THE COUNSELOR

Jesse's Rating: ★★★

Director: Ridley Scott
Year: 2013
Cast: Michael Fassbender, Brad Pitt, Javier Bardem, Cameron Diaz

Genre: Crime/Drama/Thriller

MPAA Rating: R

        Every aspect of the 2013 release The Counselor (minus the philosophically damned script), tells you that this is a Ridley Scott film. If you enjoy the way he carefully directs by bringing scenes to a slow creep and then having things interrupted with an act or two of brutal violence, then this will satisfy you, the fan of said director. I have to say that, initially, I had become bored with the first 30 minutes or so of this slick, trashy (might as well throw in stylized) sort of two hour resembling of a cable TV drama (rated for mature audiences of course). It started off as pretentious and self indulgent. You have actors constantly engaging in conversations with each other that go on longer than needed. And the dialogue is all about the meaning of life and such. Therefore, I kept thinking to myself, why does everyone in this vehicle have to be so smart? Although the performances were substantial (with the exception of the continuously miscast Cameron Diaz), it seemed as though the script required almost all the cast members to be Socrates (the supposed founder of Western philosophy).

        Brought to life by rookie screenwriter Cormac McCarthy (his novices shows in his screenwriting even though he's a well accomplished novelist) and dedicated to Ridley Scott's brother (famed director Tony Scott) who committed suicide during filming, The Counselor examines a lawyer who, on the side, gets involved in drug dealings with the Mexican cartel. Hoping to get a huge return back and taking different angles of advice from a drug kingpin named Reiner (played with a goofy stature and an even goofier haircut, by Javier Bardem), "Counselor" (he has no name, this is what everybody calls him) eventually gets in way over his head. He is warned by a middleman named Westray (played by Scott veteran Brad Pitt) that such a deal might be the wrong path to be taken. Furthermore, it doesn't help that he puts his, I guess, pregnant wife (Laura played by Penelope Cruz) in harm's way throughout. Let me put it this way, I found myself more embroiled with "Counselor's" fate as every other character began to die off. I read a separate review that said this motion picture was sort of a dark neo-noir. By definition, neo-noir films deal with social ramifications so I guess that critic pretty much got it right.

        Anyway, if you can get past the gnawing characteristic of the aforementioned tainted screenplay, then you'll find that this movie barrels along by becoming more intriguing and more involving. You realize that Scott knows that there is a problem with the script (he didn't write it), but he decides to be in complete control of the camera anyway. He directs with confidence and funnels little nuggets here and there from his other movies, plastering them into this one. His cast is vast and diligent (a couple of cameos by some notable screen talents). He films sequences either from a long distance away or close up with two actors trading words in a small, claustrophobic space. Last but certainly not least, he puts a relatively unknown yet well seasoned Michael Fassbender in the lead role. Known in this flick as simply "The Counselor," he is able to carry the whole two hour running time quite well. He's in almost every frame (Fassbender looks a little like a young Jeremy Irons and has Ewan McGregor's manneristic smirk) and goes toe to toe with some big name actors (Brad Pitt) that seem to fade in and out of the proceedings. In the end, you don't quite know what the future has in store for him. But you get a sense that his character is the type of person who falls prey to the notion of bad things happening to not so bad people.

        All and all, The Counselor, as a movie, likes to leave little tracings of symbolism here and there (especially in the opening scene). Its intentions are to let you know that it has deeper interludes that extend far beyond the simple art of a drug deal. Yes, there are little flaws that are evident (some of the dialogue is borderline laughable and cringe worthy) but in the end, it still comes off as weirdly sophisticated. It's for the moviegoer who can hold his or her attention span and not harbor to all the disposable drivel that's thrown in year after year (stuff like remakes of classics which I've been ripping on since March). To be honest, I don't know if I would put this thing on my top ten list of 2013. However, it resonates with you minutes after you see it. And that's something I look for when I want to garner a recommendation. It also has the type of ending shot that I like where the camera focuses on a main character's face and goes suddenly to blackout (without any type of fading). With The Counselor, you get a mostly trademark Ridley Scott film and heck, usually he's incapable of making anything mediocre. Halfway into the second act when things get dangerous, Brad Pitt's character states, "I'd say it's pretty bad, then multiply it by ten." Yeah, I'd say this flick is not so bad, so I'll just give it three stars.

