2016 Year in Review

Top Favorites of the Year
1) Rogue One
2) Rogue One
3) Rogue One
4) Rogu--
5)

But seriously...

My favorites were things that either lived up to or really exceeded expectations. I'm not saying all of these are objectively great movies, but I left the theatre on a positive.

1) Rogue One
2) Kubo and the Two Strings
3) The Eagle Huntress
4) Zootopia
5) 10 Cloverfield Lane
6) Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them
7) The Magnificent 7
8) Star Trek Beyond

The most "Meh" Movies. I didn't see a lot of bad movies this year, but these were some disappointments:

1) Shin Godzilla
2) Moana
3) Captain America: Civil War
4) Doctor Strange

I apparently did not see very much this year...

Top Movies that rival the 2016 Presidential Election for "biggest piece of flaming, offensive shit ever shown to the public" that I am glad I did not financially support:

1) Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice

Top Movies I guess I'm "looking forward to" in 2017 (Note: I've already seen Lego Batman)

1) War for the Planet of the Apes*
2) Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales*
3) Star Wars Episode VIII: The Last Jedi
4) Lego Ninjago Movie*
5) Logan
6) Kong: Skull Island
7) Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2
8) Thor Ragnarok

*Denotes movies I am legitimately excited for.

2015 Year in Review

I'm still catching up on a lot of the Oscar noms this year. For instance, I still have to see The Hateful 8 and The Martian. But here are my thoughts on the movies of 2015:

Overview

What a competitive Oscar season! And so many Sci-fi/special effects/action-heavy movies competing for the same awards against the traditional "Oscar bait" pictures. I love that Mad Max Fury Road, The Revenant, and Star Wars The Force Awakens are all competing for a lot if the same categories. And they're actually competitive! Who's going to win Editing, Cinematography, Production Design, Sound? They're all anyone's game. Even Best Picture and Director could easily go to Mad Max, The Revenant, or The Big Short, and I would not be angry about any of them winning.

Another thing I find amazing about this year is that we have three films that are so unanimously reviewed. Everybody I talk to in real life and every review I read or hear gives the same likes and dislikes for Mad Max, The Revenant, and The Force Awakens. I've never seen films so universally enjoyed by critics and audiences. That's not to say these films are without problems, but, rather, everyone recognizes the problems and likes the films anyway for what they did well.

So, that said, let's make some lists, because the internet loves lists.

Top 5 Personal Favorites of 2015
1) Mad Max Fury Road
2) Jurassic World (don't hate!)
3) Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens
4) Bridge of Spies
5) The Peanuts Movie

Top 5 Disappointments of 2015
1) Spectre
2) Inside Out
3) Avengers: Age of Ultron
4) Black Mass
5) Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens

Top 5 I Missed and Want to See
1) Ex Machina
2) The Martian
3) The Hateful 8
4) Ant Man
5) The Heart of the Sea (I think? Based on what my dad said about it?)

Top 5 I'm Looking Forward to in 2016
1) Rogue One
2) Captain America: Civil War
3) 10 Cloverfield Lane
4) The Jungle Book
5) Star Trek Beyond
Honorable Mention: Swing State (because it's the feature is just finished working on)

Thank you for reading, and here's to 2016.

The Big Short Revenant

I've wrapped the feature film that took up all of my January, and I finally have time to see movies and write about them again.

I saw The Big Short last night and The Revenant the week before and noticed a few interesting similarities between the two, so I've decided to combine my reviews. I'll also likely mention Mad Max: Fury Road and Star Wars: The Force Awakens quite a bit in this post as all four of these movies are competing for a lot if the same categories at the Oscars this year.

The Revenant

What a gorgeous film. The camera work in the opening battle and subsequent battles/fight scenes is mind-blowing. The steadicam follows a character; he gets shot with an arrow and dies; a new character runs past the action and we pick him up, moving with his frantic escape attempt, and an arrow hits him and he dies; and the camera keeps moving, showing us more and more action in a single, amazing take.

And there are so many 360 degree shots that almost brag about the filmmakers' use of all-natural light.

And the landscapes! It's no wonder Revenant is up for Best Production Design. Though, much like Mad Max, the "production design" is mostly just good use of beautiful locations.

