Room Review

Starring: Brie Larson, Jacob Tremblay, Joan Allen, William H. Macy

Room has one of the most fascinating premises I've heard. The novel by Emma Donaghue (who also wrote the movie's screenplay) is from five-year-old Jack's point of view, as he lives with his young mother Ma in a small enclosed room with one skylight. This "Room" is where he was born, and he's never seen outside. His mother teaches him everything as a singular. There is Bed, and Rug, and Tub. They are real. But other beds, and the things seen on their TV are pretend. It's all a game they play, and every day is the same routine. But what is a game to Jack, is survival for Ma. Ma is Joy Newsome, who was kidnapped as a child and has been prisoner in Room for seven years. Once she was alone, and now she has Jack, her child with her kidnapper. She's waited desperately to escape her prison, and now with Jack at five years old, she has her chance. Room is a fantastically written drama, with great performances from Larson and Tremblay.

Room is odd, because its climax is in the middle of the movie. Jack and Ma are freed. For Jack, this is his first encounter with the outside world. Up until now, this world was fake. He's never felt sunlight, or snow, or had any interaction with anyone but his mother. For Ma, this is the return to society. This is the moment she has waited for for ages. Room could be a satisfying story if it ended with their release. But Room dares to go further. Some stories don't have a picture-perfect ending. Both of them struggle and suffer in a society they don't fit into. Jack wants to go back to Room. Ma doesn't like the way people look at and treat her, and the accusations that her methods of raising her son were wrong. I'm calling it. Brie Larson is winning an Oscar for this movie. She undoubtedly deserves it for such an incredible role. She holds the movie together with her strength in the first half, then dissolves into a pitiful character in the second, showing her inner weakness. By then its Jacob Tremblay's performance that grounds the movie. It's amazing how their character growths mirror each other. She gets weaker, while he gets stronger. He needs her guidance, and then she needs his. I'd also like to point out this actor was seven years old when they filmed this. Yet he has such incredible talent.

While I did enjoy this movie a lot, I have a few criticisms. I think as far as directing goes, Lenny Abrahamson did the best he could do. It must be hard filming with such a small set. Some of the shots just seemed awkward and out of place to me. I'd say the editing was not strong. But Room succeeds in its acting. It really is a two person show, but Joan Allen is also very good as Ma's own mother, struggling to make her daughter happy. The strongest aspect is actually the writing. The movie is written by the author of the book, so readers of the book can be assured it's no different. The difference for me was that I had a hard time feeling the emotions the characters felt. It was as if I were looking at them, I could see they were struggling, but I didn't feel their struggle. I commend the acting, but I just couldn't identify. In a movie that sounds like an emotional gutpunch, I didn't even shed a tear. That's a very little criticism, but it did take away from the movie for me. If you're into awards frontrunners, Room has to be on your list before the Academy Awards.

Rating:

Joy Review

Starring: Jennifer Lawrence, Robert De Niro, Bradley Cooper, Diane Ladd, Isabella Rossellini

Joy is the third collaboration between writer-director David O. Russell and Jennifer Lawrence. She first she got an Academy Award for Best Actress for playing a mentally ill woman in Silver Linings Playbook. Then American Hustle got her a Golden Globe for Best Supporting Actress and another Academy Award nomination. Those were ensemble movies, with the talents of Christian Bale, Bradley Cooper, and Amy Adams making the movies great. Here, Jennifer Lawrence is all on her own. Sure, she has a talented supporting cast, but she is unarguably front-and-center. Joy is about Joy Mangano, the woman who invented the self-wringing Miracle Mop and became a huge businesswoman. But from the trailers and commercials, would you be able to tell? The marketing has been extremely vague, basically just selling this as a Russell-Lawrence collaboration. And third time is the charm, right? Sadly, not with Joy. While Joy has a lot of heart, it is severely lacking. Lawrence is at her best, and she truly shines in the role, but the rest of the movie doesn't have that same spark.

Jennifer Lawrence drives the movie. But even she isn't enough to save it. She is able to act with a relatability few actresses have. You instantly sympathize with what she is going through, and you want her to succeed. Joy Mangano is a great heroine. If you've seen Lawrence's work, it's what we've come to expect. She succeeds, but I think it's at expense of the others. The rest of the cast is a little ridiculous. Bradley Cooper gave what may be his creepiest and weirdest performance yet. I think Robert De Niro as her father was really funny, but there wasn't any depth there. His girlfriend, played by Isabella Rossellini was one of the strangest characters in the movie. She has very strange dialogue, with weird scenes. She just becomes so annoying, and she and the rest of the family just merge into a blob. Everybody tells Lawrence she can't do it, and it all blends together. There's no room for anyone else to give a believable performance. The family drama is there, but it isn't anywhere near as compelling as the family in Silver Linings Playbook. She's the only one you really like.

