Robocop

There was absolutely no need to remake Robocop. Let's get real here, it's not a perfect movie, but it's a perfect movie to its era. With the tendency of remakes to be made serious and less tongue in cheek, as well as with February quality movies generally being poor, there's really no way I could expect a decent Robocop movie. And with a director who's done nothing that I've seen and a writer who's done nothing of any real significance (except an uncredited hand in Quantum of Solace), what were we really getting into? A remake with absolutely no effort for quality? Oh boy.

But it's actually a pleasant surprise. Yes, the movie is far less tongue in cheek than its original. But while it keeps itself serious, at no point does the seriousness come across as disingenuous. Character depression and anger is real, it's saddening, and especially from his wife it works. We see Gary Oldman's character have a great turnaround and a fantastic performance overall that lets us really love  who he is and what he's trying to be.  Moments of frustration for our main character, played by Joel Kinnaman, really hit the audience, whether it's the initial fear and depression or eventually the lack of humanity. Maybe it was just me, but I really felt the sadness of the distance of his self.

Effects in this film were hit or miss. Sometimes, we see amazing sequences. In particular the deconstruction of his body revealing the only functioning parts was incredibly creepy, and looked great. But then the scenes with characters running around were filled with what was described brilliantly by Doug Walker as "Toy Story animation". Which, of course worked great in Toy Story because they were toys. But to see a character moving with the same physical ability as Woody, it looks weird. They look like they're made of rubber, and sometimes it works okay enough but mostly it looks cheap. The suit, however, looks awesome. The introduction of the suits ability with the dropping of the visor in particular is amazing, and a lot of fun to watch. It simultaneously makes us look at him as a badass, while also feeling the pity of his complete lack of control.

Robocop shouldn't work. Serious movies adapted from tongue in cheek screenplays are often a complete misfire. But this proves that even a mediocre action movie can be made into quite an enjoyable remake. I can't blame people for not giving it a chance. But maybe you should.

Rank - 3.5/5

Winters Tale

Ah yes, there's always one. That one movie in a year that's so bad it has me cracking up in my seat. Sadly, I was all alone in this theatre. But that just let me laugh harder. And yes, I know this is a book. Again, what a shock, I never read it. So I'm going just off of what I saw on the screen. And what I saw was complete hilarity.

What exactly is this movie about? Well, it's EXACTLY what it looks like. It's about a man named Peter Lake, an American street raised man who mysteriously has developed a Scottish accent, who falls in love with a dying woman who for some reason can't have her heart rate raised because it will kill her, even though they establish that she has cancer. Let's just say this leads to some obvious stupidity from our main character...

Our love interest has to keep her body temperature down, or she becomes apparently so warm that she melts the snow she stands in into puddles. Because....sense. And drama. Sense and drama. Then, as if by some form of "miracle", as the movie puts it, Peter Lake lives from the start of the film in 1886, all the way to 2014. No, I'm not joking. It's only described as a miracle. Did I ruin it? Well you weren't going to get any better of an explanation from the movie. Meanwhile, this is all happening as angels fight demons (really? THATS what the conflict is in this movie?) to prevent a miracle from happening, because that would bring people closer to God. That is actually the story. God is bowing his head in shame. And it features Lucifer being hilariously played by Will Smith in one of the funniest miscasts I can remember.

This movie is just packed with gaping plot holes. For example, how is it that you'd find a missing person in 1886 in NYC with no knowledge of where he was? How about you take a bunch of crystals and throw them on a windowsill? When you do that, the moon light will hit them and project a perfect image of Grand Central Station on your desk. Obviously. What happens when your mysterious horse which is for some reason apparently a dog (never shown), can fly away from evil? Well all it needs to do is glide to safety. Because of course, Satan, the leader of all things evil, won't let chaos leave New York City. Again, I'm not joking. That's a legitimate plot point. I guess Will Smith just can't be that evil. Here's another great one - did you know that when a cancer woman meets a man with a gun, her gut reaction after seeing she won't be harmed is to offer him tea? How about that the woman who needs to keep her heart rate down loves to play piano very violently, wishes to dance, and asks to have sex for the first time. Right, because these are GREAT ideas to keep yourself alive when a raised heart rate can kill you. Sense is such a beautiful thing.

This film resolves itself entirely on the logic of a 4 year old playing with dolls with her friends, if they played games about cancer patients dying. There is no logic in a single part of this movie. And that's what makes it hilarious. Watching Russel Crowe's mouth turn demonic for absolutely no reason had me burst out laughing. Watching Colin Farrell as an infant somehow survive a toy boat ride into New York harbor into cliche lightning flashes had me rolling in my seat. Watching an explosion that blows smoke through every chimney of a MANSION and yet leave our "heroes" completely unharmed at the furnace itself had me gasping for breath. And the hilariously poor final act of the film, taking place modern day SOMEHOW, had me ready to recommend this film to friends. This film is just great. I'll reflect the actual quality of the film in my rank. But really, I say watch this with your friends, get really drunk, and let yourself have a great time.

Rank - 0.5/5

About Last Night

A boy falls in love with a girl and shenanigans ensue? Happy Valentines Day everyone.

