Devil's Due *Catching Up*

Here we go with the devil child again

Samantha and Zach McCall (Allison Miller and Zach Gilford) are two newly weds honeymooning in the Caribbean, when some things happen on the last night that they cannot remember. They head home to find out (a couple of weeks after their vacation) that Samantha has become pregnant. It all starts off normal, but as the pregnancy drags on Zach notices that Sam is changing, and it doesn't appear to be normal (you know, to his well trained parental eye). As things get weirder Zach starts to investigate what is happening, and to see if he can stop it.

This movie really needs no spoiler (since the movie spoils itself), but just in case SPOILER WARNING

Have you seen Rosemary's Baby? Yeah, it is the same deal here, but instead of being dripped with anticipation and suspense, they seemed to want to go the route of replacing shock with effects. Seriously, I can't put into words how unbelievably dull this movie was after waiting for a payoff that left such a foul aftertaste. No real shock anywhere, to the point I can't believe they decided to call this a horror. I can't even bring myself to ask the question that looms over every horror movie. Of course this movie wasn't scary, there was absolutely nothing scary about it. They only thing I can seem to respect about this title is that they didn't really show off the baby at the end. They did the "horror" thing to do by keeping it out of clear sight; but, they did have to sneak one little thing in at the end that pissed me off. After I almost give this movie the smallest amount of respect, they make the baby's head glow like a light bulb struggling to maintain that last bit of wattage. Worried about spoilers? Don't worry, they spoil the entire effect of the movie by showing the husband at a police station during the first scene to introduce you to the movie. I just want to sit the writer's down and smack them over the head, screaming at them "you killed anything being scary in this movie, within the first twenty seconds of the film!" If I see the husband in a police station, signifying that this is going to be how the movie ends, I no longer fear for the protagonists. I know that the father is being blamed for the murder of both baby and child; or, the mother is being changed in a separate room and they are both being investigated for the murder of the child. The problem is, the second option is actually interesting, and movie companies always go with the easiest (or most common) first option. There was a small bit of hope for this movie when they revealed a secret society building an army of Antichrists; but the only way I was going to be interested in that would be if the entire movie was following them, instead Mr. and Mrs. Plain-American-God Fearing-Couple.

The way this movie was shot, also turned out to be something that worked against it. I have no extreme hatred for "found footage" films, no ax to grind; but, I have only seen two movies that made it work. Movie one was the original found footage title The Blair Witch Project, introducing us to a new way of feeling fear. Movie two was Chronicle, giving us some visual spectacle while weaving in a good story line. This is just them trying to do another devil baby movie, but thinking that shooting it at weird, wobbly camera angles will make us take the movie home with us. Scaring us at night as we worry for our future children. The only thing wrong with that scenario is that this movie wasn't scary, so instead of doing its job the movie just became more annoying when we were forced to deal with some drunk behind the camera.

There are only two actors in this, everyone else didn't get the opportunity to show me anything worth speaking of. Zach Gilford kind of impressed me when he acted in The Purge: Anarchy, but apparently when he does a found footage film, that is his excuse to not put forth any effort. Really, the guy just had no heart in this role, and it surprised me since he sold the "whiny boyfriend role" so well before. Allison Miller at least tried to be somewhat threatening in this, or creepy I still can't decide what she did better.... or what she was going for. She did well enough though, giving the best performance her clown directors (that's right plural, it took two people to make this garbage see daylight) asked for.

Final Verdict: Don't do it I can't even say this movie was bad in a funny way, it was just bad. Having little to no redeeming qualities, and committing unforgivable horror sins. Skip this piece of crap, you'll be none the wiser.

The Quiet Ones *Catching Up*

British horror films are creepy

So begins my trek to catch up with movies I missed this year, in order to round out my list in January. What better way to begin than with a horror movie that had a limited release (at least here in the United States)? Our story follows Professor Joseph Coupland (Jared Harris), who studies distraught children and teaches at Oxford University. His most recent experiment is a girl named Jane Harper (Olivia Cooke), whom he believes is harvesting her negative past in order to create telekinetic attacks that some believe to be evidence of possession. He hires on a team of students to help in his experiment, including a camera man named Brian McNeill (Sam Clafin). His experiment is eventually considered inhumane by the public, and his colleagues share the worry so they pull his funding. They all move to a small house in the country where they can continue their experiments on Jane, only there is a problem beginning to form. Brian is beginning to have feelings for Jane, and is starting to wonder if what they are doing is in her best interest. As the story unfolds we are torn between believing in the Professor or the camera man.

The story here is pretty solid as far as horror films go. We are introduced to the characters in a completely neutral way, and go through most of the film in the position of Brian, being let in on the experiment as early as he is. There is a lot of "ethics" talk that can be sparked from this movie, and even more debates formed on who was right. The ride to the ending can be a bit dull if you are looking for a quick paced horror romp, but if you are more interested in the path less taken than this movie is for you. The movie isn't comprised of necessarily new ideas, but the way in which we are introduced to them is fascinating. Unfortunately, this movie relies heavily on it's ending, and I get so annoyed with movies that have to make the entire movie less scary in order to have a more shocking ending. The first thing that jumped into my head was that this movie was pretty much a British version of "Paranormal Activity," but that is a bit unfair since this movie has more than a couple of redeeming qualities. This movie does remind me of a lot of other failed horror endeavors, fixing some major problems they fell into, while falling into a couple of the same traps. The story was good, the journey was interesting, but the build up just leaves you with a bit of a bland taste in your mouth.