The biggest problem is its inconsistency. It has no idea what kind of movie it should be. A comedy? A drama? A biopic?  The opening of the movie is terrible. It opens with old soap opera actors re-enacting scenes in a "new" soap in black and white, flashes of color appearing as they debate over a gun. It literally has no place being in this movie. You later learn that Joy's mother watches soaps 24/7. So that justifies it as an opening? The beginning is also very message-heavy. I believe that a movie's message should be something people can take away from a movie. But Joy beats you over the head with it at the beginning, using cheesy dialogue and a tacky narration. The film is narrated by Joy's dead grandmother. She's alive for part of the movie, but continues to narrate after she's dead. Not only does she narrate, she shows up in the movie after she's dead. I could not figure out if she ever really died or if it was a dream. Speaking of dreams, Joy has a few dream sequences but you can't tell if it's a dream or not. Everything feels rushed, but Lawrence comes out unscathed.

Joy also has a really great depiction of business and telemarketing. I was fascinated by how cutthroat it was in the 70's, and how unfair people could be. I think this story of a woman rising up is one that needs to be told, but it needed to not get caught up in a feminist message. I'm not against feminism, but this movie gets lost in it, to a point where, like I stated earlier, Joy Mangano is the only good character. If you're a fan of Jennifer Lawrence, you'll like the movie as I did. I didn't hate Joy, it was actually a pretty enjoyable movie. I just see the potential it could, and should have had. The last third is fantastic, a sign that the movie could have been great. Lawrence deserves an Oscar nomination for her great work, but I think that's all you'll see of Joy in this year's awards season.

Rating:

Star Wars: The Force Awakens Review

Starring: Harrison Ford, Mark Hamill, Carrie Fisher, Adam Driver, Daisy Ridley, John Boyega, Oscar Isaac, Lupita Nyong'o, Andy Serkis, Domhnall Gleeson, Anthony Daniels, Peter Mayhew

This is the moment many fans have been waiting for. I've been excited about this movie since the first teaser trailer. While excitement surrounds Star War: The Force Awakens, there is a little nervousness too. Will it follow in the footsteps of The Phantom Menace, with an extremely negative response from fans, and the "dreaded prequels"? Can it really live up to all the hype? I've seen The Force Awakens, and I can finally confirm that yes, it does live up to it. It's everything I wanted out of a Star Wars movie and then some. And I'm glad I got to share it in a theater packed full of exciting people. Seriously, the line for this movie started a full hour and a half early, and went outside of the building. It's smashed every record and made $238 million dollars just this weekend. And I can guarantee I'm going to see it at least one more time before it leaves theaters. The beauty of The Force Awakens is its ability to combine nostalgia with the new, something the prequels failed to do. They were focused on rushed CGI effects and action scenes. Here, it's more of a slow burn. But for the Star Wars fan (which is likely a good chunk of the general public) it caters to our needs perfectly. Don't worry, I'm not going to spoil anything. I have a lot to say, but I'm going to hide all spoilers. Don't click unless you've seen the movie or you don't care. And PLEASE don't be the one to spoil it for anyone else.

I'm going to go character by character, and not include the ones with spoilers surrounding them. First, Daisy Ridley as Rey. I'm really excited to see what she's going to become, and how they will use her.

I really liked the ending of the film, with her finding Luke. I think it's a little corny, but definitely feels epic in a movie theater. I'm excited to see what the next movie has in store for Rey. The twist that she had the Force, and not Finn like the ads suggested, was well executed.

Rey might be the best character of the movie, because Ridley is able to perfectly keep certain things held back for future movies. I think it's great that there is a female lead in a movie like this, which is a nice homage to the originals, where as you might remember, Princess Leia did just as much as the boys did. Let's go to Leia, now General Organa of the Resistance. I liked Carrie Fisher's performance, and I think she grounded the movie in her scenes. You could tell there were some nuances every once in awhile, but they really didn't use them. I'm curious enough to want more of what happened with she and Han after Return of the Jedi. Now to Han and Chewie. They are the heart and soul of this movie. Seeing Harrison Ford return to this role and slip into it so easily is amazing. He is Han Solo, and still has the dry humor. And of course, Chewbacca is just as lovable as always. Han Solo was probably my favorite part of this movie, and I agree with everything that happened with his character. I think Ford's character is really going to set this new saga up to be great. If you've seen the movie you know why Kylo Ren comes next. I'm not a fan. I was expecting a great villain, one like Darth Vader, and I got Kylo Ren. He should've never taken his helmet off.