-Written by Jesse Burleson

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

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

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

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

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

Jesse's Take on PRISONERS

Jesse's Rating: ★★★

Cole's Rating: ★★★ ½

Director: Denis Villeneuve 
Year: 2013

Cast: Hugh Jackman, Maria Bello, Jake Gyllenhaal

Genre: Crime/Drama/Thriller
MPAA Rating: R

        Produced by busy bee actor Mark Wahlberg and helmed by acclaimed Canadian director Denis Villeneuve, Prisoners is the type of vehicle that is perfect for a fall moviegoing season. It was filmed in Georgia (which I believe, was made to look like a drab part of Pennsylvania), takes place during Thanksgiving, and harbours a non-stop sense of doom and gloom from its opening frame (I think the sun shined maybe once during the entire two and a half hour running time). Listen, I'm not gonna sugarcoat it for you, this picture is long, feels long, and it really takes its time. Villeneuve uses old school filming techniques and doesn't project anything flashy at all.  However, the story, when it's all said and done, is somewhat conventional. Therefore, I think it was necessary for the events to be drawn out and dragged through the muck a little. Based on an initial viewing, I realized that Prisoners would have felt like a TV movie and/or a Law and Order episode if the running time was trimmed to, say, an hour and a half. Thankfully, it comes off as an extended director's cut (I'm not the only critic that felt this way) and that, to a fault, is what makes the flick work. Watching it, I was reminded of a David Fincher film (without Fincher's signature style, though) and not just because it starred staggeringly disciplined actor Jake Gyllenhaal. Prisoners is basically a mild spawn of Fincher's Se7en and Zodiac. It's not quite as effectively creepy as those films, but it's definitely good enough to recommend.

        Part kidnapping movie, part police detective character study, and part fatherly vigilante escapade, Prisoners tells the story of two families (neighbors from across the street) who get together on Thanksgiving day. The Birch's (Franklin Birch played by Terrence Howard and Nancy Birch played by Viola Davis who barely registers here) and the Dover's (Hugh Jackman and Maria Bello as Keller and Grace Dover) have a relaxing, calming holiday until their respective daughters wander off and go missing. This then gets the attention of a socially inept area detective (Mr. Loki played with vigor by Jake Gyllenhaal) who garners almost complete control over handling the missing persons case. As days go by and a potential suspect who might've taken the children gets bounced free, Jackman's angry, frustrated character eventually decides to take the law into his own hands. As the film slowly creeps toward its conclusion, you get small twists and turns (as well as slightly minimal character revelations).

        On the acting front, one thing to notice when viewing Prisoners is how it pushes aside the other performers in the main cast (Oscar nominees like Viola Davis and Terrence Howard) and puts its main focus on Jackman. Now I'm not saying that Hugh Jackman is a mediocre actor. I just don't think he has the fiery chops to take on such a serious, dramatic role. His fault lies in the extreme overacting and preening to the audience. He seems to be saying, "hey look at me, I should be nominated for an oscar!" With all the focus on him, the other player's roles become seriously underdeveloped. It gets to the point where you hardly see them anymore. Using little to no background music, there are a lot of carefully set up scenes in Prisoners. To a fault, Jackman appears in almost all of them.  Jake Gyllenhaal (Detective Loki), the only other actor receiving top billing, takes up almost as much of the shared time. The difference with Gyllenhaal is that he quietly outacts his co-star. His minutes on screen are underplayed but they feel more genuine, more studied (Gyllenhaal's character's facial ticks like eye blinking were a nice touch), and generally more effective. He seems born to play his role. Jackman, on the other hand, has one persuasive agent (he probably needs to stick to his strengths, which are the X-Men movies). 

