Run All Night

Neeson picks up the slack for Kinnaman...some what

Retired hit-man Jimmy Conlon (Liam Neeson) has found himself in a bad situation. His son, Mike (Joel Kinnaman) has witnessed a murder committed by the son of his best friend and employer Shawn Maguire (Ed Harris). Chris runs and the son catches up to him, unfortunately Jimmy is there when he does. Jimmy kills the son, and has to get Chris and his family to safety before the night runs out.

This movie can join the seemingly endless cadre of films that Liam Neeson is being wrangled into in his ever quickening crusade to try and make sure elderly men are taken more seriously as action stars. The difference between this movie and the recent crop of shit that has been looming over our theater screens for the past couple of years is the the story here at least tried to be ambitious.  There were a lot of interesting points in this film, that made this seem like a different animal than Neeson's recent starring roles. The first thing I noticed was that Neeson's character was portrayed as pathetic, even when he went kill crazy, which was a pretty interesting turn. Another thing was the story between the main character and his adversary, who used to be his best friend; that was an interesting plot that added a bit more depth. All was going well (and most of the fault lies in some of the actors and the child like director at the helm), at least that would be the case, if the ending didn't seem to come out of no where, and feel anti-climatic. The story had me for a lock until the final act, then almost lost me completely. There is a lot of cliche nonsense in this that I was trying to overlook but a soft climax to an action movie is not a great selling point..... Also, not to nit-pick, but this really bothered me: I have dealt with my fair share of cabbies that don't care about who their fare is; but honestly, city wide man hunt and this guy is taking a lot of cabs, not one person is going to call?

Given this director's history with horror I know he can build tension (which actually did help one of the scenes in this movie), but even the amount of tension that he built didn't give a lot of substance to this movie. The problem I have here is mainly with the dynamic camera shots he was trying to take through out the entire thing. He basically took me out of the movie completely when I had to look through about ninety different lenses for his point to finally come across in the film. I can blame this movie's pacing problems on the writer, but something tells me the director called for massive cuts in the script so he could get the shots he wanted. The shots in this were, again, ambitious; but, they all just felt so forced and annoying. Plus, this director can't seem to have Liam Neeson take someone down in a movie without the use of slow motion (see his last film "Non- Stop" to get that reference).

You all remember when Liam Neeson was an actor, and not an action star? I do, and I actually got to see some of that old-form Neeson in this film (praise be to whatever movie god made that possible). When he is portraying his character as helpless and pathetic you can really get a sense for the character's plight. You feel his embarrassment as he has to go and ask his best friend's son for a loan to get a new heater. You feel his pain as he looks for the answer to sleep at the bottom of a liqour bottle. This was a "Schindler's List" Neeson, or what I like to call "Pre-Taken Neeson." Sure he acts well in other projects, but this was a nice look at the Neeson audiences fell in love with. On the exact opposite end of the spectrum we have Joel Kinnaman. Is it possible to go back in time and abort this actor's career before he started to ruin movies? I mean it, he is so hard to watch. Annoyingly bad acting, that follows his abysmal performance in "Robocop" from last year. Please stop giving this guy work. Please. Ed Harris showed up, and he was the same intimidating mob boss we have come to know from some previous films, so no problem there. The children in this should probably have tried to take more classes for acting, because I know I can't count on the director to give them the correct guidance. This movie's actors were all over the map, but somewhat predictable sans Neeson. Kinnaman sucks again, Neeson is surprisingly fresh, Harris is standard, and the support varies.

Final Verdict: Rent It Not quite horrible, but some major draw backs held this movie from true greatness. I am only sorry that a movie with a good Neeson performance had to be this movie. 

Chappie

Artificial Intelligence, Religion, Human Consciousness, cha-cha-cha 

Deon Wilson (Dev Patel) has revolutionized the police force by adding robots to their force. Crime is now down and thugs are running scared from the new mechanized officers; however Deon is not done creating. He has a dream of making a sentient machine, able to be the next step in robotic achievement. He goes against his bosses orders and makes a robot known as Chappie (Sharlto Copley). It is up to Deon to teach Chappie how to be more human, with the unasked for "aid" from street thugs, who have their own plans for the robot's upbringing. Throughout the robot's education the thugs and Deon must fend off another gang, and one of Deon's rivals, while trying not to kill each other.

