Solo: A Star Wars Story - Review

 

A fan would be forgiven if their excitement level for “Solo” isn’t as high as other Star Wars films. The behind the scenes turmoil, coupled with the confusing idea of doing an origin story for a nameless smuggler makes this film seem like a very odd thing for Lucasfilm to focus on. But now it’s out, the marketing, behind the scenes and weirdness has passed, and now all that remains is the film itself. Should you have a bad feeling about this?

Alden Ehrenreich (“Blue Jasmine,” “Hail, Caesar!”) manages to rise above any initial worries related to his casting. His Han is funny, sweet and impulsive. He adds a fast thinking layer to his version of the eponymous smuggler, and it manages to do Ford’s original take on the character justice.

Donald Glover (“Community,” “Atlanta”) is the star of the show, however. While most of his Lando scenes are action based, when he is given a moment to sit down and lay his suave charm on, he does so excellently. He’s a character you simply want to see more of, as he adds a warmth and glow to every scene he’s in, without a doubt cementing himself as the best part of the film.

Of course, Chewy is there too. His scenes with Han still feature their trademark excellent back and forth, but now that he’s given a true subplot of his own, it goes a long way towards establishing him as more than a walking carpet. Emilia Clark (“Game of Thrones,” “Terminator Genisys”) does just fine as Qi’ra, Han’s childhood friend. She layers on just enough charm and smiles to help survive a fairly underdeveloped character, as does Paul Bettany (“Avengers: Age of Ultron,” “Wimbledon”) as the crime lord Dryden Vos.

Woody Harrelson (“Now You See Me,” “White Men Can’t Jump”) manages to surprise as Tobias Beckett. There isn’t anything particularly new to his character, but he feels like Obi-Wan did to Luke. An older mentor who truly wants to impart some knowledge to this younger protégé. He does so with gruff and downtrodden mannerisms that manage to add enough to rise above a cookie-cutter mentor cliché.

While the cast is all well and good, it’s the story they inhabit that proves to be the films weakest element. While the idea of a western/heist film in the Star Wars universe sounds cool, what writers Jonathan and Lawrence Kasdan have done is delivered an almost aggressively average heist film plot. The banter is good, no doubt about it, but the beats of this story are so familiar that it makes it hard to get excited about each passing scene.

However, each passing scene does manage to hold weight due to the simple fun of seeing these characters meet and interact. The meeting between Chewy and Han is one of the film’s highlights, and teasing moment involving other characters and brief mentions do manage to get a chuckle.

Visually, it’s one of the strongest Star Wars films to date. While that could easily be chalked up to advancements in technology, its more than that. The film has such a devout reliance on practical effects that do wonders in fleshing out the world. When Han sits in a dive bar and gives a death glare to a shifty looking alien, it works so much better than with CGI, because its clear Alden was looking at the alien puppet/costume.

It also helps to avoid the typical disconnect during big action scenes between the actors and their surroundings. They’re bolstered even more by the excellent cinematography from Bradford Young (“Arrival,” “Selma”). The camera seems to float through scenes, delivering even the most routine angles with a new sense of vision thanks to excellent lighting and sets. This isn’t the pristine nature of previous films. This is a movie filled with wretched hives of scum and villainy. John Powell’s score also does wonders, taking Williams’s classic notes and infusing them with a touch all his own.

“Solo” is many things. It’s a fun romp through the Star Wars world with characters that are fun to watch. It's also a poorly paced and extremely routine heist film. It’s also constructed and shot so expertly that it’s a joy to watch. Make no mistake, this is a fun summer blockbuster, packed with adventure and twists. But it also could have been so much more. It is, as Qi’ra tells Han, “A little rough around the edges, but still good.” 3/5

Ready Player One - Review

 

Ernest Cline’s pop culture mecca that is the novel “Ready Player One” would seem impossible to adapt for most filmmakers. While most of it has made the transition to the screen, much has also been changed or altered with Cline still on board to help write the film alongside Zak Penn (“X-Men: The Last Stand,” “The Incredible Hulk”). And if any director can get the pop culture rights and pull off such a bizarrely over the top adventure, it would be Steven Spielberg (“E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial,” “Jaws”). How close does he get to the top score?

