Current Film Reviews- The Lego Batman Movie

     Remember in last year's list, where I said that I was probably not going to see another Batman movie, except this one. Well, actually seeing this movie reminded me of why Batman is such an iconic character. It is a celebration of the character, along with being a parody, and it has a number of gags relating to the rich Batman mythos. Also, given that grimdark Batman is dead horse mangled and distorted at this point, lighter, campier Batman (clearly inspired by and constantly referencing ("Bat Shark-Repellent) the TV series starring Adam West) is more than welcome. Really, the critical reevaluation of the 1966 television series, long derided by Batman fans since the comics run of Dennis O'Neil and Neal Adam in the 70's, and the Dark Knight Returns in the mid-80's, as a different interpretation of the character is more than welcome. Frankly, I will go as far as saying that this is the best Batman movie since the Dark Knight. I've grown to see the Dark Knight Rises as flawed, and Batman v. Superman was one of the worst films I saw last year. Given that Batman has reached "Peak Batman", this was refreshing. A satirical look into Batman, which also really does do it's homework, and shows aspects of the character that are rarely explored.

      Based on the comic character created by Bill Finger and Bob Kane, done using Legos, the popular Danish toy blocks, Batman (Will Arnett) is the defender of Gotham City, fighting a number of colorful villains in order to rid Gotham's streets of crime. He is also a pompous, self-aggrandizing loner, who refuses any sort of self-reflection or company, even when his butler Alfred (Ralph Fiennes) tries to confront Batman over his behavior. He begins the film by singlehandedly defeating what seems to be his entire rogue gallery from a wide range of mediums ( like Kite Man, Calendar Man, and Condiment King. Believe or not, those are all actual Batman villains, along with the all other ones they reference in the movie). He accidentally offends the Joker (Zach Galifianakis) by saying that the Joker is not in fact his greatest enemy. The Joker, seeking Batman's complete and utter contempt, sees that Superman (Channing Tatum) throws many of his enemies into the Phantom Zone, giving him an idea for the ultimate crime. During Commissioner James Gordon's (Hector Elizondo) retirement party, Batman, in his guise as Bruce Wayne, inadvertently adopts orphan Dick Grayson, Age 12 (Michael Cera), and sees the presentation by new Commission and Gordon's daughter Barbara (Rosario Dawson), who wants Batman to cooperate more with the Gotham police, which Batman scoffs at. Joker and the Anti-Batman Army arrive to seemingly crash the party, but surprises everyone when the Joker surrenders on all their behalf. Batman is suspicious, and decides to banish the Joker to the Phantom Zone, using Superman's Phantom Zone gun-thing. After rebuking the eternally enthusiastic Grayson, he decides to bring him on, since he is small enough to get through the vents at the Fortress of Solitude. Grayson dons one of Batman's alternate costume "Reggae Man", (without the pants), and calls himself "Robin". Batman begins to grow closer to Robin after the latter successfully gains the gun. Batman uses it on the Joker. However, the Joker had anticipated this, and got Harley Quinn (Jenny Slate) to get him out. In the Phantom Zone, he gets the other villains (including Voldemort, Sauron, and the Wicked Witch of the East) to join him in exchange for their freedom (though oddly, Zod was not among them). Now, with larger than life villains attacking Gotham, Batman, Robin, Barbara and Alfred must stop the villains. And Batman must confront his socialization and emotional issues relating to having a family.

      First, it was very refreshing, after years of Batmen who are all brooding, emotionless matyr, to see a Batman who is completely full of himself. It's a good change of pace. It also has a lot of nods to the entire history of Batman, from the original Kane-Finger incarnation to '66 series to The Animated Series and the DCAU. The film uses the rich history of Batman create many visual references and gags, which will be a delight to anyone who can spot them. I also liked that it emphasized why Batman needs a Robin, and really, the entire "Batman family." It emphasizes that he needs them as support, both as literal support and emotional support. Robin especially. Many people dislike Robin, because they feel a little kid trivializes the dark, brooding "I'm sad, because I lost my parents" detective (even though Robin was introduced in April, 1940, a mere 7 months after Batman debuted, so he was as old as the franchise.) When I saw this movie, I thought about Bill Finger's reason for creating Robin in the first place. Batman was like Sherlock Holmes, and Holmes needed Watson, because Watson was someone he could get support from, someone to bounce off of, someone the audience could look through and watch the character from a neutral standpoint. Robin was essentially Batman's Watson. This movie, I think, best summarizes why Robin is needed. He is Batman's family, and Batman feels an obligation to take of him, because (and this is not in the movie, but from the comics), Dick Grayson's parents also died very tragically from an accident while performing in the circus. Getting away from that for my last point, it was fun. It was fun, and I enjoyed every minute of it. That is more than I can say of Dawn of Boredom. 
     I wish more was done with the actual Legos. In The Lego Movie, they used Legos in very interesting and creative ways, and the whole theme of that film involved creativity. Here, yeah, they use the Lego setting a few times, (like a very creative climax), but I feel more could've been done with the fact that it was all Legos, and put that to creative use. I also feel that there were a little too many characters during the climax. It was somewhat amusing to see Sauron and King Kong, but there was Voldemort, apparently, and I didn't recognize him.That's severe nitpicking, but that did bother me.

     Like I said, best Batman since The Dark Knight. I think with this, and The Lego Movie, despite not being big into Legos, I might be on board with the Lego movies. They're a lot more interesting and fun than most of the blockbusters coming out today. I would recommend it as a good kids film, or a good film for a comics fan. All I have left to just say to go and watch it.