Let me get some of the bad things about this movie out of the way right now, so I can start singing this film's praises. First off the character building felt forced and rushed, as the run time of the movie was unforgiving. Rushed is a really big word for this, because the pacing of the movie was all off. At points you wanted to know more about the characters, at the end you wanted them to pick an ending and stick with it. There were some blatant advertisements for Sony, but I don't think I can complain about that, as I have seat through "Transformers: Age of Extinction."

Now that we got that unpleasantness out of the way, let me tell you how awesome this movie is.

So, at first you are thinking this movie is going to be a revamped "Short Circuit." Then you realize there are about fifty subtle (not-so-subtle) messages in this. From religion to ethics this movie runs the gambit on awesome story telling. I loved that the entire thing can be equated to a theological discussion, while explosions sound off in the background. This movie could very well be used to teach classes about religion, or at the very least about acceptance. The character development may have failed with the side characters, but it picked up with the development of Chappie. It still felt rushed, but you felt for the character. You might have been able to feel more for the character if more time was given, but you still felt bad for him. Maybe it was because of the brilliant acting, maybe it was due to his naivety, but every time Chappie felt pain, you wanted it to stop. The villian's were well calculated to allow more hatred for them. The side characters were there enough for me to at least accept their presence. There are only a few minor details that could have been tweeked to make this movie perfect. This movie absolutely screamed to be turned into a sequel or trilogy.

So I have been a fan of Neil Blomkamp, and I have asked for nothing but his success, because he likes to take risks on new storytelling. Every movie he makes has a something interesting about it, and a pedestal to stand on. Not only is he an extremely talented writer, but he is also an extremely talented director. The man makes his scenery feel alive to the point that you can taste the grit from a battle in your mouth. You can feel the cold of a city lost to violence, or smell the garbage waft over your nostrils as if you were in New York or Detroit. The man can make anything feel like the real deal, and that is a highly sought after talent. This movie follows in his line of beautifully crafted films, and I cannot wait to see what he does with "Alien."
.
.
.
What's that? Oh yes, his balls do feel good in my mouth, thanks for asking. Asshole.

There was a familiar voice featured in this. A Blomkamp veteran. It always surprises me to see how much talent Sharlto Copley displays in these pictures, how much range he has. The man ate this role, the man slept this role, the man bled this role, the man was Chappie. I know I have a "hard-on" for voice acting, but this was truly remarkable. He brought out the child-like naivety in Chappie, and made it easy for the audience to relate to the character. If I had to give one tip of the hat to anyone in this movie, it would have to be to Mr. Copley. No one really turned in a bad performance, but the A-listers in this were put through the ringer by new talent. None more so than Dev Patel. I think the fans can finally forgive him for 'The Last Airbender" because he is truly remarkable in this.... oh yeah, Hugh Jackman and Sigourney Weaver were in this. They were good too.

Final Verdict: See it in Theaters Some obvious mis-steps in the character development made this movie a bit hard to handle at times, but it was just flat out fun. If you are a movie lover in any sense there will be something here for you. 

Focus

Do Will Smith and Margot Robbie have good chemistry?

Our story follows expert con-man Nicky (Will Smith) as he leads his enterprise of other con-artists into stealing from everyone they can. A girl, Jess (Margot Robbie), walks into the organization. The girl has Nicky feeling things that he has never let himself feel before; however, we need to find out who is playing who. In a world of cons, you can trust no one.

So the story is solid, albeit a bit cliche. Now, I'm not saying that it repeats what every other movie does, it is only a bit cliche. The overall arc of bad boy, meets bad girl, and tries to go straight, has been done; but, it was done very well here. The story isn't the real winner here, the dialogue is. The slight remarks, and sarcasm is delivered expertly by the cast, and in that sense this movie tends to be a bit enjoyable in the writing department. I couldn't tell if it was the lines that were written, or who was delivering them, but I did like what was hearing. The main thing holding this movie back from joining the pantheon of great crime movies is the ending. I won't spoil anything for you so lets just say that it was a nice effort; but, there are so many things wrong with it, and so many blatant contradictions that I'm surprised the rest of the movie held together as well as it did. Another part of the story that didn't seem to quite work is that it fell into that same old trap that most "con-artist movies" fall into by not knowing where to hold back on the deception. So, a lot of the romance gets lost in translation, which comes back to hurt the ending even more, and unravels a lot of the good points from the movie.