I have to address what happens with Kylo Ren and Han Solo. I was shocked that Kylo Ren was Han and Leia's son, that genuinely surprised me. And while it stunned me, I think Han Solo's death is needed for the films to go forward. This will be what drives Rey to defeat Kylo Ren. I really believe she would have killed him in the lightsaber battle if she didn't remember the Force. She wants vengeance, and she will train to get it. It breaks my heart, but it needed to happen.

I do think that they have set the stage for Kylo Ren to be truly evil in the future, but for now, just whiny and arrogant. The other villains were almost nonexistent, with a serious "Space Nazi" General Hux, and an extremely underused Captain Phasma. The Nazi thing almost goes a little too far. I personally think it is unneeded and takes away from the film. I did enjoy what they did with the new Stormtroopers, and Finn's journey from being a Stormtrooper to part of the Resistance. Finn didn't really make me too excited, but they've set him up for the future. Oscar Isaac as Poe Dameron was fantastic in the opening scene, but then he never really shows up again. If they're setting him up as the new Han Solo, they better actually utilize his talents. Also, Lupita Nyong'o's motion capture work as pirate Maz Kanata is really something. She had so much expression. But while the Cantina-esque scene was one of my favorites, I think her character is underused and seems out of place. Almost as if they deleted her scenes. Abrams says she will be used heavily in the future, and I hope he does, because it feels tacked on. Finally, I have to talk about BB-8. I loved that little guy. He has so much heart. I love R2-D2, but BB-8 might swiftly take over as the new lovable robot. I can't wait to see what happens with the two of them sharing the same screen.

The movie is actually very reminiscent of the first Star Wars. When you think about it, the same plotline is used, with the stakes a little higher. That could be a criticism, but I think it all plays with the nostalgia angle. You could feel the energy. People loved every second of this movie. I did too, but I notice the critical things that need to be worked on for future installments. I think the music of John Williams was excellent. It had enough odes to the original music combined with new pieces to really play off of the old characters and the new interacting. The visuals are stunning, and they've ditched all the stupid CGI from the prequels. Everything here is practical, or it looks practical. George Lucas just needed to take a little break. If you're a Star Wars fan, The Force Awakens will hopefully be everything you've dreamed it will be. If you're not, I'd see it anyways. I know some people who had never seen a single film, and they loved it. Going forward, I'd say whoever is in charge needs to work on the villains. The first Star Wars had a very funny plotline, and the Force Awakens is humorous as well, but the original still had the terrifying Darth Vader. And we got stuck with Kylo Ren, a screaming Nazi, a nonexistent chrome Stormtrooper, and Andy Serkis as a massive hologram. I think there is a serious villain problem that needs to be worked on. Everything else is amazing. I completely agree with the 95% on RottenTomatoes. It's not perfect, but it really is the movie experience of the year. If you haven't seen it already, go see it. If you have, see it again!

Rating:

Kylo Ren's backstory is great. I think they will do excellent things with it in the future. But in this movie, it just didn't work. I was shocked when they revealed who his parents were, and I think it was the genuine twist of the movie. I do not think that Driver portrayed him with enough malice to be a supervillain. In that sense, I don't think what he did to Han is as huge a scene as it should be. He's not malevolent. He's a whiny angsty young adult.E

Spotlight Review

Starring: Mark Ruffalo, Michael Keaton, Rachel McAdams, Liev Schrieber, Stanley Tucci

"It takes a village to raise a child. It takes a village to abuse them. That's the truth of it." Lawyer Mitchell Garabedian (Tucci) says this journalist Michael Rezendes (Ruffalo). In 2001, Garabedian was the lawyer of 84 clients, each accusing a single Boston priest of raping or molesting them. And those 84 are the lucky ones. It's assumed most of the victims killed themselves. It only started with one. One priest. Spotlight is the true story of the four reporters who investigated the Catholic Church system in Boston of covering up their priests' sexual abuse of thousands of children. Like many stories, it started with one. If you were alive to remember the scandal, it ended with 249 priests in Boston accused of molesting a total that far exceeds 1000 children. One was as young as 4. For this reason, Spotlight is an incredibly important movie. And don't worry. You won't see any of the molestation. This movie is solely about the journalists who uncovered the secret, and it's very professional. It's the sort of movie that just makes you stop in your tracks, and think.

