Into the Woods [film review]

★★★★1/2 

STORY 4/5

WRITING 4.5/5

ACTING 4.5/5

MUSIC 5/5

CINEMATOGRAPHY 4/5

     Stephen Sondheim is known well mostly for his musical, Sweeney Tood, which gained an even further significant amount of fame after the Tim Burton adaptation starring Johnny Depp. That's actually all that I've ever seen from Sondheim up to this point, so that was my standard for this film as I entered the theater. And I have to say, this exceeded my expectations so spectacularly and bested Sweeney Todd so extremely that it is the most surprisingly excellent film I've yet watched in the year 2015.

     Sondheim's lyrics are just as creative and entertaining as they've ever been before and they're sung by such talented actors that the film is livened twofold, with both great music and great performers. Meryl Streep is the lead of the film and she, unsurprisingly, does not buckle beneath the weight of being the connecting element of four stories. Her performance is both terrifically comedic and wonderfully dramatic at times. She sings the lyrics in their proper broadway fashion, loudly and boldly. 

     The film's humor is absolutely irresistible. At times when it seems as if the filmmakers have erred somehow and that they've gotten too cheesy or overdramatic, it turns on itself to mock itself in its own cheesiness, most excellently exemplified in a song called 'Agony'. Two princes (brothers I believe) muse on their loves, Cinderella and Rapunzel, speaking of the 'agony' hey feel being apart from them. They try to best each other in levels of agony. "Agony! Far more painful than yours!" one prince explains. One prince rips open his shirt to reveal his abs, and the other rips his wider to show more. It's hilarious. 

     But as the film progresses into its third act, it takes a very different course in both its story and themes. Whereas previously comedy would have entertained the audience, we now come to know more and feel more about the characters. The film becomes something of a study of morals, and in some ways displays some rather Biblical themes (at least in the way that I see it). It studies how people should always do the right thing, and think on the ways that their actions will affect the next generation. It's actually rather emotional.

     This musical was a fantastic surprise. I expected something good from Sondheim, but everyone, both in cast and crew, delivered splendidly. Rob Marshall's experience with musicals, from Chicago and Nine, clearly comes in handy, as does Depp's experience from Sweeney Todd (he sounds here very similar to the way his character in that film sounded. I would recommend that everyone see this, it's a truly rewarding film musical experience.

Big Hero 6 [film review]

★★★★1/2

STORY 3/5

WRITING 4.5/5

ACTING 3.5/5

MUSIC 4/5

CINEMATOGRAPHY 4/5

     I was going to start out this review by stating that not in the past five years (would be longer but there is a film such as Fantastic Mr. Fox) has there ever been a film with as great a level of humor and emotion in an animated kids' film, but then I remembered Ernest and Celestine. And I thought better of it. But anyway,  Big Hero 6 is still an absolutely tremendous, consistently hilarious and enjoyable film. 

     I'll knock out the primary problem with the film first: CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT. The only developed character is Hiro, and to a lesser extent Baymax (the robot). There is a side group of about four characters who play a big part in the film, but have zero character development. The villains are also hollow shells. But nonetheless, the film is able to get some great emotion out of scenes concerning them. Despite the lack of true character in Baymax, the viewer still feels an emotional bond to him by the end.

      With that out of the way, I'll discuss the comedy. The comedy is absolutely irresistibly riotous, great laughs at a minimum of every five minutes. Baymax is the source of much of the comedy, his lack of character being a great source of it. He puts up with all of Hiro's antics as he is a robot, and it is such a joy to watch. This is by far the best animated film I've seen this year, and would recommend it to all my friends. Unfortunately this is the recommendation that is most likely to be heeded, unlike my recommendations of Gone Girl, Frank, and The Grand Budapest Hotel.

The Giver [film review]

★★★★

STORY 4/5

WRITING 3.5/5

ACTING 4/5

MUSIC 3.5/5

CINEMATOGRAPHY 3.5/5

     I'm still trying to figure out the primary critiques of this film as I'm writing this review. The Rottentomatoes summary states that it doesn't explore the themes of the book well enough. This is hardly a good critique, as critics aren't supposed to review a film's quality as an adaptation, but as a film. Now, a decent critique that could be made of The Giver is that the story has been done many times before. It's your classic dictatorial world civilization, featuring a rejection of emotion, art and any and all true quality of life (yet all the citizens are living happily in their blindness somehow). We've seen this, to some extent, in Fahrenheit 451, Equilibrium, and to a much lesser extent, in City of Ember. But, pointers has to be given to this one, as it its basis was written before all of those except for Fahrenheit 451. 

