FIGHT CLUB

Cole's Rating: ★★★
Jesse's Rating: ★★★

Director: David Fincher
Year: 1999
Cast: Brad Pitt, Edward Norton, Helena Bonham Carter
Genre: Drama/Crime
MPAA Rating: R

        “First rule about fight club: no one talks about fight club”. I can’t say that I would fit into fight club very well, seeing as I’m already breaking the first rule. But hey, maybe I'll want to stick around and get my head beat in. Actually, no thanks. Fight Club is undoubtedly one of the weirdest movies I’ve ever seen. It offers you a trailer. That will mislead you. It offers you a plot summary. That will mislead you. Unless you want the movie ruined for you, the only way to know for sure what the true content of Fight Club is, is if I tell you that it’s about weird people. 

        First of all, Fight Club invites comparison to The Usual Suspects and The Sixth Sense, two of the few movies that pull off a plot twist extremely well. Mind-bending conclusions are something that I’m very fond of, if they are well-done. And Fight Club is moderately so. Yeah, I didn’t see it coming; but it seemed too simplistic. It did makes sense, though. It brought everything together, and tied all loose ends that the film left before the last 20 minutes. It makes you go, “Woah! Huh, good ending.” But it won’t make you go, “OOOOOOOHHHHH! THAT'S WHY! BRILLIANT!” That’s one of the downfalls of Fight Club. It’s ending isn’t as big as it hoped to be; it's a little weak.

        But it still offers a unique and out-of-the-box moviegoing experience. It begins by taking you into the life of Norton’s character (Norton gives a strong performance here): his job, his insomnia, and his attachment to support groups. Yeah, that’s right, support groups. The only way he can sleep is if he cries. So then comes along Marla Singer (Helena Bonham Carter), and she infringes on his plan by using something of the same tactic. They split the schedule, and never see each other again for a while. Then comes Pitt. Now he plays this low-life (Tyler Durden) who makes soap. And if I should say so myself, it’s one of Pitt’s best performances because he’s playing a guy that’s a little bit off of his rocker; but not completely 12 Monkeys style. So when Norton’s condo blows up, and he needs a place to stay, he calls Durden. The title is misleading because this movie is hardly about fighting. It’s loosely based, if you will. Fighting really only inhabits about 10 total minutes of screen time, which is not a lot for a movie that’s supposed to be about fighting. Similar to Oblivion, in Fight Club, you’re basically trying to figure out what’s going on the entire movie, while you’re enjoying it. But unlike Oblivion, Fight Club’s ending isn't something that demands you to ponder over it for time to come.

        I still refer to Fight Club as an awesome movie though. I mean, it is pretty awesome. Soap bombs and fight club rules are something cinema hadn’t entered yet... Until Fight Club of course. With acting as good as Fight Club’s (which is one of the main reasons I recommend it), you may wonder how it would not be an instant classic; so watch it for yourself to find out. I will tell you this, though: Fight Club has a reserved spot on several film database’s top 100 films; I can say that while I wouldn't put it there, the movie is still deserving. 

-Written by Cole Pollyea

Jesse's Thoughts: Fight Club is two things. It's David Fincher's most experimental and possibly most beloved piece of work. It's also Brad Pitt's best performance (ferocious is the word I would use). Its only drawback might have been the release date. It came out right after The Sixth Sense, a film with a surprise ending that really packs a wallop. Fight Club's surprise is somewhat weak by comparison. But in the end, it's a decent exercise that's full of ambitious ideas. Like my nephew said in his review, it's not really about fighting. If you haven't seen Fight Club, then just disregard the title. Go into this film expecting the unexpected.

HYDE PARK ON HUDSON

Jesse's Rating: ★★ 1/2

Director: Roger Michell

Year: 2012

Cast: Bill Murray, Laura Linney

Genre: Biography/Comedy/Drama

MPAA Rating: R

        I've always been a big fan of Bill Murray ever since I was a kid. I've watched a majority of his movies over and over. One thing you can always take from his work is that no matter how good or bad it is, he always seems to give a solid performance. The dude is pretty decent and has never really been accused of wrecking a movie. Although I was a little turned off when he went dramatic right after Ghostbusters (1984) (he did a flick called The Razor's Edge which was a huge flop), I now realize that it seems commonplace for him to do more than just comedy. Every once in a while he seems to hold back the funny to show that he can act in any film genre. Here we have Murray playing Franklin D. Roosevelt in the Roger Mitchell directed Hyde Park on Hudson. Notice I haven't mentioned the film up until now. That's because there is not a whole lot to talk about. It's slow, it's dull, it's uneccesary, and it should only be viewed as a reason to see Murray flex his acting muscle. Like I said a few sentences ago, you can always trust this guy to give a good performance in an ocean of bad filmmaking. With Hyde Park on Hudson we have exhibits A, B, and possibly C.

        It's about the last year of the 1930's with President Franklin D. Roosevelt enjoying some time at his country estate in Hyde Park. While there, he gets a visit from the king and queen of England (Samuel West as King George VI and Oliviia Colman as Queen Elizabeth) in hopes that the American people will see through him, the U.S.support for the United Kingdom. This all takes place as World War II is approaching. On the side, Roosevelt takes time to enjoy the ladies in Hyde Park as evident by his affection for a fifth cousin and wouldbe mistress in Margaret Suckley (played solidly by Laura Linney). Their relationship spans much of the proceedings and it becomes the main essence of the plot. In my mind it would've helped the film more if other aspects were examined, you know the important stuff (we're talking war here people).