Spotlight isn't just a good film, it's a great one. But it's surprising how good it actually is. It merely is an extremely professional movie. It's hard not to get worked about when child molestation is the subject. When combining the kind of manipulation and transformation into "a cottage industry" as Keaton's character puts it, it's even more infuriating that this many children were sexually abused by adults they trusted, and that the Church didn't care. But Spotlight presents its subject professionally. The priests largely aren't even characters, save for one terrifying encounter with McAdams' character. She merely bumps into a man, but when it's revealed he's a priest who molested 60+ kids, you get that feeling in your stomach that he's a monster. Spotlight knows that the subject is so rich, but writer/director Tom McCarthy is just showing what happened. There is no extra drama, and no tacked on plotlines. As good as the actors are, they largely don't even have any meaty scenes. They're just great at what they do. This movie has the kind of reserve that baffles me. It's hard to even write about something like this without feeling disgusted, so I still can't wrap my brain around how this movie presented itself with such prestige.

If you hear anything about Academy Award predictions, Spotlight is at the top of most critics' lists. I'd hate to say anything when I haven't seen all the movies, but the other films have their work cut out for them. It's not the kind of movie that strikes you instantly as "the best movie of the year", but it's the type that sticks with you, and is deserving of such an award. For acting, it's largely an ensemble piece which makes it great. Michael Keaton, Mark Ruffalo, and Rachel McAdams steal the show, but none of them is a clear lead. They all feel like team players, along with Liev Schreiber and Stanley Tucci in key supporting roles. Everyone here does a great job, and come Oscar day, I think Michael Keaton may finally get the award he deserved for Birdman last year. In terms of writing, the script is exceptional. As I've said before, it's extremely respectful to its subject. I've never heard of Tom McCarthy but he's obviously a great director. Many shots slowly pan out or zoom in on an object, and the ominous score gives an eerie feeling to the movie, which emphasizes its dark subject matter.

I've heaped a lot of praise on Spotlight. It's a great movie. I strongly urge everyone to see it, because it's also an important movie. It's sad that the great work by these reporters was overshadowed by 9/11, which happened months prior to the story's release. While it was overshadowed, it certainly wasn't forgotten. This story shook the Catholic Church to its core, and rocked many people's faith in the system. Numerous arrests were made, and investigations followed in cities around the world. Spotlight's credits show all the cities where priests were found guilty of molesting children post-2002. The number will shock you.

Rating:

Creed Review

Starring: Michael B. Jordan, Sylvester Stallone, Tessa Thompson, Phylicia Rashad

Star Wars, The Fast and the Furious, James Bond, and Jurassic Park. These are some of the most popular franchises right now, and all of them have been going on for decades. And each installment has a massive amount of hype. Star Wars: The Force Awakens has had fan excitement surrounding it since plans for a sequel were rumored. So why does the resurgence of the Rocky Balboa franchise not get the same kind of attention? Is it because Creed is a different movie? It stars Michael B. Jordan as Adonis Johnson, the illegitimate son of champion Apollo Creed. And Stallone's role is reversed. Rocky is the trainer now, in the same sort of role that Burgess Meredith played as Mickey in the original. Creed wasn't even on my radar until months after the trailer hit the web, and even then I didn't want to go out of my way to see it. But I read some reviews that said it was phenomenal. Totally transcendent of all Rocky films before it, and that it successfully passes the torch along as well as coming full circle. After seeing it, I cannot recommend this movie enough. It really is a fantastic movie, with all-around great acting, and a great story.

First, I just have to talk about Sylvester Stallone. This is a performance worthy of an Oscar. Ridiculous right? Stallone, an Oscar winner? Creed gets its name from "The Master of Disaster" and his son, but it's "The Italian Stallion" that steals the show. If you've seen the other films, you know the tough place Rocky is in. He's grieving. He's broken. And he wants to see Adonis succeed, but he's not willing to fight himself. I'd go as far to say the movie is equally about Rocky's emotional fight than it is about Adonis Creed's actual boxing fight. I don't want to give away ANY spoilers, but his story will rip your heart out. Michael B. Jordan is also great in the title role. I've seen Jordan in good movies and bad movies. This is probably the best I've seen him so far, as he's re-teamed with Ryan Coogler, his Fruitvale Station director (an indie movie I'd strongly recommend) so it's clear they make a good team. Phylicia Rashad nails her supporting role as Adonis' adoptive mother. She's not in the movie a lot, but her presence can be felt even when she's off screen. I was also impressed with Tessa Thompson, who plays Adonis' love interest. I thought she came off very well, and didn't seem clichéd at all, which was what I was expecting from a movie like this.