     Even more pointers should be given to this film for the cinematography and Jeff Bridges' unsurprisingly tremendous performance. Though he is the greatest among an otherwise mediocre cast (with another exception of Meryl Streep), he performs brilliantly and livens up the film a great deal.

     Some could call this film manipulative, and I would agree. It is rather emotionally manipulative, but aren't most films that try to be emotional at all? It emphasizes what makes life life, what makes one do more exist. As I said before, yes it's been done before. Sure, it's ridiculous to think that this could ever happen, but it's simply an exaggeration of a realistic possibility, done to stress the idea.

     Yes, it's unrealistic in more than one way (both in terms of an unrealistic civilization and in the fact that it's factually unrealistic in that a motorcycle falls of a cliff and makes it down safely), yes it's old news. But it's still effective, and a decent adaptation (or so it seems, I myself have not read the book), and I consider it a good film. 

Sin City: A Dame to Kill For [film review]

STORY 2.5/5

WRITING 2/5

ACTING 3/5

MUSIC 3/5

CINEMATOGRAPHY 3.5/5

     The first Sin City film is widely viewed as one of the best tributes to the comic book format. The visuals are some of the most celebrated and adored of the genre. The black-and-white with the seldom emphasis (the meaning of which I have still not deciphered) on certain flashy elements is both eye-catching and uniquely entertaining. 

     Robert Rodriguez now follows up that critical success with a similarly colored, similarly gory, sexy and unrealistic graphic novel adaptation, now with some new characters, some new cast members portraying old characters, and several new stories. Unfortunately, the critics are right here: Sin City: A Dame to Kill For does not match the impact and memorableness of the predecessor. 

     Though the cast is absolutely spectacular (specifically Joseph Gordon Levitt, who fits into the town with terrific charisma and style), the stories are tired, uninteresting and too similar to those of the previous film. It crosses the line from reference into imitation/copying. Many lines from the previous film are repeated, specifically those spoken by Rourke's character. The invincibility of the Roarks becomes boringly repetitive, and despite the unrealistic violence and all-too-common dismembering, it's all so very tiresome.

     I was really looking forward to this film. I was hoping for a continuation of the previous stories, rather than unrelated stories, prequels, and unnecessary uninteresting follow-ups. Levitt's story is easily the most intriguing, but it does not make up for what is lacking. 

So, I'm just getting back in the rhythm of reviewing again. I've now left Letterboxd, and thus have given up on No-Rewatch November, and am rewatching to my heart's delight. I'll begin reviewing films more soon, and they'll all be posted on here and none will be posted on Letterboxd. 

On Leaving Letterboxd

You may have noticed a ten day absence from me if you know me from Letterboxd... well I've essentially left the site. I've decided to spend less time online, and also, the community has become rather negative towards my life as a Christian. Not to pinpoint or accuse, but specifically, reviews of God's Not Dead have been especially... offensive, really. Often, when people on Letterboxd review that film, they do not restrict their criticism but then begin accusing Christians in general and then joke about hell. I know that is how much of the world is, but it's not what I want to be around.

I'll still have my Letterboxd up, so that my reviews will remain, and I'll still be able to use my lists and such, as those have been very very useful (especially my current scheduled watch list). But I won't be posting reviews on there anymore. Instead, they'll all be here.