        But nevertheless, in a vehicle yearning to be a movie, you have just the two plot points mentioned in the last paragraph. These are sadly the only ones to work with. Trust me this is not a very compelling drama. But hey, try telling that to the musical score (I made this point earlier in my review of Somewhere In Time). No matter what the scene, the outcome, or whatever, there is a compelling synergy of all kinds of instruments playing at the same time. This music is written to try to pump up the dramatic momentum in many a scene. I don't know about you, but when I see a character eating a hot dog or a sequence with two of the characters driving down a dirt road while making googly eyes at each other, that doesn't really evoke a symphony in my book. Even with the beautiful and haunting music, this movie doesn't established a point and even worse, doesn't try to make one.

        In the end, Hyde Park on Hudson suffers from being 94 boring minutes coupled with a few shots of beautiful scenery courtesy of London, England (masquerading as Hyde Park, New York). It also posesses what I think is a meaningful or I should I say meaningless, sense of time and place. The real reason to view this thing is the Murray screen performance. It is the true high point. Being calculated, meticulous, and assured, I would put it up there with his best work. The movie however, is the equivalent of watching paint dry. And I'm talking really, really wet paint.

-Written by Jesse Burleson

PAIN & GAIN

Jesse's Rating: ★★

Director: Michael Bay

Year: 2013

Cast: Mark Wahlberg, Dwayne Johnson, Anthony Mackie

Genre: Action/Crime/Comedy

MPAA Rating: R

        I have to admit, I've been wanting to see this film for a while. Its fanatic trailer pulled me right in. It's true, I have an affection for good movie trailers. This is a film with actors (too early to tell with Dwayne Johnson) that are well accomplished and respected in the industry. However, what I still haven't learned in my lifetime of movie consumption is that if the trailer is solid, the whole product might not be. And boy did I certainly learn that the hard way on a beautiful Friday afternoon. I ventured into a nearby theater and 2 hours later had the misfortune to witness the monstrosity that is Pain & Gain. This is a deeply outrageous and disturbing piece of work (it's not a compliment). I am very certain that the actors completed their scenes without knowing in the slightest what the finished product would be like. Here's another thought, maybe they're all too familiar with Michael Bay's films. This tells me that either they owe him a favor by appearing in Pain & Gain, or they lost a bet with him (take your pick).

        Let me just say this, I have a very strong opinion about movies that are based on a true story or are actually a true story (this vehicle lets you know the second one right away). What I can't figure out is why director Bay was at the helm to oversee things. Yeah, he's a successful guy with solid box office returns, but having him direct a film bent on telling a true story is the equivalent of having musical sensation Justin Bieber open up for the Rolling Stones. Do you know how weird that sounds? Listen, if a movie tells a true story, it should do so. It shouldn't matter if the people depicted in it are bad or not in real life (in this case they're bad). In all honesty, you still have a monumental task to be faithful to the proceedings. Unfortunately, Bay likes to add a lot of his outlandish cinematic trademarks (ridiculously fast editing, silly upward camera angles, cars filmed going a thousand miles an hour, and dogs, you can't forget dogs) to get the job done. Hey, don't get me wrong, I like his Transformer movies. They're part of my collection of cinematic guilty pleasures. But I was expecting a different type of film with Pain & Gain because I read somewhere that this was a more mature outing from the Bayster. As always, I like to keep an open mind. As I write this review I'm thinking, no wait, what WAS I THINKING!? I've decided that this movie will make you feel icky, dirty, and in need of cleansing. It gets a lot of things wrong. It gets them so wrong in fact, that you don't wanna just throw things at the screen, you literally want to heave them.

        It's about the true story of Daniel Lugo (Mark Wahlberg in a standard high energy Mark Wahlberg performance), a bodybuilder/fitness expert from Miami, Florida who sees his life going nowhere (9 to 5 job, just barely getting by). Frustrated and looking for a better overall existence, he decides to kidnap one of his richest most asinine clients (Victor Kershaw played by Tony Shalhoub who hasn't aged a bit), torture him into signing some documents, and take him for everything he's worth. This is done with the help of his two best work buddies (Dwayne Johnson as Paul Doyle, Anthony Mackie as Adrian Doorbal). These two guys are pretty naive. And over time they acquire an equal share in the guilty doings that happen as part of Wahlberg's master plan. As Pain & Gain lurches onto its second half, a retired cop (Ed Harris) is recruited by Shalhoub's character. He enters the picture and tries to take these guys down with good old fashioned police detective work.

        Behind the scenes, it's obvious that Wahlberg and the other members of the cast got into super shape for their roles. They look incredibly ripped, especially Johnson. Watching him, you almost feel that he's too big for the screen, like you need a couple of extra ones just to fit "The Rock" in. As I was expecting, all the characters pretty much look and act like they're on steroids (which they were of course. Also, Johnson dabbles in large amounts of cocaine). Their behavior shows, and things get crazier and crazier when the film hits paydirt (a few severed limbs in this one, one of Bay's favorite trademarks).

