

Director Francis Lawrence, who also directed the first part of Mockingjay, shows a very talented hand when it comes to building anticipation and delivering on action sequences.  There is one scene in particular where Lawrence plays on the typical Hollywood builds to jumps and leaves them dangling. This leaves the viewer to believe that something may end up happening, but never being able to settle down and guess when everything will hit the fan.

It is this skill that would have made for a very concise and exhilarating feature film if perhaps they had forgone the idea of breaking the novel into two movies.  Everything would have flowed much better, including the music.  The score was such an emotional power in the first part, but it lacked the opportunity and delivery in the second part.

Of course, there was one incredible constant across the entire series, and that was the performance of Jennifer Lawrence.  It is difficult to believe that this young lady in her mid-twenties has won an Oscar and has been nominated for two others.  In teaming up with director David O. Russell this year for the film Joy, it is almost a forgone conclusion that she will be receiving another nom.  Her performance as Katniss has kept pace with her nominated roles, where she is the pure conduit for the audience in experiencing the emotional ups and downs of the film.

Overall, it is a decent film.  The sad part is that the best thing that I am saying about it is decent.  It is a long way from the incredibly successful Catching Fire, but it serves well as a finale.  Unfortunately for audiences, it could have been tighter and would have been better packaged as one epic film instead of two separate parts.  It also would have saved the viewer money by only asking them to pay for one ticket instead of begging for them to pay for two.

Rating - 3 out of 4 stars.

REVIEW - While We're Young

Have you ever felt that age is concrete?  That the years you have walked the earth dictate where you are to fit socially, fashionably, or economically?  I will admit that while I don't always feel that way, there is a pull from societal expectations regarding age that I know I have not lived up to.  I am in my mid thirties (although some would argue and say that I am technically in my late thirties) and currently unemployed.  My wife and I, due to medical reasons, do not have children.  We rent instead of owning a home or condo.

Each of the things that I listed are unwritten expectations for someone of my age to have.  I am not climbing any corporate ladder, or any ladder to be honest.  Not fulfilling these expectations does wonders when it comes to fuelling my already abundant anxiety and stress, letting me know that I am really a failure at my life.

But is that the reality?  On the good days I am able to remember that age is an empirical measure of time, and that is all.  Age need not be the yard line on the field of life to know how far downfield we have come.  Like a football game, it is just a reminder of how much time has elapsed.  The real measuring stick needs to be something more personal and intimate, such as happiness and contentment.

This, the very thing that I am many other people deal with (and why the midlife crisis exists) is explored in Noah Baumbach's film While We're Young.  It follows the characters of Josh and Cornelia, played by Ben Stiller and Naomi Watts respectively.  They are a married couple in their early forties who see constant reminders around them that they are not living the life that they believed they should have had.  Time has passed, and they must come to admit that their chances in life have come and gone.

That is until they meet the young and exciting couple of Jamie (Adam Driver) and Darby (Amanda Seyfried) who entice Josh and Cornelia with a life of spontaneity and energy.  The young couple's love for life reinvigorates Josh and Cornelia, making them forget their age while they act and feel younger.  As with life, reality does catch up eventually, and the older couple must make difficult decisions based on what they realize is truly important to them.

There is a lot that is relatable in this film, which is fresh, fun, and extremely funny.  Baumbach, who previously made the incredibly sincere and heartfelt Francis Ha, shows an understanding of the human nature and is unrepentant about the commentary he makes in regards to age and measures for success and happiness.

The film is anchored by the incredible acting talent that is involved in the four main roles.  Nobody feels out of place, and they completely embody the emotions and nuances that their characters demand from them.  It is another showcase for the up and coming Adam Driver who will be getting some main stage shine when The Force Awaken arrives in theatres next month.  He is capable of hitting the wide spectrum of skills needed, and can easily steal a scene, as he did in Inside Llewyn Davis in the Please Mr. Kennedy scene.

While We're Young is well paced, beautifully scripted, tightly edited, and with a great and flowing soundtrack.  Above and beyond being a technically solid film on all fronts, it is a wonderful reflection on just what age means, and if it should ever be tied to the idea of happiness and success.  It is a piece of work that allows both entertainment and contemplation that is relevant for a wide variety of audiences.

Rating - 3.5 out of 4 stars 

The Effect of the Internet Age on the Movie Experience

The age of social media and instant reactions and conversations via platforms such as Facebook and Twitter has reached its grasp into many realms of life, and movies are no exception.  From trailer releases, to film speculation and rumours, the internet not only buzzes about movies but also generates its own stories.

From the topic of reporting rumours as news to the effect that Rotten Tomatoes has on film interpretation, we chat and analyze how the internet has affected the movie going experience.

To hear the podcast The Breakdown of the Social Media Effect, click here.

REVIEW: Steve Jobs

Are there many diverse directors in Hollywood who can bring high quality movies from many genres?  It is a task to find a long list, but Danny Boyle’s name would have to be somewhere near the top.  From his early days with Transporting to terrifying us and redefining an entire genre with 28 Days Later. Boyle flexes his muscles of being able to drive both characters and locations such as with 127 Hours and Slumdog Millionaire.

Most recently he has focused an entire two hour movie around three scenes, a Herculean task that is the biopic Steve Jobs.  The film looks at his life and relationships in the moments before three product launches.  And there you have the entire synopsis of the film.  It is simplistic yet utterly ambitious as it strives to define its characters as well as present a personal arc for Jobs, played fantastically by Micheal Fassbender.  He is not a spitting image of the man he portrayed, and that was not at all what the film’s team were going for.  They desired someone to capture the socially awkward, controlling, yet still fractured essence of the tech icon.