The director here is a bit new to the chair, but he does the best with what he can. He gives the movie an eerie feel of menace like a small twitch in the back of your mind telling you that something is eventually going to happen. Unfortunately, it takes a long time for anything to actually happen, but his technique is pretty on point. If there was more to this movie, I dare say it would have been a brilliant achievement, sadly he had to work with the script he was given (he is given a screenplay writing credit, but I can't blame him entirely). This movie's short comings almost entirely spawn from it's lack of delivery, and by that I mean delivering on the eerie feeling. That eerie feeling is great to have, but it usually helps when there is a pay off. Something that happens giving our fear justification. Again, I feel that he could have done great work, but with a better script. So, the big answer to the big question here is: no, it is not scary. It is creepy as hell, but not scary.

The acting here was a bit half and half, which is weird since it seems we only get introduced to brilliant Brittish actors. The star of the show is obviously Jared Harris, proving to us that he can do any genre. He has a flair to him that I could easily identify as "horror film worthy," and he can still pull off Shakespeare if he wants. The two actors that drag the performance down are Erin Richards and Rory Fleck-Byrne, showing us all the true definition of "hamming it up." Sam Clafin is a promising talent, following his performance in the second Hunger Games with this was bold, and gave me a deeper look into his skill. So far so good, and I hope to see more from him. The real head-turner hear was Olivia Cooke. She is basically a pup to this industry and given what I have seen from her performances I don't know whether to call her good or not. In my recent review of Ouija she was god awful, giving the least convincing performance I have ever seen from a scream queen. Now, she gives me this. What do I do with this? She was brilliant as a possessed girl! She makes the audience believe she could be possessed while still leaving doubt that she might be just mentally ill. She struck a chord right in the middle perfectly. Maybe Ouija was just the wrong role for her, so please Hollywood give this girl more roles like this.

Final Verdict: Netflix it I had a lot of hope for this movie, but it showed most of the scary bits in the trailer. Luckily the director and most of the cast tried their hardest. Good for a topical movie, on a night you and your friends are looking for something to talk about.

Ouija

Are board games scary?

A girl dies mysteriously by alleged suicide, when she hung herself with Christmas lights. She is survived by her friends and family, one friend in particular Laine (Olivia Cooke) is in deep mourning when she finds something left behind by the girl, an old Ouija board. She gathers the remaining friends in order to seek one last farewell to their recently departed loved one. Something goes wrong while they play the game, and the friends accidentally bring something into this world that they did not intend.  The spirit starts picking off the friends one by one, leaving it is up to Laine and her sister Sarah (Ana Coto) to stop the menace before it ends them all.

So, I saw Michael Bay's name attached to the producer credits, and it just seems like he is intentionally putting his name on bad movies now. I am not going to be taking any shots at the would-be director, but it is a little unnerving that he can't be a part of anything good these days. So, I obviously didn't like this, and for once the story is not biggest reason why. It's a big reason, just not the biggest. You should know what you are getting yourself into here. You won't be surprised by anything as the makers of this crap obviously intended. You won't find yourself awestruck by anything. I know the story isn't my biggest concern when it comes to horror, but this story didn't even seem to try. Taking every cliche from every tired, worn-out, storyline and putting it into one big mash up of crap. I don't think Michael Bay has any creative control here, and you can tell because the first answer to this group's problem wasn't "blow up the board." However, the first answer (and last) to their problem was to "kill it with fire,"  so maybe he is just trying a different tactic here. I know I may be digging a little bit when it comes to placing the blame on him, but I don't think I can (in good conscience) blame the actual director.

This was director Stiles White's first direction credit, and I can only hope that he learned from his mistakes. The atmosphere tried WAY to hard to be the scariest thing it could, but it just all seemed so phoned in. There was no actual life given to the scenery, everything seemed like it was moving electronically, and the surrounding atmosphere grew stale. This is the movie rendition of a haunted house with too much of a budget; I know everything won't actually hurt me so I am not afraid. I get the most afraid when going through a homemade haunted house where you can tell things aren't real but the atmosphere makes it seem like it can be. That's why movies like The Conjuring or Insidious work to some degree. I know I didn't like Insidious at all, but the reason some people were scared by it was due to the atmosphere. This movie relied mainly on jump scares, and jump scares only work when we can't see them coming.

So the question that always surrounds a horror movie is: Was it scary? The answer for this movie is obviously no. The director was not experienced enough to know what he was doing (apparently), the atmosphere was stiff, the scare tactics were cheap and ill used. Everything about this movie exuded failure, and it didn't help that the actors just weren't putting any effort into acting scared. Olivia Cooke and Ana Coto had zero "sibling chemistry" on the screen. I got the impression that I was supposed to feel these sisters were estranged (one the problem child, one the replacement mom....yeah this script had no chance). Instead, I got the feeling that these two were strangers, meeting each other for the first time and forced to go through this obviously fake situation together. If those two had no chemistry, I was hoping for some chemistry from the romantic relationship. Nope. It was like they were two dolls made to play in a "spooky castle playhouse." No real emotion from anyone, no real drama, you could tell that these people were actors through the entire run time, and it never let you escape into the movie. The only real acting I saw came from Lin Shaye, but to say she stole the show would not do her any justice since there was no real show to steal. Lin is a horror movie veteran and by this point she should be considered an icon, so when I saw her I was wondering why the kid's in this didn't at least attempt some real acting. The only thing I can think of is to blame the rookie director again, not trying to get the best performance out of his stars.

