Attention!

ATTENTION MOVIEGOERS

       I, Cole, along with Thatcher and Darius will be departing for Washington DC on an 8th grade trip on Monday, May 27th, and will be returning Saturday, June 1st. Those fans and readers of Cole's Collective Critiques on Film will have to wait for more reviews when we get back, so enjoy our latest reviews on The Hangover Part III, Epic, and Star Trek Into Darkness, and be sure to check out our "In Theaters" section for any movies you plan to see this week. For updates on film related aspects of our trip, or any film screenings/movies I see over the course of this week, follow me on Twitter. But for now, see you later, moviegoers!

THE HANGOVER PART 3

Jesse's Rating: ★★★

Director: Todd Phillips
Year: 2013
Cast: Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms, Zach Galifianakis, Ken Jeong
Genre: Comedy
MPAA Rating: R

        Well, I guess it's official, I'm eating my words as we speak. Yeah, I'm the guy who doesn't like sequels and yet here I am giving positive ratings to Star Trek Into Darkness and now The Hangover Part III. It's scary to think of what I might do next. If the new Fast and the Furious movie impresses me, I guess I'll just skip reviewing it and go straight into denial. But seriously folks, I went into the new Hangover with really low expectations. We're talking bottom feeder, if you know what I mean. So from now on, I think that's the key. I'm going to take this approach with every film I see. That way I'll stroll out of the theater as a movie critic that raves about everything and comes off as not so darn grumpy. Whoa, forget what I just said. I was merely kidding people! 

        Anyway, here's what occurs in Part III. At the very beginning, we find mentally unstable "wolfpack" member Alan (Zach Galifianakis getting the most exposure he's had in any of the Hangover films) buying a giraffe, putting it in the back of his truck, and killing it on the freeway (I'm thinking you know how it happened). Upon doing this, he irritates his family and draws concern from the other "wolfpack" members (Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms, Justin Bartha). Everyone but Alan, stages an intervention on his behalf to get him to a treatment center somewhere in Arizona. He'll agree to go if his three buds will drive him there. As the four of them set out on a moderately short road trip, their car is rammed off the road, they are dragged out of it (held at gunpoint mind you), and one of the crew (Bartha of course) is taken hostage. This sets off a chain of events which leads everybody to venture back to good old Sin City.

        Well let's get down to it. Right off the bat I want to let you know why I liked The Hangover Part III. I enjoyed it for the exact reason that some critics panned it. This flick doesn't try to be like the other two in the trilogy. In fact, it feels like a totally different animal all together. Yes there is a dash of the funny (something Part I did effortlessly and Part II attempted miserably), but there's also a hint of darkness that comes close to turning everything into a sort of black comedy with shards of mild violence. For me, this is an effective way to wrap things up (unless there is a Part IV of course). You can tell that the director (Todd Phillips) wanted to avoid copping out and injected Part III with a little more juice (this is the other reason I liked it and most critics didn't. They think Phillips went way over the top or felt he had to prove something). He did the film justice by avoiding the same tired plot line (everyone gets smashed and wakes up not knowing what the heck just happened) while making an effort to tie together loose ends from the other two movies (by way of flashbacks). This is done to effect in the first 15 minutes and it sets everything in motion. 

        The actors then promptly assume their personalities from the first two installments. Doug Billings who's never around for the debauchery, plays the happily married nice guy. Alan is the screw loose, borderline mental patient who nonchalantly goes about his business. Phil, is the smug, unhappily married school teacher who is calm under pressure, and Stu is the manic anxiety ridden dentist who thinks all hope is gone. Together they fit their roles like comfortable old shoes. Overall, their performances are manically unhinged. You get what's required of them coupled with a fresher more potently nasty script this time around (Part II's had lazy written all over it).

        As far as supporting work goes, I thought John Goodman (gangster Marshall) was a nice little addition to The Hangover family (he riffs off his Big Lebowski character, but just not quite as intense). I also like the addition of a love interest for Alan (someone besides man crush Phil) in Melissa McCarthy. She seems to make a cameo in everything these days and certainly is a hoot as a pawn shop owner who candidly berates her wheelchair confined mother.

        The only setback for this Hangover is the blatant deviation from the focus of the four stars of the movie (the infamous "wolfpack"). This exercise is bent on giving two supporting characters their own vehicle (Ken Jeong as Mr. Chow and Galifianakis). True, these guys are funny and steal many a scene, but the other members of the cast don't get a lot of room to breathe. They get kind of pushed to the side and become sort of frowned upon (Bradley Cooper recently got nominated for an Oscar, give him some props for gosh sakes). And what's with always having Justin Bartha's character not present with the other members of the "pack" when the madness of their misadventures is going down? It seems predetermined and silly. What, is he not good enough of an actor to occupy some precious screen time with his buddies? (Bartha was in the colossal flop Gigli (2003) so maybe that's it, who knows?).

        When it comes down to it, I found myself at ease with the way Part III whisked by. It's darker than the first one, funnier than the second one, and more daring than both of them. I laughed, I winced, and felt confident in recommending this hot mess of a movie. It's a sequel all right, but it tries really hard not to be one. I admire that. With nothing to lose, you should go check out The Hangover Part III. It's a solid time killer, and a required "hair of the dog" if you will.

-Written by Jesse Burleson

EPIC

Cole's Rating: ★★★

Director: Chris Wedge
Year: 2013
Cast: Colin Farrell, Josh Hutcherson, Beyoncé Knowles
Genre: Animation/Adventure/Family
MPAA Rating: PG

        I ventured into Movies 14 on a warm spring Friday night with my dad and nine-year-old brother, excited to view the highly anticipated Epic. We found a seat, sat down, and became instantly immersed in the magical 3D world that the movie ambitiously creates. Epic, a slick spin on Honey I Shrunk the Kids, finds Mary Katherine (voiced by Amanda Seyfried), the daughter of a quirky scientist, reduced to the size of a blade of grass, in order to save the forest civilization (“leafmen”). This civilization that she encounters upon has been her father’s obsession for a large part of his life. It tells a riveting story with tasteful humor and wonderful dialogue, and engrosses you with its astounding visual effects, but it falls shorter than other more memorable family movies (such as Shrek, Cars, and Toy Story) due to its severe lack of character motivation. I’d describe it as trivial, because while it is enjoyable, it still doesn’t leave a significant mark on cinema in any way.