Peeples [film review]

STORY 2/5

WRITING 2.5/5

ACTING 3/5

MUSIC 2.5/5

CINEMATOGRAPHY 3/5

     This is pretty much Meet the Parents. In oh so many ways. It's just a whole lot less charming, due to both the lack of originality and the lack of restraint the film has. Meet the Parents was cheap and nothing close to a truly quality movie, don't get me wrong. But it was fun, it had a killer cast (Ben Stiller was okay) and it was pretty funny throughout. The same could not be said for the sequels, but it was still pretty good. This is not nearly as good.
     This film also has a rather spectacular cast... first of all, we have Craig Robinson, who gained his fame primarily through the tremendous sitcom, The Office, and has been a consistent sensation on the screen. Then there's Kerry Washington, who, though I've only seen her in one other film (guess), I've been able to notice some fantastic acting in. The rest of the cast is nothing more than decent really, but they all serve up acceptable performances.
     Unfortunately, the film just does not know where to stop with the murphy's law theme, and because of this it makes many comedic missteps. There's potential, but it's wasted. It ends up just being a mediocre unofficial remake of Meet the Parents, unfortunately. It's funny at times (all of the most comedic scenes involving Robinson performing the comedy. The scenes where he observes the comedy are less successful), so it does have its moments. But in the end it's forgettable as heck.

The Confessions of a Modern Day Christian

Note: This has nothing to do with film (unless you consider that this subject has something to do with everything,  and thus is distantly related to the subject of film)

I'm a Christian. And Christians face trials often... the greatest in my life are those I've gone through the past few months... really the past year. 

First of all, my parents are separating. I've been oddly emotionless about the whole thing... I've been exposed so often to the idea that kids think it's their fault that I've known not even to consider it. So I didn't. The wall between them had been growing for a while, and financially it eventually took quite a toll, so they are currently in the middle of a divorce. 

Secondly, a family of five recently moved into our house, which was already housing five people. So we've now got ten people in a house with five bedrooms. It's not quite cramped, as there is a lot of room outside of the five rooms, but we've been adjusting to each other's lifestyles. It's been rather difficult, especially, for my mother, who has a rather high standard of cleanliness for the house. 

Thirdly, after this family moved in they began helping with the farming part of our property... next to our house is a large field, normally taken care of a farmhand named Bill. He recently was fired (he wasn't doing the best work). So, the new family began taking care of the farming, and did an excellent job. This doesn't sound like a spiritual trial quite yet, I realize. But then, my mother's brothers (hehe, rhymes) and sister arrived, and began interfering in everything. I'm not sure of all that happened, but I believe they wanted the new family removed from the house, they took my grandmother from the house to live with them, and it's taken a giant toll, again, on my mother.

I realize that thus far, these trials seem to be more on my mother than on me. But I've often been put in the middle of these issues, questioned on what I think of them, and the house is often filled with an atmosphere of stress.

But here's the real killer, at least for me. Recently, I've been taking college courses through Running Start. It's a good choice for a person of my age, and will help me to earn an AA when I graduate from high school. I've been earning the requirements for both graduation from high school and the earning of the AA, and most recently I've taken up Western Civilization.

As can be expected, with more and more professors as well as students being atheists these days, I've been taught evolution. I'll admit, I've been temporarily led astray from my faith on more than one occasion during this study. But during this study, I've realized that I've not only been under attack from the devil for this time, but for years. The devil's been slowly working into my life, making me question parts of the public opinion of Christian faith. It's true, much of the general idea of Christianity (that we are against 'cussing', that we shouldn't even look at nudity at all) are wrong. True, I'm against blasphemy. But there's nothing wrong with watching film with these things, and as long as you don't offend someone or speak hatefully, there's really nothing wrong with cussing, again, as long as you don't blaspheme. But I've been questioning more and more aspects of Christianity, and have gotten even to the point of scoffing at Christians on Facebook who uphold their faith, which I've come to realize, is what I should do. 

See some of the ideas I'm being taught make sense. But of course, Christianity makes more sense, and solves all the problems with evolution, all the holes. It solves where the universe came from (I slightly agree with the idea of the big bang, but disagree with the popular opinion of what came after). It really seems as if Christians are under attack in today's academic... and even general... society. Which is really rather ironic, as homosexuals claim that they're under attack from Christians, and that we should all mind our own business. Those who have been accused of discrimination are now being discriminated, in a way. 

I've been having to balance this education with sources I trust, sources that lift my spirit and uphold my faith. The thing is, logic tells me that God clearly exists. He's present all around, and there are signs of his masterwork all over. But part of my brain tells me to reject the idea, for some odd reason.

