THE PURGE

Cole's Rating: ★ ½

Director: James DeMonaco
Year: 2013
Cast: Ethan Hawke, Lena Headey, Max Burkholder
Genre: Horror/Sci-Fi/Thriller
MPAA Rating: R

        Considering that it is compiled by a series of hopeful themes concerning humanity, concepts of futuristic violence, and Ethan Hawke, you'd think that my "two words to describe this movie" (the movie being The Purge) would be something other than laughably bad. However, thanks to the totally inept way in which the director and screenplay writers brought this movie to life, those two self-explanatory words, yet again, don't stand corrected. Translation: it was a total botch-job. With every predictable plot turn this thing took, the ninety minutes in which its encased in grew even longer. As the movie progressed, and more characters were introduced, I seriously considered the fact that it may be a really dark comedy. However, when the closing credits rolled around, I realized the job of making The Purge was simply put in the wrong peoples' hands, and was just presented at the wrong time (I think most Americans are smarter than what this movie makes us out to be at this stage in the game, though I could be wrong).
 
        Annually, there is one night devoted to a nationwide "Purge", meaning all crime is legal, because apparently this launched the United States almost totally out of all poverty, job issues, and crime in the near future. For Hawke's family, there should be no trouble making it through the night considering that his wealth is a result of him creating the ultimate safety home system for this particular reason. However, when the odds are put against his family, and their lives are questioned, what measures will they go to to survive?

        The truth is, I really did the movie justice with that plot description. It's so predictable that it's not thrilling at all, and the fact that the movie even takes its own plot seriously made me go numb. What's disappointing about The Purge is the opportunity that it beheld. As opposed to exercising a well done story to a satisfactory extent, it comes off as a big tease. Whether I say that it's silly or a misfire, bad or awful, self realizing or oblivious, it doesn't really matter. The quality of the movie is dependant upon how closely the viewer examines it as a cinematic exercise. My advice is this: if you are looking to enjoy it, don't pull out your magnifying glass because you'll realize that you just wasted an hour and a half.

-Written by Cole Pollyea

GHOSTS OF MARS

Jesse's Rating: ★★

Director: John Carpenter
Year: 2001
Cast: Ice Cube, Natasha Henstridge, Ice Cube, Pam Grier
Genre: Action/Horror/Sci-Fi
MPAA Rating: R

        Between early 2000 and late summer 2001, three movies about the planet Mars opened in theaters nationwide. Ghosts of Mars (the film I'm reviewing) happened to be the last one to come out (the other two were Mission to Mars and Red Planet, both being box office duds). Normally, this would be a disadvantage, but to put it mildly, this 17th feature by one of my favorite directors of all time (John Carpenter), happens to be a complete misfire entirely on its own. There isn't a whole lot that can save this movie. It copies a little off of Carpenter's own, much better work (the fight scenes are solid but they seem straight out of Big Trouble in Little China and the plot elements echo a little from the critically acclaimed Assault on Precinct 13) and, in general, it feels like a rushed production complete with a bland opening credits font. Now granted, what Carpenter did with his earlier films is justifiably good. They had a low budget look to them like this one, but they also had an admirable story, solid direction, reputable acting, and above all, a good script. Ghosts of Mars doesn't really have any of these things and, if it did, I was totally unaware after a mid-day viewing. I'm sad to say that this is a clear hack job from someone who I will always think of as a master of fear and thrill. Since "Mars," he has only made one more feature film in the past twelve years (The Ward). I genuinely hope that this misstep didn't shake his confidence, but I could be wrong.

        Projecting itself as an exercise with many unhinged flashbacks (heck, the whole hour and a half running time is told in one large flashback) and exhibiting a rushed sort of unpolished opening credits sequence (not to mention showing a rather cheap looking set design right off the bat), Ghosts of Mars tells the story of how the red planet is a colony and almost all of it is a liveable type of atmosphere for humans. A team of police officers led by Commander Helena Braddock (a wooden Pam Grier) venture to Mars and must take on a prisoner transfer (James Williams played by Ice Cube). While there, they discover that the planet is overrun by possessed humans (of an extreme violent nature) who sort of look like a cross between Linda Blair (The Exorcist) and zombies with lots of make-up. Like I said earlier, this flick is told in the form of flashbacks upon flashbacks with Carpenter using a lot of dissolves (fade ins and fade outs) that just add to the cheese factor. I know he's a better director than this, and I've seen what he's capable of. Maybe he didn't have total creative control. That, I guess, remains to be seen.

        With all the nonsense going on in "Mars," the one true bright spot might be the inflicted martial arts-inspired action sequences set to Carpenter's rather subdued heavy metal soundtrack. In terms of casting, I think Ice Cube (James 'Desolation' Williams) gave pretty much the best performance. Listen, the guy is no Laurence Olivier, but he fit his role like a glove and had a lot of fun with it. In the lead role, Natasha Henstridge (Lt. Ballard who is second in command) was okay despite coming off as a little arrogant and smug. As for the rest of the cast, well they pretty much phone their performances in. In a way, it seems kind of fitting for a movie this lazy and, well, this contrived.

        In retrospect, I can't, for the life of me, fathom why this motion picture took place on or had anything to do with Mars (I meant a really fake looking sound stage made to look like Mars). I mean, the whole premise was the defeating of and escape from crazily possessed, demonic entities. The red planet seemed like just a last minute background story to go along with the couple of other bad movies that it inspired. As for the plot letting us know that Mars is an okay location for human beings to survive on without proper space suits or helmets, all I gotta say is gimme a break! Having the cast walk around the planet this way just makes their surroundings seem much more fake. In general, Ghosts of Mars takes itself way too seriously to begin with. It's the type of disposable fluff that has "straight to DVD" written all over it. As for Carpenter, I don't know him personally, but I'm sure he recovered from this debacle. Basically, Ghosts of Mars didn't have a "ghost" of a chance at fulfilling his full potential as a renowned filmmaker.

