Gone Girl

Ah, hello film lovers. It feels good to be basking in the love of filmmaking again; forgive my absence, as I have been busy, but I thought I'd share with you some of my obsessive thoughts on a very recent film, Gone Girl. Something in this movie is so invigorating and genius that I couldn't avoid writing about it. Until next time, keep watching.

        Gone Girl

           If you're thinking about seeing Gone Girl, think big. Think really big. Think Kubrick meets Frigidaire (that's right, I'm talking about the appliance manufacturer). Think satire and think deep. Think well coached, because that's exactly what every actor in this movie is. Think disturbing beyond anything he's made before. Think scenes that hurt to watch, and think scenes that make you shiver in awe of what you're watching. Think brutally honest themes packed into one outlandish debauchery of human nature. Think modernism, and think beyond the surface. Most importantly: think, because if you don't, Gone Girl will rip you apart, and you'll hate every second of it.

          To answer your first question, is this Oscar Worthy material? You bet. I'm thinking a Best Screenplay nomination, and Best Actor nom for Ben Affleck, the man with the plan (from, you know, that one movie, Argo). The question is, is he playing another guy that contemplates what he's doing 100% of the time? The answer is no; no he's not. He's a guy whose wife goes missing. He's not a deep thinker. In so many instances, he is seen committing acts that a more composed, more intelligent man in his shoes would not. The problem is that we don't really see Ben Affleck as that guy. 

          On a sidenote, I was recently enlightened on behalf of the difference between a problem and a predicament; a predicament is something that you're forced to compensate for, and a problem is something you can do something about. Ben Affleck's presumptuous complexion, behavior patterns in preceding movies that all point to an intelligent individual is not a predicament, and genius and previously praised (by myself and others) David Fincher has got the skills to re-articulate his manners, and it's just that he does. He coaches Affleck's character so incredibly well that I can't decide who deserves the real credit here. One thing's for sure, Affleck's stellar acting and even better coaching gets attention, gets the job done, and does exactly what this movie was aiming to.

          What a vivid and beautiful movie Gone Girl is. It's a real pleasure to watch (or, in this respect, see); every other shot is a pan that captures seemingly perfect peoples' dazzling complexions or interior decorating that would knock the socks off of any decorator in the modern world.

          Speaking of the modern world, I better stop speaking. I'm not a fan of spoilers and neither are you, but I'll say this in regards to what this movie is saying about the today's society: it's unsettling. So while I'm going to shut up, the movie won't. And don't let it, because it's got a lot to say. Those of you looking for a literal film, go watch Zodiac or The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo (both Fincher films that I highly recommend). You won't find one here, and if you do, you should take another trip to the theater. Gone Girl is a seething satire that stings like a serrated blade when it clicks in.

          As for the star rating, which I've completely abandoned in regards to this movie, my enjoyment can be exemplified by a three star rating, and the brilliance can be exemplified by a four star rating. I guess, then, my official rating is somewhere in between. You decide.

Written by Cole Pollyea

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

CLOCKERS

Jesse's Rating: ★★★

Cole's Rating: ★★★

Director: Spike Lee
Year: 1995
Cast: Harvey Keitel, Mekhi Phifer, Delroy Lindo
Genre: Crime/Drama/Mystery
MPAA Rating: R

        In the fall of 1995, I found myself in the city of Grand Rapids, Michigan (on a weekend leave from college) highly anticipating the newest Spike Lee film. Later that night, I viewed it in a large theater with possibly 20-25 screens. There were other action films, comedies, and dramas that I could have chosen from, but I had to see Lee's latest outing. He was a controversial director back then and still reins as one today. In the 90's, his films were a bit more mainstream than they are now. To me, they were like events. And after watching the trailer for Clockers, I knew I had to get to the multiplex right away (opening night was when I attended a screening). Slightly disjointed, messy at times, yet totally absorbing, Clockers remains one of Spike Lee's most interesting and most forceful cinematic feats. It holds a varied cast of actors known and unknown (I'm just speculating, but I think a lot of the people on screen were plucked off the street without any acting experience thus adding to the film's realism), a plethora of varied styles of directing, a fantastic opening credit sequence, and a massive need to get its message across. With most of Spike's films, you generally see a sort of sporadic narrative. Clockers has this but it still manages to be a solid helping from the Brooklyn-rooted director.