        Epic will undoubtedly leave you questioning its script. It’s told well and is interesting, but it feels like this should be a sequel. This is because the “leafmen” fight against the “rot” (who are bad guys that try to destroy the forest for some unknown reason). We know that the “leafmen” are trying to preserve the forest and its natural elements, and we know that the “rot” are trying to destroy it, but is there a point? It’s symbolic of life and decay in the world, and that’s alright, but the film would’ve been much better had there been a fictitious plot element to spice up its tellings and motivations that concern the civilization’s rivalry. Never are we told why either one of these civilizations try so desperately to accomplish their duties; but the film’s target audience (nine and under) won’t care too much about that aspect, which makes it a successful children’s movie.

        Overall, Epic is a lot of fun. It takes its impressive visual effects, meshes it with a handful of likable characters, blends it in with some nice dialogue, and the outcome is a family-friendly movie to spend a Friday/Saturday night watching. And although it’s a good experience, and it’s delightful enough to get by, it doesn’t quite live up to its title.

-Written by Cole Pollyea

STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS

Jesse's Rating: ★★★ ½

Director: J.J. Abrams
Year: 2013
Cast: Chris Pine, Zoe Saldana, John Cho
Genre: Action/Adventure/Sci-Fi
MPAA Rating: PG-13

        As a kid, I was a huge fan of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982). It was probably the first movie sequel I ever saw (Jaws 2 doesn't count, I was only 4 years old). At the time, I proclaimed this "Trek" gem to be the best darn movie in the world. I also burned it in my brain that hey, sequels just plain rule! Hmmm, how times have changed. I see things differently now. But every once and a while, a glimmer of hope seeps its way through the garbage bin that is movie inferiority. Yes, I'm talking about a few part 2's, a couple part 3's, no 4's though (by the way, Fast and the Furious 6 is approaching, take heed). 

        Now, if you've read my most recent reviews, it's obvious that I've never been a huge fan of sequels in general. In my mind, they never quite equal the velocity and sheer magnitude of the original. I'm thinking maybe 2% of all them have surpassed the first one in terms of critical acclaim. I mean come on let's face it, not every part II can be The Godfather. So for some spur of the moment reason, I decided to take in the new Star Trek regardless of my beliefs. After all, a critic must review as many movies as possible. It's our job. With popcorn and Diet Coke in hand, I ventured into a wonderful surround sound theater to witness Star Trek Into Darkness. I gotta say, it surprised me wholeheartedly. It doesn't try to outdo and outgun the first one (Star Trek (2009) of the re-imagined franchise). Basically, it sticks to that 2009 release in terms of structure and make up from start to finish. J.J. Abrams, a director who has pretty much hit the big time these days, unleashes his signature, shiny look to the proceedings and what you get is a fresh, entertaining, and forceful jolt of moviegoing hysteria that spills itself all over the screen. While viewing the essence of this "Trek," the action sequences reminded me of the swashbuckling gaudiness of Raiders Of The Lost Ark mixed with the sci-fi kinetic motion of Minority Report (Abrams is a big Spielberg fan so there you go).

        This summer’s goosebump adventure finds our heroes dealing with a superior villainous specimen who's initial name is Starfleet agent John Harrison. This Harrison later reveals himself to be Khan, a superhuman with uncanny life-recovery mechanisms who's been asleep for 300 years. He awakes from his slumber bent on destroying the enterprise and causing worldwide mass destruction. Khan is played by Benedict Cumberbatch and he's a British actor who's stare could literally cut through glass.

        I'm gonna turn over a new leaf and not reveal too much so I'll say this, what makes Star Trek Into Darkness such a delight is that there is never a dull moment, never a time when you might look at your watch, and all along you get spine tingling excitement coupled with a feasible, easy to follow script. The actors (Chris Pine, Zoe Saldana, Zachary Quinto for example) make it look effortless and fancy free. They seem to nail their parts and do exactly what's called for. I especially thought Peter Weller as Starfleet Admiral Marcus was a very nice touch as well (I missed you Robocop). As in the previous installment, they replicate the old Star Trek characters from back in the day (you know Spock, Sulu, Scotty, etc.). Most of them do flat out impersonations but that's okay by me (a lot of these guys look like the old characters as well). I'd say they get away with it. But heck, there's not a lot of time to analyze much in the realm of character development because these guys literally get whisked from one exuberant set piece to the next. To put it mildly, fast paced is an understatement when it comes to Star Trek Into Darkness. It's also got a little bit of biting humor as well (the jibber jabber between Captain Kirk and Spock is priceless). Basically, it's a popcorn flick done right and it could satisfy the most defensive of summer moviegoers (I sometimes have my reservations about bloated summer movies that spew hot air so I'm one of these people). 

        So for all you Trekkies and non-Trekkies out there (hey, anybody can enjoy this bad boy), I'll leave you with this tagline for any Star Trek adventure: "to boldly go where no man has gone before." I'll even throw women in the mix as well. How bout everyone get their shields down and see this sequel? It's one of the few good ones.

-Written by Jesse Burleson

25th HOUR

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

Director: Spike Lee

Year: 2002

Cast: Edward Norton, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Barry Pepper

Genre: Crime/Drama

MPAA Rating: R

        Movies are one thing. But movies without music are an entirely different subject. That’s how I felt about 25th Hour, a film fueled greatly by its haunting musical score. But that’s not the only source that this vehicle is drilling oil from; we have Edward Norton, Philip Seymour Hoffman, a promising plot line, and an overall effective impression left on the moviegoing audience. I say effective because it contains several different life lessons: some good, some bad. It won’t turn you away from white supremacy (that was American History X’s job (which is another Norton flick)). But it will show you, and depending on the type of person you are, warn you about the dangers that life offers, and how quickly yours can disappear. That’s what’s most important when you watch a film like this. 

       Magnificent music is definitely evident here. The narration towards the end with the music playing in the background was just one instance of brilliant filmmaking; I was entirely immersed in the presentation of the content that the movie offered. Similar to a recent viewing of Road To Perdition, I felt that it wouldn’t have it’s power and influence without the mood that the music insinuated. Both film’s have the power to strike intrigue on the moviegoing audience because of this, and it’s a shame that several great movies lack a significant musical score, it surely holds many back from being that much better.

