Unbroken - Review

Unbroken.

Unbroken is the second film directed by Angelina Jolie starring Jack O'Connell as Louie Zamperini an Olympic runner who ends up fighting in World War II as a bombardier. After a near fatal crash landing that claimed most of his crew, Zamperini and two other survivors spend 47 days out in middle of the Pacific Ocean. After 47 days they get rescued by a Japanese boat and get taken prisoner and held in detainment.


Jack O'Connell's portrayal of Zamperini was phenomenal as was Mutsuhiro "The Bird" Watanabe played by Takamasa Ishihara also known by his stage name Myavi who is a singer-songwriter from Japan making his first venture into international acting with Unbroken.

First off, this movie is fantastic and running at about 2 hours and 20 minutes, the fact that I never even thought about glancing at my watch is feat in its own right. There's really not much to say about this movie because it's hard to talk about without giving spoilers but it's not only as good as it looks, it's better. Unbroken is enjoyable, inspirational and one of the best movies of the year.

Replay Value: 2/5, Unbroken has a pretty low replay value because much of the movie hinges on the "what's going to happen next?" question running through your brain; it also has pretty disturbing moments that you would rather not see again. This is similar to last year's 12 Years a Slave in that it's not a movie I'll watch very often but it's a movie I believe everyone should see.

Rating: 4.5/5

Somewhat of a Rant: I'm extremely happy that Angelina Jolie was the director to bring this story to life because as a 2014 survey discovered, only 6% of major movies are directed by females. In the 86 years of the Academy Awards only four times has a female director been nominated for Best Director and only once has a female won: Kathryn Bigelow in 2009 for The Hurt Locker. Of all of the major movies scheduled for release in 2015 only two notable films are being directed by women: Fifty Shades of Grey by Sam Taylor-Wood and Pitch Perfect 2 by Elizabeth Banks. These two films come from a list of major and nationally planned film releases that didn't consider indie movies in its list. Unbroken may be the catalyst that Hollywood needed in bringing out more women to direct more films as it has a well known member of Hollywood, Angelina Jolie, at the helm; and it was released on Christmas Day which is one of the biggest release days of the year in cinema and usually means a film is worthy of Oscar buzz. Jolie winning Best Director for this would be huge as she would be the second female ever to do so and the second in just 5 years which hopefully is a trend we will continue to see. This movie is fantastic and hopefully it opens more doors for female directors in Hollywood to being their visions to life.

Saturday the 14th: The Possession of Michael King - Review

The Possession of Michael King.

The Possession of Michael King is a 2014 found footage(ish) horror movie based around a man who is an atheist. The movie is directed by first time director David Jung who also wrote the film. The man, Michael King, is a recent widower and now single father to his young daughter. As stated earlier, King is an atheist and pretty much challengers either the Devil and his demons or God and his angels to prove they exist and take ahold of him. What ensues is a story in which at times you think he's actually possessed and at other times that it's all in his head and he's going insane; the movie keeps this debate going for quite a while and it's for the better.

Acting: The movie consists mainly of Shane Johnson portraying Michael King; Johnson, an unknown with mostly TV and extra work to his credit is given the helms to carry this movie as his character is alone for a good chunk of the movie. All other characters play small roles with maybe 15 minutes of screen time. Shane Johnson plays this role beautifully, this movie would fall flat on it's face if he couldn't hold his own but thankfully he does. It's not an Oscar-worthy performance but it's a better performance than I've seen in most nationally released horror films, especially in the last few years. I don't know if there's a horror award show but he deserves some type of award for this because he kills it, especially for a newcomer. Everyone else does well but honestly most of their characters aren't in it enough to make or break the movie.

But Is It Scary? Short answer: yes. This movie is scary definitely but it's more of a creepy type of horror. The film doesn't rely on jump scares which is rather refreshing in the horror era we're in. It has a good amount of visuals that stick in your head far after the end of the movie. Scariest movie of the year? Probably not. But it's definitely scary.

