"Interstellar" Review

Interstellar

5 out of 5 stars

Family appropriateness rating 4 out of 5 stars
Rated PG-13
-Mild amount of language including one instance of the f-word
-Mild amount of violence










Writer/director Christopher Nolan once again delivers a thought-provoking story with deep, heavy dialogue with his new sci-fi flick, "Interstellar."

It is the near future, and the earth is becoming more uninhabitable every day. It is ridden with dust storms and crop infestations, causing farmers to burn parts of their fields. Because of this, NASA is looking for a planet suitable for everyone to live.

Cooper (Matthew McConaughey), a skilled pilot and engineer, is asked to go on a mission with a group of astronauts to find out which planet in a distant galaxy has the best conditions for humanity to survive.

"Interstellar" is more than just a space adventure, it is about a father wanting to see his daughter again. Everyone involved does a great job, but McConaughey delivers an especially powerful performance. His character is likable, and his emotions are so real that you want to see him succeed.

Nolan is one of my favorite directors. His films are sometimes twisty, and when they are not, they have thought-provoking themes. Even his comic book movies, "The Dark Knight Trilogy," provided a lot to think about in terms of morality.

This film is no different. It deals with time and space, which in itself is mind boggling. I was expecting my mind to be blown purely because of that. Nolan adds a couple other elements to think about as well including where the human race is going, how we can help our species survive and whether love is an evolutionary trait we adapted or a complex emotion that cannot be explained. A lot of this comes from the dialogue, which is often very deep.

At the hands of a less experienced director, this film could have been boring. The runtime is almost three hours, and a big part of it is set on earth before the space adventure starts. Thanks to Nolan's direction, every bit of this movie is interesting. He does a great job establishing the state of the earth so even those scenes will not put you to sleep. It is such a well-paced film that the run-time does not seem that long.

The cinematography is excellent. Many incredible shots show the beauty of space, and there are a lot of wide shots to show how lonely the characters are on their mission.

This film has been getting mixed reviews, and I can see why. It is not perfect. Some of the dialogue is forced, and some of the situations are a little convenient. However, everything that makes it great make up for these weaknesses.

Like my Facebook page: www.facebook.com/criticalchristopher

Follow me on Twitter: @ChrisCampbell02

"The Judge" Review

The Judge

3.5 out of 5 stars

Family appropriateness rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars
Rated R
-Moderate sexuality
-Strong language, including f-words, throughout.
-This one is rated up from most R rated films in terms of family appropriateness because the only reason it is R is the language. Furthermore, it has a good message about integrity that families might appreciate.







With complex characters and a good message, "The Judge" is worth seeing despite its weak first act.

Robert Downy Jr. plays Tony Stark Hank Palmer, a rich, talented lawyer who has spent his career defending awful people. He is from a small town in Indiana where his father, Joseph Palmer (Robert Duvall), has served as judge for many years. The two have had a falling out to where they rarely communicate anymore.

When Hank gets word that his mother passed away, he goes to his hometown for her funeral where he is forced to see his father. After a series of events, Judge Palmer undergoes a criminal investigation, and Hank stays to defend him.

Coming into this movie, I was expecting Hank to be a complete jerk with no sense of right and wrong. However, he is a likable person. He has told his share of lies, but he is not without morals. When he sees his father needs help, Hank does everything he can to defend the man even though their relationship is messed up. This proves to be difficult because Joseph is all about honesty and honor, whereas Hank knows all the loopholes that could easily get his father out of trouble.

Without hitting the audience members over their head, this film has a good message about honesty. It is about how having integrity and telling the truth can make everything right.

Robert Downy Jr. does a great job as the arrogant, yet likable lawyer. His character is a lot like Tony Stark in that he is far from perfect, but he still has great qualities. He is also wickedly brilliant, and it is fun to see him figure things out.

Robert Duvall also does a good job as the integrity-filled Judge Palmer. While I like this character towards the end, there are certain parts in the middle where he seems like a two-dimensional, stubborn elderly man. He is difficult for Hank to deal with, but the film later explains why.

"The Judge" does not receive a higher score from me because of the weak set-up. The beginning does not do much to suck the audience in. The fact that he is a brilliant lawyer who works for bad people is only revealed through the dialogue, and I would have liked to have seen Hank Palmer defending a scumbag before he goes to his hometown.

The beginning feels rushed. When Hank goes to his hometown there is very little context given about it. In actuality, him going is a big deal, but this is barely implied as he sarcastically says something to his daughter about his father. Little about the dynamic between Hank and Joseph is discussed until later, and the movie picks up when this happens.

The whole first act feels like a series of events that had to be glued together for the sole purpose of moving the story along. Some of the scenes end by dissolving into the next ones, and this makes the moments feel unimportant.

The reason for this probably has to do with its already-long running time. It stands at two hours and 21 minutes. It would have benefitted from cutting out on some of the superfluous subplots and focusing more on the two central characters.

Like my Facebook page: www.facebook.com/criticalchristopher

Follow me on Twitter: @ChrisCampbell02

"Gone Girl" Review

Gone Girl

5 out of 5 stars

Family appropriateness rating: 1 out of 5 stars
Rated R
-Topless female nudity
-Several scenes of sexuality including depictions of oral and anal sex.
-Strong language, including f-words and c-words, throughout
-One scene of graphic, bloody violence.







"Gone Girl" is a non-stop, emotional roller coaster with twists, turns and loops throughout.

The story seems like it would be a straight-forward mystery, but it is not. It starts off with Nick Dunne (Ben Affleck) trying to find his missing wife, Amy Dunne (Rosamund Pike). However, as the film progresses, it becomes much more than that.

It is impossible to discuss this movie in greater detail without giving away spoilers, and this is a movie you do not want to go into with any knowledge. There are several twists that give constantly evolving perspectives on who the characters are.

The performances are generally well-done, though Rosamund Pike is a little wooden in some scenes. Two of the actors are known more for comedic roles: Neil Patrick Harris and Tyler Perry. Both do a great job portraying unique characters.

Neil Patrick Harris is well-known for playing Barney Stinson in "How I Met Your Mother," a ridiculous character, who constantly comes up with schemes to get women. At first, it was difficult to separate these two roles, but after some time, he pulls it off. There are some similarities between the two characters, but their personalities are completely different.

"Gone Girl" was directed by David Fincher, who is also known for "Fight Club," a 1999 film known for a big twist near the end. In this movie, Fincher is able to throw the audience through even more loops without overwhelming them. The story is complex, yet the director uses simplicity to tell it. At no time was I confused about the events of this film.

Like I said before, it is impossible to discuss this movie without giving away spoilers. If you do not want to see spoilers, do not look at this section. However, if you have already seen the film or you cannot care less, go ahead and read on.

This film turned out much different than I had expected. The only trailer I had seen made it look like it would be about a psychopathic man who kills his wife. Having a background in psychology, this interested me greatly.

"Gone Girl" does delve into the realm of psychopathy, but in a different way. Nick Dunne, while he has a lot of character flaws, does not end up being the bad guy. His wife does. Near the middle of the film, it is revealed that Amy is a psychopathic version of Carrie Underwood. Livid that her husband had cheated, Amy stages everything to look like her husband had killed her so that he undergoes the death penalty.