I generally hate Valentines Day weekend. And it's not because I'm single, it's not because I'm bitter. Frankly, I love going out on a date, or if I don't have one, spending it with my buddies. No, I hate Valentines Day because of the awful movies. Why are we looking at such bad romances? There's such a thing as a great romance. Why can't we see those? Are audiences really thought so stupid as to not see the gaping problems and hilariously bad lines written in these horrible romances?

So when Valentines Day came around and I sat in the theatre with a rom-com loving lady friend of mine, I was prepared. This movie was gonna SUCK. And seeing as it was one of two awful looking remakes, I can't say I had any real expectations.

Plain and simple, I enjoyed it for what it was. It wasn't trying to be anything more than a passing story, like listening to a buddy rant about his life for a little bit. It had a good amount of moments that made me laugh pretty hard, and it even managed to make me laugh at Kevin Hart a few times (I usually find him horrendously unfunny). The story was sweet enough and broken up with just enough humor to keep it from being boring, realistic enough that it was simple to identify with but different enough to let us feel intrigued, predictable enough to give the ladies what they want in a cheesy romance but different enough to keep the guys entertained. It had a great blend of raunchy and sweet humor for everyone in the audience to find something they liked too.

But then again, to me, this is just another one of those generic rom coms remade for a quick buck around the season, and obviously it shows. Granted, it's not like there was really anything else to see this weekend, what between Winters Bone and the remake of Endless Love showing no humor for those wanting to have a good time. So this movie knew it didn't need to be anything special. And it's not. Maybe that's its charm. It really is nothing special, nothing to remember, but a passable entry into the generic Valentines Day silly movies. It's worth a watch.

Rank - 3/5

That Awkward Moment

I love Miles Teller. I love Michael B Jordan. I hate Zac Efron. Two out of three ain't bad though. And I actually liked the idea of this movie, a sort of reverse chick flick. Instead of girls looking for the perfect man and supporting each other the way we always see in these movies, this is about a group of buddies supporting each other as they chase their respective women and try to stay single at the same time.

But there lies the problem. Sure, it's a cute idea. But it doesn't take risks at all. It lets its basic drama tell the story, with maybe the occasional punch line or joke carrying it, but not nearly enough for me to think of this as a romantic comedy. It's almost just a buddy romance film that doesn't work on that level. Its jokes are tired, and the only saving comedic grace is Teller's ability to be himself. But that's about it. It's not funny. And the sad part is I like this cast. I wish it worked.

The story goes off into 3 separate subplots. One follows a generic romance story between Efron and a lady friend he meets at the beginning of the film. You can guess where it's all gonna go. Meanwhile, Jordan chases his ex wife, who he can't seem to get over, in a break-up movie-esque story. Finally, in the "true love in old friendship" story, Teller finds himself in a relationship with a long time friend of the group. Of course all three are unwilling to talk to each other about their relationships.  Of course they all have a falling out. You can guess where this all goes and what happens. Like, every little thing.

So all of this raises questions...who is this for? Is this movie for the guys night out? Zac Efron isn't exactly the star to market to bro's looking for a fun movie. Not to mention it's a romance film. So is it for the ladies? Then why have marketed guy humor? Is it really going to appeal to them there? And sure, Efron is petty spot on for the lady factor. But with so much guy humor surrounding the story, is it really for the girls to have a girls night out? I dunno. It tries, but this movie simply doesn't succeed on any level.

Rank - 1.5/5

The LEGO Movie

When I first heard there was a LEGO movie in production, I thought, meh. Then I heard Phil Lord and Christopher Miller were working on it. AND I FREAKED OUT LIKE A FAN GIRL.

I've talked about that pair a bunch of times in my posts. Basically, these two guys just kinda popped up on the scene with a huge hit, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs. Not only was it a brilliant comedy, but a stellar parody of disaster films, while perfectly capturing the magic of the book. Then, they made 21 Jump Street. It was a great parody of 80s culture, current high school culture, and stereotypes around each character type. Simply put, these guys are geniuses. And they keep proving that again and again.

The LEGO movie is a masterpiece. It's a brilliant blend of comedy and sentimentality for anyone who grew up loving the toys. It tells a brilliantly cliche story, one that we've all heard a million times, but with enough silly twists and turns to believe that a child thought of this story. We see stunning animation, brilliantly working as a stop motion look alike while also showing the necessity to computer generate the images. Characters move in hilarious ways, both highlighting the limitations of LEGO characters and yet showing an amazing amount of versatility as well.

But of course it's not just the looks that make this movie brilliant. The voice cast is nothing short of phenomenal. Morgan Freeman is at his funniest, and yet his most recognizably wise. Will Ferrel plays the wonderfully quirky villain, a character with amazing humor and design, it's impossible to not like this guy. Liam Neeson plays a great parody of the Mayor of Halloween town, a good cop/bad cop mashup. Will Arnett plays a HILARIOUS LEGO Batman, making fun of the Christian Bale Batman, even referencing a few lines from the Dark Knight series. But it's amazing that such an iconic character still successfully works in the background, allowing our hilarious lead character, voiced by Chris Pratt, shine as the focus of the story, along with Morgan Freeman's and Elizabeth Bank's characters.