The biggest hurdle would immediately seem to be the digital world of the Oasis; the online virtual reality world that everyone lives, eats, parties, and works in. Visually, it’s absolutely stunning. Thanks to a mixture of particle effects, pixilation, and a purposefully cartoony sense of style, the visuals maintain a pleasing look throughout the film without dipping into the uncanny valley.

Characters have this kind of dayglo, chunky appearance to them. Everything looks, appropriately, like it would in a video game. The entire world just seems to be brimming with unique colors, effects, and small details put there to make it simply a joy to look at. Spielberg also makes sure to continue to shoot the film like a film even in its digital moments, maintaining a consistency in terms of cinematography and style that keeps things from feeling disjointed.

This is made even more impressive by some scenes that are the definition of bleeding edge. Blending real-life film-making and the digital world are nothing new, but some of the unique ways in which cinematographer Janusz Kamiński (“Saving Private Ryan,” “Lincoln”) and production designer Adam Stockhausen (“The Grande Budapest Hotel,” “Moonrise Kingdom”) do this are just jaw dropping. Keep an eye out for the first scenes in the Halliday Journals in particular.

Musically things are largely positive. Alan Silvestri (“Forrest Gump,” “Who Framed Roger Rabbit”) keeps things light with a score that mixes cues from famous 80’s movies like “Back to the Future” and electronic beats, while also putting the requisite popular songs in place for montages. However, some sequences in the first act lack music when it seems like they should have them. It’s possible it’s a stylistic choice, but it seems odd nonetheless.

The film’s biggest problem is its first act. Not that its entirely bad, but it overall feels far too rushed, trying to squeeze too many things into a short amount of time. Things do pick up, though, and the pacing evens out to a much more manageable degree. A handful of the film’s side characters also don’t see much use, but the time that they are on screen is amusing and well done.

Tye Sheridan’s (“Mud,” “The Stanford Prison Experiment”) performance in the film could also be compared to the film’s structure. He’s too fast talking initially but he eventually grows. Olivia Cooke (“Me and Earl and the Dying Girl,” “Thoroughbreds”) and Lena Waithe (“Master of None”) are the absolute standouts as Art3mis and Aech, respectively. Ben Mendelsohn’s (“Mississippi Grind,” “Rogue One”) villainous Nolan is a deliciously evil bad guy who fits all the perfectly over the top stereotypes without ever making them too clichéd.

Despite the film not featuring any central character development in the traditional sense, the cast manages to grow and become likable due to their interactions with each other. It keeps things from feeling stale, and manages to bring a lot of great lines and moments of humor to the table.

One of the best things about the film is actually one many were worried it would have trouble with. While there is the sheer joy that comes from seeing things like the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles fighting alongside Chucky and Master Chief, or Akira’s bike weaving in between the legs of the Jurassic Park T-Rex or King Kong, these items are never window dressings. Even in the simplest of moments, they serve as methods for the plot to progress, focusing on them for a short time before moving on.

It also manages to help tell the film’s wonderful emotional through line, and remind audiences of just how much these characters and action figures and games can bring people together as well as tear them apart. Yes, there are jokes and moments of humor based around pop culture, but often times whether or not these moments work boil down not to the references themselves, but to the characters.

It all manages to come together in such a wonderful mixture of heart, action, and humor that truly feels like something only Spielberg could have done. It takes a deft hand to balance it all, and he's done so excellently, leading to not only some moments of watery eyes, but moments of genuine cheering as well.

It is bizarre though that for a film with such a large scope and world to explore and visual detail, that the opening logos of the film and its end credits are so disappointingly bland. No, it doesn’t impact the film, but it’s a bizarre decision nonetheless.

 “Ready Player One” is packed with a rushed first act and a few underused side characters, as well as the woes of those dismayed by the marketing, but delivers a solid action spectacle film with engaging characters, devilish villains, and jaw dropping visuals that only Spielberg can bring to the table. Bursting at the seams with splendor, “Ready Player One” is a treat for almost every dimension. 3.5/5

A Wrinkle in Time (2018) - Review

 

Featuring a star-studded cast with the likes of Oprah Winfrey (“The Color Purple,” “The Butler”), Reese Witherspoon (“Election,” “Legally Blonde”), Chris Pine (“Star Trek (2009),” “Hell or High Water”), and Mindy Kaling (“The Mindy Project,” “The Office (2005)”), a Disney-sized budget and award-winning director Ava DuVernay (“Selma,” “13^th”), Madeleine L'Engle’s supposedly unfilmable classic novel comes to the big screen. How does this story of love and family wrapped in science and intellect fair?