        To add to that—wait, I first must proclaim my admiration for Edward Norton as an actor. Over the course of his career, he’s shown that he is capable of playing a variety of different roles: good guy, bad guy, crazy guy, good/bad guy. And each one of his performances just keep knocking the other off of the top of the charts. He manages to outact himself every single time. So since I haven’t seen every one of his films, I can’t say that he’s the best in this or the ones that I have seen, but I can say that he’s pretty darn good. He stars here as the said good/bad guy; busted for dealing to a school. He’s convicted and sent to jail for seven years... But we get to witness his last day before departing: the relationships he concludes, the revelations he discovers, and other endeavors that a man would embark upon before he wasted seven years of his life behind bars, a place he genuinely believes that he won’t survive in. While the movie isn’t quite as emotional as it would’ve hoped to be, the best thing to focus on is his actions, and the things he feels he needs to do before he rots away in a prison cell; not to mention the dialogue. And finally when you reach the end, and you think you’ve learned a true life lesson and witnessed a natural story, the tables turn, and you’re witnessing a whole different telling of life’s events, based on your interpretation. Now this may sound like it’s a bad thing, but as you arrive to its denouement, you will have realized that gratitude is owed to writer David Benioff and director Spike Lee (although you don’t need to thank him for his atrocious camerawork) for spicing the story up, and making you awe at the outcome that lies within the film’s second hour.

-Written by Cole Pollyea

Jesse's Thoughts: 25th Hour is a Spike Lee joint that carries a lot of his signature film making trademarks. However, he tells a straighter and more focused story this time around (most of his films are plot over plot over plot). He gets the most out of his cast (especially Ed Norton and Barry Pepper) and you're hooked right away because from the beginning, you enthralled by the impending fate of the main character. This movie also does a great job of showcasing various flashbacks and the ending is effective because it can be interpreted in many different ways. As usual, Lee likes to work from a canvas of dark red/black hues and colors for lighting and background (he does this most often in Summer of Sam and Clockers). In my opinion, this gives 25th Hour an effective sense of dread and despair. Let's just say that overall, this is a solid effort and it heralds itself as a blatant message movie for post 9/11.

DEMONS

Jesse's Rating: ★★★

Director: Lamberto Bava

Year: 1985

Cast: Urbano Barberini, Natasha Hovey, Fiore Argento

Genre: Horror

MPAA Rating: Unrated

        Long before the T.V. show The Walking Dead and Ruben Fleischer's exhilarating Zombieland (2009) came this campy motion picture rooted in good ol' fashioned blood and gore. Filmed primarily in Berlin, Germany, and made by an Italian director, Demons is a clear snapshot of what an 80's horror film is supposed to be. Although the idea for it is surprisingly original, this puppy runs rampant with nostalgia from that era. Characters have the big hair (the women really spritz it up for this one), they tie their sweaters around their necks (everyone has got that Kmart look going on) and the grimness of cheesy synthesizer music is abundant in every frame (added to that, heavy metal sometimes appears in the movie's soundtrack). Most of the actors in Demons also come off as mean and shallow. They all however, have perfect, innocent faces for the look of a scary movie (except for this one guy who's got a chrome dome and sideburns the size of Texas). Plus, they are all quite amusing due to the virtual dubbing (it sounded like dubbing) in every spoken word of their dialogue. And let's not forget another trait for splatter films of the 1980's. Most of the cast in Demons accomplishes it in that they are virtually unknown and comprised of actors and actresses you'll never see or hear from again. Let me ask you a question, have you ever heard of Urbano Barberini and Karl Zinny? Didn't think so.

        The make up of this high jinks exercise in unabashed fun goes like this: A woman on a subway has visions of a mysterious man who is facially scarred and wears a creepy mask. When she gets off the subway, this same man follows her and gives her a ticket for a free movie showing at a theatre in West Berlin. She then proceeds to invite her friend (the two of them skip their high school classes, not a good idea) and they venture to the theatre along with 40 or so other people (these people were also randomly given tickets and summoned by the same creepy dude who doesn't utter one word). Once everyone is settled in the half empty building, a random horror film is shown on screen, a woman in the audience turns into a demon (I can't tell you how, you gotta watch for yourself) and chaos ensues (the rule is that if a possessed person bites or scratches you, you become a demon as well). Everyone therefore is trapped for some strange reason (I figured why don't they find out where the entrance is at which they came in and try to break it down, oh well).

        I must say I was entertained and sort of taken aback by this flick. It harked back to my childhood where you could wake up, flip on the cable box at 4 AM, and see something like this playing on Showtime or Cinemax. Like I said earlier, Demons has what I like to think of as a pretty original idea for a fright fest. But make no mistake about it, it's still a run-of-the mill exercise in horror fare. It does just what you want it to do, nothing more, nothing less. And that's okay with me. Yeah its got elements from the George Romero movies and The Evil Dead (1981) (minus the slight comedic vibe), but Demons still manages to be effective because it does an adequate job of establishing the characters, setting up the shocks and scares (it takes a good 20 minutes before things get going and this is an 88 minute flick), and not straying too far away from the focus of the story (only during the 1 hour mark do things go off on a small tangent). Another treat is that this special effects behemoth marks the first time I've seen or heard the following tidbits in any movie of any genre:  Billy Idol's rock anthem "White Wedding" playing in the background, two female characters who are deadpan look-alikes of the late Corey Haim and rock superstar Rick James (I'm not kidding folks), another character wielding a samurai sword while on a motorcycle (hacking zombies along the way and riding through a movie theatre no less), even another character who is blind and actually taking in the movie within a movie (huh?), and an interesting product placement for Coca Cola (you'll know it when you see it).