The LEGO Movie had me feel every feeling. Laughter at the great sense of humor, happiness to see such successful portrayals of great characters, sentimentality for the toys themselves, and even sadness as I missed the time spent with my own father building (Granted, he was a bit like the villain's true persona...). It's going to be a classic for me, and I'm so excited to see where Lord and Miller bring their talents next. They now have one heck of a fan supporting them

Rank - 5/5

Labor Day

So we're spitting out a romance movie...NOT on Valentines day...oh...oh no, that can't be good.

Labor Day is apparently based on a book (yeah, big shock, I haven't read it. I feel so uneducated...ya know what? Quick plug. Go read "The Disaster Artist" by Greg Sestero. GREAT read), one that has a bit of a sappy story at its core. It's about a lonely woman falling in love with a man hiding from the police in her house. But the focus of the story isn't really the couple. No, it focuses far more around Winslet's son as he copes with this man who he genuinely likes also being an obvious red flag in his life.

I have to admit, I didn't hate this movie. That's right, this sappy crap actually kept me interested. But then again, it's probably Josh Brolin and Kate Winslet. Brolin plays an understanding, loving, but very very firm convict on the run. He truly doesn't want to hurt anyone, but he knows to protect himself he needs to put his morals on the line. He also shows a fear of being misunderstood, of being perceived as anything but a good man. Winslet plays a lonely single mom, refusing to leave her house except for the occasional grocery shopping. She's terrified of anything outside her house and only shows affection for her son, until this man comes into her life. It works shockingly well. Sure, the dialogue is a bit silly. But then again, it's not exactly the WORST thing I've seen. And these actors are both so talented in their roles, it's impossible to not be sucked in a bit to the charisma both of these actors have.

This film was directed by Jason Reitman, notable for his work on Young Adult, Up in the Air, and Juno. His style very clearly shines through, and I would argue it works rather well considering the sappiness. Sure, there are ridiculous scenes of baseball playing (completely exposed outside, I'll add...good hiding place), pie baking (way to keep up the badass convict look), and a pretty unintentionally silly ending. But for what it was, it worked well enough to keep me satisfied.

So is it brilliant? No. Is it good? Not really. But you know what? I didn't hate it. I guess that's more than I can say for the rest of my January so far...

Rank - 2/5

I, Frankenstein

Frankenstein. A classic story of angels and gargoyles killing each other because...because. Right? Is that right? I don't think that's right.

This movie is a marvel. I can't speak to the comic book, but from what I saw, I just watched a complete misfire of an already incredibly flawed idea. It's literally about Frankenstein fighting demons from hell. Because...Underworld...?

Aaron Eckhart gives an admittedly decent performance of an unbelievably terrible role as Adam Frankenstein (yes, Adam), the Frankenstein monster now living in the present. He's attacked by demons for whatever dumb reason about him being super powered and not having a soul, and is saved by gargoyles. Who are apparently servants of God fighting to stop the demons, even though they sometimes turn on each other? I don't know. I just don't know. Meanwhile, Bill Nighy is doing something for some reason to stop him for some reason, something to do with an army of Frankensteins? Something about not needing God to make life? Oh Bill Nighy. You're so much better than this movie. In every way.

I'm sorry I can't explain this story better. It's just completely incomprehensible. Not only is it incomprehensible, but I could barely keep my eyes open. Its action is slow, it takes forever to move forward with its story, and character development simply never happens. Why is Frankenstein even doing this? No reasons. Nothing. Just because he can. Why are angels and demons even fighting on Earth right now? Again, no reason. Is it possible for me to say this film makes even less sense than Underworld? Yikes...

And technically speaking, it works in places, and doesn't in others. Just like Underworld. Sure, it has impressive looking monsters, but then the fight sequences are shaky cam and generic. Then we see other special effects that leave a whole heck of a lot to be desired later, only more jarring from the decent effects in other places. It's just so, so bad. I kid not, this may be one of the most unpleasant experiences I've ever had in a theatre. I should have walked out.

This year sucks. This year is starting out pretty damn terribly. Maybe we should just stop watching...

Rank - 0.5/5

The Legend of Hercules

Did you know this was even gonna be a movie?! I hadn't even heard of it! I just saw it on my theaters listings and figured, well, I gotta see movies anyhow. So lets see this probable travesty.

Oh hey. It's awful. Who woulda guessed.

This movie tells the story of average-strengthed man who happens to be the son of a god and a queen. Wait, what? Isn't Hercules supposed to be above-average strength? Why isn't he? Is he actually only average strength? Then where's the story?! What's the point of even telling this?! Oh wait, he does have strength when the plot conveniently gives it to him. Yeah. That's believable.

Well at least a movie as big of a story as Hercules will have an amazing display of AWESOME CGI right?! No. Not at all. Try some of the worst special effects I've ever seen. That's not an exaggeration. If it's not CGI, it's shaky cam and badly cut. If it's a huge action scene, get ready for hilarious unbelievability. If it's CGI, get ready to look at a bad interns 3 minutes of fame. If it's a fight scene, get ready for hilarious choreography or sequences that make Hercules look kind of badass while also looking hilariously unbelievable. It doesn't work. Nothing works. Literally nothing works.

In fact this movie is so bad, I'm going to go ahead and ruin the ending for you. Know how Hercules gets his armies into the city? By swinging around a lightning charged sword. I'm not joking. It's like a hilarious lightning whip. It looks like a 5 year old took a blue crayon and drew it on over the film. Most hilariously, HOW IS THIS HERCULES?! Where's the super strength? If there's a time to conveniently give it to him, pretty sure this would be it!

Oh, then there's a character that dies. Does she really die? Nope. She doesn't. Even though she's in the arms of another character, bleeding out, two seconds later, we see her alive. Completely fine. Are you joking? Seriously? THIS is the best you can do?

This is horrendous. This is everything about bad movies I hate. It's overacted, poorly shot, badly edited, has horrendous special effects, no sense of believability or charm. It's boring, it's stupid, it's...well, it's The Legend of Hercules.

Rank - 0.5/5

Paranormal Activity: The Marked Ones

All hail the mighty Hasbro and you're satanic Simon. We are but your humble servants. Bestow unto us your bidding, so we may be you're humble servants.

Seriously. Simon. That's what you're gonna use as our makeshift ouija? Talk about bottom of the barrel.

Paranormal Activity is a significant, if not necessarily terrifying, entry to the horror genre. It had its jumps and its moments, even though for me it did nothing. The franchise has gone farther and farther downhill with each passing sequel. Now we've broken into the horrible branch of spinoffs. There's only one place for this all to go...down.

This movie lacks a lot. First of all it lacks believable characters. Who the hell are these people? Why do I have to care about them? Who are they to me? Why is he recording everything with a video camera? Sure, it's a question asked about everything. But Dane DeHaan's performance in Chronicle showed us that even something as simple as a perceived necessity to be on camera can work as a motivation. Why are they doing it here? How long does it really take to test a graduation present?

The next thing it lacks - scares. Why are we solely resorting to jump scares? Instead of delving into the generic sub culture of inner-city latino communities, why not delve farther into their superstitions, their fears and beliefs, what they see this obvious demon as? What does the elder believe is the best solution? Where is the potential explanation? All that remains is a generic possession story. That doesn't do anything for me to believe that we should see a budding new franchise spin-off.

But most of all, the biggest thing that bugged me were these stupid plot points. Like that stupid freakin Simon. I'm not joking. In the movie, they ask the hasbro game questions, resulting in a green light up for "yes" or a red light for "no". They spend  a large chunk of time asking it questions. But every time it responds, they're shocked. Really? You watch it for HOURS as it lights up, and every time it shocks you? Then there was that stupid door. I don't wanna give away the ending, but suffice it to say it's pretty unintentionally hilarious. The ending in particular for me ranks up there with The Devil Inside. It's awful. Just awful.

I always feel hopeless towards the horror genre. I constantly keep my fingers crossed, hoping that soon we'll see another horror movie that scares me the way Alien or The Exorcist did, or at least with the brilliance of Cabin in the Woods' scares with humor. I hoped maybe the Paranormal Activity franchise could be a push for that. But sadly, it looks like its doomed to boredom.

Rank - 1/5

Lone Survivor

The first thing I heard about this movie was that it was the most amazing war film since Saving Private Ryan. That's a heck of a thing to say. Especially when I really did love The Hurt Locker. (Yeah, I know it's unrealistic. But I still liked it.) But then again, the story behind this film is actually pretty amazing. So who knows, maybe it'd be great!

Well it certainly started on the wrong foot. One of these soldiers isn't really given a back story. No pending weddings, no kids at home...well gee. I wonder which one is living. It's a common problem. It's an obvious result. But then again, the movie is called Lone Survivor. So I guess that's about all I could expect.

As a film, it REALLY works. It keeps a suspense level rather high through different tones. I loved how the film started softly, the operation began smoothly and without much conflict, but still managed to keep a nice suspense. What fascinated me about it was it's ability to do so despite its title. I wasn't simply waiting for everything to go wrong. I was just as invested in the mission as I felt we were supposed to be. Then as the film moved into its action packed second half, it kept up an uncompromising pace. One that physically exhausted me without letting me feel bored, constantly feeling the severity of the situation and fear for lives. All while managing to make these guys look more badass than any action hero I've seen ever. Lets get real here, look at how many guys they take out compared to how many times their shot.

The film pushes through its action packed second act into a soft toned third act, that then becomes just as tense as you would expect it to be. Put simply, the film is a total success despite it's shaky beginning. I loved every performance, even from Taylor Kitsch, the actor who excited me the least. Mark Wahlberg gives a solid performance, channelling his understanding of bonding amongst soldiers and fear of leaving any one of them behind.

This film is shockingly soft spoken. Why shockingly? It was directed by the dude who gave us Hancock and Battleship. Where did this come from? Can we see more of this? Seriously.

Rank - 4.5/5

August: Osage County

Wanna hear something crazy? Ya know how I never read books of movies? Well this is one I actually read!!! Not only that, I saw the play twice in NYC! So I actually know this story! That's crazy, innit?

August: Osage County tells the story of a dysfunctional family, reunited for the death of their father. Each daughter has a story. One of them is recently divorced. Another is facing another marriage, apparently one of many. The third of which is waiting to announce that she's secretly in love with and eloping with her first cousin. The two sisters of our main character also come, each with their own family secrets and problems to bring to the table. Realistically, I can't defend this story as anything special. In fact, I could kindof see it working as a soap. But its character development and amazing script is pretty amazing. So I had high expectations for this.

