John Wick Review

Kick it with Keanu----Keanu Reeves as a former hit man who goes back into business after his life is ruined by Russian punks in John Wick
                                       I've never really felt one way or another about Keanu Reeves. He's sometimes excellent (The River's Edge, My Own Private Idaho) and sometimes unbelievably dull (47 Ronin, The Day The Earth Stood Still.) This may sound like it applies to most actors but with Reeves it is especially true that his level of excellence depends on the role he's in. He is a very good actor when he needs to be, for sure but I can also often see him simply going through the motions. His newest action film, John Wick, in which he is placed in the role of the title character, is his best work in at least a decade and a half. This is Reeves at his best. He takes this role and has an endless amount of fun with it. Good news for the audience as well since him having a blast in the role translates incredibly well with the viewer.

                                        The film stars Reeves as Mr. Wick, a former hit man who lives in a world where being a killer for hire is an accepted job. (FINALLY!) John has retired and leads a quiet but desolate life, with his wife having died. His wife, however, leaves him a cute little dog for him to look after and care for. However, a group of Russian punks, led by the son (Alfie Allen) of a brutal gangster (Michael Nyqvist) decide to break into his house and murder his dog. This is to say they don't know who Wick is and don't realize this event will ultimately lead him out of retirement.

                                          I dug this film so much that even the tough Russian gangsters felt realistic. A lot of this is due to the alternate universe John Wick is set in. This is literally a world where they have a hotel that hit men stay at complete with very strict policies. Lance Reddick even shows up in a hilarious role as a stilted hotel desk worker. Directors David Leitch and Chad Stahelski (former stunt men) and writer Derek Kolstad fill the film with a shocking amount of dark, very funny humor, such as when John is throwing down with Ms. Perkins (Adrianne Palecki,) an assassin for hire in his hotel room with Reddick's worker bee standing quietly at the desk. A nice amount of supporting players including Dean Winters, John Leiguzamo, Ian McShane, Willem Dafoe and Bridget Moynahan also get to have fun with their respective roles.

                                             This film is Reeves doing what he does best---killing dudes one by one. This is non stop action from start to finish. It never asks the audience to feel any real emotions (except the dog, perhaps) and that's fine here. It's an absolute blast from start to finish and never tries to be anything it's not. If you're the kind of person who craves a throwback to the 80's Dolph Lundgren-Sylvester Stallone or 90's Steven Seagal-Jean Claude Van Damme action films then this should be just right for you. Leitch, Stahelski and Kolstad all deserve credit for making an inventive, crazy fun world but Reeves is the one who drives this home with all his might.
(3 and 1/2 out of 5 Stars, The film is rated R for strong and bloody violence throughout, language and brief drug use)

Hit By Lightning Review

Ball buster---Jon Cryer as a loser restaurant manager who falls for a suspicious woman (Stephanie Szostak) in Hit By Lightning
                                    I feel really bad for Jon Cryer and Will Sasso. Both are very funny men who get wrongly underestimated for different reasons. While Cryer too often gets stereotyped as "that guy from "Two And A Half Men,"" Sasso never gets any work that's on par with proving his true comedic talent. It's weird to think a film as awful as Hit By Lightning is the closest thing that's come out to breaking these two talents from their respective molds. I have a theory that they get to prove more here than usual because the film is so bad. If the film were simply mediocre, their hard work and endless dedication to getting laughs from the audience would go unnoticed. However, the film is so horribly written and dreadfully non-eventfully that they show how great they can be even when given no good material. Both men are great here but the film only proves to be a detriment to them.

                                    The film stars Cryer as Ricky, a manager at restaurant Debby's (it's Denny's spelled with B's instead of N's...and that's one of the less cringe worthy jokes in the film.) Ricky is having trouble in love while his buddy Seth (Sasso) tries to take him out every Saturday night simply for carnal pleasures. However, neither man knows how to pick up a woman despite Seth's confidence that they'll just keep trying. Ricky signs up for E-Happily (yeah, apparently no one wanted to use this film for product placement) and meets Danita (Stephanie Szostak.) Ricky and Danita fall in love instantly and Ricky sees hope for his future. One problem---Danita is married to Ben (Jed Rees,) a successful mystery author whom Danita wants Ricky to kill.