When this is all revealed, it seems sudden because it happens within the first hour. I found myself wondering how there could possibly be more to this story, but there is a lot more. It does not end up being about the mystery but about how Nick defends himself legally. There is a satirical element to the story as he is forced to deal with the media, and every move he makes is under constant scrutiny.

The movie also shows Amy's perspective, and the audience finds out just how messed up she is. After  all her money is stolen, she seeks refuge with Neil Patrick Harris's character, Desi Collings, an ex-boyfriend who is desperate for company. In one disturbing, gory scene, she kills him after making it look like he had raped her. She then returns home where she makes Nick's life a living hell.

It is unclear exactly why she comes home. The reason she tells Nick is she realized he is the husband she wanted after seeing his televised interview. I think there is more to it than that, which is one of many reasons to re-watch this film.

Like my Facebook page: www.facebook.com/criticalchristopher

Follow me on Twitter @ChrisCampbell02

Feature-length movies at the Logan Film Festival

Within the state of Utah, there is a community of filmmakers. A lot of independent movies are created there, and it is home to one of the world's biggest film festivals: Sundance. In Northern Utah, there has been a push for its filmmaking community to be more apparent. Because of the scenic location, it is a good place for people to film, but this fact is largely unknown.

The Logan Film Festival -- which just wrapped up its third year -- has set a goal to make people in that area more excited about filmmaking. In order to do this, it seeks high-quality films from Utah and around the world.

I had the opportunity to be a judge for the student shorts category of the festival. The festival e-mailed films that ranged from 10-30 minutes, and I rated them on a scale of 1-10. In exchange for this, I was able to go to the festival for free and see what other great films there are. There were a lot of showings, and I was only able to see some of the feature-length films.

Ephraim's Rescue: 3.5 out of 5 stars

The event kicked off with a showing of Ephraim's Rescue, a film that has been available on DVD for over a year. The reason this film was shown -- according to an article in "The Utah Statesman" -- was it would appeal to a conservative audience present in Logan, Utah.

This film is based on the true story of a Mormon named Ephraim (Darin Southam), a humble, passionate man who converted to the church around the time many people of that religion were migrating to Salt Lake City, Utah. He seeks every opportunity to serve other people in any way he can. While doing good things, he performs miracles similar to what Jesus Christ did in the New Testament. Because he had received messages from God, he prepares himself for his greatest act of service yet: rescuing a group of pioneers who left too late in the season. Many of these people have been killed because of the harsh weather conditions that they have to continue enduring.

"Ephraim's Rescue" is in no way a perfect film, but considering its budget, it is well-done. It was written and directed by prolific Mormon filmmaker, T.C. Christensen, who has some good moments of dialogue. Ephraim is a relatable character in that he is not perfect even though he has done a lot of good. As someone who is a Mormon, I enjoy the message that being religious is more about helping everyone than being perfect. 

There are some criticisms I have about this film, and about a lot of Mormon films. It was definitely geared towards members of the church and not so much to other people. For someone who knows nothing about the religion, it can be heavy-handed and confusing at times. While some of the dialogue is well-written, it is also a little wooden at times, and the film depends too much on a voice-over narration. Furthermore, the pacing is a little slow at times.

A trap a lot of Mormon filmmakers get into when writing is when people talk about why they joined the church. In this film, Ephraim's brother does this and he sounds crazy. He sounds like a robot who was programmed to say certain things rather than say it from the heart. If any Mormon filmmakers read this, please take my advice and work on the dialogue of these scenes.

20,000 Days on Earth: 4.3 out of 5 stars

This film headlined the Logan Film Festival this year. It won best directing and best editing at the Sundance Film Festival, which was well-deserved. There are a lot of very interesting shots throughout this film that are meaningful to what is going on. 

Nick Cave is a singer/songwriter who does not write for a very broad audience. He writes for himself and for anyone who would be interested. This film is a semi-documentary set in the 20-thousandth day of his life. It features heavy, thought-provoking dialogue, which makes it worth watching, but it bogs the experience down a little. Like Cave's music, this film was not made to be entertaining but to expose people to deep thoughts. See my full review in "The Utah Statesman."

Jammed: 4 out of 5 stars

Evan (David Bly) and Rachel (Leah Rudick) are going to a music festival where a major band will play. It attracts the hippie culture, and they are doing a documentary about it. Everything goes wrong when the camera equipment is stolen and Rachel's wild ex-boyfriend, Mike (Chris Roberti), shows up.

This film is both hilarious and brilliant. There are a lot of gags involving the craziness of hippies while maintaining respect for the peace-loving aspect of the culture. The intelligence of the writing shows with a shift in the characters. At the beginning, Evan is somewhat of a pessimist and Rachel is more optimistic. However, in the end, these roles are reversed.

The nature of their relationship is a little unclear in the beginning, and that makes the third act confusing. There should have been a more buildup to explain this. Another aspect that should have been better is Rachel changes a little too suddenly without much reason. It seems random when it happens.

The One Who Loves You: 4 out of 5 stars

Kathryn Grant both directs and stars in this low-budget film about Gloria Bethune, a struggling singer who gets involved with a scam artist named Roy Hutchins (Briel DiCristofaro). She has no idea that the man she is dating has been lying to her the whole time, but her family and friends have a good idea. Despite all the warnings, she is still in love with him. 

Even though at surface he is a lying scoundrel, his intentions are not all bad. A lot of the film is about how Bethune hires him as her manager after being led to believe that he managed a very successful singer. Amidst al the lies, he genuinely wants to see her succeed whether it makes him rich or not, and this movie deserves praise for making its characters that complex.

I was able to talk with Grant after watching this film, and she said people have told her they cannot believe how stupid her character is. She does not see Bethune that way. She sees the character as a woman of normal intelligence who was tricked. In fact, she has been in a similar situation and was able to draw her performance from that.

The main criticism about this film is the cinematography is too bright at first. This is something you get used to it after some time. The reason for this probably has to do with the film's lack of budget, so it should not be a reason to avoid this movie.

Amber: 3 out of 5 stars

While on the run in Europe, a drug dealer finds a baby at the scene of a deadly car accident. There were two women traveling with the child who had died, and the man takes the baby so he can go places by posing as a father.

The film is well-made and interesting, but it is unbearably dark. While the main character has some charm, he only uses it to get what he wants. He is a psychopath whose only motivation is to keep himself alive and out of jail.

People who read this blog know that I enjoy darker movies/television shows. One of my favorite series is "Breaking Bad," which has some very dark moments. The difference between that and this movie is the main character in "Amber" has no redeeming qualities at first, whereas Walter White is relatable. The protagonist in this film eventually changes, but it takes a long time for this to happen, and when it does, it is unclear why.