Final Verdict: Don't do it It is as if the powers that be saw I was giving a lot of movies high ratings, and made the worst horror of the year come out now to ruin my stride. I can't remember if there are any other horror's coming out this year, but they will be hard pressed to beat this film for worst. 

John Wick

Keanu kicks some ass in action roles

John Wick (Keanu Reeves) has just gone through the most emotionally trying time in his life. After losing his wife, he is given a gift from beyond the grave in the form of a small dog. The note attached by his wife leads him to immediately care for the dog, as if her spirit lived on through him (not that way, you perverts). He crosses paths with the son (Alfie Allen) of a man who use to employ him, and the son has no idea who he is. The son wants John's car and after John says no, the son breaks into his house, takes his car, and kills the dog. Unfortunately, the father (Michael Nygvist) finds out who the son stole from and battens down the hatches. It turns out that John Wick is "The Boogeyman" an ex-contract killer that helped to build the father's illegal empire.

The story here is simple, and that is what makes it so charming. We have definitely heard this story told over and over again; but, here they add a layer of subplot that sets the movie apart. The revenge game is played out, but the revenge game on top of dealing with the natural death of you wife is not. The ultimate badass thing is played out, but the ultimate badass in a world of equally (or slightly less) badasses is not. That is the part of this story I found the most endearing, the criminal underbelly having "gentleman killer rules" and using gold coins as currency for nefarious purposes. I know I harped on The Equalizer for throwing a badass into an impossible situation, and the man comes out clean after the movie; but this movie is not that. This movie distinguishes itself by letting everyone know that this man is a badass, and the opposition should be scared; where The Equalizer went the route of so many recent movies by no one knowing how badass the protagonist was.  It also has the element of a monster movie, this time allowing the "good guy" to be the monster all the others should fear. There are so many subtleties that make this movie the best action movie of the year, that it is overwhelming; but, I think my favorite part of this was that it stunk of nineties action. a simple time where you went to an action movie to see people get killed or beat on, and the only real reasoning you had to have was "he killed my dog." A superior time where the storyline was helpful, but the action is what blew us away. Luckily enough this movie had great story elements, mixed with amazing action sequence.

The choreographer for this movie needs to be given some form of award because the actors all made the moves seem as easy as breathing. It is damn hard to keep an actual body count in this movie, and the way they trained John Wick to leave care at home and keep focused on killing people was artistic in a way. Every motion carries value, every person brought down leads to the next, it is like watching a river flow but with death. If you ever saw Equilibrium and know what "Gun Kata" is, it is like watching a movie take advantage of that fighting style without ever revealing that is what he is using. Even when he is not using guns, he is still a proven killer and the sound really drives this point home.

The sound in this was another fantastic achievement, letting every cock of a gun or crack of a bone carry some weight. It engrosses you in the film even more, when you hear him reload, or listen to the footsteps of his enemy. The only problem I had with the sound came from the music. Sometimes it enhanced the experience for me, other times I felt like they were trying to be a bit too on the nose when they were trying to make it feel like a nineties action romp. Don't get me wrong, some of the music was great, bringing you back to the club scene from The Matrix, other points were like watching an action sitcom. It broke my trance from the movie's artistic style, and I couldn't let it go by with out at least mentioning it.

Ok, looks like I have reached the point in my review where I have to defend the acting of a famous guy that people seem to dislike. Keanu Reeves is a good actor for movies like this, that is the reason why the first Matrix worked so well. He was born in the skin of an action star, and can sell this type of role to anyone in the audience; so, don't let your hatred cloud your judgement young padawan. As for the rest of the actors, they all performed remarkably. Of course most of them were doing what Keanu was doing by being typecast, luckily there are sometimes where typecasting is the best thing for a movie. Willem Dafoe plays the same type of character we are used to from him (sans Spider-man and The Boondock Saints) and does so perfectly, not taking away any attention from the star, but still being likable. Alfie Allen plays the same character we are used to from Game of Thrones by being a privileged, whiny, pretentious, douche bag, that makes it easy for the audience to hate. The real masterful work came from Michael Nyqvist who should remind everyone of an evil Christoph Waltz from Django Unchained. He really sold his role of scared, but still scary in a way that we shouldn't see replicated for sometime.

Final Verdict: See it in Theaters Another just barely under the mark of perfect, I'm beginning to get a little bored seeing so many good movies. Just kidding. This movie is going to be hard to beat out for action of the year, and you should all see it as soon as possible.

Camp X-Ray

Army life for Kirsten Stewart

Our story begins with PFC. Cole (Kristen Stewart) being stationed at Guantanamo Bay.  She is a simple girl, joining the army for one reason or another. she has people that she knows when she gets there, and some new faces. One face is CPL. Ransdell, the NCO in charge of her (Lane Garrison) who introduces her to the base, and gets her familiar with the proceedings. When she is first learning her Standard Operating Procedures she meets Ali (Peyman Moaadi). Ali is not like the other detainees, and sets Cole through a mental ringer when she tries to figure out if what she is doing is necessarily the right thing.

Hey everyone, so now we get to learn a little more about Dustin as a person, so strap yourself in, this is going to be a long one. First I get to view this story as soldier (however loose my fellow soldiers choose to let that term apply to the National Guard). As far as I can tell this movie interprets soldier life as close as they can get, without revealing anything that might paint the army in a bad light (more or less). The uniforms are right, the salute is right, the Drill and Ceremony positions seem to be accurate. Most everything here seems to be in order, yet I know there are going to be people calling my bluff. Yes, I know that when Cole says "Officer on the deck!" Soldiers in the army don't actually say "deck" that is a Navy term. My Drill Sergeant in basic was more than clear on that, and that isn't the kind of bluff I am referring to. What I am referring to is that people are going to say that this movie paints the Army in a bad light. Look this movie is not showing Army personnel abusing detainees any more than news articles, and in fact kind of softens the blow. Making the soldiers accountable for their action instead of the army as whole. I do feel that they overly romanticized the relationship soldiers and detainees have for the sake of the film, but it definitely didn't show people the dark side of the Iraq/Afghanistan War. This movie wore kids gloves throughout the entire running time, until it came to one topic. Women.

