Draft Day *Catching Up*

Are you actually ready for some football?

Sonny Weaver Jr. (Kevin Costner) is at the end of his rope when it comes to drafting players for the Cleveland Browns. He is being threatened by his owner, his coach, and his girlfriend to make the right decisions in his career; as well as his personal life. With his back against the wall, he makes a choice that doesn't sit well with some, and makes him seem like a hero to others. He has a gut feeling that the deal he made will haunt him through the rest of his career, but the pressure is still on. With wolves at the door on either end he must choose to go with his gut, or go the route that has been chosen for him.

The big question that surrounds sports movies is: will the people that don't watch the sport get most of what is going on? The answer here is sort of. I make no notions that I am an expert when it comes to football, (my record in the fantasy league I am in is proof enough of that), so I think I can safely speak for the people that might not be into football. I know how the game works, and I know what the positioning of picks will mean in the long run. There is a lot of jargon that people who have no idea what the sport entails won't understand. Some words like "running back" or "special teams" won't mean anything to people who don't watch football or have no idea how it works. The person with the smallest knowledge of football (like myself) will have fun with this movie; but, as far as people that study the stats of players and have a biblical knowledge of the game go, I can't say if they will enjoy this.

With that in mind, we have to look at the story as a story, and not the end all be all football movie only intended for those who revolve their life around the sport. The story here is a very romantic notion on how we would like to perceive professional football as working. I don't think there are many players around that aren't looking at the paycheck when it comes to going pro. Players may hold one team above the rest, but when it comes to the actual "behind the scenes look" at how something works, this might be holding players a little higher than they actually are; than again, I am not in the industry so this is just my hypothesis. As far as the rest of the story goes, I can respect the tale. This movie is basically another form of Moneyball replacing baseball with football, replacing a new coach with an old one. The relationship with the girlfriend is a nice touch of cliche, but we all know that Jennifer Garner is a lot younger than Kevin Costner, and I would have liked them to at least comment on the gap. The relationship with the mother was nice, the relationship and loyalty aspect to players was better though. This movie is great at making it seem like lives are at risk of changing forever, and it gets you emotionally invested in the outcome. You hope that Kevin Costner will make the morally right decision, while hoping that he will be able to keep his job. The ending is great, albeit predictable and a little soft. Basically, you have to take this movie as a feel good story, and enjoy the ride.

Ivan Reitman has made some of the most iconic classics imaginable, while some of his recent movies have been a bit off I can safely say that he is one of my favorite directors. This movie is a shining example of his expertise, and why people should look at some of his movies a bit closer to see the great direction given to some bad stories. The phone conversation scenes in this movie were key to it's success and he knew that, so he spent a little more time getting that exactly right. He paid attention to the small details that a rookie director would have overlooked, and turned out a gem. My problems with the story in some places withstanding, I have to respect the amazing job he did here. The movies that he direct feel more alive, and this movie can stand proudly next to his other films as a mark of achievement.

The acting here was standard across the board, and that is not necessarily a bad thing. Jennifer Garner acted in the same mode she always does, and Kevin Costner seemed as emotionless as his last couple of movies. Luckily, their parts called for this performance so I have no gripe. Denis Leary was another standard performance acting as angry and justified as ever, but again the performance called for that; so, I have to give credit for the casting director knowing exactly who to put in the role. Chadwick Bozeman gave a great performance I just wish I could have seen more from him, and the same with Sean Combs. In fact, every actor that was only in this movie for a small amount of time, I wanted to see more of. The acting didn't startle me at any place, and the places it had a chance of doing so left me wanting more.

Final Verdict: Rent It If you are tired of movies that don't give you a good feeling at the end, than this is the movie for you. It is a great watch in most places, and you won't regret spending a buck or two on it.

Before I go to Sleep

British version of an Adam Sandler film

Ever watch 50 First Dates think that, with a mystery tie in. We follow Christine (Nicole Kidman), a forty year old woman who wakes up everyday with no knowledge of the past fourteen years. She is helped to remember her life by husband Ben (Colin Firth). She begins to not trust Ben fully, and starts seeking the answers to her past life with the help of Dr. Nash (Mark Strong). As she uncovers the answers behind her amnesia we begin to think she might not be able to trust anyone, including herself.

