REVIEW: Get Out

A normal and happy birthday for me are the simple things in life.  Getting up, having a coffee, and at some point in the day indulging in pop and chips.  This year it was a great birthday.  I got my coffee.  I got a massive plate of nachos.  I got my pop.  All wonderful stuff for a guy who enjoys such things. On top of all of that, my podcast co-host and good friend, Christopher Spicer, got me Get Out.  As a fan of horror films, I was greatly anticipating seeing this film that I had missed out on, and the present was a perfect fit for me and my likings.

Horror movies have seen a creative resurgence in recent years.  It was films like It Follows and The Babadook that made waves in the independent scene.  It seemed to spark something that caught on.  Last year, on the mainstream level, we had solid entrances in The Shallows, Lights Out, and Don't Breathe.  I am sure I am missing some in there.  Oh yes, the Ouija sequel.  I would hate to leave that one off the list.

One of the champions of this horror resurgence is Blumhouse Productions.  It allows, on a micro-budget, film makers to bring their high concept ideas and see them fulfilled without having to worry about studio meddling.  It is from this company that we receive Get Out, a film that is written and directed by Jordan Peele.  People would be right not to immediately think of horror when they hear the name of this comedian, but he shows through the film that this is something that he has a very good sense of creating and executing.

The story focuses on Chris (Daniel Kaluuya) who is going to be spending the weekend meeting his girlfriend Rose's (Allison Williams) family.  There is some tension around this because he is black and she is white, and he doesn't know how the family will respond to the situation.  As it turns out, they are rather welcoming of him.  Her father Dean (Bradley Whitford) and mother Missy (Catherine Keener) welcome him into their home.  He is part of the family, and yet there is something that isn't sitting quite right.

That feeling of something being off follows him around, as all of the other black people he meets are acting rather strangely.  Peele makes it very obvious that something isn't right.  He plays with the subtle sense of racism without ever completely making the film about it.  The situation is obvious to Chris, but not to those around him, who act as though there is nothing out of the ordinary.

Get Out is most certainly a slow building horror film.  It takes a while for things to start happening, but that does not mean that it is stale and un-entertaining.  There are a few minor jump scares thrown in during the build, and I must admit that they got me.  This is because everything in the first act of the film is subtle.  There was no ominous music, no stranger harbingers that are met along the way, or any of the other numerous tropes in horror that are used to keep the viewers interested and engaged.  Peele is able to keep the audience engaged through solid script writing and a cast that are more than up to the challenge of their roles.

The casting may very well be one of the strongest points of the movie.  Everyone is natural in their roles and delivers their lines with a natural air that makes the dialogue flow freely in a way that would in real life.  Whitford and Keener are perfect as the parents.  They are two talents that I always get excited about seeing, and for some reason they are never in nearly enough roles.  They show why that should not be the case in Get Out.  Kaluuya is wonderful in his portrayal of Chris.  It is so easy to become invested in his caring and easy going nature.  It would be great if this was a 'star making' performance for him.  He shows on the screen that he is capable of a number of emotions without ever looking out of place or robotic.

Perhaps what I liked the most about Get Out is that it was just a really well told tale.  There are some horrors that I enjoy that aren't nearly as well told.  It is the ones that are crafted like a good camp fire story that endure.  They may have their faults and may not be classics, but they are entertaining from beginning to end.  A person who is really good at that is Mike Flanagan, and Get Out fits that same feel and mould.

Of course, coming along with Jordan Peele is guaranteed to be comedy.  It is perfectly woven into the movie, and never feels jarring and doesn't take us so far out of the moment that it is difficult to get us back into it.  Lil Rel Howery brings the majority of the laughs.  He plays Rod, the best friend of Chris.  Howery is just another example of the perfect casting of this film.  The funny parts are never outlandish.  That can be the downfall of some films that try to use humour to bridge moments of emotion and tension.  Peele's script shows a fine-tuned knowledge of what to use, when to use it, and how much of it should be used.

I am not going to be arguing that this film is an all time classic.  I don't think it is, but that doesn't mean that it is any less special or significant.  What it is is a balanced, hand crafted piece of art that entertains for the entire run time and brings the audience into the experience.  Really, can anything more be asked of a movie?  There are so many films that entertain, but that don't accept the audience fully in on the journey.  Get Out is strong in this manner, as I was rooting for the protagonist from first introduction to final scene.  The run time flew by.  I had some jumps, I had some laughs, and I was glued to the screen.  Who cares if it won't be remembered alongside films like The Exorcist?  Get Out is horror escapism done with a knowledgeable hand, and for that reason I am sure that I will be seeing it time and time again.

Rating - 3.5 out of 4 stars

REVIEW: Sin City

Visiting films from the past that you have not seen before can be a lot of fun.  However, it is very hard to view the movie in the right light.  Things change in cinema, and what may have been ground breaking at one point in time can be tired and old in the current climate.  It is difficult to put on the glasses of proper perspective and see a movie for what it was when it first hit theatres.