That's rebellion, and the devil I think. No offense against atheism and evolutionists, but those ideas, to me, just seem to be a worldwide rebellion. We've known for a long time that people don't like being told what to do, but it's often best for us. Being told what to do doesn't stop benefiting us after childhood, as is the general idea. It continues throughout our lives, and if we followed God's words our society would be a lot better.

Now, I've often pondered the idea that the reason I don't want to give up the idea of God is that I don't want to potentially be sent to hell. That's possible, sure, and I really don't have enough spiritual strength or experience to refute this claim right now, other than the fact that I truly believe it's the Holy Spirit holding onto me with all it's might, making sure I don't permanently leave the flock. 

Atheists may mock my words, they may try to tempt me to leave my faith. You may say I'm ignorant, and that all these 'facts' disprove the existence of my God. But I'll continue to at least try my hardest to stay strong in my faith. Hopefully, by the end of this course, through prayer, and reading the Bible (as well as The Screwtape Letters and 'Gravity: True for You but Not for Me), I'll emerge an even stronger Christian. If you're a Christian going through the same trials, I sympathize with you, and I pray for you (please pray for me also, as I'm going through what you're going through). If you're an atheist reading this, I love you, and I also pray that you find God. 

I know it may seem nonsensical to post this on my film review page, but it's my one existing blog, and I already have three (THREE!) followers on it, so maybe the word will get out faster. Also, in the intro to my blog, I believe I stated that I'd be posting film reviews, film rants and such, and 'anything going on my life'.

A Year Without the Drive-In

     My first memory of going to a drive-in theater was the year 2001. The film was A Knight's Tale, directed by Brian Helgeland. I remember watching the film up on the screen, amazed by the fact that the film was being shown outside, amazed at the size of the theater, which in reality was nature. As you can see from the picture above, the Colville, Washington drive-in theater has beautiful nature. It's not really one of those gated-off premises that are the majority of drive-in theaters these days.

     My family has gone to this theater for years, but in the past few years it's become not as pleasant an experience. The images on the screen are foggier. The shape of the screen has become outdated, by the massive move to the more appealing widescreen. And now, due to the move away from film to digital, even the projector is outdated. So, early last year, rumors began circulating that the theater was going to close down. One of the few remaining cinematic landmarks, those wonderful theaters that would combine film with the charm of nature, was going to close.

     Fortunately enough, though, the town of Colville, as well as many surrounding cities rejected this idea, and donated thousands of dollars. The screen is now being replaced, and has been in the process of being replaced for the entire last season suitable for drive-in film viewing. Thus, it has been a year since I've seen a film at the drive-in theater.

     Many people eagerly await the re-opening of the nostalgic theater, including myself. I'm excited to see films again on the screen. No matter the quality of the film, this rather unpopular method of film-viewing adds an odd appeal to the experience, a rarely experienced and deservedly relished theater of the past.

     I hope to see one or two films of 2015 in the Colville Drive-In theater.

Oculus [Film Review]

STORY 

4/5

WRITING 

4/5

ACTING

3.5/5

MUSIC

3/5

CINEMATOGRAPHY 

3.5/5

I almost always hate horror movies. There have been few I've liked (primarily The Shining and Under the Skin). But I have to say... this was one of the most pleasant surprises I've had this year. I was expecting more of the trend that's been going on in horror films - relying on 'boo' scares rather than a horrific story, mistaking slowness for suspense, boring story, badly written script and unstructured characters. Examples of this that come to mind are pretty much every horror film I've been subject to, other than the two listed above. But Oculus succeeds in the ways those films fail.

It took me a while to get into its rhythm, and I of course had my doubts at first. But I was instead subject to an intelligent, genuinely captivating film. Oculus has an excellently structured story with some genuine horror, intriguing characters, an entertainingly written script (with some smooth exposition), and some surprisingly great acting, especially from the shockingly talented Annalise Basso, now one of my favorite child actors. Her counterpart however, Garrett Ryan, was quite the disappointment.

The film features incredibly fluid transitions from past to present. The primary subject of the film is a haunted mirror, with unexplained origins. It seems to alter the reality of the film, and both the characters and the viewer can never really know what's going on. In that way, it effectively uses and nearly transcends the unreliable narrator trope, almost as effectively as this year's Gone Girl.