Creed is much more than just great acting. Every scene is filmed with perfection. The boxing matches are brutal to watch. I've seen many a sports movie, and I've never really felt like I was in the ring with the fighters. Every bloody spit and every punch can be heard and felt. That sounds a little off-putting, but it adds to the experience, trust me. One scene where Adonis is punched in slow motion was simply enthralling to watch (even though it was at his expense a little) and other scenes are filmed with cameras spinning around characters as they embrace. It's obvious Ryan Coogler is fit to take the franchise in his hands. I'd even be content if he ended it right here. I cannot throw enough praise on this movie. This came straight out of left field for me, and I cannot wait to see it again. A definitely deserved Oscar contender. I'll either be celebrating or complaining come awards season, because I'm rooting for Creed.

Rating:

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay- Part 2 Review

Starring: Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Liam Hemsworth, Woody Harrelson, Elizabeth Banks, Julianne Moore, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Donald Sutherland, Natalie Dormer, Sam Claflin

The epic franchise of The Hunger Games concludes this fall with Mockingjay- Part 2. The choice to split the last book of the YA fiction series is debated, but I think it paid off in the end. Many people consider Mockingjay to be the worst book in the series. I disagreed, and thought it was the best. It's fitting that I feel that the final film is undoubtedly the best of the four films. I was not a huge fan of the first part released last year, for the same reason many hate the book. It had no action, and felt like a cop out that was solely setting up the finale. I was rewarded with this incredible movie. I saw this film at Universal Studios Orlando, in an AMC IMAX theater. Maybe the IMAX contributed to my reaction, but I think it's outstanding, and is worth your time.

I think all of the actors are at their peak in the franchise in this movie. Jennifer Lawrence has never been better as Katniss Everdeen. She perfectly plays the tragic heroine written by Suzanne Collins. She's completely grown as a character since The Hunger Games in 2012, and that is completely because of Lawrence's knowledge of the character, and her ability to create an emotional bond with the characters and audience. Katniss is the "Mockingjay" of the rebellion against the wicked Capitol, and she symbolizes how certain figures are simply thrust into leadership. She owns the movie, but she's willing to give some scenes to Donald Sutherland, who expertly plays the villainous President Snow. Snow has also changed in the course of the series. He's weakening as his country has now fully turned against him. While Snow is weakening, President Coin (Moore), the leader of the revolution is stronger than ever. Lawrence and Moore have a very nuanced conflict that reveals itself in the film's third act. Readers of the book know exactly what I mean, but if you haven't, it comes as a complete shock. But the seeds are sewn early on. Coin wants control when Snow is killed, and Katniss is starting to see that ushering in a new government might not give everyone freedom. After all this time, she still doesn't feel any closer to being free. It's also noted that Hutcherson, Harrelson, and Dormer also give great performances. Hutcherson in particular finally made Peeta a mature character in my opinion. He has an arc, and has been forced to grow up.

In IMAX, this film was amazing. The sound completely surrounds you, and the pictures look crystal clear. The director includes many face shots. There is often a scene that is just Katniss' face, or Snow's face. There's even a nice shot of Effie as she says farewell to Katniss. The camera focuses on her facial expressions, and it has stuck with me days after. The only issue I had with the movie was the ending. I know from the book that there is an epilogue, and the movie used it as its closing shots. I just felt like there were a number of places it could have ended. I felt like it was over, only to be surprised with another shot. This made the film's ending 20 minutes drag on and on for me.

 I also have to address Philip Seymour Hoffman. This is his last film, and he was digitally inserted into the film's final scenes as he died tragically before it could be completed. Hoffman was such an incredible actor. In this movie, he has less of a role than he did in the two previous ones, but he nails his scenes. The last shot of him, showing him simply smiling at what Katniss chooses in the end, says a lot. Hoffman truly is a tragic loss to film, and I encourage you to watch his earlier movies.

Rating:

Spectre Review

Starring: Daniel Craig, Christoph Waltz, Léa Seydoux, Ben Whishaw, Naomie Harris, Ralph Fiennes

Spectre marks Daniel Craig's fourth appearance as Agent 007, in one of the biggest movie franchises of all time. James Bond has always been able to get a good amount of interest, but now the stakes are even higher. Skyfall is an incredible act to follow. The 2012 Bond outing made over $1 billion worldwide, produced a hit single from Adele, and won an Oscar. Skyfall was so different from any James Bond movie before it, and reinvigorated an aging franchise. Now there's a new villain, and a new M, and Spectre has a lot to live up to. I can soundly assure you that if you're a 007 fan, this movie will satisfy all of your needs. It doesn't take many, if any, of the risks that Skyfall took. It instead is set up like a classic Bond espionage thriller, that reminds one of the Connery films.