This is the challenge with Sin City.  It is a highly stylized and visually driven movie that holds onto breath with its own personal mode.  It is based off of the graphic novels of the same name by Frank Miller, and the whole nature of the movie is to throw away the normal cinema experience and bring the audience into the world of the graphic novels.  At the time of its release, it truly was a unique and different experience to behold as it set itself apart from mainstream fare.

It is the visual style of the movie that makes the most impact on the viewer.  Yes, it is also propelled by an insane amount of violence, but there have been gratuitously violent movies in the past, so nothing completely new here.  It is the way that it does it that sets it apart.  Mostly portrayed in black and white, Sin City is garnished with the feel of hand drawn frames straight from paper.  This is not only done by way of the visceral, but through the choreography of the sequences.  It defies gravity and logic, spelling out in a way that harkens back to the page flipping action of comic books.

It truly is a feast for the eyes, that is for sure.  It is not to the point of the extreme, though.  There are movies where you can watch it once and then want to view it immediately a second time to catch everything that happens in the background.  Those are the truly amazing visual films.  Movies like Mad Max: Fury Road and The LEGO Movie come to mind.  Those are at a standard where watching the complexities of the entire visual scope is a task within itself.  While Sin City is good, it is not quite at the level of those movies, or a Zootopia.

Guiding the film is a very noir and dated dialogue, headed up by cliche ridden narration.  While that could sound like a criticism, it is actually a positive of the movie.  I rather enjoyed the throw back language and the clunky conversations that are spewed forth.  It is part of the charm of the movie.  It is from a different era, one that fuses different generations into one fantastical location called Basin City.  There was a lot of fun to be had through the dialogue, as well trodden as it may have been.

Directing the movie is Robert Rodriguez and Frank Miller.  I am a general fan of Rodriguez, as I really enjoy his knowledge of film and his unpolished style.  El Mariachi is a favourite of mine.  The man has the ability to take an idea and put a personal spin on it and throw in call backs to cinema past.  I felt a lot of that while watching Sin City.  You can really get a feel for what Rodriguez is doing here, dashed in amongst the stylings of Miller.

I cannot speak too deeply into the directing talents of Frank Miller.  Well, I suppose that's not true.  I have seen two of the three movies that he has directing credits in, those being the two Sin City films.  While the first movie feels fresh and alive, the second felt like generic stylized cinema, something that could have come out of any film school or shot by anyone.  There was no personality and spice to it.  It wasn't a horrible movie, but it was by no means a standout affair.

And hey, Quentin Tarantino gets a guest director credit in there.  The nice thing about Sin City is that you cannot completely tell where the influences of Tarantino come into play.  There are times where a hand or head flops off that could be guided by him, but it is not clear.  Hell, it isn't clear at all who is directing what, and that is a good thing for a movie with multiple helmers.  You don't want it to feel disjointed and sense a change of styles throughout the film.

While the film boasts a wide an varied cast (from Bruce Willis to Alexis Bledel), they are not the standouts of the movie.  The acting is far from the centre piece.  It is probably the most cut rate it could possibly get away with being.  I am pretty sure that this is intentional, but it did not add anything to the movie by being a blandly performed film.  Any of the characters could have been traded out for another actor and it would not have made really any difference.  There is no individual stamp of excellence that holds up in this movie.

I suppose that's part of the problem of this movie.  While it exceeds in some areas, it is nothing special in others.  I can't help but think of how much more vibrant it would have been if there was more energy from the talents in front of the camera.  Sin City definitely stands as a ground breaking movie, and one with a distinct voice.  That does not mean that it stands as an all time classic, which is too bad, because it could have been.

Rating - 3 out of 4 stars

Some Thoughts on Before Midnight

I have now seen Richard Linklater's Before Midnight in the context in which it was meant.  It is a film that I have seen before and reviewed, giving it the much coveted four stars.  This was without much knowledge of the history of Jesse (Ethan Hawke) and Celine (Julie Delpy).  It is just a good movie, and there is no way around that.  It is much different, and yet a lot of the same, as the first two movies.

One way in which it is different, is that it envelopes the directing style of the first two film's unique setup and mashes them together.  We get the long takes that we were treated with in the second film, along side the edited and condensed feeling of the first movie.  While music has been mostly absent, and yet crucial, to the series, we finally have a movie here with a score, courtesy of Graham Reynolds.  And, like the first two films, it has its themes set in love, but this time it takes it to a whole new level.

Love in a spontaneous instant, the thrill of the moment and surrendering to the magical escapism of 'what could have been' is what the first movie is all about.  It is seizing the moment, living in the day, and having the understanding that you did something that you could have very well regretted for every single day of your life afterwards.  It is beauty in youth.  It is the acceptance of the finite, and whether or not having what will be eventually lost was worth what life would have been like having never taken the chance.