Like my Facebook page: www.facebook.com/criticalchristopher

Follow me on Twitter: @ChrisCampbell02

"The Maze Runner" Review

The Maze Runner

3 out of 5 stars
Recommendation: Wait for it to come to Redbox or Netflix

Family appropriateness rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars
Rated PG-13
-Images of monsters may be scary to young viewers
-Some disturbing, bloody images
-Mild language









It possesses a sense of mystery to keep you interested, but "The Maze Runner" is blander than it should have been.

Thomas (Dylan O'Brien) has been thrown into a society of boys living in a large field. No one knows where they came from. They only know their names and the fact that the answers to their questions are somewhere beyond the walls that surround the field. A large opening appears every morning that leads to a maze. In order to get to the outside world, the boys have to find their way through the maze, but no one has ever done so.

The boys seem content with being there and not finding their way out of the maze. The reason for this seems to be that they have already tried everything and are hopeless. Thomas is different from the rest and wants to find his way out, despite what the designated leader, Gally (Will Poulter), says. Gally thinks the established rules are of upmost importance. When Thomas starts disobeying them, the leader gets angry at him.

The movie stays interesting in that the details are mostly unknown, and very little is ever discovered until the end. However, had it been in the hands of more capable writers, it could have been so much more.  Being about a society built by boys, it could have been a modern-day take on "Lord of the Flies," contrasting the personalities of each boy and juxtaposing their community with real world society. 

Instead of that, the script gives little more than exposition. The characters are simply there to talk about the fact that there is a society and that there are rules in it. There is little character development, and little discussion as to why the society works in the first place.

Though Thomas is different, the writers do not give him or most of the other boys very much personality. The characters are all there just for the purpose of pushing the plot forward, and it is difficult to identify with any of them. There is also a female character introduced later in the film named Teresa (Kaya Scodelario), but the filmmakers do not seem to know what to do with her. She could have been cut out of the movie, and it would not have changed anything.

Will Poulter delivers the best performance as Gally, who is most defined character. He is a stubborn boy who has a by-the-book view on morality. However, a lack of depth given to the society raises a lot of questions as to his motivations. In the end, he is a two-dimensional character who comes off as annoying.

Like my page on Facebook: www.facebook.com/criticalchristopher

Follow me on Twitter: @ChrisCampbell02

"Boyhood" Review

Boyhood

5 out of 5 stars

Family appropriateness rating: 3 out of 5 stars
Rated R
-Strong language and descriptive sexual content throughout.
-One scene features boys looking at naked images, but they are not clearly shown.
-I rated this up a little because it is only rated R because it is a realistic depiction of life that anyone can relate to.







"Boyhood" will make you reflect on life while watching an entire childhood pass by in just three hours.

The film follows a boy named Mason (Ellar Coltrane) over a period of about 12 years. When the film starts, he is five years old, and by the end of the film, he is 18 and starting college. It is one of the most ambitious films ever made it was filmed over 12 years with the same actors. The beginning was filmed around 2001 or 2002, and the end was filmed within the last year. This means Mason literally grows up before our eyes.

Every actor stays consistent over the years. Not only does it show Mason grow up, it shows the ups and downs of his mother's (Patricia Arquette) life through the eyes of him and his sister, Samantha (Lorelei Linklater).

The first hour is less about the children and more about their struggling single mother. Separated from their father (Ethan Hawke), she goes through several relationships that affect Mason and Samantha's well-being.

In the beginning, their father is an irresponsible man. He plays in a band and dreams that he will make it big. His life is not shown as explicitly as the mother's, but it is clear that reality hits him in the head as he becomes older.

The beginning focuses so heavily on the adults because Mason and Samantha do not have defined personalities when the film starts. While Samantha never gets much of a character arc, Mason has definite interests in the beginning that stay consistent in the end. He does not care very much about sports. He cares more about science and learning. As the film progresses, it shows him become interested in the arts.

By the second hour, the film is mostly about Mason. His personality becomes more defined in his teenage years. Essentially, he becomes confused about the purpose of life. He is full of teenage angst and does not trust the system.

Rather than telling the audience "one year later," it simply cuts to another scene that shows a slightly older version of Mason and Samantha. The movie brilliantly shows a passage of time in its pop culture and news references. At the beginning, Mason comes home and watches "Dragon Ball Z" on television. A few scenes later, he plays a Gameboy Advance. In one scene, there is a news report of the Iraq War, and the father talks about how he thinks George Bush is using 9/11 as an excuse for it. Not only does this give the audience a point of reference for what year these people are in, it becomes highly nostalgic. In a way, it is a modern day film adaptation of Billy Joel's "We Didn't Start the Fire."*

The acting is cheesy at times because it deals with child actors. Ellar Coltrane as Mason gets better as the film progresses, but Lorelei Linklater does not improve much. Patricia Arquette also gets noticeably better. She goes through something traumatic while Mason is in elementary school, and when she emotes, it seems forced. However, at the end of the film, when she expresses strong feeling, it is more natural.

Like my Facebook page: www.facebook.com/criticalchristopher

Follow me on Twitter: @ChrisCampbell02

*If you have never heard that song, go look it up on YouTube. It is awesome!

"As Above, So Below" Review

As Above, So Below

2.5 out of 5 Stars

Family appropriateness rating: 2.5 out of 5 stars
Rated R
-Moderate amount of gory violence
-Moderate amount of strong language, including f-words
-Some images might scare children.










"As Above, So Below" succeeds at offering an interesting premise, but it fails to deliver scares.

Scarlett (Perdita Weeks) is a go-getter on a quest to find the Philosopher's Stone, a magical artifact created by Nicholas Flamel that is rumored to grant immortality and the power to change everything to gold.

She happens upon a breakthrough that leads her to believe the stone is beneath the catacombs of Paris where over six million people have been buried because the city lost room for the dead. She gets a team together to go with her and find it. None of them suspect that there are dangers beyond what they can imagine.

The film starts off interesting. It is a found-footage version of "National Treasure" at the beginning. In fact, there is one part reminiscent of that film in which Scarlett pours a chemical on the back of a stone, which reveals a clue.

The idea of searching for the Philosopher's Stone is a good premise in and of itself especially for people like me who are fans of Harry Potter. The fact that they are in the catacombs beneath Paris is also enough keep my attention. In fact, one scene shows that people can tour them, and it made me interested in going there one day.

It seems that the filmmakers started off with a "National Treasure" type of movie, but halfway into the first act, they decided to do horror instead. So they got a make up artist from off the streets to do living dead figures, and they did some cliché shots of disappearing characters.

Every time the camera shows a figure that is supposed to be scary, it is not. They look like something an amateur would put in a haunted corn maze. In fact, the make up artists for those probably do a better job.

A possible reason for this is a lack of money. According to Wikipedia, the budget was only 5 million dollars, and this is painfully obvious. The filmmakers do not seem to understand that what is scary is what is not shown. They should have looked at classics like John Carpenter's "Halloween" as an example of what to do. In the entirety of that film, the character, Michael Myers, is never shown in full light. Another example is "Paranormal Activity" in which the demon is invisible.

There are a few intense moments, but none of them involve the "frightening images." The best scene is in the beginning before Scarlett even thinks about the catacombs. She searches for a certain artifact in Iraq that would help her find the Philosopher's Stone. It involves hiding from real people and real explosions. The audience never even sees who is chasing her. Had the whole film been like that one scene, it would have been fantastic. As it stands, it is cheesy.

