Aloha Review

You say goodbye, I say hello---Bradley Cooper & Emma Stone as military partners (?) on an assignment in Aloha
                            If you thought that Elizabethtown was the worst film that could ever come from Cameron Crowe, I am afraid you were dead wrong. Crowe, usually a very talented writer-director, has made one of the most jumbled, dull messes of all time with Aloha. This is to Crowe what 1941 is to Steven Spielberg, Cruising is to William Friedkin and Jack is to Francis Ford Coppola. Yeah..it's that unbelievably terrible. However, I can't fully blame him. From the numerous reshoots that had to take place to the reports that Crowe and Bill Murray dreaded working with one another to the overall fact that the film was basically taken out of Crowe's hands a la Ridley Scott and Blade Runner, it seems like there's much more than just an incredible waste of talent here. What's even worse---this is a cliche romantic comedy that throws in an impossible to follow plot. Films this stupid shouldn't make my brain hurt from trying to figure out what the heck is going on.

                             I'm going to try to explain the plot here but I don't know if I'll fully be able to. Essentially, Bradley Cooper plays Brian Gilcrest, a down on his luck guy working for billionaire Carson Welch (Murray) who travels to Hawaii to close a deal. There, he is forced to train, and eventually falls in love with Allison Ng (Emma Stone) all the while trying to deal with "the one that got away," Tracy (Rachel McAdams) who is now married to curt military personnel Woody (John Krasinski.)

                               The main problem here is the fact that there are about fifteen plots at play but none of them feel connected at all. Brian and Allison have absolutely zero chemistry but somehow fall in love, the dynamic between Brian and Tracy is so clunky to the point where that plot becomes useless and no one else is given anything to do. Excellent, impossible to dislike actors such as Danny McBride, Alec Baldwin and Bill Camp even show up but have no real role.

                              Also, the trailer made the film look promising but the entirety of the film features things that were cool in the trailer awkwardly put into it. Take a scene in which Brian and Allison are having a conversation. In the middle of one of them saying a sentence, the camera pans to the complete opposite side of the room to show Carson and an interviewer who has not been in the film at all up until this point. The interviewer asks Carson about his idea of what the future means and he delivers his speech from the trailer. There's nothing else to it. He just says those lines and then it's back to Brian and Allison. This is indicative of the entire film. There's no flow or connection from scene to scene. Things happen simply to happen.

                                The cast isn't really to blame here. They try their absolute best. It's just that I have trouble imagining even Burt Lancaster or Spencer Tracy being able to deliver such clunky, ludicrous dialogue. This is a shockingly inept script that feels like it may have been something special if Crowe was just allowed to run wild with it. I can't take all the blame off of Crowe. The job of a writer-director is to stand up for what they believe the film should be. Sure, even Orson Welles lost control of his films from various studios multiple times but he never came close to sinking as low as Crowe does here. This is shamefully dumb stuff that's way too tedious and dull to even have a hint of a fun camp/cult film factor.

                                In the end, there's absolutely no reason to see Aloha. It's hard to imagine there ever being this big of a waste of talent again in my lifetime. By the end of the film, Crowe has already had the finale drag out around 25 minutes longer than it ever needed to and I was endlessly happy to have it end. At one point, Brian says to Allison "It's all over now." Unfortunately, there was still an incredibly long way to go. This film is so bad and misguided that it can't even take advantage of the beautiful setting!
(0 out of 5 Stars, The film is rated PG-13 for some language including suggestive comments)

Mad Max Fury Road Review

Chase me if you can----Tom Hardy as Max, a man on the run from a corrupt leader in Mad Max: Fury Road
                  There is a very famous experiment called "The Marshmallow Test," which determines whether a child will take one marshmallow the moment it is handed to them or wait for two. How it works is that the researcher(s) tells the child that they can consume the savory treat in front of them or, if they hold off for a few minutes, can get two. George Miller has been pulling the ultimate marshmallow trick on audiences. Waiting 30 years to release his newest film in the Mad Max franchise and constantly teasing fans with production problems and delays, Miller has been telling us we could either have merely a mediocre action film now or a really great one if we just wait for a while. I can happily say it's finally here and worth the wait.
                 
