Reviews

Matthew Vaughn wants you to know that the spy movies today are too serious. They are too dark, too long, and too exhausting. He fancies a time back when spy films had a sense of humor, took chances, and were over the top because, in his eyes, that made them something he feels these films were born to be....fun. It's hard not to agree with him. Some of my fondest memories watching the old Bond films of Connery and Moore were how over the top they were. The cheesy villains, gadgets, and one liners. They made you roll your eyes but you didn't care because you were enjoying the hell out of the movie. Now in in my opinion, the darkness of recent spy films, especially in the Bond franchise, has greatly improved the genre. While the old spy films are fun, they became almost too ridiculous and repetitive to the point where they were just bad movies. Kingsman: The Secret Service is Vaughn's homage to the old spy film. Reminding Hollywood to try to have a little fun once in awhile.

The story really is pretty formulaic throughout the first half. You have a mission from the past where something goes wrong and an agent goes down and that agent just happens to be the father of who will be our hero Gary....excuse me, I mean "Eggsy" (Yeah...I don't get it either) played competently by up and comer Taron Edgerton. Years pass and Eggsy has become the young lost soul who can't see to find a place in the world while trying to protect his mother and baby sister from an abusive stepfather blah blah blah. But again, much like those old spy films, you aren't seeing this film for the story.

The film really gets rolling once we get more familiar with Harry Hart, Eggsy's mentor and certified bad ass in one of the very best performances of the early year by Colin Firth. When you think of the casting going into the film, Harry is the most crucial. He is used to embody that old school spy who is one part bad ass and one part distinguished English gentleman. Firth is an English gentleman by nature but the risk of casting him in the role is he is just about the least bad ass type actor you and even HE can think of. You'll read this same thought in any other review of the film but that point really can't be overstated. Any director worth anything can make someone look like they can kick ass with effects and such (cough...cough...Tobey Maguire), but if the actor isn't believable throughout the rest of the film as a force to be reckoned with, then the film suffers. Firth talks the talk of the gentleman and kicks ass as the spy. He is smooth, funny, and blows up the film with his swagger. A performance not to be forgotten any time soon.

The rest of the casting is fitting. Samuel L. Jackson was the ideal choice to play an over the top villain because....well....what hasn't he been in his career if not over the top? Probably my favorite thing about his Valentine character is that I was originally going to write about how it was a little difficult at times to understand what some of the British actors are saying due to their thick accents. Vaughn gives a wink to the audience (especially the American audience) by giving the American Valentine a lisp that makes him sounds ridiculous AND gives him a line calling out the issue Americans have with Brit actors "You Brits...Y'all talk so funny". Well played Vaughn. We also get some solid supporting performances from Mark Strong and Michael Caine (playing a real ass hole in films lately) to round out a solid cast.

If you're going into Kingsman: The Secret Service and expecting Skyfall the you're going to be disappointed. Kingsman isn't about being dark and serious with some powerful societal message to go along with it. Kingsman does what Matthew Vaughn intended it to do which was to give you a fun time. It's got violence, comedy, and some great music adding up to a great time at the movies. So turn your brain off for a bit, enjoy the chaos and don't bother trying to hide the smile you'll have when you walk out of the theater....we all saw it.

J.K. Simmons has always been "that guy in that thing" and he really has been in a lot of things from Spider man, Farmers Insurance commercials, to a family sitcom about a blind guy. And while Simmons has been around awhile, he hasn't really been given anything to sink his teeth into. In comes young upstart writer/director Damien Chazzelle and his jazz ensemble epic "Whiplash".

Whiplash has the unique honor of being the least profitable film to be nominated for best picture at the Academy Awards (along with Chazzelles script and Simmons for supporting actor) but for a film that appears so small, it is one of the biggest and most epic viewing experiences of the year.

One of the reasons I loved Whiplash is that it surrounds a subject matter that I have little knowledge on, the world of surprisingly competitive jazz ensemble. Jazz music is all about precision, technique, and patience and all of those are on display in explosive fashion. The story follows a young aspiring jazz drummer Andrew (Miles Teller) who dreams of greatness while at the Schaefer Music Conservatory in New York. All of the students hope to join the exclusive Jazz ensemble led by the tyrannical Terence Fletcher (Simmons) who puts the title of abusive teacher to a whole new level.

Everyone has had that one teacher or coach in their lives that was unbearable. They would scream, criticize, and cause you so so much emotional abuse that caused you to fail more than the class or sport ever could. Few films have ever been able to capture this idea better than Whiplash as we watch Fletcher verbally emasculate his band members to tears and physical torment that is almost too much to watch. It's hard to say why Simmons was so effective here. He has the deep menacing voice, threatening eyes, and is looking surprisingly jacked in his black t-shirts (seriously, is Simmons gonna be the next Marvel super villain or something?) that help make him the bane of existence for all of his students.

You also can't talk about Whiplash without mentioning the lead role of Miles Teller. Teller is one of Hollywoods talented up and comers (especially if you've seen him in "The Spectacular Now") and he almost seemed to be the heir apparent to Vince Vaughn as the funny, fast-talking, likable schlub who could go on to lead comedies for the foreseeable future. This is actually the most different Teller then we've seen in his young career. His character of Andrew is of a socially awkward and talented musician who hasn't had a lot of success in life and will do anything to establish himself and make it so he is remembered for being "great" long after he's gone (shown perfectly during the dinner scene with his family, maybe the best scene in the film). To do this, he is willing to take Fletcher's abuse and use it as the motivation to prove he is great.

Anyone in the teaching/coaching profession can tell you that arguably the most difficult aspect of the profession is motivating your students. Fletcher's choice to use fear as his motivational tool proves to have varying success rates as he very easily breaks his students but their fear of him pushes them to be perfect because that is what he expects. You grow to hate Fletcher so much throughout the film that when it gets to a point in the film where he explains he cruelty it messes with you emotionally because you begin to somehow empathize with him. The fact that you can show any sympathy towards the character after what you've seen him to is a feat in itself and the credit goes to Chazzelle for shaping the story that way.

I hate to use the term "emotional roller-coaster" few films of recent memory fit that cliché better than Whiplash. The Jazz genre really fits the flow of the story because it can be easy going and calculated one minute to explosive and heart-pounding the next. Being able to fit so much size into a small budget film like this is amazing and a screenplay Oscar for Chazzelle should be in order if there was any justice in the world. I don't know if Chazzelle had a film teacher who was as harsh as Fletcher who pushed him as hard, but one thing is for sure is that, much like Andrew, Chazzelle seems like he wants to be great and I can't wait for him to continue to prove that.

War is often one of the most successful movie genres because of the glory that comes with war and the seemingly endless number of stories you can tell from it. From "Apocalypse Now" to "Saving Private Ryan", there have been so many war stories told, celebrated, and cherished by their fans around the world. However, for some reason the wars that have struggled to be embraced (by Americans in particular) are the ones we read/see headlines of daily in the Middle East. It's hard to say why this is. Maybe it's the difference of opinion of what the wars are being fought for, maybe it's simply hard to see the glory in a war while it's still going on. It's interesting because there have been a few films made on the subject that have been praised like "Zero Dark Thirty" and "The Hurt Locker" (Oscar Winner for Best Picture) but I feel those films lacked a certain humanity to them that could draw people in emotionally. "American Sniper" may be the one film of this genre to be widely embraced by viewers.

"American Sniper" follows the story of former Navy SEAL Sniper Chris Kyle and his accomplishments during his four tours in Iraq. Bradley Cooper added 40 lbs of mass and muscle to play the hulking Kyle, who was a man consumed by warfare and justifying his over 160 confirmed kills down to the simplest reasoning of good vs evil. To be the type of man like Kyle or any other advanced military figure, I've always felt that you have to be wired a little differently. Obviously you have to be brave and willing to make sacrifices and hard decisions. But I've also felt like you need to see the world in a different way and be able to disconnect yourself emotionally from your environment, knowing what you are expected to do. Kyle was certainly one of these men and Cooper shines in being able to show how it was the most dangerous environment that made him feel the most alive.

It doesn't make sense to someone who has never experienced anything like fighting in a war. Why would anyone "choose" to keep returning to such a hostile environment once, let alone three more times after making it back alive once? It's a question that tortures Kyles wife Taya (Sienna Miller) who can't understand why Chris constantly chooses to put himself in harms way when she and their children are their for him? It's almost as if they can't quench the thirst for Chris like war can, which is seen when he cites the order of his life's priorities as "God, Country, and Family". We all know of stories of how war has changed men when they return home and Chris was definitely a prime example of how difficult it can be to re- acclimate to peaceful surroundings after spending so much time in hell.

It's frustrating to see so many articles published about the film where they criticize Kyle for his "lack of remorse for the people he killed" during his combat days. Kyle was very vocal on his feelings towards his kills as he only saw these men as enemies to kill or else they would kill him. For someone to criticize the actions of a man just based on watching a movie and to have never been a position to make decisions like he did is lazy and irresponsible. To criticize a man who was trained to make decisions involving life and death in order to protect members of his platoon and the rights we stand for as Americans is foolish.

"American Sniper" is the best film Eastwood has done since "Million Dollar Baby" and Bradley Cooper continues his recent run of Hollywood success. Both lent a hand in producing the film and giving a fair interpretation of Chris Kyles life and experiences. Maybe more than his wartime experiences were the scenes of him attempting to re-enter the "normal" world. These men are trained to take any potential distractions and repress it so that nothing clouds the objective at hand. An American Sniper...A "Legend".

4/5

Every now and then, you come across a film that you see with a group of people, whether it be friends or family, and you all exit the theater and you're all discussing how, in one way or another, something in that film was relatable to your life. Few films can accomplish the task of not only capturing history accurately but capturing the way people felt during that era that they lived through. Richard Linklaters' Boyhood may prove to be the one film that has been able to capture a particular era in time in which every person who views it can find some familiarity and nostalgia from more than any other.

Filmed over the course of 12 years, we follow the growth of Mason from ages 7 to 18. We watch not only him change before our eyes but also his family and society around him. Mason begins as a rather stoic character as he always seems to be locked into his own head as we watch him go through life wondering what he's thinking. As he grows older and experiences more of what his life has offered him, which is a series of drastic ups and downs, is when we see him begin to open up and express himself and use those past experiences to help shape who he wants to be.

You not only see the growth of Mason but of his family members as well. We watch the progression of his mother (Patricia Arquette) and father (Ethan Hawke) from young, immature, and unprepared parents to being grounded, responsible, and emotionally present for their kids. Children of divorce can relate to the pain of not being able to share your life with both parents and the confusion of how you're supposed to act towards one or the other based on how one Any parent can watch their growth and see similar mistakes that they made as well as similarities in how they put themselves back together.

There are so many slight details in this film that can jar your memory and bring you back to a different time of your life, whether good or bad, almost as if it flashes before your eyes. It allows you to see how far you've grown as a person and how the things in your life have influenced you and made you who you are today. One thing that I always take into account when I decide how good a movie is is the re-watch ability factor. There are so many "good" films that you only need to see once but know you'll never watch them again (The Kings Speech, Slumdog Millionaire, 12 Years a Slave to name a few) and then there are films that have that ability to either bring something new or regenerate that original enjoyment you had the first time you saw it (Pulp Fiction, Goodfellas, Saving Private Ryan). Boyhood has tremendous re-watchability (my own word) potential because feelings of nostalgia never get old and being able to reminisce, even if it's by yourself, is what makes the film truly special.

The Imitation Game is a very good film...I promise. Benedict Cumberbatch, the highest rising actor in Hollywood, gives a stand out performance as Alan Turing an eccentric mathematician who helps crack the Nazi messaging code called "enigma" which allowed the British to intercept Nazi communications without their knowledge and use it to their advantage to win the war. Turing was certainly a genius an possessed many of the common traits that come along with being a genius. Arrogance, the inability to read social cues, defensive, awkwardness, and an overall display of anti-social tendencies. He was also a deeply secretive man and it was his secrets that led him to paranoia that controlled his life to the end. This is all well and good but while I was watching the film I couldn't help but think that I had seen this movie already....13 years ago with Russell Crowe in A Beautiful Mind.