Like my Facebook page: www.facebook.com/criticalchristopher

Follow me on Twitter: @ChrisCampbell02

"The Giver" Review

The Giver

4.5 out of 5 stars

Family appropriateness rating: 4.8 out of 5 stars
Rated PG-13
-One scene of war violence. Someone gets shot, and a little blood from the gunshot wound is shown.
-Some minor action-violence near the end.
-A very light PG-13 rating. I actually thought it was PG.









"The Giver" takes full advantage of the visual, film medium to tell a thought-provoking story about why diversity is important.

The story is set in a post-apocalyptic city where everyone sees black and white. Their function is to obey rules set by the Elders that make everyone completely equal. There is no pain, no suffering and no poverty. There is also no joy, no happiness and no knowledge. The people in this society think they are happy, but that is because they are ignorant of what life has to offer.

When the citizens of this city reach a certain age -- at about the start of puberty -- they are told what their profession is. The Elders watch them from infancy and know what career they are best suited for.

The main character, Jonas (Brenton Thwaites), is assigned to be "The Receiver." His job is to receive the memories of the past, before the post-apocalyptic world. Everyday, the memories are passed to him by the former Receiver, who calls himself The Giver (Jeff Bridges).

What The Giver gives is more than just information. Jonas learns the emotions of the past and starts to see that the world before was much better than the world now. People are content with what they have because they have been told that they can only be happy in their little society. Everyone is told that with the good from the past, there comes a lot of misery and pain, which is why they do not want to go back.

Director Phillip Noyce does an excellent job using visuals to tell the story. At the beginning, everything is shot in black and white. One of the major memories of the past is color, which Jonas sees fully by the end. At first, he -- as well as the audience -- only sees a little bit: the first color is red, which is beautifully contrasted with the black and white. As the story progresses, more and more color is shown.

The way it is shot becomes more complex near the end. Every scene with Jonas is shot in full color, while scenes without him are only in black and white. There is another character, who starts to vaguely see color while coming to an understanding of what is going on.

Jeff Bridges is perfect as The Giver. He portrays the character with a sense of broken wisdom. It is clear that living in this world with the knowledge he has is a great burden to bear.

I would not be surprised to see Brenton Thwaites, the young actor playing Jonas, start becoming more popular in the future. At the beginning, he and his friends are two-dimensional without very much emotion, and the way they speak is always formal. However, as the story goes on, Thwaites does a great job conveying the emotions -- both positive and negative -- that comes with learning how life is supposed to be.

This film is very underrated. On Rotten Tomatoes, it has a 30%, which means that out of all the reviews that have been coming in by major critics, only that percentage liked it. The general synopsis is that it does not explore this world or the depth of the novel very well. I admit to have never read the book. Seeing it as an objective movie-goer, it is engaging, well-written, beautifully-shot and thought-provoking.

There are some details that seem to be omitted by the movie, but these are some minor nitpicks in an overall great film. For one thing, it does not explain what the purpose of having a Receiver is. The Elders want everyone to be ignorant, so why are there two people who know everything? How do the Elders not expect the Giver and Receiver to cause trouble? The film also is not as detailed as it should be about how the society works. Before I saw it, a friend of mine -- who had read the book -- told me that the children are assigned to certain age groups, which is not explained at all in the movie.

Like my Facebook page: www.facebook.com/criticalchristopher

Follow me on Twitter: @ChrisCampbel02

Robin Williams Tribute: "Good Will Hunting"

Good Will Hunting

5 out of 5 stars

Family appropriateness rating: 3 out of 5 stars
Rated R
-A few sexual references including one scene in which a character tells a joke about oral sex, and several scenes in which a couple are in bed together. No nudity or sex is shown.
-Strong language throughout, including f-words.
-Mild violence from a fist fight which shows a little blood.









Introduction: Robin Williams's passing is nothing short of tragic. He was an actor who brought a lot of warmth and depth into many of his roles. In an effort to celebrate his life, I will be reviewing some of the films for which he received the most praise.

Review: If everyone saw "Good Will Hunting," the world would be a better place. It is an inspirational story about helping people and moving on with life.

Will Hunting (Matt Damon) is a genius who has been holding himself back. Instead of dedicating himself to become really successful, he works as a janitor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). One day he sees a problem outside of Professor Gerald Lambeau's (Stellan Skarsgård) classroom, which is incredibly difficult to even the most intelligent people. Hunting's genius is at a level beyond anyone else's, and he solves the problem before Lambeau's students have a chance.

After having started a fight, Hunting ends up in jail, and Lambeau works out a deal with him: the professor will bail him out only if he promises to help with scholarly work and undergo counseling.

Hunting agrees to the deal but does not want to see a therapist. He knows how to get under the skin of the professionals Lambeau hires, and he does so, which makes them not want to work with him. When they all refuse to help Hunting, the professor hires his old college roommate, Dr. Sean Maguire (Robin Williams), who ends up being the perfect person to help the prodigy.

The role of the good psychologist is one of Robin Williams's most critically acclaimed performances. In fact, it won him an Oscar, which was very deserving. The character has recently undergone some tragedy in his life, and Williams does a great job portraying the emotional turmoil this causes, while still adding warmth to Hunting's life. Not only is he the psychologist, he becomes Will Hunting's best friend, and he is an example to everyone watching the film of what that entails.

The thing Maguire does differently than other psychologists is he spends time developing a relationship with Hunting. The others tackle his problems head-on and attempt to cure him in the first session. Hunting sees through their façade and automatically does not trust them. Maguire approaches the situation by getting to know who Hunting is as a person.

When I served a Mormon mission, there was a photo in one of the training manuals of an entire iceberg, both top and bottom. Most of it is underwater and cannot be seen. The manual compared the visual to people. They often look a certain way and act a certain way, but there is so much more underneath that no one else can see.

That is ultimately what this film is about. Both Hunting and Maguire are complete icebergs, who wind up helping each other with their deep problems. Hunting does not want to move on with his life. He is perfectly comfortable staying exactly where he is even though he has the potential to do more. In fact, he wants to do more. This frustrates Lambeau to no end because he hates seeing this wasted potential, but he has no idea how to approach the situation.

Because of their differences in approach, there is drama between Lambeau and Maguire. The MIT professor is impatient. He thinks all of Hunting's problems should just be solvable, and he keeps pressuring Maguire. However, the psychologist knows that something as important as an individual's psyche takes time.

Maguire also has issues that hold him back from reaching his full potential. The tragedy he just went through makes him not want to move on. It is through counseling Hunting that he ends up helping himself as much as he helps his friend.

"It's not your fault" (spoilers): One of the most memorable scenes in this film is one that I frankly did not understand when I first saw it over a year ago. However, it ends up being the solution to everything.

There are ultimately two reasons Hunting holds himself back. The first is because he grew up as an orphan, and the people he became close to ended up leaving him. He is afraid that after things go well, he will be abandoned again.

