"That Awkward Moment" Review

Warning: This review may contain spoilers, but it should be okay to read before seeing it because it is not a good movie in the first place.

If you want to see a predictable, generic romantic comedy with unlikeable characters, a stupid premise and awful acting, by all means go see "That Awkward Moment."

The movie centers around three friends, Jason (Zac Efron), Daniel (Miles Teller) and Mikey (Michael B. Jordan). They decide to make a pact: they are going to stay single men.

Why do they make this pact? The movie gives no adequate explanation. They do it after Mikey finds out his wife has been cheating on him and Jason makes the mistake of suspecting a girl he picked up at the bar is a prostitute. Other than that, it does not show why they entered the agreement. Had they been miserable in past relationships? Are they happier single? They also do not set up any consequences for breaking the pact, yet they take it seriously.

Of course, the agreement ends up being easier to get into than to actually do it in that they all end up in a relationship of some kind. Mikey starts seeing his wife again, Daniel is getting with his best friend -- a relationship that is grossly underdeveloped -- and Jason ends up with the girl he previously thought might be a hooker but is not.

These characters are annoyingly stupid in trying to make their agreement work out. The prime example is with Jason. I seriously wanted to punch him in the face. His girl's father dies, and she wants him to go to the funeral with her to provide comfort. However, he decides not to because going would mean he is in a relationship. Of course she breaks up with him, and of course they get back together in the end, which makes her incredibly stupid. Why would she trust him if he abandoned her because of some stupid pact that never had any consequences in the first place?

None of the principle actors give good performances at all. In some parts -- particularly when they are hitting on girls at the bar -- I thought I was watching a role play on how to pick up women. It did not feel cinematic or natural. All they do is memorize lines, make facial expressions and call it acting.

This is particularly true of Zac Efron. The writers gave his character a line that ironically summarizes his acting skills: "How can you assume that I have any emotional capacity?" He obviously has none. He sleeps with a lot of girls, which I do not understand. He has the charisma of a robot. The only reason he gets anywhere in Hollywood is because of his looks.

There is so much more wrong with this movie, but if I pointed everything out, it would take a novel. It gets one out of five stars from me. If I could, I would not give it any stars. It deserves no recognition whatsoever. Do not waste your money on this.

Content: It is a rated R comedy complete with sex jokes and sexual situations. I don't think there is female nudity, but there is partial male nudity, and there are shots of sex toys. There are plenty of F-words. I would be more detailed, but there is honestly no reason to see this, so I do not feel obligated to warn anyone about it.

"The Wolf of Wall Street" Review

After about two hours, the charm "The Wolf of Wall Street" builds up quickly wears down, and there is still one more to go.

Leonardo DiCaprio enthusiastically plays Jordan Belfort, the cocky owner of a multi-billion dollar stock firm. He is a very entertaining character. He is charismatic, he is charming and he is a womanizer. To accurately describe him, think Barney Stinson on drugs.

The beginning of the film is very interesting as it shows how he became a major tycoon from a poor, newly-married, young man. Belfort originally worked on Wall Street, but he lost his job due to the major crash in 1987. He then started selling penny stocks, which is pretty shady because the investors make little to no money while he gets 50 percent commission. Eventually he starts his own penny stock firm with the classless Donnie Azoff (Jonah Hill) along with some other sleaze-balls who have a lot of sales experience from vending marijuana.

Essentially, this movie is the rise and fall of a very wealthy man. The main conflict comes from an FBI investigation into his company. He and the people who helped him start it know that much of what they do is illegal, and they proactively seek to cover it up.

In a way, this film is a satire of the Wall Street culture. This is set up in the beginning when Belfort's boss, Mark Hanna (Matthew McConaughey), gives him advice that their job as brokers is not for their clients to earn money, but to gain profit for the company. Hanna also instructs him that in order to survive the frantic industry, he needs to do cocaine and relieve himself sexually as much as he can.