Credit where credit is due, the film’s sweeping visuals are its most excellent part. From the clever interpretations of the space traveling technique known as “Tessering” to the flamboyant costumes of characters such as The Man With The Red Eyes or Miss Which, “Wrinkle” has visual gusto to spare.

Ramin Djawadi’s (“Pacific Rim,” “Iron Man”) excellently bizarre score helps to bolster these grandiose sights with even grander sounds. It is also worth noting that there are countless moments where the sheer earnestness of the cast can allow joy to take hold within the audience members. However, that joy almost completely leaves when the character’s open their mouths.

The simple fact is that this is a terrible script, filled with awkward and stilted dialogue and numerous plot holes. Scenes move awkwardly and the entire film feels uneven. One moment everyone seems to be taking their leisurely time and the next, it’s a race against the clock. These kinds of tonal shifts pop up repeatedly throughout the film, and they never cease to be jarring.

Storm Reid (“12 Years a Slave,” “Sleight”) is a fine and earnest young actress, but she lacks the skill to overcome such a stilted script. Her younger brother, played by Deric McCabe fairs far better, but the worst offender is Levi Miller (“Pan,” “Better Watch Out”) as Calvin. He’s so wooden and delivers his lines in such a boringly routine way that halfway through the film he becomes groan inducing.

It’s understandable for a film about dimension hoping, space and time, and leaping across universes to have some inconsistencies regarding its plot. However, "Wrinkle" manages to be purely confusing at points due to how little the film chooses to explain about the events going on. Not everything is obvious or even manages to be disengaging, but eventually things start to pile up and it just becomes irritating how little is explained.

“Wrinkle” does win some points for its sheer bravery however. Few big budget spectaculars such as this would be willing to go for such a genuinely intense emotional center, and it’s one of the few things that feels earned. It’s realness in its emotional peaks helps to prevent the film from completely falling apart.

The film’s third act starts to redeem itself a bit. When the world truly starts to turn dark and twisted, it delivers some of the film’s most affecting moments in both emotion and surprise. The best scene in the entire film is one of pure emotion, a simple scene between two actors, with not a special effect in sight.

While it does look grand, “Wrinkle” also manages to feel overly manufactured. For a film involving these wondrous worlds and imaginative characters, so much is clearly fake due to the film’s overuse of CGI and random effects. It may all look exquisite and detailed, but at the same time, it still looks fake and overused.

Some of the movie’s best moments are completely ruined due to the film’s overreliance on pop songs. Beautiful moments that could have been so effective with a simple musical score become almost laughable with over manufactured pop lyrics being filtered in instead.

“A Wrinkle In Time” is a deeply flawed film. Enjoyment can be obtained due to its effective use of science and emotional love, its gorgeous visuals and designs, beautiful musical score, and the sheer earnestness and joy coming from its cast. But that can’t completely save a film burdened with a terrible script, wonky pacing, and overbearing plot holes. In the end, “Wrinkle” is best summed up using one of its own lines: “I’m underwhelmed.” 2/5

Fifty Shades Freed - Review

 

In order for a film to have a thriller, it must have certain elements. Suspense, intrigue, a sense of danger, and semi-decent pacing. In order for a film to be erotic, it must excite the viewer, either giving them more than they thought they wanted, or teasing them with just barely not enough. In order for a film to be considered a film, it has to have acting, chemistry between its actors, a coherent plot, and decent direction. “Fifty Shades Freed” is none of the above.

As this is the final installment in the “Fifty Shades” trilogy, the film finds itself beginning to wrap up the plot of Ana, a former literature major who’s now a fiction editor, and Christian, the man she interviews in the first film and became smitten with, and their new marriage.

Be forewarned however, the film does nothing to explain the previous events of the series. It simply begins as if the audience has all the information it need. Even with other lengthy series such as “Harry Potter,” audiences were still given information to keep them going, even if they’d skipped out on the previous films.

There is some plot. Very little of it, but it’s still there.  Anastasia and Christian are now married and people from their past are still trying to get revenge on them for…some reason. The film never attempts to coherently explain why. In the last five minutes, attempts are made to tie up loose ends, but end up leaving far more questions than answers.

Not only are these questions about character’s past and their motivations, but questions about the lives of other characters who were introduced but never resolved. Characters simply spring into existence, are there for a few scenes, and then disappear.

A subplot with Anastasia questioning the loyalty of Christian’s brother to her best friend exists for a sum total of 10 minutes and is never brought up again. It isn’t even resolved. It just isn’t brought up again.

For a film that seems to market itself as a sexy thriller, its missing both sex and thrills. These scenes are pedestrian and, obviously, break up the pacing and the plot, but they don’t give good enough payoff to justify it.

They just feel as though they exist to exist. If they were cut out, then the film would be shorter and the plot would move faster, but then there would be no reason for people to watch it.

Speaking of moving the plot along, the filmmakers forgot to. By the time the film actually begins to move with a semblance of urgency that the “thriller” tagline on its IMDB page would suggest, there’s only thirty minutes left in the film. The previous hour and a half were simply comprised of Ana and Christian bickering like high schoolers, flying to expensive locals, and making use of red leather and low lighting.

Also, Christian is a jerk. Not in the sense of “he grows as the film progresses,” he’s just a major jerk. He’s mean to Ana, he breaks his own safe rules within the red room, and he never speaks above a low growl. He and Ana fight like high school sweethearts, yelling at each other whenever a slight disturbance comes into their fairy tale love fest.

That, coupled with the pure stupidity of some of the film’s lines (“Hello wife.” “Hello Husband.” “It’s boobs in boobland!” “Babies happen when you have sex!”) ends up making “Fifty Shades Freed” the funniest movie of the year so far. If this film must be seen in theatres, bring some friends, and get ready to make fun of its seriousness, Mystery Science Theatre-style.

“Fifty Shades Freed” also promises to be a thrilling conclusion and that, per the poster, you “won’t want to miss the climax.” Well, there wasn’t one. The film ends so quickly and anti-climatically that it feels like there’s still more story to be told. Except there isn’t. Also, given the speed at which the plot moves in the last thirty minutes, it may be the only time that the phrase “shorter than it was” is used in a negative context.

Dakota Johnson is trying her best, but there simply isn’t enough substance in any aspect of this relationship, or this film, to keep anyone invested. Jamie Dornan’s American accent sounds like he’s speaking with a constant lisp, and you could count on two hands the number of times he speaks intelligibly throughout the entire film.

The supporting cast is just as bad. Half the time, the actors just don’t seem like their trying. One scene in Ana’s office has an elderly man who, the moment he walks in the door, looks as if he’s forgotten his lines. He pauses, and then says something unintelligible and continues the scene like normal. Pure hilarity.

Get ready for the blockbuster comedy of the year, “Fifty Shades Freed” has all the substance of a piece of microwaved cheese pizza, and all of the sexiness of a blurry polaroid. Despite it partially being saved due to its unintentional hilarity, a theatre trip simply can’t be recommended for a film that is both the visual and intellectual equivalent of a wistful perfume ad stretched to two hours.

Dumb, irritating, hilarious, and painfully trying too hard with its sex scenes (Looking at you, ice cream) “Fifty Shades Freed” is absolutely painful. Not in the way most of its audience wants it to be. But scream your safe word as loud as you want, because at least the series is finally over. 1/5

The Circle - Review

 

In any kind of entertainment, be it video games, books, theatre, television or movies, there’s always a debate between showing versus telling. Generally, the agreement is that you should show instead of tell.

Don’t tell the audience about how sad a character is, let us see it in their tears and frown, not in their monotone monologues. The other films of director James Ponsoldt (“The Spectacular Now,” “The End of the Tour”) know this well. “The Circle” does not.

One of the biggest disappointments, if not the biggest, is how the film wastes its great cast. Emma Watson (“Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2,” “Beauty and the Beast (2017)”) is left to play a two-dimensional character, Mae, who has virtually no impact on the story. John Boyega (“Star Wars: The Force Awakens,” “Attack the Block”) is in a total of six minutes of the film, half of that standing in the shadows brooding.

Karen Gillan (“Doctor Who,” “Guardians of the Galaxy”) fares better as Mae’s friend Annie, but she too falls subject to the poorly written script. The minor characters; Mae’s friend Mercer, her parents, are just flat out forgettable. The only ones who escape the fate of being awful are Tom Hanks (“Forrest Gump,” “Saving Private Ryan”) and Patton Oswalt (“Ratatouille,” “The Goldbergs”) as the heads of The Circle. They both exude a wonderful sinister kind of cheeriness to them. The script seems to give them the best lines, best scenes, and most character development as well.