The other reason is he does not feel like he deserves happiness. He had undergone some intense physical abuse in some of the foster homes he lived in, and he feels guilty because of it. The key scene is the one in which Maguire lovingly repeats "It's not your fault" several times as he goes in for a hug.

When I first saw this, I did not know what to make of it. In my mind, of course it is not his fault. It is the fault of some horrible people he came into contact with as a child. This caused me to look at some message boards on IMDB in which people with different experiences than mine said that the feeling of guilt is one that many abused children feel.

This is something I did not understand because I grew up with two parents who love me and my siblings. I had not gone through the physical abuse that Will Hunting did.

The lack of sympathy on my part ends up being a major theme of this film. There is a speech that Maguire gives about how Hunting has a lot of knowledge from books, but he does not have a lot of knowledge from experience. It is a great speech, and it gives the reason why it is wrong to judge other people. It is impossible to know exactly what they are going through unless you walk a mile in their shoes.

What is interesting is Hunting says "I know" after Maguire tells him "It's not your fault" the first time. It is something that Hunting knows but has never internalized or believed until that moment.

Like my Facebook page: www.facebook.com/criticalchristopher

Follow me on Twitter: @ChrisCampbell02

"Get on Up" Review

Get on Up

3 out of 5 stars

Family appropriateness rating: 3 out of 5 stars
Rated PG-13
-Moderate amount of profanity including two uses of the f-word.
-Moderate amount of sexual content. One scene shows two clothed people having sex standing up, another scene shows a man taking his shirt off as he kisses a woman, but the scene ends after that.
-One scene shows a topless woman hiding her breasts with her arms.
-Several depictions of domestic abuse.






There is no question that Chadwick Boseman does a great job in his portrayal of James Brown, but "Get on Up" is a disorganized look at the singer's life.

James Brown is well known for singing popular songs like "I Feel Good" and "Get Up Offa That Thing." He is an excellent entertainer who knows how to please a crowd, but he is not a very nice person. Brown is a control freak, and he thinks he is God's gift to the world. His personality drives other people away.

His abrasive personality happens to be why he is so successful. He knows what he wants and he will stop at nothing to get it. One scene in particular shows how creative he is in business as he ingeniously promotes his show without hiring a promoter. He decides that he can very well do it himself. He does not want to pay someone to do it for him.

Chadwick Boseman does a great job in his portrayal of the main character. It would not have been an easy role to play. James Brown is a loud, energetic man who has moments of tragedy. The performance was believable, and I came out of the theatre knowing better what what the man was like.

As in recent biopics, this film seems like the CliffsNotes version of his life. It shows various events, but it feels rushed. The way the film is organized does not seem logical especially in the beginning. It starts in one year, then it goes to several decades before, then it shows Brown's childhood and then back to another period. The chronology is confusing, and I do not understand why it was edited that way.

James Brown also gets in relationships with a few different women in this film, but it does not address this aspect very well. The way the audience knows about one of them is because Brown tells his friend/singing partner, Bobby Byrd (Nelsan Ellis), that he plans to get married to Velma (Jacinte Blankenship), who is either not shown before this or the audience is never given any reason to recognize her. The film never addresses whether or not he got married to her, but it shows him several years later leaving his house, kissing her and his infant. It was not until I looked it up on Wikipedia that I found out he did get married to her.

He later ends up in another relationship with a woman named DeeDee (Jill Scott). It shows them together, but it never addresses whether or not they are married -- which according to Wikipedia, they were. It shows him see her, and in the next scene, they are together. The film addresses something dark that happens within this relationship, but I was so confused about what they were that I did not care as much as I should have.

That is how the whole film is. It glosses over important details, especially about his relationships with important people in his life, and it awkwardly transitions into different time periods. I know James Brown's personality better after having seen the film, but I do not know his personal life as deeply as I should.

For a good example of what a biopic should be, see "Walk the Line." Johnny Cash's relationship with his wife in that film is well-defined, and it is easy to see where their marriage goes wrong. It also does a great job at developing his relationship with another woman he falls in love with. "Get on Up" fails at establishing basic relationships the main character has, which would have made it a more powerful film.

This is not by any means a horrible movie. It is just disorganized and does not know what it wants to focus on. I recommend seeing it when it comes to Redbox rather than in theaters.

Like my Facebook page: www.facebook.com/criticalchristopher

Follow me on Twitter: @ChrisCampbell02

"Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" Review

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles

3 out of 5 stars

Family appropriateness rating: 4.3 out of 5 stars
-Action violence throughout.
-Mild language
-One brief sex-related joke during the credits.











"Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" is what the trailers promise: plenty of fun, action scenes within a generic story that offers little substance.

Reporter April O'Neal (Megan Fox) is basically Kate Hudson's character on "How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days" and Robin in "How I Met Your Mother." She wants to be a serious journalist but is confined to cover menial, fluff stories. In order to break out of this rut, she is investigates robberies done by a group of outlaws known as the "Foot Clan," led by the evil Shredder (Tohoru Masamune).

This leads her to find a group of vigilantes who are fighting the Clan. It is extremely difficult to get anyone to believe her because they are mutant turtles who happen to be teenage ninjas.* There is a deal going on between the Foot Clan and someone who wants money that will put many lives in danger. The turtles need to stop this from happening, and O'Neal tries to help them.

The first scenes with the turtles are from April O'Neal's perspective. They fight so fast in the shadows that it is impossible to see anything. When the turtles are introduced, the action is seeable, and there are some good throw-downs between them and the Foot Clan. The action is done in a super-quick, martial-arts style. Like recent super hero movies, when they hit, they hit hard.

A lot of announcements about this film have been met with skepticism. It is based on a franchise that is important to many people, and the producer is Michael Bay, who is famous for the "Transformers" films. Many people do not like him because he does not care about the source material. A lot of what he directs are shallow, lazy movies with a lot of explosions. Some of the skepticism came from rumors that the turtles were going to be aliens -- which the filmmakers decided not to do -- and the casting of Megan Fox.

This movie ended up being better than I thought it would be. It was produced by Michael Bay, not directed by him. It is not an overly-long movie with nothing but action and crazy big explosions. It is more grounded than that. It does well balancing story with action.

Megan Fox does an okay job in this film. The role does not require a great performance, and she does exactly what is required of her. What might make fans angry is not so much her performance but the fact that the turtles' origins are linked to her and her father. I do not know much about this franchise, but I am pretty sure that is not how it is supposed to be.

Though it is not horrible, this movie is mostly forgettable. The story is just a generic action-adventure, and the characters are not particularly interesting. There is too much focus on April O'Neal's story and not enough on the turtles. It shows just enough to where I have the gist of who the turtles are. There is a lot of potential for some witty banter, but most of what they say falls flat. Though the action is well-choreographed, it is not capable of putting people at the edge of their seats because it does not matter what happens to the characters.

Had this been in the hands of a better writer/director like James Gunn, it would have been a much better film. I do not recommend going out to see it in theaters. Spend your money on something worthwhile like "Dawn of the Planet of the Apes" or "Guardians of the Galaxy." This one can wait for a Redbox or Netflix release.