Belfort takes this advice from someone who is obviously not the best of people, and he becomes just like him. He only looks out for himself, he undergoes two marriages and he becomes increasingly dependent on many different drugs. Furthermore, he becomes addicted to sexual activities with multiple partners. After seeing this, I would not be surprised to find out that there really is no morality on Wall Street.

After about two hours, it starts dragging. Director Martin Scorsese is very detailed, but he seems to think he needs to include everything about everything. It becomes very repetitive, particularly in scenes dealing with drug abuse. During those moments, I wondered if it is meant for people who are on drugs.

I do not know the exact reason the film was so long. My own hypothesis is it is intended to put the audience in the perspective of those close to Belfort. He is completely immoral throughout the film, but there is a certain charm to the character in the beginning. By the end, it starts wearing out because of the length. That would make sense to me, but the enjoyment of the film itself also starts to wear out, and this movie would have benefitted with a much tighter cut.

As someone who is religious, I also do not appreciate all the sex and nudity in this film. There are quite a few scenes that depict it. The reason for it was to show an important part of the culture this film depicts, but there is so much of it, that I wonder if Scorsese just wanted to make pornography.

I give this movie 3 out of 5 stars. It is a very interesting film. However, it is bogged down by a lengthy running time and too much sex and nudity. I recommend seeing it on DVD. If you tend to be someone who wants to avoid sexuality in films, I advise you do not see this. I myself will probably never see it again.

Content: Rated R. There is a lot of language including the F-word and even a few uses of the C-word. There is a lot of full-frontal female nudity and sex scenes. There is a scene of bloody violence, and at least one scene of spousal abuse. There are a couple scenes that might depict rape, but the way it was filmed, I am not sure if that is what it is.

For more details on how I rate films, visit http://criticalchristopher.blogspot.com/2014/01/defining-rating-criteria.html

"I, Frankenstein" Review

"I, Frankenstein" has good action scenes, impressive visuals and that's about it.

The story takes place after the events of Mary Shelly's "Frankenstein" in which the monster (Aaron Eckhart) outlives Dr. Frankenstein in the Arctic part of the world. This is all recapped in a cool-sounding narrative by the monster, which gets the crowd excited for what is going to happen.

The monster buries Dr. Frankenstein, and without any hesitation, the story goes downhill fast with some very out-of-place weirdness. Demons go after the monster, and he is saved by some members of a group of gargoyles led by the overly-dramatic Queen Leonore (Miranda Otto, "The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers").

He is taken to their castle where he is told that he was caught in the middle of a war between demons and gargoyles. Lenore randomly names him Adam, and he leaves for a couple hundred years. During this time, he is hunted further by some demons, and he goes in search of them so he can end his being chased. He gets in contact again with the gargoyles and finds out that he is part of a bigger plot that a demon prince has in store.

Frankly, there are a lot of things that do not make sense about this film. The villains' scheme involves the fact that "Adam" has no soul, which makes absolutely no sense. According to the story, he does not have one because it was man who placed him on the Earth rather than God. With that kind of logic, what makes normal people have souls? Are normal people not man-made from sexual reproduction?

Then there's the fact that when he goes in search of the demons, the gargoyles capture him and chain him up. Queen Leonore tells him that she sees nothing but darkness in his eyes now, but there really is no reason. The film never shows him change into anything bad or sinister. In fact, Adam seems pretty innocent. He seems to want to leave everyone alone and not be bothered. From what I understand, she is mad at him for being proactive and going in search of the demons so they will quit going after him.

Miranda Otto gives a razzie-worthy performance. She was in the second and third "Lord of the Rings" movies as Eowyn, the blonde woman who goes for Aragorn but is ultimately friend-zoned. It is ironic that she tries to emulate another character from the same franchise, the Lady Galadriel. She so obviously tries to copy from Cate Blanchett that her performance falls flat. In fact, it is downright laughable at parts.