Yes, women. Those people that look slightly different in the uniform than men do (slightly). It is a smaller portion of the movie, yet a portion every service member can relate to. How many times have we seen class films on Sexual Harassment, Sexual Assault, or Equal Opportunity? I have personally lost count, and this movie seems to have taken the overlying theme of those clips and put it in a small part of this movie. Now, I am not going to sit here and type my exact feelings towards how women are treated in the military. I cannot comment on how women feel in the military, since I am not a woman; but, given the context of the harassment clips shown in class and my friendship towards female service members I have to say it seems accurate. If any female service members actually read this review blog, please feel free to tell me how wrong or right I am in the comments; but, for now it seems accurate.

 Now that we got all of the "getting to know the writer" BS out of the way, let me talk to you about the story. I feel that the story was descent enough. It didn't beat me over the head with an "AMERICANS ARE EVIL!" moral, and it didn't paint all Muslims as terrorists. I liked the characters in this. Ali was the one it seemed that the writers spent the most time on, but Cole was pretty intriguing herself. You get a real since of "other" from Cole, doing whatever she can to fit in with the people she is stationed with. Ali is just a fun character, one ripe for psychoanalysis by a professional. The other characters are stand ins, simply there to occupy a role or space. Ransdell was the ultimate asshole, painting the audience to hate him (as he should). Riso was the friend who you worried about, and didn't seem to quite get things. The only two that really stick with you are Cole and Ali. Unfortunately, they romanticize the relationship between them so much, that it is hard to take it seriously some times. Yes, I get that they are trying to make the movie more compelling, but it just kind of sank some of my feelings towards the characters.

Hey, we are back to getting to know the writer, when I give you this quick warning before going into the acting portion of this review. I am a big advocate for Kristen Stewart being a good actress. I think that the roles she plays are played well, and people give her WAY too much shit for the godawful series that became Twilight. I do feel that I remove my feelings towards her talent from my reviews, but I know she has a very plain presence on the screen. Fortunately enough, most of the roles she is in call for her to be plain.  You want to see her not plain? Check out The Cake Eaters and The Runaways. That should shatter any linger feelings that she can't act.

On to the acting. Kirsten Stewart gives a knock out performance here as Cole, but the entire movie is stolen by the performance given by Peyman Moaddi. He makes the audience feel just the right amount of sympathy combined with distrust. Kirsten Stewart wasn't far behind as she gave the best performance I have seen from her in quite a long time; however, all was not amazing in the world of acting for this movie. Lane Garrison really hammed it up as the "NCO" of this movie, acting like so many other NCO's we have seen, and offering nothing fresh to the proceedings. Normally, I wouldn't count a neutral performance of a basic character against the actor; but, he just did not sell me. I didn't see my Sergeant when I saw him, I saw an actor that watched too many military movies to prepare for his role.

Final Verdict: Amazon it Since I can't find this movie in theaters, but can find it on Amazon, this rating will have to suffice for now. I wish I had the opportunity to see this movie in theaters and add to its box office, but I don't think it was worth spending twenty bucks on to buy. 

Men, Women, and Children

Sandler is depressed again, get the message?

We follow many different stories in this so I will just stick with the following as a synopsis: This movie follows the lives of four (or five) different families, all having trouble in some way.

So the story here is great in places, but falters elsewhere. I like one of the kids having a porn addiction that makes it hard for him to perform in bed; but, I thought the anorexia storyline was a bit too "after school special" for me. Sure it could have been a great, insightful look into the mental illness that leads to us taking our inferiority complex out on our bodies, but the way the director went about it was like listening to your parents say "You are beautiful no matter how you look." The other part of her story line wasn't much more interesting, basically falling for the wrong guy and making a mistake. The girl that lies to her friends about sex, and is over sexualized by her mother was interesting in some ways but again felt like a lecture on parenting. "Don't raise your kids like this, or they could turn out to be like this girl." The kid battling depression due to a divorce was a bit boring, and came to the conclusion everyone expected. The most interesting kid was the one that was being guarded by her over bearing mother. Just thinking about living under the types of rules this woman enforced on her daughter was enough to make me root for the daughter over every other character. The parents all have stories too, but you can tell this was the kid's movie. The most attention they paid to the parents was the affair Adam Sandler and his wife were having. It was interesting, and artistic; but, ended up being background noise in a sea of angst. Basically, I like the story, but I would have loved it if the director didn't try to beat me over the head with the message.

The direction on this was beautiful. The most prominent noises came from the click of a keyboard or the texting sound from a phone. Jason Reitman may have basically been preaching with this movie, but he at least knows how to put it together correctly. Since I love most all of his films it is a little weird for me to say this movie just didn't hit home quite as much, even though it was beautiful to look at. I definitely didn't hate it, I definitely wouldn't say I regret going to the theater to see it; but, I just wanted to be talking about this movie for the rest of the year. Maybe my expectations were a bit too high. At least I can admit that he was a little too preachy in the movie, and I am not overcome by fanboy idolization. At least the style and acting were home runs.