                                       After I saw the film, I was interested to see who was behind this film. It came as no shock to me that the writer and director is Ricky Blitt, a former "Family Guy" writer who has since left the show. On the basis of this film, it's no wonder why. Unlike that show, whose random non-eventfulness and multiple pop culture references are genuinely funny in context, this film falls flat with all of that. The non-eventfulness of this film proves to be more boring than anything and every joke that doesn't involve a fake version of a large company is an awkward, unfunny pop culture reference. "Ricky's wearing a baseball cap so let's make a joke where he randomly mentions how good John C McGinley was in 42." "Seth brings over a copy of Body Heat so let's have him awkwardly point out that this film was made back when Kathleen Turner looked like a woman." This is the level of joke etiquette within this film.

                                      This perhaps could have worked if there was dark comedy to balance it out as there should be in a film about a  man trying to murder another woman's husband but Blitt obviously has no clue how to go dark. His very few attempts to go dark end up being clumsy and feeling weirdly unjustified. Also, the whole film wants the audience to root for Ricky and Danita when they are both horrible people to begin with. Before even bringing up the idea of the murder (which happens 45 minutes into the 85 minute film,) they're both such despicable people that there's no reason to root for them. Ricky even fills his balding head with shoe polish  when he first goes out with Danita and continues to do so. Why should the audience root for two people who need to hide what they are from one another? Sasso's Seth is the only likable character in the film and that's only because Sasso has mastered the art of lovable goofball the same way his "MadTV" co-star Ike Barinholtz has on TV's "The Mindy Project." Rees, an actor who always shows up randomly and never disappoints, is quite good here but isn't given a lick of anything to do with his character.

                                         With a different writer/director, Hit By Lighnting may have worked. The cast (excluding the awful performance of Szostak) deserve much better and should aspire to be in more high quality, worthy of their talent productions. Writer/director Blitt doesn't know what to do with these funny people and ends up making a film that feels as long as Shoah, even at 85 minutes. There is literally one mild chuckle I got from the film itself and not from the actors. It's the last line and shot of the film. Until that last five seconds, however, sitting through this so called comedy felt like a prison sentence of the worst kind.
(1/2 out of 5 Stars, The film is Not Rated but contains adult language and situations)
Note: Although the three male actors were great, I can not give this film any more than half a star. There are plenty of great performances in film and, although these actors deserve better, they can not overcome the film's terribleness. In fact, the fact that Cryer, Sasso and Rees were so good made the overall horrible nature of the film all the more unpleasant to sit through.

Nightcrawler Review

Shoot to chill----Jake Gyllenhaal as dedicated worker Louis Bloom, who finds himself a crime scene video recorder for a local news station in Nightcrawler
                                             The new film from screenwriter and first time director Dan Gilroy, Nightcrawler is not only a brilliant and amazingly fun satire but also an incredible confirmation of the talent in Jake Gyllenhaal, an actor whose career has taken an incredible turn over the past decade or so. He has proven to be the leading actor version of Christopher Walken. That is, he plays kooky with such an incredible bite and with such enjoyable self seriousness that he's always an amazing screen presence. Credit also goes to Gilroy, who directs the film with the kind  of direction that is never seen done anymore. He uses set pieces in the same vein that Alfred Hitchcock did, like with Mount Rushmore in North By Northwest and his ease with tension suggests a reincarnation of The Master of Suspense as well.

                                              In the film, Gyllenhaal plays Louis Bloom, a dedicated and ambitious young man looking for any type of work available. One night, he drives past a car crash and sees renowned cameraman Joe Loder (Bill Paxton) shoot some footage. This inspires him to hire an assistant, Rick (Riz Ahmed) and sell footage to channel 6 news director Nina Romina (Rene Russo.) However, he gets in more than he initially expected when he goes too far in his ambitions.