-Written by Jesse Burleson

HALLOWEEN 4: THE RETURN OF MICHAEL MYERS

Jesse's Rating: ★★★

Director: Dwight H. Little
Year: 1988
Cast: Donald Pleasence, Ellie Cornell, Danielle Harris

Genre: Horror/Thriller

MPAA Rating: R

        As October 31st is steadily approaching, I have been quietly revisiting some of the random slasher flicks from the very popular series being the Halloween sequels and prequels. Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers, is a sequel that sort of stays faithful to the original, groundbreaking horror film from 1978. Although not as voyeuristic and shockingly effective as John Carpenter's low budget scream fest, "Return" has a similar look, similar feel, and garners the same production values also. It also has familiar types of set ups for the killer's dispatching of victims, and a cast of actors/actresses who are more charismatic (less paper thin) than in many other horror film knockoffs. Halloween 4 gets the job done and will satisfy a majority of the fans of this distance running series. It's a small hour and a half film with a B movie feel, but it doesn't try too hard to outdo anything that came before it. Honestly, this will never register as groundbreaking stuff. However, in its day, Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers was a financial success and staked its claim as the last recommendable horror sequel in my most humbled opinion. The best reasons to see this 1988 release on video: freshness in the way the script by Alan B. McElroy allows the film to make a smooth transaction from the previous installments, a plot that can hold the audience's attention without being too outlandish, and an ending that's surprising and ultimately terrifying. For my money, it has the same feeling of dread as the conclusion of Carpenter's pragmatic vision. The shame in all of the Halloween movies is that after the fourth entry, the series went steadily, or should I say freakishly, downhill. Rob Zombie tried to re-introduce everything with his startling new vision (Halloween in 2007 and H2: Halloween 2 in 2009) but then, for me, it was too little too late.

        Beginning with a quietly haunting opening credits sequence and appearing more as the first actual sequel as opposed to the 3rd one (Halloween II in 1981 took place in a hospital the whole time while Halloween III: Season of the Witch in 1983, had nothing to do with the Michael Myers character), "Return" eliminates the presence of heroine Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis as an actress, became a big star and didn't want to have anything to do with the series, though in the film, they state that her character died in a car accident) and concentrates heavily on masked killer Myers as he mysteriously comes out of a decade long coma (as in the original, Myers again escapes from a hospital and takes a long slog of a trip to get back to Haddonfield). When he decides to venture back to the small, defenseless Illinois town (after a long hiatus), chaos ensures and the corpses pile up. His main target is Strode's daughter, being the shy, fragile Jamie Lloyd (played by then newcomer, Danielle Harris). Thankfully, there is doctor Samuel Loomis (the always reliable and likable Donald Pleasence who looks badly burned from the conclusion of the 1981 nightmare) and a hard nosed Sheriff (Sheriff Meeker played by Beau Starr) who join forces to try and eliminate the out-of-control sicko. Oh and I almost forgot, the addition of the townspeople comprising a lynch mob to stop Myers again adds a certain level of perkiness to the proceedings. And as I mentioned earlier, the characters are likable in "Return" and they have a tongue and cheek way about them (Sasha Jenson as the high school jock and selfish ladies man is a nonchalant hoot).

        All in all, Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers is admittedly not the most innovative horror film around. However, its almost similar second cousin feel to the original Halloween means that it has just enough spunk to deliver what the most ardent fans of the series want. I just think of this flick as a horror exercise equivalent to a James Bond movie (all the Bond films seem similar in structure, but just think the comparison of the superior Dr. No to the serviceable Live and Let Die). Now that everyone's favorite holiday (who doesn't like Halloween?) is almost here, grab some candy corn, cut up your favorite jack o' lantern, and throw in a DVD copy (if you can find one) of this harmless bit of mild gore and rollicking suspense. Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers is no masterpiece, but it's a welcome "return" to horror sequel escapism.

-Written by Jesse Burleson

CARRIE (2013)

Jesse's Rating: ★★

Director: Kimberly Peirce
Year: 2013
Cast: Julianne Moore, Judi Greer, Chloe Grace Moretz
Genre: Drama/Horror
MPAA Rating: R

        Thus far, 2013 is proof that the concept of remaking classic films is probably the wrong thing to do. First, we got to witness a rather bland reboot of The Evil Dead. Now, we get another bland, lifeless, and unnecessary retelling of Brian De Palma's audacious and powerfully mesmerizing Carrie. I get it. I know why films are redone, the reason being to make money and to let a newer generation get to experience something similar to what went down over 30 years ago (blah, blah, blah). Listen, if these films didn't have an original copy that came before them, then maybe they'd be okay on their own. But the fact remains that The Evil Dead (1981) and Carrie (1976) already claimed their stake and to give them a second interpretation, to me, is just sacrilege.

        Coming off as a shot-for-shot newbie and having the majority of the actors actually looking age appropriate, Carrie examines a shy, telekinetic girl (Carrie White played by Chloe Grace Moretz who in every scene, seems to have her mouth gaping wide open) who is picked on by her classmates at school, has a religiously defiant mother (Julianne Moore as Margaret White), and out of sheer kindness (and realized guilt), gets invited to the prom (by the most popular boy in high school). As the film progresses, we don't quite no why, but Miss White has inherent powers by which she can move objects with her hands (the hand motions by Moretz aren't quite believable, sorry). When she realizes she can't take the bullying from her fellow classmates and the bible thumping crassness of her mother, Carrie goes a little bonkers (if you seen the original you know the story) and well, you get the drift. What hurts this movie and may have dented the original (what was the only fault of the 1976 version) is the way Carrie is treated from beginning to end. You feel sorry for her as a character and there is never any resolve when the flick comes to fruition. There is never a happy ending for her and you never get to empathize with her plight. Like I said earlier, I dig the original. But I disregard this buried (no pun intended) aspect of it.

        All explanations aside, with this current 2013 release, we get performances that are second rate (with the exception of Julianne Moore who plays Carrie's mom and Alex Russell who plays a slightly different version of John Travolta's character who is Billy Nolan), direction that lacks the swooping camerawork of Brian De Palma (even though it was helmed by the critically acclaimed Kimberly Peirce), and a lack of plodding creepiness that made the original such a 70's relic. Even the musical score has been modernized and filtered through an MTV type vibe. Yes, this version is much more violent and its lead does some pretty demonic things, but there's no sense of awe or dreamlike intensity that made the first one so mystifying (the opening scene in the original, within seconds, trumps the new version). Also, the aspect of 70's culture feels more tailored to this type of flick than having it take place in present day (the new Carrie has the ever popular iPhone/YouTube phase going on which I know is keeping with the times, but seems overly emphasized). In hindsight, this is a faithful yet laughably unfaithful rendition of Carrie and it's far from memorable or compelling. It hinders itself disposable and has the quintessential feel of every reboot you've ever witnessed (this is not a good thing). With good remakes (which are few and far between), the director adds a new twist or something more than an almost shot for shot retelling (sadly, this one comes pretty close to that). This new Carrie is on line with the type of modern horror films in which sterile, stylized blood and gore drips all over the screen while barely scarring the audience. Maybe it's me but I miss 70's and 80's horror films. They're grittier, eerier, and because of the time passed, grainier. Unless someone figures out how to reinvent the horror genre, we're gonna get scary movies that come off the world's biggest artificial assembly line. But hey, they're probably gonna keep making money because people wanna jump out of their seat (or think they're actually achieving that reaction).