Amnesia is the end all be all fall back for a dramatic storyline. It is the most overused trope in comics, cinema, books, and really every medium of creative entertainment has beaten this dead horse more than I care to mention. 50 First Dates took the overused hook and twisted it into a thought provoking idea, while adding in bits and pieces of comedy mixed with romance, making it a significant point in Adam Sandler's varied career. This movie tried what it did in a completely straight face, mystery/thriller way, and made me dislike the premise entirely.  The whole point to a mystery is for me not to see the ending coming, and let's just say I called it after thirty minutes and the entire effect of the movie was awash on me. I guess it could have tried to get me to enjoy the ride in some other way, but they were seriously banking on the audience not being able to see the ending coming. I was going through the different ways I would have improved on the ending, and I found out that the characters were so bland it would have been dead on delivery any way you could take it. Let's make no mistake here, this movie is boring. Not boring in the way you can find interest in the subtleties of the direction, or story telling, boring in the way that you can't understand how people would like this. Boring in the way that I almost fell asleep midway through, because I knew how it ended so why put myself through it anymore. I could derive zero pleasure from the story here, and I take no pride in saying that I begrudgingly kept my eyes open through the running time in an attempt for this movie to at least seem somewhat worth it. Unfortunately, I feel that my money, and more importantly my time was wasted on this low rate garbage of a story line. This is not a movie, this is what movie's desperately strive not to become.

The direction here is another thing that left a stain on my brain, but it was more just the style than anything. I know there are many directors that you can identify based purely on their styles. J.J. Abrams has lens flare, Tarantino has round table discussions, Rowan Joffe apparently has unnecessary close ups and still shots of inanimate objects. There are a lot of meaningless shots that try to make the scene more tense, or meaningful; and this kind of direction only appeals to a certain crowd. He doesn't appeal to the "film is art" crowd like myself because he tries to hard to be an artist. Sure, some of the shots are good, but there are more unnecessary shots than good ones here.  Why do I need to spend so much time looking at Kidman's reaction? Why do I need to spend so much time looking at Kidman waiting? Why do I need to spend so much time in the overly bloodshot eye of Kidman when she first wakes up? I get it, this an intense moment, you don't need to beat me over the head with your failed attempts at making more intense.

The one good thing I can say about this piece is that the acting was amazing, but we could see that just with the attached cast. The only wild card that could make or break the experience was the center piece. I know it seems like I have an ax to grind against Nicole Kidman, but I promise you that I don't, she is just the most hit or miss actress in the world. She has about four or five movies where I have said she was great, but everything else is just okay. This movie was another piece where she did just okay; not horrible by any means, but I have definitely seen better. On the other hand, Mark Strong and Colin Firth killed it here. It is no surprise when you see their pedigree, but it is still worth noting that they were phenomenal.

Final Verdict: Pirate it The only thing saving this movie from being a complete waste of time was the strong performances put forth by some of the cast. You could easily skip this movie and rest easy, but if you are genuinely curious I suggest not giving money to the production.

Nightcrawler

Jake Gyllenhaal may hate people, but we love him 

Meet Louis Bloom, a young man desperate to find work and so money hungry he will resort to anything to get it. Luckily, on his way home from his most recent endeavor he happens upon an accident. A freelance film crew rushes to capture the carnage, and sell the footage to the highest bidder. This gives Louis the idea of getting a camera and police scanner to try his hand at this line of work. As he goes deeper into the industry we find out how truly dirty the news business is, and what lengths Louis will go to for a pay day.

Wow. Just wow. This movie was nothing but impressive from start to finish. There is a message hidden in here somewhere, but it sneaks in (as it should) between the intelligent dialogue and brilliant character development. The message is two fold, commenting on the lengths people are forced into when living through a recession, and the world of news journalism. The character in this is a stroke of genius, being a person with no real moral compass, hardwired for professionalism but no real people skills besides. The rest of this movie is spectacular; but really, there is no greater victory than breathing life into a character we can hate, while not being able to help feeling compassion for. The writer/director not only spun a good yarn, but did so while capturing every moment beautifully.

It is unreal that this movie was Dan Gilroy's first directorial credit, because this movie was shot with such a vivacious texture it brings the city in which it was shot to life. It is also very surprising that he wrote such a deep, and compelling movie when his past credits for writing left a lot to be desired. Most of his past writing was hackney, garbled up, appeal to the masses crap that only saw the light of day because it would make the movie company a couple of bucks. Now we are given an interesting, thought provoking, clever, story line, with meaningful characters and an amazing setting. Adding in the fact that this his first time directing a movie when you would think he has been doing this for years, and we have someone who could possibly be on the road to the pantheon of great directors. The streets in this movie are thick with garbage or debris, very few things in this movie seem clean, and the things that do seem clean are shot elegantly to define the carnage even more. It was like seeing a master at work, and it leaves me awestruck that this was his first time (obviously, since I can't stop saying it).

The only thing more impressive than the direction here was the acting. I'm pretty sure we all know Jake Gyllenhaal to be an outstanding actor, he picks his work carefully enough that he very rarely ends up in a shitty movie (Source Code and Prince of Persia withstanding). This movie may be his Magnum Opus, because he gives (quite possibly) the best performance of his career. Sure there are other actors in here worth noting, but I so rarely get to compliment the lead actor on giving the best performance in the movie. Bill Paxton was great but didn't really do anything to wow me. He just acted like he did in almost every other movie he has done. Riz Ahmed gave a great performance but was completely out done by Jake, to the point I was wondering why they made him the partner in this. If I had anything negative to say about this movie, it is that the acting seems unbalanced; but that is not enough for me to throw this movie down in grade.