Mike Flanagan is a name I'm unacquainted with, but I will now work to become acquainted with it... because if this says anything about the rest of his filmography, then I'm hooked. Quality horror films being a norm? WHAAAAAAAAT?!

Haven't Posted in a While

Sorry that I haven't been posting to this site very often. I've still been writing reviews and posting them on Letterboxd, but I haven't gotten around to my blog for a few reasons. First of all, I'm changing computers soon. Second, I have Running Start classes going on now which have added a lot of stress to my life. But I'll begin posting here again soon, starting likely with my next review (which I intend to be 'Oculus'). I'm also going to post some necessary reviews I didn't post here over the past few weeks, such as my review of Gone Girl, Calvary, and Nosferatu the Vampyre. I'll post some ravings and rantings, the first idea of these that pops to mind is how good Gone Girl was. It will be a raving review, meaning that it has no respect for paragraphs, structured sentences or professionalism. Basically I'll be like a lunatic: raving in the literal sense. Because I mean that movie was freaking awesome.

I also may start posting soundtrack reviews... though I'm not very experienced in that field. Any tips?

Snowpiercer [Film Review]

Chris Evans has hardly ever impressed me. Never, apart from this film. He was decent in Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, but he was doing comedy. Comedy's fun to act, drama's more difficult. Or so I've experienced. And the Captain America performances... I'm sorry but in my opinion he tries much too hard to be the admirable and patriotic hero, and doesn't put near enough emotion into his performances there.

But now... Snowpiercer has shown me a powerful side of Evans' acting that has me hoping for his future. Can't wait to see Puncture (whenever I get around to that...). He's truly amazing here, and he shows some tremendous emotion. Of course he acts well in the action scenes... though I have problems with the Cap performances, he does do well with action (talking up close action, not stunt double action).

Snowpiercer is another one of those post-apocalypctic films, with a bit more of a confined space. The entire thing takes place on board a speeding train which fights off the freezing outdoors. After an unsuccessful attempt to defend against global warming, the world has declined into another ice age, and most of humanity is dead. The remaining living are on board this train that works on a perpetual energy engine.

It's clear from the beginning that through this cultural collapse and consequential dependence on authority/government has spawned a potentially Hitlerian treatment of humanity. Those on board the train have been split into categories: those in the cars near the front, who live in lavish quarters and have wonderful views, and those in the tail end of the train, who don't even have windows and are all jammed together in extremely cramped areas. All of your belongings there stay on your bed or on your person.  When it comes to that part of the film, it feels far too... Hunger Games ish. It matches up with that film in the obnoxious idea that rich people look flippin' stupid, which is totally untrue and ridiculous.

It also reminded me a tad of City of Ember, in that the characters have to climb through authority to get to a place where they can overcome the inhumane and secretive society. There are some plot holes... or should I say unanswered questions... throughout the film. such as what the heck is up with characters cutting fish? Why are people oddly not-pale for not having seen sunlight for seventeen years? Why isn't anyone trying to figure out a way to fix the earth's current conditions? Why weren't any vehicles put on board the train, like a helicopter or something, using a miniature version of the same technology the train runs on?

Of course with a film like this you're going to have unanswered questions. But these probably could have been answered... or even fixed... easily. For example, many of my complaints with the plot as it progressed were answered by the end.

The cast is good... and excellent when it comes to Tilda Swinton. She is a stunningly unappreciated actress, and she always gives a role her best. Here she excellently plays an antagonist character, and it is just so fun to watch her act an eccentric character like this!

Despite the mentioned plot holes and some annoying shaky cam, this film is an absorbing and rather action packed film about a revolution aboard a train.

Once Upon a Time in America [Film Review]

Yeah... I was just expecting one of those classics of cinema that I just didn't completely catch onto. It happens a lot with these greats, and often I just need to give it another go and I find the greatness in it. It usually takes a little while though. I had my doubts at the beginning, but after the first thirty minutes or so, after I finally began understanding the timeline and what was going on (thanks to a wikipedia page...), I experienced a true cinematic classic.