                                               In a lot of ways, Louis is a mix of two classic Robert De Niro characters--Rupert Pupkin from The King of Comedy and Travis Bickle from Taxi Driver. Louis's scary amount of dedication to get ahead in the world is very reminiscent of Pupkin while his way of saying things that are completely psychotic but come across as articulate and intelligent is a lot like Bickle. Gyllenhaal plays menacing with an amazing ease and he never goes too over the top with it. As well, Paxton, Russo and especially the underrated Ahmed are excellent supporting players.

                                                The film's satire comes from the idea that to get ahead in the world today, you have to be willing to do so by any means necessary. Bloom doesn't just run himself into the ground, he does so with great glee and motivation. However, as previously mentioned, he's so articulate about and so aware of his own craziness that it's hard not to maintain a rooting interest. He never comes across as a villain of any sort, although his awareness to his insanity makes it all the more intense.

                                                 Gilroy writes the film with very witty dialogue and some of the best ironic humor my ears have ever heard. He also knows how to have the characters talk realistically even as the situations get increasingly fantastical. The direction is amazing, taking the audience right along for the ride. As Louis is taping these horrific crimes, the audience feels right there with him. It even feels scarily close for the audience when the footage is cleverly shown through the lens of Bloom rather than directly to the audience.

                                                  Nightcrawler is a terrific, spectacular, jaw dropping, powerful film that also manages to be surprisingly fun and darkly hilarious considering its grim subject matter. I'm sure come Oscar season the Academy won't even consider nominating Gyllenhaal for his work simply because of how creepy of a performance it is. However, it's a performance of great depth and intensity that should definitely be acknowledged by all and so is the film.
(5 out of 5 Stars, The film is rated R for violence including graphic images and for language)

Whiplash Review

Tough love---Miles Teller as an aspiring jazz drummer and JK Simmons as an abusive professor of a prestigious music group in Whiplash
                                                      There's never been an argument quite like the one made in Whiplash, a daring and stirring drama about a nice kid named Andrew (Miles Teller) who wants to be a top jazz drummer but ends up under the watch of Terrence Fletcher (JK Simmons,) a professor with a terrifying way of telling people they're doing it all wrong. On his first day of class, Andrew gets a chair hurdled at his head simply because he's slightly off tempo. However, this film tries to give Fletcher some humanity by trying to explain why he might be coming across as such a monster. In another film, this would be forced....only FEELING as if there's a question of Fletcher's humanity. However, Whiplash shows writer-director Damien Chazelle giving more depth than just a questionable response. He explores Fletcher's seeming evil nature and shows the point of view of both determined but terrified Andrew and supposed villain Fletcher. Chazelle also puts the ultimate power of the answer in the hands of the audience, a risky but ultimately provocative move on his part. This film would not have worked, however, if it weren't for the brilliant Simmons. He dives into the role, giving it all he possibly has and never petering out of what he's supposed to be. If Simmons does not win the best supporting actor Oscar..it will be one of the biggest sins in the history of The Academy Awards.

                                                       The film is mostly told from the point of view of Andrew, who loves his devoted father (an excellent and underused Paul Reiser) and even gets up the nerve to ask a movie theater employee named Nicole (Melissa Benoist) out. However, once introduced to Fletcher and his prestigious, highly regarded band, Andrew is torn between the success of making it big and the detriment of falling out of line with his life. Fletcher pushes Andrew to never be a second late to any rehearsals or classes and diminishes his confidence every time he misses a beat..literally. It's interesting to note that Simmons, while having played some unlikable characters, has never played a character that is truly evil (I have been told by multiple sources that he did in the highly regarded TV show "Oz" but I have never seen a single episode of that and his role in the Mark Wahlberg thriller Contraband wasn't evil so much as a bad dude) until now. Sure...he screams a lot and is aggressive in the original Spiderman trilogy but this shows a whole other side of him. He makes Fletcher not just a monster but inhumane in the way he presents himself. It's hard to say how Simmons and Chazelle make him such a vile, disgusting washout of a man without giving anything away but it's pretty incredible right from the first scene.