     

Top Films of 2016

    Yeah, no recap for 2016. It basically speaks for itself. I will be candid and saw this year was awful. Just terrible, not just in the world, but to me personally (don't want to get into it, just take my word for it). Anyway, we aren't here to talk about the deaths, or the election (urgh). We're here to talk about movies. This was actually a pretty good year for movies. Some pretty good blockbusters, some good independent films. This was a better year in movies than most other things, and with the next four years being deluge of more franchise-building and sequels and reboots  (seriously, they're trying to make Baywatch into a 21 Jump Street parody), we may not get many more years like this. Just a run-down of the rules. This is for movies I saw that were released in some capacity to a wide audience between January 1st and December 31st, 2016. If a film you liked wasn't on the list, I simply didn't see it. Also, that means movies I didn't do reviews of will appear. This is only for movies, not for television shows, because I don't watch that much TV nowadays (this is for that person who keeps asking me about where certain TV shows will end up on the list. You know who you are.) The film will be divided into six categories: Worst of the year, bad, Meh, Okay, Good, Best of the year. It will be ranked in that order. So, without further ado....

Worst Film of the Year

War Dogs

Source: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2005151/

      Yeah, I'm sure some of you are surprised this film made the list, and not the next entry. However, after considering what I really thought about the two, I realized I didn't really find anything enjoyable about this movie. Nothing I really remember as being outstanding or spectacular. I can't even remember what happened during most of this movie. I initially considered Jonah Hill's performance to be the saving grace, but on further scrunity, it hasn't held up, and certainly doesn't save this movie, in the same way, despite being a great actor, his performance couldn't save True Story. Aside from that, Miles Teller is, as usual, not very good, and director Tod Phillips fails in his attempt to create a "commentary on the American Dream" movie like his comedy contemporary Adam McKay did with The Big Short . Instead, there is no real commentary, just a dull, ultimately conventional look into how they began arms dealing, how they expanded, and how it all collapsed, with no lessons and no real insight, aside from (Spoiler) pay the person you hired to redesign the ammunition you plan to resell to the American military. That is its biggest crime:It had the potential to be another great commentary film, and it just passed by with little comment or fanfare. What a waste

Bad:

Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice

Source:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batman_v_Superman:_Dawn_of_Justice

    Once again, what keeps this off being the very worst of the year is that I can point to some things I enjoyed. Most of the actors, like Ben Affleck, Jeremy Irons, and Gal Gadot, do fine for the most part, though they aren't given enough to work with. The special effects are fine, and I suppose Zac Snyder's style (not a good one, but at least a distinct one) shines here better than in Man of Steel. However, they are stuck in this monotonous, dour narrative, which does not make sense, and relies on really contrived twists to move forward. There are some really dumb stuff, that you simply cannot believe actually happened, and they actually kept this in the final version of the script. Jesse Eisenberg seems to be in a completely different movie than the rest of the cast, and Henry Cavill, who was fine in the last movie, just trudges through this looking very depressed. They take two of the most iconic characters in popular culture, and strip them of their personalities or what really makes them different, which takes away the tension when they do eventually fight. However, this film's biggest crime was that it was so boring. This was 2+ hours of overblown, heavily CGI fight scenes, where there is no excitement, no enjoyment, no intensity. Honestly, there's nothing else I can say, that others haven't said in greater detail. 

Suicide Squad

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

   Oh, bless them, they tried their very best to make this unique and fun, as opposed to recent darkfest of the other DCCU films. To be fair, there are some stand-outs in this (Viola Davis and Will Smith are particular mentions in this regard), but it is clear that the studio hacked this film in post-production. Thus, the finished product is disjointed in terms of tone, action, and characterization. It struggles to really pin down what it wanted to be. Was it supposed to be dark, comedic, darkly comedic, action-packed? Beats the hell out of me. It doesn't help that some of the performances were just terrible. Cara Delevingne has not improved from Paper Towns a year ago, and is still wooden and bland. The normally charismatic and enjoyable Margot Robbie plays Harley Quinn very obnoxiously, and I couldn't stand her in some scenes. I'd complain about Jared Leto's Joker (and yeah, the performance was pretty bad), but he's not really in the movie enough to get me mad. Oh, yeah, and it (and War Dogs, now that I think about it) killed pop song soundtracks for me. I never want to hear "Fortunate Son" in a film for the rest of my lifetime, and I'm only 19.

Passengers

Source:http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1355644/

          Well, I was excited for this, and was disappointed. This film has, what is called an "Idiot Plot", where the entire crux of the story relies entirely on the characters acting in very stupid ways, and if they thought about their situation, the entire conflict would not happen. The trailers leave out a very important part of the plot, which is integral to plot, but which also raises a number of questions about why it happened. Also, it seems to build to a larger twist than the one I just mentioned, which never comes, and the film just devolves into a standard science fiction climax, which is implausible in its own way. There are good spots: Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence have good chemistry, and the ending is decent. However, this is just bad in the most bland manner, a generic sort of bad, where I will forget this film even existed a year from now. 

X-Men: Apocalypse:

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-Men:_Apocalypse

   You know, I kind of liked this the first time I saw it. Goes to show how time changes your perception. As someone who defends superhero films, I do see this as the archetypal superhero film, that people complain about. It really doesn't utilize any of the considerable talent they had on hand to good effect. Indeed, most of the actors (Jennifer Lawrence, especially; wow, she hasn't had a good year) seem bored most of the time. There is a completely unnecessary Wolverine cameo which stops the movie cold for about 5 minutes. Excluding the "Quicksilver slow-motion" rescue scene (which does build on the similar scene from Days of Future Past), the fight scenes are not very well made, and go on too long. It fails to capture any sort of epic feel, with Apocalypse (a very intimidating villain in the comics) having little to no real menace to him, just barking on about some pretentious non-sense. It is an overall disappointment in comparison to the excellent Days of Future Past. 