Is There Anything I Haven't Seen Before?: Short answer: kinda. The last decade of horror films has been riddled with possession stories and truthfully it's getting old. We've also seen 800(not an actual figure) "found footage" movies since the first Paranormal Activity came out back in 2007. This film separates itself from the pack by first making it more of a documentary style movie instead of a true found footage movie which is a nice change. Secondly, and most importantly, the movie tells the possession story from the viewpoint of the person being possessed instead of the people around him. This becomes incredibly interesting once the possession-like symptoms begin because it really makes you think whether or not it's real. It's a shame this movie wasn't released nationwide but it's currently on most video-on-demand services and to buy on DVD, if you don't want to commit to a physical copy I highly recommend renting it on demand as it's one of the most worthwhile horror movies of the year.

Overall: A great horror movie that any horror fan should enjoy that has enough story to entice horror detractors. You might have to go somewhat out of your way to actually find the film but I promise you it's well worth it. I was intrigued until the very end and couldn't keep my eyes off the screen or from guessing what was coming next and sometimes actually being wrong. Definitely best viewed at a loud volume in a dark room, for full effect of course.

Rating: 4/5, By far one of my favorite horror movies of the year that could very sneak into my top 10 films of 2014 depending on how Oscar season goes. Regardless of Oscar season I can't see this movie not being in my top 3 horror movies of the year, trust me, it's that good. Instead of going to see Annabelle this weekend, spend $5 on video-on-demand and watch this movie, I can assure you it's much better.

The Gambler - Review

The Gambler.

The Gambler is a film centered around Jim Bennett played by Mark Wahlberg who is an English professor who leads a hidden life in the high stakes gambling world. Without saying too much, Bennett gets in too deep and owes way too much money to too many people and has to find his way out of this alive.

One of the problems with this movie is that the supporting cast is stellar yet they get very little screen time. John Goodman and Michael Kenneth Williams absolutely stole the show; Goodman is beyond perfect for this role and Williams is just menacing as hell but somehow also gives a side of his character that is likable which is impressive as he threatens to kill Bennett multiple times. These are the two main "villains" of the movie and for how well the actors portrayed them, I wish we got to see them some more. Jessica Lange of American Horror Story fame plays Bennett's estranged mother and she's great in the role but like Goodman and Williams she's in maybe 3 or 4 scenes and you almost get the feeling that her talent might've been a little wasted. Brie Larson plays a student of Bennett and while she gives a good performance and it's good to see her getting more roles, her character really could've been played by almost anyone.

Another problem with the movie is that like Nightcrawler, it's dark, mildly disturbing and really makes you question your morals and the morals of the protagonist. Bennett isn't the most likable guy and does some incredibly unlikable things and at times makes it hard to really be on his side with everything going on.

All of that being said, I liked this movie quite a bit. As I said earlier, the supporting cast is stellar and Mark Wahlberg gives a great performance. I keep referring to Nightcrawler from earlier this year but the movies are pretty similar in a few ways; like Jake Gyllenhaal disappeared in his role in Nightcrawler, Wahlberg disappears in the role of Jim Bennett, you forget that you're watching Marky Mark and I'm telling you, he killed this role. The story might as well be a PSA for anti-gambling as it shows how dangerous, addictive and how quickly one persons addiction can bring in multiple people and get them in trouble as well.

Overall, the movie is supremely acted, well directed by Rupert Wyatt, director of Rise of the Planet of the Apes, and with an intriguing story The Gambler will have your eyes glued to the screen. Some of its flaws definitely take the movie down a few pegs but the acting is what really saves this movie from letting its flaws ruin it. Mark Wahlberg may walk away with an Oscar nod for Best Actor but it's not an Oscar winning role in my eyes, that being said, it is one of his finer performances and them movie is well worth the price of admission.

Rating: 3.5/5

The Interview - Review

The Interview.