        From the word go, you know that Pain & Gain walks on the fine line between playing with and/or abusing its "true story" responsibilities. How do I know this? Toward the end of its running time, there is a caption in the lower right hand corner that actually says, "This Really Is A True Story." What hurts the most is that it doesn't feel like you're watching a film based on what actually happened; it feels like you're watching another Michael Bay concoction. This torrid mess also walks another fine line. It truly evokes the most uneven mix of gratuitous violence and over-the-top comedy that I have witnessed in many a moon (I felt like I was viewing his old film Bad Boys II (2003) mixed with Very Bad Things (1998)).

        Now the acting, which is never really "A" caliber in most Bay films, is pretty solid here. However, most of the performances are completely dumbed down to fit his monotonous directorial style. This is especially inherit in Wahlberg's minutes on screen. He literally goes from nice, normal working class dude to complete psychopath in a short period of time (Jekyll and Hide style brought on by the roids I guess). Then there is the Ed Harris character (Detective Ed Du Bois) who enters the the film halfway. I don't think I ever seen a screen presence look more out of place in a movie in my entire life. Once things get established, he looks lost in certain scenes, gets lost in those scenes, and seemingly can't find his way out. Ed Harris, to me, is a terrific screen talent. But why he chose to be in Pain & Gain is a complete mystery (oh I forgot, he was in Bay's The Rock (1996)). The movie is disturbing in ways that I can't describe and Ed is by far, the most normal guy in it. He looks like he doesn't belong but believe me, it's not his fault.

        Pretty much every actor gets slimed by the tone of Bay's work in this one. It's biggest flaw unfaithfully lies in the direction. If this film ever got remade (not gonna happen), I would hope a different power would take the reins. Pain & Gain would work better if it was a searing drama and not a painfully bloated action film. Yeah it will make a lot of money just like all his films do, but in truth, you have nothing to "gain" from watching it. At about the 45 minute mark, Wahlberg says, "I've watched a lot of movies Paul, I know what I'm doing". Yeah, I've watched a lot of movies too and there's no way in the world I could recommend this one.

-Written by Jesse Burleson

Cole's 10 Takes On 10 Horror Films

An American Werewolf In London

★★★

  Before Twilight’s CGI wolves, An American Werewolf In London was what you watched to witness a good werewolf flick. And I’m one of the few modern-day teenagers that have this opinion: it’s what I prefer. Now I know that any teenage girl, or fan of what’s “popular” will be appalled at my earlier statement; so I’ll explain why. An American Werewolf In London finds two American students who encounter a werewolf while touring Britain; one is killed; one is mauled. However, the local townspeople deny the werewolf’s existence, and instead cover it up. This classic horror movie gives you a feel for satisfying early 80’s horror movie production: a good script, some decent acting, moderate graphics, a flawed entertainment factor, a high dose of enjoyability, and the desire to watch it repetitively. But unfortunately, it all winds down to its highly abrupt ending that I was not at all prepared for. My DVD of An American Werewolf In London will hopefully make it through multiple generations to come; it’s a movie for the ages! And yes, it may not be as entertaining or mind-numbing as Twilight, but it sure is a whole heck of a lot better!

Jaws

★★★ ½

  “We’re gonna need a bigger boat...” uttered Roy Schneider in Jaws, one of America’s most successful and well known horror films about a giant, man-eating shark that infests a community’s beaches. Won Oscars for Best Editing, Best Sound, and Best Music. Now, I have seen quite a few movies. Actually, I’ve seen a whole bunch. By far, the most iconic music is Jaws’. DaNa. DaNa. DaNaDaNaDANADANADANA! Shark attack! Well if that doesn’t put a smile right on your face, I don’t know what will. But anyways, the reason it’s so great is because unlike modern “shark flicks”, it isn’t riddled with laughable acting and isn’t entirely stupid. Remember how they tried to make AVP based off of Alien and Predator? How’d that one turn out? And also, it’s a movie that gets better every time you watch it because it’s fascinating. What some may see as dull scenes, are all elements that build up to the climax, that are necessary for the better quality of the film. After all, it shouldn’t just be entertainment.

The Cabin In The Woods

★★ ½

  Okay, here’s the thing. I desperately wanted to love this movie. And I did for some time; but when it reached it’s climactic closure, I walked away rolling my eyes. Without giving too much away: it’s stupid. But, the rest of the movie’s pretty darn inventive! Creativity is evident here in a anti-horror film about friends who go to a “cabin in the woods” set up for a hidden element (until the end). When I say set up, I mean that it’s rigged. The whole time while we are seeing them in the house, fleeing from monsters, we are seeing the group of computer engineers set up the perfect horror-fest. It’s an obvious representation of dramatic irony! When the friends discover this, and break into the system, things only go downhill. It’s pretty enjoyable, and has got some great special effects, but the ending is too overdone and leaves me with an impression that is distasteful. However, because of it’s uniqueness, it tears at me to give it more than just a two-and-a-half star rating... So I’ll end on this note: The Cabin In The Woods is a really cool movie to watch that has too many ideas.

Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter

★★

This isn’t a movie I expect to be on anybody’s “favorite list”. It’s just not lovable. It’s a good theater experience, but I won’t buy it on DVD. Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter is a clever twist on Abraham Lincoln’s life during the Civil War. And as cool as it may sound, it really is redundant because there are so many shrug-your-shoulders vampire movies that Hollywood seems to just be churning out month after month. It would’ve been better about ten years ago. Or maybe this whole vampire cinema phase will blow over, and it will be rereleased in ten or twenty years. That’s what I’m hoping for.