Meh 

Batman: The Killing Joke

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

    Can we put a ten year moratorium on Batman movies? I am so sick of Batman. DC over-promotes him, and he has been in several movies this year, not just the live-action ones, but in animation. I might go see the Lego Batman Movie, and assuming Warner Bros. does Wonder Woman well, I might do the Ben Affleck solo film, but that's it. Anyway, this movie ruins its potential (having a great source material, which I highly recommend) in its opening act, which completely ruins the character of Barbara Gordon, and taints the rest of the film by association. The opening act really ruins this entire movie. The only reason it isn't in the bad category is, aside from the terrible, character destroying opening act of the film, it actually was a pretty good adaptation of the Alan Moore comic, with most of the iconic lines and scenes intact. Also, of course, it's always great to hear Kevin Conroy as the Dark Knight, and especially Mark Hamill as the Clown Prince of Crime. Hamill said he would not return to voice the Joker unless it was an adaptation of the Killing Joke, and he, as he always does in this role, nails it perfectly, with charm and menace. A shame he had to play it in this version. 

Jason Bourne

Source:http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4196776/

    I assumed my confusion with this film stemmed from the fact that I hadn't seen the other Bourne films. I intended to watch them before making this list, but I never got the time. After seeing other reviews, I decided it wasn't just me. Yeah, even taking my ignorance of this franchise into account, this was pretty bad, with confusing action scenes, overdone cinematography, and especially bored acting. Based on what I've seen of the other films, Matt Damon just seems bored once again, and Tommy Lee Jones simply isn't trying. I suppose Alicia Vikander was a highlight. I promise, I'll try to watch all of them before the next one comes out. 

Elvis and Nixon

Source: http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRqgk6uO-xl11XG6oIAYb1vFRpkDIgHwDVyJIPcv7JmeiOtxPDc

   Well, this sure was a movie that existed. I can't think of any reason this needed to be 86 minutes, when it easily could've just been a 40 minute TV feature with commercials to extend it to an hour. There isn't anything specifically bad about this movie. There's just nothing in it to really recommend. If you are interested in this real life event, and want to see some speculation on how it went down, or you want to see Michael Shannon and Kevin Spacey's decent performances, you'll probably like this, but this really wasn't something I'll revisit. 

Okay:

Sing

Source:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sing_(2016_film)

     I can't think of a good reason they needed to be animals in this plot. Aside from a couple of gags, there is no reason that they needed to be animals. This story could've been easily acted out with humans. Since it is about animals, it's fine. Like most of Illumination's other animated features, it is mostly okay, with some good performances. I did spend most of the movie figuring out who the celebrities were voicing the characters, so if you want to play that game, there's that. The pop song soundtrack is pandering, and will probably date the movie in mere years. However, this was nothing bad about this film, and certainly nothing a child wouldn't enjoy.

Deadpool

Source:http://www.fox.es/deadpool

   This was funny. Yeah, it was pretty funny, with the character's trademark snark and fourth wall breaking intact. It had decent action scenes, and Deadpool's make-up was pretty good. Aside from that, it was just okay. There was nothing really, really special about it, aside from the humor. At the same time, I didn't think this was bad. There just wasn't much to the film aside from the humor. Still, I do see why it became very popular.

Zootopia 

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

   Another film that people loved this year, that I just found okay. It was fine. Can't say I'll ever watch it again. Its overall themes of racism are well presented, if heavy handed and a bit flimsy when you consider them in the context of the plot. The visuals were nice, with some creative uses for a city built specifically for animals (and unlike Sing, the story actually requires them to be animals.). The best I could compare this movie to is another Disney feature, Meet the Robinsons, another high-concept film, with a recurring theme and nice visuals. Both films have good elements, but ultimately too weak narratively to really be impactful

Doctor Strange

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

       I feel about this movie the same way most people felt about Ant-Man (which I liked). It was just another origin story, one which sort of hits the beats of the traditional superhero origin films, and not doing anything else with it. Not that it's bad for doing it. Marvel does this formula very well, and it always produces a quality product. I did enjoy the embrace of the psychedelic elements that made the character a classic during the 1960's, with "trippy" visuals which meld and bend the background, and the resolution with the villain was pretty clever. However, this stands with Thor and Age of Ultron as one of Marvel's weaker efforts, especially in comparison with Civil War , and perhaps an indication that even Marvel is beginning to falter. Thankfully, Spider-Man: Homecoming is not an origin story, so it could potentially better.

Finding Dory

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

     Is there a reason for this movie to exist? No. Is it better than the original? No. Given those , they still made a decent product, with Pixar's usual pendent for good visuals and some decent performances still in practice. If they had to make a sequel to Finding Nemo, (a film with no sequel hook), this is the best one we could possibly have had, and it isn't just the first movie over again. However, I would just recommend watching the first movie again. The fact that Pixar is making more sequels is pretty concerning for the once great animation studio.

The Jungle Book

Source:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungle_Book_(2016_film)

     Decent enough. It is a classic story, after all, and Disney's recent live actions adaptations have proven successful enough. However, you might as well just watch the original Disney film. This attempt at a darker, epic version ultimately falls flat, with the allusions to the original film constantly undercutting that darker tone. It definitely doesn't have the darkness of the Kipling stories. Still, it wasn't terrible, as far as live action adaptations go, and if we have to get live action adaptations of Disney films, this is at least watchable. 

Star Trek:Beyond

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

    This is far better than the first two reboot Trek films, with the inherent feel of an original series episode, without being too derivative from better sources (*cough* Into Darkness *cough*), and an good potboiler plot, which could easily fit into any given Star Trek series. Also very nice tributes to both the late Leonard Nimoy and the late Anton Yelchin. This could possibly chalked up to Simon Pegg being one of the screenwriters this time, who clearly knows the source material, and used it to craft this movie. The reason this is rather low on the list was that it still had many of the same problems as those other two films. Same overdone plot, with a frantic, world-ending consequences climax like the last one, same overuse CGI effects, which take away the emotion effect of some scenes (such as when the Enterprise crashed), same overall feel of excessiveness from the previous two features. That said, I'm glad this series is getting better, and hopefully, as we move through movies, these problems will continue to decline.

Good:

The Accountant 

Source:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Accountant_(2016_film)

    You might think I have some sort of special insight into this film, given I have autism myself, and the protagonist is explicitly stated as Autistic. I don't really have much to say on that front, I'll just say this is probably one of the most sympathetic and non-stereotypical (i.e. adhering strictly to psychiatric views) portrayals of autism I have ever seen in media. This is the better Ben Affleck movie I saw this year, with him giving a good performance without veering into the Inspirationally Disadvantaged trope some actors do when portraying people with disabilities. I'm glad they actually address him explicitly as autistic, but without coming off as condescending or demeaning. I recommend this as a good fiction film about film, and even taking that out, just a good action thriller.

Rogue One: A Star Wars Story

   

        A decent spin-off film, revolving around a seemingly minuscule, but an integral part of A New Hope.  This feels like a part of the Star Wars universe, while telling an interesting original story from it. Unlike The Force Awakens, it doesn't crib too much from the other movies, and manages to tell a good story with good, likeable characters and good action sequences. It really feels like a side story, and I mean that as a compliment. The characters, while more insignificant, still get to have some importance by the very end, and they have some eventual impact.

The Witch

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

    Yeah, this is as good as others have said. It is very unnerving in some scenes, the historical setting and Puritanical characters are both distinct and a nice way of increasing the inter-character tension and their reaction to unsettling events. It relies more on slow, methodical scares which build your sense of unease (I'm running out of synonyms for "unsettling") It is mysterious without being confusing or begging for more explanation. This was a really good horror movie. The reason it is low on the good part, is simply it didn't stick with me after I watched it. Similar films like the Babadook and It Follows really stuck with me months after I had watched them. I continued to think about them, what worked about them, and was still scared by them, long after I had watched it. I didn't have the same reaction to this. I kind of didn't think about this movie, and I didn't get nightmares from it. It didn't really impact me. Still, this was very good, and a nice indication on a new, welcomed trend of slow, intelligent horror movies.

Moana

Source:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moana_(2016_film)

   Polynesian culture has always fascinated me, with its large focus on exploration and their sophisticated methods of sailing and star-gazing. I'm glad Disney was able to capture that essence of Polynesian culture and mythology in this film. Particularly, I liked that they incorporated the Polynesian love of exploration and sailing into the very plot of the movie. The songs (written by Hamilton creator Lin-Manuel Miranda) were instantly memorable and fun to listen to. Newcomer  Auli'i Cravalho does great in both acting and singing. It's always great to see the Rock in a film (even if he doesn't have a great singing voice). An especially high recommendation is that Jemaine Clement of Flight of the Concords appears as a villain, and gets to sing a villain song with an acoustic guitar.

Snowden

     I heard a lot of bad buzz about this film going in. After seeing, I didn't have the same reaction. I thought it was a decent film. It follows Snowden's journey to becoming a whistleblower in detail, showing his disillusionment with the NSA data collection methods, and his journey to eventually stop it. I can't attest to the accuracy of any of the events of the film, but the real Snowden appears at the end, so apparently he approved of the product. If you want a good idea on the whole controversy surrounding this, I recommend taking a look at this film. Also, it's nice to see Nick Cage in a good movie again.

Hail Caesar 

Source:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hail,_Caesar!

       This is first (and as of now only) Coen Brother's film I have seen. I have apparently missed a lot if this is anything to go by. Interweaving several stories centering around the actions of real life studio executive Eddie Mannix (Josh Brolin) in 1950's Hollywood, it manages to have some perversely funny moments, mainly from a cast of interesting characters and their situations. The movie satires and their production is symbolized by the hilarious line "Divine Presence to be shot". Maybe I ought to see more Coen Brothers films.

Popstar: Never Stop Never Stopping

Source:http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT9Q52XhOcm-cRBDrYJgCDoZbXG4oDfgplCRmFn5zAFcPKswIu7

     The Lonely Island is something I shouldn't like, yet I do a lot. They are definitely crass and explicit, but I think the knowing sarcastic tone is what makes differentiates that from your average Comedy Central show with similar jokes. If you enjoy that sense of humor, you'll probably enjoy this film as much as I did. Mocking the self-aggrandizing nature of most modern music documentaries, the film utilizes the talents of the three leads (both musically and comedically) to great effect. Yes, Andy Samberg is, as usual, very funny, but props need to be given to the other Lonely Island members Akiva Schaffer and Jorma Taccone as well for their performance, as well as writing (with Samberg) and directing the movie. 

La La Land

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

         I went into detail about this a few weeks ago, so I'll try not to repeat myself. I'll say that while I may not have been as wowed by this as many other people were, and indeed there were some problems with this.  I still find this to be one of the most original and fun films of the year. It's rare to see this kind of classical style musical with original songs and a heavily improv jazz inspired musical score. It is the sort of fluff that stems from legitimate passion for this style of film. It's still out in theater, so if you haven't seen it, I recommend seeing it at least once. 