The Interview is a comedy starring Seth Rogen, James Franco and Randall Park centered around an American television personality (Franco) and his producer (Rogen) attempting to interview and assassinate Kim Jong-un (Park). If you haven't heard about the controversy surrounding this movie then you've clearly been living under a rock as the movie caused Sony to be hacked and later pulling the film from release which caused massive backlash from politicians and many working in Hollywood; Sony released the film to around 300 theaters along with online sites such as YouTube, GooglePlay and the Xbox marketplace. As a huge fan of Seth Rogen and James Franco separately and even more so when they work together, I was pumped to see this movie as soon as I saw the first trailer. Once Sony pulled it, I made it a personal mission to get my hands on this movie, I had to see it.

All of that being said, I really enjoyed this movie. This by far isn't the best comedy of the year, as 22 Jump Street set the bar pretty high but it's definitely funny. If you know Seth Rogen and James Franco and their brand of comedy, you should know what to expect; and if you like their brand of comedy you'll enjoy this movie. The movie is pretty much absurd, tasteless, stupid and really funny, just like every other Rogen/Franco venture. For me, that's a good thing as I love these two together, for others, they hate it.

There's really not a ton to say about this movie, as I said earlier, if you like Seth Rogen and James Franco, you'll like this movie, if you don't then you won't. The first act of the movie is definitely the funniest as it's normal shenanigans for Rogen/Franco, act two is pretty funny as it consists a lot of Franco and Jong-un becoming friends and getting into their own shenanigans and then act three is relatively when the shit, for lack of a better word, gets real. I really liked the movie, I thought it was funny and I thought they actually were able to bring up the issues of North Korea in a decent manner without being tasteless toward the people that live there.

Rating: 3.5/5

Draft Day - Movie Review

Draft Day.

Draft Day is a 2014 drama based around the 2014 NFL Draft. The football players depicted in the film are fictional although one running back is played by real life Houston Texan Arian Foster. The movie seems like a pretty big NFL commercial and considering the budget was $25 million, it wasn't too expensive especially considering the NFL collected $6 billion in revenue in 2013. Draft Day stars Kevin Costner (Dances With Wolves, Man of Steel) and Jennifer Garner (Juno, Dallas Buyers Club). The film comes to us from director Ivan Reitman who brought us both of the Ghostbusters movies.

Plot: The premise of the film revolves around the general manager of the Cleveland Browns and his decisions on draft day. The Browns have the #7 pick in the draft and decide to trade their current 1st round pick along with the next 2 1st round picks to acquire the first overall pick in this draft from the Seattle Seahawks; this isn't a spoiler as it happens in the first 15 minutes of the movie. The fictional Bo Callahan is the unanimous first overall pick as said by the experts as the next Andrew Luck. The Cleveland GM then goes through the 12 hours up to the draft deciding what to do and whether or not Callahan is as sure of a thing as everyone thinks.

The Good: As a die-hard NFL fan this film naturally had some interest for me. It's well enough acted, no problems there but also no Oscar winners. The story is compelling enough but it's hard to see someone who doesn't like the NFL enjoying this movie. It's a good drama but it relies pretty heavily on intermediate knowledge of the NFL and some of its inner workings; that being said, since I love football I knew everything going on. The third act of the movie was pretty well executed and at parts, pretty intense. Once the draft starts the movie kicks into high gear and has by far the best moments of the movie.

The Bad: Not much really outside of it being really predictable. Once you get introduced to a few characters you can start to guess how everything's going to play out but there is a decent surprise at the end but not big enough to call it a twist. The characters themselves lack any real depth, they're pretty much cardboard cut outs of themselves and over the course of the near 2 hour movie no one really develops further than where they were the first time we meet them.