Spectre is about James Bond attempting to find a criminal organization of the same name. After he's put on house arrest, he skips town and goes rogue to try and find and put a stop to the massive corrupt organization that is trying to take over the world. It's classic Bond. You may recall that Skyfall didn't really have a Bond girl. The one they teased in the trailers ended up being killed almost instantly in a twist, and the other one ended up being Eve Moneypenny, Bond's sidekick that had yet to appear in Craig's films. Spectre has a couple of sex scenes for Bond, but Madeleine Swann (Seydoux) definitely makes an impression as the definitive Bond girl of the film. She is a sexist trope at times, but she's also able to transcend that fight with the guys. The villain is Christoph Waltz, who is always amazing. I can't spoil his character, but if you're a fan you'll see it coming. Waltz is unlike the Bond villains of recent films. He's solely a malevolent force, and nothing more. This truly channels the campy old movies, but connects it with the new. He's not a fleshed out character at all, but he's still very dark.

Here's what I don't like about Spectre. There isn't much, I really enjoyed this movie. First, it is far too long. I can't say that I hate long movies, I've sat through a couple that I truly believe could not be shortened. But Spectre could have been 30 minutes shorter, and it would have made the movie seem more compact. Early scenes seem forced and unneeded when the final plans of Waltz's villain are revealed. And it takes away from the really good scenes. I also criticize the Bond franchise for not doing more with the leaps and bounds that Skyfall achieved. Skyfall truly crossed over into a new medium, and I wish Spectre continued with that momentum.

 I do admire director Sam Mendes attempt at making a classic Bond film, but I think audiences my age will not enjoy it. The sexism and cookie-cutter bad guys are fun for the old fans and the cinephiles, but I have a hard time believing Spectre will do nearly as well as Skyfall. Look at the box-office, and you can see it opened millions below, and isn't even faring well overseas. It's a shame, because it is a nice and entertaining film. I just don't think audiences will be talking about it for long.

Rating:

Bridge of Spies Review

Starring: Tom Hanks, Mark Rylance, Amy Ryan, Alan Alda

Two-time Oscar winner Steven Spielberg (Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan), directs two-time Oscar winner  Tom Hanks (Philadelphia, Forrest Gump) in a historical drama written by two-time Academy Award winners Joel & Ethan Coen (Fargo, No Country for Old Men). Is there any possibility of that being the setup for a bad, or even mediocre movie? Bridge of Spies certainly has the talent behind it, and everyone succeeds. The untold true story of Rudolf Abel (Rylance) is a fantastic one, and one that desperately needs to be recognized. Rudolf Abel was the name of a Russian spy seized from his home in New York. The whole country wanted to see him burn in hell, as these events took place at the height of the Red Scare and Cold War. An insurance lawyer, James Donavan (Hanks) was assigned his case. Donovan faced the hatred of his peers and the entire country to give this man the fair trial that every man deserves. In his pursuit of justice for Abel, he discovers the bigotry of America, and ends up learning more from this supposed "monster" than he thought possible. Bridge of Spies is a slow burn, but the story is one that is very important.

The best thing about this movie is undoubtedly its acting. Tom Hanks gives his usual, which is a fantastically layered performance. Hanks proves that he can do just about anything, and cements a place in my book as one of the greatest actors not just of his time, but of all time. The greatness of his acting really shines in his ability to give a scene to Mark Rylance, who plays the spy in question. Rylance is an older actor who's spent most of his career in theater, so he's a new face to most viewers. Yet he appears to steal every scene from Hanks, or is it that Hanks is giving them to him? I'll be surprised come February if Rylance doesn't win Best Supporting Actor. His performance is so nuanced. He says very little, but whenever he does, it suddenly grabs your attention, and pulls at your emotions. A fantastic screenplay by the Coen brothers really drives home Spielberg's message.

This is a shorter review, because I know people who like this type of movie will see it or have seen it, and that it's hard to convince others. If you're looking for a spy movie, this is not James Bond. This is the real deal. If you enjoy historical dramas, this is deeply rooted in fact. Also, I was surprised at how much Bridge of Spies delves into German history with the Berlin Wall construction, as well as a lot about nationalism and what makes us all Americans. The one flaw of Bridge of Spies is its terribly slow pacing. While it's not one of Spielberg's best movies, there's no doubt it's a great movie.