Again, I really enjoyed the film as a whole and expect it to be a front runner at the Oscars (I mean hey, it's a WWII film that contains a main character struggling with his homosexuality...two of the Academy's favorite themes!) but the whole time I just couldn't get A Beautiful Mind...well...out of MY mind. Think about it, John Forbes Nash (Crowes' character in "Mind") nearly fits the exact description I make of Cumberbatch's Turing above. He had those same personality qualities, the same genius, and the suffered through similar forms of paranoia of the government for years which had negative effects on his health. It's hard not to see these similarities and not be distracted by them (at least for me anyway).

Now I am not going to sit here and try to say that Nash went through everything that Turing went through because I'm not that stupid or irresponsible. Turing's battle with his homosexuality and maintaining that secret seemed to torture him throughout his life which was an issue that Nash never had to deal with. It is with all of this inner turmoil where we see Cumberbatch succeed with the performance. He is one of those people who you look at and think that there is more to him than meets the eye. His unique look and his voice give him almost unlimited range as he can go from sounding and looking like a peaceful harmless wimp, to a dark and insidious villain in the blink of an eye. You got the feeling that Turing was a man who wasn't as interested in breaking the code to defeat the Nazis and save lives, but just to beat "the game" and put his genius on display for all to see and this is where Cumberbatch excels in the role the most.

We get some solid supporting work from Keira Knightley, Matthew Goode, and Charles Dance, but it is Cumberbatchs' show. He should be one of the favorites to get nominated and to even take home the Oscar...for playing a role that Russell Crowe some say should have gotten many years ago over Denzel Washington in Training Day. Cumberbatch's performance is not to be diminished by my undeniably distracted mind when it comes to this film. He does masterful work and is certainly worthy of any accolade he gets.

However, the fact that "A Beautiful Mind" exists and the similarities are too daunting to me it decreases my overall feeling for the film because I felt like I had seen this movie before.

Foxcatcher is a movie for those who value patience as a virtue. There is not a lot of dialogue and not even a lot of wrestling (which is bold for a movie centered around Olympic wrestlers) but rarely have I seen a film that had a constant buildup of tension throughout. One phrase that you will see a lot when reading about this film is that it is a "slow burn" which is accurate. It makes you uncomfortable and anxious to the point of frustration because you are constantly waiting for the other shoe to drop.

The story centers around Olympic wrestler Mark Schultz (Channing Tatum) an anti-social, brooding athlete who seems to be constantly living in his older brother David's (Mark Ruffalo) shadow. David and Mark have both won gold medals at the 1984 Olympics but more people are drawn to David because he is warm, charismatic, and open...everything that Mark is not. We watch Mark as he seems to go through life with a chip on his soldier, trying to forge his own path without the help of his brother. Mark receives a call from a representative of a John Du Pont (Steve Carell) who wishes Mark to visit him on his Foxcatcher farm and propose the idea of him and the entire USA wrestling team to make Foxcatcher their official training facility with Du Pont bankrolling the entire operation. From there, we watch an initial positive relationship sour as the we learn more about Du Pont and his intentions.

The cast is lights out here. Tatum gives the performance of his career in a dark turn as Mark and Ruffalo might score an Oscar nomination for being the one ray of light as his older brother David, who only has the best intentions for Mark and his future. It is Carell though, who steals the show. You always read about how comedians, whom Carell is more popularly known as, all have a "dark side" in them which is where they get there comedy from that allows them to make shockingly effective transition into drama (think Jim Carrey in "Truman Show" and Robin Williams in "Insomnia") and he will go down as another prime example of that here. Du Pont is a man of privilege who, like Mark, is trying to find a way to make his mark on the world and seek the approval of others. He is socially awkward, maybe even a coward and uses his money and family "dynasty" as its referred to in the film, to give him a sense of entitlement to gain respect from others.

From the point they meet we wonder why Mark would fall into a relationship with Du Pont but we see they do share similarities in terms of their personalities and both feeling the need to prove themselves. So it's no surprise to see the relationship eventually sour because in the fight to become the more relevant one, Du Pont will win due to his already established social status and wealth. Du Pont is always trying to seek the approval of his mother (Vanessa Redgrave), who sees wrestling as a "low sport", and Du Pont tries to create this deluded fantasy of what he is trying to do with this wrestling team to please his mother. Du Pont calls himself a "coach" of the wrestling team, when it seems he knows nothing about the sport, he claims his athletes see him as a mentor and a father figure when in reality, he is just the guy signing their checks. The tension comes to a head once David gets involved and begins to see Du Pont for what he really is and the climax catches you buy surprise and leaves you devastated. .

Director Bennett Miller has only made three films (Capote and Moneyball the other two) but it's safe to say he is three for three with this being his most ambitious work yet. Foxcatcher is the type of film that has failed in the past due to its' modest pace but the performances keep you engaged just enough to be blown away in the end.

Every generation of movie goers sees one film, maybe two, that changes the game for them. It becomes a signature moment that they remember years to come. They remember where they saw it, who they saw it with, even where they were sitting. Christopher Nolan has proved to be a film maker who works best with a big canvas, and he has never been given a canvas bigger than the one he used for his latest film, "Interstellar". I feel I can't even call going to see a Nolan piece a movie but more like an "event". For the average movie goer, they most likely aren't familiar with the directors of the films they're seeing but most know Nolan. Most know of Nolan because he has made some of the biggest, thrilling, and thought provoking films of the past decade from the Dark Knight trilogy to Inception.

It's almost not worth trying to do a plot synopsis of "Interstellar" because it is difficult to try to condense the happenings in a film this huge because I know that I will leave out something big. Anyway, the film takes place in a potentially not-too-distant future where the earth has become unable to produce all but a few crops and it will get to a point where none will be able to grow and man will die out. In comes an engineer/pilot/father Cooper (Matthew McConaughey) who is entrusted to be part of a space expedition to venture beyond a newly discovered wormhole to try and find a new planet capable of inhabiting the human race. Astronauts from previous missions have supposedly landed and have been sending signals for them to come.

McConaughey has always had that "movie star" potential and I think this is the film that puts him in that title. This was a truly star making role due to the size of the film and I honestly believe he is the only man who could have done it. "Interstellar" was originally supposed to be done by Steven Spielberg before he dropped out and Nolan stepped in. Nolan, clearly influenced by past Spielberg films like "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" and "Jaws", puts McConaughey in a role in the same vein as Richard Dreyfuss in "Close Encounters" or Roy Schneider in "Jaws". They needed an actor who could be looked at as an everyday guy who is experiencing incredible circumstances and McConaughey is able to display the emotion required for a man who has to drop everything, including his family whom he knows he may not see again, and try to save the human race. You can see it in his eyes and hear it in his voice and your heart breaks and lifts with his simultaneously. This isn't necessarily a role that wins Oscars but it should be.