*See what I did there?

Like my Facebook page: www.facebook.com/criticalchristopher

Follow me on Twitter: @ChrisCampbell02

Quentin Tarantino Month: Conclusion

When I started reading film reviews as a teenager, I learned that character development is very important. At first, I was not sure what it meant, but over the years I have come to understand it more and more. It is when the characters are given believable motivation and personality so the audience can connect with them. There was a time when I thought in order for this to happen, their backstories needed to be known. The main thing I learned from watching Quentin Tarantino movies last month is how untrue that is. We do not need to know every detail about the characters' lives.

As has been stated several times in other reviews, Tarantino develops his characters through a steady flow of dialogue. He often sets his scenes up as if it were in a play. There is a setting and there are characters talking in it. They have their own distinct personalities that are revealed through what is being said and the way the actors say it.

A great example of this is Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz) from "Inglourious Basterds." As stated in the review for it, Quentin Tarantino has said in several interviews that Landa is the greatest character he had written. I was not entirely sure why at first because there is very little that is explicitly known about him. He is not given a backstory about why he became a Nazi soldier in the first place. Everything we know about him is revealed through each scene he is in, the most notable being the opening of the film. What is interesting about him, is even though the audience is not given specific details at first, his motivation is shown near the end.

Tarantino has a way of giving just enough information for us to understand the characters and their motivations. However, what is interesting is he often does not reveal everything. For example, in "Pulp Fiction," Vincent (John Travolta) and Jules (Samuel L. Jackson) retrieve a suitcase. It is opened twice in the film, and both times the only thing the movie shows is golden light shining from the inside. The audience never knows what is inside, but it is probably very valuable.

In an interview with Charlie Rose about "Inglourious Basterds," Tarantino said he leaves certain things open for the audience's interpretation. The example from the film he was promoting was Aldo Raine's (Brad Pitt) rope burn on his neck. It is clear to see, but there is no explanation for it. Tarantino said he does this because he wants the experience to be different for everybody. The reason he imagines the rope burn came to be may be different than what I, or any other audience member, may create in our own minds, and it is therefore, a completely different movie to everyone.

There is a big detail about Tarantino films that I left out of my reviews: each pays homage to a specific genre. "Reservoir Dogs" and "Pulp Fiction" were his version of the crime genre, "Jackie Brown" is his black exploitation film, "Kill Bill" is martial arts, "Inglourious Basterds" is a war movie and "Django Unchained" is a spaghetti western. In Hollywood, Tarantino is known for being very knowledgable about cinematic history. He has seen a lot of older films, and some of the genres he tackles are not common today. Most of what I personally know about movies comes from the last 20 to 30 years, and I did not think I could do justice to a discussion on this aspect.

None of the Tarantino movies I have seen are bad by any means, but some are better than others. Here is my list from "worst" to best:

7. Django Unchained

                                                               
              6. Jackie Brown

                                                                                                                          5. Inglourious Basterds

                                                                 4. Kill Bill: Vol. 1

3. Kill Bill Vol. 2

                                           
                2. Pulp Fiction

                                                                                                                               1. Reservoir Dogs

It surprised me that "Reservoir Dogs" would make the number one spot on this list. I had seen that film about eight months ago. I remember thinking it was a good movie, but it did not seem extraordinary to me. However, watching it the second time, I realized that it is a near-perfect film. The characters are interesting, the story reveals just enough at a time to constantly keep the audience involved and the pacing is perfect. "Pulp Fiction" had been my favorite for a while -- I still love it -- but it has its slow moments whereas "Reservoir Dogs" does not.

Quentin Tarantino Month was a much more difficult task than I thought it would be, but it was also rewarding.  Writing reviews about movies by the same director is a challenge because what is great about one film is often great about the others. This makes it tedious to discuss every film individually. It was rewarding because watching films by one of the greatest writer/directors of today is a learning experience. I learned a lot about how to use dialogue to create interesting characters and an enjoyable cinematic experience.

Quentin Tarantino Month:

Introduction
Kill Bill: Vol. 1
Kill Bill Vol. 2
Pulp Fiction
Django Unchained
Inglourious Basterds
Jackie Brown
Reservoir Dogs

Like my Facebook page: www.facebook.com/criticalchristopher

Follow me on Twitter: @ChrisCampbell02

"Guardians of the Galaxy" Review

Guardians of the Galaxy

4.5 out of 5 stars

Family appropriateness rating: 4 out of 5 stars
Rated PG-13
-Action violence throughout.
-A moderate amount of language. No f-words, but one character almost says it once.










Once you get past the initial confusion that comes with learning different names, "Guardians of the Galaxy" is every bit as good as "The Avengers."

The movie is about five different characters who work together to save the universe: Peter Quill (Chris Pratt), Rocket (Bradley Cooper), Groot (Vin Diesel), Gamora (Zoe Saldana) and Drax (Dave Bautista). There is an all-powerful object that the Kree terrorist, Ronan (Lee Pace), wants, and they need to make sure he does not get it.

Like "The Avengers," this film is great because it combines fun action scenes with excellent dialogue between characters with distinct personalities and motivations. Peter Quill is a human from earth who was captured by the alien, Yondu (Michael Rooker), as a child. Now, he is a goofy outlaw, who constantly references things from earth that no one else would understand. He has spent his adult life as a lonely man, stealing things from around the galaxy until he meets the other main characters.

Rocket and Groot are best friends who are always looking out for each other. Rocket is an opinionated, loud-mouthed, raccoon-like creature who is very talented with guns. Groot is a gentle, walking tree, who believes in not being violent unless it is necessary. When it is necessary, you do not want to be on his bad side. His entire language consists of "I am Groot," and only Rocket understands what he says.

Gamora is a daughter of the evil Thanos (Josh Brolin), who has been responsible for the deaths of many people. She has spent her life serving Ronan and her father against her will. She wants to stand up for what is right.

Drax is from a race of aliens that take everything literally. When someone says something metaphorical, he does not understand it. He tags along with the other characters because he wants to take revenge on Ronan for killing his family.

The trailers make this movie look like it will be a weird space adventure, much like Spaceballs. That is not entirely true. There are certainly a lot of funny, quirky moments, but that is not the whole film. It knows when to be dramatic, and it knows when to be comical. Most of the humor comes from the dialogue. Writer/director James Gunn does a great job writing witty banter that keeps the characters consistent.

The way certain characters and places are introduced can be a little confusing. The film deals with different planets and therefore different names. The first time they are said is often too fast and connected with other key names. I missed some minor details while trying to get them all straight. However, the story is simple enough to understand once you know who all the players are.

For the most part the action scenes are well-done and fun to watch, but they are sometimes cut too quickly to see what is happening. When they are good, they are very good. One of the best action sequences involves Groot, and he is my favorite character because of it.

Like my Facebook page: www.facebook.com/criticalchristopher

Follow me on Twitter: @ChrisCampbell02

Quentin Tarantino Month: "Reservoir Dogs"

Reservoir Dogs

5 out of 5 stars

Family Appropriateness rating: 2 out of 5 stars
Rated R
-A moderate amount of gun violence, some showing gun wounds as it happens.
-Quite a bit of blood is shown, but it is mostly on someone who had been shot previously. It is enough to form a small puddle by the end.
-Strong language, including f-words in both sexual and non-sexual contexts, throughout.