The thing about this movie is that the gems weren't in the writing, they were found in the cinematography. The camera tricks utilized here weren't anything really new, but they were surprising. Some of the camera work seemed to be taken from the horror genre, using mirror tricks, and misdirection tactics. Some were taken from the romance genre, knowing exactly what part of the body to draw focus (yeah....ha!) on and when. It was brilliantly done, and all of it fell into this nice, crisp and clean background, allowing us to escape into their world more easily. Absolutely stunning.

Now for the acting, which is the only reason I was anticipating this movie at all. Will Smith's more recent movie decisions have left a bad taste in my mouth in regards to his acting credibility. From his cameo in "Winter's Tale," to the god-awful movie with his son "After Earth," he just hasn't been bringing the same flavor we all knew him for; however, Will wasn't the only one that needed to bring his A-game in this. Margot Robbie is a brand new face that acted well in a role written for a know-nothing model, so I needed to see if it was just the perfect part for her, or if she actually had some skill. Luckily, both of the main actors were damn near flawless in this. The role of a con-man is perfect for Will Smith, he can (and did) use his charm and bravado to sell the entire audience on whatever game he was trying to play. Margot Robbie showed me that she could be more than an attractive girl, that can use a convincing accent. She played a more gullible protege con, while remaining to seem elegant, and graceful through out the run time. In an effort to not be out-shined by the two A-listers, the supporting cast brought their game up to a level that kept everyone at their best.

Final Verdict: Rent it Some major story problems significantly hold this picture back from greatness, but the actors and cinematography bring this movie up a couple of notches. If you were wondering about the two future members of the "Suicide Squad," I would say it is safe to assume they will be great in the movie.

Hot Tub Time Machine 2

A real "shotgun to the dick"

Our story follows our cast from the first movie (minus John Cusack), going through their new lives as rich successes. Everyone hates Lou (Rob Courdry), Nick (Craig Robinson) has marital issues, while facing problems with stealing other artists music, and Jacob (Clark Duke) is a loser. Since Lou is so hated someone has taken it upon themselves to assassinate him, shooting him in the groin (got shot in the dick people). Jacob comes up with the idea of using the hot tub time machine to go back in time to save Lou; however, the time machine has other plans when it sends the trio a decade into the future. The plan for our "heroes" is to find Lou's killer (who happens to be from the future... I know try to stay with me, we'll get through this together), while doing what they did in the first movie (fixing the lives of their present selves).

Wow. Never thought it would be that hard to write a synopsis; but hey, with a story this bad and convoluted I guess it is bound to happen. So the main joke over this entire movie is that time travel movies are ridiculously complex in their story telling, and they can get a little lost in translation... at least I hope it is. It would be a great joke if it made me laugh at anytime, but every time I felt the joke coming I just couldn't muster a chuckle. It's not that the joke was bad, just poorly handled, and that is actually the problem with the rest of this picture. All of the jokes are recycled to death. Some jokes are at their own expense, which would be great if they didn't seem so forced.... and also recycled. It isn't like I didn't laugh, sometimes I managed a few chuckles, one time actually laughing quite hysterically; but, I know I would have been laughing more, had the jokes been delivered better. The first movie was pretty bearable, earning a place in my heart as "something to watch while I am drunk or bored." This movie is just bad. Their are a few saving graces, but I just got tired of being told the same joke, over and over again. How many times do I need to be reminded that John Cusack isn't there? How many times are you guys going to do "you look like" jokes (they tried to retract the amount by making fun of how many times they said it, but it was a bit late)? How many times are you going to make gross out jokes? It is all recycled. Even the ending, where they try to make fun of their "sequel status,' seems forced and dull. The moral is out of place and awkward. The pacing of this movie, got thrown out with the plot. This movie's one saving grace when it comes to writing is a few mildly amusing jokes, and that is about it.

As I said above the pacing of this movie was ridiculous, like they were just coming up with jokes and picking points where they "might work" in the movie. The director of the first movie took us back to this, and lost any semblance of good grace that I could have given him for the original. The audio was choppy and felt awkward to sit through. The cast seemed to be working on their own whims without any guidance of what they should be doing. It was kind of like the director said " hey guys just go and do the same thing as the first time, if you can remember what that was, I am going to take a nap." It was as lazy as the writing, and the director should feel ashamed.

The returning cast did the best they could given the captain-less ship, but you could tell something was a bit off in the production. Given the credibility I give these actors, I am only going to talk about  the new cast. The new cast seemed to try and ride the hype train of "Community" and "Parks and Recreation," to a box office worth mentioning. One half of that theory worked out, the other half.... not so much. Adam Scott does well in his co-staring role. He works as the same dorky guy he plays in his hit show, and the cast knows how to work off of him. Gillian Jacobs is seldom used, and I can see the reasoning for it. She drags down every performance around her. She is like a dark hole that sucks talent into an endless void, never to be seen again. This is a shame, since I don't mind her performance in "Community," but I calls it like I sees it. The only other noteworthy talent in this was the love interest Bianca Hease. I wish I could gauge her, but the only thing I ever notice is that her breasts seem to appear on the screen for some reason. She seems emotionless, at times; but, as I said, it is hard to gauge her performance on the small amount I saw of her.

Final Verdict: "Borrow" it I was hoping for a lot more from this movie, since the best comedies from last year were sequels. The problem is, those sequels were actually funny throughout the running time. If you need to see it, try seeing it for free. 

Fifty Shades of Grey

Twilight: Now with sex, and less plot (if possible)

*Sigh*

*Grabs soap box and stands on it*

IN LIEU OF DOING A SYNOPSIS FOR THIS MOVIE I WILL BE PREACHING, IF YOU WANT A SYNOPSIS SIMPLY REMEMBER WHEN YOUR GIRLFRIEND TOOK YOU TO GO SEE TWILIGHT

So, the abuse of women is okay now? Not simply the abuse of women, but the abuse of any significant other. Let me clarify. I am totally okay with domination or S&M in the bedroom. Nothing wrong with that as long both parties are consenting. Hell, I may or may not have done some of the same in my own bedroom. My problem here lies with the character Christian Grey as whole. He is guilty of doing the same-old, usual abusive boyfriend things. Buying her new expensive things so she is guilted into the relationship, stalking, holding the power over her like a pendulum (outside of the bedroom), having her sign a nondisclosure agreement so she cannot confide in family or friends, possessiveness. Every part of this asshole exudes abuse, and not in the fun way, in the scary way. How do we respond to it? Oh, we (as a society) forgo the obvious signs of abuse, and simply think of it as a sexy book to read. No, people this is wrong. We should be identifying that he has an obvious mental condition that makes him this way (which, to the movies credit, does get covered), and stop thinking that Christian Grey is our ideal guy. Now, I only watched the movie, so I can only comment on what I saw. If the book is any different, please, feel free to shut up, because the movie exists and I am talking about that.

Now.

On with the review.

The story here is basically Twilight people. Edit out the supernatural and replace it with sex, there we have this god awful movie. Plain Jane: A, is attracted to hot, rich guy: B, they get in a relationship: C, and she is totally devoted to him: D. Above will cover some of my main, over lying problems with the story, but let's go a bit deeper. I do like that they gave him a sorted history that made this more of a mental disease, rather than a hot fantasy. The character of Anastasia was almost completely forgettable, which I guess might have been the point somewhere; but, she is forgettable and that is major problem when you are trying to create a franchise (I assume that is what they are going to try and do with this.... because movie). Everything else wrong with this movie can be summed up by thinking about how you would develop a romance, then think of how a child would develop a romance, then think of how a dog might develop a romance. You might see my problem going to see a movie written by a dog, who can't grasp the concept of progression. You are attracted, you like each other, you fuck, End of story, end of my interest in story.

Cinematography is important in a movie, right? Someone mind telling director Sam Taylor-Johnson that, because she seems to have forgotten. Maybe she never knew because she doesn't have that extensive of a resume (nothing wrong with that), but when you are in charge of a major motion picture, it is time to stop making your movies look like straight to TV productions. Get the game to a more professional level please. Stepping away from the director, lets try to find who thought it might be a good idea to put Danny Elfman in charge of this, and start finding them some other work. Elfman is talented, always has been, always will be; not right for the score to this picture in any way, shape, or form.The soundtrack was descent, but why are we putting the most cliche score pieces in at just the right moment. Like overly cliche. Like these same moves were being pulled in the fifties kind of cliche.