        Produced by legendary filmmaker Martin Scorsese and based on a novel of the same name by Richard Price (he wrote the screenplay as well), Clockers tells the story of a small-time drug dealer named Ronald "Strike" Dunham (played by Mekhi Phifer who, at the time, had never acted in a film before and got picked out of 1,000 people in an open casting call). He works with a bunch of other fellow dealers who are labeled "clockers" (they are basically 24 hour drug pushers). When "Strike"'s brother (Victor Dunham played by Isaiah Washington) is accused and confesses (in self defense) to murdering one of "Strike's" rival dealers working at a fast food restaurant, "Strike" is then somehow caught up in the whole investigation. He's pulled in different directions and has to take sides based on his relentless pursuers being a morally concerned cop (Rocco Klein played by Harvey Keitel who gives a Harvey Keitel-like performance) and a parasitic drug lord (Oscar caliber stuff from Delroy Lindo as Rodney Little). A couple of things to note about this film: the acting by the entire cast down to the bit players, the supporting players, and the leads is sensational in every way. Second: the drug solicitation scenes that are featured at various intervals are disturbingly real and authentic. As you view them, it feels less like you're watching a movie and more like you're experiencing real life as it happens.

        Registering at a running time of just over 2 hours, it's safe to say that there is a lot of movie to take in with Clockers. This vehicle is a character study, a drug flick, and a murder mystery all in one. You have a meaty script by Richard Price (he wrote The Color of Money and Ransom), a searing musical score from Terrence Blanchard (he's Lee's right hand man when it comes to musical scores), and an extremely dark-hued look from cinematographer Malik Hassan Sayeed. In essence, Spike Lee has every resource possible to flex his directorial wings. This, in my mind, is one of the strongest films he has made as a director. His technique is exuberant. You get a lot of slow motion scenes (set to music, of course), a shot that pans over the view of one of the film's most pivotal moments (a protective murder of a burnt out drug addict by a young boy), some solid jump cuts (at the beginning during one of the drug deals), and high energy flashbacks that are quick and to the point. A lot of the film's best sequences are not only set to Blanchard's score, but also to a mixed pop soundtrack with songs from Seal, Crooklyn Dodgers, Chaka Khan, and Rebelz of Authority.

        Clockers is a heavy urban crime drama with powerfully realized, individual scenes. It is, without a doubt, a solid interpretation of Lee's rather large body of work. He tries hard to be a good storyteller and sometimes slips a bit. But somehow, someway, he still gets the job done here. The film's last ten minutes, which feel subdued and project a bit of a relief from all the chaos that came before it, channel a feeling of radiant hope. This reassures the viewer that an exercise this depressing and melodic can still end on a positive note. With that said, Clockers, for me, was definitely worth a re-viewing. It's a Spike Lee Joint that "clocks in" as something I would wholeheartedly recommend. 

-Written by Jesse Burleson

Cole's Thoughts: Spike Lee, who is known for his controversial and therefore ambitious filmmaking, made a film based whole-heartedly (there is not a shred of hesitance sensed here) in and about the "projects" and the trouble that ensues while growing up/living there in 1995. With a cast that lets us down not for one scene and a script that is accurate straight from the get go, the only thing that I have to complain about is how Lee tries to be too much of a storyteller when, in reality, he should exercise his ability to capture, well, reality (which he excels at). He really drives the point that crime doesn't pay home here, and at one point in the film, it becomes annoying and relatively unbearable. But when you have a fitted musical score, some applaud-worthy camerawork, a fundamentally good story, and a cast that really does some fine work, you get a good, classic piece of filmmaking like Clockers.