                  This is a film made by a 70 year old man that has 10000X more energy and excitement than a film made by people 1/3 Miller's age. This is non-stop action where the few times it does get dull involves a break from the balls to the wall craziness of it all. I will preface this by saying that if you don't like the idea of a man in a strange mask blaring a flame filled electric guitar on top of a moving vehicle, you will hate this film. This is absolutely ludicrous stuff to be sure but it's also an amazing amount of fun.

                  In the film, Tom Hardy plays Max, the role taken on by Mel Gibson in the 1980's (and 1979, but who's counting?). Max wakes up to discover himself a prisoner of an evil ruler (who ironically sounds and looks a bit like Bane, who Hardy played just a few years ago.) This evil ruler (Hugh Keays-Byrne) finds himself chasing after a group of escaped, tough women led by Imperator Furiousa (Charlize Theron, the real star of the film.) Soon, Max finds himself part of this wild goose chase as does villain-reluctantly turned hero Nux (Nicholas Hoult.) While this is all happening, a guy strapped to bungee chords plays a flame shooting electric guitar and old ladies have their day to kick a lot of butt. Yeah...it's that type of film and that's what makes it so wonderful.

                  What works about the film more than anything else is director-co-writer Miller (the script is also credited to Brendan McCarthy and Nick Lathouris and oh boy, do those two also deserve credit) has emotion, heart and sympathy while still being an explosive, amazingly fun two hour car chase. Miller, McCarthy and Lathouris show the Brett Ratner and Michael Bays of the world how it's really supposed to be done. Unlike most current action film directors, these guys understand there still needs to be character development and meaning to what's happening on screen. In the same way "Nevermind" by Nirvana showed rock musicians how it's really done, there is no doubt that Mad Max: Fury Road will be effective in showing action filmmakers how they should do it. Also, please note this film rarely uses green screen, CGI or anything of the sort. Around 99% of the effects in this film are completely practical.  That guy awesomely shooting flames out of an electric guitar on bungee chords is really happening. This gives the audience much more to care about and puts much higher stakes on whether or not these characters win in the end.

                    In 1981, the incredibly talented Miller made Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior, which undoubtedly brought in a whole new line of great action films that followed in its path. In this, Miller will undoubtedly repeat himself by making more films like this show up on your local movie theater marquee and less films like those of the Transformers and Taken franchises. Thank you so much Mr. Miller for that!
(5 out of 5 Stars, The film is rated R for intense sequences of violence throughout, and for disturbing images)

Me & Earl & The Dying Girl Review

Just let your feelings roll on by---Ronald Cyler II and Thomas Mann as friends and filmmakers who befriend a cancer diagnosed classmate in Me & Earl & The Dying Girl
                                       Me & Earl & The Dying Girl is bound to instantly become a teen classic in the same league as Ferris Bueller's Day Off, The Breakfast Club, The Outsiders, Dazed & Confused, ETC. It is a wonderful film that shares a lot in common with 2012's excellent The Perks Of Being A Wallflower, not the least of which is proof that an author adapting  their own book works wonderfully. However, this heart tugging comedy/drama from writer Jesse Andrews and director Alfonso Gomez-Rejon totally manages to find a voice and spirit all its own. The wonderful cast is definitely one of the main if not the main reason for this film shining through so much. If there is a better film in 2015, it's certainly not going to come out until Oscar season.

                                     The film stars Thomas Mann as Greg, a nerdy kid whose parents (Connie Britton and Nick Offerman) love him but have a strange way of presenting it. His only real friend is Earl (Ronald Cyler II,) although Greg seems to have nailed the whole floating on by during high school thing. One day, his mother forces him to visit Rachel (Olivia Cooke,) a socially awkward classmate of Greg. Despite both of them being reluctant, they discover they're really similar. Both have big hearts that they hide in a web of shyness and Rachel even loves Greg and Earl's hilarious parody films (such as Senior Citizen Cane instead of Citizen Kane.) Eventually, Greg and Earl agree to make a film for Rachel about what she's been through and why she's so great.

                                     Coming of age/teen films seem to be high quality stuff as of late (The Way Way Back, The Fault In Our Stars, The Kings Of Summer, ETC.) However, Me & Earl & The Dying Girl may be the best of the lot. The greatness of this film is how it flips every cliche you are tired of seeing in these types of films on their head. For a film about a girl dying of cancer, it is extremely funny and knowingly pokes fun at itself. The film is also both sad and uplifting without hitting a false note for even a second.