Story-wise, I think Revenant is actually rather plain. It's a simple revenge story mixed with some woodland survival, all of which we've seen before. Now, the film's technical prowess more than makes up for it's straight-forward story and character arcs. The directing and camera work keep you on the edge of you seat. While the long-story is predictable, individual moments are full of suspense, and I actually gasped at one surprise that involved a horse (if you've seen it, you'll know).

Speaking of characters, I thought Tom Hardy gave a stellar performance, even though I couldn't quite understand all of his dialogue. His squirrel monologue was quite entertaining and engaging, and such a good character study moment.

Leo, however. I like Leo. I think he deserves an Oscar. But not for this film. Here's why: Does he give a great performance? Yes, absolutely. Can you tell how much passion and dedication he poured into the role? Yes. And I give him kudos for each. However, I don't think he gave a performance that demanded his talents. That is to say, I think just about any solid actor could have been put into that role, given a good performance, and the movie wouldn't have been any worse. To me, there was nothing particularly special about Leo's performance that made that rather cliché, under-written character come to life.

I haven't seen a lot of the other Oscar nominated performances this year, so I can't say if any of them deserve it more than Leo does; but I want Leo to win his statue for a truly spectacular role, and I don't think it's this one.

Now, on to...

The Big Short

Who'd have thought the director of my favorite Will Farrell movie (yes, Talladega Nights) would be nominated for an Academy Award? Let's give Adam McKay some major kudos, because The Big Short is one of the most unique movies I've seen in a long time. It has a voice that is all its own, and damn do I respect that.

Good performances all around. And the writing! They way it boils down the Wall Street lingo and process to be understood by financial idiots (like me) is absolutely brilliant. Engaging from beginning to end.

Now, here's where I start to talk about a lot of movies. Big Short, Mad Max, Revenant, and Star Wars are all up for Best editing this year. And I have no idea who deserves it. Probably Mad Max, and I say that for three reasons. 1) Mad Max's editing is about as perfect as editing can be. They maintain continuity and screen space during insane action sequences, and you the viewer always know what's happening. 2) I had some nitpicky problems with The Revenant and The Big Short's editing. Both movies spend a little too much time on their transitions. Yes, Revenant, you can have too many pretty shots of clouds and too much pretentious dead wife dream sequence. 3) And, while Force Awakens does have very solid editing, it's doesn't stand out nearly like the other three films I've mentioned. Now, you could say that that's its virtue: good editing is editing you never notice, so maybe this category really is anyone's game.

I'll have more Oscar talk in my next post, my 2015 year in review.

Long story short...

Go see The Revenant, because it's very pretty.

Go see The Big Short, so you can understand how evil and stupid big business is. Rise up, Comrades!

Bridge of Spies

There's a reason Steven Spielberg has the reputation he does. The man just understands storytelling. He understands characters. He understands film. There's a certain caliber of director where even their weakest films are proficiently crafted and still a cut above the average flick.

Bridge of Spies is incredibly engaging. Stellar performances by all the cast (even the kids!), along with Spielberg's superb directing help you care about these characters. Good writing and use of set-up--pay-off structure create a level of tension that keeps you in the world of the movie from start to finish. You may already know the ending; you know Tom Hanks is never in any real danger, because you know how movies work. But Spielberg keeps us wondering "How is he gonna pull it off?"

Bridge of Spies also uses its themes of Constitutional values and what we believe in as Americans to transcend time and keep a modern audience invested in this period piece about a time that many would (incorrectly) argue is behind us.  It calls on one of humanity's favorite stories: the underdog, the man who stands up even when his closest friends and family members beg for him to sit. In a greatly appreciated reprieve from today's nihilistic film and television landscape, Spielberg uses Bridge of Spies to present us at our best, to make us all see how good we can be if we stand by our principles. I can really see why it's being compared to Mr. Smith Goes to Washington and why Tom Hanks is being heralded as "the James Stewart of our time."

TLDR: It's a damn good movie that should make you want to be a better person and make this world a better place.

Black Mass: or I still can't stand Boston Accents

I went into Black Mass having seen no Trailers. I'd seen posters and heard a little hype from friends and NPR, so I knew it was the "Whitey Bulger" story. Not knowing very much about the Bulger story, the historian part of me was pretty engaged.