The acting here was great, and yes that does include Adam Sandler. Adam does one thing very well when he does drama (and it turns out to be the only thing he does in drama) and that is: act depressed. The kid's in this all acted great and I know at least a few have screen experience. Dean Norris did well as the father that couldn't relate to his son, while trying to find out how to date after his wife abandons him. Jennifer Garner made me dislike her character, so that is a win for her. The biggest tip of the hat I have to give is to the narration voiced by Emma Thompson. When she says words like "erection," "fuck," and "big dick" it is like hearing a noble woman slum it. It is practically porn for the ears. Where ever the story faltered the actors picked up the slack.

Final Verdict: See it in Theaters (if you can) So this is an independent movie; and as such, not available in all theaters; but, since I don't have another rating to fully explain my feelings toward this movie there it is. If you have the option, see it in theaters.

Fury

Tanks and the horrors of war

I don't think I really need to explain the premise of a movie based in World War 2, do I? Really? Okay. So, we start the movie out with a crew of tank operators who have just lost a man in the fight against the Axis. We are nearing the end of the war, so luckily enough (Dustin types, hoping the reader understands the sarcasm) they are assigned a fresh recruit straight from basic training, Norman (Logan Lerman). The Staff Sergeant in charge of our soldiers, affectionately named "Wardaddy" (Brad Pitt) must get this fresh recruit in the mindset to start killing people.

The story here is a real winner, and I find that I get to say that less often than I would like to. It's great to see a movie about WWII look at the soldiers that fought in a fresh light. I do love WWII movies usually, but if I had to see the soldiers that fought in it treated as some "holier than thou," "do no wrong" badasses again I was going to get a migraine. These men are troubled in a way I have only seen once before (in Band of Brothers a great war series that you should see). It shows the soldiers dealing with PTSD while still fighting the fight, and how it effects them while they are in combat. It shows a good amount of realistic comradery, and has some moments that could hit home with most soldiers today. It shows how hard it is for someone to kill another person, and what happens when a person is put in a war situation. There are so many layers here that you could take the movie a dozen different ways and be satisfied which ever way you take it. The only bad thing I really have to say about the movie is that you don't get to spend enough time with the crew of the tank. You get a lot of time with Brad Pitt, and Logan Lerman; but, the other characters get pushed aside. It may just be me being overly critical, but it just seems that the movie felt rushed at that point. I still felt for them when they were hurting, but not as much as I could have.

A special note has to be given to the action in this film, since it has (quite possibly) the best tank battles ever filmed. I feel that the inside of the tank should have felt a little more cramped but that is just me nit picking again. The violence here was realistic without being over the top, it was gory without being way too gory. It brought a certain level of gritty realism to the movie, without making it feel campy. It's always good to see a movie not try to buy your affection with seeing how many limbs they can explode in the air; while, maintaining the gritty realism of war audiences seek.

One thing that completely took me out of a few experiences was the music. It just didn't seem to fit the atmosphere sometimes. Like it was trying to hard to make you feel emotional about a certain scene, or not trying hard enough. It was like they shot a great movie, were proud of it, and decided to stick some intern behind the music promising him college credit. Sure the person tried their best to earn that college credit, but he still wasn't a professional and you could tell. Of course, the actual person doing the music here could have been professional, and that is something I couldn't distinguish.

Let us get into the acting. You know how lately Brad Pitt seems to have taken rolls where he could just be a cool customer and not show a whole lot of emotion? Well that actually works here, except that he shows just the right amount of emotion to sell his role to me. Not for nothing, I love Brad Pitt's acting, it just seems that he has been typecast lately. On the other hand I hate Shia LeBeouf's acting (usually), and they even found a spot where he did really well. Yes, the kid from the Transformers series has finally found an action role where he is actually believable as the character...since the character is less action oriented than the his fellow stars. Logan Lerman has always been a hit or miss with me, but this time he is definitely a hit. He encapsulates his character almost flawlessly, and I love the fact that they didn't try to macho him up to much (seems they learned from the mistake Michael Bay made with the aforementioned Shia LeBouf). Really, I have no problems with any of the actors here. Jon Bernthal and Michael Pena did well in their support roles, and the bit characters didn't drag down the performance.

Final Verdict: See it in Theaters Some missteps here with the story, as well as a horrendous soundtrack kept this movie from perfection; but, it was damn close. My only warning is for smokers since you will crave a cigarette through out the movie.... they smoke a lot. 

The Judge

Judges in small towns, two Roberts try to make it work

A lawyer from the Big City, Hank Palmer (Robert Downey Jr.) is brought back home for the funeral of his mother. The estranged relationship he has with his father (Robert Duvall) weighs on him throughout his visit. As he and his father fall out for the second time he boards a plane to go home. Right before he leaves, his eldest brother (Vincent D'Onofrio) calls him to explain that their father is being interviewed by the police for a murder charge. Hank shows back up to defend his father; but, he will have to go through his resentment, and a lawyer (Billy Bob Thornton) with an ax to grind.

The story here is played out, but not necessarily horrible. We all know the story, but have learned to appreciate that it has to come around once a year. The story in question is: big city person goes home after trying to forget it, and learns to try and make good. The thing that separates this story (somewhat) from the others is that it tries to force two people into liking each other through various circumstances. The murder charge is interesting enough, the court scenes are good, the background of the characters are fun; but, we all know how this is going to end. I won't spoil it, but you can post your predictions in the comments and will most likely be right. The journey is the selling point for most movies like this, and while most try to take a more comedic route, this takes the road less traveled and goes the way of drama mixed with bits and pieces of comedic relief. I wouldn't say that this is going to turn anyone's head in the theater, or put you on the edge of your seat; but, it is pleasant enough to sit through. Completely serviceable as one of those stories you put on while you wait for Netflix to get new episodes of your favorite television show.