Scream

★★★

As cheesy as it is, Scream is a guilty pleasure of mine. I don’t know if I’d consider it a classic horror flick, but it’s still pretty serviceable. Not to mention juicy! It’s dark; it’s intriguing; it’s scary. It possesses all of the qualities that make a good horror movie... Despite its less-than-stellar acting. One of its major assets is how you put yourself in the place of the main characters, and experience their fear as the unknown masked killer stalks them down, and kills them. When you reach the end, and you’re shaking, and on the edge of you’re seat, you’ll know what I mean when I say that Scream is a real scary movie.

Psycho

★★★ ½

  Psycho is the king-daddy of all horror movies. Hitchcock had his greatest success with this costly masterpiece, and those interested in learning more about the production (like myself at the time) should see Hitchcock, another great movie. This movie basically unfolds the guilt of Janet Leigh’s character after stealing a large amount of money from her business and fleeing, and her encounters with Norman Bates, the hotel owner of where she takes refuge in. It’s brilliantly shot, scripted, and adapted from  Robert Bloch’s mind-blowing novel... And is one of America’s finest films. Look closely at the set design and you’ll notice how Hitchcock added a cheap touch to the look of it to force the audience to look beyond what too many people seek out in a horror movie.

The Happening

★

You know what, this may not be a textbook horror film, but it may as well be a really bad one. Honestly, random suicides that lead to a completely nonsensical resolution? Give me a break. I’ve seen episodes of The Wiggles that are better written than this garbage. Sure, I was frightened a bit upon initial viewing. But hey, I was 11. And I even thought this movie was bad then! Not only that, but my favorite movie then was Deep Blue Sea. Now what does that say about The Happening? And also, there is a thing called a safety switch on a lawn mower that every single one in America has.

Rest Stop

★★

        A young woman and her boyfriend, fleeing from their home life, come across a rundown rest stop along their journey. And she needs to use the restroom. So she goes in, and comes back out... And her boyfriend is missing, along with the car they were in. Later on, an unknown man in a pickup truck begins terrorizing her. Rest Stop is genuinely scary for some time. Then it brings in preposterous elements that lessens the seriousness of the movie, and makes it seem like your average predictable horror movie. It then adds some disturbing, and even more frightening closer looks at the predator, I should say. All in all, it’s a pretty scary movie that needs several of its plot elements to be reconsidered.

The Shining

★★★ ½

Heeeeerrreeee’s Kubrick’s first horror movie that contains not only a man’s journey to complete insanity, but also contains some supernatural elements. But I personally focused on, and enjoyed, Jack Nicholson’s exceptional portrayal of the hotel caretaker who starts to go insane due to cabin fever, and his rise to insanity above all else in the movie. His performance was completely and entirely terrifying. The movie didn’t leave us guessing as to why he began to go crazy; it showed us. It left out nothing, and delivered all of the juicy scenes that could very well have been left out (luckily they aren’t). And not to mention how eery the feeling of the whole thing actually is! The Shining is a brilliant film. Look closer at it, and you’ll like it even more.


-All Reviews Written by Cole Pollyea

ALICE DOESN'T LIVE HERE ANYMORE

Cole's Rating: ★★★

Director: Martin Scorsese

Year: 1974

Cast: Ellen Burstyn, Alfred Lutter III

Genre: Drama/Romance

MPAA Rating: PG

         Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore marks the fourth time director Martin Scorsese left his mark on the world of cinema with a feature film. But, he hadn’t left his true mark quite yet, seeing as he had much more success to come, and this is one of his lesser known films.

        Ellen Burstyn won an Oscar starring as Alice, the 35-year old widow whose odyssey to find happiness is chronicled in Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore. Her performance was realistic enough, but like the rest of the film’s presentation, was too light hearted for the actual deep material. But viewers who aren’t looking for something too dramatic will be satisfied, because otherwise, it’s pretty enjoyable.

        Its best aspect by far is her relationship with her precocious, ADHD like 10-year old son, which makes me think of the plot line as his adventure too (they shared the same amount of screen time). Several scenes displayed their trouble with the dynamic living conditions, and anger, while other scenes displayed their giddiness, and unconditional happiness. Such scenes include her desperate search for him after she angrily thrusts him out of the car (not moving, of course) due to his misbehavior; the happy scenes include water fights in their temporary apartment. You won’t cry (like I said, it’s not dramatic enough), but you’ll still empathize, and laugh a whole bunch, if you can understand relationships with children.

        If you’re looking for a Gangs of New York, or Taxi Driver, you won’t get it here. No, what Scorsese has given us is a well-crafted, real-life story, that isn’t supposed to be taken too seriously, but is supposed to be enjoyed.

-Written by Cole Pollyea

EARTHQUAKE

Jesse's Rating: ★★ 1/2

Director: Mark Robson

Year: 1974
Cast: Charlton Heston, Richard Roundtree, Ava Gardner
Genre: Action/Drama/Thriller

MPAA Rating: PG

        You know, I think I'll start things out by quoting one of Charlton Heston's famous lines from the 1968 classic Planet of the Apes. I will then apply it to the movie I'm currently writing about. "Take your stinking paws off me you damn dirty quake!" Ah, couldn't resist. Heston is just one of the big name stars featured (a large cast takes precedent over this film) in Earthquake, a 70's disaster flick that depicts the most destructive natural disaster to ever hit Los Angeles. 