That is the first film in a nutshell.  It is told with such boldness, naivety, and extremes.  It is the formation of the Hollywood Prince and Princess story, but with much more realistic and down to earth characters.  This is the version of passion and romance that is tried and true, and it is overly done in so many films.  The magic of love, the palpitations of it.  It is the bended knee and the magical night that will forever be remembered.

In the second movie, love is viewed differently.  It is overcast with regret of what could have been.  Even though these are characters that took a chance, they are characters who are paying for it.  They have been branded permanently by their decision to follow spontaneity and their hearts.  Their concepts of relationships are forever changed, as their formative years experienced a connection that would surely mould the future for anyone.  What they are left with, after the romance, is a view of relationships that are opposite each other.  No longer is it the dreamy visage of someone swooping in with flowers and charm.  It is something much different than that for each character.

And then we have the version of love that is found in Before Midnight.  It is the version of love that books are not written about.  It is the version of love that children are not warned of.  It is the version of love that destroys relationships and causes divorce.  It is the true version of a committed relationship, the hardships that come along with it, and the pain that it would take to see things through.

Linklater does not hold back at all in Before Midnight.  This is not a date movie.  It is not the fantasy that would carry a Sandra Bullock or a Julia Roberts.  There is no Prince Charming.  There is no magic kiss.  There are only two people who have been together for nine years, and the fact that they are comfortable with each other, the force that unleashes the bridles of the mouth and can cause instant pain and regret of words.

It is serious stuff.  We are with a couple on what could easily be the very last night of their once romantic relationship.  We learn that just as guns can be used for promoting either peace or war, so can the mouth.  When you have been with someone for a long period of time, there is a lot that can go unsaid.  It doesn't mean that those things vanish.  They remain, and they build up over time.  All it takes is a breaking of the seal to unleash all of those thoughts, fears, and regrets from the past.

The point of this movie is to show what happens when the romance is gone.  When what you are left with is the decayed sense of butterflies in the stomach, yearning for them to reappear and resigning yourself to the fact that they may be gone for good.  This is love.  It is not packaged in a heart-shaped box, nor is it delivered with roses.  It comes with the devastating knowledge that the honeymoon is over and what you are left with is being paired up with a fallible human being.  This is not what sells tickets on Valentine's Day, but it is what people all over the world truly live with.

This vision of love shows the pain, sacrifice, and work that need to go along with keeping it together and working.  One might ask, why bother making it work if it takes so much energy?  Well, the fact of the matter is that if you leave it behind, you are leaving behind all of the good things that come along with it.  Linklater is keen to show those elements as well, in scenes where Celine and Jesse talk back and forth about life as they walk from their host home to a hotel where they will be spending the night without the kids.  Linklater shows that those moments are the ones that make it worth while, and he points out that they are worth fighting over.

When it is easy to allow something to die, it is difficult to fight for its life.  That is what the main characters must do, or choose is worthwhile, in order for them to have love.  Once again, this isn't portrayed as the type of love that appears on romantic cards, but one that is rooted in knowledge of another person.  It sounds boring, but that is the essence of it.

It is impossible to believe that the feeling of butterflies will always exist.  That you will constantly be swept off of your feet by someone for the rest of your life.  That is the version of relationships that we are sold by mass media, and it is that version of love (and the endless pursuit of that love) that can cause people to fade apart and never be truly happy.  Love is support, but it is also pain.

That pain can hurt the most when you are staring down the barrel a doomed relationship, or at least what may seem that way.  The script, written by Linklater, Hawke, and Delpy, shows the reality of properly dealing with that hurt.  It is what has kept my marriage together, and it is what keeps many together.  That is not giving up.  Just when things seem like they are at their worst, one must let pride stand aside and make another effort.  It can feel the equivalent of conceding that you were wrong, but love shouldn't take score of who was right and who wasn't.  Love should take a second to take a deep breath, compose yourself, and do what you can to get through the maelstrom, even if it means more hurt.

That is the love that is on display in Before Midnight, and it is that love that should resinate with viewers more than Runaway Bride.

Box Office Predictions: 'Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales' and 'Baywatch'

There is a saying, 'better late than never.'  This must have been concocted by someone who had a notorious time being on schedule for things.  There is some truth to the saying, so I will stand by it.  While my predictions piece should have been written yesterday, there is no time like the present to make up for my lack of motivation.

The main draw this weekend is Johnny Depp returning as Captain Jack Sparrow, in Disney's Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales.  There is a lot of love for this character, and that excitement for a return could very well turn into box office dollars.  This is something that I would love to see as I picked it as part of my pool for the summer blockbuster contest held on The Movie Breakdown Podcast.  I want people to remember the charm and mesmerizing performance of Depp, pay no attention to the last Pirates movie, pay no attention to Rotten Tomatoes, and go out to see this film during its opening weekend.

However, that plea may be falling on deaf ears.  There is a very real and thriving beast in the movie landscape, and that creature is known as franchise fatigue.  It strikes its tentacles at almost everything in sight, bringing down returns with each successive outing of a property.  There are some exceptions.  The second Hunger Games performed better than the first.  Most notably is the Iron Man franchise, where each film outdid the previous, at least as far as opening weekends went.