Rating:

The Martian Review

Starring: Matt Damon, Jessica Chastain, Kristen Wiig, Jeff Daniels, Kate Mara, Chiwetel Ejiofor

There's been an attempt at a space movie every fall since 2013. Gravity succeeded immensely, winning the most Oscars, and garnering the most critical acclaim out of any movie released that year. It also made a ridiculous amount of money and held up well for many weeks. Last year's Interstellar tried to copy that success and flopped. It was still financially successful (and not terrible, in my opinion) but came nowhere close. This year, The Martian, starring Matt Damon as an astronaut left by his crew on Mars, attempts the same feat. I saw it three weeks into its run, so I can tell you it has succeeded. It opened with about the same amount of money as Gravity, and has a 93% average on RottenTomatoes. It doesn't quite have the same awards traction, but it is very deserving. The Martian is one of my favorite movies of the year so far, and there are a number of reasons why.

First, viewers be warned: this is a horribly long movie. It seems to go on forever, and it's at times very slow. But never once, is it ever boring. It's incredibly hard to pull this off when your subject is one guy talking to himself alone on a deserted planet. Somehow, the movie does pull it off. I found myself more fascinated with the scenes without Mark Watney (Damon), instead focusing on what was happening at NASA's mission control, and with the rest of his crew. Watney, a botanist growing potatoes with his own feces is an incredibly interesting storyline, but the inner workings of NASA interested me more. There is a huge ensemble cast, and they all give really good work. Chiwetel Ejiofor, who you might remember from 2013's Best Picture-winning 12 Years a Slave is very good in a key supporting role. And Kristen Wiig gives a performance that surprisingly lacks any sort of comedy. Jeff Daniels is also a standout. The real kudos go to Jessica Chastain and Matt Damon. Damon gives one of his best performances I've seen, and most of the movie falls on his shoulders. He does great. Jessica Chastain proves she can hold her own, and probably is the strongest character in the movie. She's the Commander living with the guilt that she left one of her men behind, and she expertly displays these emotions. It's not as showy as her nominated roles in The Help and Zero Dark Thirty, but in a movie that could go in a number of directions, she grounds it.

Besides the acting, the movie also has some great technical features, and a really amazing script. The script is probably the strongest part about the movie. Matt Damon has some really amazing lines, that mix a lot of comedy into the movie. You'll laugh a loud more than you expect. I've never read the book upon which this film is based, but I've heard it's a very faithful adaptation. It blends just the right amount of science with action. It's neither too reliant on science nobody understands (which Interstellar suffered from), or too reliant on explosions. There is both, and they blend pretty well. For the most part, I understood the science, which means that it is pretty simple to understand. I saw The Martian in 3D, and it definitely elevated the experience, but I wouldn't say it's necessary. It didn't do anything new with the technology, it just made some of the scenery really stand out. The directing is also strong. If you know the director Ridley Scott (Gladiator, Thelma & Louise, Alien, Black Hawk Down), you might also know he's having a bit of a dry spell after his early success. This movie definitely puts him back on the map, and proves he's still got it.

I recommend The Martian because it has something for everybody. If you like action, there is a good amount of action. If you like great acting, you get a lot of solid performances. If you like science and science fiction there is a little of both. But most of all, The Martian is just a movie that tries a lot, and all of it works. Throughout the movie's long duration, I was always on the edge of my seat. It's just a fascinating story about the will to survive, and one that is executed perfectly. I haven't given five stars to a movie I can really get behind in a long while. This movie deserves it.

Rating:

Black Mass Review

Starring: Johnny Depp, Joel Edgerton, Benedict Cumberbatch, Kevin Bacon, Jesse Plemmons

It's been a rough stretch for  Johnny Depp fans. Johnny Depp has become a bit of a parody of himself, taking on ludicrous roles seen in Mortdecai, Alice in Wonderland, and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. While I loved him in the first Pirates of the Caribbean, that role has become a joke that is simply no longer funny. For those who have hoped Depp would one day come back, your wait is over. Johnny Depp turns in possibly his best performance ever as gangster Whitey Bulger in Black Mass. Unrecognizable, Johnny Depp is able to bring to life the fantastic true story of Bulger and how he avoided the FBI. I'd love to say the movie is as good as Depp's performance, but I'm afraid it sinks about halfway through. The writing falls a little flat and the story feels lagging. Depp never falters in his terrifying portrayal of the criminal mastermind known as the most dangerous mobster in American history.