        If you're into horror films (I sort of am, but I gotta be in the right mood) and want to invade the time warp which is the mid 80's, Demons will probably satisfy your thirst for terror. I mean who doesn't want to see the indelible sight of flesh eating ghouls walking down a corridor with their creepy ceiling shadows. Ah, they sure don't make em' like this anymore and if they did now, they'd be hard pressed to emulate the veritable time capsule that is this movie. Oh, and I almost forgot about the ending. It makes it an even better film than it really is. I was caught off guard by it but I thought yeah, this makes sense. So to end this review, I'll say this: if Demons ever makes it to the midnight movie circuit (I'm not sure it has) then you should get a bunch of your friends together and check it out. You'll get to see a movie within a movie at a movie theatre. Got it? Now get to it ASAP! 

-Written by Jesse Burleson

COP LAND

Jesse's Rating: ★★ 1/2

Director: James Mangold
Year: 1997
Cast: Sylvester Stallone, Harvey Keitel, Robert De Niro, Ray Liotta
Genre: Crime/Drama/Thriller
MPAA Rating: R

        In 1997, Sylvester Stallone was in need of a major career boost. Just two years prior, he starred in the laughably bad Judge Dredd, and then went on to do the bland exercise known as Daylight with a moderately pedestrian role. His solution this time around: put on some extra weight (Raging Bull De Niro style), star alongside the cast of Goodfellas (Ray Liotta, Robert De Niro, Frank Vincent), and parlay a sort of low key, under the radar performance that could give him a sentimental Oscar nomination. Well Sly failed to get nominated for anything that year. Hey, don't get wrong, I love the guy (ROCKY! ROCKY!). But there's no way in the world he deserved award consideration for underplaying his performance in Cop Land, the movie that I am reviewing now. To revert and revise what I just said, Sly's performance in this movie is in fact, extremely underplayed. It got to the point where I figured that I could turn on the mute button while watching it on T.V. and still not miss a beat.

        This hammy concoction focuses on the character of Freddy Heflin (Stallone). He's a shy, deaf in one ear sheriff who patrols a small town (Garrison, New Jersey) right across the river from New York City. The town of Garrison, where Heflin lives and is in charge of, includes lots of police officers (he doesn't qualify to be one of them because of his ear) that live there but do not function as working law enforcement (the police officers in this movie in general are not exactly model citizens due to the fact that in the first ten minutes, two of them drive drunk). So as the movie progresses, we find Heflin caught in a web of deceit when an internal affairs investigator comes by (Robert De Niro as Mo Tilden) and explains that the cops Heflin is harboring in his town are connected to the mob and are in the process of covering up a fake suicide by hiding one their own. This character is played by Michael Rappaport as Murray "Superboy" Babitch. Babitch committed an accidental murder earlier by shooting two thugs on the George Washington bridge. His fellow officers led by Lt. Ray Donlan (Harvey Keitel) try to help him cover it up, but in the end, the plan gets screwed up and chaos is ensured from that point on.

        The director of Cop Land is James Mangold and he faired much better later on with Walk The Line (2005). This was one of his first films and it looks as if he's in way over his head with this cast of acting giants. Because of this, they suffer as well. Cop Land isn't really about the story of the movie, it's about showcasing the actors screen time. And it seems everyone in the cast is trying to out duel each other (expect for Jeanne Garofalo and Noah Emmerich playing side characters who look like they're reading off of cue cards).

        Let's be reasonable, the fault of Cop Land doesn't entirely fall on Stallone as mentioned earlier (he's the only actor that doesn't go over the top). The film in general feels sterile and projects itself as something that came off of a hypothetical movie assembly line with instructions on how to view it. The storytelling has a few layers here and there but in the end it's real simple stuff that you as the viewer, could spot from miles away. Oh, and the background music gets real suspenseful when one of the actors nails a line. Yeah, it's safe to say that this flick really is a piece of work. It constantly reminds us as an audience that hey, this cast is darn good, and hey, check out these powerful performances. Oh there's a lot of grandstanding in Cop Land, and added to that, there were constant moments where everyone had to deliver long strained dialogue that made them look bad (with all the scenery chewing by the cast, I figured there was nothing left to chew on but cardboard). For instance, Keitel and De Niro get some extra screen time to test their acting wings in separate sections of the movie. It's painfully obvious that they are repeating themselves. Better yet, they seem to be explaining too much as they spout lines that sort of sound like run on sentences. As an audience, we get it. We don't need our plot points spoon fed to us. GEESH! 

        In the end, I'd say there were very high expectations of this movie when it came out. I remember like it was yesterday. It's by no means a bad film, but I think it just tries too hard and somewhat insults the viewer along the way. Mangold said in an interview that he wanted to make Cop Land as sort of a modern day western. I could see that especially toward the final act when Stallone goes on a gun toting rampage High Noon style. If you like westerns it might meet your standards as a moviegoer (I emphasize the word might). But for me, after seeing this thing, I almost forgot that I had to review it. It's movie amnesia at its finest. That's another way of saying that it's totally forgettable. So with that in mind, I'll leave you with De Niro's character looking like Luigi, the pizza chef uttering the trailer's best line, "you had your shot, and you blew it! you blew it!" It's funny. I feel the exact same way about this motion picture.

-Written by Jesse Burleson

THE GREAT GATSBY (2013)

Cole's Rating: ★★★ ½
Jesse's Rating: ★★ ½

Director: Baz Luhrmann
Year: 2013
Cast: Leonardo DiCaprio, Tobey Maguire, Joel Edgerton, Carey Mulligan
Genre: Drama/Romance
MPAA Rating: PG-13

        Having read the several warnings of The Great Gatsby (2013), and its terrible display of the classical novel from the critics, I was a little shaky with the impression I was given upon entering the theater. But then, I had never witnessed another telling of the story, so I assumed that I might like it a little bit more than the critics. Well, I was quite mistaken. I love this film to death. It clocks in as an almost flawless, fine piece of work brought to you by no other than the visionary Baz Luhrmann.

        Epic storytelling is rare, and even more so within cinema, because it can be more difficult to illustrate a story without using the power of words to elucidate its tellings, morals, and major events. The Great Gatsby (2013) does all of that exceptionally well . The story is fleshed out among many characters, and there is never a time in the film when I felt un-absorbed, or uninvolved. It captures its time and place exceptionally well, and each scene is filled to the brim with marveling visual wonder. Something exuberant about the film, too, is how mystifying the plot could be. I was so interested an so engaged that there would be no machine in the whole world that could pry my eyes off of the screen.