        Of course you know what I'm talking about. The title of the film says it all. It is a somewhat effective exercise in that there is a strong sense of realism for its subject. "Quake" shows mass destruction and carnage in a way of which I believe things would actually go down in a crisis situation. Truth be told, it's got spectacular special effects that surely don't need the CGI stuff. But I'm not gonna sugercoat it for you, this is a very depressing movie. Call it cinema of the antihero kind if you will. The characters in Earthquake are mostly unlikable. Most of them don't have many redeeming virtues and the ones that do have them actually die. Added to that, "Quake" doesn't have much of a happy ending. In fact, it doesn't really have an ending at all. You don't really know if everyone is truly okay, who really survived, and who didn't. The movie leaves the question opened that maybe the plight of everyone involved might suffer another small aftershock or tremor after the credits roll. Alas, this is something that is left up to the viewer's imagination.

        When you watch this 1974 picture, you'll find that it is split into three standard acts (kind of like a play). This first is character development, or should I say getting to know the whole cast (George Kennedy, Ava Gardner, Victoria Principal just to name a few). The second act is the earthquake sequence which for me, is the most effective part (it lasts a good ten minutes, it's brutal and graphic in detail, and it's very well done). Then there is the third act which shows the aftermath of destruction (or aftershocks, hint hint) and how the people in the city deal with the sadness of L.A. in ruins.

        Another aspect you'll notice when watching Earthquake is how the MPAA ratings board was so forgiving in handing this thing a PG rating. Along with the graphic violent images that accompany the film (a handful of people perish in an elevator scene and it's a doozy) there is a lot of adult themes (mild drug use, suggested inappropriate language, adultry, attempted rape) that would utimately disturb or turn off a lot of younger viewers in the PG rated crowd. Then there is the cringe worthy moments that truly don't belong or fit. I mean this in the strongest way. You got a cameo of who I think might be Walter Matthau, getting drunk at a bar and falling asleep at every possible moment. He says things like, "where can I get a drink in this place?" and calls out random actor's names (Peter Fonda for example). When the quake hits and everything is being destroyed around him, he continues to drink his whiskey shots and act like a buffoon. It's a comedic element thrown in and an unnecessary one at that. Also, after the strongest jolts of the quake, when everybody is dying and suffering in a random L.A. hospital, there is a clown character that goes around and tries to make people laugh by doing clown tricks. Believe or not, there are actually people laughing nervously. I almost had to turn away from the screen.  It's the movie equivalent of nails on a chalkboard.

        While I'm a sucker for disaster movies in general, I am going to give a mixed review on Earthquake. It's effective in the special effects department but that doesn't compensate for a mediocre script and less than stellar acting. Truthfully, it's hard to care about the people in this movie even when harmful things happen to them. They aren't underdeveloped, they are just unlikable. I don't know if this was the director's vision, you know to make something that's not by Hollywood's standards. But nevertheless, this method doesn't bode entirely well on screen. As I said, the script is problematic in that while it's heavy on detail and protocol for people involved in a natural disaster, there is an emotional center missing and it costs this film a shot at greatness. I guess it's frustrating when you have to imagine what happens to a character when a scene cuts away right before his or her fate. An example would be Richard Roundtree (playing Miles Quade) driving his motorcycle away from a exploding dam of water caused by the seismic burst. Right as the gushing water threatens to drown him, the camera cuts to something else and we never see or hear from him again. Then, there is the character of Walter Russell (played by Kip Niven). This guy discovers the threat of the quake, tells his superiors (including the mayor) to warn everybody, and then that's it. 30-40 minutes into the film, and we also never see or hear from him again. This, along with the cringe worthy moments mentioned earlier in the review, make it very difficult to garner my recommendation. All in all, you desperately root for this film to be great, you really do. But you surrender to it's misguided approach. And that's the kiss of death for me as a movie critic.

        With all that being said, there is a positive note to observe when watching this past box office blockbuster. No one, and I mean no one, looks cooler in dark sunglasses than the late Charlton Heston.

-Written by Jesse Burleson

Cole's Take on OBLIVION

Cole's Rating: ★★ 1/2

Jesse's Rating: ★★ 1/2

Director: Joseph Kosinski

Year: 2013

Cast: Tom Cruise, Olga Kurylenko, Morgan Freeman

Genre: Action/Adventure/Mystery

MPAA Rating: PG-13

        It’s hard for me to love a Sci-Fi movie because I just can’t care about the subject, or characters enough. That was my adamant statement while watching the first hour of Oblivion. But from then on, that statement wavered. 