The story of Whitey Bulger (without spoiling) goes like this. Bulger ran the Winter Hill gang, a mob that terrorized a part of Boston. Bulger became an informant to the FBI in order to give information on the rival gangs and claim Boston, and ultimately Massachusetts as his own. His brother, played by an always excellent Benedict Cumberbatch, was State Senate, and his childhood friend was his liaison into the FBI. Both protected him and granted him immunity. And back then, nobody had a problem with it as long as some criminals were going behind bars. The story is one of the things I thought would work the best in film form. However, I think the story weighed the movie down. Johnny Depp is doing his own thing and that's great. But whenever he and Joel Edgerton are not onscreen, the movie feels 75% slower. There is so much exposition in each scene, the middle feels like a tedious activity. I believe that is because the writers wrote the movie around Depp's Whitey Bulger, so whenever he isn't there it just doesn't work.

The acting here is really great across the board. Joel Edgerton is the supporting actor with the best scenes. He nails every line he delivers. I've seen him in some good, but not great, roles in the past, and I hope Black Mass can help get him the parts he deserves. Benedict Cumberbatch is always good, and I was surprised by his ability to play someone other than a lost genius (i.e. Sherlock, The Imitation Game, every other role) and I enjoyed his character. Kevin Bacon is also good as the FBI head trying to nail Bulger.  However, it is Depp's movie. While I said the story brought the movie down, the dialogue is incredible. Johnny Depp has some scenes where he just disappears into this horrible monster. The complexity of his character's decision to inform the FBI is brilliantly displayed. Bulger becomes the rat, who is the type of man he's killed so many times. He's actually chilling to watch. I had to keep reminding myself this is Captain Jack Sparrow. It's truly a magnificent role.

While I think Black Mass is a good movie, I don't think it nearly reaches its full potential. Mob movies have set a pretty high bar with Goodfellas and The Departed, and Black Mass can't quite reach those heights. Both films had great ensemble casts, and that's where Black Mass stops. It doesn't have the story to really propel it into the next level. That being said, if you're a Johnny Depp fan, you really have to see this movie to believe it. There's an Oscar nomination, and possible win on the way.

Rating: 3.5/5

Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation Review

Starring: Tom Cruise, Jeremy Renner, Simon Pegg, Rebecca Ferguson, Ving Rhames, Alec Baldwin

Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation is the fifth film in a long series. I haven't seen all of the films in the series, but this is the best from what I've seen. Rogue Nation is just such an excellent action movie, presented with absolute perfection. There was a lot of media attention over the plane scene (pictured above). Guess what? That is the opening, before the credits even roll! Most of what was shown in the theater was completely new material not shown in the trailers. The exhilaration begins in minute one and it never goes away.  If you've lost faith in Tom Cruise, he definitely brings his A-game, and proves he can hold his own as a movie star. Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation is just such a fun movie, but it's also very well made. I just can't say enough positive things about this movie.

From the opening with the plane, to the final frame, this movie never slows down. Tom Cruise and his team are known for doing their own stunts, and I think it makes the movie seem more believable. And it's hard to make people hanging off of planes and engaging in motorcycle chases in busy cities seem like a believable occurrence. But the strength isn't just in the action sequences. The acting is also very good. Tom Cruise brings a lot to this franchise, and he doesn't disappoint here. He's 53 years old, and somehow I still buy him as an action movie star, so he must be doing something right. While Cruise is the headliner, he is supported by an incredible cast. This might be one of the best supporting casts in an action movie that I can recall. Jeremy Renner and Simon Pegg reprise their roles as part of Ethan Hunt's team, and Ving Rhames returns for a fifth time in his iconic role. Newcomer Rebecca Ferguson holds her own as the double (or triple?) agent playing both sides. I completely bought into her performance, and I never truly knew what side she was on or what she would do next. Alec Baldwin also brings a lot to the movie as the stereotypical government official trying to shut down the spies, except he actually breaks the stereotype! His scenes arguing with Jeremy Renner are some of my favorites. And finally, the villain. Every spy movie needs a great villain. Solomon Lane, played brilliantly by Sean Harris is the perfect villain. His voice is eerie, and his demeanor frightening.

The real success of Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation is its ability to capitalize on one of the most popular themes right now: the idea of an evil corporation within the "good guys". Yes, Rogue Nation is about "The Syndicate", a chapter of Britain's MI6 who went rogue and became terrorists. We've seen this kind of story numerous times before, most recently with Captain America: The Winter Soldier with S.H.I.E.L.D. being compromised by Hydra. And later this year, we'll see S.P.E.C.T.R.E take over MI6 in the newest James Bond film Spectre. These all are good (or expected to be good) examples, but believe me, it's been done in bad movies too. Rogue Nation makes the idea seem new. And for a franchise that basically repeats the same scenes over and over, like the "This message will self destruct", the movie is remarkably able to feel like a breath of fresh air in a summer filled with by-the-numbers action movies. This is one of my favorite movies of the year, I hope you check it out!

Rating: