Top Films of 2015

    Ah, another year has passed. This year, we saw the first photos of Pluto, found evidence of water  on Mars, the Dawn spacecraft orbited Ceres, and  also the atmosphere of Mars is slowly being depleted (I'm studying Astronomy in college, can you tell?) We saw same-sex marriage being legalized in the United States and Ireland,  the deaths of several longtime actors and singers. and what is sure to be a very interesting US Presidential election. (The common complaint that it isn't 2016 is hence no longer valid). Meanwhile, the world suffered through the Paris attacks, the earthquakes in Nepal and the floods in Chennai, the collapse of martial rule in Burma, and the continuing scourge of Islamic terrorism in the Middle East and North Africa. But that's not what you're here for. No, you're here, (maybe) for the movies. 2015 proved very rewarding in film. Many notable films were released this year, some of which were able to become very large cultural phenomena. Of course, there were duds, but there are a great many good films to balance it out. And we're going to take a look at some of them. Once again, these are restricted to film released between January 1st and December 31st, 2015, that I watched in that particular time period. So, if it's off the list, I didn't see it. The list works, such that the first movie you see is the worst I saw all year, and as you go down, they improve, until the final entry, which is the best film. Now with all that out of the way, let's dive right in, folks:

Top Films of 2015

The Worst Film of 2015:

Tomorrowland

Source: http://collider.com/tomorrowland-trailer-international/

      Yeah, I was way too kind to this film in my initial review. Like I said in the spoiler review, the more I thought about this film, the more I grew to despise it. My distaste was not derived from some narrow-minded irritation at the film's message. I sympathize with its message. However, it ultimately lacked any substance to really back that message well. In the end, it ultimately lacked the narrative substance to really make the message stick, without sounding preachy (which it did, a lot). Speaking of narrative, the story and tone are both messy and cluttered, which makes the message even more apparent to rise above the mess, ruining any subtly. It's a real shame this had to be so bad, because I wanted to like this. I was massively hyped for this film, and it just came up short. So much potential to be a great family film, which promotes science and innovation, with Brad Bird directing. And the product was just... That's why it's my worst. It had all the potential to be great, and it just wasn't.

Bad:

Unfriended:

Soruce:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unfriended

  On the other hand, this film was not disappointing in the slightest. It gave me exactly what I was thought I was going to get. Aside from the gimmick of filming entirely from the perspective of a computer, this is ultimately a typical cliched slasher horror film, where a bunch of annoying teens are offed one by one. The computer screen technique is initially moderately interesting, (and by far the  only thing people are talking about), but it ultimately fails to save the lack of real scares this supposed "horror" film actually has, and the sheer annoyance of the characters. The damn name sounds like a hashtag should be put before it.  I probably should have stuck with my gut feeling about this.

Love and Mercy:

Source: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0903657/

    Aside from some legitimate good moments in the 60's, and Paul Dano's performance as Brian Wilson, and despite the ramblings of the filmmakers, there is nothing distinguishable about this musical biopic. It is pretentious. Very pretentious, and it has John Cusack. As John Cusack trying to play Brian Wilson. (Why do they keep miscasting John Cusack as historical figures). Overall, this film biggest sin is, despite its very impressive cast, being largely unmemorable. It isn't unwatchable, and the story of Brian Wilson making Pet Sounds and later suffering from drug addiction is very fascinating in its own right. It just doesn't come through in this film.

Me, Earl, and the Dying Girl:

Source: http://popculture-y.com/2015/09/review-earl-dying-girl/

       Another film that is greatly pretentious. And also trying way too hard not to be "another teen film." This is an adaptation of a book, and they want you to know that, because it is separated into "parts", which are usually (and should only) be seen on the DVD menu scene selection. I haven't read the book, and after watching the film, nothing in it makes want to go and actually read it. The story is not really that original , despite the at times annoying narration insisting it is. Once again, there are several legitimately good moments that save this film from being totally dull. However, it, to be frank, doesn't warrant much interest. Also, the title. You know, if the title of your work sounds slightly absurd, Cross It Out, and Think of Another One.

The Middle:

True Story:

Source:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_Story_(film)

        I somewhat liked this film the first time I saw it. Now that a few months have passed, I've really thought it through, and realized that this didn't work well. The problem, I think, is the film struggles to really pinpoint its characterization of Christian Longo. I understand they are trying to make his character ambiguous, but the character changes from scene to scene. This makes his characterization inconsistent, and ruins the idea that he is a complex, ambiguous figure. Of course, he is, if you can't keep the character straight. I didn't know the real story that well before watching, and after watching, I know precisely the same amount about it. What keeps this off the bad list is James Franco's and Jonah Hill's performances, and the fact I saw this on a plane, meaning I didn't actively give money to see it.

The Man from UNCLE/The Avengers: Age of Ultron:

Source: Google search "Man from UNCLE"

Source:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avengers:_Age_of_Ultron

      These two are on the list, because I disliked them for the exact same reason. Technically competent action films, which ultimately failed to be really interesting in their own right. In The Man from UNCLE, while the action and acting were decent, it ultimately underutilized its 60's, Cold War setting, and the fact an American and Soviet agent had to work together. Both would have made the film infinitely more interesting. Instead, it is simply a generic action film, with a somewhat interesting setting. I hadn't seen the original show, but I know it has a reputation for heavy camp, and aside from some silly moments, it fails to really use any campiness, to make the film more enjoyable. It was just a (perfectly fine) generic action film. The same with Avengers: Age of Ultron.  Again, perfectly fine movie. It's just.... generic. Yes, all the classic Marvel humor and the epic action was there. However, it simply doesn't have much else. Especially since the original had all this film does, but does it much, much better. The original manages to create a great superhero action film. I like Superhero films, so I'll see Captain America: Civil War, but they do need to space them out more, that way superhero fatigue doesn't start to kick in. 

Mockingjay: 

Source: http://www.ew.com/jennifer-lawrence-katniss-mockingjay-part-2-final-poster

        Why was this in two parts? Oh, yeah, that's right. Money. Seriously, this film dragged on and on for what seemed like an eternity. That's what happens when you adapt half of a book. You have to pad it out. That's primarily why this is so low on the list. It's length, and the lack of any real action for most of that length ultimately ruined the whole film for me. While Jennifer Lawrence and the others gave a good performance, it struggled to really maintain interest, until the end, where it finally picked up. At the very least, it was a good conclusion to the franchise.  

Jurassic World:

Source: http://screenrant.com/jurassic-world-poster-2015/

       Like I said in the review, I liked this better than Jurassic Park III. Of all four films, the third one is the worst, mostly because it seems like a retread of both the previous films, but with all the tension taken out. This film was at least original. It took this franchise in a new and different direction. Hell, this could have been a sequel Crichton himself could've written. It also had some good acting, and some good practical effects, homaging the first film. But that's the problem. It focuses a lot on homaging the first film, and the film ultimately suffers, because it can't really stand on its own, without being close to the original. That, and a villain Sue are the two biggest problems with this film.

Mr. Holmes:

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Holmes

      This is the part where I stop complaining. In a half a decade of various interpretations of the Sherlock Holmes character, this is a fresh and interesting look into the character. How his persona had been exaggerated in the Watson stories, much as sometimes real figures are exaggerated. Ian McKellan gives a great performance as the aging Holmes, whose skills have declined with his age. Mr. Holmes is also a nice stand alone story about a detective who is trying to remember his last case, despite early Alzheimers, and also befriends a young boy, and how that boy helps him remember. If you have any interest in the classic Conan Doyle character, I say give this a watch. 

Minions/The Good Dinosaur

Source: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00YBOAVFA/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_dp_ss_3?pf_rd_p=1944687762&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=B00CX9UBR8&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0GGM9WP3RNKHPN9S6E1M

Source:http://screenrant.com/good-dinosaur-trailer-poster-international/

   Once again, I put these two in the same slot for the same reason. Surprisingly good kids film. I had somewhat low expectations for both of these films, but they honestly surprised me. For Minions, I was not a big fan of the Minions in Despicable Me,  and I never though they could hold their own movie. However, there were some pretty good jokes and gags, utilizing their sixties setting well, It was surprising how subtle some of these gags were. For the Good Dinosuar, I had low expectations based on the trailer, but the actual film, despite having basically the same plot as Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island, was actually a decent children's hero's journey, with some fascinating characters along their journey. However, it still wasn't Pixar's best, not even this year.... 

The Peanuts Movie

Source:http://www.peanutsmovie.com/content/posters/us/teaser-poster.jpg

    Once again, not much to say on this. It captures the spirit of the old cartoon shorts, and does justice to the Shulz strip (not surprising, given his son and grandson wrote and produced the film), which is shown in how Charlie Brown is a loveable loser. And there is enough Snoopy in this film to entertain everyone. And there is never too much Snoopy in anything. 

Paper Towns

Source: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3622592/

        I was too harsh on this film in my review. Not even on the whole film, just the third act. It's not bad, in any way. It's good as a conclusion. It's just the third act in the book was less rushed, and took more time. The book had a good ending, and I did want to see that on film.  While the film's ending is fine, the book had a sweet ending, which still tied all the loose ends to some extent. You know what, I should probably shut up about the book. This is still a decent teen film, with a decent cast, which would satisfy any John Green fan, or anyone wanting to watch a film on a lazy Sunday afternoon.

Spectre

Source:http://www.christiantoday.com/article/james.bond.24.movie.news.sam.smith.leads.bet.on.singing.spectre.theme.song.skyfall.cast.returns/45029.htm

    The one thing that I was told going into this was that this was a very disappointing film, especially in regards to Skyfall. I agree, but I still felt this held up on its own. All the things that made Skyfall good were in Spectre (except for Spectre's song, which I thought was dull and uninspired). I finally like Daniel Craig in this role, and Christoph Waltz was a good villain (won't spoil who he turns out to be). Overall, I thought this was decent, until the end. The ending sucked. I won't spoil it, but it really doesn't make much sense. Not the villain's scheme, nor Bond's actions. Still, I can't in good conscience call this bad. 

Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation 

Source:http://screenrant.com/mission-impossible-rogue-nation-imax-international-posters/

    Of the two movies that came out this year based of 60's spy shows, this was the better one. Despite not having a tense moment of Tom Cruise moving off the highest tower in the world, it still had some nice tense action scenes, and a gripping plot, which sees the IMF disbanded, and Tom Cruise going rogue to find the Syndicate. Yeah, nothing deep, but it was enjoyable to watch, despite this being the 5th in this franchise. This has proved to be a very durable franchise. Hopefully, this franchise can continue to be good.

Good:

Pawn Sacrifice

Source:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pawn_Sacrifice

      A fascinating look into the life of chess champion Bobby Fischer. I knew the real story somewhat well, but this gave more insight into the man. His intense preoccupation with the game of chess, his various difficult relationships, and especially his severe paranoia and antisemitism. Of course, there are intense sequence of chess playing, but it is more unique in that you have Fischer actually contemplating the moves in a heavily schizophrenic manner. It also had some nice scenes with Liev Schreiber as Fischer's rival, Boris Spassky, who shows himself to be very different than Fischer, but has the same fundamental reverence for the game of chess. The final scene was very well done, as one of the most famous chess matches of all time is depicted. I remember after leaving, my mother mentioned that she remembered that particular game from back in 1972, and how it was so stunning, which they portray well in the film.

Everest

Source:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everest_(2015_film)

    The one thing that shocked me about this film was its intensity. Not just in the portrayal of slow frostbite deaths, but in the filming of Everest itself. It really emphasizes the height of Everest, and the dangers of climbing it. It was visceral, so much so that I was slightly sick after watching it, because Everest was shown so... realistically. It also didn't pull any punches with its portrayal of a real life incident. Some of the characters that we've followed, including one with a pregnant wife, actually die, as they did in real life. It was the most intense experience I had at the cinemas this entire year.

Ant-Man 

  

Source:http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2015/05/06/marvels-ant-man-poster-wants-to-remind-you-of-the-first-iron-man/

     Now, this was the better Marvel movie this year. I think people gave this movie more crap then it deserved. Is it a generic backstory? Yeah, but this isn't a well known character amongst the Marvel gang, so people may need it. It's still a good story. I think the strongest part of this film were the effects of the small Ant-Man. I have an affinity for this style (I saw Honey, I Shrunk the Kids as a child, after all). and they created a very interesting world, where the very minute things in the environment, become the most useful tools for Ant-Man to utilize. This is a good way to use the environment, and a great introduction into the world the character inhabits. Other than that, it is funny, and the cast is good. The villain having the same power as the hero is starting to get old, but that's only at the very end, and it doesn't really affect anything in the film proper. 

The End of the Tour

Source:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_the_Tour

     The second biopic starring Freaks and Geeks alumni (Really good year for them, by the way). This was the good one. While sometimes all talk, no show, and a bit slow at times, this is a very fascinating look into the nature of writing, friendship, fame, and jealousy. Jason Segel gives an excellent performance as David Wallace, who seems very normal, but is actually very insecure about his newly found fame, and Jesse Eisenberg as David(...) Lipsky portrays someone who wants that fame and respect, but doesn't show it. Their budding friendship and companionship, and the conversations which result, is the absolute highlight of this. Once again, knew little about the real story behind this, but this actually made me interested in that real story (it seems accurate, but Wallace's estate has denounced the film, so who knows), and maybe one day, reading Infinite Jest. 

The Big Short

Source:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Big_Short_(film)

     An hilarious look into a group of men who predicted the financial crisis of 2008, and decided to profit off it. While some of the jargon they used in the film was indecipherable to someone of little financial training such as myself, it manages to explain most of it very well (through the use of funny celebrity cameos). It really does illustrate the enormity of the mortgage crisis, and its mishandling  by the big banks, and the ultimate consequences of it. It's a no-win situation. If our protagonists are wrong, they lose their reputation and their money. If they're right, the world economy collaspes. Actually, now that I write that down, the former actually doesn't seem that bad. 

Kingsman: The Secret Service

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingsman:_The_Secret_Service

    Yep, you probably expected this one up here, given the glowing recommendation I gave it early in the year. An enjoyable rump, which, rather than use brutally realistic fighting, instead uses fantastic and absurd violence to make this an excellent homage to the early Bond films. Colin Firth and Samuel L. Jackson both give great, memorable performances, and it is just damn exciting. The success of this film shows that a little absurdity in your action film could go a long way. Not much else I could say, that I already haven't. Just a fun, really good film. I hear they're making a sequel to this, and you can guarentee that I will be first in line to watch it. 

Star Wars: The Force Awakens

Source:http://www.starwars.com/news/star-wars-the-force-awakens-theatrical-poster-first-look-in-theater-exclusives-and-more

    I told most people I was going to see this in January. Because I thought that all the tickets were unavailable. Well, I actually looked, and found them, so....yeah, I was able to watch it shortly after its premiere. A worthy addition to the franchise, and a good starting point for non-fans, this proved that sometimes hype is justified. It was able to respect the original trilogy, while also trying to be original and fresh. Abrams captures what made Star Wars great, and managed to replicate, without feeling overly derivative or straying too far from that original premise (something Lucas himself failed to understand a decade ago.) With this film as the staring point of a new trilogy and franchise, I feel that Disney is making the right decisions in this case, and that the franchise will be "reawakened" (har har). But, you probably already knew that (and probably have tickets to see it again).

Crimson Peak

Source:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimson_Peak

   While this may not be del Toro's best work, it still very much still has his touch on it. Good characters, good story, great atmosphere. His presence and direction makes most of his films intensely watchable. While not big and epic like Pacific Rim, it still has that touch of passion. And it shows. Usually, I don't go for gothic period pieces, but this drew me in with an excellent mystery, which revealed more and more creepy and disgusting layers. This is a good ghost story, for people (like me) who aren't overly fond of ghost stories. However, it doesn't have many scares. Because it's not a horror film. It is a classic paranormal romantic drama, and it does that beautifully. 