        Oblivion begins with an extremely unappealing introduction of Jack Harper (Tom Cruise) with a voiceover, explaining that his mission on the remains of Earth is to engage all dormant drones in order to keep the “Scavenger” race (which took over planet Earth previously) to a minimum. And it throws you right into what seems to be the middle of it, expecting you to catch on, and catch on fast. So basically, the first hour of the movie constantly makes you wonder, “what the heck is going on?”. And finally when you realize what’s going on, it dulls your interest to an even further extent with bad acting, miserable dialogue, and unnecessary sappy romance scenes that are relatively questionable as far as content goes for a PG-13 movie. Oh! And lets not forget an astounding amount of continuity errors. Then it brings Morgan Freeman into the mix, and now you’re trying to figure something else out! Seems pretty complex for a Sci-fi movie; so if you’re not a thinker, this isn’t for you. To be quite frank, if I missed the first hour of the movie, and was informed on what was happening, this may very well be a four-star movie. I considered leaving the theater a few times, wiggled frequently in my seat, and exchanged sarcastic eye contact with my fellow movie critic during this period of the movie, relentlessly. 

        And it wasn’t until the first of a series of “big reveals” occurred that I decided, “Hey. Maybe this is worthy of hitting theaters after all”. But that actually took a incredible amount of time, and an excessive amount of thinking to reach that point, so once again, nothing-but-entertainment junkies beware. It’s hard not to digress into how effective, powerful, ingenious, and haunting the last 20-30 minutes of the movie are without revealing any information, so the best thing I can say is that it raised the movie’s rating from a half star to two and a half stars. 

        I look at Oblivion as movie that needs spice to get itself going. Because if you stay along for the ride, it’s quite worth it. It's hard though; the journey is excruciating. The best advice I can give you as moviegoers, is to tune in for the second half of the movie. You’ll like what you see. Because if not, you won’t stick around for the mind-blowing conclusion.

        And I almost forgot. Tom Cruise in Rec Specs on a motorcycle zipping through the desert in a tight, white suit is very, very funny. Very.  

-Written by Cole Pollyea

~ Click here to see the video review ~ 

Jesse's Take on OBLIVION

Jesse's Rating: ★★ 1/2
Cole's Rating: ★★ 1/2

Director: Joseph Kosinski

Year: 2013

Cast: Tom Cruise, Olga Kurylenko, Morgan Freeman

Genre: Action/Adventure/Mystery

MPAA Rating: PG-13

        You know, you gotta smirk when someone mentions the name Tom Cruise. Ever since he jumped on Oprah Winfrey's couch and another time called NBC news anchor Matt Lauer "glib" (to his face on national television), his public image has taken a moderate hit. He has become Hollywood's version of a dart board. He's making all kinds of different movies now from each and every genre. This guy is basically the dart and he throws himself against the board hoping something will stick. Recently, Cruise has played a famous rock star in Rock of Ages (2012), a bald, high strung studio executive in Tropic Thunder (2008), a military police corps officer in Jack Reacher (2012), and a senator in Lions For Lambs (2007). I guess, maybe, he's just trying to get people to like him again. Heck, he may win some new friends with his sci-fi movie Oblivion. I viewed it yesterday in a somewhat lightly crowded theater and have decided that the Cruise man and I can just be acquaintances, that's it (ha ha). 

        The movie begins by telling the story of Jack Harper (Cruise), also known as Tech 49 (one of the last few humans stationed on earth). The year is 2077 and the planet, now almost destroyed by alien forces, is taken to every measure necessary to destroy those aliens (in this case, Cruise is powering up dormant drones in order to kill off the species). Harper's job (with the help of Victoria played with monotonous overtone by Andrea Riseborough) is to complete this mission and go back to a place called Titan (I just couldn't figure out where Titan was). Throughout the film, Cruise's character has flashbacks and dreams about a life he might've had in a past existence. To explain this more in detail would be spoiler city so I'll just leave it right there. I will however interject a side plot involving Morgan Freeman (Malcolm Beech) as a sort of a secret human leader unknowingly stationed on Earth's surface. He has survived the past carnage and no one knows him and his people exists until a chance meeting with Harper. They cross paths and set the film in sort of a different direction than was initially established.

        Let me just say that Oblivion is a mixed bag. On the plus side, It's one of the best looking films I have seen in a long time. It's got a nice, shiny, salt and peppery look to it that I like. And it is directed by a guy who's last picture I'd consider a terrific sequel (Joseph Kosinski, Tron: Legacy (2010)). However, Oblivion tries really hard for greatness and falls short. It tries almost too hard but with good intentions. A lot of what's on screen is undoubtedly familiar stuff. The action scenes are reminiscent of every Star Wars film mixed with alien fare ala Independence Day (1996); the ending has a small whiff of 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) saddled with the 1985 kid's film Explorers, and the Cruise character (Jack Harper) feels like a younger brother version of Harrison Ford's Deckhard in Blade Runner (1982). Oh, and I almost forgot, the costume design channels a post apocalyptic neighbor in Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome (1985).  

        Then there is the dialogue and believe me, it's sometimes laughable. With so many beautiful images on screen (minus the cheesy, director inspired, 70's zoom ins with the camera), it's hard to believe that conversations between the actors in this movie sound like ten year olds speaking to one another. What's worse, is that you suspect the villains in Oblivion to be machines. Melissa Leo's character for instance (spaceship commander Sally) is one part of the cast that you think is a machine and not human. That's a good thing because if she is a machine, that makes sense. No human being could be that annoying in person. Finally, there is the acting or should I say lack there of, especially by Cruise. Normally, he does his best work when there is not so much special effects gimmickry going on around him. But alas, he's picked another project where it's painfully obvious that he's going through the motions. His performance is so phoned in, he might as well be the spokesman for T-Mobile. When there is an exciting over-the-top spaceship chase between him (the stunning Olga Kurylenko is in the passenger seat) and the "drones" (Star Wars imitated fighting machines), the two actors act badly; and the motions of the space vehicle jerk them back and forth. It truly looks simulated people. I almost laughed in a situation that didn't call for laughter.  Kurylenko's character asks Cruise's character, "are we gonna die?." Cruise's Jack Harper first says "no," then 5 seconds later, says "yes." Way to go Tom, you're earning your Keanu Reeves acting wings with flying colors.