        In retrospect, Carrie didn't need to be re-imagined (even though it kind of wasn't). It comes from the mind of someone who is too good for this type of stylized hack job. It's as if Kimberly Peirce (director of the powerful Boys Don't Cry) was so frightened that she wouldn't get another directing opportunity and had to settle for this one. I'm hoping that she gets back to what she does best which is making hard hitting dramas based on fascinating true stories. She does get the set design right, though, because the White family home in the original Carrie seems like a dead-on replica of this one. And Julianne Moore does harness the same psychotic intensity brought on by Piper Laurie in 76'. But alas, there's a moral to all this. Don't remake a great film when you know it's better to remake a bad one. To end this review, I'll leave you with the famous line from both Carries which is, "they're all gonna laugh at you!" Yeah, they're all gonna laugh at you, the viewer, if you think this is a serviceable motion picture.

-Written by Jesse Burleson

Cole's Take on CAPTAIN PHILLIPS

Cole's Rating: ★★ ½

Jesse's Rating: ★★★ ½

Director: Paul Greengrass

Year: 2013

Cast: Tom Hanks, Barkhad Abdi

Genre: Action/Adventure/Biography
MPAA Rating: PG-13

I often hear the phrase, “don’t judge a book by its cover”. It’s a metaphoric statement to be sure, but in the case of film, this can translate to “don’t judge a movie by it’s title, year, cast, director, or what have you”. It’s too broad a statement to ring true, so when people asked why I wasn’t going to like the new Tom Hanks movie, Captain Phillips, (because I told them that I predicted it to not be that great of a movie) for me to explain to them that I was judging it before seeing it was futile. Their response was “you can’t judge a book by its cover”. Yet as I write before you, the readers, today, I find myself recycling the words I said weeks ago, before the film’s release. “The trailer says it all. It probably masks a good performance by Tom Hanks, but the plot is too fleshed out in the description. My money says that it doesn’t have much more to offer than what it purports, which isn’t immensely spectacular, so therefore, I don’t believe it will be that great of a film.”

Captain Phillips chronicles the week (or so) long journey of Captain Phillips, from the superficial conversation about the small troubles back at home with his wife and kids to a hostage situation with Somali pirates on a freighter ship in the middle of the ocean. If you’ve seen the trailer, I’m telling you nothing new, and that’s this movie’s major flaw.

 
Director Paul Greengrass is quite fond of his shaky camerawork. I’d stick my neck out and say that it gave me a major headache in his previous The Bourne Ultimatum, but here, I found it quite effective. It matched the pure terror of the situation, and best of all, it felt documentary-like. Along with the effortless way in which Hanks plays your ordinary guy, the first thirty or forty minutes is captivating, legitimate stuff. Then after the initial entry, the movie takes a plot turn that we all knew was coming. The Somali pirates start to press hard, and then the film successfully turns into an exhilarating motion picture. With steady, controlled handle of the cast and knowledge of the plot, Greengrass keeps ahold of the reigns for a good chunk of time, making this scary, exciting, and worthwhile. 

But then after it hits the hour and twenty minutes (or something like that, this movie is long) mark, it starts to deflate like a balloon, sucking all life, vitality, and exuberance out of it slowly until the only thing it’s got dragging the weight is Hanks. Considering all this, my first comment when the movie was over was “They should just give Hanks the Oscar right now.” And I meant every word of it. Mr. Hanks is one of the most talented actors in the industry, without question. He possesses the so coveted ability that is creating an invisible emotional connection with the audience, and his films all benefit because of it. From scene one, the thing that struck me first was believability. Hanks paints the images on his face and in his words more vividly than nearly any artist could on paper. 

What’s unfortunate is that he couldn’t totally save it. What can I say? The script just ran out of ideas, becoming more tedious and tedious as it went. I found myself yearning to walk out of the theater after some time because I knew how it was going to end, and after the repeated continuation of scenes inside the lifeboat, I had had enough. I knew what was coming (it’s got Hollywood written all over it, hint hint), and I wanted it to either end with a bang or end sooner. To my misfortune, it didn’t. The expected and necessary peak of the climax never quite came.

 
Considering that it harbors a cast that truly hits it home here (including the newbie Somali actors that protruded in a casting call to secure a well-deserved spot in the cast), it’s a crying shame that I was let down by Captain Phillips. Keeping that in mind, I will say this, though: it’s probably the best two and a half star rating that I’ve ever given a movie. It’s moving enough, it’s well-shot enough, and it’s enjoyable enough. But it’s just not good enough.