But I have to admit, while Meryl Streep, Cumberbatch, McGreggor, Breslin, Cooper, and the rest of the cast are absolutely mesmerizing, this just didn't work as a movie for me. The play works by showing the closeness of the family physically despite a complete emotional disconnect. It shifts between each characters personal problems while still clearly seeing character interaction in other places. This didn't translate to film very well, mostly because the transitions were generally speaking unnoticed. Granted, there's no real way that I can think of to adjust for this. But it just didn't do anything for me.

So I guess the best thing to say about August: Osage County is that the performances are all dynamite. But then again, even this works a bit to a fault. It's an exhausting movie. And that's definitely a good dynamic for a film this dark to have. But it almost becomes tiring. It's like watching a wrestling match, but instead of wrestling, it's a bunch of actors using a script that each of them is trying to get an Oscar for. That's not the actors fault. It's pretty much entirely the script's. And it works as a heck of a lot of obvious Oscar-worthy performances.

Is there strong qualities tot his film? Absolutely. But it doesn't carry itself quite as well as other films adapted from plays do. On my mind currently is Carnage, which was definitely the more successful movie to me.

Rank - 2.5/5

Walking With Dinosaurs

Wait a minute. Stop everything. Karl Urban?! YOU have a role in this?!?! Dude...what were you thinking!!!! You're so much better than this movie!!!!

And is that John Leguizamo as a bird? Oh god...this is gonna be a long movie...

And that's all there is to say about this movie. It's Avatar, but for kids. Pedestrian, boring, unimpressive story telling, with gorgeous animation. But unlike Avatar, even the world seems to hate this movie. There's really not much to take away from this movie. It's shot as a pseudo documentary, letting the dinosaurs move naturally as possible, while allowing voice actors to give personalities to each of the dinosaurs. It doesn't work at all. To give these characters such off the cuff lines to such a boring story doesn't at all let us connect with them, and forcing a story doesn't make the dinosaurs interesting at all. Especially when narrated, inconsistently, by Leguizamo. It jumps between past, present, and future tense, before jumping back to a story and to strange documentary explanation, I don't know.

I wish I could talk to the filmmakers. I'd tell them to check out Dragons: A Fantasy Made Real. Pardon my quick tangent, but that's one of my favorite fake documentaries ever and I highly recommend it. It tells the story of a scientist who finds the first near-intact dragon body, and studies it to learn how dragons flew, breathed fire, and what happened to them. It at no point has fake characters in the dragons, and yet it manages to let me connect with them, and feel genuinely happy and sad for them as appropriate. This, on the other hand, forces a story that just does not work. And it only works less when only 3 dinosaurs have voices. Why can't the parents talk?! Are child dinosaurs inherently smarter? Is it evolutionary? I don't know...but it pissed me off that's for sure.

Maybe this movie would be good for kids, right? I dunno...I saw it Christmas weekend and until 15 minutes in, I was the only person in the theatre. Then a family walked in. They promptly walked out maybe 30 minutes in. A FAMILY walked out. That's bad. This movie is bad. Don't waste your time.

Rank - 1/5

The Wolf of Wall Street

The Wolf of Wall Street is a pretty hilarious film to have a conversation about. Either you're talking to people who love film in general who talk highly about this film's script, performances, and exploration of a darker side of America's 1%...or you talk to people who see it as a pseudo Michael Bay rip off, with more sex and boobs than Piranha 3D. It's a fascinating movie, that's for sure.

Leonardo DiCaprio leads the film as Jordan Belfort, a rags-to-riches-gone-wrong salesman who makes his living as an obvious con artist in the stock market. The story, based on the memoir by the real life Jordan Belfort, explores the lives of those jaded by extreme riches, with lives filled with drug overdoses, infidelity, and a general lack of responsibility. The film, for me, was absolutely fascinating. It portrayed a lifestyle I have never even considered. Sure, we imagine infidelity amongst all social levels, and we think the worst of the richest in America right now. But not with this awkward, bittersweet, almost frightening interpretation. It makes you laugh, both out of genuine hilarity and positively awkward moments. The true dangers of drug usage ring as both hilarious AND truth, an unusual balance.

Everyone in this movie is just amazing. Obviously DiCaprio absolutely owns this film as the charismatic, powerfully passionate lead. He makes us laugh, he pisses us off, and plays a terrifyingly believable unbelievable asshole. Jonah Hill takes a close second in my mind, both being funny and real, genuinely ignorant but passionate in luck. He has a great character change, one of pure ignorance to a new type of ignorance, a happy and blissful one. Even my least favorite actor, Matthew MaConaughey, manages to take his horrendously unlikable personality and make it enjoyable.

It has to be said though. There is one, big, BIG thing that pissed me off about this movie. And maybe I'd forgive it in any other film. But this is a Scorsese picture. I'll hold it to that level. What pissed me off? I counted at least 7 times that we saw shots from behind a talking character, with clearly incorrect mouth movement. Clearly incorrect. Not forgivably correct. That really pisses me off. For a movie with such a high concept, and with such a strong set of performances, this blatant poor editing upset me.