It Follows

Source: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/it_follows/

        Now this is a horror film. A great horror film.  One I watched purely on a whim. And it scared the hell out of me. Seriously, it is very creepy, very skin crawling. It doesn't use cheap jumpscares or excessive gore. No, the monster in this just takes the form of a human and walks very slowly towards its victim. It sounds somewhat dumb on paper, but the film is very well paced, and shot, which allows the tension to build appropriately as "It" approaches our heroine. It is so chillingly effective. It reminds of John Carpenter horror films, which are always very good. I was nervous the whole film, because the way "It" slowly approaches. It's the same thing that makes a Romero zombie work. They aren't monsters that lie in closets, waiting to jump out. They just walk slowly towards their victims, which actually makes them scarier, because they are single-minded, and seemingly inescapable. Some people said this was a metaphor for STDs or fear of sex. I disagree: This film is not about sex. Okay, it kind of is, but it is more about adulthood, and the fears that go along with that transition. It is very scary to become an adult, and that slowly creeping fear is very much represented, in a very scary matter. Months after I had watched this film, I still had trouble sleeping because I keep expecting "It" to come out. That is how much this film stuck with me. Like I said, it is bound to become a modern classic.

The Martian

Source:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Martian_(film)

     This was amazing. I don't know what else to say. This was a great adaptation of a great book. Drew Goddard managed to faithfully adapt the source material without being too dogmatic or too liberal. Just the right amount for a filmed adaptation to work. Matt Damon is incredible, funny, but still fearful and scientific. The rest of the cast is great too. Mars looks incredible. Almost like it came directly from the Curiosity or Pathfinder feed. The direction of Ridley Scott is fantastic, showing he can still direct. While it did have a lot of jokes, it still emphasized the enormity of  Mark Watney's situation. This struck a perfect balance, With overly serious dramas flooding the market, a little humor is needed from time to time, and this movie knew how to adapt the irreverent tone of the book well. It also makes a great promotion of science, with the situation largely resolved through Mark Watney's ingenuity, and the ingenuity of Earth scientists to get him back. It also used very good scientific accuracy, as per the help NASA gave it. This film was so good, I watched it twice, and even though the second time I needed to go to the bathroom, I still sat, and watched the conclusion, that's how good it was.  I can't recommend this film enough. Go, find a DVD or Blu-Ray copy, and watch it now. 

The Best Film of the Year:

Inside Out

Source:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inside_Out_(2015_film)

         I don't know how exactly to convey how well this film works. It just works, so unbelievably well. Sure, the concept isn't exactly original, but it's approach is very original and very intelligent. In years to come, this will probably be taught in psychology classes, because it illustrates the concepts of emotions and their effects very creatively. It really is one of Pixar's more cerebral, high concept films. It has all the Pixar hallmarks, great animation, memorable characters, and very striking emotional moments. (the marketing probably gave the latter away to you.) The casting was nothing short of perfect, including enthusiastic Amy Poehler as Joy, somewhat morose Phyllis Smith as Sadness (both from NBC comedies, by the way), and especially, Lewis Black as Anger. It had great jokes, great writing, and a fantastic message. One that isn't seen much not just in kids films, but really in some adult films. What really stood out is the sheer intelligence of the script, one which wasn't afraid to take certain risks, and treat its audience with a certain degree of intelligence. This very much shows that, despite recent duds from studio, Pixar can still make great films. And this will certainly be remembered as one of their classics. 

--------------------

Well, that's my list for the year. Thanks you all for reading, and I hope to keep entertaining you into this new year, and many more to come. Happy New Year, folks. Here's a little familiar song:

Pokecember- Jirachi: Wish Maker

     It's time once again to take a look at Pokemon movies through the years. This year, we deal with the Advanced Generation, the generation of Ruby and Sapphire. This was after the spike in popularity Pokemon had in the late 90's. This was also the time, when the mythology of Pokemon was retooled to extend the world beyond the borders of "two creatures fighting each other." And this involved the soft reboot. New region away from Kanto-Johto, new weird Pokemon, new mechanics. But, the business of making the anime, and the Pokemon movies continued, with intrepid Ash Ketchum as the protagonist. So, let's take a look.

     While travelling in the Hoenn region, Ash and his friends, Brock, May, and Max come across a carnival celebrating the arrival of the Millenium Comet, which, as the name implies, comes every one thousand years, . They enjoy the sites and sounds of the carnival, but find particular enjoyment in the magic act of a magician named Butler, and his lovely assistant, Diane. They hold a mysterious crystal, whose voice cries out to Max to come to him. This prompts Max to come on stage, and meet Butler, who incorporates Ash and Max into his act. After a disguised Team Rocket tries to kidnap Pikachu, and Butler is able to subdue them, Max asks about the crystal. We learn the crystal is actually the legendary Pokemon Jirachi, who can only be awakened every millennium, in the presence of a best friend chosen by destiny (and I realize how odd that just sounded.) Anyway, sure enough, Jirachi hatches from the crystal, and Max bonds with it. However, then, an Absol ( a Pokemon well known for coming before disasters, which the anime exploited extensively) comes, and attacks the group. Shortly after, May find Butler secretly bringing Jirachi to a strange device. We flash back to Butler presenting that same device to the nefarious Team Magma, in hopes of resurrecting Groudon, who will extend the land. However, the device fails, and Butler is humiliated. Back in the present, the device explodes again, and Max saves Jirachi. However, Butler then sends his Pokemon to attack Max and the group. However, Diane is able to save them. She reveals that Butler wants revenge on Team Magma for denying his genius. They intend to go to Jirachi's home in Fiorna, while Butler continues his pursuit. Can they get Jirachi to his homeland, before Butler is able to harness his power.

    I'm just going to spoil the ending a little just to describe the best thing about this film. The fake Groudon at the very end looks incredible. The design looks great, a blobish sort of entity which vaguely resembles a Groudon, but also the fact that it literally feed off the energy of life and the Earth. That was a great concept for a villain. It is easily the highlight of the film. Also, the fact that normal, non-Legendary Pokemon actually help the protagonists was also a nice touch. The occasional use of 3-D was seamless.

  The relationship between Max and Jirachi, while occasionally heartwarming, is not very well developed. It's fine, but it really doesn't hit the emotional nerve that the film wants it to. So, it really isn't effective. Also, the Team Magma connection with Butler really doesn't make sense. If he  believed in their message, why does he want revenge for them scorning him. Perhaps it was just a hurt ego, but it doesn't make much sense in the context of the film.

   I can't say much about this. It is very much a meh film. Not very bad, but not incredibly good. It's worth seeing if only for the fake Groudon, for it really is the most interesting part of the film. Otherwise, unless you want a complete run of all the Pokemon films, skip this.

     

Film review- Star Wars: The Force Awakens

   You know what, I don't need to write an introduction. You all know about this, or have at least heard of it. So, yeah, let's jump right in.

     7th in the film series created by George Lucas, The Force Awakens is set long ago in a galaxy far, far away.( To be exact, 30 years following the end of Return of the Jedi). However, things are far from great. After the fall of the Empire, a new government, the First Order, has essentially taken its place. It is lead by Supreme Leader Snoke (Andy Serkis), who uses Kylo Ren (Adam Driver) and General Hux (Domhnall Gleeson ) as enforcers. Princess (or General) Leia Organa (Carrie Fisher) now leads the resistance against the First Order, backed by the now restored Republic. However, they are losing. Not helping is the absence of Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill), the last Jedi, who has now disappeared, and no one knows where he is. However, a daring pilot named Poe Dameron (Oscar Isaac) is able to gain a map to his location through a village elder (Max von Syndow) on the planet Jakku, which he entrusts to his loyal robot BB-8. When Dameron is captured, BB-8 rolls around the desert, until he encounters a scavanger named Rey (Daisy Ridley), who takes it under her care. Meanwhile, after Ren interrogates Dameron, the latter is rescued by Stormtrooper FN8.... You know what, I can't remember the exact numbering, so I'll just call him what the film calls him, Fin ( John Boyega), who has decided to escape the First Order. Together, Poe and Fin escape using a TIE fighter, but crash land on Jakku. There, Poe is presumably killed, and Fin is forced to look for BB-8, who has the map with him. He eventually finds the Droid he was looking for, along with Rey. However, the First Order seizes upon the Jakku junk yard, and they are forced to flee into space on an oddly familiar craft, where they plan to meet up with the resistence to get the map to find Luke Skywalker. Along the way, they meet old friends, new enemies, and a new look into the mysterious energy called "The Force"....
   
       This struck a perfect balance, between being a homage to the original trilogy and being its own original product. While it derives most of its tone spirit from the original, it still has an original story, and it does not rely heavily on the continuity of the previous films, nor is it a rehash of A New Hope.  Okay, Rey's story is somewhat reminiscent of Luke's, but she has a different personality and backstory, and her journey is far different in terms of obstacles and what she learns about the Force. The idea of a nameless Stormtrooper going rogue and becoming a hero was especially well done, and is by far the most interesting part of the film. The classic hero journey narrative that made the original such a classic is very much present, but it is very distinct. You don't have to watch the original 6 films to appreciate this. JJ Abrams also knows how to emulate Lucas' directing style, while still having a little bit of his own in the film, which illustrates the balance this film achieves, and mitigates the worst qualities of boths directing.  The acting is also well done, especially from the returning cast of Carrie Fisher and Harrison Ford (Spoiler: Mark Hamill, despite starring credit, is barely in the movie itself.) The special effects were good. As with Jurassic World, I did appreciate the use of animatronics and puppetry, as a nod to the original. In a world, where overuse of CGI is prevalent in action-adventure films, old fashioned effects always get a plus from me. The wide backgrounds constrasting with the smallness of the protagonists is a nice metaphor for the small people in big galaxy, that Star Wars was always about.

       The First Order is so similar to the Empire, when I was writing the synopsis, I accidentally put "Empire" sometimes. It is basically the Empire with a new name. It even uses the same techniques! I understand that the previous Empire was destroyed in Jedi, but this skewers way too close to the original for comfort. I heard that Abrams was going for a "Nazis in Argentina" feel, but those were refugees. It would have been more interesting had they been a small remnant of the Empire, which was still taunting the Republic. Also, the fanservice moments could get a bit cringeworthy sometimes. They don't happen very often to become a major problem, but it really took me out of the film going experience sometimes. Once again, not a major problem.

        You probably saw this film already, or had plans to see it. Just know that, like I said before, you don't really need to watch the original films to appreciate this film. It stands up on its own merits, and  is an worthy addition to the long running franchise. Whether you like or dislike Star Wars, you should definitely check this out, if only to see what the hype is all about.

   May the Force be with You.

      

Film Review- The Good Dinosaur

     So, in my very ill-spent youth, I surfed the web extensively. I also had an obsession with dinosaurs. Both of those collided when I found out about the "Speculative Dinosaur Project." Basically, it was a collaborative online project which describes a world where the Dinosaurs never went extinct, and evolved into present time. It was very creative, as far as I could tell, given most of the site was blocked off (in German.) It is virtually gone now, though the Wayback Machine could access those old pages, and there are places where the ideas live on. I start my review with this, because since discovering it, I have been fascinated with the idea of a world where the dinosaurs never went extinct, and they continued to reign. If you want to go earlier, The New Dinosaurs by Scottish naturalist Douglas Dixon is also a good spin on the idea. Still, even with the my longtime fascination with the premise, I was skeptical of The Good Dinosaur. Primarily because the way it was described by the people who made it was... eh. I was not interested in watching farmer dinosaurs. The trailers didn't really help with that. Maybe because I had seen Inside Out, which was a great film by all measures, but I felt, in the end, The Good Dinosaur would not measure up. Now that I've watched the film, it doesn't measure up. But, it's still good. A lot better than I thought.
    Before I get into the film, I just briefly want to discuss the opening short, Sanjay's Super Team. It revolves around Sanjay, who was forced to do the traditional Hindu prayers with his father, rather than watch his beloved superhero cartoons. He then fantasizes about the Hindu gods (Vishnu, Hanuman, and Durga) fighting a demon (presumably Ravana) in the style of those cartoons he watched. As someone who grew up watching a lot of Cartoon Network, and was also raised in a Hindu household, it appealed to the child inside me, and I am likely more inclined to enjoy it than others, who don't share that background. Still, it was enjoyable, fun, and cute. I just wanted to bring that up.
    The actual film, as I said, is set in a world where the Dinosaurs never went extinct. Millions of years after the asteroid missed, they have some form of early agriculture. The film focuses around Arlo (Raymond Ochoa), the youngest (and smallest) of a family of sauropod farmers.(All of whom remind me of the Sinclair Oil logo) They farm corn, primarily, and raise these odd chicken like dinosaur. (This bothered me throughout the film. Sauropods have long necks, so they could feed in trees. Why would they grow corn, which is very low to the ground? And if they were herbivores, why are they raising chickens. The only reason to raise chickens is to eat them. Am I overthinking this?) Anyway, Arlo's family includes his parents, Henry (Jeffrey Wright) and Ida (Frances McDormand), his brother Buck (Marcus Scribner), and his sister Libby (Maleah Padilla). Arlo's main problem on the farm is his cowardice, which makes his main responsibility as chicken feeder difficult. While his siblings gain the respect of their parents (symbolized by a muddy print on the food storage building), Arlo struggles with his intense fear. To soothe this, Henry decides to give Arlo the responsibility of preventing a pest from feeding on their food storage, by trapping and killing it. Arlo manages to catch the little culprit, a little humanoid creature later dubbed "Spot" (Jack Bright) (He's not named Spot until later, but for convenience, I'll call him Spot), but does not have the heart to kill it. Arlo lets it go. However, Henry then scolds Arlo for letting it go, and forces him to join him in capturing Spot in a storm ridden mountains. However, Arlo is injured, and Henry is forced to turn back, right as a major flood occurs. Arlo watches as his father drowns. Arlo then encounters Spot again, and furious from his father's death, he chases him, but both are caught in the river, and Arlo is knocked out. He wakes up to find himself miles from home, along with Spot. While initially hostile to poor Spot, Arlo grows to like him, particularly after Spot leds him to some berries, and saves him from a snake with legs. Arlo, remembering his father's advice that the river will led him home, resolves to go back, with Spot by his side. All the while, he encounters colorful characters, like an eccentric Styracosaurus named Forrest (Peter Sohn, who directed the film. It is also his debut as a director), a band of pterosaurs, led by Thunderclap (Steve Zahn), who are viciously fanatical carnivores (and my sister pointed out to me later that they were meant to parody apocalyptic religious fanatics, so thanks to her), and a group of Tyrannosaur ranchers, father Butch (Sam Elliot) and siblings Nash (A.J. Buckley) and Ramsey (Anna Paquin). Can Arlo and Spot return home to their families.
   First, I really like the production design, particularly the backgrounds. I live in Colorado, and I sometimes drive through the state. It easily replicates the environments I see whenever I head into the mountains. It looks beautiful. The animation is also well done (par for the course regarding Pixar). I liked the way Arlo was animated. Loose and flexible, which allows for a lot of creative gags and fluid motion. Sort of like a classic 2-D cartoon transposed to a 3-D setting. The character designs for most of the character also benefit from this flexibility. It's also has a lot of creative ideas, like, for instance, using a cricket for a harmonica. The plot is not deeply complex, but it does have the appeal of a traditional Campbellian "Hero's Journey," which makes films like Star Wars enjoyable.
    A lot of times, Arlo makes very poor decisions, which cause problems later on. I understand this is meant to show that he is making mistakes and growing, but really, there are moments, where Arlo should have made the other choice. There is also not a lot exciting about the plot. Like I said, it's a standard Hero's Journey. Not a lot of intrigue. It's not bad, but it really doesn't hold up compared to other Pixar films. There is also a lot of things that outright don't make sense when you think about them.
   This surprised me. It honestly did. It was fairly good. Not just decent. Legitimately good. I really enjoyed it. Not one of the best films of the year, but one I'm glad I watched once. If you want a really good Pixar film, well, Inside Out's on DVD now, so go watch that. If you just want a film to watch for your younger relative, I'd say go and watch it. Thanks for reading.

Movie Review- Hunger Games: Mockingjay, Part II

      If you've been cryogenically frozen since 2007, or have been astrally projected to the Kuiper Belt, The Hunger Games is a popular book series, centered around a futuristic gladitorial games held in a nation called Panem, by an oppressive post-apocalyptic government called the Capitol, against 13 districts, who had rebelled in the distant past, and the eventual rebellion against said government. The three books, Hunger Games, Catching Fire, and Mockingjay, have become New York Times best sellers, and have essentially defined a new era of post apocalyptic, young adult novels. The film adaptations have introduced the concepts and characters into a larger pop cultural landscape. Me? I'm ambivalent towards the series. I liked the first book. Detested the second book. Never finished the third one. Conversely, I didn't like the first film. It felt bloated, excessive, somewhat overly serious, and proved to be a difficult adaptation. The second film was an improvement, both on the problems of the first film (much more focused and concise), and the book (marked differences between it and its predecessor). I liked the third film, though I wouldn't exactly call it a great film, by any measure. So, is this a good send-off to the franchise. Well, let's take a look....
      An adaptation of the second part to the third book of the franchise created by Suzanne Collins. the film picks up where the last left off. Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) is recovering from the beating Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutchenson) gave her. He has been brainwashed by the Capitol, and is suffering from a bout of severe paranoia and delusion. Meanwhile, as the rebels continue to press on, they plan to take a Capitol military base in District 2. Katniss joins in, but sees the rebels committing atrocities against Capitol refugees. She is shot by one of the refugees. She spirals into depression afterwards. During this time, she decides to finally end her, and the district's, suffering, by killing President Coriolanus Snow (Donald Sutherland). However, this is rejected by President Alma Coin (Julianne Moore) and  Plutarch Heavensbee (Phillip Seymour Hoffman, sadly in his final role). Instead, she ultimately sneaks on a transport to the rebel held area of the Capitol, where she joins a squad, which serve as more a publicity face for the battle, not actually serving. This group includes Finnick (Sam Claflin), who recently married lover Annie (Stef Dawson), and Boggs (Mahershala Ali), and is led by Commander Paylor (Patina Miller). They are joined by Peeta, who is now functional, although still mentally unstable from the brainwashing (or "hijacking") the Capitol forces gave him. As they trudge on to Snow's mansion, they learn that the battle isn't over yet. Katniss also begins to doubt the intentions of President Coin, wondering what are her plans when they finally rid of Snow, and the oppressive policies of the Capitol....

     Technically, the film is decently made. The set design, as always, looks very impressive, very futuristic in the Capitol, very classic in the Districts. The acting, also as always, is very good. Jennifer Lawrence virtually disappears into the role of Katniss, and Josh Hutchenson is very good as the mentally unstable Peeta. The seasoned actors in the cast also give it their all. It has a good plot, and from what my sister told me afterwards, it was largely accurate to the book. It also looks and feels large and epic, which should be required of any conclusion to any long running franchise. It also has a small, very intimate ending to contrast the pomp and circumstance of the rest of the film

     This was long. REALLY LONG. Some scenes just drag minutes after it should have ended. Especially the calmer moments, which take nearly forever to conclude. This length is my primary problem with this film. It felt like an eternity for the film to get from one plot point to the next. I suppose it suffers from the same problem that Halloween II did: it essentially amounts to an extended third act. And because of that, it feels extremely padded, and you really just want it to get the interesting part, as in the end. Also, the cinematography during the action scenes made some scenes hard to see. As in, it was hard to tell what was even going on. This is apparent during a scene set in a sewer. Several characters died, yet it was hard for me to tell which had died, because the camera would not focus on the characters long enough for me to actually distinguish them. Speaking of that scene, that scene was odd. It was like the film turned into a found footage horror film for a few minutes. I was told that scene was in the book, but it felt completely incongruous with the rest of the movie.

   Honestly, I think my words are irrelevant in this case. If you were going to see it, you were likely to still see it regardless of what I had to say. Needless to say, if you watched and liked the first three movies, you're probably going to, or have already seen it, no matter what I have to say. If you haven't, there really isn't much to offer you. You do need to see the other films just to appreciate it. Me? Decent conclusion, though I would have preferred it not be split into two movies. That's all I have to say, folks. Next month is Pokecember, so join me, as I review the Pokemon films of the Advanced Generation.

Movie review- The Peanuts Movie

    Not much I could say about this one. Even you don't live in the United States, most of you are probably familiar with the Peanuts franchise largely through cultural dissemination, i.e. various uses of the characters in commercials, or cultural references in shows like The Simpsons and Family Guy.  Most of you in the US are likely familiar with the basic premise either from the comic strip it originated from, or several holiday specials made in the 60's and 70's. I suppose I could tell you why it's called Peanuts. Apparently, it's an old term for "children", which fits the strip. I suppose. That's also why a rowdy audience is called a "Peanut gallery." On old TV shows, there was a children audience in the background. Shulz actually wanted to name the strip "Li'l Folks" or "Good Old Charlie Brown", but "Peanuts" was chosen isntead.

      Based on the long running comic strip by Charles M. Shulz, the film revolves around everyone's favorite loser, Charlie Brown (Noah Schnapp). He is not good at much, but he is a good person at heart. He also always has the company of various colorful character, including his younger sister, Sally (Mariel Sheets), his blanket loving friend Linus (Alex Garfin), HIS sister, the very vain and condescending Lucy (Hadley Belle Miller), piano player Schroeder (Noah Johnston), tomboyish Peppermint Patty (Venus Omega Schultheis), and her sidekick Marcie (Rebecca Bloom), and of course, Charlie Brown's loyal beagle Snoopy, and his bird friend Woodstock (both voiced by Bill Melendez via archive recording). In the unnamed town they live in, a "Little Red Haired Girl" (Francesca Angelucci Capaldi) moves into town, and Charlie Brown is deeply smitten with her, and is determined to impress and grab her attention. However, he is not the most impressive of people. Lucy (in the role of "psychiatrist") advises him to remold himself as a winner. However, every one of his attempts to impress end up backfiring miserably. Can Charlie Brown overcome his various shortcomings and impress the "Little Red-Haired Girl". A B-Plot is Snoopy, inspired by his master's love story, deciding to write his own love story on a typewriter he found in the garbage. Basically, this is an adaptation of those scenes where Snoopy battles World War I flying ace the Red Baron, but with an added bonus of a love interest, Fifi (Kristin Chenoweth, for some reason; she barely says anything in the film). This B-Plot serves the same purpose as the "Tales of the Black Freighter" did in Watchmen. Just parallel the main story, and underscore the message of the whole affair.

     I was impressed by the animation of this film. It looks like those old tv specials, but expanded into 3-D. They even have moments where there are 2-D effects surrounding the characters, which was a nice touch. At the same time, they do take advantage of the more fluid animation process available, and it feels more fluid. I'm glad they took voice actors who actually sound like the people in the old specials, not just shoe-horn in celebrity voice actors, which would have ruined the effects. The main story is cute.  Snoopy is, as always the highlight of the piece, with his subplot very entertaining, and him having the best gags in the entire movie. The score, at times, also uses that very iconic jazz soundtrack, which is always enjoyable to hear.

    I suppose I did have an issue with the more openly slapstick tone of the film. From what I remember, the sense of humor deployed was more nuanced and subtle in the bits involving the kids. They revolved around more sardonic humor and failure (with sentimental moments, of course).The film uses a lot of fast paced physical humor. I suppose that's why those bits with Snoopy work the best. Those were the bits in the original cartoons, which used physical comedy, and used them to memorable effect (primarily because Snoopy spoke like he had a hairball in lungs). Again, I might be misremembering the original shorts. Maybe they did have more physical bits. I didn't read much of the comic strip, so I don't know if it was common there as well. Also, remember that soundtrack? Yeah, it's inconsistent. Sometimes, it's the piano based portion, sometimes its orchestral. Not very distracting, but got my attention.

      This is a cute movie. Something nice and simple for children. I admit, I enjoyed the film, and I did laugh alot. (Although I could have done without the kid behind making comments at the film) It has a good message of never giving up, no matter the circumstances. So, if you like Peanuts growing, you'd probably like this. If you have any relatives 10 or younger, they'll enjoy the film. That's all I have really to say.
   Next time, we go from Everytown, USA, to Everytown, USA in a post-apocolyptic dictatorship. Yeah, bad segway, sorry.  Next review is the final installment in the Hunger Games franchise, Mockingjay, Part II.



         

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- The Babadook

     Jennifer Kent was an Australian actresss, who grew tired of acting. Seeking something new, she had asked to assist Danish filmmaker Lars van Trier on his 2003 film Dogville, which the latter accepted. She learned most of her film-making technique from working on Dogville. Using this experience, she directed a short film in 2005 called Monster, about a mother and child being tormented by a monster. At some point, she decided to expand the premise of that short film into a feature length picture. Kent, inspired by her experiences on Dogville, decided to assemble a "family" of sorts to help her make the film smoothly. Among the people she recruited was her old drama school classmate Esse Davis, Polish director of photography Radek Ladczuk (his first English picture), and American illustrator Alexander Juhasz. While the producer was able to raise $1 million, they still needed around $30,000 for sets, so they turned to Kickstarter to raise the remaining budget. The film was shot primarily around Adelaide, South Australia. A Victorian style home was built specifically for the film. Released in 2014, it was critically acclaimed, and a moderate financial success.

        Amelia (Esse Davis) is a widow struggling to raise her 6 year old son, Sam (Noah Wiseman), after the death of her husband while he was driving her to hospital to give birth. Sam is a very troubled child. He has no friends, he was kicked out of school for emotional disturbance, and he seems to be obsessed with this imaginary monster, particularly building weapons to defeat it. Amelia receives little sympathy from her sister Claire (Hayley McElhinney), but is relatively well off in her job at a nursing home. One night, Sam gives Amelia a red story book called The Babadook, about a monster, who torments a person when they learn of its existence.. Amelia is clearly disturbed by the contents of the book, and Sam is convinced that the imaginary monster is the Babadook. Soon, a number of odd occurrences happen. Almost as if a ghost was there. After one incident, where Amelia finds glass in her soup, she rips up the Babadook book. At the party of Claire's daughter, Ruby (Chloe Hurn), Claire admits that she dislikes being around Amelia's house, primarily because of Sam. At the same time, after Ruby essentially bullies him, Sam punches her. On the drive home, Sam sees the Babadook again, but suffers a severe seizure. The doctor recommends sleeping pills for Sam. After giving Sam some sleeping pills, Amelia finds the book, restitched, and featuring even more distrurbing imagery of Amelia killing the family dog, Sam, and eventually herself. However, when she goes to the police to report a potential stalker, they notice her hands are black. She also sees the Babadook in the police station....

     This is another one that's hard to talk about. Not for the reasons last time, but because it is very, very good, and I don't want to give anything away. You have to see this film in order to fully appreciate it. Merely reading the synopsis doesn't do the film justice. First, Esse Davis is incredible in this role. She knows how to be sympathetic in one scene, while also psychotic in another, but pulls it off with consistency. She was the best part of this movie. The relationship between Amelia and her son, the basic heart of the story, is done so well, some scene are difficult to watch, because it is emotionally hard to watch scenes, where Amelia has to deal with such a difficult child, or having to yell at her son, even though it is obvious she loves him deeply. Because the film shows us the relationship, and establishes it. This mother-son relationship aspect, in my opinion, overshadows the monster, though that is also handled well. In fact, I think the two are interconnected. My interpretation is that the monster was never real. It is merely the manifestation of Amelia's and Sam's collective grief at losing their husband and father, respectively. Amelia couldn't handle the stress of raising Sam alone, so she begins to hallucinate about the imaginary monster Sam keeps finding. Minor spoiler, but the Babadook is never actually shown fully, which ties into this theory quite well. Granted, I'm not sure if that is the filmmakers intention, but that's my interpretation of the film. There is actually a lot more to talk about. In fact, I could go on for hours about the film. But that would require spoilers.

    I can't think of any major flaws with this film. I could go into some nitpicking, but in the end, it still has no major flaws. This film was incredibly good. I can't praise it enough, nor can anyone else. I implore you. Even if you're not a horror fan, you should go watch this movie. Don't go in, though, expecting your typical gory monster flick, because it isn't. It is a film about a mother and son dealing with grief, while being haunted by a mysterious entity. You have to know that going in. Please, go and see this. It is definitely worth your time.

 Happy All Saints Day, everyone. Please remember not to eat candy in one go,  to rake the leaves, and always look under your bed. Just in case. Anyway, hope you join us next year. 

Masterpieces of Horror Theatre- The Hills Have Eyes

 
First, Happy Halloween, everyone.
   I admit, I didn't know what I was getting into when I chose this film to watch. Sure, I knew that it was about a family being terrrorized by cannibalistic rednecks, but... I didn't quite expect what I would get with this. I chose this because of the relatively recent death of Wes Craven, and a desire to speak of one of his works. I admit, I don't want to talk about this too much. Not because it's bad, but rather, it's gruesome. Hence, I will not go into the entire plot of the work, nor will I go into detail about the more lurid moments. So, the history. This was Wes Craven's second film, after 1972's Last House on the Left. It was initially called Blood Relations,but the producers changed it. It was heavily recut to avoid getting an X-rating (which would have damaged its box office prospects), and the original director's cut has been lost to the ages. It was made in part as a homage to Texas Chainsaw Massacre. That's all I could find.
     The film opens with an old gas station attendant (John Steadman) encountering a young girl, Ruby (Janus Blythe). She expresses her desire to trade some items she has in a bag for food. She also pleas with him to leave, but the attendant admonishes her, about what "the pack" particularly "Papa Jupiter" will do. However, the attendant has to suddenly attend to a family passing through from Cleveland. The Carters, consisting of patriarch Bob (Russ Grieve), his wife Ethel (Virginia Vincent), their children Bobby (Robert.... Houston), Brenda (Susan Lanier),Lynne (Dee Wallace), Lynne's husband Doug (Martin Speer), their child Catherine, and their two dogs, Beauty and Beast, are heading to California. The attendant warns them to stay on the road, so of course, they go off road, and their truck crashes. Meanwhile, the atten.. (okay, Wikipedia says his name is Fred, but I didn't hear it in the film itself).. then tries to leave, but his truck explodes.The family splits ups, with Carter going back to the gas station to see Fred. Bobby heads up the hill with Beauty, where Beauty mysteriously barks at the hill. When she goes up, however, she is brutally killed. Bobby is traumatized. Carter reaches the station, and finds Fred trying to hang himself. Bob saves Fred, and Fred explains  that his wife died giving birth to a deformed son named Jupiter, and that son killed his sister, before Fred hit him with a tire iron, and put him in the hills to die. He managed to conceive his own children with a prostitute (Cordy Clark), three sons Mercury (Arthur King), Mars(Lance Gordon), and Pluto (Michael Berryman), and a daughter, Ruby. They largely degenerated into cannibals, who now roam the hills in search of victims. However, Jupiter manages to kill Fred, and subdue Bob. This is only the beginning of the terror the Carter's endure....
        One surprising thing I liked was the fact that the cannibal family talked. Yeah, normally, they would be silent, but they do talk, and that allows for a sort of comparison between them and the Carters. There are a lot of scenes at the beginning where the Carter's interact with each other, and scenes towards the end, when the Cannibals interact with each other. The cannibals, in some ways, act like a dark reflection of the typical American family, as depicted by the Carters. That was a fascinating insight, and sort of symbolizes how they aren't that different. The setting also works, a bleak landscape, with no sign of civilization for miles. An excellent location for a survival horror film.  The acting is largely good, though I had trouble discerning words from the cannibals.
     I've said this before, but I have a problem with excessive gore and violence. This film has that in spades. I'd hate to see that X-Rated cut. I was uncomfortable. Not because I was scared, but more out of my dislike for this. Hell, this is tame compared to some modern grindhouse films, but I still had some problems with it. I suppose some people would be fine with this. Me, personally, I had trouble with it. There is also some scenes, I really do not want to go into, but needless to say, made me uncomfortable. It also stops. Not ends, but stops. I heard there was a legitimate ending filmed, and I can't fathom why they cut it.
      I'm conflicted. I did appreciate the artistry behind the film, and the subtext, but I couldn't get pass some uncomfortable moments in the film. I suppose if you want something extreme, this is in some respects extreme, so you'd like it. It is too intense to be a fun horror film to watch on a lazy weekend afternoon. So, yeah, if you want something to make you uncomfortable, this is the film.
   Happy Halloween, and for my final film, once again, I look at a modern film, The Babadook.

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- Hellboy

    Hellboy was a comic series written and drawn by Mike Magnola, and published by Dark Horse Comics, first starting in 1993, and continuing into the present. It revolved around the titular Hellboy, a demon who was summoned to Earth in 1944, as an infant, and raised by humans. He fights on behalf of a secret organization called  Bureau for Paranormal Research and Defense (BPRD)(Despite its name, it apparently is an international organization, not exclusively a US agency) against a slew of supernatural threats, while dealing with his own "demons" (har har). The series was quite successful, and garnered a number of fans. One of those fans was none other than Guillermo del Toro, who began to petition for a film adaptation. He directed and wrote the film version. When Magnola and del Toro met, they both said that the best choice for Hellboy was Ron Perlman, and he was signed on. The film was released in 2004 to good reviews and good box office, though it opened against Passion of the Christ, and some theaters refused to run a movie about a demon against that film. Anyway, let's dive right in.
 
      In 1944, a small American troop, accompanied by Professor Trevor Bruttenholm (John Hurt) head to a small Scottish island, where a Nazi occult ritual is being held to summon  Ogdru Jahad, a Lovecraftian Outer God, essentially. The ritual is being held by Gregori Rasputin (Karel Roden) (why the Nazis trust a Slav (who are considered racially impure by them) to do this is never explained), as well as his assistants, assassin Karl Ruprecht Kroenen (Ladislav Beran) and Ilsa (because all Nazi women are named that, apparently) Haupstein (Bridget Hodson). The team foil the attempt, though not before an infant demon with a large glove appears. Bruttenholm takes the demon, and actually raises him. Flash forward 60 years, and the demon child, now named Hellboy (Ron Perlman) has become something of an urban legend. However, he is actually now a superpowered government agent for the BPRD, sent to investigate various paranormal activity, under the mentorship of the now aged Bruttenholm  . FBI agent John Myers (Rupert Evans) is recruited by Bruttenholm to become Hellboy's new partner. Hellboy isn't exactly enthusiastic about having a new partner. Also working with the BPRD is ultra-intelligent fish humanoid Abe Sapien (played by Doug Jones and voiced by David Hyde Pierce, and yes, every time I heard him, I heard Niles Crane as a fishman. If you don't think about it, it gets less distracting). Meanwhile, Kroenen and Haupstein are able to resurrect Rasputin, and he summons a demon. They are sent on a mission to a museum, where said demon appears. After a prolonged fight, Hellboy defeats the creature, but two mysteriously appear near Rasputin. Hellboy than goes to a local asylum, where he meets Liz Sherman (Selma Blair), a pyrokineticist, who was a former partner and love interest for Hellboy. She has poor control over her abilities. Hellboy tries to convince her to return to the BPRD, but she refuses. After one visit by Hellboy, she ends up burning down the hospital. Myers manages to convince Liz to come back to the BPRD. During a second battle with the demons, Abe Sapien is injured retrieving some eggs, and Kroenen plays dead in order for the BPRD to deliberately capture them. They learn from the eggs, that the demons (called Sammaers, apparently) hatch twice every time one dies. Hellboy gets jealous when Liz goes out for coffee with Myers, and escapes. (There is a genuinely funny scene involving Hellboy and cookies). While they are gone, Kroenen wakes up and manages to get Rasputin to the BPRD headquarters, where they kill Bruttenholm FBI director Tom Manning (Jeffrey Tambor), who disliked Hellboy's rebelliousness, assumes control of the organization, and plans a final assault on Rasputin's base in Russia, where he and his cohorts plan to once again summon Ogdru Jahad. A team consisting of Hellboy, Manning, Myers,  and Sherman is sent to a Moscow cemetery to stop this. Hellboy and Manning dispatch Kroenen, while Myers and Sherman go to the lair of the Sammaers. Hellboy arrives, but is subdued. Liz uses her abilities to destroy the creatures and their eggs. Hellboy awakes to find himself and Liz captured by Rasputin and Ilsa. Rasputin takes Liz's soul to force Hellboy to manifest his demon abilities, which summons Ogdru Jahad. However, Myers is able to remind Hellboy of his father's wish for him, and he shakes the influence off, using a giant horn to close the portal. However, enough influence got out, that Rasputin transforms into a giant tentacled monster, who kills Ilsa. Hellboys kills the monster by intentionally getting swallowed, with a large amount of grenades stuck to his body (he is fireproof). The film ends with Hellboy and Liz sharing a well-deserved Romantic moment.

          The action in this film was very well done. It was intense, colorful, but it was very easy to comprehend, and you can tell who is fighting who. There is also a number of inventive kills and inventive scenes, which creates a lot of tension. The plot is a typical pulp style fantasy action adventure, and that's not a bad thing at all. The plot isn't complex or deep, but it is fun. It is fun to see a demon beat up other, more grotesque looking demons.. Particularly because the characters were well-defined, and I liked seeing them do these fun action scenes. Especially Hellboy. Ron Perlman is very charismatic in the role, playing up the childish rebelliousness, while still keeping him a badass action hero. The effects are very well done. I was very surprised to see practical effects used at times, which is always a bonus in my book. Even the CGI is very good, surprising for 2004. It also had a number of very funny moments, particularly involving Hellboy and cats. (That actually didn't sound as weird as I thought it did)

     Rasputin was not particularly enjoyable or memorable as the villain. I hardly remember anything he did. I wanted to see more of Odgru Jahad. He seemed infinitely more fascinating then the designated villain. (Maybe it's my preference towards Lovecraftian beings). I also got distracted, once again, by the fact that Nazi agents teamed with a Slavic mystic. I also feel they didn't focus as much as they should have on Hellboy being a demon raised in a human world. There is that scene where he is about to bring about the destruction of the world through his demon heritage, and the scene right before Bruttenholm's death, where he sees Hellboy as the bringer of doom, but it isn't brought up as much as the film wants me to think.

       This is my least favorite film from del Toro. However, that should speak more for del Toro as a film, because it is still a fantastic film. Once again, made with vision and passion for the material. I just didn't like it as much as his other films. Maybe his more atmospheric style didn't mesh with the more comic action style the film require. I greatly enjoyed this, and I encourage you, if you think you might enjoy this film, to seek it out and watch it.
    We close out with Halloween weekend, and the film The Hills Have Eyes by Wes Craven, and The Babadook.

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre/Film review- Crimson Peak

    So, yeah, this is the crossover I was talking about. I am combining my typical current film review series with Masterpiece, for this feature, Crimson Peak. I admit, this is not the sort of film I'd normally watch. While I do enjoy the Gothic aesthetic, it really doesn't excite me as much as it does for other people.  However, I watched this because of the director: Guillermo del Toro. For the uninitiated, he is the director of works like Pan's Labyrinth, Pacific Rim, and Hellboy. I don't bring this up often, but Pan Labyrinth is one of my favorite films. It is the only film I have ever seen that doesn't have a single flaw with it. It is a perfect film. Nothing can add or take away from it. Everything in it is done with complete perfection, from the screenplay, to the acting, to the cinematography. And I really like Pacific Rim and Hellboy (I'll talk more about the later in the second part of this double feature). So, I saw this primarily because of the director's pedigree. And, it actually may be one of his best.