-Written by Cole Pollyea

Click HERE For Jesse's Review

Jesse's Take on CAPTAIN PHILLIPS

Jesse's Rating: ★★★ ½

Cole's Rating: ★★ ½

Director: Paul Greengrass

Year: 2013

Cast: Tom Hanks, Barkhad Abdi

Genre: Action/Adventure/Biography
MPAA Rating: PG-13

        Paul Greengrass seems like the ideal director to helm a movie about real life dramatizations. This can involve anything from terrorism to hijacking to the rifle shooting of a group of protesters (events or happenings that categorize some of his work). He is a former journalist and that may explain some of his career choices when it comes to various film projects. Of the three or more pictures I've seen of his, my understanding is that he likes to direct material that is based on true events (world news related, 9/11, you know, that sort of thing). Using hand held cameras and showcasing a sort of documentary feel, Greengrass picks unknown actors for a lot of roles in his films. He also shoots a flick in a way that allows these actors to have a smooth, unassuming style of delivering their lines. Scenes in his movies (like the near perfect United 93) have a real life feel to them. They almost suggest that you're not watching a movie but actual live content as it happens. This trademark is wholly evident in the Tom Hanks vehicle Captain Phillips. It's a 2013 release in which everyone seems overly natural on screen (this is a good thing). It's also one of the best pictures of the year (so far). With a superb, perfectly plotted opening 30 minutes and a sense of raw fear that accompanies the majority of that time, "Phillips" gets off to a stupendous start. What keeps it from perfection is a slightly bogged down second act in which the filmmakers sort of run out of steam. "Phillips" involves the act of kidnapping and piracy. With this notion in my mind, you'll find that a lot of the scenes between the kidnappers and the hostage seem like unnecessary filler. It doesn't help that the conversations between them are terse and involve minimal dialogue. Overall though, I'd say that this choppy (yet effective) nailbiter ends on a riveting, amped up note. It gives Hanks a chance to give one of his "Hanksian" performances (I didn't make up that term by the way) and it provides audiences a reason to believe that Greengrass is one of the most accurate, innovative voices in American cinema. If the film has any flaws, it would be the almost too by-the-book style of explaining true events and the aforementioned selected hostage/pirate episodes. From a director's standpoint, that sort of thing seems admirable. From an audience's viewpoint, it can be deemed monotonous and repetitive.

        Beginning without any opening credits (that's a Greengrass trademark) and featuring a small appearance by Catherine Keener (considering that she had a minor role, it would've been nice to see more of her in the movie), Captain Phillips tells the true account of Captain Richard Phillips (a straight faced Tom Hanks). He is a merchant mariner whose ship, the Maersk Alabama, gets hijacked by Somali pirates in 2009. Their first order of business is getting on board and holding people up with machine guns. Then, they ultimately want the insurance money (or as they say, they want millions). When these pirates don't get what's coming to them, they eventually get on a small vessel boat and take the Hanks character with them as a hostage (this is where the movie loses some of its dramatic power before regaining it in the final, explosive ten minutes).

        That's the overall gist of "Phillips" and with films like Bloody Sunday and the aforementioned United 93 (and this one as well), Greengrass likes to include a lot of faces that you've never seen on screen before. He squeezes terrific performances out of all of them and, in my mind, this takes the star power away and lets the viewer concentrate more on the story. This technique also makes a lot of the material seem more like real life (as mentioned earlier in the review). With Captain Phillips, a lot of the actor's lines seem improvised. And what he does with the casting of the antagonists (the hijackers with Barkhad Abdi as their leader) is absolutely amazing. These gentlemen had never acted in a movie before and got picked out of a group of 700 people (in an open casting call). Their screen presence is undeniably electric (the looks in their eyes are searing) and they hold their own with a 30 year acting veteran like Hanks. Speaking of star Tom Hanks, with the casting of unknowns being the director's strength, you wonder if the addition of him as the lead would hurt the proceedings. Honestly, I don't think it matters because this dude is a reputable icon and a darn good actor anyway (not an easy combination to pull off). Playing the "everyman" to perfection, he can undeniably get away with it because he effortlessly embodies the character of Richard Phillips. He sort of underplays this performance in certain spots and acts with a slew of dead on mannerisms (he only emotes when needed). With the exception of him clearly campaigning for an Oscar in the last few minutes of the film, I'd say that this is one of his 5 best screen performances of all time (especially concerning believability). I saw the actual Captain Richard Phillips on the news a week ago, and Hanks nails his persona. He looks like him, has the same facial expressions, and his accent is dead-on.

        All in all, the real life story of Captain Phillips was the perfect film for an accomplished director like Paul Greengrass and a Hollywood goody goody like Hanks (watch him in the last scene, not many films showcase stuff like this) to make. It has its ups and downs, but my overall observation is that it has what a lot of films today lack, which is the natural gift of sophistication. It also meets the basic Oscar criteria because of its association with its multiple Academy Award winner and the addition of its heroic true story value. You could also throw in historical value, too, as we all know that the Academy craves their antiquity. In its possibly overlong running time (it's not significant enough to fault it for), Captain Phillips is an accurate, professionally told, true story, an "everyman" drama, and a directorial showcase all rolled up into one. Oh yeah, and it's a solid action adventure with good sea legs, too. I always wanted to say that.

-Written by Jesse Burleson

Click HERE For Cole's Review

THE COLOR OF MONEY

Cole's Rating: ★★★★

Jesse's Rating: ★★★ ½

Director: Martin Scorsese
Year: 1986
Cast: Paul Newman, Tom Cruise, Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio
Genre: Drama/Sport
MPAA Rating: R

        To my mind, there's only a few things that can happen when veteran actors Tom Cruise and Paul Newman team up with the wildly talented director Martin Scorsese and Richard Price, the screenplay writer of Clockers, to shoot a film about pool hustling. Considering all possible outcomes, and what any given critic may say, I'm going to plant both feet firmly on the ground and say that The Color of Money is one of the greatest motion pictures of all time. It is, in every respect, a four star film. Why it doesn't resonate this way with most viewers is beyond me, but considering that I am an avid fan of the director, and the fact that I've seen nearly every one of his films, I'd say that my expectations for the quality of his movies are greater than others. It would be an understatement to say that I was impressed with his 1986 feature film, The Color of Money.

         Considering that it purports itself to be the sequel of The Hustler, a pool hall film from the 60's that starred no other than Paul Newman himself, I'd say that The Color of Money doesn't feel like a second entry in the slightest bit. In fact, I'd hardly say that stands behind Goodfellas in Scorsese's directorial fame (though the fact remains that it does). By making this movie, he dug into a dirty, dingy, depressed atmosphere of reality that he hasn't explored in his other films such as Casino, After Hours, Bringing Out the Dead, Mean Streets, or Who's That Knocking at My Door. However, his directorial bravado, superb camerawork, and masterful handle of the material scene by scene clearly show that he isn't lost without a map from his last visit.

        Before even watching this movie, the pure description of what goes on in it is enough to make any film buff salivate. "Fast" Eddie Felson (Newman) "returns" as a liquor store/poolhall owner whose eye is caught by Vincent Lauria (Cruise), a cocky, sharp shooting pool player, whom Eddie uses to feel rejuvenated in the world of pool. In translation, Eddie takes Vincent under his wing, training and preparing him for a big, upcoming pool tournament, only to discover the intuitions of the sport resurfacing inside of him.