I am doubtful that we will see that happening here.  The first three Pirates movies each made more than the previous (both in opening weekend and domestic grosses), but there was a significant drop with the first film outside of the trilogy, On Stranger Tides.  It opened to $90 million, compared to the $135 million opening weekend of Dead Man's Chest five years prior.  Once again, we have a solid lapse between instalments, and I cannot help but think that the curse of the drop is going to live strong here as well.  They are bringing back Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley to reprise their old roles, but has too much harm already been done to render this moot?

I think so.  The film mainly relies on the role of Johnny Depp and his ability to draw in quirky roles.  The problem is that audiences have now been there and seen that.  Two of the previous attempts to cash in on this have been failures.  The Lone Ranger (which has almost the exact same Rotten Tomatoes percentage as Dead Men Tell No Tales) opened just shy of $30 million.  A few years later, Alice Through the Looking Glass (which shares the same 30% rating on Rotten Tomatoes as Dead Men) opened to a measly $26 million on a budget of $170 million.  I think we can say that after other flops like Transcendence and Mortdecai Depp is no longer the magnet that he was in the mid 2000s.

The biggest crowd that will be attending theatres to see Jack Sparrow this weekend will undoubtedly be hardcore fans of the franchise.  Even then, we once again come across franchise fatigue.  Are people really going to be wanting to shell out the dollars and see the film, especially since it is rather poorly reviewed?  This, with an insane budget of $230, could be a shipwreck and the second blockbuster failure of the season.

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales Opening Weekend Prediction - $60 million

For fans of the television show Baywatch, they can finally be fully satisfied as the film comes out in theatres this weekend.  However, they may be a little disappointed if they are expecting it to be similar to the television show.  Judging by the trailers, it is more in line with the kind of remake that 21 Jump Street or even CHIPs was.  It is revamped with an R-rating, and is more using the intellectual property as a catapult for a film.

This worked out really well for 21 Jump Street, but not so great for CHIPs.  Audiences loved the Jump Street movie, as did the critics.  It had a healthy $36 million opening weekend, and the sequel had a massive $57 million opening take.  It shows that the format could work, but what really helped out with this franchise was the fact that it was grounded by solid movies and had adequate star power to propel them to success.

Star power is one thing that Baywatch has.  Say what you will about the drawing power of Zac Efron (or the lack thereof if you are looking at the $1.7 million opening of We Are Your Friends), the real showcase here is Dwayne Johnson.  He hasn't seen a movie debut at less than $20 million since 2013's Snitch.  Lots has happened between then and now, with Johnson being one of the premier names in Hollywood.  It has come with lots of work, and the man has now arrived at the pinnacle.

While lack of critical reception is not always a death blow to comedies, it is difficult to look at the 19% on Rotten Tomatoes and think that it may not be a factor.  If anything, it is a sign that word of mouth coming out of the movie will be harmful to it.  In the age of social media, this can be a real killer.  Thankfully for Johnson and company, the movie has an audience approval rating of 70% on Rotten Tomatoes.  This could mean a less front loaded opening weekend, but I am also not predicting that it will be a massive success.

Baywatch Opening Weekend Prediction - $28 million

REVIEW: The 101-Year-Old Man Who Skipped Out on the Bill and Disappeared

Watching this movie, I didn't feel as though I was missing out on anything.  It is actually the second movie featuring the character Allan Karlsson (played by Robert Gustafsson), and I had no idea that there was a movie prior to it.  All I knew was that there was some sort of shenanigans that happened before the cameras were rolling, and I was fine with it being a mystery.

That is sort of the beauty of this film.  Life has happened to the protagonist, and there needs to be no real explanation of what it was.  It was like the old Venture Brothers episodes that picked up after an amazing feat had happened, and it was just sort of a side thought.  The way the first sequences of the movie unfold, you are immediately sent into the world of this 101 year old man and get to know about the people who are close to him.

At the centre of the story is an old Russian soft drink called Folksoda.  One taste of it leaves a craving that cannot be filled.  It turns out that it was created as a Cold War strategy to have the world trying to emulate the Russian lifestyle instead of that of the Americans.  Even President Nixon couldn't help but become obsessed over the beverage.

We find out that Karlsson used to be a double agent during the Cold War, and was a key figure in the development of Folksoda, even if by accident.  He is not inept, but he is definitely not the sharpest knife in the drawer.  Karlsson is not so dumb as to rekindle thoughts of Bill Murray's The Man Who Knew Too Little, but there are comparisons that can be made.  Both characters are part of something that is bigger than them, but they just do their own thing as circumstance guides the story.

I do have to admit that I am writing this a number of weeks after watching it, but that does not mean that the charm of the film has been lost or dwindled over time.  Sure, my thoughts on the specifics could be washed away, but the memory of the impression of the film stays.  That is always something that you want in a movie.  You don't want to watch it and then forget it right away, but rather have it linger on in some way that keeps you returning to it.  I cannot help but think of the scenes, the music, and the endearing performance of Gustafsson as the ambling old man who bounces from one element of adventure to another.