The effects are obviously amazing. This, much like "Gravity" last year, is a film that needs to be seen on the big screen, especially in IMAX. This, along with the haunting score of frequent Nolan collaborator Hans Zimmer, almost transports you to that necessary place that makes the events happening on screen seem possible. Kind of piggy backing off of that point, there will be those who will trash the film for "the science isn't accurate". Those comments are nonsense because no matter what "science" tells us, there is just no way for us to actually comprehend what is beyond a wormhole or what would happen if we attempted to go through one. Could we really transcend time and space? Would we discover new worlds and new civilizations? Impossible for us to say at this point, but what makes this film so great is that we are able to see the ideas of "what can be". It's the mystery of the unknown that both frightens and enthralls man and few films have been able to capture those feelings like "Interstellar" In a time where there are no more explorers, we're fortunate to be put in a position where we can feel what is like to discover and explore new worlds.

People will remember "Interstellar" for either being a truly great film experience or "not as good as 2001: A Space Odyssey". This is one of most popular slights against the film so far as it is the closest thing to "2001" and defenders of the Kubrick classic will argue to the death that it doesn't live up to it. This is an argument that no one will win because it is a generational issue. People see these landmark films during their youth and they leave such an impression on them, that it almost becomes blasphemy to hear of another film made years later, rivaling the one they saw. People want to believe that the film from their time was the best and that no film will be able to capture those emotions they first felt and the memories that it created for them. I respect and detest this because I will most likely feel the same way when future space adventures in the same vein as "Interstellar" come out and I fear it is something that is out of my control. Much of the film circles around the idea that love is the one true thing that travels purely through time and space because it is that connection we feel with one another that makes us human and that can be applied with our love for certain films. The connection we feel with our favorite films is almost unshakable and those who think they can make us waver from those feelings are exercising in futility.

In the end, "Interstellar" is one of those landmark films. It's a chance for us to escape reality and feel sense of adventure, hope, and amazement that rarely comes around. Don't miss it.

What made "Nightcrawler" intriguing after just seeing the trailer is the fact that the subject matter contains things we know exist but never seem to think about. We always see those "on the scene" videos used for news reports but we never give it a second thought. "Nightcrawler" gives us a deep, if perhaps exaggerated, look at this process and how these people are the guns for hire that we never know about.

Jake Gyllenhaal plays Lou Bloom, a socially awkward loner who is self-motivated and determined to find his place in this world and be a success. We learn very early on that Lou will go to great lengths to find success and will almost do or become anyone to do that. He spots a car accident on the highway and stops as he sees a van park alongside and two men with video cameras get out and start filming the police officers vigorously try to rescue the woman in the burning vehicle. Lou inquires about a job from the head filmer Joe Loder, classic work by Bill Paxton, but is turned down. Another thing on Paxton, so great to see him getting work again and he delivers the line of the year…"Welcome to the future….BRAH". OK, it might not seem that funny now, but when you see it and listen to his delivery of it…priceless.

Lou decides to take things into his own hands by getting his own camera, a police scanner, and meticulously learning all of the meanings of the codes on the scanners so he can arrive on the scene and get the best material to sell to the highest bidding news station. That bidder turns out to be Rene Russos' Nina, an over the hill former news anchor who is now a material editor and desperate to boost her ratings. Her and Lou strike a deal that has him exclusively getting first hand material and selling it to her station…a relationship that quickly becomes one sided as we really start to see the kind of person that Lou is.

As far as the performance goes, Gyllenhaal is dynamite here, a dark and brooding loner isn't necessarily new material for him but there are few other leading men out there who could pull off a low-key character that can scare the life out of you. Very Ed Norton in "Primal Fear"- esque. However, I would have liked to discover more about Lou and his past. He mentions that it might not be that he doesn't understand people but that he doesn't like them. I get that, but why then is always trying to get their approval? He is after money, sure, but he seems more concerned at being noticed and wanting to be loved and respected by others around him.

In the end, this is one of those movies that you will miss if you don't see it quickly and is destined for a future as a diamond in the rough in your Netflix selection. It is dark, Gyllenhaal is creepy, and his eyes are really bulgy (that might not seem significant but wait till you see them…they look like they're falling out of his face!) and I mean, what else are you gonna see this Halloween?...Ouija? Please….

"Ideals are peaceful...History is Violent"

This is the justification that Brad Pitts' Don "Wardaddy" Collier gives to the young newcomer, Logan Lermans' Norman, as to why the violence and brutality exists in the war they fight. It also serves as the overlying message that director David Ayer is giving for his new WWII tank epic, "Fury". What is so hard with modern day WWII films is that it is so difficult to break new ground and try to tell a story that we haven't already seen before. Sure there are the aspects that we are always going to see (gratuitous violence, the male camaraderie, moral quandaries), but there is always a struggle to show the war in a different light that offers perspective and can challenge us emotionally in a way that we haven't seen.

"Fury" does well in telling us a story from the unique perspective of a group of soldiers who reside within the thick, loud, and brutal walls of an American Sherman battle tank. Watching these men fight this massive war within the confines of a small metal box lets us see witness these men exist in an almost prison like state of violence ad bloodshed along with seeing their bond strengthen. The latter is even more evident with the addition of the new tank member who quickly learns what he is in for even though the only thing he knows how to do is "type 60 words a minute".

Some will criticize "Fury" for being almost over the top with the gore and violence, but that is how it was. Who are you servicing if the product that you put on screen doesn't accurately capture the brutality of the events? Will it make it more civilized? Will it make have more substance? Bullshit. These are the people who are turned off by the violence because they can't comprehend that part of history being the brutal reality that it was. Neither can I for that matter, but I recognize and acknowledge our violent history because without it the war isn't won and the ones who lost their lives ensuring that victory aren't given the justice they deserve. Not every WWII film can have some fictional romance or "journey home" that detracts attention from the violence just because you don't have the stomach to show it.

Again, Ideals are peaceful...History is Violent.

It's a treat watching Brad Pitt at this stage of his career. He is no longer the young and hot leading man whose main purpose is to be eye candy for the ladies. Here he is the grizzled veteran whose job is to lead men through hell and back and keeping them alive while doing so. Even when he isn't speaking, we feel that command that his Wardaddy has over the men under his command. They prove to be loose cannons and capable of losing control but at the end of the day, they acknowledge their C.O.'s control because they have an almost unbreakable trust in him. This is portrayed the best in a scene involving a captured German town and Wardaddy and Norman break their way into the apartment of a woman and her young daughter where they get a chance to have a meal and for Norman to get a little action with the daughter. In come the rest of the tank crew, drunk and disorderly, wondering why they weren't invited to this peaceful meal. The supporting cast does an admirable job as well. Lerman doesn't have much to work with in his role unfortunately as we see nothing new from his other past roles from films like "Noah" and "The Perks of Being a Wallflower", Michael Pena and Jon Bernthal are solid here and Shia LaBeouf reminds us that he is very good at being able to cry on screen...he cries a lot....but it's OK...he is actually pretty good.

Now will "Fury" reach the level of "Saving Private Ryan" as some have said? No, but there is nothing wrong with not reaching the level of the best war film ever made. It's also a problem I have with how movies are received these days, especially when it comes to WWII films, in that there is so much pressure for them to be GREAT. It is the "Great War" (part II) and the most glorified event in entertainment history (especially in the American film industry) and the pressure to try to live up to that is unfair. It's interesting because the more recent war films that do tend to be more in the same violent vein as "Fury" (Lone Survivor comes to mind) have tended to resonate with audiences more. Seeing the brutality, as horrible as it may be, accentuates the story to a degree and makes the characters' triumphs/failures that much more profound. I think that should be the main goal for "Fury". If audiences walk out of this film feeling like they watched something powerful, something intense, that made them "feel" then that is all the recognition it needs.

Director David Fincher has made a fantastic career out of making us uncomfortable with ourselves. He's exposed our love of materialism (Fight Club), our inherent "need" to be successful in the eyes of others (The Social Network), he even made us visualize what we would look like as old.....man babies (The Curious Case of Benjamin Button). Now he brings us his latest entry into his collection of the the shamefulness of man, Gone Girl.

Gone Girl surrounds Nick Dunne (Ben Affleck) who returns home one day to find his home broken into and his wife Amy (Rosamund Pike) missing. The police are called and we are set off on a journey to find the "Amazing Amy"and complications arise as evidence begins to build up and we are to think that perhaps Nick isn't as innocent as he appears. We learn about who he and Amy were and how the developments of their relationship have led to her disappearance and the ensuing case.

For anyone that has read the novel version by Gillian Flynn (who also penned the screenplay) you will be deeply satisfied as the film is a truly loyal adaptation and worries over the news of a changed ending should be dismissed immediately. Affleck does an admirable job portraying Nick, but to be fair, this wasn't a particularly challenging role to play. That isn't taking anything away from Affleck because he did exactly what he had to do to be a convincing Nick. He had to be good looking, likable, a "good old boy" from Missouri who enjoyed a simple life with measured aspirations. There isn't anyone who could have played Nick better and when you see the film, you can't picture anyone else playing but Affleck. Similar to Mark Wahlbergs role in "The Fighter", Affleck serves as a vehicle for the meatier supporting performances of the characters around him.

That brings us to Rosamund Pike and her star making turn as Amy Dunne. Now, Amy is not a supporting role by any stretch, although you could argue she is in the first half, because if there is a true leading performance in this film it is her as Amy, one of the most interesting and complex female characters in recent memory. Pike has been around the business, but she falls under that category of "that girl from that thing" as she doesn't necessarily have any distinguishing features that set her apart from the other stunningly beautiful actresses of Hollywood. That is why she was the perfect person to play Amy. Amy Dunne is an enigma, the image of perfection and someone who has always managed to blend in anywhere and with anyone. She has been brought up to believe she was perfect (her parents profited off of her with a series of children's books known as the "Amazing Amy" series), and it has become part of her D.N.A. to manipulate herself around different people and different environments so she can never shake that image. Pike gives the right amount of sexy and sadistic...beautiful and bat sh** crazy.

We also get good work from Neil Patrick Harris and Tyler Perry (surprisingly) but it all comes back to the man behind the camera, Mr. Fincher. Fincher just seems to do things differently from other directors and that's what has set him apart from others and why many of his films have come to have cult followings over the years. It is also why he has become one of the most wanted directors, not just by film companies, but by actors. People have recognized Finchers' unique ability to read an audience and know what to do to give them not only what they want, but what they need to see/hear/ and feel with his films. This is why he does things a little differently then others. This is why we see the likes of Nine Inch Nails members Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross (who both won an Oscar for working on a previous Fincher film, The Social Network) because he knows they provide the "right" feel and sound for the film. This is why we find ourselves laughing throughout the film, not because what is happening is funny, but because it's uncomfortable and awkward and it's the only way we can find ourselves reacting to what happens on screen. This is why we do find the curious casting choices like Harris, Perry, and others. Not because he knows they will bring people into theaters, that is what Affleck is for, but because they are right.

What Fincher has done to us in this film is question the whole idea of marriage. This is the most dangerous date movie ever made because you will walk out of it forever questioning the intentions for your significant other. Anyone who is married knows that they have roles to play here and there and as the marriage goes on and you become used to your mate and their tendencies, where do you go from there? It may seem obvious because you would think that it is your mate and their tendencies that made you want to marry them in the first place, but does it all become an act after awhile? Is marriage merely a competition between two people to see who can not disappoint the other. Do we create these standards for marriage that see us always trying to perfect ourselves so that our loved ones don't begin to resent us and feel superior. "Gone Girl" makes marriage seem like a constant dick measuring contest and that it's really two people always trying to one up the other to prove they are the better spouse. It's exhausting to witness and think about....which makes it so....damn...good.

Hope the rest of your date goes well!.....

Ahh yes...the time has come for one of my fairly recent favorite traditions...the annual release of a Liam Neeson movie where he is just being a bad a**. Ever since "Taken", the world has been re- introduced to Neeson as it's newest and truest action hero. For the most part during this little resurrection for Neeson, you know that despite any flaws the film might have, it ends up being great entertainment regardless and you overlook those things. The only minor grievance that one might have during this tradition, is that as much as you don't want to admit it, some of these Neeson movies just aren't as good.

Now before we go any further we have to discuss the exact trend of the Neeson films. I am only including the movies where Neeson is, for the most part, the only star and he is playing some grizzled, world weary, growling bad a** with a checkered past. This exempts movies like "The A-Team", "Clash/Wrath of the Titans", and ugh...."Battleship".....dear lord that was terrible....although it it is always nice to see Rihanna trying to be a bad a**, "Aloha, mother f***er!". Anyway, you get the picture. As for the examples of slightly less awesome Neeson bad a** movies, these are the ones like "Unknown", and some may even say "Non-Stop" but I actually enjoyed that one.

"A Walk Among the Tombstones" falls into that category. Many will go into this movie looking to see Neeson kicking dudes a**es left and right and they may be sorrily disappointed. "Tombstones" is more about the detective story and the darkness that the characters descend into as the film progresses. Neeson plays Matt Scudder, a retired cop/alcoholic turned P.I. after a case 8 years ago that left him emotionally and psychologically scarred. He is brought to meet drug dealer (excuse me, "trafficker") Kenny Kristo (worse drug kingpin name ever?) who wants to hire him to find the two men who kidnapped and murdered his wife despite paying them the money they asked for. Scudder, along with a spunky, homeless kid T.J, fish around for clues. Their relationship is interesting at first because it's unclear as to why Scudder continues to come into contact with this kid besides the fact that perhaps by helping this kid, he can make up for a lot of sins he has committed in his past.

The film can be slow at times, but Neeson is almost in every scene and his presence alone keeps you engaged in every step he takes. As you get closer and closer to the truth the film gets more disturbing. This film is unnerving for sure and is a mental disturbance more than anything. Even though it may not be as action packed as some of Neesons' past films (The Grey still doesn't get enough love) but it may be a pleasant surprise for other reasons. One of Americas guilty pleasures is loving serial killers (Dexter, The Killing, Hannibal, films and series, Se7en, etc.) so people may actually enjoy the film but for a completely different reason then they previously thought.

Oh, and don't worry, Liam still has some clever "bad a** one-liners" keeping up with the tradition...Can't wait till next year.

I joyously await your criticism for my overuse of bad a**.

6/10.

There are a lot of films that fall into the same sort of "ilk" in the sense that when we watch a particular movie, it gives us the same feel as others we have seen before it. This can be a reason why someone really enjoys it or gives the pretentious "it wasn't very original" remark that makes you never watch a movie with that fool again. "The Drop" brings out similar feelings, primarily because it has the feel of many other works of the author (and writer of the script) Dennis Lehane who is famous for works such as "Mystic River", "Shutter Island", and "Gone Baby Gone". Right away you get a feel for those previous works as we are again introduced to a gritty, seedy, and corrupt underbelly of a big city environment that introduces us to a bunch of low lifes who are caught up in doing the wrong things just to "make something of themselves".

What makes "The Drop" different from some of these other films is that these are different characters compared to what we're used to. No one seems to be a big talker and we can tell that all of these characters are more than meets the eye and carry significant baggage from a checkered past. Most films that deal organized crime and other things ask us to witness the violence that just seems to "come with the territory" so to speak with it. This film asks us instead to imagine the potential for violence in a man and how brief releases of that violence can affect how these characters live their lives in the future. There are moments of violence and bloodshed, but they come in such short and intense instances that they hit you harder then violence might normally would in another film of this sort. You believe that any of these characters is capable of beating another ones head in and when something of that sort actually happens, it sticks with you and has a lasting effect that carries throughout the remainder of the film.

The story follows Bob Saginowski (Tom Hardy) and his Cousin Marv (the last film of the late James Gandolfini) who run what's known as a drop bar which simply mean that they serve as a place where mobsters leave large amounts of illegal money to pick up at a later date. Cousin Marv used to be a man of his own power in the organized crime world and briefly had his own crew before he was pushed aside by an incoming Chechen gang and now he just manages the bar with Bob. 10 years has passed sense this change but Marv is still as bitter as ever about his position in life. Gandolfini excels in roles like this for so many reasons. Of course we see a little Tony Soprano in Cousin Marv but he brings so much else to this role from his tone of voice, expression with his eyes, and physical presence that makes the performance that much more captivating. It's great to watch him be able to display that intimidation factor as the "tough guy" that Marv wants to be seen as, as well as the fear and weakness that really exists in his heart.....all being shown through his eyes. It's the kind of performance that has a low-key profoundness that makes you hope the academy rewards a posthumous Oscar nomination.

Hardy is no less brilliant here as the quiet and mysterious Bob. Bob is not a big talker and just lives quietly in his own little bubble tending bar and handling the drop. His life is changed when he finds a wounded puppy in the trash can outside of the damaged Nadiya's (Noomi Rapace) house. They both decide to take care of the dog together as a potential budding romance threatens to grow. Bob has almost an instant connection with the dog, a young pitbull, and you begin to notice similarities between the two as the film progresses. Bob makes a comment that a pitbull is a "dangerous dog" which is true, but almost seems impossible to think when you see them as puppies. Bob can be looked at the same way as the puppy in the sense of he seems harmless but there is the potential for danger and violence deep inside both of them. I've always found it amazing how well British actors can master American accents compared to the other way around. Hardy especially is a master of accents and the way he handles his blue collar, Brooklyn speak is amazing to watch as we follow the mysterious Bob throughout the film, always wondering what he is thinking and what he really is about.

The other stand out performance in the film comes from Matthias Shoenaerts as the loose cannon, Eric Deeds. Shoenaerts brings a level of intensity that is so palpable that you often become uneasy when he is on screen. He spends the majority of the film claiming that Bob's new dog is his and that he wants him back, as we all are questioning what he is really after. Shoenaerts is a rising star for sure and I can't wait to see him continue to show what he's capable of a bigger stage.

In the end, "The Drop" is most likely going to be one of those early fall gems that falls by the wayside after a few weeks in theaters and is unfortunately forgotten about due to poor marketing. However, it also could be one of those small festival films that develops a cult following after people realize how good it is for being a slightly slower paced thriller that delivers great performances and a good story. In a way, that almost fits perfectly into the makeup of these characters who live in this world. Great and powerful things in small and low-key packages

When you read reviews of movies oftentimes you'll here words like "raw", and "in your face" and it's difficult to really get a handle on what that really means until you actually see a movie and you think of those words yourself. Those were two things that I thought of specifically after watching "Blue Ruin"

It follows Dwight Evans, a disheveled homeless man who, despite his shortcomings, is resourceful enough to carve out a nice little niche for himself for a guy living in his car and eating leftovers from the garbage. He gets picked up one day by a police officer and is told that the man who murdered his parents has been released after a prison sentence. Hearing this news and seeing the look in his eyes, you can sense the type of baggage this man has been carrying for years and start thinking of how a tragedy of that magnitude can affect a person at such a vulnerable age. It then sets us up to follow Dwight on a cold and bloody journey for revenge.

It's easy for anyone to think of the "what I would do in this situation" scenario when watching a movie like this. More often then not, you'll hear someone say "I would totally do the same thing, I would straight up go after and kill that guy", hell, you might even think those thoughts yourself. It could even be seen as normal for those type of thoughts to cross your mind but actually acting on them is something else entirely. The majority of those who have those thoughts will eventually run into that last shred of their conscience that will hold them back from that combination of satisfying revenge and life ruining mistake. However, there is always that potential that there is that person who does break through that mental block and goes through with it. "Blue Ruin" is saying just that which is a reason why it's cast is filled with all new faces and unfamilars (except for Devin Ratray, last scene in the immortal role as Kevin McCallister's older brother Buzz in the "Home Alone" franchise) because they want to put a face to that potential and it reinforces the idea of how "Dwight" could be inside anyone depending on the circumstances.

It's because of these ideas why the we can relate to Dwight in way, whether its his fumblings with acts of violence, his regret after making mistakes, and just the obvious thought of being scared out of your mind when traveling down this type of road. It's so easy to be able to think about killing those who have killed your own because that Hammurabian mindset is so quick and easy, "You take mine then I take yours, done". We've grown as people from that kind of philosophy because we know that kind of brutality resonates and will eventually blow everything up on its side. "Blue Ruin" takes us on the journey of a man with nothing to lose and nothing to gain but revenge and the knowledge that that revenge won't ease his mind and lessen the effects of the trauma from his past. Dwight Evans is just a man who believes in a sense of right and wrong and that it is only right to destroy those who have done such terrible wrongs to him and his own in order to try and bring a sense of balance to his universe.

We all want balance in our universe but it's hard to decide what we are able to do in order to maintain that balance.

Follow my blog: movieguyreads.blogspot.com Follow me on twitter @postandtost

Man what a bummer...I mean, not that the Biblical story of Noah and the Ark is supposed to be cheerful or anything but just the constant gray and rain, mopiness, and general poor outlook on the nature of mankind is just kind of depressing..

Was that offensive? It wasn't meant to be but there are bound to be those to see it that way.

That should have been the tag line for Darren Aronofsky's epic, "Noah" whether thats fair or unfair to say is up to you but when dealing with such sensitive material that means a lot to millions of people, you are gonna rub some the wrong way. So while saying that, this was actually a story I had been hoping was made into a live action film for some time now.

Now when a story of this magnitude is going be taken on there are a few key ingredients that are all MUST HAVES; A top notch director, a bona-fide leading man, and a big budget.

Director: Darren Aronofsky CHECK Leading Man (and period piece master): Russell Crowe CHECK Big Budget: $130 million CHECK

So what went wrong exactly? Well long story short is that while I went into the theater expecting to see one film, I was unexpectedly treated to two films on one reel. The first half was a loud, raucous, and fantastical story of the beginning of man leading up to Noah and his vision he has of God telling him that he is going to destroy the world and every man in it after his grandfather (Anthony Hopkins who was born an old wise man) slips him a mickey in his tea. Then he gathers his wife (wonderful Jennifer Connelly) and his three sons and adopted daughter to build the ark out of a freshly built forest thanks again to Grandfather Hopkins and his magic beans. One question that people ask when they hear the story of Noah is how could one man build a ship that big himself anyway? Well, fear not fellow wonderer's for according to Aronofsky, Noah had giant, lord of the rings-esque, rock creatures known as "The Watchers" who were apparently the spirits of fallen angels that God had sent down to Earth after "failing" him. The Watchers not only protected Noah and his family, but also appeared to have built the ark for him! Talk about lucking out! Then the flood eventually happens, after all of the CGI animals have arranged themselves on the ark and put into a deep sleep and a massive battle occurs where the rock "Watchers" fight off the rest of the sinful men as Noah and his family escape. The whole time I was thinking...This isn't Aronofsky, it's too simple, it's too generic, I was gravely disappointed.

First film grade: 5/10 (visuals were impressive enough to give it at a 5...I mean I guess so right?)

Now the second film begins at the point where we all wonder what happens next and is what happens to Noah and his family when they actually are on the ark and are forced to survive. Here we witness the true dedication of Noah to please God and fulfill his task at hand. The inner conflict that we watch Noah and his family visually struggle with is very powerful and we begin to sympathize with him and question if we would be able to handle such a burden ourselves. We see him make drastic choices and rash decisions that will affect not only his family but all of mankind. This is where we finally see Aronofsky's fingerprints, all of his previous films feature flawed characters that are put up against drastic circumstances along with a bold social commentary on a specific issue. "Noah" can be looked at from several angles from the complexity of man and how they are more than capable of both good and bad to a PSA about protecting the environment.

Second film: 8/10

FINAL GRADE: 7/10

I can't knock the film for being entertaining, that's the purpose of film after all (I feel many people forget this) but the overall confusion of the direction of the film became an issue. Aronofsky tried to please everyone. He wanted to make a kick ass action/adventure film that would attract the masses along with making it artsy and have a profound message that left you thinking as the credits rolled. His inexperience with the former was evident but not enough to make FIRST FILM bad..just mediocre. But he struggled to combine both films together to make one potentially GREAT film.