The true standout in this movie is the captivatingly sharp screenplay from Aaron Sorkin.  In any film that has limited scenes and location, the script is the foundation which can determine whether it is a dud or a quality affair.  Think of a film like San Andreas where Dwayne Johnson runs around crashing buildings and buckling roads to get to his wife and daughter.  The main attraction is the sense of adventure that we are supposed to get, and a serviceable script is all that is needed.

Serviceable, however, does not work in a film with limited eye candy or threats of physical danger to the protagonist.  A 'serviceable script' can flatten the film as quick as the earthquake battling The Rock in San Andreas levelled buildings and the Hoover Damn.  At the time of writing this I am currently halfway through Circle, a film that takes place in one location and attempts to be a psychological horror.  The concept for it, which I won't share here, is an interesting one, but it suffers from a very blunt and didactic script.  Hence the reason I have only watched half of it so far.

Of course a wonderful script can only work if the actors involved are able to pull it off.  With Steve Jobs we have an outstanding supporting cast who elevate the material.  Kate Winslet, Seth Rogan, and Jeff Daniels are able to keep up with the performance from Fassbender giving Danny Boyle a rich deposit of recourses to string together in an outstanding biopic.

In the end I walked away with feeling that I had just witnessed much of the human experience, from rage and pride to emptiness and sorrow.  In the right hands, a film can leave out many of the lavish peripherals that modern cinema dictates are necessary for a thrilling experience.  With the force of the film in the hands of actors to deliver what special effects, explosions, and locations normally would.  This lands much in the same realm Lincoln or The King’s Speech, it is proven that thrills can happen through words alone.

Rating - 3.5 out of 4 stars

Wes Craven's New Nightmare

By the time Wes Craven’s New Nightmare came around, the character of Freddy Kruger had turned from antagonist to protagonist.  Yes, the later Nightmare on Elm Street films still had a formula of a dreamer battling Freddy to keep him from killing and sending him to the grave, but that is not what people went to the theatre to see.  They wanted to see the bad guy.  Freddy had turned into the attraction, the spectacle, and the whole show.  He now had a vocabulary that centred around funny quips, and audience members would cheer for the son of a hundred (or a thousand… I can’t remember this part of the overly done mythology) psychos.

Craven showed a daring ambition to turn him once again into the villain, and returned to the matchup, and relationship, between Freddy and Nancy.  It used the real life actors Heather Langencamp and Robert England to portray themselves in a story where Wes Craven was writing a new script, one that was mirroring reality as was no longer kept at bay from the dark tales of horror.

Craven’s genius came through in the script, and the manifestation of this was in the interaction between Langencamp and England, Nancy and Freddy.  Yes, she had only been the central character in one of the films, but she was the quintessential opposite force to the demented Kruger.  It was through subtleties in the first film that their relationship was established as one of the best horror duos of all time.  It is this relationship, and that of Langencamp and her vulnerable son (whom Kruger looks to mess with) that the weight of the story is held.

It looks in many ways to return Freddy Kruger back into the dark villain, and even pokes fun at his comical reception from audiences within the film.  Craven aims to show that he is not the star, that the evil is what we should root against, and that it is the good that we should identify.  If anything, this movie just proves the fact that any Nightmare on Elmstreet movie without Nancy is impotent at best.  That she is the forgotten force in a film that needs balance, and that through Langencamps acting, the invincible Freddy Kruger has a mortal foil.

The Breakdown of Wes Craven Podcast

For myself, hearing the news that film maker Wes Craven had passed away at the end of August was a big emotional gut punch.  The man had horrified me as a youth, and that was without having even seen one of his films. I remember my sister returning from a slumber party and telling me about a movie she saw called A Nightmare on Elm Street.  Once she told me the premise, my life changed.  Falling asleep was difficult and scary for a good long time, and I would get shivers every time my parents were driving and the car crossed paths with Elm Street.

It was the beauty of the premise that was so powerful.  Being attacked in your dreams, a place where you should be at rest.  Sleep is something that everyone needs, something that cannot be escaped, and to view that activity as death row was so simple yet so innovative.  Craven created a foe who could get you where nobody could save you.  Not the police, not your parents, and not even yourself.

But it was not just the horror that I was cursed with from the movie that made it so vital to me.  When I finally saw the movie, I was amazed at the quality of story telling involved.  The protagonist, Nancy (played by Heather Langenkamp), was a break from the horror scream queens.  She was not just a female who survived until the end, continually running, screaming, and wearing tight clothes.  She was the girl next door, normal and relatable.  She was scared but also brave, searching to learn more about the evil Freddy Kruger, willing to confront him.

It was inevitably the relationship between an ultimate protagonist and ultimate villain that added the appeal of the film.  It was layered and had a message of how the mistakes we make in the past can come back to haunt us.  Yes, it freaked me out when I was young, but it mesmerized me when I was older.  A classic tale that was vivid and psychological at the same time.

In order to give Wes Craven a proper send off, my podcasting partner in crime, Christopher Spicer, and I thought it appropriate to dedicate an entire podcast to the man who had affected both our love of film and story telling.  The podcast to a master of horror can be found here.  And, if you're willing, watch A Nightmare on Elm Street.  You will see one of the best female protagonists of all time rising to the challenge in a sturdy and gripping tale.