Assisting Gustafsson in this performance are the supporting cast members who bring a lot of unique identity to them.  My favourite of the bunch is Benny, played by David Wiberg.  Benny is meant to be the comedic relief in a film that is full of comedy already.  Sometimes this can go sideways, but usually, when properly delivered, it is just something extra that is added to a movie to ensure moments of golden laughter.  Benny is the kind of character that tries really hard, but more often than not ends up coming up on the short end of the stick.  It is a natural job by Wiberg, and he is a standout in a scene where he is being question by officers over his interest in Folksoda.

Along side Benny are some equally quirky characters.  None of them are too over the top for the world that had been created for them.  This world functions like the real one, but there are some allowances for the breath of the film and the story that it is telling.  It all leads to a happy romp of a movie.

It is a movie for those who like a break in life, and who crave to see a whimsical stroll with a memorable character.  It is well directed, and has a vision that is coherent to the rest of the movie.  For some reason, this is the type of film that nestles into the corners of my heart and stays for as long as it can.  While this may not be the most critical review (thanks to the time it took for me to write it), I can't help but stand by the fact that this is a film that has a personality and a charm of its own and is waiting to win its way into the hearts of viewers like me.

Rating - 3.5 out of 4 stars

REVIEW: Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides

I had always known that I liked the first Pirates of the Caribbean movie.  That was easy to figure out, and I knew it about ten minutes into my first viewing of the film.  The second one was neither here nor there with me, but I had a lot of fun with the third, At World's End.  All in all, it was a comfortable and fun property that spat out a completely watchable trilogy and wrapped everything up nicely by the time the final credits rolled.

But then comes along the curse of pursuing more box office dollars, taking a property that had run its course and deciding to return to it because it was recognizable and ensured good return on investment.  There was no reason at all to tell another tale of Captain Jack Sparrow.  We knew that he was still up to adventure when last we saw him, and that was a nice send off.  He would keep his shenanigans going until the day he died.  We could live with that and create our own sense of what it was that he would be up to.

The point I am getting at here, is that there was no immediate need to return to this universe.  Director Gore Verbinski had taken the reigns and told a tale, and then adequately finished it.  It was a story that was contained, but left open ended.  That's great stuff to be able to pull off.  Let it rest, let it lay down and slumber, living on in collector's hearts on the DVD and Blu-ray shelf.  To dust it off and return to it could end up meaning a forced story that just works to serve as a vessel for further sales.

And that is what I found with On Stranger Tides.  The story finds Jack Sparrow in London and captured with a mission to find the fountain of youth.  Of course, Captain Jack Sparrow doesn't stay shackled for long, and escapes in an over the top sequence, much more over the top than anything we have seen previous.  This sequence sets the ground for the far right escapism that we will be in for in the rest of the film.  I am not trying to say that the first three were realistic, but they were still somewhat contained in what they attempted to pull off.  Sparrow was a clumsy-yet lucky fool with some level of brilliance, not a complete master of all things action.

This is part of the problem with On Stranger Tides.  They seem to have forgotten who Jack Sparrow was and what made him special.  It is Sparrow for the sake of Sparrow.  In some odd way it reminded me of the transformation of Dr. Henry Jones Junior in Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.  He has become something that he was not before, and that leads to the emptiness that can be felt while watching it.

Joining this adventure is Penelope Cruz as the former love interest of Sparrow and the daughter of notorious pirate, Black Beard.  Playing Black Beard is Ian McShane.  I have been a fan of McShane since seeing him play cold-hearted mobster Teddy Bass in Sexy Beast.  He does well as a pirate, that is for sure.  There can be some credit to director Rob Marshall in shooting how Black Beard is framed, making him appear to be a legend that is larger than the myth.

A theme that reappears from the original trilogy is the amount of characters involved and all of their own personal reasons for following the plot and motivations for action.  It became a little too much in At World's End, and here it feels like it is in there just because the other movies had it.  There is nothing wrong with some simplicity from time to time, and the script probably could have been better served if it stayed with that.

Like the other films, there is a great attention to the costumes and sets, something that is warmly welcomed.  It helps counter balance some of the fantasy elements and over the top action.  It places the viewer in the world and keeps them there through keeping shots from appearing too doctored and altered.  This has been a strength of the entire franchise, and it is nice that they did not stray from that in the fourth movie.

I do wish that I could say that there were a lot of things that stood out in this movie, but that is not the case.  It felt, to me at least, as though it was just an exercise in repetition.  The score wasn't enhanced in any way.  The dialogue was functional, but not electric as it had been in the past.  Captain Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush) wasn't the stand out character that he had been in the past.  And, as mentioned, Jack Sparrow is something that he was not before.  There was just something off about him.  His motivations were not as solid and his actions were not similar to what they had been in the past.