                                     This wouldn't work as well if it weren't for the acting, however. Mann and Cooke have been good actors for a while now but they do groundbreaking work here. Their chemistry is magnetic and they both play their characters so convincingly that I never once saw through their performances. They make these two characters, both of whom easily could have been cloying and unbearable, instantly recognizable. When you walk out on the street, you constantly see Greg and Rachel. These are not so much characters as they are real human beings.

                                          However, the standout here may be Cyler II. Although the film focuses less on Earl, this newcomer gives the best performance I have seen in years. He shows every inch of vulnerability and skepticism in this character while still making him an incredibly charming and confident person. This is Cyler II's first film but it certainly won't be his last. This young actor is going places. Britton and Offerman also get a lot of real nice moments and even Molly Shannon, who I usually don't like at all, is very good as Rachel's devastated mother who is touched by Greg's offering of friendship. These performances are bolstered to even higher levels of greatness by the brilliant writing of Andrews and the fabulous direction of Gomez-Rejon, both of whom should be studied to show how to flawlessly construct a film for decades to come in film classes.

                                          I honestly can't remember loving every second of a film as much as I did with Me & Earl & The Dying Girl. No one should miss this funny, touching, sad, uplifting, sweet, clever, stunning and altogether spectacular piece of film making. There is honestly not a single person who I think would dislike this film. When it ended, I just wanted to see more. If this comes anywhere near you, run out and see it. You'll thank me later.
(5 out of 5 Stars, The film is rated PG-13 for sexual content, drug material, language and some thematic elements)

Ex Machina Review

Turing the tables----Oscar Isaac as a brilliant website founder and Domnhall Gleeson as a young employee sent out to his estate in Ex Machina
                                                 On its bare surface, Ex Machina may look like yet another artificial intelligence science fiction film. Not to say AI science fiction isn't often very good. Films like Ghost In The Shell, Blade Runner and Wargames (yeah..I said it) beg to differ while the likes of AI and Transcendence give the genre a bad name. However, it is when the audience peels away the many layers of Ex Machina where it is shown that this is far from just another one of those films and making the audience think that for even a second is one of many spectacular tricks writer-director Alex Garland and his terrific cast have up their sleeves.

                                                 For the plot synopsis, I will say only the bare bones of what this film is about because the less you know, the better. A young, geeky employee (Domnhall Gleeson) at a company similar to that of Google gets the chance to go out to the estate of the company's founder (Oscar Isaac) where he finds the founder has built an artificial life form (Alicia Vikander.) Upon his boss's request, the unknowing and surprised kid uses The Turing Test (named after famed mathematician and The Imitation Game subject Alan Turing) to see if she can actually be considered a human.

                                               Garland does a terrific job of building everything up and then keeping it together. Within five minutes of the film, the employee is already being shown the estate by his boss. Garland is smart enough to realize we don't need this guy's back story and therefore it is pointless to give one.However, the story never even comes close to petering out. Garland also does one of my favorite tricks---sucking the audience into a world all its own. There has never been a fantasy world quite like the one shown in this film. The script is also completely unpredictable. There were multiple points in which I thought I had the whole thing wrapped up and then found out I was dead wrong. This is especially admirable since every twist and turn felt justified. Never once did I even begin to think "The only reason I didn't see that coming is because it makes no sense." Even during the last minutes, the film grabs you by the throat and surprises you all the way.

                                                 It is also very much worth noting that Garland is a protege of Danny Boyle, a man who is the master of unpredictable and magnetic  films in any genre. Boyle ranges anywhere from comedy (Trainspotting) to thriller (Shallow Grave) to drama (Millions, Slumdog Millionaire, 127 Hours) to science fiction-horror (Sunshine, 28 Days Later.) If his following films are even as quarter as great as his debut, Garland is bound to become the next Boyle.

                                                  The acting here is also amazing. Gleeson is perfectly case as the wimpy young guy who becomes increasingly shocked by the world he has won into. He displays both vulnerability and thick skin at all the appropriate times. Meanwhile, Isaac further convinces me he's going to be considered right up there with greats like Al Pacino, Robert De Niro, Christopher Walken, ETC, in as soon as a decade. He infuses a sketchiness to the boss that constantly makes the audience fill with unease. Vikander is also great as the artificial life who may be the most human of them all. She oozes compassion and loveliness while never letting the audience forget why these two men seem to be underestimating her.