United Passions

Receiving a love letter is such a wonderful experience (unless the sign off consists of, 'I'm watching you').  It has been many years since I have received one, but the emotions that came from it are still present.  There was much gratification and warmth written in the words of the lady that would become my wife, and, to use the cliche, I felt like a million bucks.  Love letters, however, are much less sincere when you write them to yourself.

That is essentially what United Passions is.  It is the glorious and heroic tale of how FIFA came to existence and its rise to global financial awesomeness.  It is also funded mainly by FIFA (approximately ninety percent of its budget was covered by FIFA).  Interesting, no?  The source of the funding would indicate why watching this mess feels like sitting through an hour and fifty minutes of propaganda.

The timing of its release was fatefully appropriate, only a few weeks after the United States issued inditements for many top FIFA brass and a week after re-elected president Sepp Blatter claimed he was the president of everybody.  This helps shine a light on many of the misguided attempts throughout the film to show how this football association was all about the game.

Being 'all about the game,' the narrative focuses mostly about the goal to secure money.  While I am sure the business-minded backers at FIFA equate financial gain with success, the viewing audience who sees FIFA as a corrupt organization can't help but laugh at many of the scenes.  One of my favourite lines in the film, which shows such a lack of awareness from FIFA, is a representative from Uruguay mentioning how there is no limit to their resources, and that 'you (FIFA) need the money, we need the world championship.'

This is the central problem of a film overflowing with many problems (including actor Sam Neil not seeming to understand that Brazilians would not speak with a Spanish accent).  The script is one of the most horrendous ones I have encountered, and I have seen Troll 2 and Glen or Glenda.  I will criticize a movie for having expository dialogue and ham-fisted lines if there are, let's say, four to five instances.  That does not sound like a lot, but when there should not be even one, those five lines become eye-rollers and deal breakers.  In United Passions, if one played a drinking game where they had one ounce of beer every time there was expository dialogue or a ham-fisted line the person would be passed out by the time the credits roll.

Technically speaking, there is no merit to this film.  The editing is done in a way that is manipulative and with an agenda.  The music is doubly so.  I suppose there was some attempt at hair and make up, but not enough to season this spoiled and salmonella ridden dish to the point where someone would even want to sniff it.  The box office reflected this, with the film averaging $61 dollars per theatre the one and only weekend it was in release.  If there is a worse film than United Passions this year, I will probably end up crying.  The eyes and the mind can only take so much abuse.

Rating - 0 out of 4 stars

The Martian

Director Ridley Scott has dealt with a series of hit and miss movies over the past few years.  In the last two years he directed critical and box office misses The Counsellor (2013), and Exodus: Gods and Kings (2014).  Both films were poorly reviewed, getting 35% and 27% on Rotten Tomatoes respectively.  I cannot comment on The Counsellor, but I did see Exodus in theatres, and, believe me on this, it was a rather lifeless experience.  The present had been indicating a long and disappointing slide from the skills he showed earlier in his career.

One of the reasons why I love movies so much is that each film is a new opportunity for a talent to show that she or he still has it.  When I sat down to watch The Martian, the first ten minutes had completely convinced me that Scott had returned to pristine story telling and environment crafting form.

If one looks likes to draw comparisons that a film has with its source material, The Martian is a textbook example of it being done right.  What made Andy Weir's novel such an enjoyable and captivating read was the humanizing of the dry-humoured protagonist, Mark Watney (played in the movie by Matt Damon).  The poor lad was stranded on Mars after his team had to evacuate during a horrific storm, and we followed him through sadness, hope, excitement, and depression.  These emotions were mirrored by what the good folks back on earth were journeying through as they followed the story of Watney on Mars.  It was solid, popcorn munching literature that walked us through the spectrum of the human experience.

The film, which was incredibly penned by Drew Goddard (Cabin in the Woods, Cloverfield) was able to capture all of the beats and flow of the book, executing the humour and isolation of Watney with artistic perfection.  This is exalted by a tremendous cast of characters who all exceeded in nailing their performances.  Each character is written as a unique individual, and are all believable in their motives and actions, something that not every movie can boast.

Normally I balk at movies in 3D, but this is a key aspect in the story telling, much as it was in 2013's Gravity (hey, both movies were about shit hitting the fan in space!).  The depth that is created through this medium shows us just how small and insignificant Watney is when compared to the dangers offered up by the red planet.

Speaking of the red planet, this is somewhere we have been before in numerous movies.  I distinctly remember watching Total Recall with my father and being in awe of Schwarzenegger standing on the crest of a hill on Mars before having a fatal fall.  I had been to many different planets through Star Wars and other sic-fi tales, but Mars stuck out to me.  Probably because it was unimaginative.  It was bleak and dead.  That resonated with me about the reality of what the planet could actually be like, and left me never wanting to visit such a lonely and desolate place.

Well, if I thought it looked cool back then, it looks even more amazing now.  The visuals and construction of what we see of Mars by Ridley Scott absolutely look and feel real, with no hint of computer generated imaging at all.  It falls in line with the gauntlet for world building that Joseph Kosinski laid down when he directed Oblivion (not a great movie, but insane and seamless visuals).  It's one thing for a movie to have neat-o special effects, but it is another to create an environment that actually feels like the movie was shot on location.  The eyes are unable to detect inconsistencies, and the subconscious mind has nothing to grab onto to say this isn't a genuine place.  Scott also seems to shove a boot into the backside of the modern movie making system as this insanely special effect-heavy film brought with it a budget of just over one hundred million dollars.  When films with a reasonable budget look so perfect, there are fewer and fewer excuses for the exorbitant budgeted films.