REAR WINDOW

Cole's Rating: ★★★★

Director: Alfred Hitchcock

Year: 1954

Cast: James Stewart, Grace Kelly, Wendell Corey

Genre: Mystery/Thriller

MPAA Rating: PG

        In director Alfred Hitchcock’s second color film, James Stewart—who clearly is Hitchcock’s favorite actor seeing as he starred in more of his films than anybody else—stars as a photojournalist who lives in an apartment complex with people branching from widows to ballet dancers to pianists. His careful observation with long camera lenses and binoculars leads him to believe that one of his neighbors might have murdered his wife! Who will believe him? Are his suspicions misleading? How will he prove it? All of these questions are carefully considered, and crafted expertly in what I consider what is among one of Hitchcock’s best films.

        And it’s no wonder why Hitchcock kept Stewart on board. He seems to have the ability to bring a irresistible sense of humor to everything that he’s in. There’s nothing funny about a man confined—trapped, you might say—in a small apartment with nothing to do but bore and spy. Somehow, thanks to the wittily amusing dialogue and Stewart’s mere mentality, wonderful humor is the result. The amount is just right, though, and you never get overwhelmed with how much laughter is due; James Stewart can also make you nervous. His stage presence is so convincing and well done, that he can just about do anything; that includes pulling off a suspicious, nervous, and scared role. His performance tops off what I’d like to call the most exciting movie that I’ve seen in a year.

        The set design of this masterpiece is enough where standing alone, you’ll know that something great will come of it. With Disturbia, the modern film that brought the story back to life (not that it was ever dead), the set design is just an ordinary set design. However, viewers nowadays will be more terrified of the suspected murderer there than in Rear Window. That’s just because of the sick people we have in this world to this day, though. Something else that draws comparison in my mind is David Fincher’s Zodiac. Both films create a difficult situation for the victim (or in this case, spy/investigator) that’s difficult because they both require solid evidence. Both of these films craft a situation that excites you as viewers. And most importantly, both films are nothing short of masterpieces, and each are one of the best movies of their decade.

        Something else to marvel at here, as there is in most of Hitchcock’s movies, is the originality. I caught wind of the recent release titled The Heat being a comedic buddy-cop movie. For that reason alone (not even talking about the fact that it’s bad), I will not see it because I’ve already seen it: a little bit in Lethal Weapon, a little bit in Red, a whole lot in Bad Boys, and the rest in any Melissa McCarthy vehicle out there. With Rear Window, you get an inventive idea that surely revolutionized the genres mystery and thriller, or even film in general. From now on, when I watch a movie (particularly a mystery/thriller), I’ll be asking myself the following. Is James Stewart needed? Has this idea been used and reused already? What does the set design purport? And most importantly, would Hitchcock make this? If I can answer no, no, a lot, and yes to those questions, I’ve found myself a darn good piece of work. Speaking of Hitchcock himself, look for a surprise two-second cameo in the pianist’s apartment.

-Written by Cole Pollyea

Three Takes On: 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY

Cole's Rating: ★★

Jesse's Rating: ★★★ ½

Darius' Rating: ★★★★

Director: Stanley Kubrick

Year: 1968

Cast: Keir Dullea, Gary Lockwood, Douglas Rain

Genre: Adventure/Mystery/Sci-Fi

MPAA Rating: G

Cole's Take: I can't believe how surprised I am at my reaction to this movie! “2001” for me, was a tantalizingly dull film that made a clever approach at revolutionizing science-fiction. It deemed that opinion for very few (I’m in the minority), and this for others: a brilliantly captured chronicle of man’s cycle of life, with mesmerizing effects and cunning direction. I’ll give Stanley Kubrick props, it’s a very cherished film by most people (including all of my fellow critics, seen on this co-review), and it’s very ambitious for its time, not to mention it’s success with its visual effects in the 1968 Academy Awards. But I’m rarely a fan of sci-fi anyway, so this film just about bored me to death. I know that people—sorry, moviegoers—would say that I didn’t appreciate its brilliance. My response to that would be: I didn’t see much to appreciate, for all it’s talked up to be. I observed it carefully, and came to this conclusion: “2001” is not a film for me. It has some classical elements, and some interesting scenes/ideas, but altogether, I didn't enjoy it. Maybe it’s because I would have appreciated it more when it came out (in its time) but based on my experience, I would go ahead and change the title to No Fun: A Graceful Nod-To-Sleep.

