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

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

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

Jesse's Rating: ★★ ½

Cole's Rating: ★★ ½

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

        Let me start this review off by saying that The Conjuring is only moderately scary. This film is expertly plotted (for the first half), well cast, and provides a few jolts here and there. It's an American horror yarn that takes place in the early 1970's. To make things even more authentic, it also feels like 70's film making in general. Director James Wan loves to show off with the camera by harboring a large amount of zoom ins and zoom outs (if I'm not mistaken, these are prevelant techniques used in the aforementioned decade). He seems to want to do this instead of actually scaring the audience. Heck, he even films a long tracking shot (ala Goodfellas) at the beginning. This is done as the terrorized family portrayed, is first moving in. So with all the fun that Wan is having with these shots, it still feels like he's holding back. In just under two hours, The Conjuring is mostly build up. And when the scares come, they just doesn't feel potent enough. But to be honest, that's not the only problem. This is an exercise that pretty much borrows from almost every horror movie ever made. It's basically The Exorcist meets The Amityville Horror (the houses from The Conjuring and "horror" are eerily simliar) with tidbits from The Evil Dead, The Sixth Sense, The Changeling, and Paranormal Activity all thrown into the mix. Now most of what I've just mentioned is pretty scary stuff. It's just too bad that a movie based on a true story such as this one, has to be so darn unoriginal by copying everything that came before it (yes, the events in The Conjuring take place circa 1971, but it still was released this year, just wanted to make that clear).

        Set in a small town in Rhode Island and taking place in the fall season (fall is inclined to include heavy rainfall like so many horror flicks do), The Conjuring tells the story of the Parron family (five girls plus Ron Livingston as Roger Parron and Lili Taylor as Carolyn Parron) buying a farmhouse and encountering demonic forces in it that are beyond their control. They buy this place not knowing the history of it or it's tantalizing structure (apparently unbeknownst to them, there is a cellar below, how original). After things go bump bump in the night (naturally), they call on a husband and wife team of paranormal investigators (Patrick Wilson as Ed Warren and Vera Farmiga as Lorraine Warren) to drive out from Conneticut and rid the dwelling of all things supernatural. With all the painful familiarity going on, the best scene for me happens when this happily married, ghost hunting couple enters the house, scopes everything out, and delivers the bad news about what's going on. This all happens toward the middle section of the running time and I figured things could maybe go uphill from here. Unfortunately I was wrong. In the past I've recommended recyled movies of all genres. With this one, I finally had to break the streak.

        You don't have to take my word for it, but if you plan on viewing The Conjuring, just know that it almost loses its way in the second half. I'm not sure why, but this picture actually adds a comedic element with all the chaos that's going on (it's in the form of a police officer who tags along and looks completely out of place). It's totally unnecessary. To be honest, I thought this vehicle was supposed to be terrifying. I guess I was wrong. Truth be told, there's no need for some goofy side character (a sort of deapan version of Deputy Dewey in Scream) taking part in the happenings at the Parron house. Added to that awkwardness, there's also sort of a level of contradiction that occupanies the haunted family that was just mentioned. For instance, the investigators sit the heads of the Parron household down and tell them that they can't escape the evil entity trying to possess them (basically, they say that no one can leave the house). Cut to a half hour later and the whole family being haunted is told to go to a hotel. And I know this movie is based on a true story, but throughout the proceedings, it was hard for me to figure out who was being terrorized the most and why. Was it the mother or one of the five daughters? Notice I didn't mention the father. I found it weird that no evil spirit layed a finger on him.

        All in all, if you've never seen the countless films this bad boy imitates, The Conjuring might scare the living daylights out of you. If this flick somehow affects you, there's a chance you might be frightened by laying on a bed, opening a closet door, clapping twice, or looking in a mirror. But if you've been around the block like I have when it comes to scary movies, you probably will consider it disposable to the nth degree. As familiar as an old shoe and as tired as your average college student pulling an all nighter, this take on old fashioned horror fare is nothing to "conjure" about.  

-Written by Jesse Burleson

Cole's Take On THE CONJURING

Click Here To Watch The Video on YouTube

Cole's Take On: MAN OF STEEL

Cole's Rating: ★★★

Jesse's Rating: ★★★

Director: Zack Snyder

Year: 2013

Cast: Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Kevin Costner, Diane Lane, Russell Crowe

Genre: Action/Adventure/Fantasy

MPAA Rating: PG-13

         To date, Man of Steel is my second favorite film so far this year. Now given, it hasn’t been an incredible year for movies, I still think that this is a cinematic achievement—for some of its totality. My only wish for a movie like this, which is chock full of ambitious and irresistible elements, is that it could withhold its magnitude for the entirety of its running time. Director Zack Snyder isn’t capable of making this happen, but who knows that it was really him? Maybe Michael Bay swooped in towards the second half of the film and took over. I swear that I saw his fingers around the lenses of the camera during the action scenes. And if I should say so myself, they were tinted a bit green.

        Man of Steel begins with the introduction of the knock-out cast. Russell Crowe plays Jor-El, Superman’s father who sends him to Earth in a last second attempt to preserve his life from the apocalyptic (or soon-to-be apocalyptic) Krypton. A cold Michael Shannon plays General Zod, a Krypton-trained warrior who wants to rebuild his home planet on Earth. And finally, Henry Cavill plays the Superman character quite well, however, comparably not as good as Tom Welling in the Superman series titled Smallville. But as the movie progresses, I discovered that Cavill became more and more comfortable in the main role (and unshaven, might I add). Amy Adams looks the part as Lois Lane, who’s under-developed relationship with Superman is only a cause for the inevitable sequel. Kevin Costner also plays a big role in the movie, even though his screen time may be miniscule. He helps build the backbone for Superman as a child, and his performance is Academy-Award worthy (he is in the best scenes of the movie). The cast is excellent, the story is riveting, and it’s all carried out through a series of both chronological storytelling and flashbacks.

        You may ask, “what could go wrong?”. Well, instead of continuing the movie’s epic case of storytelling, it takes the easy, Hollywood way out by turning the whole thing into a sabotage picture: blowing things up and tearing buildings down. I will give the director credit though. Something that he possesses that most directors do not is the ability to be imaginative with the action scenes. I’ve never seen anything like it. So I guess I was wrong about seeing Michael Bay’s hands; after all, he could never make action scenes like this. I guess the greenish color was foreshadowing Snyder’s greater success (not to mention monetary benefits) to come, maybe even with Man of Steel 2.

        I took my nine-year-old brother to this picture, and I don’t think I will take him to another like this again. The movie takes a lot of intriguing plot turns, which is something that he had a hard time keeping up with. In fact, I think that’s what I liked about the first half of the movie. The plot is constantly developing at a nice, breezy pace, and the only thing that you might have to say is to slow down. I only found myself saying it once, as I was thoroughly impressed with how interesting the tellings panned out. Let’s hope that between our viewing of this and our viewing of the sequel, Snyder starts reading books instead of watching Transformers. That is if he decides to stick with it. 

-Written by Cole Pollyea

Click HERE for Jesse's written review of Man of Steel

Click HERE to watch the video on YouTube

Cole's Take On: WORLD WAR Z

Cole's Rating: ★★

Jesse's Rating: ★★★

Director: Marc Forster 
Year: 2013

Cast: Brad Pitt, James Badge Dale, Matthew Fox

Genre: Action/Drama/Horror

MPAA Rating: PG-13

        I’ve come to realize that whenever I watch any zombie flick—whether it be a movie or television show—that I’ve been spoiled by The Walking Dead. In fact, that may very well be my favorite show of all time (I have the poster hung up in my room). Based on my experiences, what I can say is this: fans of the show will be tremendously disappointed with this dud. As World War Z began, Brad Pitt’s character was established as a family figure, when the zombies began to flood the city like a tsunami with no warning whatsoever. The family then goes through a series of formulaic zombie-apocalypse actions which include robbing a convenience store (which beheld one of the movie’s greatest scenes), seeking refuge, and fightin’ some zombies. Pitt’s character gets recruited to do some of the government’s work to help the country’s effort; go figure.

        Money played two roles in the casting of Brad Pitt; they cast him for money (box office); and he did it for money. I mean he may as well have been a zombie; he had about as much soul as one. Here he gives an astonishingly passionless performance to an already underdeveloped character. It’s unfortunate, too, when he’s the only character you have to care about. I figured that I may as well appreciate the zombie sequences as much as possible, but when they aren’t as scary, or nearly well done, as scenes in The Walking Dead, I was utterly disappointed. So I’ll say this: you couldn’t pay me to care whether or not Pitt’s character lived, or what happened to him. And based on what I saw, it’s entirely deserving of that statement.

        What’s even worse than the deadening performance was the bland screenplay. I never knew a zombie movie could lack vitality like this one did. Everything that they were saying had already been said; everything that they were doing had already been done; and worst of all, both of those things weren’t incredibly exciting—even if they had already been done. This excludes, however, the heart-racing conclusion which contained the only 20 minutes of the movie that kept my attention. A critic from the Boston Herald titled his review on World War Z: “‘World War’ zzzzzz Brad Pitt’s movie is a snore”. Well put.

        I haven’t read the whole thing, but Max Brooks’ novel is a whole-heck-of-a-lot better than this snoozer. And from what I saw, the movie is hardly loyal. A scene I read in the book illustrates lesser-privileged people rioting against greater-privileged people in a battle for safety (shelter) from the zombie apocalypse. Now, I’m not exactly sure why the screenplay writers excluded this from the movie—or if they even read the book—but I guarantee that it could have brought some originality to the table, which is something that World War Z lacks. This goes without mentioning other incredible aspects of the novel. 

        To close, I’ll throw a few extra one-liner descriptions of the movie that I wrote down as I was watching it: 1. When the zombies aren’t on screen, not that they are impressive anyhow, the movie is as dry and bland as Pitt’s performance; I guess you have the screenplay to thank for that. 2. I know that a movie is good—or relatively good—if I can watch it, and forget that I’m watching it and become absorbed into the characters and what’s happening on screen; that didn’t happened once here. 3. Zombie-movie-lovers and fans of the book beware! World War Z is an upsetting disappointment!

-Written by Cole Pollyea

Click here for Jesse's take on World War Z

Jesse's Take On: WORLD WAR Z

Jesse's Rating: ★★★
Cole's Rating: ★★

Director: Marc Forster 
Year: 2013

Cast: Brad Pitt, James Badge Dale, Matthew Fox

Genre: Action/Drama/Horror

MPAA Rating: PG-13

        Based on a novel by author Max Brooks and starring the venerable Brad Pitt (he's also a co-producer), World War Z is not your typical zombie movie. It doesn't have tongue and cheek humor like 2009's Zombieland, it's not overly depressing and dark like 2002's 28 Days Later, and doesn't involve a shopping mall (haha). My view on this definitive summer blockbuster is that it is a straight up thriller that takes place mostly in the daylight hours. It takes a much bigger approach on the military front and projects the conflict of events to cater to the whole planet (hence the title), not the confines of a town or village (Night of the Living Dead and Dawn of the Dead come to mind).

        Honestly, this might be the most realistic entry in the zombie genre that I can remember, and believe me, I've seen them all. If the happenings in this vehicle occurred in real life, I'm sure that this is how it would go down according to "Z's" make-up (with the exception of the actions pertaining to the Pitt character, I will get to that later). Directed with a nice big canvas and delivering some atomic scares with minimal gore (that might have to do with the PG-13 rating), World War Z is a solid, fierce exercise. However, it's part of a long list of films that have shades of greatness but don't quite make it across the finish line. There is a lack of a build up in the opening ten minutes which renders it less compelling (without hesitation, the zombies attack and you barely get to know the main characters). Then there is the ending which was rumored to have re-shoots. It's got that blatant Hollywood feel and once you see it, you'd think that the studio execs were solely responsible (I may be wrong in saying this, but I'm pretty sure director Marc Forster didn't have a say in the final cut). I will recommend what's on screen though because it does effectively what a lot of scary movies are unable to accomplish. For example, if you saw Jaws back in the day, you'd probably stay out of the water for a while. After seeing "WWZ," I didn't even want to venture out of the theater. I literally thought the undead were waiting for me. This sobering nail biter haunted me (it haunts me right now), and I believe that that's something only a good movie is able to pull off. Notice how I said a good movie, not a great movie. Let's just say that when World War Z isn't chaotic, it's deflating. You anxiously wait for the next fight between Pitt and the crazily possessed. Everything in between is as bland as tap water (it didn't need to be though).

        As the flick opens, we meet Gerry Lane (Pitt), a retired united nations investigator. In the opening scene, he's having breakfast with his wife and two children. Cut to downtown Philadelphia and Lane and his family are caught in rush hour traffic. Within seconds, a hoard of zombies storm down the road feasting on every human in sight. Lane, after observing how long it takes for someone to become a zombie after being bitten (12 seconds from what I remember), gets in his car and somehow is able to drive his family out of traffic and onto a back road. From then on, he gets a call from his U.N. superiors and boom, he's picked up on top of a building by helicopter and told that it's up him to save the world (he's not a doctor or a scientist but what the heck, it's a movie). Basically he has to travel across the globe to find the host (the first attacking agent) and decipher what measures can be taken for survival. He does all this while his family is safely left behind (an odd plot point, but it's not that big of a deal). 

        While watching "WWZ", I learned a couple of things that I initially did not know about the zombie world. For instance, they are drawn to noise. And I'm not just talking loud, Richter-scale stuff. Even the slightest clank or clutter sets them off. Also, they attack only healthy human beings. If you have a terminal disease and are near death, they run right past you. And make no mistake about it, these are the fastest zombies I've ever seen. They really snap to it by almost tackling each other to get to their human targets. If you've seen the trailer, you'll also notice that they climb on top of each other relentlessly to scale a wall. The whole image is hair-raising and disturbing, but brilliant at the same time. Honestly, it was hard at times to see exactly what was going on in a lot of scenes (think the look of the car chase from The Bourne Supremacy). But being that everything happening is so chaotic in these types of modern thrillers, the confusion can work because it's rooted in graphic realism.

        Then there is the Pitt performance which could be played by any professional actor. It doesn't require a whole lot, but I'm certain that the producers wanted a big name star attached to the project (solid box office returns is a plus). Pitt really plays it low key through the entire 2 hour running time. Usually, he's as animated as any actor you'll find. But in "Z", he lets his facial expressions do more of the talking (when he runs from the zombies though, it looks more like light jogging). With this approach, his character has plenty of screen presence to burn (he's looking like 1980's Robert Redford more and more each day, but what's up with the early 90's grunge getup?). The rest of the cast does an adequate job despite the limitations of the script. I'm not sure though if it was the theater I was in (sound might have been a little off), but a lot of the actors mumbled their lines from time to time. It was an observation that I hope was definitively wrong.

        In retrospect, there is a substantial amount of entertainment here. Flawed yet enigmatic and full of unbearable tension, World War Z is tailor-made for the summer moviegoer. It also answers two important questions: can this type of flick with a big name star like Pitt be effective? Sure, why not? And can a PG-13 horror fest with minimal gore and reduced violent imagery still scare and haunt you? You betcha. So to sum up this review, I'll say this: "Z" gets my recommendation. It's a serviceable thriller, and it gets a solid grade of a "B".

-Written by Jesse Burleson

Click here for Cole's take on World War Z

Two Takes on MEAN STREETS

Cole's Rating: ★★★ ½

Jesse's Rating: ★★★ ½

Director: Martin Scorsese
Year: 1973

Cast: Robert De Niro, Harvey Keitel, Amy Robinson

Genre: Crime/Drama
MPAA Rating: R

Cole's Take: “Ey! Ey! I payed you last Tuesday!”, proclaimed Robert De Niro in his 1973 role that put himself, along with Martin Scorsese, on the map in the film industry. What’s so great about Mean Streets is how personable it all is, and maybe that’s why it’s arguably Scorsese’s best work. The film digs into what he might have experienced while growing up in New York’s Little Italy, which makes it his most delicate movie of all time.

        Characters and dialogue, that’s what Mean Streets is all about. Not too much happens, and it doesn’t rate much as far as entertainment goes, but that’s alright because of how genuine the characters/performances are. Everything is very rawly shot, so it seems as if Martin Scorsese creates a semi-autobiographical reality, then has the camera spy on them in their everyday lives. You witness bar fights that are so sloppy and un-choreographed that you feel as if you’re watching the real thing; you witness low-lives fighting each other over a few bucks; you witness Charlie (played by Harvey Keitel, who gives one of his best performances) deciding between caring for the irresponsible, immature Johnny Boy (played by De Niro who never misses a beat), and working his way up in the small-time mob. You witness these things because you aren’t watching them, you’re living them along with Scorsese. He creates such well-crafted characters that you love and want to care for yourself, and then invents a harrowingly upsetting, yet realistic and highly effective conclusion that leaves the characters walking around with you after the credits role. What he does here is something that every filmmaker yearns to do, and that is make an authentic (and artistic) movie, that is echoed in every single movie by the same director that follows. Seeing as it was one of the first movies to put rock-and-roll into its soundtrack so effectively, there’s much more of that to come (seen in The Departed), as there is shocking cuts that happen from scene to scene (seen very often in The Color of Money), as there is De Niro performing like the cinematic equivalency of a “raging bull” (seen in, well, Raging Bull). I could go on and on. 

        To conclude, I’d say that while Mean Streets isn’t his best work, it’s still an incredible watch if you’re a patient and loving person. It’s not a typical Scorsese movie; it’s the original.

Jesse's Take: Mean Streets is Martin Scorsese's first real foray into his bravado directorial style for years to come. This film is a very personal, very insightful look at what he might of went through as a young man growing up in New York City's seedy district of Little Italy. There's a moderate mob element to the proceedings and an intense character study of Harvey Keitel's Charlie, a man who has to choose between looking out for his troubled friend Johnny Boy (Robert De Niro who's performance is the brilliant equivalent of a charging rhino) and moving up the chain of small time New York Mafia. Mean Streets is raw, somewhat improvised, and carries the feeling that the world's greatest living director saw the future of cinema years ahead of everybody else. The ending (which I could never reveal) is gut wrenching in ways that I can't describe.

        One of the best aspects you could pull from this pioneering indie (it sure feels like independent filmmaking) is that the all the characters make an impression on you. They stay with you long after the credits roll. To add to that, everything Scorsese made after Mean Streets goes back to Mean Streets. It's the blueprint for pretty much his whole body of work. During the first half of the film, Keitel utters the line, "twenty dollars, let's go to da movies!" Yeah, if you go to the movies, make it Mean Streets. It's a keeper.

Two Takes on THE INTERNSHIP

Cole's Rating: ★★ ½

Jesse's Rating: ★★★

Director: Shawn Levy

Year: 2013

Cast: Vince Vaughn, Owen Wilson, Rose Byrne

Genre: Comedy

MPAA Rating: PG-13

Cole's Take:

        What’s disappointing in modern day cinema is when a film has an incredible opportunity with the brilliant ideas that the script offers, and when the same film is diluted with what dilutes a large amount of movies nowadays: happy endings, unnecessary crude humor, and sentimentality. The Internship has all that and more, which for me, makes it the biggest letdown so far this year.

        It purports Owen Wilson (who delivers in all of his performances including this) and Vince Vaughn as two old saps who lose their jobs in the sales industry because what they are selling becomes obsolete due to technology. They then desperately attempt to find jobs, and somehow wind up at with an internship at Google, which may very well be the movie’s most ironic element because it didn’t play its cards right. Vaughn’s character is shown sitting at his computer, drinking beer, and typing in “sales jobs for people with few skills”. Next thing you know, he types in Google (because apparently he couldn’t find anything interesting in the previous search results), invents fake college certificates, holds a interview, and boom! The result is an internship at Google which may lead to a job. Forget about the fact that they are 40 years old and have no technological abilities. Seems too good to be true, right? It clearly doesn’t take itself seriously; so why should we? Instead of using this great concept to its advantage, it throws it aside, and substitutes it with the mentioned gag humor and stupid scenes. Not to mention the astounding number of cameos that literally make you say out-loud, “What the heck?”. The only thing missing here is Adam Sandler.

        But as all Vaughn movies do, it had its moments. And again, as all Vaughn movies do, it was really funny for a while, until it, inevitably, started to become sappy; it was also riddled with the most cliche characters you can think of. To our misfortune (because it defies reality) it ends happily, tying all loose ends with double nots, might I add, which makes this another swing-and-miss for him. Just add this one to the list! One of his films that is not on it is The Break-Up (go figure, it doesn’t end happily). Near the end of the movie, Vaughn claims “Not to get too sentimental.” Gimme’ a break, Vaughn!

        I recommend it as a viewer, not critic. It’s a shame that I can’t recommend it as both, but that’s just how so many movies are nowadays. They’re deceptive, and unconditionally enjoyable. They wear a mask, and demand you to like them. The Internship masks what could actually have made it better: its concept of two old men trying (fighting, even) to keep up with modern day society and the technological advances that open up so many jobs and futures (a term dealt with heavily in this movie, which was something I appreciated). It’s certainly not a bad watch, but it could’ve, and should’ve, been a lot better.

-Written by Cole Pollyea

Jesse's Take:

        Slated as an early June release, The Internship tells the story of two guys (wrist watch salesmen I'm thinking) who lose their jobs to the unfortunate medium of technology and decide to travel to California. Their objective: Get jobs at Google and start a new life. The two best friends (Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson as Billy and Nick respectively) are much older than all the interns at the Google factory and feel out of place at first. But they inject a sort of teamwork aspect that their "Big Brother" team somewhat lacks. This sets off a chain of events and brings everybody closer to their goal of getting full time jobs at what Billy states is "the best job in America".

        So after viewing The Watch (unnecessarily rated R junk) and The Dilemma (a dark and restless vehicle trying to pass off as comedy), I was a little skeptical about going to see the latest quote unquote "Vince Vaughn movie". I've been critical of this guy in the past because he relentlessly gives the same performance over and over (it started with Old School and he hasn't looked back since). As a result, I'd be lying if I said I had high expectations venturing into the theater to see The Internship. But wouldn't you know it, this film surprised me. It is a refreshing, lightweight comedy that piles on good, solid, palatable laughs. It's got a lot of characters in it that win you over. And it's got Owen Wilson on board to compliment his best bud Vaughn. Because of this, Vaughn automatically becomes a much more likable actor this time around. The two of them echo back to their Wedding Crashers days by basically playing the same characters (it's like they're always on a mission), having sort of similar adventures (Owen's gets to be smooth with the ladies again), and making all of us laugh wholeheartedly.

        But let's be honest, The Internship is no masterpiece. Much of what happens in it does not permeate to real life (there's maybe a 10% chance these guys would be hired at this particular organization full of genius code breakers). This flick feels more like a fantasy than a dose of surmised reality (the term "it's only a movie" applies here like you wouldn't believe). Overall though, this motion picture just wants to have fun. It tells a good story (not a true one mind you), has an outrageous Will Ferrell cameo, and caters to the whole Vaughn/Wilson chemistry thing. And although The Internship strives to be great but comes up a little short, that's okay because it defines the word "harmless." It also has a breeziness to it that's contagious. With the exception of a little too much improvisation from the cast (they talk real fast like they're in old 50's movies), what's on screen still gets my recommendation. Reason being is that it sets a gold standard for a PG-13 laugh fast. It does this by teetering on the brink of R rated movie fare while thankfully not going over the edge. It's a welcome surprise when you can giggle and snarl in the theater without the abundance of cuss words.

        With the summer movie season in full swing, The Internship doesn't quite fit the mold of a huge bloated blockbuster like we see every year (yes, I'm talking about Transformers). But for what it's worth I enjoyed myself for two straight hours. It's not easy to make a film where everything comes together perfectly (you know script, direction, editing, music, etc.). So to sum up my review, I'd say yes, this film has many flaws, but for laughable escapist entertainment, it undoubtedly does the trick.

