Monday, November 28, 2016
Starring: Eddie Redmayne, Katherine Waterston, & Colin Farrell
Rating: 4 1/2 out of 5
J.K. Rowling may have ended the Harry Potter series, but she isn't done writing about her magical world. Her latest series Fantastic Beasts has finally hit theaters, with the first of what will be a five film series, that starts off a hundred years before Harry Potter stepped into Hogwarts. The film is centered on Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne), who has come to New York City as part of his quest to save the endangered species of the magical world. These creatures live in what appears to be a suitcase, but when some of them escape and a muggle is exposed to Scamander's attempts to retrieve them, he finds himself in a world of trouble. Scamander's only salvation is that with another unknown creature and a dark wizard on the loose, there are other things to worry about, so he is sent with an agent (Katherine Waterston), and the muggle, to collect his creatures and to try to help figure out what is going on. Even though this movie takes place a hundred years before Harry Potter the special effects and especially the CGI on all the creatures involved is amazing! Even if I watched this film without the sound on, I'd still be blown away by how visually impactful it is. As for it's star, they cast one of the biggest up and comers in Hollywood, Eddie Redmayne, and he is perfect for the role. Redmayne is exactly like Harry and the kind of character Rowling loves to write about. He's this geeky, skinny, soft spoken, lovable loser, that no one would expect to be perhaps a hero in waiting. Aside from some corny jokes thrown in for the kids and die hard Potter fans, this movie was absolutely fantastic and I can't wait to see where it goes next. Rowling has stated that the other films will focus on other characters, including a younger Dumbledore, which I'm a bit indifferent to. I really liked this film, and I am curious to know what would be the point in a sequel that starts over. I'd imagine it would be to introduce everyone and then bring them all together in the end, but no matter what they do, the producers will be hard pressed to out due this film.
Starring: Billy Bob Thornton, Kathy Bates, Tony Cox, & Brett Kelly
Rating: 3 1/2 out of 5 stars
Despite advertising to the contrary, Bad Santa 2 is not bigger, badder, or funnier than the previous film. In fact, this time they went too far and broke the cardinal rule of comedy. The film goes too far to be as raunchy and funny as the first film, that unfortunately it goes from funny to stupid and by the end, it becomes a farce of itself. In the sequel to this classic comedy, Willie (Billy Bob Thornton) is just as broke and drunk as he ever was, and this time he's saddled with a twenty-one year old Thurman Merman (Brett Kelly), who just won't leave him alone. Just when he thinks things can't get any worse, his old pal Marcus (Tony Cox) is released from prison, and has a job that promises to make them all rich. A reluctant Willie agrees, only to find out the place they are going to hit, employs his worst nightmare, his mother. I was hoping this film would be even half as good as the first one and it certainly does have it's moments, especially when Brett Kelly is involved, but overall this movie just isn't that funny. I don't know if it's because they put it all on the table in the first film and the jokes were just all done, or if it tried too hard, but the laughs just didn't come as easily. I mean how many times can Willie curse at a kid on his lap or make short jokes about Marcus? At least it wasn't just the same film with different names and places, but the jokes are similar, the personalities have changed very little, and I really didn't laugh as much as I hoped that I would. Bad Santa 2, wasn't a bad movie, maybe I was just spoiled by the pure genius of the first film, but I really didn't think it was anything more than your ordinary run of the mill comedy. There is nothing extraordinary about this one, sorry folks.
Starring: Daniel Craig, Judi Dench, & Javier Bardem
Rating: 4 out of 5 stars
In a recent Ultimate Movie Review Twitter Poll, I asked you what your favorite James Bond movie starring Daniel Craig was and you chose Skyfall. For me this was a hard choice, because Daniel Craig seems as though he was born to play James Bond. All the films he's done have been fantastic, but I can see why Skyfall won. This film stands out for many reasons, most importantly it gives us a rare look into the childhood of James Bond and for the rarest of moments we see Bond scared and on the edge of possibly giving up, but you know how the story ends, he's James Bond. If you missed Skyfall, the film is like many other stories, where an old enemy reappears, but in this case, the enemy isn't looking for world domination, he's looking for revenge against his former employers, the British Government and in particular the Double 0 program. Bond films are often times so similar that we tend to rate them based on the villain and the song, well, the song doesn't get better than the gem produced by Adele, but what about Javier Bardem? He is an Academy Award winner and for good cause, this dude was one of the scarier Bond villains to come around in a long time. The others in the Craig Bond movies were some pretty bad guys, who had done some horrible things, but no one was what anyone would call truly scary, not like the villains used to be. Bardem had that special something though, that not only made him a bad guy, but that kind of bad guy that can make audiences cringe. The Bottom Line, Skyfall wasn't my pick, but it was a close second, as this was probably the most personal and emotional Bond film perhaps in the entire series. Daniel Craig is still very much at his best, Javier Bardem is a villain who will always rank in the top ten, and who better to sing a bond theme than Adele. Wheather or not you picked Skyfall, there is no question that it is one of those Bond films that won't ever be forgotten.