Was this film created to be the greatest movie ever made?  Hell no.  Was it created to contend for one of the best popcorn munchers of all time?  Hell yes.  Movies don't need to be deep in thematic battles while being backed by Oscar baiting performances.  They need to tell a story that grips the audience and invites them into the experience.  That's all a film needs to do to be successful, and that is exactly what happens with The Martian.  In the theatres laughter will be heard, tears may be shed, and people will leave the screening smiling and talking about what they saw.  That, to me, is what the theatre experience is all about.

Rating - 3.5 out of 4 stars

The Breakdown of Everest, Black Mass, and The Intern

For some reason I always forget to post a link on my blog for a weekly podcast that I do with my good friend and partner in crime Chris Spicer.  It could be the same reason I would spend ten minutes looking for my cell phone while holding it in my hand.  Yep, I am that guy.

This week on The Movie Breakdown we reviewed five movies from this year, with three of them existing in the dark screening rooms of theatres right now.  We chat about the disaster flick Everest, the 'based on real life' crime opera Black Mass, and the fish out of water soft comedy The Intern starring Anne Hathaway and Robert De Niro.  If you read my possibly overly harsh review of Song One, then The Intern is the type of film that can restore faith in the abilities of someone as talented as Hathaway.

Also on the slate were rentals The Cobbler, starring Adam Sandler, and Ex Machina.  One of these two movies may rock your world and attempt to bend your mind.  The other may insult your intelligence.  One may be Oscar worthy in many different categories.  The other may be worthy of a Golden Raspberry or two.  I can't tell you which is which... you will have to check out the podcast to hear the thoughts.

You can find the podcast hosted here.

Song One

Anne Hathaway is terrific, wonderful, and any other positive descriptives that you could dole at her.  She holds within her a great dexterity, charisma, and a charm that flows off the screen and infiltrates the hearts of the audience.  So, what the hell happened in Song One?

Hathaway is the protagonist in a movie that focuses on the intimacy of family and friends while being closely connected through the lifeblood of music.  She plays Franny, a young woman working towards her anthropology Ph.D., who has to return home when her idiot brother gets hit by a cab when he crosses the road before looking both ways while wearing headphones.  Digital Projection Darwin says, 'you have been selected!.'  The dullard is a busker who quit college to... well, to busk I guess.  He also has a creepy obsession with an indie musician named James Forester (Johnny Flynn). Dullard has posters of James Forester on his bedroom wall, and all sorts of doodles in his diary.  When I said it was creepy, I meant creepy.

Well, surprise, surprise.  Franny meets her brother's hero and a relationship ensues.  The relational chemestry between Hathaway and Flynn is about as dry as five saltines crammed into your mouth at once, with very little happening through either dialogue or action to create a dynamic of charm or ye old stomach butterflies.  This is one of the most frustrating aspects of Song One, as it would be quite a feat to get such a flat performance from Anne Hathaway.  It reminds me of what Zack Snyder accomplished in Man of Steel, when he took the vibrant Amy Adams and transformed her into a mere placeholder character.

This is the feature film directorial debut of Kate Barker-Froyland, who also penned the script.  The last thing I want to do is to write someone off immediately, so don't think that I am going to curse down brimstone and the like over this.  From the feel and tone of Song One, I get the sense that perhaps this was just not the story that she was meant to tell.

It comes from the aforementioned drab relationship, but also the lack of influence that the music actually has over the audience.  In the very first scene we are greeted with the dullard busking (moments before he fails to look both ways.  Always look both ways, kids!).  When he sings, there is a passion and drive that emanates from both his strumming and vocals.  And then he is in a hospital bed, and we are unfortunate enough to then hear the music of his obsession, the one and only James Forester.

Forester's music is without life.  It sounds generic.  It feels like it could have been written and performed by anyone, giving no sense of how it would turn him into an indie sensation.  There is nothing recognizable about his songs, other than the fact that he uses a loop pedal during the performance.

This is where I feel the script fails the film.  It appears that the loop pedal (used by many performers and buskers in much better ways) is what the audiences flip out over, one of the instances in the film where it appears that Barker-Froyland does not fully understand the moving components music.  Another example of the misunderstanding of music is when Hathaway's mother, played by the wonderful Mary Steenburgen, talks about how when she dated a famous rock star, he taught her one of the hardest songs ever to play on the guitar, Blackbird by the Beatles.  This is like me trying to sound smart about food and mentioning that spreadable (or sprayable) cheese is as good as the real thing.  Blackbird, be it a nice song, is actually extremely easy to play.

It may sound like I am taking the music aspect too seriously and that I am just being a curmudgeon because the songs are not my cup of tea.  I really am not being that.  There is just a major disconnect between what the director believes music to be and what it is to the audience.  If you watch the movie Begin Again, which I highly recommend you do, you will see a terrific example of how music is made to tell the tale and capture the emotions and journey of the main characters.

With the two major components of what we are supposed to connect to and become passionate about, the relationship and the music, existing without life, there is little more to say about this movie.  I could mention the sound editing, which cuts with every camera cut, leaving a jilting feeling to the audio with very little continuity, something that may be helpful in a film where sound is so important.  What was needed was a flow, was a beat to Song One, for it to feel like it was music being made before our eyes.  What it was in actuality was a poorly edited and curated mix-tape that misses out on the over abundance of talent that the actors possess.