Everybody Wants Some!!

Source:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everybody_Wants_Some!!_(film)

        A sort of thematic successor to Boyhood in terms of someone entering college for the first time, and meeting an assortment of new and interesting characters. Like Boyhood, it manages to takes the fairly dull premise, and use interesting characters and situation to make it interesting. All the characters seem like real people, and most of their situation arise out of their logical actions. There isn't a plot, but there doesn't need to be. It is simply how life goes. Nothing really exciting or thrilling happens, really, but it still manages to be fun and interesting all the way through. 

 Captain America: Civil War

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_America:_Civil_War

      This is a movie where exciting and thrilling things happen, and still is interesting. The placement of this so high up on the list may just be because of my increased annoyance at people constantly complaining about Superhero movies, but it is still a solid example of the genre, and I think one of Marvel's best movies. The Captain America movies get better with each installment, with this one having some truly excellent action scenes, and some legitimately great character moments. It also shows the strength of having it be a cinematic universe, because seeing the Avengers torn up in this manner is more depressing, because we've seen these characters and their relationship grow through these movies, and based on this relationship, the climax in particular was incredibly intense. This is a movie about emotions and passions, and how they influence our actions. Certainly one of Marvel's finest moments, and with Dr. Strange proving okay, I think we might not get another movie like this again. (At least we get Guardians next years).

Hell or High Water

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

      A movie I watched purely on a whim, and glad that I did. This is a neo-Western about two brothers who resort to robbing banks in order to keep their family homestead (which may have oil on it), and the veteran policeman hoping to capture them. This never paints anyone as the villain. Every person simply is trying to do what they think is right. You find yourself rooting for both sides, because each character is very richly drawn and given an individual moment in the sun. The moral ambiguity helps establish tone and themes of the movie. It keeps you on your feet at all times, making you wonder what is going to happen, who might die in this struggle. Sometimes, you learn as much about what is happening as the characters do. I don't want to spoil what happens in this, so go and watch it yourself. 

The Nice Guys

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

   The movie this year I enjoyed so much, I watched it multiple times, and it didn't get old. Between this and La La Land,Ryan Gosling had a pretty good year (unlike the rest of us, and he's going to be in Blade Runner 2049 next year.). He and Russell Crowe have excellent chemistry, which is the main appeal of this movie: watching these two dysfunctional characters try to get along while solving what seems to be a simple disappearance, which turns more and more layers, as it transforms into a conspiracy involving the automobile industry. The dialogue is hilarious, once again working off Crowe's and Gosling's chemistry, and the 70's Los Angeles setting is used to great effect. A surprising stand-out in the cast is Australian actress Angourie Rice, who plays Gosling's character's daughter, who manages to hold her own, and even help them sort of their problems and solve the mystery. She had some of the best lines in the movie. Once again, if you haven't seen this, Watch This Movie!

Best of the Year

Arrival

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

     Having some inclination more towards the sciences, I sort of have a preference for hard science fiction, and hard science fiction is such a rarity in film, that I tend to savor any good example of the genre. Like I said in my review, this is essentially a hard science film about linguistics, and it helps detail how we could possibly decode an alien language so foreign to us. At the same time, it uses the ideas of language to explore larger themes of time and universality. It manages to build these big ideas, while also focusing on the character's journey, her emotional arc. The twist in the end is well-executed, building on those themes of time and universality, but there is still enough of a mystery to the aliens that the world ending climax bit still has tension, because we potentially don't know what will happen. The best science fiction film is one that can handle such large ideas without veering into pretentiousness. As soon as I finished watching, I knew I had just seen the best film of the year. 

   So, that was the films of 2016. Will 2017 be better? Who knows. For now, I'll continue writing on here. Not just movie reviews, but also book reviews, articles on weird science concepts and experiments, think pieces on a number, all that jazz. I hope you have an excellent new year, and I'll see you in 2017.

    

Current Movie Reviews- La La Land

       First and foremost, what first attracted me to this movie was the jazz score. As someone with some musical training, I noted the more bebop, improvisation style of the score automatically set it apart from the more swing score that most Broadway musical follow. If you can point out other scores that also utilize that style, sure, but I'm not really into musicals. I've enjoyed a couple musical films over the years, but I can't say that I am well versed in this particular field. That said, I did know what I was expecting out of this, and coming out of it, it gave me exactly what I expected. That's not a bad thing. In fact, I expected this to be quite good, and it was quite good.  Not exceptional or groundbreaking, but good overall and very enjoyable.

        La La Land centers around two dreamers in that hellish, post-apocalyptic landscape known as Los Angeles . Mia (Emma Stone) is a barista in a studio coffee house (apparently studio lots have those. Also that studio lots still existed), who aspires to be an actress, but is frustrated by often indifferent or incompetent casting directors. After getting lost after a party where she had hoped to find a casting director, she hears Sebastian (Ryan Gosling), a struggling Jazz musician who has extraordinary talent and dreams of opening his own jazz club, but is stuck doing simple tunes in restaurants. They have an awkward first meeting (right after Sebastian was fired by his boss Bill (J K Simmons)). However, after encountering each other again at another party, they slowly begin to build a relationship. Meanwhile, each is trying to build their own dreams. Sebastian convinces Mia to star in her own one-woman play to showcase her skills, while an old associate of Sebastian's, Keith (John Legend) convinces Sebastian to join his jazz band (which is increasingly influenced by modern R&B and electronic music). As they continue to work towards their goals, they encounter struggles which will ultimately test their relationship.