                                                        Simmons' performance proves to be a detriment a few times. This is only because, as great as Teller, Benoist and Reiser all are, the film always feels to lose its spark when Simmons is off screen. He walks away with the part and, throughout almost every second of his screen time, quite literally caused my jaw to drop. Right off the bat, the audience feels Fletcher's presence in the auditorium they are sitting in. Although Simmons seems like a nice guy from what I've seen on talk shows and read in various interviews, he is so realistically crazy and evil here that it's almost hard to imagine a  nice guy pulling this role off.

                                                          This is also a perfectly edited film, with Chazelle directing the beat of the drums as well as the sounds of the other instruments with a purposeful intensity. He gives the film a chilling claustrophobia that makes the audience feel just as trapped as Andrew. Even in a scene where Andrew and Nicole go out for pizza, the direction is so zoomed in and close that it makes the overall feelo f the situation uncomfortable. This scene is also nerve wracking because it makes Andrew and Nicole's eventual downfall within their relationship feel closer and closer as the scene goes on.

                                                         Whiplash is a great film with a more than Oscar worthy performance from Simmons. His performance is definitely the best I've seen all year and I dare say one of the best I've seen in my multiple years of watching films obsessively. If it weren't for him, this film still would have been very good but he drives the film to the status of great.
(5 out of 5 Stars, The film is rated R for strong language including some sexual references)

Kill The Messenger Review

Front page covered story----Jeremy Renner as journalist Gary Webb, who got way too deep into drug smuggling scandals in Kill The Messenger
                                 Kill The Messenger starts and ends with real footage of drug smuggling stories. The start involves stories questioning the methods of day to day citizens within drug smuggling rings. The end involves footage of the higher powers taking all the blame for such crimes. It's a perfectly defined way to show who Gary Webb really was. He was a journalist who, above all, was determined to reveal the truth and what people needed to know. He didn't care about a paycheck or respect, he just wanted ordinary citizens to be aware of what was going on around them. Of course, it's not a spoiler to say that the film finds Webb finding that the higher powers are a substantial part of why drug smuggling rings are running rampant. The film poses an interesting question of how much information is truly being hidden from the general public. Needless to say, the higher ups didn't want this information getting to ordinary citizens. This puts Gary's boss (Oliver Platt) and editor (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) in a position where even they are forced to throw him under the bus. Kill The Messenger is also that rare film which works better when less is happening. The deeper and deeper Gary gets into this conspiracy, the less interesting the story truly is. This is not to say that everything he finds isn't interesting. On the contrary, every bit of information as well as the rabbit hole he sinks himself into is fascinating. It's just that the very present air of mystery before the reveal proves to be the most intense. It's like watching or reading And Then There Were None for the first time without knowing who the murderer is.

                                Webb is played in top form by Jeremy Renner, an actor who baffles me. He's an excellent actor but seems to pick roles such as The Bourne Legacy and Hansel And Gretel: Witch Hunters that don't let him show his considerable talents. Perhaps he has fun taking an easy role every now and then and films such as The Hurt Locker and The Town give him a justified "one for them, one for me" approach. Renner looks so much the part that when they showed footage of the older Gary Webb at the end, I thought they put makeup on Renner to make him look older. Renner's quick, witty way of telling it like it is works spectacularly for playing Gary Webb. This was not just a man who changed journalism inadvertently, this was a man who was not living if he was not changing journalism. The film is perfectly cast for everyone else as well. Director Michael Cuesta and screenwriter Peter Landesman (who takes the script from both Webb's book "Dark Alliance" and Nick Schou's book "Kill The Messenger") bring in people who obviously know what they're doing for what would be thankless, nothing roles by lesser actors. Great talents such as Michael Sheen, Ray Liotta, Barry Pepper, Paz Vega, Yul Vazquez, Robert Patrick, Andy Garcia, Michael Kenneth Williams and Tim Blake Nelson come in for brief scenes and make the best of what they have. Other extremely talented actors also have solid roles. These include Rosemarie DeWitt as Sue, Gary's supportive but massively skeptical wive and Lucas Hedges as Ian, Gary's supportive but massively skeptical oldest son.

                                 The real strength of the film comes from Cuesta's direction, which makes use of both the quickly moving rabbit hole that Webb finds himself in, which is symbolized by shots of Webb riding his motorcycle and the slow burn that comes from being addicted to such information, such as when Liotta shows up briefly as a man who also got addicted to heaps of information he shouldn't have had. This is the kind of film that works as a conspiracy thriller equally as well as it works as a psychological "how far is too far" investigative drama. It's exciting to watch someone so passionate about exposing lies that affect people who are just trying to make an honest living. If you do not know the story and have not seen the film yet, I advise you to skip the next paragraph as I am going to integrate part of the conclusion into my review.

                                Nothing about the film shows Webb's passion for finding the truth and exposing it quite as much as a scene at the end in which Webb gives a big "screw you" to his boss, his editor and the world of journalism as it stands in general. After winning a National Journalists Award, Webb first imagines his view of what he has done compared to every other person in the room's view on his story. He imagines a huge standing ovation complete with a lot of "what to go, Gary" being told to him. Flash to the actual event and there are only a few people reluctantly clapping for him. Of the four people barely clapping for him, two of them are his wife and his older son. He then goes up to the podium where people look at him with the interest of a kid wanting dessert being handed a plate of broccoli. He then launches into a speech of how he thought, as a journalist, he was supposed to publish and uphold the true facts of what's going on in the world, whether good or bad, for everyone to see. Of course, this is after his editor and boss have thrown him under the bus and asked him to resign. He explains he does not want to work for any paper or news outlet that hides wrong doings of higher ups simply because they are higher ups. He then throws his signed resignation sheet at his boss and editor and walks away in complete silence. This is who Webb was---a man who cared more about giving the general public the information that needs to be said than just simply working as a journalist. Most journalists would be too scared to even utter a word about this story but Webb gave away the entire farm on the drug smuggling scandal.

                                While Kill The Messenger does lag in a few parts and perhaps could have reached its conclusion sooner, it is no doubt a worth seeing story about a man who changed what people brought to their papers. Renner is the driving force here, with a great cast backing him up to deliver a truly entertaining and fascinating film. This is both a fascinating study of just how scary exposure and investigative journalism can be and a solid mystery of just how much is being hidden from us day by day. Even as I sat here typing this review, there could potentially be hundreds, even thousands of dangerous and threatening stories being swept under the rug for fear off exposure. In that alone, this is a film well worth watching.
(4 and 1/2 out of 5 Stars, The film is rated R for language and drug content)
                             

The Guest Review

What's wrong with this picture?---Dan Stevens as a mysterious man claiming to be an old war buddy of a welcoming family's deceased son in The Guest
                                                    The Guest is the greatest spectacle of film making anyone will see this year, and perhaps ever. It is a throwback to a different era of film that is so bad ass, so invigorating, so suspenseful, so edge of your seat and so damn entertaining that it's almost hard to think a film this great could still be made. It's not surprising to report that the film comes courtesy of director Adam Wingard and writer Simon Barrett,  the team behind last year's stunning horror flick You're Next. As they did in that film, here they combine two seemingly impossible to mix, completely tired genres and bash them together in a way that would not be expected of anyone walking into the theater. In You're Next, they combined the standard home invasion thriller and the dysfunctional family comedy (it's a great combo even though it suggests The Strangers meets Four Christmases.) Here, Wingard and Barrett take the "you never know who's under your own roof" thriller and the conspiracy thriller genres and make a combination so incredible that it literally sent me into a state of shock leaving the auditorium. A lot of the film's success is due to star Dan Stevens, however, who takes an easily tedious and unbelievable characters and plays both ends of the spectrum exceptionally well.