Rating - 1 out of 4 stars

Black Mass

I am always open to checking out a good gangster film.  The key word here is 'good.'  I have learned in the past that if the movie's title has to specifically tell you and sell you on the fact that it is gangster, such as Gangster Squad, it is most likely subpar to bad.  Or Awful.  It could end up being downright awful.

Having an organized crime film that is based on real events or characters can add an impressive depth to the film, unless it is called Gangster Squad.  In 2006 Martin Scorsese directed The Departed, a gripping tale that was based loosely on James 'Whitey' Bulger, the notorious, and legally untouchable, leader of the Winter Hill Gang.  To watch the world of The Departed play out with no knowledge of the source material that birthed it, the viewer may think that this tale is so bizarre that it could only exist in the realm of fiction.

Black Mass, directed by Scott Cooper (Out of the Furnace), aims to tell the story from more of a fact centric stance, basing the film on actual events and using the real names of those involved.  The centre of the film, Whitey Bulger (played by Johnny Depp), tells the story of the rise of the Winter Hill Gang in south Boston in the seventies and eighties.  More specifically, it looks to shine light on the notoriety of Whitey and how he was able to be as brutal as he was without having to worry about law enforcement.

Cooper's film focuses on bringing the audience into the experience by incorporating south Boston as a true character of the story, taking us from main streets to tiny alleys, surrounding us with distinct architecture of the historic town.  While the story unfolds, the city remains living and breathing, even though some who cross paths with Bulger don't.  Adding another meticulous layer to the visual and atmospheric experience is the attention to detail that is payed with the wardrobe, hair, and make up.  Truly, Kasia Walicka-Maimone (Moneyball, Foxcatcher) nailed the outfits and costumes out of the park, and sadly I don't have enough room here to mention the entire makeup department, but they deserve loads of credit.


Most impressively transformed through the process were Depp and Bulger's childhood friend turned FBI agent John Connelly, played by Joel Edgerton.  It is difficult to see the actors true faces on display here, and while part of that is due to the cosmetic and physical alterations (I swear Edgerton must have packed on a good few pounds for this role) it is mostly because these two actors are standouts in completely embodying the characters they play.  The sad part is that a lot of the general movie going public may not even know Edgerton's name, and it will probably stay that way as I am predicting he will unjustly be left out of Oscar talk.  We all know what Depp is capable of, but the fact that Joel Edgerton was able to keep pace with him throughout was the main takeaway for me.

The movie is shot brilliantly, with great cinematography and soundtrack steering us through the scenes.  The problem, however, is the fact that the scenes stood out to me as just that... scenes, and seldom part of a flowing story.  The biggest problem with the film was the disjointed narrative, which switched from being told from the 'perspectives' (I use that loosely, because segments told from the view points of different characters felt no different from what we had seen prior) of those involved to third person.

The film takes place over a number of years, which could be difficult to tell seamlessly, but it is doable.  A great number of films do this, but Cooper seemed to struggle with how to pull it off and left me feeling like I just witnessed a scattering of moments and not a full story.  This is unfortunate, because there is a lot of gold here.  I have praised many aspects already, and within Black Mass are some truly memorable and unsettling scenes.  I will be quoting this film for years to come, and there is a good chance that I will be owning it as well.

The finished product, comprising of such wonderful technical displays of talent and lush acting performances, was a bit of a let-down.  The fractured narrative took what could have been a film that is held in the same regard as Goodfellas and bumped it down a notch.  It will be interesting to see what the shelf life of this film is, because I could see it sustaining in pop culture for a while.  There are just too many intriguing moments that take place for it to be totally forgotten, but not enough to guarantee its place in cinematic history.

Rating - 3 out of 4 stars

Johnny Depp - The Mimic of Hollywood

It is getting close to game time, and I am pumped.  Johnny Depp is playing Whitey Bulger in Black Mass, and my excitement for this has perpetually increased from the moment I heard of this project's conception.  The source material is incredible, allowing for many possible angles, tones, and emotions for the story to take.  When the teaser trailer dropped, I viewed it multiple times, drawn in by the captivating and driving force behind what could make this movie truly stand out, and that is Mr. Depp.

There is some lingering sadness in me over the fact that many people think of quirky and insane characters when they hear the name Johnny Depp.  I will admit that he was the best part of Pirates of the Caribbean (conjuring a performance that stole every single scene he was present for), but the past ten plus years have allowed audiences to forget exactly who we are dealing with when we sit in front of a screen projecting his image.

This is a man who came on the scene as the sweater-vest wearing jock Glen (even though he was undersized physically for the roll) in A Nightmare on Elm Street, a performance that assisted in bringing a sense of real teenage emotion and presence in the midst of a torrid nightmare.  He portrayed innocence, timidity, and morality in Platoon.  And then he was a heartthrob on 21 Jump Street.

From that point onwards, his rolls were all over the board.  From a freak with snipping little scissor fingers to playing the king of B-movies, Ed Wood, he threw everything possible into each role.  There is always an absolute conquering of mannerisms in his performances, completely embodying all physical characteristics for his role.  Facial ticks?  Yep, they exist differently in each performance.  Posture?  Yep, that changes too.  

For those who have no seen Depp playing real life drug dealer George Jung in Blow, I highly recommend it.  And, if you are able to, watch the audio commentary that has Jung talk about the movie via a phone call from prison.  Hearing him speak you can understand just masterfully Depp captured the exact sound of his voice.