         The story is magnificently told. It’s utterly incredible, and is told with such wisdom that I felt moved as an audience member. Touched, I’d say, by Gatsby’s pure ingenuity as a man who just loves a woman for who she is (and DiCaprio’s excellent portrayal). All of each character’s internal conflicts build up to a fascinating, and upsetting conclusion. One may feel at times like they want to get there sooner, though, because the first twenty-thirty minutes might cause a headache (with the noise and rapid cutting). 

        The best thing—or one of the best things—about The Great Gatsby is how interpretive it is, as far as character motivation goes. But it’s not that it’s poorly done; no, it’s quite the opposite. It’s delicately crafted by the narrator’s word usage, and that of the other characters’ in the film. If I had to put a name to it, I’d say it’s ambitious and ingenious. 

        49% on Rotten Tomatoes? Give me a break, this film is a masterpiece. If it isn't the greatest this year, I'll be shocked (though you can never underestimate Scorsese, who is making a film to come out later this year). I just can’t speak for those who have read the novel, because with my experience as a reader-and-viewer, the movie doesn't quite match up. What I can say is this: I might never read the book, so that I can entirely cherish the movie, without having witnessed its predecessors. 

-Written by Cole Pollyea

Jesse's Thoughts: Baz Luhrmann is a one of a kind director. He doesn't seem to emulate any style. In fact, he has a style all his own. He's the perfect choice to direct a movie that takes place in the roaring twenties. In The Great Gatsby, he fills the screen with so much and it's difficult to take in everything with one viewing. This film is perfectly cast, it's shot with total command of the camera, and the attention to detail in every scene is impeccable. The story however, didn't quite hold my interest. It didn't feel like there was enough of it to inhabit a 2 hr. 20 minute vehicle. I unknowingly found myself staring more at the visual wonderment instead. Now like my nephew,  I've never read the book that it's based on. In essence, I'm committed to evaluating The Great Gatsby as a feature length film. It's not a bad one. It's not a great one. So I guess it's somewhere in between the two.

DAYS OF HEAVEN

Jesse's Rating: ★★★ ½
Cole's Rating: ★★ ½

Director: Terrence Malick

Year: 1978

Cast: Richard Gere, Sam Shepard, Brooke Adams

Genre: Drama/Romance

MPAA Rating: PG

        Days of Heaven will forever remain one of my all time favorite films. Its director, Terrence Malick, took almost two years to get it edited. You can tell. However, please don't let that diminish your opinion of it. As a connoisseur of many types of films, I am confident when I say that Days of Heaven is one that touches greatness. It's a movie's movie, and it's filmmaking in its most purest not to mention, most exposed form. Almost every image on screen is indelible. Pretty much every character is realized. Every nuance of nature has its own still frame and to be honest, film as art has never been more important than it was when this masterpiece got released in the fall of 1978. It notably launched the acting careers of Richard Gere and Sam Shepard. And it pulls off something very special. Let's be honest, how many other movies do you know that have a short running time of 90 plus minutes that manage to be this massively epic in scope? Yup, I couldn't agree more.

        Part vagabond adventure, part love triangle, and part early 1900's parable, Days of Heaven tells the story of Bill (Gere), a laborer out of Chicago who commits an accidental murder (kills his boss) and then flees the state with his lover (Brooke Adams as Abby) and his sister (narrator Linda Manz). The three of them end up somewhere in the plains of Texas (Alberta, Canada was the actual shooting location), find jobs on a wheat farm and become involved with the rich landowner (Sam Sheppard in his first true role).

        The storytelling in this film, although choppy, eventually finds its focus, and releases itself like a sledgehammer in the final act. When it comes to the musical score, there is a sort of haunting eerie beauty to it. However, it also resonates a feeling of radiant hope. The story or plot along with the music however, sort of take a back seat to the visual splendor. Make no mistake about it, this is probably one of the most beautiful films you will ever see. Its cinematography won a well deserved Academy Award and with this being Malick's second major release, he pretty much announced himself to the world as a prominent visual auteur. Every scene is filled to the brim with little nooks and crannies. You get beautiful waterfalls, close-ups of locusts in their natural habitat, sped up windmills (even wind is a star in this flick), and incredibly lush sky imagery. I read somewhere that a critic said you can take any image from Days of Heaven and frame it as a painting. Darn, that's what's I wanted to say!

        Anyway, if you are a budding filmmaker, an aspiring movie critic, or just a radical screen buff, this is the ultimate step into one's film education. Days of Heaven is a sort of cinematic translator. It will make you understand the power of cinema and its never-ending possibilities. Don't hesitate to check it out. Remember "heaven" can't wait.

-Written by Jesse Burleson

Cole's Rating: Days of Heaven will remain to be one of the most beautiful films ever made. That's probably the best thing I could say about it seeing as it wasted quite a few other things with pretentious direction and lack of emotional depth. This is a movie that garnered up some serious critical acclaim, though I found too many things wrong with its artsy approach to deem it a masterpiece.

COLLATERAL

Cole's Rating: ★★★ ½
Jesse's Rating: ★★★ ½

Director: Michael Mann
Year: 2004
Cast: Tom Cruise, Jamie Foxx, Jada Pinkett Smith
Genre: Crime/Drama/Thriller
MPAA Rating: R

        If there’s anything to be taken from Collateral, it’s that Tom Cruise can play a heck of a “bad guy”. I mean outside of his whole “you’re a jerk” and “glib” thing, the general audience sees Tom Cruise as a “good guy”. Understandably so, too, considering the many films he’s starred in in his life; some examples of his “good guy” characters can be found in Mission Impossible, A Few Good Men, War of the Worlds, and many more. And all performances considered, I can’t decide which one I prefer more. But I’ll tell you what, he sure does make this movie a whole lotta’ fun. Tom Cruise's performance, along with Jamie Foxx and most of the material, highly attract the general audience. And when I say general, I mean general. It has so many different details of it that can be looked at, appreciated, and remembered by any moviegoer with a brain.