        The brilliance of this film concerns more than just the captivating storyline, to be sure. The script contains several fascinating layers of character and character relationship development. An example of this is evident in the unique and thought-provoking sexual tension between the character of Vincent's girlfriend and Eddie (this is just one good example). While the movie didn't necessarily require this aspect, it packs that in to increase the amount of mental and emotional impact on the viewers; it's not just about pool. It's an intense, involving character study that intrigues on multiple levels.

        Capping the film off with a musical score that money just can't buy (no reference there) and camerawork trademarks of his own, director Martin Scorsese has managed to do it yet again. He illustrates these characters and the events that they live through in such detail that I, as the audience member, am effected every time. The scenes of definition and significance are so potent that I feel the emotions that they both emit and subside. I'm constantly involved with what they are doing, and what they are feeling, and there's no one else to thank than the man behind the camera. The Color of Money is a film of infinite quality, intrigue, and mastery. Aside from other of the beyond talented director's masterful works, there's nothing quite like it.

-Written by Cole Pollyea

Jesse's Thoughts: The Color of Money is Scorsese personified. It was the first time he ever worked with Tom Cruise and Paul Newman (heck, it was the first time Cruise and Newman worked together). As a sort of sequel to The Hustler, "Money" fashions a bleak, dirty fascination with pool halls and hustling. The plot is a little thin, but again, this is a Scorsese movie. It's about the exuberant scenes of freewheeling direction complete with Cruise's Vincent Lauria coming off as a pool shark's version of a Samurai warrior. This is probably my second or third favorite flick by Marty. The only thing that bugged me was the abrupt and sort of not thought through ending. I wanted more but alas, two hours of poignancy and ironic bliss is substantially good enough. The Color of Money essentially has two Hollywood screen legends and who I like to call "the master" behind the camera. It's a set of matches made in movie heaven. 

RUNNER RUNNER

Jesse's Rating: ★★★

Director: Brad Furman
Year: 2013
Cast: Justin Timberlake, Ben Affleck, Anthony Mackie
Genre: Crime/Drama/Thriller
MPAA Rating: R

        I'm going to start this review off by saying that Justin Timberlake is in way over his head (I'm not just talking about the character he plays) in Runner Runner. The first movie I ever saw him in was Alpha Dog and he was excellent, you know, as a supporting player. Now we have him occupying one of the lead roles (along with the effectively slumming Ben Affleck). I gotta say that watching this dude assist in carrying a feature length film can sometimes be very frustrating. If you can get passed the fact that he looks about 15 years old and deals with heavy handed thugs from Costa Rica (along with hard nosed, manipulative FBI agents), then Runner Runner might be your spiked cup of tea. What we have here is a shallow, empty, and implausible farce of a movie (I find it hard to believe that the events that take place are rumored to be the make up of a true story) but somehow, someway, an entertainingly bad one at that. Its director, Brad Furman, directs with the slickness equivalency of an oily racetrack. I've seen his last film (The Lincoln Lawyer) and I totally knew what to expect. Like "Lawyer," Furman supplicates Runner Runner with a juicy script (lots of zingers, too), a nice brisk pace, and decent performances (even if the actors involved are a little miscast). This exercise is basically the movie equivalent of the best fast food you ever ate. It's not healthy, it goes right through you, and it has extra cheese. I'm gonna hold my breath and recommend it for its witty, smart aleckness in the script and its continued effort to get the viewer, to like it no matter how silly things unfold. Like I said earlier, Timberlake strainfully appears to be in uncharted territory with the demands of his role (in this beautifully locale-furnished setting). But the phrase, "it's only a movie," is unequivocally on his side.


        Taking place in two different countries (two different climates, too) and moving the plot along with total aplomb (within the first, I don't know, twenty minutes, everything is set in motion) Runner Runner tells the story of Richie First (apparent A-lister Justin Timberlake), a student at Princeton University who almost gets kick out because of his association with online gambling (he basically turns other students on to it through his own site and then gets a cut when they win anything). He can't pay his tuition without this money he earns so he decides to do one last game on his own. He does this in order to make a profit of $60,000, which should cover everything for one year (woah, college is expensive). When he gets cheated by an off shore con artist name Ivan Block (played with a slimy urgency by Ben "I don't look like a guy named Ivan" Affleck) and loses all of his supposed winnings, Richie gets on a plane and confronts the cheater (self made millionaire) and asks him for his money back. Ivan returns his winnings but also wants him to stay in Costa Rica and work for him (of course, without this plot element how could the movie go on?). From then on, Runner Runner almost completely leaves the online poker element and goes straight into the fallible world of marginalized greed and deception. To give the film some added dramatic heft, Timberlake's Richie is also being followed by an FBI agent named Shavers (played by Anthony Mackie who steals all the scenes he's in and creates a character you keep wanting to see). Shavers wants Richie to help him take Ivan down. If he succeeds, he won't go to jail and will indeed get back safely to the states.


        Throughout the film's moderate length (an hour and a half plus change), I was fitfully entertained (not by plausibility but by sure dimwittedness). The ending, well, that was my favorite part. Let's just say that the film's conclusion, although a little twangy, will have you frolicking in your seat (possibly laughing heartily as well).


        When it's all said and done, Runner Runner is kind of predictable (The trailer pretty much explains most of the movie. The rest you can easily figure out on your own), but it's fun, breezy, and downright cheeky (especially when you have Mackie delivering crackling dialogue every time he's on screen). Honestly, just when you think things might head downhill, this film picks up the pace and willingly takes you with it. It's definitely not a movie going experience you would (or should) take seriously (there's a lot of times when I thought to myself, "yeah right"), but if you (gulp) decide to take a chance on Runner Runner, you just might like it like it.

-Written by Jesse Burleson

HALLOWEEN 2

Jesse's Rating: ★★

Director: Rob Zombie
Year: 2009
Cast: Malcolm McDowell, Tyler Mane, Sheri Moon Zombie, Scout Taylor-Compton
Genre: Horror
MPAA Rating: R

          Without a doubt, I applaud Rob Zombie's vision when it comes to making movies. I read somewhere that he was a huge fan of the horror genre when he was a kid. It's obvious that he pays homage to them ever since he made his first film, 2003's House of 1000 Corpses (it's also obvious that based on the film I'm now reviewing, he seems to really like the darkest images of the Halloween holiday). "Corpses" upset me, but in a good way. It's a very effective, unsettling sort of evil stepchild to the masterpiece which is The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. So ever since I saw this underrated debut, I was eagerly awaiting his next slasher/horror experiment. He hasn't totally delivered since then (The Devil's Rejects was mildly amusing, however) but like I said earlier, he is a visionary filmmaker who would rather reinvent or re-imagine a classic as opposed to just remaking it.