Jung was astounded by what Depp did in Blow, and referred to him as a mimic.  This is exactly why I am looking forward to Black Mass so much.  It is a chance to see the talents of one of the best (if not the best) mimic actors in Hollywood history playing one of the most notoriously known gangsters in history.  He won't be wearing funny hats or acting for laughs, which is what most think of when they hear his name.  He will be returning to the craft that he owns a monopoly on, and he will be doing it with cold, psychopathic, cruelty.

Diversity Trumps Super Powers

What says 'Summer Blockbusters' better than super hero movies?  Apparently, according to the summer of 2015, the answer is Universal Studios.

Ever since Marvel and Disney launched The Avengers, the movie industry has had an unhealthy attraction to the development of what was then being called the 'shared universe.'  This was when you could have multiple franchises existing in the same story line which could culminate in a major cinematic event, much like The Avengers.

It's a golden goose, really.  It worked for Marvel, so why would it not work for everyone else?  It became the catalyst for studios to shift the long term focus and roll out schedules of franchises and properties that would nail what Marvel and Disney did in 2012.  The problem with this strategy is 'the year 2012.'  The earth survived death via ancient calendar, and was also the landmark year for super hero movie success in The Avengers.

Three full years have passed since then, and the 2012 movie has yet to have another super hero conquer it.  The world wide gross for The Avengers is $1.5 billion, and the only other super hero flicks that have gotten within half a billion dollars of it are The Dark Knight Rises (2012, $1.084 billion), Iron Man 3 (2013, $1.215 billion), and Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015, $1.402 billion).

What is the point of me writing all of this?  Well, the point is that the driving strategy for major studios right now is to strive towards something that is already showing diminishing returns.  Domestically, the second Avengers movie grossed 26.5% less than the first film.  That drop is incredibly substantial for a film that had intentions of beating the mark of the first film.  What really assisted the second Avengers was the overseas reception.  The international markets, especially China, have been gobbling up these big budget films at a furious rate.  However, just as a pinnacle can be reached domestically, so can it be reached over seas.

And this is the high stakes gamble that studios are taking with their push for the shared universe experience that Marvel Studios has.  Any major payoff, such as what The Avengers was, will be coming years down the line as the setup and hype needs to be established along the way.  A lot can change in the cinematic landscape over the course of just one year and viewer trends can change.

Now, let's at a look at the present.  There were three super hero films released this year, compared to a glut of seven on slate for next year.  Each and every one of the three in 2015 fell short of studio hopes, and, in one case, was a financial disaster.  I have already mentioned that Avengers: Age of Ultron failed to replicate the success of the first film, so I won't dwell on that.  Marvel Studios also released Ant-Man this year, and this became a very telling tale for the industry.

Until this point, there was unparalleled success for Marvel Studios.  Last year saw the risk they took in releasing the relatively unknown property Guardians of the Galaxy pay off in big ways.  However, Ant-Man proved that just because something was released as a Marvel Studios film, it was not a guaranteed success.  Ant-Man was a different type of film than the typical fare, and it suffered for it.  Whether the happily modest reception was based on the style of the film, the marketing, or just the lack of care for a hero the size of an ant, I will never know.  What I do know, and what Marvel now knows, is that not just anything will do.

The third, and final, super hero film of 2015 was Fantastic Four.  Fox already has the revitalized X-Men franchise, but to create a shared universe they would need more.  Unfortunately for them, they don't have a lot of rights, so Fantastic Four it was.  Neither of the two earlier films in franchise had been remarkable hits, but when you are trying to play catch up, you use what you have.  The problem is that good movie ideas need to come about organically, and not for a need to merely exist so it can create future films.  There was not much kind to be said about the film when it was released, from critics, viewers, cast, or crew.

Next year will be the big tell of exactly how everything is heading in the world of super hero movie dollars.  The ever so bloated Superman V Batman: Dawn of Justice is coming out in March.  Warner Bros and DC Comics have a lot riding on this film.  If anyone is to challenge the supremacy of The Avengers (and remember, that supremacy is one that is getting financially weaker), it is DC.  What laid the backbone for this was Zack Snyder's Man of Steel in 2013.

While the film took home a hearty $668 million world wide, it is not the monstrous success it appears to be if we take a closer look at the financials.  BoxOffice.com reports that its final budget after production and marketing expenses was $300 million.  That means, because the studios share profits with the exhibitors, a likely estimate on actual profit is close to $70 million.  That's correct, the film did not even make $100 million in profit and is now part of one of the costliest, long term gambles in cinema history.  If Dawn of Justice is a flop, all of the work they have done in creating their vision of the shred universe is dead instantly.

To me, this is simply the yellow highlighter that has been used to mark up the page.  This strategy, and the ones pouring from other studios, is designed around something that appears to have possibly already peaked.  It is based around a success that happened three years ago.  People may already be tiring of super hero main event films, and coming in second, third, or fourth place in this race means you missed out and possibly lost a lot of money.

The alternative would be to go your own way to use a diverse slate of films that engages different audiences, different genders, different ages, and different races.  That concept seems counter-intuitive to the Hollywood system.  Look for the young male demographic, and keep swinging as you mine their money.