Perhaps I am being too hard on this movie and making it seem like it is a complete waste of time.  That's not the case.  It has some redeeming qualities in the visuals and a few of the performances, namely Ian McShane.  It is just not enough to recommend the film.  It lands in the area of not being good, but not being bad.  That makes writing a review extremely difficult.  A writer wants a muse that is of some extreme quality, making the words flow and criticism sharp and defying.  With something like On Stranger Tides, I am handed something that is without salt and pepper, but still cooked enough to be consumed.

Rating - 2 out of 4 stars

Long Weekend Ramblings

Sometimes life changes.  We sway in the breeze and either try to change with it or rail against it, battling to forge our own fate.  We either follow the flow of the tides or battle against it.  There have been times in life when I have done both.  For the most part, I am an easy going individual who will rather work with the ebbs and flows of life instead of smashing my head against the wall and trying to instil my own vision of what will happen.

That could be a down side to how I ride the rollercoaster of life.  Maybe I am too laid back and too 'go with the flow' for my own good.  I don't know.  I am not reflective enough to make good sense of that.  I do know there have been times where battling for something was worth it, and times when it was a waste of energy.  My bloodstained knuckles weary and tired from attempting to alter my life, and the dust built up on my feet from staying in place for too long while I tried to change the unchangeable.

About half a year ago, I was faced with the very difficult decision of either moving or staying where I was.  There were benefits to both, and I had to try and make up my mind as to what was in my best interest.  What could I accept for the rest of my life, and what I could not.

I like to think that I don't get frozen for too long by such decisions.  I also pretend that I have a logical and fact driven mind that leads me on through the mysteries of life.  When it was time to decide whether to stay in the town I was living in or if it was time for a change my wife and I were able to come to the decision within the matter of a few days.  We didn't rush it, and really looked at a lot of deciding factors to come to our conclusion before the two of us decided that a change was needed, and living in beautiful cottage country Ontario would be the best thing for us in the long term.

A lot of this came down to my mental health issues.  I am a bit of a mess when it comes to that.  It has been over three years since I have been able to hold down a job, and doctors are still trying to find the right medications for me to be on.  On top of my stress and anxiety, I also have a bit of agoraphobia mixed in there.  Moving to a smaller town with a more relaxed pace of life is something that was definitely a positive for my health struggles.  However, it came at quite a cost.

Because of this, I can no longer see movies in the theatre when they come out.  Oh, poor Scott and his first world problems, you may be thinking.  You are right.  There is not a lot that can really be said about that other than it is easily something that I could live without compared to what other people have to go through across the globe.

The problem is that there are few outlets and releases for me and my head full of problems.  Viewing and reviewing movies is one of them.  It keeps me focused and disciplined on something and forced me out of the house at least a few times a week to keep up with The Movie Breakdown podcast that I co-host.  It was logical, and it was creative.  Now, I should have been better at creating written reviews and getting them posted on this damned blog, but that is a story for another time.  It has not always been easy for me to put myself out there in written form.  It is a task that I have battled with and often lost.

That's the real rub.  Writing is something that I want to get into, and my fears have long kept me from really acting on it.  I have a number of manuscripts, but have only really tried to push one of them.  I finished one a few months ago, but have I done anything to get an agent for it?  Nope.  It has sat still and remains locked away on my computer.

I have gotten side tracked.  The point is that I miss watching new releases and reviewing them with my podcast co-host Christopher Spicer.  It was an experience that kept me from getting locked away in my own world and forced me out of my boundaries into different places.  Because of the move, I had to see that dream fade away and resign myself to a much meeker movie viewing life.  It has left me feeling as though I am unable to properly comment on relevant cinema, pulling me out of the epicentre and pushing me to the outlying areas.

In the face of it, I like to think that I have still made the right decision.  It was a challenge to just leave the apartment when living in a city, and it is much easier to get out now, so that is a positive change.  I just wish that I could have it all.  That I didn't have to sacrifice one thing for another.  I am not going to ramble on about how life isn't fair and I have been dealt a bad hand.  I have a great life. I have a loving wife, a great family, and wonderful friends.  I also have a cat that rocks.

With all that I have going for me, I can't help but stare into that hole of what I am missing and recognize the impact that it had on me while I had it.  There still is the podcast, but I feel like a swollen ankle that cannot fit into a running shoe because of my inability to speak into the latest and most relevant works.  Because of the move, I have made the podcast a harder sell because of the lack of insight that I can provide.

So, what is more powerful in life?  Being (or having the hope of being) stable, or having those outlets that define who you are and provide you with release and energy?  Because the journey of the move is still relatively new, it is hard to tell.  I am probably boring you with the thoughts that are spilling out on the page right now.  Does it really matter?  Hell yes, it does.

Transforming from one thing into another may be a beautiful process, but it can also be a brutal one.  A cocoon is not a pretty sight.  It is rather grotesque, actually.  It bears no similarities to what is inside, and what is happening.  It looks like something that should be discarded and left to rot.  I am not saying that I am some sort of butterfly awaiting to be hatched, but I am indeed in some sort of prolonged transformation stage.  Instead of feeling like it is a step forward, it amounts to the endless surge of purgatory, being stuck in an in between stage that has no end in sight.