        What we have in this vehicle is Jamie Foxx playing a cab driver, who works hard to earn the little things in life that come much easier to Cruise, who plays the criminal that invades Foxx’s cab, and forces him to drive him from destination to destination, all in one long, murderous, and connective night. My personal favorite aspect of this film is Foxx’s gentleness, and how well he plays his role. I was fascinated with his character, obsessed if you will. He was utterly genuine, and the part that got to me the most was when he explained that his job was “temporary”, even though he had been doing it for 12 or so years. When he became stressed out or realized that he wasn’t moving on with his life, he would pull down the overhead flap on the drivers seat, and stare at a six by four picture of a beach; he called it his vacation. I was fascinated with his character because of how delicately he was constructed. The way he unfolded his Jimmy John’s sandwich, the way he couldn’t comprehend Cruise’s ability to kill a man, it all added up to the ideal, good-natured city guy. He’s the guy we all would like to get as a cab driver. I couldn’t think of anybody else better to play this role, too. Foxx has a look of sincerity in his eyes, and it’s evident in Collateral more than ever.

        And Cruise is great too. He’s ferocious, and his modified hair style accents his persona quite well. Experience and knowledge linger in his eyes when he stares his victims down. I’ve talked about the acting so much already because the movie is incredibly simple, and is fueled almost entirely by its performances. Michael Mann didn’t deliver us Heat. He didn’t zoom in on several of his character’s personal and lifelong dilemmas with a microscope, and didn’t entirely flesh out the plot line. But with these characters and the film’s running length, it works. It doesn’t feel long or simple, as much as it is. The only complaint I have about the film’s simplicity is that the ending is all too by-the-book typical. It turns the tables and leaves us with a mixed impression: a well-crafted film, with a dumbed down Hollywood studio type feel. And that’s where the film gets confused; it’s not supposed to end how it did. It’s supposed to end with the magnetic, character-driven brilliance that the rest of the movie had, because otherwise, it’s a pretty darn good movie. I think it’s safe to call Collateral a new term I have invented: a good “cruiser”. It’s a good vehicle because it’s mainly fueled by its performances, one of which is by Tom Cruise.

-Written by Cole Pollyea


Jesse's Thoughts: I liked Collateral a lot. It was fun watching Cruise play the villian. Director Michael Mann sets up some great action scenes and keeps the story moving. But at the end, it's all about Tom Cruise and Jamie Foxx's characters. Secret best buddies, searing adversaries, and gun toting renegades, these guys know how to entertain an audience during one wild night in the city of angels. 

BROKEN CITY

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

Director: Allen Hughes

Year: 2013

Cast: Mark Wahlberg, Russell Crowe, Catherine Zeta-Jones

Genre: Crime/Drama/Thriller

MPAA Rating: R

        Mark Wahlberg is gonna be a real busy guy this year. He's got four movies coming out, and so far, I've seen two of them. Although, I wasn't a fan of his April misfire entitled Pain & Gain (I just couldn't allow myself to be),  I did enjoy his earlier release which was probably the first feature length movie to come out in 2013. Yes I'm writing about Broken City, and yes it entertained me. It's not a great movie, but it is a pretty good one. I feel bad though, I mean I knew right away that it was gonna be in and out of the multiplexes faster than a speeding bullet. What you have here is a crime drama that came out in January (strike one), carries an extremely generic title (strike two), and recycles elements from so many other similar films in its respected genre (strike three). Broken City kinda reminded me of a movie that surfaced about 5 years ago (2008's Pride and Glory). Together these two pictures emulate a sort of greatest hits compilation of cinema's version of police corruption and crime. By now, I think we've pretty much seen it all before as moviegoers. But hey, there are a lot worse things you could be doing with two hours to kill than viewing a flick with one past Oscar nominee (Mark Wahlberg), and one past Oscar winner (Russell Crowe). 

        The story goes like this: Wahlberg plays N.Y.P.D. detective Billy Taggert. He crosses the line by playing the dirty cop role (he commits a crime which I can't reveal, that would be a spoiler) and loses his job. Fast forward 7 years later and he is now moonlighting as a photographer/private eye who takes photos of people in I guess, small positions of power. He then catches them in the act of committing for example, adultery and gives this information to the related subjects who are paying for his services. On the verge of going bankrupt (business is slow), Taggert gets a sudden call from the mayor of New York City (Russell Crowe, with perfectly combed hair). Crowe's character (Nicholas Hostetler) proposition's Taggert, the opportunity to make some nice dough. Taggert has to find out if Hostetler's wife (Catherine Zeta-Jones) is cheating on him. Better yet, he has to find out who the actual dude is that's involved (this is a juicy plot point I tell you). 

        So there it is, the gist of Broken City. Like every other three star movie, it has a few flaws here and there. One flaw is that it feels overly familiar. Originality is not its strong suit. In its defense though, it's not easy to make this type of film with original ideas, better yet cut it from original cloth. Every darn police T.V. show or film beat Broken City to the punch. The second flaw is what this movie tries to be. While I found it entertaining and anything but boring, I felt like I was watching an episode of N.Y.P.D. Blue mixed with a dreary daytime soap. It's an interesting combo that could easily make a lot of other critics pick their jaw up off the floor. I didn't mind it though. What drew me in eventually, was the crackling scenes of dialogue between Wahlberg and Crowe's characters. They have some great chemistry between them and I hope someday they'll team up again (I won't tell you whether they become adversaries or not in this movie. That's up to you, the viewer, to find out). Along with Wahlberg and Crowe, (not to mention strong supporting work from Barry Pepper as Crowe's future re-election opponent), everyone else in the cast also does a pretty substantial job (sans Alona Tal who tries hard but looks out of place amongst the other Hollywood heavyweights).

        In retrospect, this isn't the type of trashy potboiler that's gonna set the world on fire. It does have solid performances, it moves at a brisk pace, and it offers a couple of nifty twists and turns. Granted, it won't have a chance come awards season but I'm sure the people who worked on it know that. On the bright side, they can feel confident that the film was edited nice and tight. This is one of the main aspects that kept me involved throughout its entire running time. Whether you view it or not (and I hope you do), Broken City gets more than enough things right. I'm certain that when the movie ends it will beg you to keep this one notion in mind: if it ain't "broken," don't fix it.