Pacing is all over the place, and at times the film feels like it’s made up of three different acts from three different films. The first act is an amusing, but unbearably slow paced, look at a Google-like social media company. The second act plays like a drama where we get to see how a terrible Big Brother like company was formed. The third act feels straight out of a poorly written sci-fi spy film. None of it gels together and the writing doesn’t help either.

However, not all is bad. The music is good, showing that Danny Elfman (“Batman (1989),” “Beetlejuice”) can get some great music out of synth instruments, and the aforementioned second act is surprisingly strong, for about 15 minutes.

Taking it down to a basic level, the biggest issue of the film is this; there is no connection with the characters because the film doesn’t understand showing versus telling. One scene has a character telling another how overworked and sad she was, but that she is now better.

The movie never shows us any scenes of her looking sad or overworked though, so this does little to engage the audience. Also, given that The Circle is a social media juggernaut, it’s disappointing that we are only shown two of their products; the two products that are important to the plot, and are only told about the dozens of other fascinating things they’ve created. Also, side note: that is not a real ending!

“The Circle” takes a great cast, great director, and great source material (the 2013 novel written by the film’s screenwriter Dave Eggers) and makes it into sloppy sci-fi thriller. With zero sense of pacing, an insultingly low quality script and forgettable characters, this “Circle” is pointless. 1/5

Sandy Wexler - Review

 

In the early 2000’s, Adam Sandler was king. After a stint on Saturday Night Live, he came out with a string of commercially successful, if critical divisive films that audiences flocked to. Now though, he’s had more hits than misses, and after his contract with Netflix gave him arguably his worst film ever (“The Ridiculous Six”), could, what appears to be, a more serious film give Sandler the push he needs to be a big name in comedy once again?

Sandy Wexler, played by Adam Sandler (“Happy Gilmore,” “Hotel Transylvania”), is a 90’s talent manager for anyone he can get his hands on in Hollywood. Puppeteers, musicians, comedians, Sandy will back anyone. Soon, he finds a singer in a theme park, Courtney Clark, played by Jennifer Hudson (“Dreamgirls,” “The Secret Life of Bees”), that he thinks could be the next big thing, and he uses his limited skills and contacts to try and make her a star.

Of the few things this movie does right, Sandy and Courtney are the biggest successes. Sandler seems like he’s actually trying for once. He doesn’t succeed all the time, but he manages to imbue Wexler with a good guy attitude that is genuinely charming.

It’s a break from the past shtick of playing rich jerk guys because, while Sandy may lie to his clients, you can see that he genuinely cares and is trying. Hudson provides her gorgeous voice, but also a smile and an upbeat attitude that helps to balance out the generally low quality of the jokes.

At two hours and eleven minutes, “Sandy Wexler” drags like a corpse. Easily forty minutes could have been shaved off the movie by cutting some of the worst jokes Sandler has ever attempted. For the most part the movie is semi-serious, peppering in some pop culture references and one or two sentence long jabs.

However, there are other jokes that take up whole scenes that not only feel unnecessary, but like they come from a completely different film. Some are, but not limited to, a clown’s suicide and playing puppet with an unconscious man’s body. Surprisingly, those two are not as closely related as you’d think.

The rest of the cast is rounded out by Sandler’s typical crew. Terry Crews (“Brooklyn Nine-Nine,” “Idiocracy”) and Kevin James (“Paul Blart Mall Cop,” “Barnyard”) show up and are pleasant. Not terribly funny, although Crews does get some good screen time as a bedtime themed wrestler.

Nick Swardson (“Reno 911!,” “30 Minutes or Less”) is also here, as useless as he’s ever been in a Sandler film, and Rob Schnieder (“The Hot Chick,” “Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo”) plays a…Iranian business man who spies on Sandy as he lives in his pool house while he’s away. Complete with brownface for his actual starring scenes as well.