The acting was just as good as you'd imagine from that cast list. Johnny Depp gave an amazing performance, breaking out of the Jack Sparrow rut he's been in since 2003. Benedict Cumberbatch does a Boston accent that's very nearly believable, and he does a great job in a supporting role, never stealing the screen as he often dies. It's neat to watch Adam Scott hold his own amongst so many accomplished dramatic actors, however he doesn't get enough screen time to truly cut his teeth.

That said, none of the characters are deeply explored. They're barely shallowly explored. No one has a character arc. No one changes. The movie suffers from classic biopic syndrome, presenting a series of factual events and failing to present them within properly structured plot arc. You find yourself watching a brief history lesson rather than a story. Like most biopics, the film cuts off with little resolution.

While Depp's performance and the history aspect were enough to keep me engaged for the duration, overall I found the movie entirely forgettable. If I want a compelling, "true-life" crime movie, I'll watch Goodfellas again.

The movie was also a constant reminder of why and how much I dislike Boston. Their accent, their culture, their arrogant, xenophobic, exclusionary sense of self-entitlement: Sorry, Boston, but you have yet to win any affection from me.

My one sentence review:
"Black Mass" is two hours of great actors playing disappointingly-written characters in little snippets of some of a plot.

Inside Out's Existential Crises

Let me start by saying Inside Out is cute and fun with a lot of clever psychology jokes. However, I felt there were some major holes, unanswered questions, and strange implications that were side effects of the film's premise.

First off, Inside Out could be a great example of the things you're not supposed to do in a screenplay. Like narration. Occasionally narration can be okay, even good, but, far more often, it's either lazy storytelling or clearly added because some idiots in a focus group were confused, so execs added narration to spell things out for lowest-common-denominator Americans. At its best, great filmmaking doesn't even require dialogue to tell the story. Inside Out's narration is completely unnecessary, and is worth a sin.

The other screenwriting no-no that bugged me is something I hate any time I see it: internal conflict. Having characters struggle with internal conflict is fine, even great character development, as long as there is some personified antagonist representing that conflict or drawing it out. But when a film lacks an antagonist, I find it lacks conflict, and becomes boring for me personally. Now, I realize I'm basically faulting the movie for its basic premise, so shame on me, I guess.

And, remember, this is coming from a guy who loves Pixar and typically applauds them for their generally clever writing, emotional storytelling, and overall higher quality than DreamWorks.

Now that that's out of the way, let's get into some existential plot holes and paradoxes.

How does the relations between the emotions and Riley work? Joy and friends have a control panel with which they make Riley feel emotions, and they give her ideas. They seem to be controlling her like pilots of a ship. The same is true of all the other humans we see. So are people merely vessels controlled by these emotions? Joy and gang constantly refer to Riley as if she's a separate person. They care about her wellbeing as if it's different from their own. It's not "I" and "me", but "she" and "her." This language suggests that Riley has a separate consciousness from the emotions. Is that part of head not personified? What exactly is the relationship here?

I might be faulting the movie's premise again, but let's talk about the emotions. Each of then seem to experience the full range of emotions. We certainly see Joy experience sadness, anger, fear, and disgust. Which is fine. None of them would be able to undergo any sort of character arc if they were completely one-dimensional representations of their respective emotion. However, if they themselves are capable of feeling other emotions, why do Disgust, Fear, and Anger have so much trouble running Riley while Joy and Sadness are adventuring? Shouldn't they operate more like the Faceless Men of Bravos and be able to switch places willy-nilly? Or what's the point of having the five emotions in the first place if they are all capable of having other feelings? Does Joy have a team of emotions piloting her? Is life just an endless paradox of emotions controlling emotions?

Something else that confuses me is the gender assignment of the emotions. Riley has a mix of masculine and feminine personifications of her emotions, which is fine. I just find it odd that every other head we see in the film has all of their emotions match their body's gender. Men have their emotions personified as a being men. Women's emotions are 100% women. Is is some intentional commentary on Riley's character? Is it suggesting that Riley is still discovering who see is and her emotions will change as she becomes an adult and discovers her identity? Is it some commentary on her future sexuality (the film does keep away from the debunked works of Freud)? Or is it just a gag, because having all the females in Mom being annoyed with all the males in Dad is funny; because gender conflict!