Jesse's Take: 2001: A Space Odyssey is a movie celebration of visual proficiency and technical savagery that in 1968, was so far ahead of its time; it's scary. This film has the power to allow debate and obtain thousands of different interpretations from moviegoers all over the world. It's all about the evolution of humans told through different 4 different sections, all brilliant and somewhat slow paced. But if you real take the time soak it all in, you get a calculated and original masterstroke formulated by none other than acclaimed director Stanley Kubrick. "2001" spends a majority of time showcasing its sequences in outer space and like the actors, has a cold and icy way of speaking to the viewer that takes it in. However, there are so many classic scenes, so many "awe" moments that you can't help but surrender to the eerie beauty that occupies the screen for almost 2 and a half hours. In truth, most people either love or hate this movie. In fact, it may take up 3 to 4 viewings before you can totally embrace it. Nevertheless, it's edited to perfection, scored for nullifying effect, and next to The Shining, this for me, is Kubrick's finest hour. He may be gone now, but 2001: A Space Odyssey lives on forever.


Darius' Take: Although it is a very slow movie to sit through as discussed in the co-review, I still think the atmosphere speaks for itself in 2001: A Space Odyssey. I also think that the characters are some of the best in history. The story basically revolves around a group of men in hyper sleep, 6 crew, and the most powerful supercomputer in history, named HAL. HAL has the ability to think for himself, which becomes a huge problem on the ship. All the while, a mysterious monolith follows the main character everywhere, which is explained to have been around since the dawn of man. Every time it appears, an evolutionary break though happens. This film is great for a number of reasons. First, is the lack of dialogue, which you think would be a problem. Actually, it gives the movie a charm not seen since the silent era. Sometimes we all have to follow Griffith's law: Sometimes the best movie is one that says nothing. Second is the symbolic undertones. Everything can mean something different/deeper in this movie. The monolith is often cited as god, evolution, human nature, and the list goes on and on. You can watch it as many time as as possible and never see it the same way. Finally is HAL, ironically the  most human of the characters, having worries, fears, lying, cheating and acting calm while the others act emotionless and robotic. The thing that's so disturbing about HAL is that we made him, and can make him in the future, if science goes our way. and then the dream will be a reality.  Accented with the beautiful sweeping "Blue Danube" and thrown together with special effects that rival our present day ones, “2001” is not only up to snuff with classic art and literature (and can be analyzed as such too), it is my all time favorite film.

Cole's Take on OBLIVION

Cole's Rating: ★★ 1/2

Jesse's Rating: ★★ 1/2

Director: Joseph Kosinski

Year: 2013

Cast: Tom Cruise, Olga Kurylenko, Morgan Freeman

Genre: Action/Adventure/Mystery

MPAA Rating: PG-13

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

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

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

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

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

-Written by Cole Pollyea

~ Click here to see the video review ~ 

Jesse's Take on OBLIVION

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

Director: Joseph Kosinski

Year: 2013

Cast: Tom Cruise, Olga Kurylenko, Morgan Freeman

Genre: Action/Adventure/Mystery

MPAA Rating: PG-13

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Written by Jesse Burleson

~ Click here to see the video review ~

SAFE HAVEN

Cole's Rating: ★★

Year: 2013

Cast: Julianne Hough, Josh Duhamel

Genre: Drama/Mystery/Romance

MPAA Rating: PG-13

        "Chick flicks" can be good; they just have to be done well. What aggravates me as a critic is when poorly done chick flicks win the audience's approval because of sappy, happy endings. Safe Haven is a mixed bag. Katie (Julianne Hough) flees to North Carolina escaping from her dark past, and she meets Alex (Josh Duhamel) and falls madly in love.