The main problem with this film is it never takes time to develop its characters. Adam has so much potential to be interesting, but all we get is a Two-Face-sounding man who limps around sometimes. There is a hint at a character arc in that he did something horrible in his past, but given the circumstances he was in at the time, he still does not seem like a bad person. It is only known that he is supposed to be some dark thing because all the other characters around him say so.

A big portion of the film focuses on the gargoyles, but none of them are given much personality or realistic motivation. Several supposedly dramatic moments feature some of these characters dying, but because they were never distinguished from anyone else, there is no reason to have any emotional investment in those scenes.

Some good can be said about this film. There are some very impressive visuals. Whenever the demons are struck down, they become fire balls, and that makes for some awesome looking scenes. The action choreography is also very well done particularly in one scene in which Adam, whose weapons of choice are a pair of skinny clubs, fights a demon, who also wields clubs.

This movie gets two out of five stars from me. It has its entertainment value from having an odd premise and cool action scenes. However, that is not enough for me to recommend going out of your way to see it unless you are at a party, it happens to be on television or you just want to shut your brain down and watch some fighting.

Content: Rated PG-13. It is mostly rated this way for violence. There are quite a few action scenes, but there is no gore. I actually do not remember any profanity at all. I also do not remember any sexual content.

For more details on how I rate films, visit http://criticalchristopher.blogspot.com/2014/01/defining-rating-criteria.html

"12 Years a Slave" Review

There are plenty of films dealing with racism in America both past and present. However, none of the ones I have seen are as descriptive about slavery as "12 Years a Slave."

Solomon Northup (Chiwetel Ejiofor, "American Gangster") is an educated man who owns a nice house with his wife and children. He is an excellent musician who is known for playing the fiddle. The color of his skin happens to be black, and he happens to live in America during a time in which slavery is prominent in the South.

One day he is approached by two men who have a job opportunity for him. They want him to use his talents to perform in a traveling show they are doing. He is offered money for his services, and he agrees to go with them.

They get to Washington D.C. and that night, the two men get him drunk. He wakes up the next morning in a cell with his wrists and ankles bound by chains. The man had been duped, and now he is to be sold into slavery.

As the title suggests, he spends twelve years working for white people as a piece of their property. He should not be there because he was initially a free man, but because he is black, he has no power. There is no way for him to convince anyone about his predicament because they all assume he is lying to get himself out of slavery.

The day I saw this, I had a conversation with someone who said she would never want to see this movie. Her reasoning is slavery is something she already knows about, and I can see her point. It is something that has been taught in schools and discussed in many different media. Whoever does not know about it has obviously been living under a rock. It is an uncomfortable topic especially among white people like me. Knowing that slavery exists is knowing that my ancestors committed horrors against humanity.

A few months before seeing this, I had a different conversation with an African American man who works at the Diversity Center of the school I attend, Utah State University. He said it is an uncomfortable topic, but it is necessary to see films such as this so that we are reminded about what happened.

From my own experiences growing up in a religious home, I understand how important these types of reminders are. I was always taught that I need to read our religious texts everyday, which include "The Holy Bible" and "The Book of Mormon" among other things.* I have read all of "The Book of Mormon" two or three times, and I continue to do so even though I know the stories. The reason I do this is so I never forget the kind of person God wants me to be.

That is why this movie needs to be seen. Slavery is something we need to be reminded about so it does not happen again. Furthermore, it also needs to be known just what evils humans are capable of. "12 Years a Slave" does this, but it is not always comfortable to watch. It uses brutal violence, nudity and a depiction of rape to paint the picture of slavery in America.

Chiwetel Ejiofor brings the necessary caliber of emotion to give life to the character, Solomon Northup. The man is separated from his wife and kids without being able to write them a letter explaining what happened. Furthermore, he has been a free man for his whole life, and now he is forced into slavery.