It seems that the style of this film tried to mimic the outdated plot devices showcased here by feeling old. This is absolutely not a bad thing, in fact quite the opposite. I love a movie that takes the time to feel old, and new at the same time; especially, when given the source material. You can see bits of air peppered with dust, or thread from clothing. You can practically feel the old wood of a longstanding courthouse beneath your finger tips. You can smell that pungent odor that wafts through your grandparents house, like Bengay and old cloth. That last one might have just been because I went to theater in Florida: The state where people go to die. Regardless, the movie had a defining quality to it that stuck through the running time, and it was a quality that seems to have been cast aside in recent years. The quality that gives the film a more "welcome home" feeling that movies like this never seem to master.

When you take two actors like Robert Downey Jr. and Robert Duvall you can predict that at least one thing will go right with the film, and it does. These two are fantastic actors, and I am never disappointed when I sit through their performances; but, what about the others? Dax Shepard seems to have finally grown into his paws, discarding that wacky friend character that we knew from Hit and Run and Without a Paddle. I'm not saying we will never see that character again, but this was definitely a welcome switch. I may be alone when I say that I love seeing comedians or comedic actors do a more serious role, but I don't think anyone can deny that Dax put his best foot forward here. Billy Bob Thornton seems to have gone back to serious acting for this picture, and it is as welcome as Dax's change of pace. I like seeing Billy as an asshole that dresses up as Santa or an asshole that teaches kids to play baseball, but I always like seeing him play a serious role a little more. Either way he does phenomenally, this is just my preference. The rest of the cast does well, (especially Jeremy Strong as the younger brother) and keeps my attention right where it should be... as much as the story dropped the ball in places.

Final Verdict: Rent it As much as I love the performances given and the overall style it just wasn't enough for me to tell you all to see this in theaters. If you are looking to see Robert Downey Jr. play a good father, and estranged son, then go see this movie. You know you won't be disappointed with the performance at least.

Dracula: Untold

Dracula origin story: Take 1,000

So, given the fact that this is the umpteenth attempt on telling the Dracula (or vampires as whole) origin story, I am going to attempt a different way of telling this particular synopsis. Detailing my views on the synopsis in general, joining the Dracula mythos. First, we have taken the route of saying Dracula is Vlad the Impaler, which is good in the traditional sense, being as how Bram Stoker's original inspiration for Dracula was the once feared man of history. I am a bit jaded with this story, but for purists it is a dream come true. Actually, the best, most interesting telling of the Dracula fable came from Dracula 2000 in which Gerard Butler is accredited for the man himself. In that movie they made Dracula out to be Judas (the man who betrayed Jesus), and offered so many more answers to why certain weaknesses effect him. Crosses effect him because it is a constant reminder of his betrayal, silver effects him because it symbolizes the silver used to pay Judas off for the betrayal, etc. As far as this story goes we don't get any real answers as to why everything has a negative effect on him. They go for the "this effects Dracula because he is technically a demon" blah, blah, blah. I can respect telling a story as it was originally written for the sake of purism, but yearned for more explanation.

Second, let's talk about the thing that tries to separate this from the rest of the Dracula tales, which is: Dracula is now a hero of sorts. Even though the movie says he is monster, he is still painted as the misunderstood hero with his back against the wall that chooses evil because he has no other choices. As much as I like the aspect of taking a villain and portraying him as something the audiences can root for, there is still something that gnaws at the back of my head telling me this is wrong. I should hope that my above paragraph shakes any doubt that I have any lingering thoughts of "horror icon purism," but this just seemed wrong. I am not saying that Dracula can never be made out to be the hero, I am saying that the director just spun this into a story that reeked a bit too much like "vampire love story," and that is still an open wound since the series that shall not be named in a Dracula movie review. I could have taken Dracula as a hero of some sort, I just wish he had more of a reason for doing this besides "I love my family." Sure, he has a country to look after, making his decision seem more like act of valor; but, he has a line in it that ruins any chance that secondary reason has of saving it. So, to recap, Dracula as a hero could be possible, it just wasn't portrayed well here. 

Third, we go back to old, faithful, wacky, Dracula superpowers; which include: super strength, super speed, transformation into animals, control of animals, mind control (especially over the weak willed, and women...yeah, the correlation there is kind of sexist), fast healing, super vision, and super hearing. I like the old powers, it is a lot more entertaining then seeing invulnerable, juggernaut vampires lust after plain-Jane teenagers; but, again, I have to say it was not done right here. I would have liked to see him control more animals than bats (like wolves from older movies). I would have liked to see more from the supervision instead of what equated to infrared vision. Everything just seems so down played, and the only thing that was played up were the bat scenes. Admittedly, they were cool; but, it just seemed like he automatically had control of these powers, sans a five minute sequence where he seems to stumble around. It all just felt more rushed than anything, and made for a bad interpretation. 