Now I consider myself a fairly religious individual. I am Catholic and I believe in God and I don't really care if you do or not (so there!) but when it came to stories like Noah in the Bible and how atheists use these stories to disprove the existence of God and the fallacy that is organized religion I counter with this. The Bible, as with other religious texts like the Torah or Qur'an, I don't believe these stories were supposed to be taken literally but rather figuratively. These texts were written to be guidelines of how to live your life the right way. The story of Noah to me is meant to be a cautionary tale of what could potentially happen to our planet if we continue on the path we have been on for thousands of year. It also tells me that we are capable of change and the movie reiterates these themes throughout. So in the end, it's one of Aronofskys' weaker films (not necessarily a slight because a "weak" Aronofksy film is still better then the majority of films out in theaters).

"Noah" is entertaining, it's thought provoking at times, and wet. But at the end of the day, much like a dark, gray, and rainy day...it's a bit of a bummer.

I could not have been more excited for February 14th to come this year and it had nothing to do with the exchange of flowers, cards, chocolates, or bodily fluids, but rather the return of Netflixs' House of Cards. House of Cards proved to be one of the fastest growing shows, in terms of popularity, across the country due to its easy access on Netflix. This show has begun a potential revolution to how television will be watched in the future because it puts the control of the show in the hands of the viewer. Like a novel, you have the choice of when to pick it up or put it down and advance into the next phase of the show. Perhaps that is why each episode calls itself a "chapter".

As I mentioned before I thoroughly enjoy following the dark and deceptive tactics of Frank and Claire Underwood as the both lie, cheat, and kill their way to the Oval Office. The show is another example of how we in America have fallen in love with the villain as proved by the popularity of other shows like Breaking Bad, The Sopranos, Boardwalk Empire, and Homeland. However, what makes this show even more interesting is not the big "holy crap!" moments that everyone loves, but everything in between the stuff that I don't understand. Some may be turned away from House of Cards due to the heavy, almost in-your-face, political jargon and wheeling and dealing that breezes over the heads of not only the laymen like myself but perhaps anyone who doesn't hold a high power position in Washington.

So why do I keep coming back to this show? Why did I find myself on the couch for nearly 5 days (thanks to the insistence of winter to dominate the east coast) to watch episode after episode? It's because even when the show seems to put itself on a higher intellectual level then me, and this happens more then I care to admit, it is everything in between that keeps me engaged. Every detail of this show is so carefully calculated from the lighting, music, set pieces, and dialogue it's as if Frank and Claire did it themselves. I enjoy listening and watching these people "be" smarter than me on my television screen. I enjoy watching all of the new alliances form and seeing them deteriorate within an episode of each other over the slightest detail. It is that unpredictability that hooks the audience and brings us back for more. I always find myself asking questions like "how can anyone have any sense of trust with someone else in this show?" or, more troubling, "Do our elected officials behave even SLIGHTLY like they do in the show?" There have been interviews with elected officials in Washington regarding the show and some have said it is fantasy while others have said it is surprisingly accurate which makes my latter question even scarier.

I want to refrain from speaking about the actual events that occurred in season 2 because I want you to experience them for yourselves. I want you to watch Frank Underwood continue his mission for the presidency and his ability to manipulate those around him as if they were chess pieces to forward his movement. I want you to watch the mysterious Claire Underwood who even at the end of season 2 I still see as an enigma. Even at the points where she seems the most exposed, she never seems to fully reveal everything she is thinking and feeling which makes her character that much more compelling. The only question I can pose for the future of the show is when do we reach the point where the Underwoods come at odds with each other? Both are so gifted in the ability to deceive others and both share what seems like an insatiable lust for power. However, both also share the innate sense to protect themselves at all costs and often times they use each other to protect one another. When do we get to the point where one of them has act against the other in order to preserve their own individual well-being?

So "Welcome Back" as Frank, ever so graciously, says to us in the season premiere. Enjoy the Underwoods spin their web and ensnare anyone who is unfortunate enough to be caught up in it in front of our eyes. For if there is one thing that is certain about this show, it's that no matter what happens, Frank wants us front and center to watch it all unfold.

Bada$$....The word thats become synonymous with Liam Neeson since his unpredictable action hero turn in 2008 with the now cult favorite "Taken". I often ask myself how Neeson arrived at this status but that kind of ruins a bit of the fun for me if I over think it.

The action hero is a bit of an endangered species in todays Hollywood. I mean, action films are still getting made but there aren't many good ones and if there are some solid action films being made, we aren't seeing the same one actor appear in them and that is what has separated Neeson from the rest. When you think about it, Neeson and Tom Cruise (50 years old himself) are the only consistent "action heroes" that are constantly churning out action films that are actually quite entertaining (except for Jack Reacher...take a mulligan on that one Tom).

Non-Stop is the perfect cure for the post-Oscars theater blues as for the most part during the first month or two after awards season we are treated to a major garbage-fest. Non-Stop has that familiar Liam Neeson "Taken" feel to it and it keeps us alert and entertained throughout the whole ride. These films are not only good for us to watch Neeson kick a$$, but these films also serve as opportunities for somewhat unknown actors to showcase their skills and get their faces out there (Corey Stoll from "House of Cards", Scoot McNairy (12 Years a Slave, Killing them Softly, and Lupita N'Yongo fresh off her Oscar win in "Slave"). These actors are hoping to use films like these as a jump start and to hopefully go from unknown to not necessarily star but at least get to the point of being recognized as "that guy from that thing".

Julianne Moore was kind of pointless here. She is (was?) a star and a 4- time Oscar nominee but her role could have been played by an unknown. It was almost distracting seeing someone of her caliber just kind of randomly thrown in this role as she wasn't even promoted with the film. You just see her and it's like, "Oh crap, that's Julianne Moore I didn't know she was in this". Then again, would knowing she was in it beforehand make you want to see a movie like "Non-Stop" even more?...probably not.

What makes Neeson so great in these roles, besides his a$$ kicking prowess and the fact that he is bound to have a classic "corny" action line ("Your arrogance offends me" from Taken is still my all time favorite action line), is that he knows how to utilize his voice and facial expressions to make these characters who seem unstoppable also display a sense of vulnerability and inner turmoil that makes us care about them.

In the end, Non-Stop" doesn't take itself too seriously. It is a fun movie that entertains from start to finish and that alone warrants the ticket price.