     In 1887, when Edith Cushing (Mia Wasikowska) was young, the ghost of her deceased mother (Doug Jones) visited her, and warned her of "Crimson Peeak" (I think I have that right). Years later, in 1901, she is a aspiring writer, hoping to one day become the next Mary Shelley. Her father,Carter Cushing (Jim Beaver), is a prominent steel tycoon, one of the new money capitalists of the Guilded Age. She is also friends with Dr. Alan McMichael (Charlie Hunnam) Edith meets Sir Thomas Sharpe, Baronet (Tom Huddleston), an English lord with a decreasing budget, who hopes to acquire some capital from Mr. Cushing to fund a clay mining machine. Cushing is skeptical, especially since he has disdain for Sharpe's aristocratic background (having slowly acquired his wealth with hard work). However, Sharpe takes a liking to Edith, especially after they dance at a party. Also at said party is Sharpe's sister, Lucille (Jessica Chastain, who is in everything now, apparently. Not that I'm complaining). After the party, the ghost of Edith's mother returns, and gives the very same warning about Crimson Peeak,  though once again, she can't decipher the meaning. As Sharpe and Edith become close, Cushing hires a PI to dig up some info on the Sharpes. The PI returns with some incriminating files, and Cushing bribes them to leave New York at once, while Sharpe has to break Edith's heart.However, the day after, Cushing is murdered by a mysterious assailant, while Edith pursues Sharpe, and learns the truth, AND later her father's death. A few months later, Edith and Sharpe are married, and they move to the Sharpe estate in Allerdale Hall, where they will live with Lucille. However, there is a number of strange occurances around the house, and, also, Lucille's behavior is increasingly suspicious, as is Thomas'. Eventually, she begins to see a succession of increasingly grotesque ghosts. She is understandably horrified at first, but she slowly begins to investigate the history of the Sharpe family, especially after learning that the name of the hill the estate is on is called ....Crimson Peak (duh, duh, dummm.) As she delves into the mystery, dark and ugly secrets begin to rear their heads....

        First, the acting is really, really good, particularly from Mia Wasikowska and Jessica Chastain. I note how well del Toro writes women. Seriously, he has a long line of very strong female characters in his films. And this film is sort of the prime example this. Both Edith and Lucille (who, spoiler, is the main villain) are both well-written, and well acted. I suppose you could use any del Toro film as a guide to write good female protagonists and antagonists. Also, although it is not a horror film per se,  it is scary at times, and the atmosphere is very creepy and dark. The sets are beautiful. My eyes were stuck on the sheer detail placed on everything. It also gets... icky towards the end. No, seriously, there is a twist, which, while well foreshadowed, is just.. eww. Not, like eye balls sticking out, but more of a societal taboo. It still works, despite that, and the actions are committed by.. Okay that will spoil the film, but point is, it is icky, but it works in the context of the film.

    I could discern some flaws with this. The pacing is a little slow. There is actually more than I just described, but it isn't consequential. Somethings are unresolved, like why a little dog was at Crimson Peak. The ghosts, while interesting, kind of lose their importance after the entire mystery has been solved. I wouldn't call them unimportant, as they do initiate Edth's investigation, but I assumed they would play a big role in the climax. Okay, one does, but not that big. A hallucination could have served the same purpose.

      They shouldn't have marketed this as a horror film. It is a dark Gothic fantasy. The ghosts are scary, but they slowly become less scary, as we learn about their backstory. Some of the backlash towards this film is the fact that it isn't scary, but it wasn't meant to be that scary. It is a romance and thriller at heart, with ghosts in a prominent role. If you are interested in that, you'll love this. It has enough scares (and horrifying implications) to be a good Halloween feature, so you could watch it in that capacity too. Don't go in expecting a typical horror film, because it really isn't. Thanks for reading, and next, we delve into another de Toro film,Hellboy.

Masterpieces of Horror Theatre- Prince of Darkness

       Not much interesting about the history of this. John Carpenter was reading works about theoretical and atomic physics, and became intrigued with the idea of God and Satan in terms of matter and anti-matter. (I'll admit, that was the primarily reason I decided to watch this particular feature ) He penned the screenplay as "Martin Quatermass," in homage to the Quatermass series, I discussed several weeks ago.  It was made independently, after the financial failure of Big Trouble in Little China in 1986, and was filmed around Los Angeles. Shep Gordon, the executive produce, was also Alice Cooper's manager, and managed to get Cooper involved, both as an actor and recorded a song for it. Released in 1987, it was financially and critically lukewarm. However, it has since garnered a cult following on home video and DVD, and is retroactively considered the second in the Carpenter "Apocalypse trilogy" alongside the Thing and In the Mouth of Madness. And, it does deserve some critical revaluation.
      The film opens with the death of a priest, who is holding a mysterious metal box. Another priest (Donald Pleasence) comes to the convent he died in, and is given the box, which has a key. The key opens an area inside a derelict church in Los Angeles, which contains a mysterious green substance floating in a jar. The Priest seeks the help of Professor Howard Birack (Insert Obama jokes here) (Victor Wong) in understanding this substance. Birack decides to bring some of his students including Brian Marsh (a guy with a very distracting looking pornstache) (Jameson Parker), his love interest Catherine Danforth (Lisa Blount), Walter (who's defining character trait is his skepticism, the only one amongst a group of scientists) (Dennis Dun), Kelly (Susan Blanchard), and several other physics, linguistic, and religious experts. While they set up their equipment, the vile is mysteriously quiet. As the physicists examine the vile, the religious and linguistic students look at the book in the church, which is written in several languages, and sometimes erased and written over. They manage to decode the book, and find it to be about....Satan.  At the same time, several homeless people (including a leader played by Alice Cooper) have gathered around the church, killing anyone who tries to leave. The equipment picks up a surprisingly detailed stream of data from the green liquid, including differential equations, which suggests some form of intelligence. They also begin to have visions of a mysterious figure emerging from the church, which they theorize as being a tachyon induced vision of the Future. Eventually, they theorize that the green liquid is, in fact, Satan incarnate. Further, they speculate that perhaps Satan is the offspring of a more powerful being known as the Anti-God, who resides in an Anti-matter dimension. And sure enough, Kelly is possessed by the Dark Prince himself, and begins to possess others in the research group. The remaining people (Catherine, Brian, Walter, Birack, and the Preist) fight off hordes of various evils brought out by Mr. Lucifer, while they are trapped in the church. The various infected members are slowly killed off by the still living scientists. Eventually, Kelly (now a largely grotesque figure resembling Satan) tries to get into contact with the Anti-God through a mirror, and bring him into the matter world, but Catherine sacrifices herself, and pushes Kelly and the Anti-God into the Anti-Matter dimension (which should kill her, but whatever). Brian sees a full version of the vision, with Catherine as the new incarnate of Satan. He sees a heavily disfigured Catherine in a dream, and later reaches into a mirror, ending the film.

      The imagery is very invocative, creating an atmosphere of mystery and darkness. The acting is mostly good as well. It has a number of great ideas. The idea of setting good and evil in the same vein as matter and anti-matter is genius, as is having Satan be the offspring of an Anti-Matter God. I admit, it appeals to my sensibilities. Perhaps that's why I enjoy films like this and The Thing  more than Halloween. They sort of utilize topics that appeal to me personally. While it is a film that has religious themes, it gives a good scientific basis to it. That always gets an A+ from me.  It is also very, very creepy, though not as scary as Halloween. Hell, even though you already know that the vile is Satan, (I mean, the film is called Prince of Darkness) you still are sucked in by said mystery, and what is exactly happening with this vile. The Anti-God is almost Lovecraftian in concept, particularly like the extradimensional Outer Gods, which ties into the unknowable Thing, and the horror of unknowning in In the Mouth of Madness. The Anti-God may have been explained in scientific terms, but in the end, he is still a being so complex, so mysterious, it is still unknowable. Finally, the score fits the film perfectly, the same way the Thing's score was.

    I've noticed something with Carpenter's films. They tend to drag towards the middle, and don't pick up until the end. This was basically the entire run time of Halloween II, but it was also a flaw with the original, and  The Thing. They slow down, and get somewhat boring in the middle. One more script re-write could have fixed this. This film sadly suffers badly from this. Most of its third act is basically the scientist fighting off the homeless, the possessed scientists, which gets tedious after seeing it for 30 minutes. Also, besides Marsh, Danforth, Birack, and the Preist, none of the characters are well defined. Granted, I know it's not about them, but a little more characterization would have been nice, just so that I cared when they got possessed. Since I didn't care, it didn't have much of an impact on me.

    I liked this picture. Certainly it's one that didn't deserve the critical panning it got. Luckily, it has since gone down as one of Carpenter's finest, and I agree. Of the four I've seen, I'd probably put it second, behind The Thing, and before the two Halloweens.  I'd recommend it to those who enjoy John Carpenter's films, or just want a good science fiction horror film, that doesn't involves aliens (unless the Anti-God counts. I suppose if..., nevermind). If you liked the Thing, you'll like this. Next week, I do not only a double feature, but a crossover, both involving the films of Guillermo del Toro.