-Written by Jesse Burleson

Cole's Thoughts: Considering that it's over halfway through the year, and I just saw this movie, originally released in January, I'm late in the game. I missed why this received 29% on Rotten Tomatoes, and I missed why this is so underrated. Broken City is a political crime movie that, while it isn't the most creative film to ever have been made, entertains, stirs, and engages the audience. The cast, made up of Mark Wahlberg, Russell Crowe, and others, make this movie intricate and rewarding. Another great aspect about this film is that it requires constant contemplation and doesn't spoon feed the motives and character identities. It's edited nicely, and it's an overall pleasurable moviegoing experience. It's title may be Broken City, but this sure isn't a broken film.

THE BIG WEDDING

Jesse's Rating: ★★ 1/2

Director: Justin Zackham 

Year: 2013

Cast: Robert De Niro, Katherine Heigl, Diane Keaton, Susan Sarandon

Genre: Comedy

MPAA Rating: R

        As I sat in the theater a couple of months ago, I saw a trailer for what I believed to be a fun Spring release with a big name cast (heck, two of them were in The Godfather Part II). Added to that, I guess wedding season is coming up (I'm not married but I did look it up) so I figured this film was being put in theaters at just the right time. Now that I have viewed this true exercise in scatterbrain utopia, I'm realizing all along that a bunch of stars involved in any type of movie, or should I say, in any type of movie genre, don't guarantee greatness. Granted, I was entertained by little snippets here and there, but I thought to myself, am I watching a movie or am I just viewing dailies? I couldn't really tell you to be honest.

        With this major gray area fluttering through my brain, I did however become enamored by the plot (or idea of a plot). It seemed original and sort of refreshing (so many films about weddings seem so arbitrary). It goes like this: Don Griffin (played emphatically by Robert De Niro) has an adopted son who plans on getting married in the next couple of days. His adopted son Alejandro (Ben Barnes), brings his biological mother all the way from Columbia to attend his wedding. In addition, his biological mother believes that marriage is sacred and that no one should ever ever get divorced. This forces De Niro's character to pretend to be married to his ex-wife (Ellie Griffin played by Diane Keaton) for the remainder of the weekend in which the wedding occurs. So you see, there is a storyline here. It's too bad that the execution is so darn sloppy.

        So not to be confused with one of  Robert De Niro's earliest films, The Wedding Party (1969), I am reviewing The Big Wedding which is not so much of a movie as it is a bunch of individual scenes crammed together inside all of 89 minutes. There are some funny moments and De Niro's character is a riot (he plays the ultimate ladies man/lousy ex-husband and father), but along with him, there are far too many other subplots and adult situations to keep up with. What's worse, the film jumps back and forth in no particular order to established these subplots and throw at the audience, the chaos everyone is going through. This all happens all in the course of maybe a day or two. And it all happens at, you guessed it, a wedding and the pre-wedding festivities. 

        The main problem here is that this blatant misfire is the type of vehicle that feels like it starts in the middle. Some movies do somewhat of an effective job at portraying this; common moviegoing knowledge says you have to figure out what has already happened in your imagination and try to keep up with the continuum of what is already going on. The Big Wedding sadly, is not one of those types of movies. For the life of me I couldn't figure out why certain characters were mad at each other or resented each other (if you want to know what I'm talking about, pay attention to Katherine Heigl's character, Lyla Griffin). Also, I got annoyed by a lot of scenes where the whole cast were feverishly trading dialogue with one another. It felt like they didn't talk to each other (or look each other in the eye) but kinda talked just to be heard. Or better yet, the banter between them in most scenes gave me the feeling that they were literally caught in a different movie all together. There were a couple of examples of this, but mainly, you have to watch the sequence where the whole family is having lunch on the patio of their big Connecticut house. Were every one's talking parts filmed individually? I wasn't sure. Scary thought, don't you think?

        All things considered, The Big Wedding has a couple of amusing moments (I can't get the image out of my head of De Niro lighting up and smoking two cigarettes at once); and it's an hour and a half of mindless fun. It's probably worth a poultry 5-7 bucks for a matinee showing. But really, if you go into the theater thinking you're watching an actual movie, then you're in for a "big" disappointment.

-Written by Jesse Burleson

THE GUILT TRIP

Jesse's Rating: ★★

Director: Anne Fletcher

Year: 2012

Cast: Barbara Streisand, Seth Rogen, Brett Cullen

Genre: Comedy

MPAA Rating: PG-13

        Heralding itself as a late 2012 fall release, The Guilt Trip is a harmless mix of mild comedy and drama. Unfortunately, it's also incredibly bland and misfires entirely under the weight of odd casting choices and a script that feels as if it was written spontaneously on napkins (I'm thinking it didn't take too long to complete a final draft). If I had to catagorize this film, I'd say it's a massively watered down version of Planes, Trains, and Automobiles (1987). That movie seemed to flesh out the two main characters (Steve Martin and John Candy) with thoughtful insight and brilliant comedic timing. The Guilt Trip, however, puts two actors as mother and son (Seth Rogan, Barbara Streisand who were never meant to work together) in situations where they can't generate laughs, can't sell dramatic scenes, and to put it mildly, strain mercilessly with the material. Now don't get me wrong, I like these two. If you place them in the right vehicles (separately of course) they are solid (Rogen in an R-rated raunch fest, Streisand in a PG-13 romantic comedy). But I think some studio executive thought they would make an interesting and effective screen pair. Well I'll say this, after sitting through The Guilt Trip, having these two stars trade dialogue in a movie makes about as much sense as skydiving out of a plane without a parachute. You catch my drift?

        The story begins with Rogen's character (Andy Brewster, a guy who invents cleaning products) flying all the way out from California to visit his mother (Joyce played by Streisand) in Newark, New Jersey. While there, Andy discovers a little more about his mom based on a secret she reveals to him (I don't want to give anything away but it has to do with how he got his birth name) and this information leads him to invite Joyce on a cross country road trip that goes back the opposite way, eventually winding up in San Francisco. I'm am a little curious though, I mean how does this guy have enough money for airfare and car rental (not to mention purchasing 10,000 of his products to ship and sell). You can tell early on that he's not too good of a salesman and it appears that he doesn't really make a commission at his job. Anyway, a road trip ensues, the two of them playfully bicker back and forth, and over the course of the journey, stop at different towns and cities so Andy can try to peddle his cleaning solution (a spray confection from non-poisonous resources I guess). Both characters are put in some mild amusing situations throughout their expedition (they wind up in a strip club, Joyce enters an eating contest, yawn yawn). But nothing too serious really happens (although Andy visiting his pregnant ex-girlfriend in Tennessee with her husband by her side, seems overly awkward to me) and that's the problem. The Guilt Trip is sadly an idea or a premise searching for a full length movie and based on what I saw, I'd say it could maybe pass as a half hour episode of a TV show. That's about it. This is pretty lightweight filmmaking people. What's up on screen could possibly float away.