But then again, that doesn't detract too much from this films interest and passion. It works. And it works freakin well.

Rank - 4.5/5

The Secret Life of Walter Mitty

I think Walter Mitty was the film I was most conflicted about this holiday season. It looked enjoyable, but it looked like more style than substance. Reviews came in, and that's exactly what it looked like it was...style over substance. Critics complained of lack of an interesting story, but beautiful imagery that worked to make it not a total waste of time. Anyone who knows me knows that this is what I hate about certain blockbusters. All style, no substance? No thanks. I want a compelling story, one that will keep me invested for the 2 hours I just payed 10 bucks to see.

But I have to say, I disagree with the critics on this. What they saw as a contrived, silly waste of beautiful imagery, I saw as a nice story, one that dealt with my own fears and limitations, one that made me feel so much more worth the time of others and so whole. It deals with perceived friendships, adventure, living life without the intention of fulfillment, and finding a real sense of happiness that only confidence can have. As someone who somewhat recently found himself fighting to regain his confidence after an abusive relationship (in fact, the anniversary of the breakup being very close to the release of this movie), and dealing with my own fears of success in my field, this movie struck a chord with me.

Maybe it's just a personal occurrence. Maybe I'm giving this movie too much credit. But I loved the sense of beauty it maintained. I really liked the places it brought me, places that became more organic at the realization that he was there. It was so similar to so many places I had been. Suddenly, the foreign countries he never could have made it to were there, under his feet. It's not unlike the accomplishments we go through every day, almost forgetting that at one point this was a goal we wanted to achieve.

Walter Mitty is in charge of taking care of the negatives that come through to the Time Magazine headquarters. When the final printed issue of Time is upon them, he finds that the picture is somehow missing, and sets off to track down the photographer. While doing so, he finds himself unintentionally becoming a more whole and more interesting person. I came to the same realization recently, thinking myself to be rather boring as a person. Yet just as he in his job to hunt down a photographer became his adventure through Europe and Asia, I found myself trying to become a more confident performer, and singing in front of my child hood hero. Little stories like this, the movie succeeds in making me as an audience member truly sympathize with Walter.

Is it a success? Yes. Is it a masterpiece? Nah, I can't call it that. But it's just one of those movies I guess, one that I will defend for myself, and enjoy for myself.

Rank - 4/5

Grudge Match

Okay. Suit up. Because I'm not gonna sugarcoat it. This movie sucks.

First of all, the characters. There are two types of boxing movies. Either you have the underdog story, or you have two flawed characters and let your audience cheer for one or the other. So what am I looking at here? Well, either I have closeted and annoying Stallone, who has no likable trait whatsoever except perhaps the pity factor which simply is NOT enough to carry a boxing hero, or I have Stallone, a cocky unlovable jerk with no sense of being human whatsoever. We're talking about a man who ditches his grandson to have sex with a woman a third his age in the back seat of his car. I'm sorry...who should I cheer for? Oh I get it, the film is actually supposed to be about the son, right?...except that the son is just as unlikable. I mean, who leaves their kid with the father that left him for the cliche reasoning.

Second of all, what is this movie? Is it a boxing movie? Weird..because there's virtually no boxing. Except for the virtual boxing, and then NOTHING till the end. Is it supposed to be a buddy flick? Because they're not buddies. They're rivals. And the movie emphasizes that every chance it gets. Is it a redemption story? Because when finally given redemption opportunities, both of them choose the immature route and become more unlikable. Is it supposed to be an emotional rebirth of two broken men? BECAUSE IT'S ADVERTISED AS A FREAKIN' BOXING MOVIE.

What is Kevin Hart doing here? Was the paycheck really worth it? I'm pretty sure he was in the film for maybe 10 minutes tops? He pops up for the occasional plot point, then disappears. He has maybe one joke that made the audience laugh. That's it. Every other line is a truth. He stands in Stallone's kitchen and declares, "it's not worth it, man I am looking at your house!!" That's not funny...that's just true. He DOES need the money to renovate his house. Other than that, we see the forced "quirky" funny from his reactions on and off the telephone. But Kevin Hart isn't quirky. He's funny when he's loud. And this didn't give him nearly enough opportunity to be loud. It's just him being a complete waste of the space he uses.

And lastly, the biggest problem I had, the hilariously obvious problem that I had since the first moment this film was advertised...how the HELL is Sylvester Stallone vs Robert DeNiro remotely a fight?!?! That's not a fight. That's like the SUPER BOWL we just watched. Yeah, maybe DeNiro can land one punch. But this is a slaughter. This film had no believability in a script desperately trying to demonstrate reality. Merry freakin Christmas.

Rank - 0.5/5

Her

There is only one word I can effectively and confidently use to describe "Her". Creepy. Incredibly creepy. I'm sure everyone knows the plot of this, but it tells the not-so-farfetched story of a man falling in love with his new home operating system. It's a creepy concept. One that made plenty of people uncomfortable.