       I admire Josh Duhamel as an actor because I see him as a real life person. His acting is very honest and believable. In my opinion, that is most present in Life As We Know It. To me, he did seem too young for his character, as he was playing a widow with two children, both of ages 7-10. Matt Damon played a similar role in We Bought A Zoo, however I thought that his age was perfect for the role. I still enjoyed his screen presence, because it is easily enjoyable. In the remake of Footloose, and this, Julianne Hough eerily resembles a younger Jennifer Aniston. She looks exactly like her; I wonder if somewhere down the line they are related... Anyways, her acting was believable. she played a disturbed young girl better than most actresses could. She also has a great future as an actress ahead of her. Seeing as she contributed largely to the outcome of the film, I thought that Colbie Smulders’s acting was laughable. “He’s coming,” “Who?” “You-Know-Who”. When did this film turn into Harry Potter?

       Something that irritates me when I’m watching a movie is when I notice errors. Within the same beach scene, Julianne Hough had changed outfits at least three times, where we saw her get in the car with only the clothes on her back, and a bikini. This was the case with a few more scenes also. Also there was a big error on the knowledge of Colbie Smulders’s character, knowing about Katie’s past. These errors can mean one of two things, or maybe both. One, the movie was hastily filmed, with some type of time crunch. Or two, the producers were not smart enough to notice it. But I’m opting for the former reason.

        With all that time spent on Hough's character, the ending was the movie's low point because it tried to make us care about a character that the movie spent little time developing. Had they recast, and added some extra scenes into that character, then maybe it would have worked. But to be honest, I didn't like it one bit. It had a good, original backstory, and likable characters, so let's leave it at that. It shouldn't have gone for the home-run.

-Written by Cole Pollyea

THE PRESTIGE

Cole's Rating: B+

Uncle Jesse's Rating: B

Year: 2006

Cast: Hugh Jackman, Christian Bale, Micheal Caine

Genre: Drama/Mystery/Thriller

MPAA Rating: PG-13

       Before watching this movie, I was not prepared to be taken inside the brilliant and fearless mind of a magician. Nor was I prepared to be shown the obsession that can consume a man. But, this is what happened. The Prestige is a film about Alfred Bordon (Christian Bale), who is a magician that is accused of his rival, Robert Angier’s (Hugh Jackman) death. While in jail, awaiting his death penalty, he reads the diary of Angier’s, which takes us through the events leading up to the present time in the movie. And it really is as complex as it sounds, maybe even too complex for enjoyment. But one of the things I occasionally enjoy in a film is the requirement for higher knowledge and thinking when it's well done. This one requires, no, demands that.

      Christopher Nolan has done it yet again! Let me just say that I believe he is a genius; and I am fascinated with his movies. He produced this film in 2006, after his movie Memento, which I have viewed multiple times and still haven’t fully grasped. His latest achievement to date is The Dark Knight Rises, which I saw as one of the best of the year 2012.

       The cast is one of the great things about this movie. Hugh Jackman’s presence in the film was a big positive for me, as was Christian Bale’s. They played the perfect rivals in the perfect setting. Something about Hugh Jackman makes him appear as a wise, cunning, but real life magician. And Christian Bale is another good fit, seemingly comfortable out of his batman suit. But both of these magicians need a stage accompaniment, that is Scarlett Johansson, who kept the film interesting with the conflict that involved her intervening with both magicians. It’s also odd how Michael Caine and Christian Bale both excelled in the movies that they were together in that were directed by Christopher Nolan, that being The Dark Knight series, and this. Michael Caine played both magicians’ mentors. That’s another thing I loved about this film, two less significant characters had important roles in both of the main characters’ lives. It’s not an idea exercised often, and for good reason too. I can see how it could’ve gone wrong in this film. Luckily, it didn’t.

       Whether you want to be challenged or intrigued, the movie will provide all of that, thanks to the cunning direction of Nolan. You just have to pay attention because if you don't, then you won't understand a darn thing. It’s a movie that you have to watch multiple times, focused entirely. This may sound like a chore, but after seeing it, you’ll see that its not an obligation, but something of a privilege. 

Written by Cole Pollyea