Universal is already the uncontested winner of 2015, and there are still four months left.  What they did, for lack of super hero franchises, was embrace diversity.  They released successes from Fifty Shades of Grey to Straight Outta Compton.  They had global smashes in Furious 7 and Jurassic World, but they also owned smaller wins with Pitch Perfect 2 and Trainwreck.  This past week saw the micro budget horror The Visit nail a $20 million opening weekend.  While everyone else has a singular focus, the biggest lesson to be learned is that movies aimed at different audiences and different genres is indeed the way to go.  It is inarguable.  Just look at Universal's numbers and tell me I am wrong.

Hair Cuts and a Mid Life Crisis

So, I had mentioned that my cat had recently gotten himself a haircut.  The feline is a complete slob who lets himself go and worries not about appearance.  I'm fine with that, other than the fact that his laziness creates mats in his fur that I know bother him a great deal.  So, after a final verbal warning for him to get his shit together, off the little feller went to be sheared like a sheep.

(Here he is about to shoot lightning out of his eyes)

He was not the only one who saw the business end of snippers and shears.  I as well had some follicular issues to tend to.  I am never a fan of getting my hair cut.  When I see a barber I am a prisoner of a chair most comfortable, but instead of being able to allow my mind to just dissolve into contemplative thought, I am forced to partake in neighbourly chit-chat with the wielder of scissors.  For that reason, I am fine with just letting my hair grow to the point where it was of similar condition to my cat... mats.  A few new ones each day.  

I guess ordinary folk would call these messy balls of hindered hair 'knots' or 'tangles', but that seemed too refined for a recluse such as myself.  I was jealous of my cat's prowess, so, out of desire to imitate and impress him, I call them mats.  Each morning the brush held court with my hair, and each morning the battle would yield a mini handful of fallen strands, separated for eternity from their comrades.

Wednesday of last week was the day I took the plunge, which was one day after my cat.  I should not complain too much about the experience, because my destroyer of hair is a very skilled and friendly lady who doesn't spend all of her time annoying me with stupid and trivial facts about her nephew that I care not for.  She rocks, and so did the cut that she left me with.

The problem that arose from all of this was something that I had long suspected and thought about, but was never brought completely to the forefront.  My forehead is grandiose.  Consider it ultra nationalistic, wanting to share my head with none other than itself.  My hair, on the other hand, is passive to a fault (except on humid days where it decides that it will do its own thing, no matter how hard you try to dissuade it).  Faced with any confrontation, it will backdown for the sake of peace.

I really do admire its gentle nature, but after getting my hair cut I am able to see just how much its pacifism has cost me.  My forehead is getting huge, conquering lands that were once lush with hair, clear-cutting indiscriminately and felling all that gets in its way.  Perhaps I should be happy that I made it this far into life before I became betrayed by my hair.  Maybe I should just begin shaving my head so that nobody notices that there is an uneven distribution of hair across my dome (the way it's going, I could see myself pulling off a sweet comb-over within ten years).

I believe that the best option to embrace is to allow my departing hair be the starter's pistol for a mid-life crisis.  I know that technically I am not halfway towards the estimated end of my life.  In Canada, apparently men are expected to fall dead just shy of their 80th birthday.  However, I have some privileged information that Health Canada, or whoever comes up with those numbers, does not.  I know exactly what I eat as well as my physical condition.  Based on a pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey approach to calculations, I figured I am on borrowed time.  The good news?  This means that my mid life crisis is long over-due.

A big option staring me in the face right now is to get myself a motorcycle and ride it like nothing else.  This is a possible outlet that could work well, as my wife's family is a biker family.  I would finally no longer be the outcast who prefers four wheels and crumple zones surrounding me as I travel.  However, I am shit on bikes.  If there is an opportunity for me to fall off one, I never miss it.  This has been something that I was skilled at from a young age and have refined more and more as life has gone by.  So, bikes are out of the question.

Another option that I have seen people do is to get frosted tips in their hair and have it spiky.  Do you remember frosted tips?  I sure do, and I think that one of the things that goes along with the mid-life crisis is to grab onto something that you, at one point in time or another, thought cool.  Or, you could go the route of adapting to what you see in current music videos, which is why I have witnessed a number of middle aged men over the past few years sporting a faux hawk.  Because of the war of attrition being fought by my forehead, expressions of youth through hair alone is out of the question.

I guess there are other options that float around for the middle aged to explore when hitting their crisis.  I could get a jet boat, perhaps.  I have heard that trying to find a younger mate is a hobby as well, but I am happiest when I am with the one I already have.  Technically she is younger than me, anyways.  Nine months, to be exact.  Recreational drugs are a common outlet, but I know I would just end up making more of a fool of myself than normal if I went that route.

The only safe and reasonable option for me would be to emulate what was 'cool' when I was in grade eight.  I was not able to pull it off then, but I know that with the wealth of worldly knowledge I have gained since, I have a better than average chance of success.  This means I need to track down some hyper-colour shirts, some button-fly jeans, and style my hair like I am Brandon from 90210.  I know that I have already mentioned that I will fail in hair styling attempts, but this is an 'all in' sort of maneuver.  I think having a fanny pack with neon yellow and pink will go well to enhance the style.  Bring out the C & C Music Factory soundtrack, it is time to get on with my mid-life crisis!

The Visit

REVIEW: The Visit

Written and directed by M. Night Shyamalan.