It works rather subtly, but the last hour hits hard. You come to care for these characters, even though they're not even close to admirable and their morals are askew in many MANY ways. It even becomes very difficult to accept the main character, Noodles, as a good main character. But, then again, a main theme of this film is forgiveness.

In some ways, this reminded me of 25th Hour, as the characters dig holes for themselves with crime and examine their lives and how all of their actions have influenced their lives up to crucial and pivotal moments.

Ennio Morricone's beautiful and emotional soundtrack contributes hugely to the film. It accents a large number scenes and gives them a tragic feeling which they did in fact already have, but it emphasizes that feeling. I recognized some of the tracks as at least one had been used in <i>Kill Bill</i>, but the most emotional theme isn't, which made it more new and made its heartbreaking sound more shockingly beautiful.

The two key actors, Robert De Niro and James Woods, are nothing short of excellent. De Niro often has to entertain the audience on his own, especially in the first half hour, but in each scene he's absolutely tremendous. And James Woods gets angry several times, which seems to be the primary or at least the best use of his face. He seriously has a terrific angry face.

You can really get into the rhythm of this astonishingly deep and powerful four-hour long (practically) film. It's about how choices can affect your life... which is a common theme in films (The Place Beyond the Pines, Locke...) but it's still a really great theme, and there are many great films that have been made off of it.

Frank [Film Review]

I knew when I saw the trailer it was going to be good, but I didn't expect it to be this abstract and phenomenal. I mean, the idea of Michael Fassbender putting himself inside of a giant fake head to play heavily independent music with a bunch of mental patients is an insane idea for a film in the first place, but it certainly sounds intriguing as heck.

Michael Fassbender's always been amazing. In all of his performances he shows a ton of talent. He made Magneto more awesome than ever in Days of Future Past, and gave one of his best performances in Shame. Of course, this is now my favorite Fassbender performance. I mean how could it not be? WITH THAT FREAKING FIBERGLASS (or papier mache, whichever) HEAD?!

It's got commentary on a lot of things with its ensemble of amazingly eccentric characters... independence, the positives and negatives of publicity, the virtue of being yourself and making something that you enjoy. It has some immensely dramatic scenes, and it's also consistently hilarious, mostly due to Fassbender. Seriously, he is hysterical. I can not emphasize this enough, Fassbender is pretty much the life of this movie, along with the music.

THE MUSIC. As I said before, it's very abstract, and often it seems like the lyrics are complete randomness, but IT WORKS. I don't know how, but it just sounds fantastic. It's incredibly obscure, hard to go along with, but it's fresh and unique. And of course I must address the song everyone's freaking out over, "I Love You All": It's worth freaking out over. Essentially, it's awesome and amazing, but also is like the music I've described above, obscure, random, abstract, fresh, unique.

The ending also almost made me cry. I was tearing up a bit.

This just astonishingly passed up Under the Skin as my third favorite film of 2014, and it's going on my Favorites of All Time list. I wish I had money for the soundtrack, but as an unemployed seventeen year old, I do not have the money (and I live on an indian reservation so I can't really get a job because people here are freaking racist). You've all got to see this movie though.

300: Rise of an Empire [Film Review]

300: Rise of an Empire has a lot of what its predecessor had, and not in a good way: bad writing is turned up a notch, there are far more hollow characters as there are far more characters, and the blood that 300 shed, is shed in more excessive amounts here.

Seriously, I must first address the blood. It's the worst error made in the CGI department here, which all considered generally does a great job in the film. Except for the blood of course. The blood which is shed in ridiculous amounts is unbelievably thick and comes out in insane amounts from even the most minor wounds.

The action scenes are decent and some good fun, and that's the reason that most liked 300, was because of the insane beheadings and kicking-into-pits (This is Sparta is said in this film by the way). But the film, though divided by transitions with the title 'scene' slapped onto them hastily, is basically one giant action scene. There's barely room for character development at all, and characters abandon their ideals in one scene while standing strongly by them in another.

Oh, and there's a ridiculous sex scene that seems like an action scene, and it is backed by action music. It's oddly violent and angry, and it's just awkward. Almost as awkward as the sex scenes in The Room. ALMOST.