        Rob Zombie also has plenty of trademarks. His films always seem to have a carnival-like atmosphere complete with dirty, grubby, grungy, and totally devilish characters. And although it seems like Halloween II (the film I'm reviewing) appears to take place in present day, that doesn't stop him from throwing in a 60's or 70's AM radio tune as background music. Oh, and he generally uses the same cast members in all of his endeavors (notably his wife, Sherri Moon Zombie) and he loves to film scantily clad women from the front and the back.


        Not expecting anything different from a Zombie flick this time around, I watched his 2009 remaking (I meant re-imagining) of 1981's Halloween II. Where as that 1981 sequel had famed killer Michael Myers terrorizing a Haddonfield, Illinois hospital the same night after the events of 1978's original Halloween occurred, this time around, he has the brutal events take place exactly one year later after all the murder and mayhem from 2007's inaugural rebooting of the franchise. Halloween II is similar to its early 80's predecessor in only one really obvious way. It announces to the audience a unconditionally situation changing aspect of the plot line. Other than that, they seem like two completely different films altogether. I'm not saying that Rick Rosenthal's (director of Halloween II (1981)) early effort was a masterstroke (they're were some interesting and quite effective murder sequences, however) but it is, to this day, a much better, more focused vehicle than Zombie's loud, excess-ridden mess of a movie.

        He tries his darnedest to grab and enthrall the audience, but it doesn't ring true. The gore and gratuitous violence are mainly for shock value and don't really generate many scares. I do give him credit ,though, for making a valiant effort to give the Myers character an admirable back story, especially in his auspicious 2007 reboot. Let's just say that when this 2009 Michael Myers goes on a killing spree, it's as random as ever. You know that he is headed for Haddonfield (it feels like it takes him forever to get there, too) but on the way, he commits so many random kills (a few people at a strip club, a couple of farmers in a truck, a couple of party goers in a small van, etc.,etc...) that it feels like Zombie needed these scenes to fill the movie out so that it could turn out to be an unnecessarily long running time of two hours. Then there is the acting (and the overacting) by the entire cast (with the slight exception of Malcolm McDowell as Dr. Loomis) which is mediocre at best (enough "f words" in this exercise to fill a 100 page script, I'm thinking). Granted, this horror film has got all the usual cliches, plenty of annoying hap hazard screams, and a huge 6 foot 9 yet unintimidating actor to play Myers (played by Tyler Mane whose greatest gift to the acting world is grunting every time he stabs a victim). Once more, its got director Rob Zombie filming flashbacks and present day hallucinations. They are between the Michael Myers character and his dead/alive mother along with a younger (child) version of himself. This seems like a nifty idea at first but dissipates with every interrupted, over-the-top bloodletting toward the most annoying (not to mention mean spirited) set of victims a slasher picture could ever be crammed with.

        When it's all said and done, in reality, the Halloween franchise should have stopped years ago. But hey, Rob Zombie said it best in a documentary when he reiterated that horror fans are so thirsty for more meaningless blood and gore that they'll do anything to watch another installment (even if it's as lousy and as lumbering as this one). Well Rob, you maybe right. Halloween III is probably coming soon to a disillusioned theater near you.

-Written by Jesse Burleson

DON JON

Jesse's Rating: ★★★

Director: Joseph Gordon-Levitt
Year: 2013
Cast: Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Julianne Moore, Tony Danza
Genre: Comedy/Drama
MPAA Rating: R

        As I recall, the last Joseph Gordon-Hewitt movie I saw was Looper. With a little prosthetic make up and a slight voice alteration, he willfully imitates Bruce Willis. Now, in his directorial debut (not the first film he's directed but this is the first that's not a short), he looks and acts slightly more like a young Robert De Niro (sans make up, its gotta be the smirk and the mannerisms). Don Jon (the flick I'm reviewing) is a quirky little movie that is interesting and amusing (not to mention foul-mouthed, crass, and overly sexual). To Gordon-Levitt's credit, it works because of him. His direction is swift, sassy, and for the first half, unique in the way it dictates the rhythms of the actors/cuts through music and narration. Along with the solid directorial effort he shows here, he's also become a fully accomplished actor that specializes in creating different and interesting (multi-layered) characters.

        Muscle-chested, full of road rage tendencies and cleanliness habits, his Jon Martello, Jr. is a study of one man's inability to formulate a relationship (with a woman) because he would rather watch pornographic material on the Internet. He's an unwealthy playboy (that's why his two best friends call him quote unquote, "Don Jon"), a ladies man, and a churchgoing type all rolled up into one. He's proud of his clean apartment and, I guess, doesn't cook (that explains why he mostly eats at his parent's house). As I said earlier, Martello, Jr. has a bit of a temper from time to time and probably gets it from his dad (Jon Sr. played by Tony Danza who sheds his Who's The Boss character's image by spewing a ton of profanity). His sister doesn't talk and basically is on her phone all the time. Then there's Jon Jr.'s mother who wants so bad for him to be in a relationship, get married, and have kids. Basically for most of the proceedings, Don Jon details three things: Gordon-Levitt's (Martello, Jr.) unusual relationship with his family (he and his dad love to rock the wife beaters at the dinner table), his obsession with watching pornographic movies, and his pursuit of a "dime" of a girl that he meets at a dance club (Scarlett Johansson giving a solid performance as Barbara Sugarman (she gets the Jersey accent down pat)). And if you've only seen the trailer, this movie as a whole can be a little misleading as it gets closer to its conclusion. Don Jon ventured down a different path than I initially thought it would. The reason: a supporting role played by Julianne Moore (Esther) kinda changes things up a bit. She plays a sulking widow who befriends Gordon-Levitt's character giving him insight into his admitted condition.