"Reservoir Dogs" knows it is a simple movie and stays focused on what is important.

Most of the film is set in a warehouse, where several members of a robbery gang are hiding out. One of them, Mr. Orange (Tim Roth), has a bullet wound in his belly. He is suffering a slow, painful death and needs medical attention as soon as possible. However, some of the other gang members do not know what to do. They are afraid that if they take Orange to a hospital, he will give them away when the police ask questions.

They have just returned from a robbery that did not go well at all. As they were stealing diamonds, someone sounded an alarm, one of the members -- Mr. Blonde (Michael Madsen) -- shot a few people, and the cops came. The gangsters are suspicious that someone in the group is a mole because the police came to the scene much more quickly than normal.

This film is the simplest of the Tarantino films, but it is definitely one of the best. The premise is not overly complicated, and it never attempts to be more than it needs. The only twist is the revelation of who the mole is. Not straying into complexity allows the movie to focus on the characters. In this aspect, Quentin Tarantino is at the top of his game in this film. There are four major characters, and each is memorable for different things.

Mr. Pink (Steve Buscemi) is established from the beginning as a jerk. Before the opening credits, there is a scene with all the gang members in a restaurant. Though this event has nothing to do with the rest of the film, it gives insight into who Mr. Pink is. When everyone is tipping the waitress, he refuses to do so because he thinks it is ridiculous that society expects him to pay more to someone who is just doing a service. In his opinion, it is unnecessary unless the person went above and beyond. He does not care that some people live off of tips. This scene indicates he is self-absorbed. He rarely does anything for other people, and he constantly justifies himself for being that way. This trait is consistent throughout the film.

Mr. White (Harvey Keitel) is the opposite. He is a calm, older man who wants to see the best in people. When Mr. Pink suspects that someone is a mole, White is infuriated. He does not think anyone in their company would snitch on them. None of the gang members go by their real names so they cannot testify against each other, and White is so trusting that he reveals his first name to another character at one point.

Mr. Blonde is a psychopath. This is both said by other characters and shown in a memorable, yet disturbing scene. While he commits atrocious acts, he has the radio set to up-beat dance music. He proceeds to make some comical motions, which shows how crazy he is.

Every single scene is entertaining. This is due to interesting characters, a focused plot and details that are not revealed all at once. Right after the opening credits, the first thing that is shown is Mr. Orange in the back seat of a car with blood everywhere. How or why this happened is not explained at first, but it is eventually. In the end, all of the questions that have been risen are answered.

Like my Facebook page: www.facebook.com/criticalchristopher

Follow me on Twitter: @ChrisCampbell02

Quentin Tarantino Month

Introduction
Kill Bill: Vol. 1
Kill Bill: Vol. 2
Pulp Fiction
Django Unchained
Inglorious Basterds
Jackie Brown

Quentin Tarantino Month: "Jackie Brown"

Jackie Brown

4.5 out of 5 stars

Family appropriateness rating: 2.25 out of 5 stars
Rated R
-Strong language, including f-words, throughout.
-Gun violence. The wounds are never seen on-screen, but blood splatters on a window in one scene.
-One sex scene. It is a brief depiction of anal sex between a heterosexual couple. It is shown from above the waste, and their clothes are on. However, afterwards, the girl walks away, and the top part of her buttocks are clearly shown.





"Jackie Brown" is difficult to understand at first, but it features the best female character Quentin Tarantino has written.

Jackie Brown (Pam Grier) is a middle-aged, single woman working a dead-end job as a flight attendant. An illegal gun salesman named Ordell Robbie (Samuel L. Jackson) uses her to smuggle money from Mexico to California. Coming off a flight, she is stopped by two cops, Ray Nicolette (Michael Keaton) and Mark Dargus (Michael Bowen). They suspect she is somehow connected to Robbie, and upon searching her bag, they find the $50,000 she is smuggling as well as a small bag of cocaine she did not know about.

She gets put in jail, and Robbie pays her bail. He knows she will be offered a plea deal, which will lead to his eventual arrest. His intention in getting her out of jail is so he can kill her before she says anything incriminating. When he goes to her house, she is prepared with a gun, so he cannot go through with the murder.

Robbie is worried about being caught, and there is still $500,000 more that Brown is supposed to smuggle out of Mexico. He wants that money, but he realizes this will be hard to get because Brown is being watched by the police. Because of this, Brown comes up with a slightly convoluted plan to thwart the police and get Robbie his money. Little does he know, Brown is using him for her own purposes.

The plan Jackie Brown lays out is complicated. What she does is different than what she says she will do. In order to fully comprehend it, I needed to watch it a second time. I am glad I did because I have a greater admiration for Jackie Brown and a better appreciation of the movie.

Brown is the best female character Tarantino has ever written. To say she is a smart, independent woman is an understatement. Certain context clues suggest she has been taken advantage of a lot. Now, she knows when people are trying to use her, and she knows how to stand up for herself. She is at a low point in her life, making very little money, and the plan she has will give her a new, fresh start.

Though the story is complicated, especially at first viewing, it is still enjoyable to watch because each supporting character is entertaining. Ordell Robbie is a despicable man. He only looks out for his own interests, and he is willing to kill people to get what he wants.

Robert De Niro plays another despicable character named Louis Gara. He just got out of jail after having served four years for bank robbery, and he now works for Robbie. Even though they are both awful people, Robbie and Gara are completely different. Robbie is a loud, charismatic salesman. Gara is shy and goes along with whatever he is told to do.

De Niro does a great job at bringing his character to life. He has certain mannerisms that show how introverted Gara is. It is one of those performances that is so good, the actor is almost unrecognizable.

Jackie Brown has a love interest in Max Cherry (Robert Forster), a bail bondsman who is getting tired of his lifestyle. Robbie already has the money for bail, but because he does not want to attract any suspicion, he hires Cherry to get Brown out of jail. Cherry immediately finds her attractive, and he does what he can to help her. Both characters are at a point in their lives where they realize they are getting old, and they both have their share of regrets.

The love story is not the main focus, but it does drive the plot forward. Cherry plays a big role in Brown's plan. The fact that he likes her as more than friends is his motivation for helping her. There is some buildup with the love story that pays off in the end without being sappy.

Like my page on Facebook: www.facebook.com/criticalchristopher

Follow me on Twitter: @ChrisCampbell02

Quentin Tarantino Month:

Introduction
Kill Bill: Vol. 1
Kill Bill: Vol. 2
Pulp Fiction
Django Unchained
Inglorious Basterds
Reservoir Dogs

Quentin Tarantino Month: "Inglourious Basterds"

Inglourious Basterds

4.5 out of 5 stars

Family appropriateness rating: 2.5 out of 5 stars
Rated R
-Bloody violence: depictions of scalping, blood from gun shots and a depiction of a knife carving into a character's forehead.
-One instance of sexual content: a brief, graphic depiction of anal sex with a heterosexual couple.
-Moderate amount of strong language including the f-word.







"Inglourious Basterds" is Quentin Tarantino's vision of how World War II should have ended. Frankly, it is much better than the history books.

Like "Pulp Fiction," it has multiple stories. However, there are only two, and they are told in a standard, linear chronology that comes together in the end. One of the stories is about Shosanna Dreyfus (Mélanie Laurent), a young, Jewish woman who owns and runs a movie theatre with her boyfriend, Marcel (Jacky Ido).

The movie is set in Nazi-occupied France four years after Shosanna witnesses her family get murdered by the ruthless "Jew Hunter," Colonial Hans Landa (Christoph Waltz). When this happens, she narrowly escapes and assumes the new identity of Emmanuelle Mimieux. Needless to say, she does not like the Germans. She finds an opportunity for revenge against some when the Nazi war-hero-turned-actor, Fredrick Zoller (Daniel Brühl), pulls some strings to have the premier of his movie in her theatre. It is about his patriotic exploits and will therefore be attended by some high-ranking Germans. Shosanna and Marcel plan on using this as an opportunity to burn a large group of Nazis to death.

Unbeknownst to her, the Allies have a similar plan. They want to use the movie premier as a way to end the war with the aid of popular German actress, Bridget von Hammersmark (Diane Kruger) and "The Basterds," Lieutenant Aldo Raine's (Brad Pitt) group of Jewish-American soldiers.

The Basterds are known to the German soldiers as ruthless individuals. They go around killing Nazis and scalping them for proof. The Nazis who survive an encounter with them get a swastika etched into their foreheads with a large knife.

Despite the name of the movie, the Basterds are not the main focus. In fact, there is not one person who can be labelled as the central protagonist. Some may argue that Shosanna is, and that would be fair to say. She is the one person who is given a definite motivation for killing the Nazis. They killed her family, and the audience sees it happen in the intense opening scene. No other person has a backstory that is revealed to the audience.

Quentin Tarantino created a very funny character out of the Basterds' leader, Aldo Raine. Brad Pitt portrays him as a redneck with a southern drawl. He seems ignorant of anything that does not have to do with killing Germans, and he cannot even pronounce the word "Nazis" correctly. The one thing that disappoints me is that he and the Basterds are not in much of the movie. They are only shown together in a few scenes, which are for the purpose of driving the plot forward. It would have been nice for an extra scene to show more about who the Basterds are as people.

This would have been impossible to do because the running time is already two and a half hours, which is surprising because it does not seem that long. Quentin Tarantino knows how to keep an audience involved from beginning to end using smoothly-written dialogue in which the characters have interesting things to say and gives them personality.

The best example of this is found in the opening scene. It involves Col. Landa auditing a French home suspected of housing Jews. He gives a detailed speech about how he is so good at catching Jews because he knows how to think like them. He says this while comparing the hunt for the minority group to a hawk hunting a rat. Not only is this speech worded in such an interesting way, it gives insight into his character. It establishes him as both very confident in his abilities and as a devout anti-semite. This drives the intensity up because it shows that he can more-than-likely guess where the Jewish family is hidden.

In several interviews, Tarantino said Landa is the best character he has written and probably will ever write. He is certainly among the most interesting. He is a strong antagonist who will stop at nothing to get his way. His motivations are complex. At first, he appears idealistically driven because he agrees with the Nazis. However, near the end, it is revealed that his intentions are more self-serving.

Christoph Waltz does such a good job in this movie that he won an Oscar for it. Tarantino wanted so much to work with him again that he wrote a character with Waltz in mind for the movie "Django Unchained." Waltz's characters in both of these movies are polar opposites. In "Django," he is an idealist who believes slavery is wrong. In "Basterds," he is a man who takes pride in killing Jews and thinks black people are less competent. However, the way he talks is very similar. In both films, he has a juvenile charm. He knows how serious certain situations are, but he always attempts to make light of them so he can get what he needs.

A big chunk of the dialogue is subtitled because the characters speak different languages. This does not detract from the entertainment value at all. In fact, it adds a sense of authenticity to the movie. The dialogue is still well-written, but the average American audience member will have to read most of it rather than hear it.

All of the multilingual actors need to be commended for pulling off outstanding performances while speaking other languages. This is especially true of Diane Kruger as the actress Bridget von Hammersmark. She has a two different personalities she gracefully portrays in this film. One of them is the face she makes for the Germans who admire her. The other is who she really is: a spy for the Allies. With the Basterds, she is her real self, but with the Nazis, she is constantly smiling and laughing so she does not get discovered.

Like my Facebook page: www.facebook.com/criticalchristopher

Follow me on Twitter: @ChrisCampbell02

Quentin Tarantino Month:

Introduction
Kill Bill: Vol. 1
Kill Bill: Vol. 2
Pulp Fiction
Django Unchained
Jackie Brown
Reservoir Dogs

"Hercules" Review

Hercules

2.5 out of 5 stars

Family appropriateness rating: 3 out of 5 stars

Rated PG-13

-Brutal action violence. 

-There is blood, but it is mostly shown after the fact. It is never seen leaving the body.

-Some frightening images.

-Brief backside female nudity for less than a second. There is also a part in which a breast is almost shown, but the woman covers herself before it is.

If Dwayne Johnson did not play the title character in "Hercules," it would have probably been a made-for-tv movie. 

Hercules is a demigod who goes on various missions with his group of friends to make money. They get hired by Cotys (John Hurt), the king of a Greek area called Thrace, to help him overthrow his enemy, Rhesus (Tobias Santelmann), who has been causing a lot of destruction in the land. The movie is about how Hercules trains an army and leads them to find and capture Rhesus. 

There is not much more to say about the film. It is a very simple movie, and frankly it is bland. When there is not any action, it goes into some boring dialogue with boring characters about where they came from. Some of the backstories are interesting, but you also have to sit through some dry banter before hearing them. 

With Hercules, the sky is the limit. The filmmakers could have given us an epic tale from his life. What we get is some generic plot that seems like a bad Syfy Channel Original Movie. The characters are bland, and there is very little that distinguishes them from one another. The only ones that I find remotely interesting are Iolaus (Reece Ritchie), the storyteller, and Amphiaraus (Ian McShane), the man who can see pieces of the future. 

Dwayne Johnson's performance is what anyone would expect from him. He is not exactly an Academy-Award-worthy actor. He is a muscle head who was once a professional wrestler. His acting ability reflects his previous career, and there were times I thought I was watching World Wrestling Entertainment. 

To make his role worthwhile, he should have talked less and fought more. Some of the action scenes brutal, hard hitting and cool. When there is a throw down, it is very entertaining. However, the action scenes are so few and far between, that it is ultimately not worth seeing.

This movie gets half a star more than I thought it would because of the third act. There is a twist at the end of the second act that was unexpected and interesting. The last part deals with Hercules's backstory, and the resolution is well-executed.  

Like my Facebook page: www.facebook.com/criticalchristopher

Follow me on Twitter: @ChrisCampbell02