Acting is also an important feature in a movie, Which is why I wish they actually would have hired some actors in this picture. Okay that is a bit harsh, Dakota Johnson was fine. Her make up people made her as Plain Jane as they could by not applying any make up to her, just as movies always do; since, apparently all of a woman's beauty is found in her make up. No huge problem with her. Let's talk about the terrible, awful, no good, very bad, thing that is Jamie Dornan. Did someone just find some guy working out in a gym somewhere, and put him in a movie? Does the man know what presence is?  Does the man know what "emote" means? Not saying he needed to show emotions, saying he needed to emote, convey, do something other than stand there without his shirt on and smolder. Was I happy he was shirtless? Yeah. Proud of it? No. Did I still want to push him aside and find an equally attractive actor, that actually had some talent? Fuck yes.

Final Verdict: Don't do it I went into this movie with zero reservations. I knew one thing about this movie. It was about sex. Honestly, I have seen better stories from porn.

Jupiter Ascending

Where Wachowskis waver

Our story follows Jupiter Jones (Mila Kunis), who has a life filled with hard work surrounded by her invasive family. One day Jupiter's life is flipped upside-down when she realizes she is the reincarnation of royalty, who control the universe. She must see which of the three ruling families she can trust (if any), and try to save the Earth's population from the royals in the process.

Killing the amount of potential this movie had should be a crime punishable by silence in the creative market. I know that seems a bit harsh (given the Wachowskis track record), but this movie had so much potential that just got wasted on overly used cliche story arcs. They took a movie about the Earth's population being nothing but cattle (which I might have seen somewhere, but I will let it slide for now), and made it a boring Harry Potter esque, Twilight esque, (all stemming from the flower that was originally Cinderella) story arc about some downtrodden girl that became royalty. As much as this movie pains me, it isn't nearly going to be as painful as watching my social media feed flood with "waiting to figure out if I am space royalty" gibberish that will eventually come from this debacle. This movie is filled with just about every story cliche possible, adding maybe two or three interesting concepts. Let's go down a brief list of unimaginative story telling that ends up showing its ugly face in this movie: Girl loves a man that is beneath her caste, royal family trying to kill the new heir to either keep their status or increase it, pauper turns out to be a princess, "professionally I can't say this, but, good luck," "you betrayed me, let's  fight! Now we are buddies," etc. etc. etc. Really the list is about as long as my arm, but you get the gist. Even if this movie wasn't so lazy with their writing they would still have a poorly written script. The movie has plot holes that are seen within the first viewing of the film, which is never a good sign. The movie contradicts itself, example: at the beginning, the Earth is the most prized jewel in the universe; meanwhile, everyone keeps telling her that Earth is not the center of the universe. I know there are moments of lying in this, but seriously, if the Earth is not that special why the hell are you all fighting over it? They never actually explain why the Earth is so special. Is it the size of our population? (would make the most since with the story) Our multiple species? Nope, it just is. I can't be totally against this story, even though it tried to make me. The wolf/human hybrid concept was cool, use of multiple religions in the lore was interesting, and the broad concept was solid. They are lucky that I can even admit to that when their characters almost set me over the edge. Copy and paste from any other boring, cliche piece of crap and there we have our protagonists, antagonists, and secondary characters.

The one thing I can count on the Wachowskis for are visuals, and this time it looks like Jim Henson's brain was tossed into space. The character design was amazing, the look of even the smallest character was unique and fascinating. The fight scenes were also great, reminds you of The Matrix if it actually took place in space, and every one had cool weapons; however, the fight scenes were damn near buried by the poor choice in corresponding music. Seriously, who decides to mix uplifting music with fight music. It was like Kramer just entered the room every five minutes, but everyone in the room had guns trained on him.

The acting in this movie damn near killed the entire experience for me. I have seen better acting from almost everyone that participated in this movie, and decided that the Wachowski name was enough to carry the box office. Channing Tatum stone-walled the entire performance, and didn't even give me any animal-like tendencies, except for a growl every once in a while. Mila Kunis was not horrible, she was just basic, and caught from almost every unflattering camera angle imaginable. Sean Bean was....well... Sean Bean was Sean Bean guys, he doesn't have much in the way of range these days. Any good acting came from the seldom seen supporting cast, so instead of giving an actor credit for standing out among all the crap acting surrounding him, I am going to give you the worst performance of the movie (possibly the year, we will see). Eddie Redmayne was absolutely abhorrent in this feature. Good God, there are these random moments where he decides to replace acting with yelling, and just makes the scene awkward (sometimes hilarious). 