        All and all, Don Jon is fun for most of the way. It is the type of film that will cause you to laugh nervously because you feel guilty for enjoying it. Its only fault may be the way it ends things so abruptly and without a enough of a satisfying conclusion (the flick went from music video mayhem to a rom com indie look). I will recommend it, however, for Joseph Gordon-Levitt alone. He is able to nail down any character he plays and with a slight nudge from outside forces (any male cast member from Jersey Shore comes to mind), he creates Martello, Jr. completely out of thin air. He's a darn good actor and his future A-list status is fully assured. As for Don Jon, it may turn off certain types of moviegoers. If you are of the easily offended, I would advise against seeing it (the innuendo is off the charts). If you don't mind your jaw dropping from time to time with the occasional guilty chuckle or snort, Don Jon might be the "Don" Perignon of sex comedies.

-Written by Jesse Burleson

MANHUNTER

Cole's Rating: ★★ ½

Director: Michael Mann

Year: 1986

Cast: William Peterson, Kim Greist, Joan Allen, Brian Cox

Genre: Crime/Mystery/Thriller

MPAA Rating: R

        Manhunter feels as if one put a large amount of effort into it, so I almost feel bad saying that it was a large-scale disappointment. I thought that the guy who churned out Heat and Collateral could make a satisfying entry into the “Hannibal Lecter” narrative (?), but I was wrong. Everything about Manhunter feels “poor”, and I’m not talking about the budget. Brian Cox is the poor man’s Anthony Hopkins, just like how William Peterson is the poor man’s Jodie Foster, just how the plot of this thing is like a train that runs out of gas. As I watched the movie, I felt like if I wanted to like it, I would have had to put a hole in my pockets, but instead of doing so, I stand up proud for the predecessor (that actually came after it’s release), The Silence of the Lambs.

        Considering that it clocks in at two long hours, this exercise feels like a drawn out episode of CSI. It contains nowhere near the amount of psychological layers that it should, and the plot has more holes than an episode of Scooby Doo! Where Are You?. In fact, in terms of simplicity, I’d say that by that comparison, my judgment stands uncorrected. 

        Mann directs this whole picture with such hope. As the viewer, I felt it too. For the majority of the plot development (oh, I forgot to mention that it’s basically the same plot as The Silence of the Lambs with a few twists), I kept waiting and waiting. “When’s this thing gonna take off?”, I thought. Finally, the excitement came, but with a price. The stupidity of the film magnified to the point of discomfort. 

        Does this have any assets? Of course. It builds up well, doesn’t leave the viewers behind too much on development, and it offers a premise that is original, but subtle (as you’ll find). It doesn’t boast its creativity like “Lambs” did, even though it really should have considering the conclusion. It’s serviceable, per say, but when it comes down to it, it’s standing weakly at second in line.

-Written by Cole Pollyea

Cole's Take on GRAVITY

Cole's Rating: ★★★

Jesse's Rating: ★★★

Director: Alfonso Cuarón

Year: 2013

Cast: Sandra Bullock, George Clooney

Genre: Drama/Sci-Fi/Thriller
MPAA Rating: PG-13

             In a world where basically every imaginable thriller has been made, Gravity is a breath of fresh air (ha). It exercises its unique wings and flies up, up, up (I'm done now). However, since there are so many thrillers that require the audiences full engagement (which most don't quite get), it's hard to make a good one. Open Water is a perfect example of a movie that is totally involving. Sure, it's not perfect, but it gets everything right from the beginning to end as far as script goes. Despite its inability to do this, Gravity gets my recommendation because of a few things. One, it is remarkably well shot and filmed. The claustrophobic feeling of being stuck in outer space translated to pure fear thanks to incredibly realistic visual effects and applaud worthy camerawork. Two, it harbors a cast that surely doesn't stand us up. And three, it's original, exciting, and fast-paced. I'd say that for the most part, job well done.

        Sandra Bullock and George Clooney are excellent here as two astronauts who encounter violent debris from a Russian missile strike on a satellite has caused a mass of destruction and is headed there way. They are told to abort the mission, but when time runs out and they haven't done so yet, there are cast into space and are devastatingly against the odds.

        While it lost the pretentiousness that definitely anchored the obviously commemorated 2001: A Space Odyssey, the director of this motion picture seemingly didn't have the guts to make it a true knockout. A drastic alteration to the conclusion of the film would have made it far more emotionally moving, and understandably so (lack of elaboration is a cause for no spoilers). However, he does a nice job of keeping everything moving at a brisk pace, and all of the scenes are shot very well. Director Alfonso Cuarón directs scenes with exuberance; I felt an invisible gun held to my head and heard the words "get involved" while I watched this film, but this came with a catch. In most similar situations, the victim would want to refuse or resist the antagonists' oppression, but here, I didn't want to resist, and I don't think that he is an antagonist. I think that he is a talented filmmaker that had to put up with a cop out ending from the script.

        Here's the bottom line: see Gravity. It's a good film. It's a great way to spend an exciting hour and a half with your pals.  However, unlike some of its predecessors (Apollo 13, "Space Odyssey", Open Water, Alien, etc.), this is not a revolutionary step in the sci-fi industry. Twenty bucks of my money says that it won't win any Academy Awards either (possibly with the exception of special effects). Be that as it may, I anticipate future work from the clearly talented filmmaker.

-Written by Cole Pollyea
   
Click HERE For Jesse's Take on GRAVITY

Jesse's Take on GRAVITY

Jesse's Rating: ★★★

Cole's Rating: ★★★

Director: Alfonso Cuarón

Year: 2013

Cast: Sandra Bullock, George Clooney

Genre: Drama/Sci-Fi/Thriller
MPAA Rating: PG-13

        Mainly, the only actors that appear in the 2013 sci-fi release, Gravity, are George Clooney and Sandra Bullock. They share top billing but in the end, this is Bullock's show. She gives a stunning and seething performance as Dr. Ryan Stone, a Mission Specialist who gets caught in a violent (outer atmosphere) debris storm that destroys her shuttle and sends her floating into space. With the help of astronaut Matt Kowalski (played by George Clooney), she is brought back to safety (by way of a tether) and the two of them must find a way to get back to Earth. They have limited resources (the rest of the crew are dead and Stone's oxygen pack is waning) and can't get any type of radio transmission.