Starring: Jason Scott Lee & Thomas Ian Griffin
Rating: 3 1/2 out of 5 stars
While I loved the idea behind Timecop, I hated the first movie. I thought it was really poorly done. With such a great idea, there were so many different directions the writers could have gone in, and the one they chose was just sloppy, however they made up for that in the second one. Too bad it was done in a low budget, direct-to-video film, that starred absolutly no one of any name recognition. In the second installment of Timecop, Anti-Government Terrorists want to change the United States to make it more like the way they want it to be, and the only thing stopping them is The Time Enforcement Commission. Led by former agent, Brandon Miller (Thomas Ian Griffin), the terrorist decide to go back and take out the agents before they are able to defend themselves, with them out of the way, they'll be able to do anything they want, but the only thing stopping them is Ryan Chan (Jason Scott Lee) The top Timecop, who they thought had been stranded in the past. The story here is much better than it was in the first film and much more what I expected to see. In ninety minutes, we go from the roaring twenties, to the wild west, and even Nazi Germany on this amazing chase through time. The film is however lacking in several ways, most important of all the cast. A low budget direct-to-video film means shotty special effects and worst of all a cast of actors no one has ever heard of. Jason Scott Lee stars, and while he has the moves, he butchers a lot of lines and really hasn't mastered emotions yet. As for his counterpart, Thomas Ian Griffin, he was kind of all over the place, so this was not the kind of film that will ever be used in an acting class, but by in large the story was enjoyable and does offer some redemption for a series that had so much promise.
Starring: Jamie Foxx, Leonardo DiCaprio, & Christoph Waltz
Rating: 5 out of 5 stars
Quentin Tarantino is one of the most unique and interesting writer/directors in all of Hollywood, a man who's style and wit seem to transcend time and history, but would he be able to apply this talent to slavery and the wild west, I had my doubts. Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz) is not your typical bounty hunter, as he has a very unique and unorthodox way of getting his job done. Schultz thinks the best way to shock people is to free a slave, make him his partner, and let him ride into town and stay with him wherever he goes, which usually leads to shock, outrage, and more N words than your typical Jay-Z album. Eventually the successful duo goes in search of Django's wife, who is being held at the plantation of a truly evil man, Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio). In order to get her back, the two attempt to con the southern "gentleman", but will everything go as planned? This film is vintage Tarantino, filled with the unique characters you won't find anywhere else, ridiculous cameos you'd never expect, tremendous back and fourth dialogues, and of course the unexpected. as everything and anything will happen. Every actor under Tarantino's direction has a way of stepping up their game in his films, but Christoph Waltz was truly spectacular. There is a good reason he won the 2012 Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor, as somehow he manages to give an even stronger performance than he did in Inglorious Bastards. I really can't say enough about Tarantino, and out of all his films, this was the one I was the least excited about, but as it turns out, Django may actually be one of the best films he's ever done, and it is now the newest entry on our list of must see movies!
Starring: Sylvester Stallone, Jason Statham, & Jean-Claude Van Damme
Rating: 3 1/2 out of 5 stars
Sylvester Stallone had a brilliant idea that came to fruition in 2010, with an action movie that brought together all the big names in the action movie genre, but there was a problem. You just can't fit every big name into one movie and give them all significant screen time, so you had to have a sequel. The more things change, the more they stay the same, however, as this time, the story was a bit better, at least for an action movie, and the cast was a bit younger, but the basic genre was still the same. Barney Ross's (Sylvester Stallone) team is once again brought together to do a job, this time there are some new younger faces, to complete what seems like what should be an easy job, what they weren't expecting was to stumble right into the middle of a madman's master-plan. As I said, the story wasn't as basic this time, things were a little more complex, but on a basic level this is still you're typical shoot em up action film, with bodies and explosions constantly coming at you. What I did like was how they change things up a bit and didn't just feature the same actors, even though many members of the team were the same. The one thing the first film was severely lacking was youth, and I don't know about you, but I'd much rather see Liam Hemsworth fighting with his shirt off than Sylvester Stallone. All in all, the sequel doesn't differ that much from the original, but where it does, only helps the series. The cast is younger, the story is better, and the action hits harder. If you're an action junkie, it doesn't get more exciting than the Expendables and the sequel will have you craving a trilogy.
Monday, November 14, 2016
Starring: Amy Adams, Jeremy Renner, & Forest Whitaker
Rating: 1 1/2 out of 5 stars
Arrival is being called one of the best Science Fiction films in years. It is one of the best rated and reviewed films of 2016, and is drawing comparisons to Close Encounters of The Third Kind, but I have a question, did they watch the same film that I did? I wasn't crazy about Close Encounters, but that movie was leaps and bounds ahead of this one. Twelve alien crafts land in random places all across the planet, and the people are in a panic. Some countries react with hostility, but the U.S. Government decides to act cautiously (yeah right), and send Dr. Louise Banks (Amy Adams), the best linguist they have, to figure out a way to community with the aliens. The aliens, turn out to be giant octopus, whose language turns out to be ink that they squirt into the air. This movie features flashbacks and flash-forwards, that seemingly make no sense, until the end when you finally figure out what they mean and once you do, you realize that you just wasted two hours of your life. If that wasn't bad enough, the film moves at an absolute snails pace, I mean you could take everything that actually happened in the film and squeeze it into about twenty minutes. The rest is just people talking to each other about the same damn thing over and over again. Trying to figure out the same thing over and over again. Worrying about the same things over and over again. The characters have no personality whatsoever, and you might think that it's one of those slow moving weird films that all comes together in an amazing ending, but no, it doesn't. Once you can see the whole picture, as one lady in the theater so eloquently shouted out, "really, that's it, that was so stupid." Her uncontrolled outburst really sums up this entire film. Honestly I think the slower and more artistic a film is, the more the critics love it, but I am one critic who isn't fooled by great actors and emotional music, this isn't the best film of the year, this is the biggest turd of the year, and it should be avoided at all costs!