“Sandy Wexler” sees Sandler and company trying for once. There’s a predictable, but earnest story about love and honesty framed around a likable Sandler character. Even his voice isn’t nearly as annoying as you’d think it would be. But a gargantuan runtime, loads of useless characters and jokes, a flip flopping tone, and downright awful scenes that serve no purpose than to tell a mean joke means that, while his best film since “Funny People,” “Sandy Wexler” is just as annoying Sandler as ever. 1.5/5

Sully - Review

 

You wouldn’t be alone if you thought that Sully was in the same ballpark, story wise, as 2012’s “Flight,” and while this film is based on a true story and the previous was fictional, the similarities are there. Unfortunately, “Flight” is the better film, but that’s not to say Sully is a bad one. It’s merely flawed.

The first major issue is that the film was marketed wrong. The trailers and posters promise the investigation into ‘what really happened’ and the ‘untold story’ of the Miracle on the Hudson, but the truth is, only about a quarter of the film focuses on the investigation, while the rest of the film is a recreation of the crash.

The film’s writing and pacing are also an issue. Many moments are heavily steeped in thick melodrama as Captain Chesley Sullenberger, played excellently by Tom Hanks (“Forrest Gump,” “Toy Story”), walks down the New York streets or sits at a bar, having praise drunkenly yelled at him by bar going patrons. Many moments of the film feel lifted straight out of a Lifetime original movie. The moments aren’t acted poorly, as previously stated Hanks is by far the best part of the entire film, and the entire supporting cast is excellent, but it’s the writing that brings the film down.

There are many moments of forced one-liners or moments of humor, and they don’t hit like they should. The bartender in one scene says that they named a drink after him, and then tells Sully that it’s “a shot of Grey Goose, and some water.” And proceeds to laugh, along with the patrons, as Sully sits, uneasily smiling.

The moment initially sounds like it’s to make us feel for his uncomfortableness in the public’s eye, but it is played like a joke. Ditto goes for a scene where Sully’s co-pilot discusses how impressive of a “bullshitter” Sully is. These moments seemed lifted out of completely other films, as they don’t flow with the momentum of the rest of the film.

At one point we are taken completely out of the aftermath storyline to an almost forty-five-minute-long recreation of the crash. Other, smaller characters are introduced, but they simply don’t need to be there and they feel phoned in to pad the film’s runtime. However, when the film focuses on this recreation, it is truly at its best.

The tension is ripe, and you feel for Sully. Even after the passengers and crew are safe, he continues to look over his shoulder and the camera lingers on the plane with him. He knows that he could have very easily missed someone or something, and the audience is right there with him. The film isn’t bad, it simply has a multitude of pacing issues, a bunch of scenes with conflicting tones, and some scenes and characters that don’t need to be in the film. Having Sully’s wife in the movie is a clear necessity, but she is given some of the worst dialogue, and Laura Linney (“The Big C,” “The Truman Show”) is clearly phoning it in.

If some of the fat and excess characters were cut from the movie, and if the recreation of the crash was extended to the full film, Sully could have been much more enjoyable. The film is carried by a talented and skilled cast, including Hanks at his prime, and Aaron Eckhart (“Thank you for Smoking,” “The Dark Knight”) keeping up with Hanks’s skill surprisingly well, and a truly heart racing recreation of the 1549’s crash, but it is brought down by some poor editing and writing, a myriad of unnecessary characters, and an overuse of melodrama leading to a film that isn’t bad, but it isn’t great. It’s simply okay. 3.5/5

Steve Jobs - Review

 

In today’s day and age, it’s easy to get blindsided by the showman ship and the frivolity of the technology that so frequently flaunts it metal bits in our faces. Digital watches, smart phones, smart houses, security systems, and many many more types of technological advancements that have all come to our tiny, fragile human hands in the last two decades. And arguably the man to thank for starting the technology re-revolution in the tail end of the 20^th century is Steve Jobs. Some will disagree, but many regard him as the father of the modern technological age, at least in terms of accessibility to the public.

“Steve Jobs,” the film, does not regard him as a godlike figure that should be idolized by every keyboard monkey on the planet. The film treats him like many people say he was outside of the public eye. To put it bluntly, he was an asshole. Jobs was someone who was treated as a visionary but was pretty mean to most of the people he worked with. He thought he was ‘hot shit,’ and that his opinions and visions on the products mattered more than the people designing them, building them, programing them, or paying for them.