        As a fall release that feels as if it's a journey or a metaphoric expedition, Prisoners has a teaser of an ending that may leave viewers holding their hands in the air. The overlength may also be a factor when it comes to their varied attention spans. I however, found this exercise mildly absorbing and it was able to keep me interested. You may find the opening ten minutes a little muddled and weak in terms of set up, but after that, this exercise will place you in its grip (not too tightly) and not let go. Like I said earlier, Prisoners makes its case for being serviceable because it rides the wave of other crime dramas filling the screen with gloomy, overcast, and rain-drenched sequences. While watching it, you can almost sense that it does hold back just a little. This film doesn't take too many risks and it may not haunt you like it should (Villeneuve's direction is overly careful). But hey, it still gets by mainly because of its look and Gyllenhaal's icy magnitude. All in all, if you like crime thrillers that take their time and don't try to jerk you around with the camera, Prisoners might just set you "free".

-Written by Jesse Burleson

Click HERE for Cole's Take on PRISONERS

ZODIAC

Jesse's Rating: ★★★★

Cole's Rating: ★★★★

Director: David Fincher
Year: 2007

Cast: Jake Gyllenhaal, Mark Ruffalo, Robert Downey, Jr.
Genre: Crime/Drama/Thriller
MPAA Rating: R

        In the wake of Jake Gyllenhaal's latest crime drama Prisoners (slated for a late September release), I thought I'd revisit one of his best films and, what is contending for my money, as his best overall performance. Now Gyllenhaal, in anything good or bad, puts his heart and soul into many a role. His performance, much like the movie I'm now reviewing, is a tour de force. Zodiac, also a crime drama, portrays him as political cartoonist turned novelist and would be detective Robert Graysmith. While watching Gyllenhaal on screen, you can see many faceted layers to his acting persona. He dives into the proceedings with a feeling of anxiousness, fear (fear of failure, that is), disciplined intensity, and earnestness. The members of the cast that fully accompany him are Mark Ruffalo (plays David Toschi, a proficient police detective with a noticeably high metabolism) and Robert Downey, Jr. (playing a burned out crime reporter who resorts to drugs and alcohol). They also are excellent in their roles and never miss a beat. Other members of the cast that filter in and out include Anthony Edwards, Elias Koteas, and Brian Cox.

        Being a highly dialogue driven movie, Zodiac brings together a lot of reputable actors to keep the film from being boring and repetitive. Its director, David Fincher, excels at dealing with flicks that involve what I like to call, "the violence of the mind". Like in his 1995 hit, Se7en, he'd rather show the aftermath and have you think about what you might have saw instead of having actually seen it. Zodiac is similar to Se7en for a portion of the totality. However, it does show some murders (only about three with much less gore), doesn't concentrate as much on the killer (leans more toward telling the story of the killer's pursuer, especially in the second half), and it provides a lot more detail/insight contained in its script by James Vanderbilt (he wrote The Rundown and Darkness Falls to name a few). Taking in its absorbing 2 and a half hour running time, you can tell that everyone involved wanted to get every last detail just right. As I have stated in previous reviews, putting a true story out on film means honoring the material as much as possible. After reading the background information about Zodiac and viewing it multiple times, I applaud Fincher and company for churning out this highly detailed, rather exhausting masterpiece.

        Playing like two different films in one (the first half is 1969 to 1972 and the obviously noted second half is 1976 to 1991) and showcasing a sort of underwhelming, drab sense of time and place (this is actually very effective), Zodiac depicts true events revolving around the San Francisco Bay Area serial murderer known as well, the "Zodiac" killer. From 1969 to 1972, this person is pursued extensively (partly by newspaper reporters and police inspectors) and eventually never brought to justice. Only a few years later does a nobody cartoonist (who is unbelievably infatuated with the case) reopen things on his own. He thereby threatens to wreck his marriage, fracture his health, worsen his family values, and even expose himself to the mysterious killer by going on TV. The reasoning for all this: he just wants to see the "Zodiac," look at him in the face, and know that he found the right person. Another reason: he feels that no one else cares or wants to capture the vigilant (it might make sense because too much time has passed, this person only killed a few people, and, in the last 5 years, San Francisco had over 200 murders).

       As I said earlier, Zodiac is all about detail. The timelines that are shown in small captions at the bottom of the screen state the date, the place, and even the exact time. Then there is the feel of this exercise. It's no doubt that Fincher's vision was his own but I was somehow reminded of 1976's All The Presidents Men. It's obvious that both films rely heavily on dialogue. And I guess they both sometimes take place in a newsroom. Are they similar in plot? Not really. But the sense of urgency in both pictures accompanied by the eerie musical score (coming in at rare intervals), made me believe that Fincher might have been a little influenced (subconsciously I suppose) by that 1976 Best Picture nominee.