Overall: The problem with Draft Day isn't the story, the lackluster characters or the relatively boring 2nd act, the real problem with the movie is that it lacks real emotion. Once you finish the movie you're left underwhelmed feeling that this could've been done much better. Draft Day is the epitome of feeling indifference toward what you just watched, it's not so bad that it makes you angry nor it is it so good that it makes you cheer; it really just makes you shrug your shoulders and say "meh".

Rating: 2/5

Saturday the 14th: Op-Ed on The Walking Dead

SPOILER ALERT: I'm going to try to stay away from spoilers but in the nature of critiquing a show with more than 1 season it's hard to not give up some info so I will try to only spoil minor things.

The Walking Dead is a horror/drama series that begun airing on AMC in 2010, 4 years later and we now await the 5th season coming in October. Firstly, let me just say that I am a fan of the show and though at times it may seem like I'm trashing the show, I do actually enjoy it, I realize every show can't be Breaking Bad.

The Good: Pretty much everything you've heard, the action, the characters, it's all there. The point of this op-ed is more to discuss what I believe is wrong with the show. That being said, the acting, overall, is pretty good, the directing for each episode is top-notch as well. The writing is decent, some episodes are phenomenal and some episodes fall flat. The kills are pretty sweet for the most part too and you can see the evolution of the kills from season 1 onward as the show became more popular. Lastly, season 1 is the best and most complete season of the series.

Best Characters: Michonne, Glenn, The Governor, Hershel and Daryl

The Bad: Season 2 really started the negatives of the show. Season 2 is pretty boring, they find this ranch/farm thing and stay there for the entire season with not much action in between. Season 3 picks it up and even though they spend the majority of it at one location, it has more interest as it bounces between 2 groups of characters that both hold episodes by themselves. Season 4 now is much more like season 2 than 3, The problem with season 4 especially is that they center everything around the midseason and season finale; so much so that outside of those 2 episodes it doesn't ever feel like the main characters are in real danger, even faced with a horde of zombies surrounding them, at most a relatively insignificant recurring character will die at most. The problem with this is that the other 14 episodes of the show become boring.

Character Development: The character development or lack thereof leaves little to be desired. Firstly, the main character, Rick Grimes is the same person he's been since the tragic event of the 3rd season, the only change he's gone through is he's become less insane. Rick's son Carl went from being a likable kid, to a dumbass kid, to a prick, back to a likable teen and currently he's returning to his prickish ways. The most character development we have is from Michonne who oddly enough is the newest main character in the group. To Daryl, I know, if he dies we riot, everyone loves him, me included. Daryl is a badass, straight up, with his crossbow of death and pretty much Superman level invincibility at this point. That being said, Daryl got some much needed character development which for me at least, saved the character from being a run of the mill badass. The Governor, although hated in the show as expected since he's the main villain for about a season and a half, gets a pretty good amount of development in a short time. He's one of the most interesting characters of the show.

The Kills: Not the zombie kills no, I'm talking about a character dying. (SPOILER ALERT, Obviously some information is gonna leak out of this but I'm going to try to keep it as spoiler free as possible.) I'll give the show some credit for killing off some of it's main characters, it's not to the level of Game of Thrones but still, the show has some balls. For those of you who have watched all 4 seasons, how many times has the show actually shocked you with who they've killed? Off the top of my head I can think of 3 times that I truly was like "holy shit, I can't believe that just happened". Outside of that, whoever died was someone who was a reasonably large character but who wasn't essential. It's like the writers polled the audience to find out who the largest character was who wasn't universally loved and they killed that person off. The show gets credit for killing people off but in my opinion it gets just a little too much credit.

Overall: So far we've had a perfect season (season 1), a pretty good season (season 3), 1 solid season (season 4) and 1 pretty boring season (seasons 2), which puts it at 65%. The show isn't a 6.5/10 though, for me it's about a 7/10 though season 5 is looking like a make or break season for me, especially since an interview with the executive producer had him state that they want to keep the show running through season 12. I for one can't imagine bringing these characters and this story arc through another 7 seasons and still being fully enjoyable, very few shows last that long and keep the same level of quality throughout.