        Truth be told, the movie fails in other areas also by posing many difficult questions concerning most of the main characters. It thinks it's clever trying to confuse the audience by adding surprises and unnecessary layers to the story. Some films flat out earn their twists and turns. Oblivion. decides to mess with your head. When this thing finally ended, I just wanted to throw my arms up and say what the heck just happened? The only way anyone can get what's truly going on in is to see it again and try to decipher all the plot points. I will, but I might have to wait a couple more years. I have other movies to review. Darn it.

        Is Oblivion a bad film? No, not exactly. It's ambitious and full of ideas. Most of them are borrowed and a slight few are wholly original. As for Cruise, he should probably not try to please everyone by doing all these different types of film fodder. He's become more of a movie star and less of a serious bonified actor. Here's my advice for the aging maverick: give directors Oliver Stone, Martin Scorsese, and Paul Thomas Anderson a call. Maybe they can help you get back on track. After all, it's never easy to win at darts.

-Written by Jesse Burleson

~ Click here to see the video review ~

WALK THE LINE

Cole's Rating: ★★★ 1/2
Jesse's Rating: ★★★ 1/2

Director: James Mangold

Year: 2005

Cast: Joaquin Pheonix, Reese Witherspoon, Ginnifer Goodwin

Genre: Biography/Drama/Music

MPAA Rating: PG-13

        Walk The Line is undoubtedly one of the best biopics I have ever seen. You can quote me on that; and I’ve never been more confident in a quote of mine than I am about this. Fortunately, this film doesn’t only expose us to the life story of Johnny Cash, but also June Carter, two of the finest musicians of their time, and how they interacted over the course of their careers.

        Too many times biographies drag, and lack entertainment and the ability to edit themselves as far as surplus content go; and Walk The Line is no exception, as there are a few scenes that if standing alone would qualify it as such. But really, I didn’t feel bored, or deprived of entertainment whatsoever. I was fascinated with Cash’s drug dependency, and marital problems, and persistence; I felt a sense of rawness. Protagonists are often portrayed as flawless, or nearly flawless characters that overcome challenges easily. Not here. Johnny Cash was no saint, just like the rest of the population; and nothing was sugarcoated.


        I think that one of the main reasons that Walk The Line played out so well is because it was riddled with good performances. As Roger Ebert said it, “The music is great. The drama is great. The writing is great. The performances are great. I love it!”. Well said, Ebert. Reese Witherspoon has numerous movies. And let me say that they’re not all good (This Means War). But I never really saw her an incredible actress until this movie. Sure, I was persuaded by Water For Elephants. But this was the deciding factor; it’s her best movie by far. And the same goes for Joaquin Phoenix. Although I seem to be the only critic that loves The Village, I believed that his performance was just ordinary. And Gladiator, the same, despite the fact that he won an Oscar. But once again, this movie is the best of him. These extraordinary performances fueled the film to good measure; it never ran out of gas.

        One of the best things about Walk The Line in my opinion, was the opening introduction to the death of his brother, and what influenced his lifelong dream. That’s what I think a lot of biopics lack, a moving backstory; it isn’t missing here. His relationship with his static parents (another set of good performances) never end from his childhood, throughout his fame, and thereafter. We’re aware of that as viewers, also.   

        All in all, there is an overwhelming sense of reality here. Walk The Line is as real as movies get. Sci-fi lovers beware, you’ll get quite a bit of real life in this movie.

-Written by Cole Pollyea

Jesse's Thoughts: Walk The Line is a biopic that entertains and tells a darn good story. You really get to know the life of a rock legend in Johnny Cash. You also get insight into his strained relationship with his dad, his sadness for the loss of his brother, and his yearning to win the heart of the woman he loves in June Carter. It's a wonderful movie with top notch performances. Easily one of the best films of 2005.

SCARY MOVIE 5

Jesse's Rating: ★ ½

Director: Malcolm D. Lee

Year:  2013

Cast:  Simon Rex, Ashley Tisdale, Charlie Sheen

Genre: Comedy

MPAA Rating:  PG-13

        As I entered the theatre to view Scary Movie 5, I had a feeling that it would be a lousy movie. I mean, I knew what I was getting into. Truth is, I probably shouldn't have gone. My ten dollars along with the $10 contribution of millions of other moviegoers is the main reason why these films continue to get made. Like I said in my previous review of Scary Movie (2000), these turkeys don't cost a lot to make. This one was probably around $20 million. It may make $50-$60 million. Which brings me to my next thought. I don't think the people working on them care whether they are bad or not. They know that the misguided audience member will somehow get duped into thinking they're seeing something relevant. But after 80-85 short nutrition free minutes (that's the normal running time), they as an audience, just wasted an amount of life that will never come back. Every second counts, you know, in the stratosphere that is movieland. 