                                                   Intelligence, thought provoking and downright gripping science fiction is near impossible to come by nowadays. This is why Ex Machina is a must see for anyone who is saddened by the lack of great films like this recently. With brilliant performances, an incredible script and superb directing, this film is not to be missed.
(5 out of 5 Stars, The film is rated R for graphic nudity, language, sexual references and some violence)

True Story Review

A serious case of mistaken identity---Jonah Hill as a journalist who gets his identity stolen from an accused murderer (James Franco) in True Story
                                        The real story of Michael Finkel and Christian Longo is a fascinating piece of history both from a psychological and a journalist perspective. The new thriller True Story (based on the novel that the real Finkel wrote) will at least serve to make people read up on the real story. Everyone unfamiliar with the story who sees this movie will go out thinking the same thing---"it HAS to be more interesting than whatever I just watched."

                                         The film is directed and written by first timer Rupert Goold, who should perhaps audit both a college screenwriting and film making course before he does anything else. The story follows Michael (Jonah Hill) who gets his identity stolen by Christian (James Franco) and soon finds himself teaching Christian how to write in exchange for the full scoop. This could make a very interesting film but Goold makes every second completely unpleasant to sit through. Meanwhile, usually reliable actors such as Ethan Suplee, Felicity Jones and Gretchen Mol have nothing to do.

                                            I can't blame the acting here. Lord knows Hill & Franco try as hard as they can to jump over the hurdle that is the writing and directing. Suplee, Jones and Mol even try their best with what little they're given. I blame the simultaneously under cooked and overblown script. There is no character in any of these people and yet it's expected of the audience to care about them. In real life, Finkel and Longo both seem like incredibly complex figures. Here, they come across as two bland guys who sat inside of a prison visiting room a few times.

                                            The problem is also with the terrible directing. The look of the film is so drab and lifeless that it borders on the literally unbearable. While it could have been argued that the film's look is meant to be depressing to reflect the story, Goold never even makes an attempt to deliver that idea and it ends up coming across as simply someone who has no clue what they're doing.

                                             While the story is not pleasant in real life either, the way these events are being portrayed onscreen was cringe worthy (and not in a good or effective way) from the first second to the last. It's one of those films in which the audience is just waiting for it to end. I respect the fact that Hill & Franco try to detract from their bro chemistry in real life but the fact that the script makes them feel so artificial makes that feel like a terrible choice.

                                                The acting in True Story works for what it is. The problem is that literally everything else in the film is terrible. The story builds to an unsatisfactory conclusion. "Let's get dinner endings" is a term I have for endings that have nothing for the audience to care about. People simply leave when the credits start rolling and discuss where their meal out is going to be or other things. True Story has one of the biggest "Let's get dinner" endings I have ever laid eyes on. Goold seems to think what he's doing is clever but it's just predictable and cliche. Come to think of it, that can be applied to the entire film.
(1/2 out of 5 Stars, The film is rated R for language and some disturbing material)

Serena Review

Going through the woodwork---Jennifer Lawrence as a seductive woman who takes over her recent husband (Bradley Cooper)'s lumber business in Serena
                                   Serena is a truly awful film made by people of incredible talent. Watching this film, I recalled Roger Ebert's review of the dark comedy Death To Smoochy in which he said that "Only enormously talented people could have made" it. In the long run, Serena almost feels like a purposeful attempt to be terrible. However, it's way too dull and unbearable to truly achieve that goal.

                                   The worst part about the fact that Serena seems to be going for some sort of "so bad it's good" cult classic is that everyone involved in the film has a lot of talent. Stars Bradley Cooper & Jennifer Lawrence have made two other terrific films together (ironically, both directed by David O Russell, who Alan Smitheed his film this year as did the director of this film.) They have a very good supporting cast including Rhys Ifans, Toby Jones, David Dencik and Sean Harris.The director, Susanne Bier, has done excellent drams such as Love Is All You Need, Brothers (2004) and In A Better World. The screenwriter, Christopher Kyle (working from a novel by Ron Rash,) penned the criminally overlooked The Weight Of Water (also based on a novel.) A film with this much talent should not end up being so deadly dull. The first hint I got of that they were trying to make a bad film along the lines of something you would see on Mystery Science Theater 3000 is that Lawrence & Cooper, american actors playing american characters who speak English, are delivering their lines like Tommy Wiseau in The Room. The way in which they emphasize every word with a fake foreign accent is painful.