As for the rest of the story, it is pretty jumbled and almost un-watchable. What they tried doing was combine love story, with war epic, with horror fiction, with grandiose action movie, and what came up was a movie that collapsed in on itself. A lot of secondary characters seemed like they were supposed to be more important to the audience than just background characters. It feels as though there were scenes sacrificed for time that would have helped us connect with someone other than Dracula; but, what we got is Chair 1 talks to Dracula before he dies, Table 2 talks to Dracula before he dies, and Desk 3 talks to Dracula. It never hits home when any of the characters die, or when Dracula makes his sacrifices because we are just meant to take these things as being bad at face value, instead of getting to know the situation. The other thing that stuck out as a misstep was giving Dracula a time table, Let me elaborate. Dracula (at this time Vlad) is given a centuries old vampire's blood to drink, and is told he has three days with these vampire powers; unless, he consumes human blood, then the effect becomes permanent. Basically, it is adding a clause that most audience members (who haven't had there head stuck in the sand) can see right through. We all know he is going to fail, or else he won't become the Dracula of legend. We all know about the time he is going to fail in the film, and probably can predict the circumstance leading to this happening. Aside from that, the only other big problem I had with the story was the ending. A bit too cliche, and cheesy, and I don't think this is how the production company wants to begin the Avengers-style-monster-mash-up that is rumored to be in the works. 

There a couple of good things I can say about this movie and the first is the action. Yes, I know that I always harp on not talking about the action unless it defined the movie; but, besides the acting this is the only good thing I really have to say about the picture. Seeing the "Batman" fighting scenes were interesting, not necessarily something that is going to change the movie industry as we know, but fair enough. The bat controlling scenes were fun, not enough to distract me from the horrible plot; but, fun none the less. The sword fighting scenes were....garbage, but the rest of the action makes up for them. 

The acting here was great, but since I can only really talk about two or three characters that seemed to be more then set pieces it isn't really a good showing overall. Luke Evans did well here, but this isn't going to be a series he can retire off of if my predictions on the box office become reality. I love Dominic Cooper's acting in most things, but an Ottoman Turkish Lord he is not. He tries his best, but fails to convince me...hell of a bad guy though. Charles Dance gave the best performance here, but  that is not surprising since he is Charles Dance. He knows the role of a vampire better than most, and has amazing skill to boot. It should surprise no one that his scenes carried this movie. 

In the end, this is just one more drop in the bucket of Dracula lore. It is not going to ruin Dracula's long standing reputation since there plenty of other worse movies out there that have tried and failed before it. I didn't love it, but (all things considered) I hated it far less then I thought I was going to. Make your own opinion on if you want this to be the first of many monster movies to come out, I just think a sequel or series dedicated to this won't hold much water. 

Final Verdict: Netflix it As with most other movies in the same standing this is just good for one of those mindless, lazy days. Nothing to rush out and see. 

Annabelle

Creepy dolls, and spooky specters 

Mia and John Gordon are a couple of newly weds with a baby on the way. John is in his residency at Med School, and Mia has an affinity towards collecting dolls. One day John surprises her with a doll that will complete her collection, and that night they experience a break in. The break in ends with the intruders being killed and the family being wounded, but still alive. Unfortunately, the intruders left a little something behind as they parted this mortal plane, and it starts to haunt the family.

So, being as how I saw this movie very late in the year I have obviously heard a shit ton of opinions regarding its quality (but nothing on Gone Girl, which I can only hope means people don't want to spoil it). What I have noticed about horror is that what scares me doesn't necessarily scare the general populace, and vice versa. For instance, everyone seemed to love Oculus, but I could take it or leave it. Everyone seemed to hate Annabelle, but this movie generally frightened me. I'm not saying I am going to be kept up for nights on end, but I am definitely going to be making sure doors are locked, and everything that can creek doesn't. The story here is mediocre at best, taking some good points from other movies but the lion's share containing shitty over used troupes. One good thing they took was the family actually moving out of the house when they were afraid of it. Happens in the first act so it isn't necessarily spoil territory, but it is always refreshing to see people move from the haunting. Not only did they move from a nice house, they moved from a nice house to a shitty apartment, showing the world that even a fresh out of school doctor would take a major financial hit from leaving a nice place.  The apartment makes this story seem a bit more down to earth, but also turns out to be this movie's undoing as the story unfolds. Throughout the movie the family makes light of "how thin the walls are," and not once does a neighbor come to see why there is a woman screaming the air out of her lungs. They seem to try and get people thinking that this might be because the neighbors are more or less reserved to themselves, but I am not buying it. If I heard someone screaming like their life was endangered I would at least call the cops. All the other problems with this movie are the same problems we face with every horror movie before this. Why would you put the thing you suspect is possessed in the back seat? Why would you leave your wife to fend for herself after such a traumatic ordeal, and not (at least) call someone to look in on her? Why would you ever leave your baby alone if you know there is a specter looming over your family? All the same problems with story that most horror movies have, and unfortunately these problems were addressed by its predecessor, so it is going to be blamed for ruining a possible series. Honestly, the real problem with the story here is how it beats the audience over the head with religion. Where movies like The Conjuring and The Exorcist take a more subtle approach to the taboo film topic, this movie decided to say "the hell with it" and wave it in front of your face like a badge of honor.

Now when I say I was scared I need to clarify what I mean, I was scared throughout some scenes of the movie. I do not have a phobia to dolls, so even though Annabelle was creepy, the glamour shots involving her didn't make the scene anymore tense. In fact, that gave the movie a tell as to when something messed up was going to happen (which is bad in a horror). I also had a major problem with them giving something that was supposed to be a "faceless evil" form . You see a demon in a movie, and it is never going to live up to what your imagination builds. My brain works in weird ways. I love older slasher movies like A Nightmare on Elm Street and Child's Play. I hate movies that rely specifically on creeks in the floor board or giving motion to the motionless like Paranormal Activity or Insidious, but I still hate it when they try to mash the two. Basically, my thought process for this entails that I am not actually supposed to see a demon, and when I do it kills my experience.The same thing happened in Boogeyman (which was crap).  Besides those two things working against it, this movie did have some great scares in it. There is one shock scene in particular that makes my gut wrench, but I will leave that to you all to see.