        Now I liked the first Scary Movie. As I stated in my review of it, I thought it was the first of its kind. Just like Airplane (1980) spoofed airports and flying, this one was an original spoof of horror films. But they really should have stopped after the first one. I remember seeing the last 20 minutes of it and realized that a sequel would not work, should not work, and will not work. Scary Movie 5 makes some big mistakes, humongous I tell you. The first is having it be rated PG-13. That's difficult to pull off because the tone is lazy. Everyone is basically trying to project R rated humor in a PG-13 film. I guess the studios are trying to bring in a younger crowd. This is, in my opinion, to make money. What a silly way of thinking. The first Scary Movie was a huge box office success. It had the cojones to push the envelope on gross out humor. That's why I recommend it even to this day. Scary Movie 5 is a tired exercise that maybe belts out three and four genuine guffaws, that's it. Then there is the second mistake this film commits which is trying to spoof the Paranormal Activity movies. It would have worked had it been done maybe 4 or 5 years ago when it was a fresh concept in everybody's mind. But just like the Scary Movie franchise, there have been a decent amount of Paranormal Activity sequels/prequels ever since. And let's face it, those movies have pretty much spoofed or parodied themselves. Finally, there is the preview of this movie which I saw a couple times before viewing the actual product. Some of the scenes in it were actually kinda funny. Guess what, almost none of them are in the final cut. Are you kidding me? Wow, what a clever bait and switch.

        I could go on and on how disposable this film is but I'll refrain. Here's one more tidbit: Charlie Sheen and Lindsay Lohan do a cameo in the first five minutes of Scary Movie 5. It was probably the funniest portion of the movie. I kinda wondered why they weren't the stars and had been asked to carry the weight. But who are we kidding, their movie careers have already been dented enough. I'm starting to wonder if they even wanna get things back on track. I guess not. Oh, a lot of washed up entertainers seem to taint the heck out of this movie. In addition to Sheen and Lohan, we have Snoop Dogg, Heather Locklear, Molly Shannon, Jerry O'Connell, Jasmine Guy (yeah, I couldn't make this up if I tried), and Mike Tyson (he was in the film for 10 seconds, good for him). They must be really desperate to be on screen because it seems we haven't seen them in a long while.

        Here's another thing I'm wondering: did the actual Morgan Freeman do the narration for Scary Movie 5? Or was someone imitating him? Lord I hope someone was imitating him because if it was actually Freeman, I might have to stop going to movies forever. I might be scarred for life.

        If you really want to check out this abomination, it's your choice. Just don't stay for the closing credits. The outtakes are much worse than the movie itself. And they feel staged, like they were actually scripted. Yeah, I payed my ten bucks and sat in the theatre. If I had the option to do it again, I'd probably just go home and watch dust form. That's quality entertainment compared to this.

-Written by Jesse Burleson

42

Cole's Rating: ★★★
Jesse's Rating: ★★★

Director: Brian Helgeland

Year: 2013

Cast: Chadwick Boseman, Harrison Ford, Nicole Beharie

Genre: Biography/Sports/Drama

MPAA Rating: PG-13

        It really bothers me that 42 is claimed to be too straightforward, or too “by the book”. It’s as if the label “based on a true story” automatically impedes its qualification of a good movie. I’m here to advise you not to heed the warnings of many critics out there, because 42 is one you’ll enjoy, baseball fan or not.

        Chadwick Boseman does a great job playing the character of Jackie Robinson, the African American who changed baseball forever. This is a bit shocking as he has appeared in numerous television series, but an extremely minimal amount of movies. And it’s only so often that the actor that plays a role actually looks like the person he’s portraying! What’s even rarer than that is when a movie has the ability to catch me off guard, to completely and utterly surprise me. That’s just what 42 did.

        The reason this movie is so enjoyable is because it has the perfect balance of light and heavy material. It focuses on Robinson’s struggle with harassment and cruelty while playing for the MLB, and Branch Ricky’s (owner of the Brooklyn Dodgers) desire to change the game he loves. Despite the dramatic material, you find yourself laughing due to a number of different factors including Harrison Ford’s acting. But overall, I’d just say that 42’s chemistry is a forte.

        Never underestimate Jackie Robinson, because like all the rest of the jerks in the baseball industry in the 1940’s who didn’t believe in him, you’ll feel pretty stupid afterwards. That's how I felt about underestimating the film before viewing.

        I can undoubtedly state that the theater that I viewed 42 in was the most packed theater that I’ve ever been in. Open seats were scarce, as were members of the audience not applauding after the film’s triumphant ending. I earlier stated not to heed critics warnings. So what validates my opinion is the fact that I viewed and loved it as an audience member, a critic, a non-baseball fan, a baseball fan, and a compelled athlete. I think that’s enough to write 42 up as a good movie. 

-Written by Cole Pollyea

Jesse's Thoughts: I liked 42. It's a simple, well made film about the beloved baseball legend, Jackie Robinson. With a surprisingly different (out of the box) performance by Harrison Ford (GM of the Brooklyn Dodgers) and a luscious background for sense of time and place on the baseball field, the movie wraps everything up in a nice neat little package. What keeps it from greatness is its minimalistic approach to the subject matter. But for its dead on release date catered to the moviegoing public (the same month as Jackie Robinson day), it's a great way to spend an afternoon or evening at the movies.