       Like I said in the introduction, the score was what attracted me to the movie in the first place. It was worth it. The upbeat jazz score is immediately memorable and interesting. It is easily the best part of the movie. The production value is very high, and none of it is wasted. It mostly succeeds as a classic Hollywood musical transplanted to the grungy modern day LA. The musical numbers are good, using the same jazz score to great effect. Some are actually very emotional to see. The choreography for the dancing (coming from someone with no dance skills) was very dynamic and fit the upbeat tone of the music. Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone are both well-cast, and have excellent chemistry, making their relationship very engaging and believable. Ryan Gosling has a good singing voice....
   
      ..... But Emma Stone doesn't. Oh, her singing voice is fine, and honestly, during the first few times she sings, she isn't that bad at it. But there's one point ( a bit of spoiler here), where she has to sing a song solo. Once again, her singing voice isn't bad, it just doesn't fit with the emotional tone of the song, and took away from that emotion. The plot isn't exemplar, and by the middle, I could kind of tell where it was going, and what was eventually going to happen. Also, any character that isn't Mia or Sebastian is not fleshed out, and just kind of go in and out of the movie with little mention. Yes, it is their love story, and it does focus sufficiently on that, but having other characters interact with the main couple more helps flesh out the setting more and get more perspective on their relationship. Finally, despite being a musical, there are actually long stretches where there are no musical numbers.

      Like I said, this was pretty good, and I had a good time watching it. It's not really a movie I will think about much, (aside from the songs and the melodies), but I'm glad I watched it. If you like musicals, jazz, or want to a musical that isn't made up of pop songs, this is the film for you. If not, well, you probably weren't planning to watch it anyway. Once again, it was good. Exactly what I expected. 

Current Movie Reviews- Arrival

        The genre of science fiction runs on a spectrum. There are two major subgenres, "hard" and "soft" science fiction. Hard science fiction generally centers around what are known as the "hard" sciences, that being the sciences which have a heavy emphasis on mathematics, and is thus adhere closely the laws of the physical world. Soft science fiction tends to focus on culture and society, and deemphasizes the hard science, in favor of more, shall we say, fantastic speculation. Now, these are very nebulous, and there are elements of both in some works. However, these tend to be the two sides of science fiction. Arrival appears to be one of those exception, which generally takes elements from both. It is a hard science fiction film, about linguistics, a field which doesn't tend to focus on mathematics. Yeah, as a feature film, it doesn't dwell too much on linguistics, but it is a major element, and its application to the translation of an literal alien certainly does raise implication, on how we could possibly interact with aliens in the future. This was definitely a fascinating film.

       Based on the short story "Story of Your Life" by Ted Chiang, Arrival follows the, well, arrival of twelve alien ships across several locations on the Earth, which causes widespread fear and panic across the world. Colonel Weber (Forrest Whittaker) hires linguist Louise Banks (Amy Adams) to be part of an exploration group into one of the ships in Montana. Along the way is theoretical physicist Ian Donnelly (Jeremy Renner). Banks seems to be haunted by flashbacks of her deceased daughter. She manages to determine that the aliens writing and speech are separate, and uses a single word of their language (human) to break down the language barrier. Thus, they are able to decode the language, and begins a communication with the aliens. However, around the world, militaries begin to take premature precautions. In particular, People's Liberation Army Commander Shang (Tzi Ma) is prepared to declare war. Matters are not helped, when the aliens claim to bring a weapon to the humans. As the international chaos continues, Banks and Donnelly unravel the mystery behind their intentions. And even the supposed flashbacks Banks is having....

      Certainly, the "First Contact" trope is nothing new fiction. People going back centuries have written about encounters between aliens and humans. This film decides to focus on one of the major elements of the trope, decoding the language, and starting it off from there. It properly shows how an alien language, which comes from the ink out of an alien's hands, can actually be decoded, if the humans and extraterrestrial reach an understanding. The fact that their words are not representations of speech, but rather entire concepts cements how alien they truly are. Time is also a major subtext, with the various flashbacks and mentions of time. There is an ingenious twist at the end, which I will not spoil, but it builds off the rest of the movie, and makes you reconsider the rest of the film in that context. The fact the film seems to flash back actually underscores the twist even more. I also liked how rather than tell you the effects immediately, hint at them, and use them to resolve the conflict. The alien design, while nothing special, does serve a narrative purpose, in terms of how they communicate.

      I would've liked to have seen a bit more of the international crises going on in the background, especially with General Shang and the People's Republic. He barely appears, and as the antagonist, he deserved more characterization. A little bit more explanation on the aliens would've been nice, particularly what sort of atmosphere they came from, since they are able to walk, but also "swim" in this fog like atmosphere. It bothered me. At first, I thought they might have evolved on a gas giant, but 1.) How could they have constructed a metallic ship, and 2.) How would they be able to walk. It bothered me through the movie.

     Yeah, I might be biased, since I enjoy movies like this, but I think this is one of the best pictures of the year. A nice exploration into language, and how we communicate, and how we might communicate with extraterrestrials. If you're interested in such topics, I highly recommend this movie. It really adds a new spin on the subject of "First Contact", that many works haven't explored. And I certainly wish this movie produces discussion on such topics in the near future. 