                                                 Stevens plays David, a man who mysteriously shows up on the doorstep of the Peterson household. Their son has died in service and David claims to have been on his squad and says they were really close. Mother Laura (Sheila Kelley) buys into it, if not just to have a memory of her son. However, daughter Anna (Maika Monroe,) son Luke (Brendan Meyer) and father Spencer (Leland Orser) are much more skeptical. They wonder why this man just decided to come to their home out of nowhere. Couldn't he have called to see if it was alright? Why did their son never mention this man? That all changes, however, when David proves to be a compassionate and fun friend to all of them. I choose to end the synopsis here because the less one knows going into this film, the more incredible of a ride it will prove to be.

                                                 This is the kind of film that revels in the idea that the audience will be nervous about what will happen next. Another great thriller from this year, Enemy, did this almost as well. This film works brilliantly at keeping the audience on edge about why David is there and what his end goal is. Stevens manages to play David with an increasingly large amount of coolness and relaxation, which makes the suspicious aspect of his visit even more effective. He never tries hard to be cool, which makes the end product of his ease and swagger something of a miracle.

                                                 The supporting cast is also great, creating characters that are shockingly sympathetic. These characters are not just people who are there to run around and scream. Rather, these are actually people with jobs, aspirations and lives. While the end may leave some cold due to the current nature of the characters, it is no doubt a fascinating conclusion to behold. The film makes use of its setting, as well. Not only does the middle of nowhere dwelling make the ambiguous nature of David more thrilling but such settings as a pre-Halloween dance decorated gymnasium and an off the beaten path bar are used to great effect.

                                                  The Guest will certainly not be for everyone. Its concept may be too broad and loosely threaded for some while others may find the nervousness that comes from watching Stevens too much to handle. However, it is an exceptional piece of film making for anyone looking for a classic throwback to horror films from the 80's that directors and screenwriters seem incapable of producing any more. In other words, if you think you're excited to see this film, then by all means see it.
(5 out of 5 Stars, The film is rated R for strong violence, language, some drug use and a scene of sexuality)

The Zero Theorem Review

In need of a reality check today?-----Christoph Waltz as a computer hacker being slowly driven insane by the meaning of existence in The Zero Theorem
                                                  Here is a rare complaint to have for a film---it relies too much on its own cool nature. It should be noted that The Zero Theorem is perhaps the only film I have ever had and will ever have this complaint about. I suppose it's the most appropriate film to have this complaint about seeing as it's Terry Gilliam's latest film. Outside of the Monty Python films he has directed, I have never actually loved a film of his. I have highly respected and immensely enjoyed such films as Twelve Monkeys, Brazil and Fear And Loathing In Las Vegas but they've also irritated me in the process. He too often feels like a man who's too wrapped up in the process of being cool to actually focus on other elements that would improve his work immensely. He's the equivalent of the high school star football player that everyone loves who gets very, very, very mediocre grades. I admittedly do understand the getting wrapped up in coolness factor of this one perhaps more than others. After all, it does star the already legendary Christoph Waltz and has an exceedingly kooky and wholly creative premise. However, those things can only last so long (maybe Waltz's legendary pull can last forever but the premise, not so much.) This is a film that will certainly only speak to a certain few. I can't decide whether I want to put myself in that group or not. Most people will hate this film due to its story that is, mostly, intentionally hard to follow. One minute a premise will be introduced but the next there won't even be a hint of what happened for the last 60 seconds. This may be a tactic that Gilliam is using since the film is about a man desperately searching for the meaning of existence and being contradicted by one thing or another every step of the way. However, most people will just find it pretentious and tedious, or so I imagine.