It is in this purgatory that I feel like I sit, unable to see what is coming up and whether or not it was all worth it.  Is it the destination that matters, or the journey?  Different people will say different things.  All I know is that my path was set, and there is no going back on it.  What it has created is what I have to deal with, and all I can do is hope that it leads to something that was more valuable and cherished than what I left.

REVIEW: Before Sunset

Before Sunset is the follow up film to Richard Linklater's Before Sunrise.  It follows the characters of Jesse (Ethan Hawke) and Celine (Julie Delpy) nine years after their chance meeting on a train near Vienna.  Things have changed since then.  Time has come and gone, and they are different, more mature than they were their first time meeting.

This encounter happens in Paris, where Jesse is on a book signing tour of his best selling novel that was based off of his experience with Celine in Vienna.  Celine shows up at the signing and the two have just over an hour to kill before Jesse needs to be at the airport for his flight home.

Linklater delivers the film in real time, following every movement made by the two of them in their limited time together.  There are great shots of them walking the streets of Paris.  Not only have the characters matured, but Linklater has as well.  There is an abundance of long takes as the two walk and talk, a departure from the more edited and condensed feel of Before Sunrise.

Just like its predecessor, the movement and the dialogue between the two leads is fluid and realistic.  They talk at first like people who have not seen each other in years (which is good, because that's the case here), and from there it transitions to the types of open conversations about life that they had in the first film.  The intensity of the conversations grows to the point of both finally revealing to each other just how much their encounter has shaped their lives.

The dialogue, which was written by Linklater, Delpy, and Hawke, is the star of the show.  I literally felt as though I was listening in on the conversations of real people who are rediscovering each other as well as who they are themselves.  It was a near spiritual experience for me, as I fell back in love with Jesse and Celine, both very much transformed over the years, and yet still very much the same.

Why is it that we root for people in good movies?  Is it because we connect with them?  Is it because we are sheep and follow the leads and hope the best for them?  Or is it because they are living out something that we never will, resigned to our comfy chairs to witness from afar?  I believe that it can be a combination of all of those things, and, whatever the reason, I found myself yearning through the entire movie for the two of them to rekindle the affection that they once had.

This is difficult to do, however.  Jesse is married and has a child.  Celine is in a relationship as well.  They know from the beginning that this encounter is finite, just like their previous one, but they do everything that they can to make it last just one minute longer, and I am a sappy little man longing for the same thing.

In many ways, I think I like this more than the original.  It has a different charm, as it is two people who can only look to the past and contemplate over what could have been.  It wrestles with love and relationships.  It takes on happiness and contentment.  It is a quite different film, and yet, because of the dedicated acting from Hawke and Delpy, it is very much the same.

I can't help but say that Jesse and Celine are now my favourite romantic couple in cinematic history.  Sorry Clarke Gable and Claudette Colbert, you have been dethroned.  I am not suggesting that Before Sunset is a better movie than It Happened One Night, just that there for me a new king and queen of the romance genre, filmed gracefully in a movie that I will remember for years to come.

Rating - 4 out of 4 stars

Box Office Predictions: 'Alien: Covenant,' 'Diary of a Wimpy Kid: The Long Haul,' and 'Everything, Everything'

There are some great advantages to living in beautiful cottage country Ontario.  The pace of life is much more relaxing, there is beauty to be seen everywhere, and the people are extremely nice.  There is a trade off, though.  It has taken me away from a local movie theatre where I could watch weekly releases.  That is a major downside, especially on the weekend of the latest in the Alien series.  I am not the only person who is geeked up over Alien: Covenant, there are many.  But are these loyal multitudes enough to propel it to overtake Guardians of the Galaxy from the number one spot?

There really are a lot of people who were brought excitedly into the world of Ridley Scott's Alien and the James Cameron follow up, Aliens.  These people, like me, are longing for something new to add to the mythology.  It needs to be something of quality, though.  The fourth Alien movie made me sour on the franchise and left me wishing that it had been left dead after Aliens.

And then came along Prometheus.  It was set in the same universe as the Alien movies, but did not focus on the xenomorphs.  This, as well as a narrative that left many questions, did not completely satiate the audiences.  It was a good performer, taking in $51 million during its opening weekend.  This is solid ground for Covenant to work off of, but the main question that has yet to be answered is how many people were turned off by Prometheus?

What really helps this film is that it has Ridley Scott in the director's chair, the man responsible for the franchise.  Critics are so far liking it well enough, with it currently sitting at 76% on Rotten Tomatoes.  That should be a high enough score to keep people from being scared away from this movie.  Social media has been solid, with Alien: Covenant being the second most tweeted about movie right now.  The anticipation is there, but I can't help but think that it won't make as much as Prometheus did.  It will still be a solid opening weekend, just not as hot.