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- The Exorcist

      In 1949, reports came in across several newspapers of a young man in Cottage City, Maryland, (around 14 at the time), going by the pseudonym "Roland Doe" or "Robbie Mannheim", whose erratic behavior made him the subject of a series of exorcisms by several local Catholic priests.This incident became the subject of speculation for decades, including claims (even by the ones doing the exorcism) that the boy merely suffered mental illness, or had even just been making the events up for attention. Regardless, occasional screenwriter and author William Peter Blatty used the incident as the basis of the 1971 novel The Exorcist, though only the idea of an exorcism was used, other details were changed. This was all it needed to be very controversial in its time. Warner Brothers got the rights to make the film adaptation, and, after directors like Mike Nichols and Stanley Kubrick ultimately passed on the project, chose William Friedkin (known at the time as the director of The French Connection, which was why he was chosen) to direct. Blatty served as both screenwriter and producer. Many child actresses were screened for the part of Regan MacNeill before Linda Blair was chosen. After a difficult filming process, where the actors were often either shocked by the content, or physically injured during the more intense, the film was released on December 26th, 1973. It was immediately controversial, with people either fainting from shock during the film, or throwing up in the aisle. Others condemned the film for its content, mainly revolving around the depiction of the exorcism. Still, it garnered critical acclaim, and became the first horror movie to be nominated for Best Picture (while it didn't win, it won "Best Adapted Screenplay" and "Best Sound Mixing"). However, during editing, Friedkin made the decision to cut several scenes from the movie. Many years later, these scenes were cut back into the film in 2000, with this being the version in most DVDs. The film is considered one of the greatest horror movies ever made.

    The film opens in northern Iraq, where Father Merrin (Max von Syndow) finds a strange amulet for the pagan god (and demon) Pazuzu (Mercedes McCambridge), a demon he had encountered years earlier, and after viewing the statue of Pazuzu, he realizes Pazuzu. The narrative shifts to actress Chris MacNeill (Ellen Burtsyn) and her daughter Regan (Linda Blair). While Chris is in Washington, DC, for a film shoot, Regan begins to exhibit strange behavior. These behaviors begin to escalate, including strange events happening around Regan, (like steps in their attic, or objects moving around her) and Chris' director, Burke Dennings (Jack MacGowran), getting killed while watching over Regan. After doctors and psychiatrists fail to find an Earthly cause for Regan's problems, one of the doctors suggests an exorcism, and tells Chris to find Father Karras (Jason Miller). While Karras is skeptical, seeing Regan gradually transform into a human representation of the demon convinces him, and he agrees to do the exorcism. However, he needs help, and gets Merrin to come and help him out. Together, they try to compel the demon to leave Regan's body.

     I suppose I should start with the first thing that impressed me about this film: the music. It helps build the atmosphere of the film, and accentuates certain events. The opening title screen uses a discordant music score the same way 2001 did to great effect in both cases, to give the audience an unsettling feeling going into a film. This is the definition of a good horror score, one which doesn't distract from, but adds to the fears of the film. The build-up also works, giving each main character personalities, and enough background to really care for them, when events begin to turn south. Foreshadowing is also used to great effect, sometimes very subtly. The cinematography emphasize the strangeness of these events, their effects, and their brutality. The effects are deservedly praised, and it is worth the hype in terms of horror, as there are some very terrifying scenes in the film. Mercedes McCambridge's groggy voice with the heavily scarred make-up and puppet are, to put it bluntly, very creepy, and sometimes, her shouts shook me. The stare was also slightly unnerving. It unnerved me when I was 11, and it hasn't really changed.

   A few people told me that the film came off as a little ridiculous when viewed today, as opposed to 1973. Which, I admit, is somewhat true in some scene. They aren't really so much scary, as overly ridiculous or absurd. Some scenes noted for their horror are more silly today. There are still enough scares to creep you out, but not as much as I thought. I also wish it had taken up more of the movie, since if it was prolonged, it could've been much scarier. I think I watched the shorter version (because the longer version had a scene of her spider-walking, which I can't recall seeing), so maybe it was done better in the longer version.

   Had I watched this film when I was 11 or 12, it would've scared me out of my wits. Today, I think the effect select scenes had on me when I was that age has been numbed by other horror movies. Still, this very much lives up to the hype of a chillingly effective horror movie, and a good overall film, and should be watched along with other pieces of classic cinema. For me, while I'm not usually into supernatural horror, I might seek out and watch the extended version, just to compare the two versions.

    Thank you all for reading this years Masterpiece. If you're new, I did one of these last year, and all reviews are still available. For now, the terror shall retreat from the land of living until this time of year next year. Have a Happy Halloween, ladies and gentlemen. 

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- Theatre of Blood

      Not much I could say on the history of this film. Vincent Price apparently did this movie to show his considerable Shakespearean abilities (having started out doing Shakespeare on Orson Welles' Mercury Theater in the 1930's.) He was offered the project by his friend and former agent, Sam Jeffe. Sure enough, it became a personal favorite of Price's among his filmography. It was notable for having been shot entirely on location, with the Putney Hippodome and the Kensal Green Cemetery in London being primary shooting locations, as opposed to studio locations. Many West-End Actors were secured to star in this film. To produce the murders, over six gallons of fake blood was used. Price was introduced to his future wife Carol Browne through his co-star Diana Rigg (most famous for her role as "Emma Peel" on the British television show The Avengers, no, not related to that one. Co-star Ian Hendry also starred in The Avengers. ). The film now has a 72% on Rotten Tomatoes, and now has a stage adaptation, with Jim Broadbent and Riggs' daughter Rachel Sterling in the lead roles.