Final Verdict: Borrow it Replaced the "Pirate it" because I really cannot condone that. This movie had some really great points, bad the slew of bad crap that came from this was just too much. Borrow it from someone that didn't read this review (like everyone) if you absolutely need to see it.

The Spongebob Movie: Sponge out of Water

Soaks up the competition... there is your pun

Plankton is back to his old tricks again when he makes a last ditch effort to steal the Crabby Patty secret formula. An intense battle ensues ending with the Crabby Patty formula vanishing into thin air, and the Bikini Bottom apocalypse starting. A rouge on the land is responsible for the town's troubles, named Burger Beard (Antonio Banderas). It is up to the team of Spongebob, Patrick, Squidward, Sandy, and Mr. Krabs to get the formula from their new foe and set Bikini Bottom back in order.

You have to give some respect to Spongebob Squarepants, for paying homage to the old vanguard of cartoons while trying to adapt to the new wave coming through the Cartoon channels. Of course every age group has there most memorable hits, but Spongebob has the privilege of being mixed into a cultural shift so two generations can appreciate it. For baby boomers it was Looney Tunes; Gen X it was Transformers, He-Man and G.I. Joe; for my generation it was Rugrats, Johnny Bravo, and Rocket Power; and the current generation has Adventure Time; however, a good cartoon is a good cartoon, and Spongebob Squarepants used to be SO GOOD. Not that it is bad now, but it has definitely lost some of the edge that made it appeal to multiple generations. This movie is a vast improvement on what became of the television show; although, it does have some of the same deficiencies that drove off so many viewers.

The story here is your basic Spongebob story guys, there is nothing that is going to blow your mind like The Lego Movie, it is pretty much all just par for the course. The real gem hear is in the comedy. There are more than a few times that laughed so hard that my stomach hurt, and I never felt ashamed (even if I was the only person in the theater, so what). Some jokes reached you on the childish level, some hit you as an adult, some were just so bizarre that they made you laugh. Okay, not every joke hit its mark like it was supposed to, but it gave the old college try, despite not knowing how to relate to the current generation, and making some pretty cringe worthy comedy. Seeing the town of Bikini Bottom go through a Mad Max style apocalypse tickled me in a way few shows do these days.

When I say TV show, that is exactly what I mean, this fell into the trap of most TV Show movies by feeling like "just a longer episode of the show." Is that a bad thing? Not really, I tend to not let it hinder my viewing experience, but if it is a problem for you, be warned. I do love how the production quality on this movie didn't make any sacrifices. Although the writing gives it the television feel, the animation makes you remember that you are in a movie. I try not to give movies extra points for effect, but it is hard not to notice the detail they went into trying to make the Spongebob cast come into the real world. It isn't like they put real squids and starfish on the screen, but they did give these guys some much needed texture love, and it looks beautiful.

The voice acting cast is just how they have always been, absolutely brilliant, and if you don't believe that just stop watching cartoons. Sure, the one song that came from this movie (surprising I know), wasn't their best work, but I can't blame Tom Kenny for that. The real weight of the movie fell on the new guy they threw into the mojo, Antonio Banderas. I guess the casting person for this movie saw a couple of Banderas films and made the perfect choice, because Banderas' natural animated acting flows brilliantly with the surrounding chaos. He just makes it seem effortless, and gets lost so far into his role that you can't tell if he is acting or just plain nuts. It seems that he respects the source material and loves the atmosphere, so I have to give him some credit; but, so I'm not accused of making this all about the "live action talent" let me digress. Tom Kenny is a voice God, Bill Fagerbakk has always and will always hold a special place in my heart for his crazy skill, Douglas Lawrence Osowski (Mr. Lawrence) puts every bit of effort into plankton. Satisfied? I love voice actors. You know that, I know that, I don't need to beat you over the head with it.

Final Verdict: Rent it It ain't perfect, but that'll do Nickelodeon. If you have a child that is begging you to see the new Spongebob movie, you don't need to fear, this is a good movie.