Alien: Covenant Opening Weekend Prediction - $40 million

Also opening this weekend is Fox's Diary of a Wimpy Kid: The Long Haul.  I have to admit right here that I am not too familiar with this franchise, and that is by choice.  It never appealed to me, but that was alright because I am not the target market.  The latest movie, if it is anything like the trailer makes it look like, could be a train wreck of a film.  With a score of 23% on Rotten Tomatoes, it could be the case.

The problem with this franchise's earning potential, apart from looking appalling, is the fact that the franchise has already come and gone.  It released movies in 2010, 2011, and 2012, with each film making less as the series went on.  The latest film, Diary of a Wimpy Kid: Dog Days, opened to $14 million.  I am predicting a large drop from this, and I see The Long Haul opening to just over half of Dog Days.  Movies in franchises lose their steam, and this one appears to be coming after the fans of the original movies are already grown out of the demographic.

Diary of a Wimpy Kid: The Long Haul Opening Weekend Prediction - $7.5 million

Lastly, we have the young adult movie, Everything, Everything.  Time and time again, studios have tried to rail their way into the YA market and bring home something successful that rivals the actioner The Hunger Games, or the drama The Fault in Our Stars.  So many movies have been a bust, and this could be another one of those films that just sort of comes and goes.

This movie is based off of the book of the same name, written by Nicola Yoon.  It should be able to pull out some of the book's fans, but that is not a given for box office success.  Earlier this year, Before I Fall (which is a YA movie also based on a book) opened to $4.7 million.  The lesson to learn from that movie is that it is a fickle market place, and a recognizable name doesn't instantly translate into money.

Everything, Everything Opening Weekend Prediction - $7 million

REVIEW: Before Sunrise

Just because I am a guy it doesn't mean that I can't be wooed by a romantic movie.  Sure, I enjoy explosions and car chases, but I like to believe that I can appreciate a good story in any genre.  A movie doesn't need to be Mad Max: Fury Road to get my blood pumping.  That being said, there are a lot of romance movies that I find myself rolling my eyes at and getting overly frustrated by the use of tropes and predictability.

One of those tropes is the 'meet cute,' where two people come together with charm and an affection is almost instantaneously introduced.  It can be nauseating, to say the least.  However, in Richard Linklater's Before Sunrise, the meet cute is one for the ages.  Two people in their early twenties, Celine (played by Julie Delpy) and Jesse (played by Ethan Hawke) cross paths on a train in Europe and strike up a conversation.  Like most meet cutes, it is witty, but what separates this from others is that it is real and authentic.  They almost immediately begin sharing life openly like you can find yourself doing when you are talking to someone who you believe you will never meet again.  I have had many good conversations with strangers while waiting for a bus or standing in line at a grocery store.  You don't have to put up a front and can just be yourself.  This person will never know you, and that gives a freedom of open expression.

That freedom is exploited in this film as the two end up forming a connection and spending a night wandering Vienna as Jesse waits for his flight back home to America the next day.  It is a love letter to the spontaneous nature that lives in the beast of humanity, and one that is often ignored and hushed.  The two, living in the moment, embrace the nature of their meeting and instil a sensation in the audience member that perhaps they too could have lived this moment had they made different choices in their lives.

As the two interact and talk, they reveal bits of who they are.  One is a cynic, the other is open to different things.  These revelations of character are drawn out through their conversations.  This movie is almost all dialogue, and is a great credit to the writing power of Linklater and fellow scriptwriter Kim Krizan.  A human voice is a powerful thing, and when the words match the reality that they are facing, it can lead to very intriguing viewing material.

Aiding the script is the acting performances of Hawke and Delpy.  They are both young, full of energy, lacking experience yet believing that what they have gone through so far has taught them a lot about life.  It is all very believable, and I could see myself a great deal in the character of Jesse, pondering life and philosophy at such a young age and believing that I had it all sorted out.  The movement between Delpy and Hawke is like a dance, as they portray body language that furthers what they are saying.  It is extremely convincing, something that so many movies, not just romantic ones, miss out on.

Speaking of romantic movies, it is easy to not bind oneself to the love story that is being told.  It can take a great deal of imagination to put yourself in the shoes of those on screen and bite what is being fed.  That is not the case here.  Because of the dialogue and the performances, the attraction shared between the leads is real.  These are two people who have embraced what fate has delivered them, and they are living it to the fullest.  It is an accepted one night relationship that morphs into frenzied desperation for a continued relationship by the end.

I like movies that I can easily be lost in.  Ones that tell a tale that can transport me out of my living room with chip crumbs all about to the place that is being depicted on screen.  With Before Sunrise, I was not just watching it, but I was living it.  That is the power of a great tale.  Although I am perfectly happy with my life as it is, I was left wondering what would have been different if I had the courage of spontaneity.  For those who are too scared to live that way, Before Sunrise is a perfect substitute for the real thing.

Star Rating - 4 out of 4 stars