Rating - 3 out of 4 stars

Well, it’s been a while since I have sat at the keyboard and logged into the blog.  The absence has been partially due to life circumstances, as well as having an inbred ability to get instantly distracted by my cat, John McClane.  He’s badass, which he should be.  He drinks his coffee black and takes no prisoners.  He recently had to get a hair cut due to the mighty amount of mats that took root in his powerful coat.  As great as he is, McClane has an aversion to grooming himself, hence the mats.  I wanted to ask the groomer if she was up for giving him a stylized shaving to make it look like he was wearing a tank top, but I figured such a request would get me in trouble from my wife.

Enough about my cat for now.  Let’s chat about someone who has been away from the movie scene and considered knocked down from former heights.  M. Night Shyamalan caught the eyes of movie goers in 1999 with The Sixth Sense, which elevated his name quickly.  In 2002, Signs was another major hit for the director, and he was firmly established as a director whose name alone could be used as a marketing tool.

And then he fell.  The warning signs were visible in The Village, where it had by then become obvious that he was determined to have a twist ending in his films.  The Lady in the Water, released in 2006, was the first major release of his that lost money.  This was also his first major release that was not under Buena Vista, whom he had worked with for four films.  

The following years brought three more films from three different studios that were not really welcomed by either critics or the public.  It ended in 2013 with After Earth, which was considered by some as a vanity project from the Smith family to showcase the acting dexterity of young Jaden Smith.  Whatever the reason for the project, it left Sony with a huge financial loss, and Shyamalan appeared as though he had burned through studios willing to work for him.

Because of his lack of success, major backing for a film did not seem like an option for Shyamalan.  What ended up happening was working with micro-budget producer Jason Blum to get a found footage film from pen and paper to cinemas across the world.  Universal, who has been the powerhouse studio this year, laughing in the faces of everyone who says you need superhero movies to be successful, got behind the project.

Why am I talking about all of this and not simply reviewing his latest film, The Visit?  Well, for two reasons.  First off, I love an underdog story.  While I may not be a fan of Shyamalan or many of his works, I love rooting for the person his coming back with something to prove.  Secondly, I am not going to write a standard review for this movie, but instead examine one major talking point that I took away from it.

I’ll be completely honest about the film and not sugar coat a thing.  This is not a perfect movie at all.  Saying that it has a twist is not a spoiler.  An actual twist to this movie would be if it didn’t have one.  There are some ham-fisted moments of people over-coming their fears.  The antagonists are a sketch of different ideas of what ‘creepy old folk’ would act like.  The camera feels like it is held by a professional camera person and not the characters in the story.  This may seem nitpicky of me, but in a found footage film the camera is not an outside eye, it is actually a character.  

Speaking of characters, the protagonists instantly turned into idiots in the third act.  I was cheering and rooting for them to die.  I know that may leave you believing that I am a horrible person for feeling such things, but stupid people don’t deserve to stay alive in the movie world.  They are the people who look in the barn after all previous idiots have not returned from investigating.  They are the people who investigate things when their lives are in danger.  Digital Projection Darwin says they need to be thinned off to enhance the herd, and I agree with him on this one.

I say all of this, and yet I am recommending the movie.  The reason why is because M. Night Shyamalan returns to the most basic and yet oft neglected and forgotten foundations that make a successful horror or thriller - characters.  We need solid characters who we can feel like we know so we attach to the fear and worry that they experience.  I believe that for horrors, the story should be about the characters with tension added in.  What happens most of the time is stories of tension with characters forcefully inserted.

At the heart of The Visit are a young sister and brother, Becca (Olivia DeJonge) and Tyler (Ed Oxenbould).  They are heading off to visit their mother’s parents, whom they have never met before.  Right away I rolled my eyes at both of the children who I knew I would be forced to spend an hour and a half with.  They were tropish little ones.  Becca spoke like she had been born on the set of Gilmoure Girls, and was the standard teen intellectual.  Bring on another straight laced bookworm!  Tyler was a thirteen year old who goofed off and wore his pants low.  Way to break the mould, Shyamalan.

This is where M. Night wove his magic on me.  He took characters who I instantly wanted to discard and made me care for them and love them.  When they were done acting like idiots in the third act, I was quick to forgive them for being so dumb.  When they emerged from their ham-fisted scenes, I cheered.

This was all achieved because Shyamalan took time with Becca and Tyler.  He showed us their true characters, and turned them from cardboard cutouts into individuals who I felt like I actually knew.  Even with me feeling a disconnect from the steadiness of the camera (something that rips me out of found footage movies.  Seriously, the character should hold the camera.  There should be absolutely no camera credits in a found footage film.  That’s how it’s done.  Just look at Creep, which is also a production under Jason Blum.  It is much more organic.), I cared for the little third act dullards.  

I believe that if I counted, the issues I had with this film would out-weigh the positives.  While Shyamalan was able to set up visually uncomfortable and scary scenes, they felt tacked on afterwards.  And then there was the sound.  It was which was incredibly well done and intimate, but then was ruined by having a loud noise to coincide with a jump scare.  And, the film had a twist that made the characters act stupid.

Sigh, I guess it was a wonderful mess.  With all of the faults, it had a solid and heartfelt foundation.  The Visit is a solid comeback for M. Night Shyamalan, one where he shows that heart needs to come before scares in a horror.  The movie is carried by his attention to Becca and Tyler, as well as the performances of Olivia DeJonge and Ed Oxenbould.  And hey, Kathryn Hahn plays their mother, and she is always wonderful.  There are many laughs to be found in this film, a bit of eye rolling, and some chilling sequences.  When the credits were rolling I was smiling, which meant the ticket price was well worth it