Final Verdict: Buy it My highest honor, that I so very rarely get to bestow on a movie. It is about the time in the year where more great movies are going to be coming up (Oscar bait), so you will probably see this a lot. Buy this movie, and see it in theaters, you will not be disappointed.

Leprechaun: Origins *Catching up*

Warwick Davis is still the best thing to happen to this series

A group of four young adults come to a small village in Ireland while on vacation. They walk into a pub, and meet a man that says he can take them to the oldest ruins in the town so the group can get their fix for history knowledge. The man leads them into a small cabin in the woods so they have somewhere to stay overnight, until they can head to the historic sight in the morning (yup, this is the type of movie Cabin in the Woods was satirizing). Unfortunately, the man was using the group as an offering to a leprechaun that has been terrorizing the village for years. The group knows that they must escape the village boundaries to be safe, and leave the town to deal with the menace.

When I heard about this movie I went online stating I had concerns about it, and what do you know my concerns came to fruition. Look, I actually like the old Leprechaun movies, they are a bit of shlock-ey goodness that goes well with a drinking game, and makes me laugh. This movie is not a Leprechaun movie. This movie is what the others never wanted to be, a serious interpretation of the leprechaun myth. I'll have you know my standards were extremely low for this movie, because I knew what I was going into; but, this movie just stepped all over the old series. I like that I am getting treated to a slasher/monster movie again for the first time in years; but, this movie just didn't scare me like the classics of old (which is the only thing I can surmise this movie was trying to do). This isn't going to be a classic like A Nightmare on Elm Street, and it isn't going to be classically bad like the old series. This falls somewhere in that in-between line where it is laughably bad, but not in the way a movie series like The Puppet Master is. All of your favorite old slasher movie tropes are present and accounted for. You've got your "woman running upstairs to get away," you've got your "fumbling with the keys," you've got your "lack of electricity because of XYZ," you've got more tripping in this movie then a paraplegic convention. Normally I count that against a movie, but when they are blatant about it, so wrapped up in making sure that every cliche scene from old horror movies is present, I have to respect them. This movie is not going to win any "story of the year" awards, it is not going to scare you into wetting your shorts, this is the movie that spawned so much liver damage in future generations. This movie gave us a new movie to drink to, and hey that is as good a reason as any to put it into the pantheon of classically bad horror movies. If they change that name, and don't give themselves any ties to the old series I can say this is a good-bad horror movie.

So to go with the theme of the story, the direction here was wonky as well, but in that so bad it is good kind of way. Let's go with camera for starters. Most of the time that camera feels like it is being held by a three year old trying to help daddy at work. Which is great and all for this style of film; but, here is my gripe (even going away from the so bad it is good theme). Instead of them crediting Dylan Postl (AKA Hornswoggle from the WWE), they really should have credited the Loch Ness monster since we get no clear shots of the leprechaun. I'm all for them having made a shitty costume for old Horswoggle to run around in, but they need to embrace it. Someone probably spent hours on this crappy suit they put him in, and we never get to see the damn thing.  Everything else in this movie falls right into pattern, from the music to the art direction; but, this one thing was too much for you guys to admit to? Embrace your faults like The Leprechaun of old, and I could have had a bit more respect for you.

Now we get to the part where I am torn. On the one hand, at least they didn't try to usurp the role Warwick Davis did perfectly, on the other hand I don't want to have a boring mute leprechaun. I want my leprechaun speaking in verse, using an Irish brogue, making crappy one liners. I know no one can follow up the performance Warwick Davis gave, he treated every movie like he was being paid a king's ransom to be their, and never disappointed, but they could have at least tried. So given my current predicament I am going to abstain comment on the performance given by Dylan Postl. He had no lines, and spent most of the movie just walking around in a costume acting sinister, so there is not much to comment on anyway. The rest of the cast is ripe for critical analysis. Our scream queen for the movie is Stephanie Bennett who just does great for not having much experience. she really hammed up her performance and that is all I can ask from a girl in a movie like this. Brendan Fletcher does fine as the background noise, but with a pedigree like his I wanted him to be more front and center. The best performance of the movie has to be given to Garry Chalk, who surprises no one by being the best in this limited cast. He gave us a pretty good Irish brogue, and knew exactly what kind of energy the role called for.

Final Verdict: Pirate it I can't forgive this movie completely for stepping over the good name that was Leprechaun, but it did a little better than horrible as it's own thing. This should give you an idea of how bad movies are that rated lower than this. 

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.