You know what is really impressive here? A man with a horrible track record when it comes to directing might have actually done right by this movie. Seriously, look up this guy's directing credits, it is like a list of what not to do in your career. Unfortunately, due to the low critical praise this is receiving I think this will be another black mark on his record, which is a pity since he directed it exactly how it should have been. Don't get me wrong John R. Leonetti is no James Wan when it comes to horror, but he isn't the worst thing either. The scenes are shot exactly the way they should to give the audience a scare. The angles are misleading (which is good in horror), the cues for things to jump or move are right on, and I feel the actors would not have done nearly as well had it not been for him.

Now, when I say the actors would not have done nearly as well, I of course mean he kept them from being out right horrible. In fact, they were the most mediocre and mundane thing I have seen on the screen this year. Perfectly fading into the back parts of our minds, and never thought of again. Annabelle Wallis (oh, I see what you did casting her) plays mother like someone would play loving an animal, not someone that brought life into this world; but, she did earn a spot on my scream queens list. I really wanted to hate Ward Horton's character even though the character was written as the ultimate good guy, he played him like the guy was meant to be a dick; but, he does do concern and dialogue very well. Tony Amendola would make an excellent priest, especially since I wouldn't trust my children any where near his character. I know that was a cheap shot, but seriously the man exudes pedophilia.  Basically, every actor here had something I loved about them and something I hated, so I wasn't disappointed, but I also wasn't knocked out of my seat.

Final Verdict: Rent It This movie won't be making audiences run for the hills, but the end scenes were just scary enough to save it from the bargain bin. It might be a guilty pleasure, but at least it is pleasurable. 

Gone Girl

Surprise! Dustin loves another Fincher movie

Our story begins with Nick Dunne (Ben Affleck), coming home to the scene of a break in. His wife Amy (Rosamund Pike) is missing, and Nick leads the charge to find her. While staying with his twin sister Margo (Carrie Coon) the plot thickens as Amy's disappearance seems to be more like a murder, and less like a missing persons case. As the story unfolds we find out more about the relationship these two people shared, and what it means to this investigation. 

Sorry if the synopsis seems a bit thin here, but it is almost impossible to discuss my true feelings about the story without putting up spoilers. So I will make a compromise here and not discuss the story in my true review. I will save the length of my feelings on the story until after I give my rating, and give it the proper warning. Fair? Well, you don't really have a choice. Just know that the story here was good, amazing in fact. Without this story, the brilliant direction and almost perfect acting would still not be enough to save this movie. As it stands, this movie was almost flawless.

I would hope that in a perfect world many people know who David Fincher is. He is the director of most of those movies people (including myself) will not shut up about. Seven, Fight Club, The Social Network, and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button are all masterpieces in a long lineage of pumping America with quality direction. Now we can add this piece in with his other works. He has a certain directing style that seems to define him, as does every director. Every work of his seems to try and scream "grey, stylized art," and at least that is a defining characteristic I can get behind. The shots here are beautiful, seamless, and elegant; guiding us through this maze of a movie with little effort. He makes the smart films that I love and breaths life into them that makes the movie more of an entity than an experience. 

It seems Ben Affleck had to remind everyone of what a good actor he is with all of the bad press his upcoming role of Batman is giving him. If it seems that the performances here are stiff, and forced, don't worry all will be explained in the scenes to come. The performances go hand and hand with exactly how we would expect people like this to act. It is hard to pick a favorite out of all the performances yet easy to see where the weak link lies. Tyler Perry as Tanner Bolt may act better in this movie then he does in any of the mind numbing crap he shills out for the sheep like masses, but his performance still drags the movie down to a somewhat noticeable degree. He isn't bad per say, he just shouldn't be acting alongside titans like Affleck and Rosamund. It was refreshing to see Neil Patrick Harris do something other then comedy, unfortunately his role in this movie was so infinitesimal I couldn't tell whether I wanted to see more of him in dramas or not.  

Final Verdict: Buy it It may be the words of a fan boy, but they are true words. I was as impartial as I could be towards the actors, and tried not to let my awe towards David Fincher's direction get in the way of my opinion; but David doesn't seem to like directing crap.

*SPOILER WARNING* STOP READING NOW IF YOU CARE ABOUT SEEING THE MOVIE

So, now I get to talk about the story. I found it to be so deliciously rebellious in the sense that you wanted to hate every character the movie portrayed. You wanted to hate Affleck for taking his wife for granted, cheating on her, and dulling his wit to the point where his wife could take advantage of his so "easily." You obviously wanted to hate the wife for being the supposed antagonist of the film, but that is where this movie's brilliance lies. You can't necessarily put all of the blame on the wife, even though she was obviously mentally unstable. The other part of this movie's triumph lies in the simplicity of it's execution. Throughout the entire thing I was trying to figure out where it was going when the answer was lying in front of me the entire time. Of course his wife faked her kidnapping, of course she was going to use and throw away a man that came to help her, of course he was going to let himself be used, of course they would choose to stay together. Every part of this movie screams the answers to you, while it plays, but I was to busy trying to look deeper to see the forest through the trees. The part that I am going to hate hearing about is how the audience is going to demand more from the ending. I know that I am going to hear some tool bag bitching about the ending, or the twists, when the twists here are helpful to the story and the ending was pure gold.