Classics: 12 Angry Men

12 Angry Men. 

12 Angry Men is a courtroom drama that was released in 1957 directed by the legendary Sidney Lumet (Serpico, Dog Day Afternoon). The plot revolves around jury deciding in a murder trial that involves one juror that believes the defendant is not guilty while the other 11 believe he is guilty. The movie features an ensemble cast of 1950's actors headlined by Henry Fonda (Grapes of Wrath, Once Upon a Time in the West). 

12 Angry Men is a bonafide classic, it was nominated for 3 Oscars, is a part of the Criterion Collection, was selected to be preserved in the National Film Registry, holds a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes and is the number 5 movie on IMDB's top 250 movies. The main point of this review is to ask, does it hold up?

The first thing that really jumps out at me is the screenplay, the writing in this movie is phenomenal, every word means something. 12 Angry Men is 96 minutes long and nearly the entire movie takes place in one room with just the jurors talking and debating the innocence of the defendant. One of the best decisions made in the making of the movie is to leave the jurors nameless even to the audience. The way the movie deals with race in 1957 is impressive, it is impressive even by today's standards so there's something to be said about that. 

It's hard to really explain this movie in a way that sounds interesting because this film should not be interesting, it's 96 minutes of dialogue and debate in one room, it should be boring, but it's not. Some may think that it is hell, the move is in black and white too which will throw some people off right away. Part of m love for the movie may stem from my love of politics and law itself which obviously lends itself favorably for the movie. 12 Angry Men gets unbelievably intense and the arguments get underneath the skin in a way that hasn't been done as well since. 

If there was a modern movie that I'd try to compare it to is Lincoln, it's a movie that doesn't contain much action and is about debate just as 12 Angry Men is. The movies are vastly different but they are similar in the way that many people can see that the movies are boring and nothing but talking but 12 Angry Men is much more than that (I'm not saying these 2 movies are comparable in greatness, I liked Lincoln but it's not nearly as great as 12 Angry Men).

Rewatchability: 4.5/5, it's one of those movies that I could watch endlessly, I don't get bored by it and it keeps my attention throughout. The film doesn't get diluted by the result of the ending like some other movies can (I'm looking at you, Buried). 

Rating: 5/5, I don't give a perfect score out lightly and by no means does it mean that the movie is perfect but 12 Angry Men is the kind of movie that I love, it's timeless, thought provoking and enjoyable. For me, the movie has earned every accolade it's gotten and deserves to be studied the way that it is. 

Circle - Review

Circle. 

Circle is a 2015 psychological thriller directed by two first time directors named Mario Miscione and Aaron Hann. Circle stars an ensemble cast of 50 people, a bunch of unknowns, and a few familiar faces, most notably Julie Benz of Dexter fame. What drew me to Circle was its intriguing story (plus it's on Netflix so it's free yo), Circle is about 50 strangers that show up in a room in a circle and have to vote on who gets killed until there is one left. The vote happens every 1-2 minutes so they're forced to make a decision or a random person gets killed by this mysterious orb in the middle of the circle that strikes each person with a bolt of electricity. There's death but 0 gore, after 7/8 people die the group begins to debate a way to do this as logically as possible. The movie really gets at you because it makes you think of yourself in the position and how you'd handle it. The film quickly starts going down a pretty dark path all of 10 minutes into the movie when the group decides to kill of the oldest members of the group to buy themselves some time to debate what to keep doing. 

The movie tackles a lot of big issues, it brings up age, sexuality, religion, race, veterans and some parts really hit you hard. 

It's an interesting movie that's hard to talk about without giving much away but it's definitely worth the watch and it'll make you think a lot for a 90 minute movie. 

Rewatchability: ?/5, I very honestly don't know how rewatchabal this movie is, while I can totally see myself wanting to watch this again and watching it with friends, I don't know if knowing the movie's end will take away from the viewing experience again. 

Rating: 4/5, I liked this movie a lot, I didn't expect much from it which could be the reason I rated it so highly but it was a good movie, it'll make you think and I will definitely be recommending it to friends. 

Saturday the 14th: The Drownsman - Review

The Drownsman. 

The Drownsman is a 2014 Canadian horror film and the 4th film directed by Chad Archibald who's directed nothing of note as of yet. The Drownsman stars a bunch of unknowns whose credits include most of Archibald's other films. The story follows Madison who almost drowns in a lake and has visions of this "Drownsman" and is terrified of water afterward that gets so bad that she skips her best friend's wedding even though she's the maid of honor. (In writing this I started to wonder how this girl bathed, the film shows her being terrified of rain and bathtubs not just big bodies of water so I'm kinda wondering here. She doesn't even drink water, she has like a portable IV that gives her her fluids.) From what I can gather, this "Drownsman" is like Freddy Krueger where he can only get you in his domain (Freddy in your dreams and Drownsman in water). 

After Madison's friends attempt an intervention by pretty much throwing her in a tub, the Drownsman starts coming after all of the girls in classic slasher fashion. Well it's not that scary but I don't think it really tried to be and if I'm being honest, I thought twice about drinking out of my water bottle during the movie so I guess it took a small victory there. 

The acting is pretty bad, the directing is overall pretty okay. The story is kinda dumb but it's a horror movie so who cares? There's a pretty solid plot twist that kicks off the third act of the movie that I very honestly did not see coming. 

The biggest issue with the movie is that you don't really care about the characters and the villain isn't at all interesting. What made Freddy great was his banter and witty remarks, what made Jason great was his mask and machete, the Drownsman on the other hand doesn't talk and looks like a dude who just walked through a swamp, he doesn't have a memorable quality about him that sticks in your head after the movie is over. But there are the makings of a solid franchise here, if you get a better team to do some sequels then I wouldn't be too opposed to a Drownsman series. The Drownsman himself isn't memorable but Jason didn't wear his iconic mask until his third movie so there is still some hope to make the Drownsman a more memorable slasher (drowner). Plus I can't lie, the movie poster is pretty awesome and it's a clear homage to the original Nightmare on Elm Street poster. 

Rewatchability: 1.5/5, I probably won't wanna watch it again but if a few years from now we get a good sequel then I might come back to the OG and check it out. 

Rating: 2/5, a very by the numbers horror movie without much scares to show for it, as I said earlier it could end up becoming a decent franchise if put in the right hands but as of now, it's a forgettable slasher film. 

007: Spectre - Review

Spectre. 

Spectre is the 24th film in the James Bond franchise and the 4th starring Daniel Craig. Spectre serves as the film that ties the other Craig films together. While it is nice to have all of the films to become intertwined, some of the references and ties seem a little forced and awkward. 

The opening sequence of the film takes place during Mexico's Day of the Dead celebration and lends itself to really nice costume design and a phenomenal opening sequence that we've grown used to in this era of Bond. The movie opens with a magnificent tracking shot that follows Bond around and really shows of Sam Mendes' direction. 

As per usual all of the performances are top notch, Craig can play Bond practically in his sleep and has really nailed the character. Ralph Fiennes does a great job as M and as a successor to Judi Dench. Dave Bautista of Guardians of the Galaxy and WWE fame is good in the movie but literally has 1 line, not an exaggeration, 1 damn line. 

2-time Oscar winner Christoph Waltz who no longer needs an introduction was his usual brilliant self. Unfortunately he has started to become typecast as the conniving and smart villain who he again plays in Spectre. His role while good could've been much better had the seeds of his plan been planted in the previous movies a la the Marvel Cinematic Universe. He is the self proclaimed "author of Bond's pain" yet the revelations he shows do not hit hard enough due to the fact that we were just introduced to him in this film. Waltz does the best he can with the character and is the thing that keeps this villain from being a run of the mill villain. He doesn't come close to Skyfall's Raoul Silva played by Javier Bardem.

A lot of this movie seemed unnecessary, at 2.5 hours, I think more could've been left out. It's hard to explain, especially without revealing information but there were scenes and storylines that could've either been left out or taken care of much quicker. 

It's hard to judge this movie, do we judge it as an action movie, a James Bond movie or as a Daniel Craig-Bond movie? To keep it simple, I'm going to compare it to Craig's other films because the other incarnations of Bond differ too much to adequately compare to. Spectre is the 3rd best of the 4 Craig films. That seems bad but to be fair Skyfall's and Casino Royale are among my favorite Bond movies ever with Skyfall being one of my favorite movies of the last 5 years. Spectre was destined to be a let down, Skyfall was too good of a film to be followed up by a movie of the same quality but nonetheless Spectre is a good movie. 

Rewatchability: 3/5, I'm always down to watch a good Bond movie but this won't be the first one I grab for in the collection. 

Rating: 3.5/5, a quality addition to the Bond franchise that I think will be remembered better over time as opposed to off the heels of Skyfall. I walked away happy with the film and would definitely recommend it to any Bond or action movie fan.