But the concept for the film isn't that creepy to me. I mean, is it really far fetched to picture a human falling in love with an artificial intelligence? I'm sure it's already happened. Sure, it's unsettling. But it's a movie. I can buy that. No, what makes this movie creepy is everything else. Our main characters job is writing personalized greeting cards from one client to another...yikes. That's unsettling. Or how about the complete lack of a reaction from Chris Pratt's character, when his coworker outright admits to be dating his CPU, simply suggesting they go on a double date. How about the unsettling image of one couple on a double date with another couple, where the woman in the relationship is an ear piece in everyones ears. How about a young child talking to a pocket sized device, never questioning the relationship her uncle(?) has with it? It's strange, it's weird, it made me and my friend feel rather antsy.

But this all culminates into a film that is shockingly organic, believable, and perhaps understandable. Phoenix's character is depressed from the recent divorce from his wife. Along comes a CPU that is completely engrossed in his life, there for him whenever he needs her, even if it's just for conversation. Is it really so far fetched to fall in love with his computer? I've gone through some breakups that had me fall for a girl who, later, I look back upon and think "what the HELL was I thinking...?" And that's what this movie succeeds at - taking an initially outlandish idea, and making it shockingly believable.

And this doesn't just stand for the human characters. Our CPU, played by Scarlett Johansson, starts out initially perfect for our character. But just as any other significant other, the truths start to shine through, and so does her immaturity. Or perhaps it isn't immaturity. Perhaps it's an overwhelming lack of understanding, but desire to understand, a world she simply cannot physically be apart of of. Doesn't this movie raise some amazing questions?

Not to mention the film really manages to make you laugh. Whether it's through the fun conversations held between our protagonists that so easily remind me of nostalgia in my past relationships, or the funny video game character that's just too blunt to not laugh at while Phoenix plays, there's just a lot to enjoy, admire, and think about in this film. It's beautiful really, one to really define a year in movies.

Rank - 5/5

Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues

I remember the first time I caught the teaser for this, and I was pumped. Was this a movie we needed? No. Was I ready for the forced crap that I was expecting that at least included a bit more of the greatest news team ever? Hell yeah. It doesn't matter if we were just getting the same crap again. I just wanted to hear some more loud noises.

But this wasn't the same. No, it was a pleasant update to the first film, with the same sense of humor in new characters. Sure, the characters are the same for the most part. But they've also grown, noticably changed, while maintaining their charm and hilarity from the first. It was really strongly written, especially with Paul Rudd's character. It kept me laughing, it kept the audience around me engaged, and it managed to keep me just as satisfied as I was with the first.

The first film of course focused on a woman entering a male dominated work place. In this sequel, Veronica has actually taken the higher job, leaving Burgundy to struggle for a career at all. Eventually he's offered the night shift on the first ever 24 hour news cycle. From here, he hilariously shapes the news programming to be what we know today - far less about necessary news, and more about car chases and patriotism. It's a great parody/exploration of our interpretation of what news is. We also see equally hilarious and awkward work from Steve Carrell, playing my personal favorite character, Brick Tamland, as he finds love for the first time in the beautifully awkward Kristin Wiig. It might be one of my new favorite roles I've seen her in.

It must be said, though, that I had one major problem with Anchorman 2. I found myself laughing at every joke, rolling my eyes at the dumb moments only to chuckle to myself about them later. It was an absolute success as a comedy. But then, walking out with my friends, I wanted to quote one particularly funny line...and I couldn't remember it. I tried to think of another one. But none of us could. While all of us could say we enjoyed and laughed at the film, there wasn't a single quotable line. This is incredibly unfortunate, with the first Anchorman being one of the most quotable films I can think of. Why is this notable? Because apparently I'm not the only one who thinks so. Tons of critics, friends, and family have told me that they can't remember a good line from the film despite enjoying it.

But this isn't a deterrent. This is a great comedy. It had ridiculous, hilarious moments, and great stupid jokes mixed with the equally smart ones. This is a great film to check out with your friends, and even though it lost the quotability of the first, I'd lie if I didn't rank this film very highly.

Rank - 4/5

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

....Ugh...

This is a movie I liked. I did. I liked it while I was watching it. Then it ended. And I realized just how much I didn't enjoy it.

First of all, it took FOREVER. We don't need this. Really, we don't. I get the idea of splitting up a book for films. But if you can take the three Lord of the Rings books and make them into three amazing movies, you certainly don't need three movies to make this one book work.

Second of all, guess what, I can't possibly ruin this movie. Why is this? Because it ends on the single dumbest cliffhanger I could possibly imagine. This movie was 20 minutes shy of 3 hours. You mean to tell me you couldn't just save us the first 20 minutes of the next film and end the damn action scene we all saw coming? Why have this cliff hanger? It's not like LOTR, where the endings made sense, where it was like closing a book and waiting to finish another day. No, this is absurdly bad. This is like a bad ending to a Pokemon episode. Only it somehow managed to give me no desire to see the rest.

Next, I don't know, did the barrel escape scene happen in the book? Because that was stupid. How about the romance between that dwarf and the elf? Did that happen? Because that was stupid. Did all of them climb the mountain, then clearly climb down, and then magically reappear as soon as everything was fine and dandy in the book? Because that was stupid. I can't defend the story, I don't know it. But what I can say is that many of these moments simply did not translate to film well at all. They were ridiculous, outlandish (even for freakin Middle Earth), made no sense, and held nothing to the plot. Why was all of this happening? What did it mean, why did we need to watch it?