-Written by Jesse Burleson

Jesse's Take On: MAN OF STEEL

Jesse's Rating: ★★★

Director: Zack Snyder

Year: 2013

Cast: Henry Cavill, Amy Adams, Russell Crowe, Diane Lane, Kevin Costner

Genre: Action/Adventure/Fantasy

MPAA Rating: PG-13

        For the record, I have only seen one of director Zach Snyder's previous films being 2004's Dawn of the Dead. That vehicle was a very small sample size compared to what I witnessed at a screening for his much anticipated Superman reboot Man of Steel. Within two and a half exhausting hours, I realized that this man is truly a visionary filmmaker. Snyder shoots action scenes like no other director I've ever seen (a lot of long shots and extreme long shots). There's a relentless sort of exuberant energy that comes with every frame. He throws a lot at you until you just can't take it anymore. Okay, let's lay it all out on the line, there's enough suspenseful battles/fistfights/shoot-em'-ups in Man of Steel to fill 7-8 movies (I'm not kidding). They are well done and totally eye popping. But this flick is a classic case of a cinematic exercise "living by the sword and dying by the sword". That means Man of Steel's strength is also its weakness. The last 45 minutes consists of carnage and destruction that you have to see to believe. There's an attempt of movie sabotage going on here which does two things: it bogs down the third act (story loses focus) and makes you, the moviegoer, feel like you're watching Transformers all over again (the part that hurts the most is that once the action heightens, the caliber of acting goes downhill and the characters become less dynamic). Now based on my rating, it's apparent that I will recommend this movie. But I am disappointed in the fact that it could have been so much better. The first half is incredibly compelling and invigorating (a possible Best Picture nominee). The second half, well, what can I say? It's a big explosion fest that would fuel the psyche of your typical action junkie. To conclude the first paragraph of this review, I will say this: Yes, Man of Steel is a "popcorn flick". In fact, towards the end, it's popcorn with a pound of butter and plenty of fine, iodized salt.

        Now if you've seen the first two Superman films (Superman (1978) and Superman II (1981)), or you have a love for comics, the story should be very familiar to you (Jor-El predicts that Krypton is going to be destroyed so he sends his son Kal-El to earth where his identity remains unknown. As time marches on, Kal-El realizes who he really is and identifies his possession of superhuman powers. This propels him to maintain and take care of our planet). Man of Steel stays somewhat faithful to the past Superman entries, but at the same time, there is a whole new take on the proceedings. This film has the distinction of being a remake with plot elements of not one, but the combo of both flicks from 78' and 81' (General Zod is a more pivotal character this time around and Lex Luther is non-existent). And let it be known, this is a much, much, darker adaptation. It's more military in nature and the whimsical love story between Clark Kent and Lois Lane is sorely left out. Now, a lot of critics have found the seriousness and darkness of this entry off putting. Thankfully, I have no problem with it. Snyder's new vision is realized and assured. And there's a kind of anti-hero vibe to Man of Steel that makes it surprisingly moving (maybe it's keeping with today's mindset, I can't be sure).

        The cast is mostly all aces. All the actors/actress that show up and contribute, probably could each helm their own movie (Russell Crowe, Kevin Costner, Diane Lane, Laurence Fishburne, Amy Adams). Almost everyone on screen delivers, but it's Costner (Jonathan Kent) who's stands out. His performance in a somewhat small role as Kal El's adopted father is quietly powerful (there's a scene with destruction by tornadoes that will give you goosebumps). And then there is Russell Crowe as Jor-El. Listen, nobody is cooler than Crowe. He even fights a little (Gladiator style at the beginning). But his performance doesn't quite match the intensity of Marlon Brando's stint from 78' (I think it was Marlon's voice alone that kind of sealed the deal). As for the lead of Superman, Henry Cavill does a fine job despite what you might have heard. He's no Christopher Reeve (it's impossible to equal Reeve's charm and charisma) but he looks the part perfectly, has a solid screen presence, and caters to the physical demands of the role. He's a little wooden at times, but with the next installment (you know it's gonna happen), I think his acting will probably get better and better. Just a hunch. That leaves the one weak spot in casting which would be Amy Adams as Lois Lane. Now I still think she's a solid actress but her minutes on screen lack a little depth. When Margot Kidder played the part in the original, she did more "reacting" than acting and it made her performance more natural, not to mention more human. Adams is no doubt a movie star, but when I saw her in Man of Steel, I just thought, that's Amy Adams (this tends to happen with a lot of big name stars).

        In conclusion, I found Man of Steel to be a solid entry in the retelling of the Superman franchise. There's shades of greatness that mostly show up early on. Honestly, if this flick had eyes, you'd see in them, a yearning early on, to become a cinematic masterpiece. Sadly, because of the plot going on autopilot late in the proceedings, things don't quite work out that way. But come on, it's going to make a ton of money and there's sure to be a sequel. How do I know? Well, you can painfully tell that the filmmakers do an obvious job of shoving that notion right down your throat. This is done at the very end and I've never seen a film try harder to announce a sequel than this one does. But hey, no worries. You'll probably enjoy the feverishness and relentless swagger that is Man of Steel.

-Written by Jesse Burleson

Click here for Cole's written review of Man of Steel

Click HERE to watch the video on YouTube

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.