                                     There's a plot in here somewhere. It involves Serena (Lawrence) marrying George (Cooper) only to reveal she is a powerful woman planning to be in charge of his thriving lumber business. There's also a subplot involving a man (Jones) who wants George to sign over his land. Honestly, I forgot just about everything there was to forget the second I walked out of this theater and thank god for that!

                                      The other big problem with this film is the plot (as displayed in the previous paragraph), which goes absolutely nowhere until the bonkers ending that is way too out of place to count for anything. For 100 minutes of its 105 minute run time, the plot never develops into anything more than "Woman is seductive. Man wants to keep land." There's no feeling that anyone on set cared enough to point this out and everyone just listlessly shot each scene.

                                      While there may be worse films this year, there will almost certainly be no bigger waste of talent. Serena is definitive proof that even the best and most talented people can have a terrible day at work. I'm just hoping that Cooper & Lawrence will never make something this awful together again. If a script like this comes their way, I'll be willing to write Silver Linings Playbook 2 for them to star in together.
(1/2 out of 5 Stars, The film is rated R for some violence and sexuality)

Wild Tales Review

Revenge has fallen---Ricardo Darin as a man taking on the corrupt power system in one segment of the anthology film Wild Tales
                               If someone were to ask me what my favorite sub-genre of film is, I would definitely say anthology films. Yes---a lot of them are terrible (Movie 43, which I count as anthology since it's a series of stories) and even the best usually have something wrong with them. I recall an old made for MTV anthology film called Strange Frequency, which I thought was terrific until the end segment, which was a nasty little number involving Judd Nelson as a music producer. However, anthology films also always seem to have a lot to offer me. When you think about the fact that anthology films can revolve around anywhere from 2 segments to 20 segments, there's more of a chance for me to like something in there. With the new Argentinian anthology film, Wild Tales, I found that of the six segments contained in the film, there were six that I absolutely loved. This is an invigorating, funny, dark, tension filled, endlessly entertaining and downright brilliant film that connects six stories to the power of seizing the day and, more so, the feeling we all get when we just want to take revenge on those who wrong us.

                                 The less that is known about the individual skits, the better. At least that's my interpretation since I knew nothing about any of the six and they all entertained me more than anything in recent memory has. I will say there is one sketch that is unlike the other five. I will not say how but if you go see this film (which you most definitely should,) you will know what I'm talking about.

                                   All six of these stories feels like it could have been its own film and I mean that in the best way possible. Writer-director Damian Szifron takes what could have been typical tales of dull, angry people and brilliantly enriches both the characters and the stories with a lived in, lifelike quality. Not once did I think "people like this would never exist."The fact of the matter is that Szifron knows there are tons of people like the ones on display in each of these stories and uses that realism to his advantage.

                                     He also does a great job of unmasking his ultimate metaphor with a slow burn quality. The metaphor is finally revealed and the audience realizes Szifron is showing every single person's inner demons. There are points in everyone's life when we just want to throw it all away to give someone a taste of their own medicine. This idea is brilliant portrayed throughout and in the last sketch, shown with great power in full light.

                                       I would also like to praise this film by saying each of the six stories reminded me of the best "Twilight Zone" episodes. These are dark and often darkly funny segments that give the audience an electric feeling that leaves the viewer vibrating with joy and energy long after they have left the theater.

                                         Szifron also directs this film with a Martin Scorcese or Alfred Hitchcock level of excellence. Every shot serves to make the stories unpredictable (which they always are,) to convey emotion, to show a side of the story the audience has yet to see or to give more depth to the tale at hand. There is not a single camera shot that goes unused for some further purpose. The film is even shockingly beautifully shot in its own twisted, creative ways. Szifron shows that he is a force to be reckoned with both as writer and director.

                                            Wild Tales is one of the most awesome, brilliantly conceived, entertaining and downright stunning films I have seen in quite some time. Recently, it seems as if the art of anthology film has been dying out, with mainly unfunny comedies (the aforementioned Movie 43 and InAPPropiate Comedy) using the style only to attempt disguising the awful nature of those films. However, Szifron assures that with someone who knows exactly what they're doing and with an overarching idea that every member of the audience can relate to, anthology films can still be a great experience. Bravo, Mr. Szifron, bravo.
(5 out of 5 Stars, The film is rated R for violence, language and brief sexuality)