How to Fix TWD: The most radical option yet possibly the most effective is to kill Rick. His development has pretty much run out and he's kinda just there now. After that I would return to the more survival aspect of it with Michonne and Daryl at the helm carrying the show. A less radical option is to pull a Breaking Bad and have the creator/writers/producers say before season 6 that the 6th season will be the final season and let all hell break lose for 16 episodes. Pretty much, The Walking Dead should end, it was the first of its kind when it comes to horror-ish shows. It had plenty of violence and got huge which opened the door for a lot of shows, some good (The Strain) and some terrible looking ones that are coming to Syfy this year. The show needs to end so that another network can get together and try to improve on it. That being said, I believe The Walking Dead is probably the best zombie show we'll get on cable television, if we get a better zombie show, it'll come from either HBO or Netflix where they have the ability for more violence, gore and language. They also will have more of an opportunity to be a show like House of Cards or True Detective that is so story driven because it doesn't have to worry about selling ad space during commercials.

In Conclusion: The Walking Dead is as true of an example of a groundbreaking TV show as you can get. I've gone over the seasons one-by-one already and how to possibly fix the show. My hope is that the show doesn't go 12 seasons because the show is getting kind of run into the ground already at season 4, season 12 would be hysterically bad. The best thing for the show would be to end after either season 6 or 7 under its own terms a la Breaking Bad, Boardwalk Empire and The Newsroom to name a few. It's a good show, you should watch it if you're a fan of the zombie genre and even if you're not there's probably something for you.

Divergent - Review

Divergent is a 2014 sci-fi/romance/action type film directed by Neil Burger who directed Limitless and The Illusionist as well as a few others. The best way I can describe this film is a cross between Harry Potter and The Hunger Games. It's like Harry Potter in the sense that everyone gets sorted into groups("factions" in this case) based on their personalities coming with their own colors and all. It's like The Hunger Games in the sense of government control and trying to control any rebels. All this being said, Divergent holds its own and separates itself from the films I just mentioned. It's a pretty unique story, that is compelling from the get go. The story is what keeps this movie going, seeing how the main character Tris, played by Shailene Woodley, transitions from her born faction, finding out she's a divergent(someone who doesn'e belong to any faction) and into the dauntless faction which are considered the protectors and police force.

Negative: The only real issue I had with this film is the acting. It's not bad by any means but I think it could've been better. Woodley plays her character pretty well but something about her doesn't sell me on her being a badass. The first third of the movie when she's reserved and not fitting in, she's perfect in it, the rest of the movie she does well except for when she's kicking ass, something about her I can't see actually kicking ass. In this respect, I think she was mildly miscast, that being said, she still did a great job. If I were the casting director I would've switched roles for Miles Teller and Theo James, James definitely looked the part of the mentor/love interest to Tris but his acting chops were just under par when it came to the real heavy moments. Teller is, in my mind, a bit of a better actor, plus him and Woodley have acted alongside before in The Spectacular Now so they already have chemistry. Outside of those few things, the acting is pretty good and no other real complaints.

Positive: As previously stated, the story; it's highly interesting and the movie actually makes you want to read the books to see what the movie may have missed in terms of background story. The characters are pretty interesting too, they're nothing you haven't seen before but they are good characters and with the backdrop of the story, the characters excel. Oddly enough I have less to say about the positives of the movie, it's hard to explain, it's an enjoyable movie.

Overall: It's an enjoyable movie with a story that'll keep you thinking for a while. It also gets you pretty hyped for the sequel and subsequent finale that is of course being split into two films, as if you needed any more references to Harry Potter. If you have the chance, check this movie out, it's way better than I had expected. I expected a lovey dovey Twilight-esque film with a weak Hunger Games rip-off backdrop and I couldn't have been more wrong. I regret not seeing this in theaters or giving it a chance earlier.

Rating: 4/5