                                              The film stars Waltz as Qohen, a worker bee in one of those futuristic societies that's actually a metaphor for our society today. Other films that have this kind of future society can be seen in would be the classic 1982 film Blade Runner, this year's Snowpiercer and a few hundred films from those 32 years in between. This is not to say this is an awful concept. The two other films that I have mentioned are both fantastic and stick with you long after you leave the theater. However, it's a tricky concept to maneuver if the writer(s) and director(s) don't have every idea in their head predetermined. There has to be a specific reason that the people involved in this kind of film are making it. Usually these types of films are love it or hate it. I suppose this one will be for most people as well but I'm fairly on the fence about my feelings for this one.

                                               The plot? Oh yeah....I forgot to explain that. Qohen is tired of working day to day at his dead end futuristic job and decides to rebel against the highest power (I know that sounds familiar to anyone reading this as well.) However, when Qohen does this, he's assigned to a job in which he has to try to make these millions of cubes fit with one another and thus prove an idea named The Zero Theorem, which states that life has no purpose and everyone lives and dies and there's no reason for them to do so. Of course, in order to prove this, Qohen has to consistently almost but not quite figure out the idea of the cubes. A computer will tell him "0 equals 96.79 percent and 0 must equal 100 percent," and so on and so forth. The plot goes further, with a sexy, bubbly blonde (Melanie Thierry) who proves a temptation for Qohen and an annoying but helpful teen (Lucas Hedges.) I choose not to really go into the actual plot because part of the intrigue of the film is where it's headed and why.

                                            Gilliam is exactly like Lars Von Trier to me. I don't like Von Trier's film per say but I totally respect his approach to simply making what he wants to make and the audacity to make everyone watching the film furious when all is said and done. Giliam does the same with his films, including this one. The ending seems to wrap things up nicely but is rather a disguise for just how little the film and all its events ending up meaning. Waltz is incredible in a role that requires a lot of effort to pull off. This is a blank slate of a man who must be made sympathetic in order to be interesting. Faults does this with perfect ease. Waltz is very similar to Christopher Walken in that he is inherently fascinating because no one can match the type of presence that he has on screen. He continues that here and is mostly why a fair amount of the film actually works. Get someone else in his role and every single part of this film falls to pieces.

                                              First time screenwriter Pat Rushin brings a certain energy to the dialogue and situation. However, he seems more invested in the idea of this world than actually giving any of the characters any kind of, well, character. For example, Tilda Swinton shows up, seemingly just having walked off the set of Snowpiercer, as a goofy "woman" (she's actually a computer program) who serves as an overly nosy therapist to Qohen. This is a very cool and potentially great idea and while it does work to some degree, Rushin is too obsessed with the sheer bizarre nature of the character. It is never explained what her motives are or why she's even there. This happens consistently during the film. Characters that could potentially be a great counterpart for Qohen show up but are given absolutely nothing to do beside be wacky. Even the blonde and the teen, who are both on screen a lot, are just people who are there for no real reason and with no real motivation driving them. Come to think of it, Qohen is also a meaningless, non-driven character but he works simply because Waltz is so great and gives the character significantly more depth and meaning than was written for him.

                                           As you may be able to tell at this point, I don't really know my own feelings for this film. Sure, it's kind of inventive and somewhat enjoyable but it's also a shallow project with no real payoff. I feel as if this is a film that will reach cult status but more in the way that something out of Troma does than in the manner that Brazil did. I can not stress enough how incredible Waltz is but a line must be drawn somewhere between what's a good film and a film that's just a flash in the pan. This film goes across the line to just  a flash in the pan but only by  a nose. I can't say I hated it and I may even watch it again in a few years and get more out of it. However, I must say that, as of now, this is a film for anyone who wants some nice visual imagery and a great performance but who don't care if there's any purpose to what they're watching. I am not one of those people.
(2 and 1/2 out of 5 Stars, The film is rated R for language and some sexuality/nudity)