I did enjoy Eva Green's performance overall, and while her character wasn't deeply explored and she mostly just seemed like a typical persistent villain with motives based in an off-the-shelf backstory, she was still an entertaining 'strong' female character (quotations around strong as she is strong-willed and strong physically, but not strongly constructed as a character).

The film is fun if you're looking to sit back and watch limbs and heads get cut off and blood fly around in unrealistic proportions, but as a film to be examined, it's not great. It takes a lot of time from the beginning to understand the timeline it's following (it's not quite a sequel, and it's not quite a prequel...). It's a flashy and gory film.

Le Samouraï [Film Review]

It's easy to see, now having watched this film all the way through, why many consider it great. It doesn't reach my Greats list, but I understand completely why many consider it to be one of the great films (including Ebert).

Much of the film's excellence is due to Alain Delon. His performance here is absolutely stellar. He acts with a straight-faced dignity, so confident and sure of all his actions, and it truly contributes to the character. The man he portrays, Jef Costello, is a hired assassin, who is seen in this film in a single trip-up, likely one of the only ones he's ever faced in his career, that sets the entire film off: a woman catches him in the act of an assassination. In the moment it is brushed off as he stares at the woman for a second, but it has dire consequences that are reflected throughout the film.

A majority of Le Samourai is watching procedure. The audience observes Jef's habits and the specifics about his character, and his attitudes. He is quick and calm under pressure, and cares a lot about his appearance, as in the opening scene he adjusts his hat specifically, running his hand across its rim thrice.

Subtly entertaining and terrifically engaging, Le Samourai, though not quite great (yet) in my eyes, is clearly a brilliant piece of original cinema, though often relied upon in modern films.

Guardians of the Galaxy [Film Review]

James Gunn has done something DIFFERENT with the Marvel universe! Instead of going with the classic heroes going through their problems while being surrounded by ridiculousness, fighting in a highly boring way, Gunn has made a film that really knows what it's doing!

Something about the Marvel films has always annoyed me. None of them ever feel RIGHT. They all feel off in one way or another, or in many ways. The Marvel films up to this point, while crowd-pleasing, have been hollow and often contradictory (what the heck is up with Thor). But this is pure, unrestricted fiction. They don't try to put any bit of reality into it, they don't try to explain these phenomenally odd creatures. This doesn't even feel like it's part of Marvel, it's so good. This feels like just a really incredible movie.

The comedy throughout is brilliant, and actually works (unlike the comedy in Avengers, which left me very straight-faced). The comedy, much of which relies on a brilliant compiled soundtrack, in the movie called 'Awesome Mix Vol. 1', is absolutely perfect and adds an excellent spice throughout.

The characters, each individually incredible, are well structured and acted. Chris Pratt is of course the greatest of the cast (maybe it's because I've loved his performances on Parks and Recreation, perhaps I have a bias), and he acts with a good amount of flamboyance and attitude. Bradley Cooper excellently portrays a persistently angry raccoon, and Benicio Del Toro has a brief but tremendous appearance as what is described in the script (reportedly) as an outer space Liberace.

The action is pretty awesome, and incredibly well-filmed. The soundtrack is also well utilized with it, exemplified perfectly in a scene using the song 'Escape'. Chris Pratt grooves to music while taking out enemies in style, in his red-eyed helmet.

Guardians of the Galaxy is without a doubt my favorite Marvel film, partially because it's so disconnected from the universe I've rather come to dislike. It's fun, hilarious, incredibly enjoyable and smart. James Gunn is likely the best thing to come to the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and he's now made a film that is like The Avengers, but good, actually comedic, and with great characters. I eagerly wait for the sequel, as long as it's got James Gunn and Chris Pratt.

The Rover [Film Review]

"You should never stop thinking about a life you've taken. That's the price you pay for taking it."

Well, ladies and gentlemen, it looks like we've got another Blue Ruin on our hands. Though it's not quite as good as that brilliant film, it is nonetheless a riveting and absorbing film of revenge.

The Rover is something of a western, though it's far more evasive than your average film from that genre. The moral scale of the characters in the film tips back and forth so often it's hard to keep track of who you're really rooting for. The film begins with a man's car being stolen by a group of thieves. This man being Guy Pearce, you know he's going to do something about this.