Granted, this could be what made him a genius in his own right, but the film attempts to show him as honestly as possible, and it largely succeeds, although it succeeds more so in being an enjoyable character piece, than it does an honest retelling of Steve’s life. The film is directed by Danny Boyle (“Slumdog Millionaire,” “127 Hours”) and it has such a palpable and unique shooting style. At one moment you are twisting through the air and in another it’s a simple, straight forward scene between two actors.

Yet every moment, the screen lights up with these performances. Michael Fassbender (“Inglorious Bastards,” “Shame”) is compelling and dickish in his portrayal of Jobs, and an unrecognizable Kate Winslet (“Titanic,” “Revolutionary Road”) is just as terrific, if not slightly better, as his confidant, assistant, and closest-thing-to-a-best-friend-he-has Joanna Hoffman. The rest of the cast is also excellent; Seth Rogen (“Pineapple Express,” “50/50”) is charming and has this joy to him as he plays a man who was, and is, always excited about the power of technology in Steve Wozniak. Michael Stuhlberg (“Lincoln,” “Hitchcock”) is engaging as Andy Hertzfeld, Jeff Daniels is calculating warm presence, and Katherine Waterson (“Michael Clayton,” “Inherent Vice”) is sympathetic and at the same time infuriated as Chrisann Brennan, the mother of Steve’s estranged daughter.

The film plays out like a stage play, with scenes that lack a lot of pomp and circumstance that you typically equate with big Hollywood films, even big Hollywood biopics, and that is thanks to its writer, Aaron Sorkin, the legend behind The West Wing, both the stage play and the film adaptation of A Few Good Men, The Newsroom, and The Social Network. His writing is pitch perfect, but a lot of that comes from the actors as well, who all work together like clockwork to make the words click and the characters connect.

But the film isn’t about Steve launching a product, or his fights with Woz. It’s about his daughter, and Steve’s refusal to accept his parentage. It’s about how a man can create so many great things without actually being great himself. And it’s about how we humans love computers so much, because they don’t have arguably the biggest flaw humanity does; arrogance.

The film is a study on the human condition, our need to be desired and to have what we want. And how when we get it, we realize how wrong we really were. Steve Jobs is a film about a man and his Lisa. Although, not the computer Apple made from the 80’s, the Lisa I’m talking about, is his daughter. Beautifully shot, acted, scripted, and scored, Steve Jobs is a simple film, about a man, what he created, and why none of it mattered without his original Lisa. 4.5/5

Straight Outta Compton - Review

 

Even if you’ve never listened to it, the music of NWA is instantly recognizable and it’s easy to appreciate what it did for the likes of Dr. Dre, Ice Cube, Eazy-E, and the rest of the group, as well as for the streets of Compton. With a group that this revolutionary and this remarkable, at some point biopic had to be made.

Enter “Straight Outta Compton,” directed by F. Gary Grey (“Friday,” “Set It Off”) and written by Jonathan Herman, Andrea Berloff (“World Trade Center”), S. Leigh Savidge (“The Legend of Dolemite”), and Alan Wenkus. This is a film determined to show, warts and all, the true story of how this group came to be. And the film wants you to know from the very beginning that this is a brutal, unapologetic retelling of this group’s origin, as it starts with the Universal logo with news chatter about drugs and gang crime, instead of the typical anthem. Within the first five minutes, guns are pulled, drugs are sold, four letter words are dropped, and cops literally ram down the front porch of a house.

This is an unflinching retelling, if nothing else. It’s also a very slow burn. From the moment the film starts, you know its building toward something, but you don’t know how it will get there, leading to each scene having a feeling of importance. You don’t know if this scene is going to be the one that makes a difference, or this one, or the next one, but because they’re all treated with the same level of importance to the story, it leads to an almost edge of your seat feeling throughout.

Each character is performed effortlessly, and while the controversy around Ice Cube’s oldest son, O’Shea Jackson Jr. in his film debut, playing the younger version of Cube, who serves as the film’s producer along with Dr. Dre, is easy to understand, by the end of the film you’ll see that the choice was made clearly based on talent and not relations. That also goes for Jason Mitchell (“Contraband,” “Broken City”) and Corey Hawkins (“The Walking Dead”), who play Eazy-E and Dr. Dre, respectfully.