        Anyway, Zodiac was released in early March of 2007. And although it didn't garner one single Academy Award nomination, I still consider it one of the 5 best films of said year. With keen, meticulous direction and dynamic acting from the leads, this vehicle sweeps you into its superior, linear narrative. It really puts the "true" into true story. Next to the similar, yet more gruesome Se7en and his other dialogue driven masterpiece being The Social Network, this is David Fincher's finest hour. Overall, Zodiac is a treasure and a sure "sign" of movie greatness.

-Written by Jesse Burleson

Cole's Thoughts: Bottom line: Zodiac is a masterpiece. The writing is flawless, the acting is terrifyingly well done, and the movie's aftermath is thought-provoking disturbance on the viewers mind. This is no slasher piece or dull biopic, but a genuine, bona fide tour de force brought to you by no other than the genius and gifted director David Fincher. Zodiac has a reserved spot on my top twenty films of all time list.

Cole's Take (and a Video Review) On THE CONJURING

Cole's Rating: ★★ ½

Jesse's Rating: ★★ ½

Director: James Wan
Year: 2013
Cast: Patrick Wilson, Vera Farmiga, Ron Livingston
Genre: Horror/Thriller
MPAA Rating: R

        There are different types of scary filmmaking. In a film like Nightmare on Elm Street, not only is the viewer haunted visually, but also mentally; it’s torture going on in your mind. In a film like Halloween (the original, people), the viewer is horrified with gruesome violence and develops a sense of responsibility for the damsel in distress, ultimately putting him/herself in the victim’s position, which creates a feeling of insecurity. In a film like The Shining, the viewer becomes simply fascinated and curious with the insane nature that the main character develops, and ultimately lacks the ability to genuinely understand and sympathize with the antagonist, which creates a sense of terror. When you watch a film like Zodiac, even though it isn’t a textbook horror film, since the movie is so brilliantly made, the mere idea and dialogue that concerns the killer is enough to disturb and mentally harm. If I’m making any of these scary movies sound unappealing, I apologize because I haven’t done my job as a critic; these are all incredible and terrifying films that deserve the utmost caliber of critical recommendation. And now the latest “scary” movie out in theaters is The Conjuring. The most upsetting thing about it is that I can’t describe what exact category of scary it qualifies for, or how it manages to do it. This is because it isn’t, and it doesn’t. The Conjuring is, at best, a tense film that creates scary situations, but it isn’t altogether scary.

        Stop me when this sounds familiar. A family moves out in the middle of nowhere to a house that happens to be infested with demonic souls. Did I hear stop? Well, I should’ve. This movie rips off almost every supernatural horror movie in the cinematic industry. It’s main idea steals quite a bit from The Exorcist; it’s set up and plot rips off The Amityville Horror; and for quite a large amount of time, most of the scenes look like outtakes from Paranormal Activity. Then, a couple who are expert paranormal scientists (or something like that) are sought out for help by the mother who senses that things are going wrong. Then after, a crew organized by the expert couple orchestrate cameras and alarms that are ready to capture proof of the supernatural existence (ripping off Poltergeist) in the house in order to prove the house worthy of a legitimate exorcism. Ultimately, the movie spends a lot of its amount of time on its build up: identifying the character’s roles in each others lives, setting up scenes for foreshadow, and building the plot. It does an adequate job with all of this, too, and it's not all completely uninteresting. What’s unfortunate is, thereafter, it never takes off and relies on systematic, jolting scares that feel as if they were taken right off of the artificial scare assembly line (think scare scenes from Monsters Inc., only more adult and supernatural), though they do trigger some seat jumping moments. A lot of those seat jumping moments, though, rip off films such as What Lies Beneath, The Sixth Sense, The Haunting, The Evil Dead, The Changeling, The Messengers, and in some form, The Skeleton Key.