      Stage actor Edward Lionheart (Vincent Price) considers himself one of the greatest Shakespearean actors of the modern era. Thus, when he is snubbed for a "Critic's Award", and promptly acts out, humiliating himself, he decides to enact vengeance on the critics who had given him poor reviews and had taken his award from his clutches. Helping him in this endeavor is his daughter Edwina (Diana Rigg), who adopts a disguise using a fake mustache and beard, who assists him in faking his suicide, and getting in contact with a group of vagrants on the Thames, who become his "stage players." Once he has murdered three of the critics, one of them, Peregrine Devlin (Ian Hendry) figures out the murders are themed around the Shakespeare plays that Lionheart has performed in, and teams up with Police Inspector Boot (Milo O'Shea) to figure out the murders, and hopefully stop Lionheart.

     Vincent Price is this movie. He simply has a large presence around the entire film. While he is deliberately overacting, it is legitimately great to watch, and he is incredibly charismatic, delivering a certain demented glee when performing these murders. It's clear he is having a lot of the fun  He also delivers Shakespearean monologues in a way that would actually work in a real Shakespeare play. He really could've done very well in an actual Shakespeare movie. He basically towers over all the other actors in the feature, though most of them do fine. This also had a very interesting and creative idea for a serial murder film. Reenacting many Shakespeare's own murder scenes, or reinterpreting certain scenes, (like a metaphoric line in The Merchant of Venice). It's mostly uses black comedy and absurdity over actual horror to portray these murders.

     That said, it isn't particularly scary. It's quite gory, though, and sometimes disturbing, but never actually scary. I would've preferred some more actual scares, making the murder of the critics have more impact. As is, some of them are simply too silly to really take that seriously. There are also the occasional plotholes and contrivances to get the plot going. There's also no mystery to the whole affair. We know basically from the beginning that Lionheart is the murderer, and thus, Devlin and Boot's investigation has no suspense. Similarly, the fact that the Lionheart's bearded assistant is his daughter is treated as a big twist towards the end, but you could figure it out just through sheer logic. This mostly kills any suspense the film may have had.

     This was a fun, jaunty sort of ramp, one made so Vincent Price could belt out Shakespearean monologues, while also committing murders. I had a lot of fun watching it, despite it not really being a particularly deep film. This would be a good, fun Halloween watch, to just watch and have a good time. It's also for those who like the violence in Shakespeare plays (as opposed to the monologue, the classic dialogue, the themes...)

Next time, we conclude this year's Masterpiece with a film I've been avoiding for the past few years, but will finally confront: The Exorcist.   

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- Occulus

    Director Mike Flanagan produced a short film called Oculus: Chapter 3 – The Man with the Plan, using a single setting, and a single mirror, in 2005. This short film garnered acclaim, and studios began to offer him deals to turn the short film into a feature film. However, most of these offers wanted to turn the feature into a "found footage" movie. After passing on most such offers, Intrepid Pictures finally made an offer which actually said not to do it found footage. It eventually got other production companies involved after completion including.... wait, WWE films?But, this has nothing to do with wrestling. Apparently, they got involved after the film was shown in Toronto, but still. Why? Anyway, filming was completed in 24 days in Fairhope, Alabama, and the film was released in 2014 to generally good reviews and good box office.There is apparently a Hindi remake called Zahhak. Flanagan has gone to direct more feature. As of this writing, (October 23rd, 2016), his most recent picture Ouija: Origin of Evil is out in theaters.

        The film follows two narratives. One narrative revolves around siblings Tim (Brenton Thwaites) and Kaylie (Karen Gillian) reuniting after Tim has been discharged from a psychiatric hospital. Tim was accused of having murdered his father, who had killed his mother, while stating he had been under the influence of a mysterious mirror 11 years ago. Kaylie and her boyfriend (James Lafferty) have managed to retrieve that same mirror, and Kaylie, having documented the extensive history of it and strange occurrences around it, tries to find a way to destroy it by researching it. Tim has been convinced at the psychiatric hospital that he had hallucinated the whole incident, despite Kaylie's insistence on the contrary. As Kaylie tries to research the mirror, and the siblings argue, the second narrative arises, this one dealing with the incident itself, when Tim (Garett Ryan) and Kaylie (Annalise Basso) were pre-teens. After their father, Alan (Roy Cochrane), a software engineer, gets a new mirror, he and their mother Marie (Katee Sackhoff. Yes, Starbuck) begin to act strangely, with Alan remaining in his office all day, becoming obsessive with it, and Marie having disturbing hallucinations, about scars. This slowly degenerates their minds, as their children watch helplessly, all while in the present, similar things begin to happen to them.

        This film has some of the best use of jumpscares I've seen. Unlike other films, sometimes, the tension doesn't build to a jumpscare. Sometimes, it just happens out of nowhere, and the tension is there just to build atmosphere. Most of the actors do good, as a family that is slowly degenerating into madness. The breakdown of the nuclear family is nothing new, but it's portrayal  here is disturbing, with the mental breakdown of the mother in particular being very graphic in nature. There is also the psychological aspects to consider. Perhaps this was going on entirely in their heads. Perhaps, Tim's comments on possible rational explanations were plausible. There could be some sort of placebo effect on them. Or, the mirror subtly brought out the baser instincts of the people it comes into contact with. I enjoy films with multiple interpretations.

      The interaction between the two narratives sometime murky. While it's usually easy to tell which timeline we're in, by the end, it sometimes gets confusing. While I praised the jumpscares, the film itself isn't very scary. It is more creepy and unnerving than actually scary, and frankly, it didn't stick with me the same way a very scary horror film can (I had the same problem with The Witch). It is more interesting than scary. Finally, it lags a bit, though not enough to slow it down.

    Like I said, I didn't find the film very scary, so if you want a scary film to watch with your friends, then you won't find it here. If you want to see a film to ruminate and contemplate over, and have a brief unnerving experience, this would be a good one.

    Next time, we go in a different direction. Vincent Price's Theatre of Blood.