The majority of the film he is constantly pushing forward, eager and desperate to get his car back by any means necessary. He employs the help of one of the thieves that were left behind, played by Robert Pattinson, to help him find the group. The question of why the car is so important is the primary thing that drives the film forward. That, and several tremendous action sequences and some stunningly stupendous cinematography (I actually find good cinematography to be entertaining all on its own, which is one of the reasons why I find The Master and The Life Aquatic entertaining while my friends consider them boring).

Guy Pearce takes center stage with ease as he has before. He plays a strong, mysterious character with little described history. He seems to be the classic western immortal character, heartlessly executing people and then later stating that you pay a price for each head. He's a dark and persistent man with unknown motives, and its so perplexing it helps keep the film afloat.

It's an odd revenge thriller with an emotional punch near the end, with some spectacular music and terrific acting from the entire crew. If you understand its messages, please comment! I'd love to hear some interpretations.

Locke [Film Review]

Tom Hardy has been one of my favorite actors since Inception. Time and time again he's given fantastic performances, his most unique of which was given in Bronson. He was the primary reason I wanted to watch this film.

Locke takes a bit of time to get used to. It takes place nearly 100% inside of a car, as Ivan Locke, played by the aforementioned brilliant Hardy, tries to deal with some extremely heavy situations from the driver's seat of his car. Over the duration of an hour and a half car ride, Locke's life begins to collapse slowly around him.

Locke believes that he can fix everything in his life. He does an incredible job of adapting to new situations as they quickly arise around him, but over the course of the drive you can see them taking an emotional toll on him, as he curses his late father. But through it all he strongly takes the driver's seat, literally and figuratively, on the predicaments in his life.

There are some small obnoxious things throughout the film. The phone conversations are often rather repetitive, and we often are subject to, again, repetitive transitions. The music is pretty much the same throughout. But as the film progresses, it pulls you in and you begin to empathize with Locke's complicated situation. It all becomes rather emotional. Tom Hardy holds the audience's attention splendidly through it all as well.

Locke is far from flawless. But if you're willing to sit through the ride, it makes for a rather beautifully tragic story.

Godzilla [Film Review]

I have never seen a Godzilla film, but he's so immensely well known throughout the world, and the fact that this film has Bryan Cranston in it had me excited for it.

Unfortunately, Bryan Cranston plays a very small part in the film (as does Godzilla, oddly). But it's still pretty dang awesome. Godzilla is an awesome piece of special-effects filled cinema. Though Aaron Taylor Johnson does take center stage and at times does not really handle it well, (he never really has), it's still great fun.

I watched this with my brother, and we were not quite in a serious mood... to be honest it was hard to be serious with a subject that has been so commonly parodied, as Godzilla has. So my brother and I were laughing throughout just about the entire film. But it still had incredible action scenes, and an intense atmosphere.

The cast, aside from the disappointing Aaron Taylor Johnson, is pretty spectacular. Ken Watanabe, Sally Hawkins, Bryan Cranston and Elizabeth Olsen, though they all have rather small roles, are amazing.

Gone in Sixty Seconds (2000) [Film Review]

I remembered this as an annoying, obnoxious car chase film with little charm. But this revisitation, forced upon me by my family as well as an additional family that moved into our house recently and are huge fans of this film (mostly because they have great interest in cars), made me reconsider it, and I don't know what it was, but it came off this time as the Ocean's Eleven of car movies. Granted the fact that its a car movie does drop it a full star, but it's nonetheless better than I remembered.

Of course the plot is lacking, it's got a ridiculous murphy's law element to it, and the cops in the film don't take near as many advantages as are granted to them, and some that they do take aren't even seemingly possible. Plus I don't see why the two brothers didn't just get out of town right at the start as they had no surveillance on them at all other than the cops who would have been glad for them to get out of town...

Basically the plot sucks. But its still a fun ride, with a thrilling second half which is essentially made up of a giant heist. Angelina Jolie is slightly more charming than her annoying self, and the cast is superb, and Nicolas Cage is allowed a few of his totally weird moments, which he must be allowed as Phillip Seymour Hoffman always had to have his freak outs in his films.