My final existential question is about the opening of the film. Joy comes into existence at Riley's birth. I don't mean to start a religious debate here, but the film is certainly making some statement about a person's perception or lack thereof in the womb vs out. I like to believe Pixar wasn't trying to make such commentary, but, rather were cleverly referencing Lacanian psychology or someone similar with the theory that you don't develop a separate identity from your mother until you've left the womb (and seen yourself in a mirror, according to Lacan).

Sure, I'm a heartless, cold miser for hating on this adorable children's film. But, in my defense, it was also boring and predictable. If it weren't for the clever humor, I probably would've been really disappointed. However, the witty psychology jokes do give Inside Out enough points to earn this one-line review:

"It's still a better movie than Cars."

Why Jurassic World Is Actually Brilliant

The more I reflect on Jurassic World, the more I realize how much I enjoyed it and how brilliant it really is. This review isn't about nitpicking the movie; it has it's fair share of flaws as well as details that I really liked. I also don't want to summarize the film, and I'll try to do this without spoilers.

First off, I was never bored. The action begins early, is really fun, is well shot, and, through very good editing, pacing, and cinematography, the filmmakers effectively created a world of suspense where the dinosaur could be lurking just off-scene at any time. While the plot points were predictable (set up, payoff) like in any Jurassic Park film, the action was not; this suspense kept me guessing and kept me metaphorically on the edge of my seat.

Jurassic Park has always maintained a good track record of making dinosaurs into scary villains that will eat you (Raptors in the kitchen. Need I say more?), but JW is the first entry that has made me actively root against a dinosaur. The movie's hybrid creation Indominus Rex is effectively presented as a homicidal, sociopathic, character, achieving a level of pure hatred among the audience so strong that, when Indominus finally met her demise, a Sunday morning crowd actually cheered. If that's not great character development, I don't know what is.

Also on the well-developed dino list are the raptors. Thanks to Chris Pratt's relationship with them, the raptors are, for the first time in the franchise, truly presented as animals, as opposed to movie monsters. They were scary in the way a trained wolf or tiger is scary; seemingly tamed, but their wild side could come out at any moment. This was something new and refreshing for the JP franchise. While I could offer endless complaints regarding JW's CGI, which doesn't hold a candle to the animatronics of the 1993 original, I will say the raptors looked damn cool when they got to run out in the jungle. Their movement and behavior as they leap over dead trees and scurry along the jungle floor was captured perfectly, adding to the sense that they are animals.

What really made me appreciate Jurassic World was when I realized the movie was an allegory for itself. In the world of the movie, executives order the creation of Indominus Rex to "up the wild factor" and attract an audience who's bored with regular dinosaurs. That's exactly what the movie did! The writers concocted Indominus to attract movie-goers who could be bored with the previous JP films. And all the while, Chris Pratt's voice-of-reason character keeps reminding us, "They're dinosaurs. Wild enough." It's like the whole movie is a big f#@k you to some Universal exec! The film is full of tongue-in-cheek nods to the other films as if to say, "We know we're a cash-in, so we're just going to have fun being  a cash-in." The action is fun and ridiculous, while the humor and nostalgia are well-played and self-aware.

Jurassic World's greatest selling point could possibly be the way it treats its audience. Like this summer's most amazing blockbuster Mad Max: Fury Road (seriously, go see it), Jurassic World doesn't treat us all like idiots. JW trusts that we've all seen its predecessors and that we don't need a refresher course. Well all know who John Hammond and InGen are, and the movie knows that. Little details like that make Jurassic World and Mad Max refreshing exceptions in our current, unbearably oversimplified blockbuster climate.

Is Jurassic World a good movie? No, not at all. Is it as good as the original? No, it might not even be as good as The Lost World (but I like Lost World). Is it a fun, awesome thrill ride that can kick the pants off a Marvel or Transformers film? Absolutely. By far the best dinosaur movie you'll see this year.

My one line review: "Jurassic World is the dinosaur movie I've always wanted and never should've existed."