        For a modern horror movie (as we know how most of those go...), the cast erects no complaints from this critic. I generally enjoy Vera Farmiga’s screen presence, and she contributes greatly to the tense atmosphere that was crucial that the movie created. She channeled some of her inner Norma Bates (if you watch the show). Ron Livingston is well cast; he looks the part, and he’s ultimately believable as the father who desperately wants his family ridden of the horrible curse that is upon them. Everyone else is great, too, which is why I believe this movie is not a complete waste of time. 

        If you’re not too knowledgable of iconic camerawork, then you’ll learn a lot from The Conjuring. Countless camera-worked scenes channel some of Stanley Kubrick’s films, Martin Scorsese’s films, and a new mix of the two that makes the film more unique and enjoyable, despite the fact that it’s not the director’s own. Also, the use of wide lenses don’t go to waste; it’s shot in a way that kept me thinking that maybe this had something unique to offer, but in hindsight, camerawork can't save a tired, recycled script.

        Similar to a more recent film, World War Z, the ending feels horribly rushed and horribly Hollywood. It made me hang my head, roll my eyes, and wish under my breath that they don’t make a sequel. In fact, on the ride home, I said to my fellow critic and uncle, “Well, it was based on true case files, so there shouldn’t be a sequel.” Yeah, there shouldn’t be, but I wouldn’t be surprised if there is. This is a movie that didn’t feel much like a traditional horror movie; it built up for quite a long time, then let the viewer down and wallowed in excessiveness for a while, then just closed shop with the customers happy (it’s structured really awkwardly). Viewers should have protection before they watch this movie. Instead of helmets and shoulder pads, I suggest watching classic horror movies such as the ones mentioned above, so that they don’t fall prey to the easy style of copycat that the script and directional style so desperately rely on, and are fueled by. The Conjuring is a film that won’t be on either my “Worst of 2013” or “Best of 2013” list. It’s right in the middle; it’s got some assets, and it’s got some downfalls, so at least it’s not a complete bomb. I hope that director James Wan starts taming his skills of direction, and making them his own, because I don’t know how many more unoriginal, unspectacular horror (particularly supernatural) movies I can sit through. My greatest piece of advice to him is to watch some more classical horror movies, find a book on how to make a film original, and have a long talk and cup of coffee with Tim Burton. I think the last mentioned idea will do him some serious good.

-Written by Cole Pollyea

Jesse's Take On THE CONJURING

Click HERE To Watch The Video on YouTube

DARK BLUE

Jesse's Rating: ★★★★

Director: Ron Shelton
Year: 2002
Cast: Kurt Russell, Ving Rhames, Scott Speedman
Genre: Crime/Drama/Thriller
MPAA Rating: R

        I have always been a big Kurt Russell fan. He plays anti-heroes, bumbling superheroes, and the everyman character to perfection. Yet, until Dark Blue, I never saw him as a serious dramatic actor who could contend for, say, an Oscar. Now granted, Kurt didn't get nominated for his turn as a corrupt L.A.P.D. cop in the movie I'm writing this review on; but he should have. His performance has many more layers than what we're used to seeing from a once famed child actor. What can I say? As Sergeant Eldon Perry, he is flat out volcanic. Watching him on screen, you feel as if he's acting for his life. I was blown away. Not only is this his best performance ever, but the film outside of Russell, is fantastic as well. Its director, Ron Shelton (White Man Can't Jump, Tin Cup), is not known for shooting cop flicks. He's more your lessons-learned-through-sports movie guy. He does, however, in this exercise, know the darkest parts of L.A., and he knows how to get his actors to say what they mean and mean what they say. Let's be honest, going into the theater back in 2003, I didn't think a guy who played Elvis and a director who made Bull Durham could deliver a gritty, absorbing, and overwhelmingly solid cop thriller. I have to admit I was mistaken and pleasantly surprised at the same time.