The best part about the film is that, whether you like rap or N.W.A. or not, you can see it and relate. It’s a movie about creators and the ways that they used every connection they had to do the one thing they had to do; speak out, use their voices, and create. The montages of rap session, lyric writing, and recording sessions are inspiring, coupled with both a stellar musical score from composer Joseph Trapanese (“Earth to Echo,” “The Divergent Series: Insurgent”) and a great soundtrack of rap songs. The film bleeds inspiration and portrays a story of creative types in the wrong situation and wrong time.

But beyond the story of creative types, you can also see the seeds of descent that are being sowed throughout, and that comes from an incredible performance from Paul Giamatti (“American Splendor,” “Cinderella Man”), as the manager Jerry Heller, who both clearly cares about these young men and their safety, but also cares about the money, and given Paul’s great performance, it is difficult to tell which motive he is going with at what times. It could easily be money or caregiver instincts, making it difficult to predict which way the story will go. This also comes from Eazy-E, and the general sense of uneasiness that the rest of the group feels, as the crowds shout “EAZY!” in response the question “Who did you come to see?”

It’s really from this point forward that shows that this is a film not about the group in the public’s eye, but about these guys together as brothers. As the film progresses, emotions run high, and the writing and acting turns in some truly incredible, award worthy material. By the time the film ends, don’t be surprised if you have to dab at your eyes a bit. Because the story of the N.W.A. was a story of a group of brothers, men who loved each other, through all the dis tracks and all the money. And in the end, their incredible story, of an incredible group, turns into an incredible film, and by far one of the best of 2015. 5/5

Whiplash - Review

 Regardless of what you’ve done, be it band, art, theatre, or something in between, virtually everyone knows the pressures of performing in some way, shape or form, and everyone at some point has had a teacher or director who, to them, bears resemblance to an infamous German politician.

“Whiplash” is the second feature from director Damien Chazelle, who previous directed the gritty jazz musical from 2009, “Guy and Madeline on a Park Bench.” “Whiplash” has that tyrannical instructor, and from the very first scene you realize that is who he is. He makes people perform outside of their limits for, what appears to be his own sick and twisted amusement.

But, more than watching our hero be tormented, the thrill of films with these premises is to see why exactly these instructors are like this. Is it really just a twisted mentality, or is there some alternate motive behind it all? Damien’s previous credits also include writing the films “The Last Exorcism Part 2” and “Grand Piano.” While not received as well as “Whiplash,” both films have an air of tension, thrilling-ness, and mystery to them, and Damien keeps that tone in this film.

What appears at first glance to be an inspirational film where a student overcomes the odds to become a great musician soon becomes a kind of psychological thriller, as J.K. Simmons’ Terence Fletcher oozes mystery and threat with every word shouted at Miles Teller’s Andrew. You hang on every scene that has the two of them and a drum set, making this the most powerful and intense thriller of 2014, not a claim I would have expected to give the film when first going in.

J.K. Simmons is a man that I have seen in many a role before, on television in “Gravity Falls,” “The Legend of Korra,” or live action fare like “OZ” or “Law and Order.” He’s been in Video Games like “Portal 2,” and in films like Sam Raimi’s “Spider-Man” trilogy. But nowhere have I seen him, let alone anyone else, pull a performance like this. He has this raw anger and malice to him, but still manages to be likable. You want to like this guy, even after you see him yell a child of relatively larger disposition out of the room, stating “I won’t have you cost us a competition because your mind was on a fucking happy meal instead of if you were out of tune!”

He clearly deserved the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor, but the fact that Teller can keep up with his relentless anger and pace is also a testament to the young actor, who has shown that he can do great work, like in “The Spectacular Now” and less than stellar work, like in the abysmal “Fantastic 4.” These two are an even match, with both soft looks and steely eyed gazes locked onto each other. Unfortunately, the female lead leaves a bit to be desired. She isn’t awful, but just in comparison with the talent shown by Simmons and Teller, she feels subpar.

Music also deserved a nod, because if it was shit, well then a film about music wouldn’t really be able to do that much then. Every scene with music being played is a delight, making it clear that these guys are musicians first and foremost. The ending in particular got my blood pumping and my adrenaline up more than any action movie has in years.

It’s a testament to the writing of Damien Chazelle and the acting talents of Simmons and Teller that turn “Whiplash” into a tight knit, and fascinating film. It’s intense and will leave you speechless in many points. All of this, matched by a truly unpredictable pace and story makes “Whiplash” one of the best films of 2014. 5/5