        Along with the uneven feeling of the casting and just about everything else, the screenplay by Dan Fogelman (Crazy, Stupid, Love.) also seems to be somewhat of a culprit here. The actors don't have a lot to work with because the dialogue is achingly thin and lacks bite. You can see Rogen and Streisand trying to finish scenes by improvising badly (I know these two can act so I don't fault them). To add insult to injury, their actions are somewhat hypocritical. For instance, it seems obvious that Andy loves his mother unconditionally but feels very uncomfortable to be around her. Why then, would he invite Joyce to venture 3000+ miles with him in a car. Really? Also, why would Joyce, a women who is not into relationships and doesn't want to meet anyone, listen to some trashy romance novels on tape (with a lot of sexual innuendo I might add) and not only that, listen in the car while her son is driving. Are you serious?! Oh, and don't get me started on Streisand's character picking up a hitchhiker. It's one of the many comedic scenes in this flick that literally flop and die.

        With all the nonsense, I'd have to say that the ending to The Guilt Trip was really sort of touching. Again, like most of the movie, it felt pat and strained. However, it was well intentioned and seemed to do an okay job of wrapping things up. The other 85-plus minutes though, were a cringe fest of badly forced acting and uncomfortable situations between the characters.  Is it anywhere near the worst movie watching experience in my lifetime? Not entirely. But I now know that it's one "trip" I'll never take again.

-Written by Jesse Burleson

GANGS OF NEW YORK

Cole's Rating: ★★★ ½

Jesse's Rating: ★★★

Director: Martin Scorsese
Year: 2002
Cast: Leonardo DiCaprio, Daniel Day-Lewis, Cameron Diaz
Genre: Crime/Drama/History
MPAA Rating: R

        Gangs of New York is a darn masterpiece. I can't say that it's one of Scorsese's best though, I mean after all, we're talking about one of the finest directors of all time (and my personal favorite). Although history hasn’t really appealed to me much before, this movie truly made rivalry among gangs during pre-civil war seem very fascinating. When a film has the power to harness your attention, keep it for almost three hours, and appeal to you an idea that hadn’t previously sparked your interest before, then it sure did its job.

        Leonardo DiCaprio (Scorsese’s obvious protégé) stars here as an angry boy, whose father (played by Liam Neeson) was killed, along with the defeat of his “gang”, by notorious “Bill The Butcher”, who leads the “Native Gang”. Daniel Day Lewis stars as Bill, and is as formidable as characters get. He’s Cape Fear’s Robert De Niro. But even worse, he’s more violent. So when DiCaprio comes back to New York, where his father was killed, he vows to take revenge on “Bill The Butcher”. Along the way, he meets a pickpocket, independent woman played by Cameron Diaz, who sleeps around to get what she wants, and gains connections by doing so. Then we are reintroduced to some of his father’s old gang, as he tries to play it safe as Bill’s apprentice for awhile, and then begins to rebel. It’s brilliance is immeasurable because it adds so many different factors to DiCaprio’s struggle. The only problem with it, is that it almost seems as if it’s a game of cat and mouse for some time. But in reality, I not only see Gangs of New York as a movie that tells a story of a man’s vengeance on his father’s killer, but I see it as a movie that chronicles a man’s frustration with a man of infinite power; and I also see it as a movie that unfolds the lack of excitement in a man’s life that has it all. That’s why Gangs of New York is so good; it has so many aspects of the story to look at. And as a moviegoer, it’s a shame if you oversee those, because it all adds to the film’s epic denouement. So if you watch it, you should pay attention. And you know what, you better watch it twice, because with each viewing, you’ll get that much more.

        Another thing that makes Gangs of New York so epic is that it takes a minimalistic plot line (revenge on “Bill The Butcher”), and turns it into a grand story of deceit, betrayal, and ferocity. Of course, this couldn’t happen without Scorsese’s gentle hand; he has a gift. He’s directed over 20 feature films, and not a single one is bad. Seeing as Gangs of New York was a highly expensive film to make, he did a superb job. Several times over the course of an interview with Paul Schrader and in other places, Scorsese admits that he did the best that he could with Gangs of New York, but it just wasn’t exactly the end result that he was looking for because he was rushed to a deadline, and it didn’t play out exactly how he desired it to. Through my eyes, it’s something to marvel at. But through a brilliant director’s eyes, it may not be his true goal. In order to meet standards with Miramax, Scorsese had to cut his original film from four hours, to two and a half. And he admits that “there is no director’s cut, this is the director’s cut.” He looked back at his work, and kept cutting it piece by piece, and realized that what he needed to make it a good film lied within the scenes that he had. It takes a true director to be able to do something like this. Not every filmmaker wants to cut his work like this in order to meet “standards” or the public audience’s best interest. But it’s not that Scorsese wanted to do it, it’s that he knew that he had to, and made peace with the fact that it would make it a better film. In my eyes, that’s the type of director that any moviegoer wants guiding the actors on screen, in that time that we spend mesmerized at the films majesty, and obsessed with the ideas it has to offer. Or maybe that’s just me.

-Written by Cole Pollyea

Jesse's Thoughts: Gangs of New York is over two and a half hours long, but it doesn't feel that way. It's well paced and saddled with a great performance (Daniel Day Lewis) and a lousy one (Cameron Diaz). The story of the film, which is well told, is still a little bit on the simplistic side (especially for a Scorsese movie). However, as a tale of revenge and deceit, it certainly is an entertaining one. DiCaprio's underplayed screen presence gels well with Day Lewis's towering, nasty betrayal of Bill "the Butcher" (You can't take your eyes off of Day-Lewis, not even for a second). To put it mildly, this isn't Scorsese's best work, but even an okay movie by him is considered a masterpiece for most directors.