        Now Dark Blue does come off as a little confusing in the first 10-15 minutes. But thereafter, it settles down to tell its story in a brilliant sort of way that an audience member can not think too hard and be massively entertained at the same time. Based on a short story by crime novelist James Ellroy, concerning the famous Rodney King trial, and serving as a backdrop to the L.A. riots of 1992, Dark Blue makes its case as a character study for Russell, his superior officer (commander Jack Van Meter played Brendan Gleeson who specializes in cold, heartless types), and his nervous young partner (detective Bobby Keough played by Underworld's Scott Speedman). Russell's character and Speedman's character take orders from Van Meter who, on the side, has two street thugs that regularly steal and murder for him (the murders aren't the main intention, it's about the money). In return, he lets them stay out of jail, therefore putting the burden of having said detectives (Keough and Perry) find, shoot, and arrest similar suspects who had nothing to do with the crimes. As the film carries on, Perry (Russell) along with Keough (Speedman) have epiphanies and start to question their overall motives. Meanwhile, assistant chief Arthur Holland (played by a powerfully gentle Ving Rhames) is trying to crack the whole internal investigation wide open and expose any corrupt doings within the department. 

        This is a smooth, intricately woven plot machine. As I viewed it for a second time, I was heavily reminded of 2001's Training Day. Both films are similar in their examination of the misguided, fallen nature of L.A.'s finest. In terms of the lead, Russell plays a sort of less nastier version of Denzel Washington's Alonzo Harris. Even the endings of these films seem sort of familiar. Both actors in each movie spout off soliloquies and speeches when their vehicles reach their conclusions. The difference with Dark Blue is that it's a lot less bloody and it deals more with moral issues minus the over-the-top gratuitous violence (just call it Training Day lite). Yes, Training Day is also very good. But "Blue" goes deeper and exhausts you as the viewer in different, more thought-provoking ways. 

        One of my favorite things I like to do as a critic is find motion pictures that are vastly underrated and painfully overlooked by other critics and the movie going public. Dark Blue may be one of the most underrated films I have ever seen. It came out at the wrong time of the year (March of 2003), wasn't marketed terribly well, and, as a result, tanked at the box office. The fact that it hasn't grown a mild cult following also has me scratching my head. Bottom line: If you haven't seen this masterpiece, please do so. It makes you question how police work gets done, it forecasts a harrowing sense of dread from the opening scene re-shown an hour and a half later, it has sequences in which Ron Shelton puts you right in the middle of L.A.'s terrifying South Central mind field, and it has Russell plowing his way through the movie like a bull in a china shop. All in all, Dark Blue is a gem, a revelation, and one "dark" film indeed.

-Written by Jesse Burleson

YOU'RE NEXT

Jesse's Rating: ★★★

Director: Adam Wingard
Year: 2011
Cast: Sharni Vinson, Joe Swanberg, AJ Bowen
Genre: Comedy/Horror/Thriller
MPAA Rating: R

       With smidgens of background music straight out of a 1980's John Hughes film and villains with a penchant for killing defenseless human beings by way of crossbows, You're Next exhibits a new and fresh perspective on the horror/slasher genre. Now I'm saying this based on my observation of the movie's second half. The last 45 minutes surprised me and I consider them very effective. The first half, well, it resembles one of the weaker Friday the 13th sequels coupled with residue from the meaningless pile of junk that is The Strangers (2008) ("Next" plays like a wiser, more intelligent version of the said movie). At 96 fast paced minutes, You're Next isn't monumentally scary. In fact, it's a horror flick that plays more like a thriller. Does that make it less palatable? No way. Truth be told, this is an exercise that delivers a couple of nifty twists and turns that help it rise above the ordinary. Now I can't reveal these twists (nor would I want to) but I do know this: I couldn't recommend "Next" without them. I also can't divulge who the character is that turns out to be the reluctant heroine. If you choose to take in a viewing, you'll find out for yourself that this person is a true survivalist that kinda came out of nowhere. And as the perceptive critic that I always try to be, I initially didn't pick up on it.

        Harboring actors/actresses that I've never seen in a film before and taking place in I figured the middle of nowhere (of course), You're Next has a premise that goes like this: a rich family consisting of a husband, wife, and four children (all with significant others) venture out to a remote vacation home (it's not revealed where but I found out that filming took place in Columbia, Missouri) for a sort of rekindling (the vibe I get is that they haven't seen each other in quite some time). This family doesn't know it yet, but they are being watched and are to be eventually hunted down by henchman wearing creepy masks that resemble, I guess, bunny rabbits. What begins from that moment on is a relentless rush of terror that doesn't let up. If you like the sight of blood, "Next" will not disappoint. After I left the theater, I wondered, budget wise, how much money was shelled out for all those gallons of red dye corn syrup.