And I'm sorry. Smaug. Was. Stupid. He wasn't that scary. He spoke like a lame cartoon. Even Benedict Cumberbatch couldn't save this one. I hated watching his lips move in hilarious conversation with our characters. Maybe it wasn't touched on in the book. But why not just have him communicate like so many other dragons did in film, telepathically? I just could not look at this dragon and feel any sense of fear. I just wanted to laugh. And that can't be a good emotion for that context.

I really liked the first Hobbit. I didn't think it weighed down the story too much. I liked the sense of adventure, and I thought it was pretty to watch. But this took away all credibility in the decision to split it into 3 movies. Come on, Peter Jackson. I know you didn't want to make this, but you can do better.

Rank - 1/5

12 Years A Slave

It's such a terrible thing to say/think about. And I've said it before, this year even. But unfortunately, I'll defend it. Movies about racial oppression are sadly ineffective for me anymore. And that's not the issue's fault. No, I can read a book and find myself very angry, upset, distraught, and disgusted just by a few historical facts in a history book. Movies of the subject matter tend to water down the truth, to make the movie saddening but far too watered down to be anger inducing. Earlier this year, I was very happy by the amazing job done in 42, with moments that made me feel as close to the fear and anger that I will possibly ever feel.

This movie brings it to a whole new level. This film puts a brutal story on screen, one that no one wants to know, that we all hide from, to water down the truth of what slavery would really have been like. This film shows us a characters back being torn open by the whip turned against her. It shows us a master who sees his slaves as more than property, but who must sell our main character to protect him from the vengeful farm hands. We see a man ripped away unjustly from his family solely because of his skin color. We see a complete failure of justice solely because of white mans word over his. It's horrifying. It's depressing. And cinematically, it's beautiful.

Chiwetel Ejiofor is an absolutely mesmerizing main character. He plays Solomon Northup, a free black man in the north who is sold into slavery by two men who claim to be hiring him as a musician. He spends, obviously, 12 years being passed between 3 slave owners, unable to prove or fight for his freedom despite being a free man. He connects with us, and maintains a perfect balance of hopefulness with a depressing amount of hopelessness. One scene in particular was hard to watch, one where he yelled at another slave to let her now separated children go. We also watch as his twisted slave owner, played by a phenomenally disturbing Michael Fassbender, orders him to whip his fellow slave and rip open her back. We see Benedict Cumberbatch, a "reasonable man" (but still a slaveowner, so take that description with a grain of salt), protect the body of our main character while his sadistic and immature farm hand, played by Paul Dano.

This really is a film like no other. It pulls tears from your eyes out of fear, despair, and hopelessness. Even though the ending is given, the frustration and darkness of the situation leads to a certain despair in my seat, an emotion I never felt so powerfully before. To call this film a success would be an understatement. No, there's only one way I can describe this film - The best film of 2014.

Rank - 5/5

Saving Mr. Banks

I was conflicted heading into this one. I loved the idea for its potential to be funny and touching, but I hated the idea that John Lee Hancock was directing it. I adore Tom Hanks and Emma Thompson, and Paul Giamatti looked like he was going to be really funny, but it was being written by a woman who's only other major credit that I could find was the upcoming 50 Shades of Gray. I was terrified that this truly beautiful story, one that doesn't necessarily end happily, was going to be sappy, over written, and possibly Disneyfied itself.

It was almost anything but. Saving Mr. Banks is a strongly written, beautifully performed film. Everything about it rang honest, heartfelt, and dedicated. Tom Hanks plays Walt Disney, in his likable, funny, but perhaps a bit overbearing self. Emma Thompson plays an OCD, but passionate woman, desperate to see her book be made into a film that was exactly as she envisioned it, even if it wasn't what the rest of the world thought it to be. A fear that I'm sure every writer has giving their cherished stories to. What she didn't know was that this film was going to become one of the most important films of all time, and one of everyone's favorites.

The film maintains a perfect balance of hilarious, sweet, sad, likable, detestable, and unbelievable. It really makes every effort to put us in the shoes of the nervous Ms. Travers. Then again, the amazing performance delivered by Thompson makes it impossible not to feel the entire spectrum of emotions towards her, be it hatred, disgust, sadness, admiration, respect, understanding, and even a few laughs her way. But while she shines in her role, she is not at all the shining beacon of acting talent in this cast. And that's the best part. Everyone in this film beautifully compliments each other, refusing to let anyone outshine, but perfectly helping to glorify each other. Even Colin Farrell, an actor I never really felt strongly one way or the other, managed to bring a tear to my eye with a fabulous performance as a kindhearted, but very broken, father.

Saving Mr. Banks is a beautiful movie. One that I simply did not expect to love as much as I did, but certainly hoped the best for. This movie is one that the family can enjoy, but perhaps the movie hit me the hardest as a kid who spent a good amount of my life without my father. It pulled at my heart strings, it made me feel weak and strong. I only have one criticism - the ending left out some key points of Ms. Travers reaction that would have changed the context of the ending. But then again, it's a Christmas Disney movie starring Tom Hanks. I can forgive that.

Rank: 5/5