        This is basically the set up for the rest of the proceedings. My overall view: Gravity is pretty good, but not great. From the opening shot, right away it feels like the director is teasing you with a teeny tiny homage to 2001: A Space Odyssey (a space shuttle floats across the faraway landscape of the planet Earth). That's where the comparisons end. This film hints at Kubrick's masterpiece (there's a close-up of Bullock's eyes that channel Keir Dullea with his space helmet on) and it seeks to bring the terror like, say, the 1979 gem Alien. But alas, Gravity lacks the eerie beauty displayed in "Odyssey" and the nightmarish posture that possessed Ridley Scott's celebrated marvel. Yes, the characters in this flick are in a lot of danger and extreme peril. However, their plights did not shake me. I didn't experience fear with them. Being lost in space is, I guess, terrifying. But it's hard to pull off. Open Water, a movie that has nothing to do with sci-fi but carries a similar theme, is a superior thriller that has two characters stranded in a body of water with no land in sight. The fact that they might be eaten by sharks is something that shook me to the core. I didn't get the same vibe with Gravity. I don't think it's the filmmakers' fault. This is a picture that is stunning to look at and it has that feeling you get when you think to yourself, "how the heck did they make this?" I give credit to director Alfonso Cuarón for using the same technique that he perfected in Children of Men (2006). He excels at getting the camera to closely follow every action of the characters (it stays right next to them) while, at the same time, having the destruction and chaos occur around them and at close proximity.

        Honestly, if there is one major flaw that seeps into this vehicle's veins, it would be this: a lot of the dangerous situations that Bullock and Clooney (more Bullock than Clooney) get into are the plot devices this thing throws in to keep the film moving or afloat. And then there's the ending that kinda winks at Ron Howard's Apollo 13. Again, Gravity is a good film. But it's not the masterpiece that most critics make it out to be.

        I see some good things happening with this picture though. It should get some technical nods come awards time. And I think Bullock deserves a nomination from the Academy (completely different from her performance for The Blind Side, but still terrific in its own right). But is it Best Picture material? Not in my book. Gravity is no doubt an effective way to kill an hour and a half. The movie has the feel and look like nothing you've ever seen before. But as something that stays with you long after the curtain closes, I feel it doesn't quite hold much weight.

-Written by Jesse Burleson

Click HERE For Cole's Take on GRAVITY

THE COTTON CLUB

Jesse's Rating: ★★★

Director: Francis Ford Coppola

Year: 1984

Cast: Richard Gere, Diane Lane, Gregory Hines

Genre: Crime/Drama/Music
MPAA Rating: R

        Francis Ford Coppola is quoted as saying, "I have genius but no talent". Honestly, I think he has both. But with his December 1984 release The Cotton Club, he unfortunately loses a little of this talent by failing to format a somewhat cohesive storyline.  If you ignore that sort of minor flaw, you still get a splashy mob flick that is highly stylized, highly energized, and done with mounds of real panache.

        Taking place in 1930's Harlem (ah the good old days) and projecting itself as a movie that tries to cram in 2-3 stories in a two hour period, "Cotton Club" tells the tale (or tales) of musician Dixie Dwyer (played by Richard Gere who has amazing screen presence here), his uncontrollable resistance to move up the mob chain, and the resorting-to-murder brother he has to look out for (played with gusto by Nicolas Cage). The film also examines the life of a racially discriminated tap dancer (Gregory Hines) who struts his stuff at where else, The Cotton Club.

         Projecting itself as a sped up version of Coppola's masterpiece The Godfather (there's a scene toward the end that pays complete homage to it), this vehicle has a fantastic look (very accurate for the time period and not too overdone), brilliant acting by Richard Gere (Dwyer) and Nicolas Cage (Dwyer's brother Vincent), and well choreographed, exhilarating tap dance sequences. Coppola, who is in total command of the camera (and his craft) wants to make sure the viewer is worn out by the time the credits roll. He is accurate, doesn't give an inch (he's a perfectionist, all you gotta do is watch the Heart of Darkness documentary), but seems too busy filling the screen with an overload of indelible images. I guess he insists on doing this instead of keeping the viewer focused on exactly what's going on with this talented cast (boy, do they give it their all!). Try as I might though, I can't fault him. Entertaining and never boring, The Cotton Club excels at making the audience feel unsafe (just like the actual characters in the movie) and it's at least, in my mind, a moderate success. This veritable gangster movie is the equivalent of a sugar rush (in a good way of course). It's one "club" you might want to check out.

-Written by Jesse Burleson

Cole's Take on PRISONERS

Cole's Rating: ★★★ ½

Jesse's Rating: ★★★

Director: Denis Villeneuve 
Year: 2013

Cast: Hugh Jackman, Maria Bello, Jake Gyllenhaal

Genre: Crime/Drama/Thriller
MPAA Rating: R

In 2007, a movie of infinite intellectual stature and vivid potency hit theaters around the US (naturally) and left a major mark on cinema; it forever raised the expectations of a crime-drama-thriller. And this was definitely in the back of my mind as I viewed the latest movie of the same genre(s), PRISONERS. 

The aforementioned movie I referenced was David Fincher’s ZODIAC, a genuinely haunting motion picture that, in my mind, should have at least garnered Best Picture in 2007. Why, one may ask, was I reminded of that masterpiece when I viewed PRISONERS, then? In addition to having similar plot development, it stars the same actor and is extremely absorbing. Here, two respective little girls are out frolicking in the cold after their families finish their Thanksgiving meal, but sooner or later, their families notice that they’ve been gone for some time. After an extensive search around the house and neighborhood, it’s concluded that these little girls have been kidnapped.

As terrifying as the initial entry into this movie sounds, it only gets more frightening, adding layers and layers onto the mystery with every scene. While it lacks the audacity and therefore brilliance of Fincher’s direction in ZODIAC, Canadian director Denis Villeneuve does an adequate job of holding the reigns; at some times I’d say he’s holding too tightly, and at others, not enough. For the most part, it flows nicely and what’s happening on screen is simple yet fascinating. 

As for the acting, most members of the cast pull through. While I believe that Hugh Jackman sincerely overacted his part, Jake Gyllenhall’s quietly powerful performance reiterates why he’s so talented in the acting industry. As for the other participants (who should’ve received more screen presence than they did), they did just fine. I wouldn’t quite say PRISONERS was made to specifically showcase acting talent, though.

 

 All in all, I’d say that PRISONERS is among some of the best films so far this year. I don’t know if it will last over the years, but I can say that there were few seconds of screen time in which I wasn't engaged. At the end of this picture, take a ruler and measure how far your back is from the seat. I think you’ll find that you might need a yardstick or two.

-Written by Cole Pollyea

Click HERE for Jesse's Take on PRISONERS