        Despite that fact that this flick works, there is still something that kinda irked me about You're Next: once this thing comes to a close, there is a gaping hole evident in the storyline that concerns the antagonists' motivations. It seems like the script wasn't thought out too much, but instead invented to entertain, despite the fact that moviegoers passionate about strong writing will discover the apparent flaw.

      When it's all said and done, though, You're Next has some decent acting (much better than your standard horror fare with virtual unknowns in the cast), satisfying direction for most of the way (there are some scenes with a sizable amount of jittery camerawork that I could've done without), and an effective 180 degree turn in terms of what you thought you knew about some of the characters. Then there's the ending. It's been done a few times before with other films of this nature. It's equally disturbing and funny. Overall, this is not a horror classic that's going to set the world on fire, but it succeeds in trying to add a spark to what I believe to be a tired, over-the-hill genre of filmmaking. Regardless, this gets a recommendation from me and it's the "next" movie you should take in during these dog days of August.

-Written by Jesse Burleson & Cole Pollyea

A SIMPLE PLAN

Cole's Rating: ★★★ ½

Jesse's Rating: ★★★ ½

Director: Sam Raimi
Year: 1998
Cast: Bill Paxton, Billy Bob Thornton, Brent Briscoe, Bridget Fonda
Genre: Crime/Drama/Thriller
MPAA Rating: R

        When my uncle wrote out his top twenty movies of all time, there were only a few titles that I hadn’t heard of, A Simple Plan being one of them. After assembling a list of “Must Watch DVDs”, I placed the order on Amazon, and received this movie a week later. A Simple Plan is a supremely exciting film, made better by its powerful performances. It’s not perfect, as most films aren’t, and it wouldn’t be on my top twenty, but it’s good enough to be on someone’s for sure. 

        Billy Bob Thornton, Bill Paxton, and Brent Briscoe (a loser, a hard worker with a family, and a redneck) stumble across four and a half million dollars in a plane that they found wrecked and buried in snow while out hunting. Briscoe and Thornton suggest that they keep it, and hide it from anyone who comes looking for it, but Paxton suggests otherwise. After some heated debating, they decide to keep it, but if anybody comes looking for it, they burn it. Intricate, right? Nah, the movie plays out as the title suggests: simple. Don’t get me wrong, it’s well plotted, but the story isn’t going to revolutionize storytelling (to put it lightly). What to marvel at here is how an average story is brought to a whole new caliber on the silver screen. It’s riddled with moving performances (especially by Thornton), great character interaction, and a swift, exciting pace. Something else to notice in this film is the surprisingly successful manner in which it captured its time and place.

        The problem, then, lies within the simplistic story itself. Some character transitions and plot turns are just unbelievable. That’s all there is to it, so some occurrences in the writing is the movie’s only fault. Though something that the writer and director Sam Raimi excels at is the ability to make the audience ponder upon what we would do if we were in that situation, as opposed to leaving us indifferent.

        I’m a sucker for anti-hero endings, and while this one isn’t what you’d expect, I was licking my chops after the closing scene. In my mind, I prefer that over washed up Hollywood conclusions, and that’s where I praise Scott B. Smith, the writer of this book. His story has faults, as I’ve pointed out before, but the guy knows how to craft a juicy story and wrap it up to a film/novel buff’s best interest. Is it the most credible telling I’ve ever been exposed to? Nah, but hey, it’s a wild, thoughtful ride!

-Written by Cole Pollyea

Jesse's Thoughts: With tension that is calculated with every searing minute, A Simple Plan is a thriller to be reckoned with. No one is safe in this movie. With a few nasty twists and turns, you get some brilliant tooth and nail film making from Sam Raimi. Billy Bob Thornton, Bill Paxton, and Bridget Fonda are in a word, flawless. This movie projects two things: one is that even the most law abiding citizens can commit the most heinous crimes and two: the more money you possess, the more problems you will encounter. A Simple Plan will always remain one of my favorite films. Be warned, the last twenty minutes pack a serious wallop.