In the beginning, most of the slaves are completely submissive to their masters will. Northup is not, and it is empowering to see. When he goes into slavery he says he does not merely want to survive, he wants to live. He is more educated than some of his white masters, and he has too much dignity to let them push him around when he can help it. When someone messes with him, he fights back.

Throughout the movie, his worldview changes, and by the end he is different. He has seen how complicated fighting back makes his life. In the most memorable scene, he is forced to do something horrendous. Having no choice, he does it. The scene is very difficult to watch. It presents a feeling of helplessness that made me want to rebel or at least see Northup do so. However, as an audience member I can only watch it happen, and he cannot do anything about it.

Director Steve McQueen does a great job making the audience think about the events that are going on. It is not something that should be watched in a hurry. One scene in particular has a long, continuous camera shot that shows the same thing for several minutes. It intended to make us reflect on what is happening, and it adds a sense of discomfort that is important to feel given the circumstances.

I give this movie five out of five stars. It is as realistic a depiction of slavery as it possibly can be. There are segments that are uncomfortable to watch, but it needs to be seen. Right now, it is up for nomination for Best Picture at the Academy Awards, and I would be happy to see it win.

Content: Rated R. There is brutal violence. A couple scenes show backside male and female nudity as well as full-frontal female nudity. The N-word is said quite a bit, and the B-word is mentioned in one scene. Another scene depicts a rape, but all it shows is the facial expressions of the man and woman. The rape scene is a fairly tame scene in that I barely recognized what it was at first. There is another scene like it in the beginning, but it is not a rape. In both scenes, the characters are fully clothed.

*There are people reading this who are not of my faith. I am not trying to be preachy. I use this to make a point by drawing from my own personal experiences.

For more details on how I rate films, visit http://criticalchristopher.blogspot.com/2014/01/defining-rating-criteria.html

“Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit” Review

The year 2014 is off to a great start with “Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit,” a fast-paced spy film that delivers plenty of thrills.

Jack Ryan (Chris Pine, “Star Trek”) is a CIA analyst working for a company on Wall Street. He looks at the various international market trends and reports anything suspicious to the agency.

The story starts when he sees a Russian account is doing something that needs immediate attention. He goes to Russia to investigate. Ryan thinks a man named Viktor Cherevin (Kenneth Branagh, “Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets”) is coordinating an act of terror that would kill America’s economy.

Meanwhile Ryan is having problems with his girlfriend, Cathy Muller (Keira Knightly). He cannot tell her that he is part of the CIA, and she is getting suspicious that he is having an affair.

At first this seems like a forced, clichéd plot point. It is something that has been done in other movies like “The Incredibles,” and it is frustrating to watch. There is no questioning that it will be resolved soon. However, this lack of communication becomes relevant as it leads to Muller having a bigger role, and this leads to the story becoming intense.

This was directed by Kenneth Branagh, who is known for his work in “Thor.” Before that film, he was known for Shakespeare. I am not saying this film is Shakespeare at all. The script and dialogue are pretty weak at parts. There are several holes in the plot, and the beginning seems hastily thrown together. What I am saying is Shakespeare plays are known for portraying well-defined inter-personal relationships.

The relationship between Muller and Ryan is not the love of the centuries, but it is developed just enough to where you care about them. This is important because some very suspenseful scenes involve the couple either working together or being apart. One scene in particular had me at the edge of my seat, biting my nails in anticipation of what would happen next.

I really like Chris Pine as Jack Ryan. He brings a sense of confidence and likability to the character. It is easy to care about Ryan because he is well defined as a hero. Every motivation he has is because he wants to help people.

My main problem with this film is the camera shakes a lot during action scenes. This is nothing new. It is present in movies such as “The Borne Identity” and “Batman Begins.” It is not enough to make me hate these movies, but it is annoying because it makes the action difficult to see. If the camera would just be still, those scenes would be so much more effective!

I also wish the character, Aleksandr Borovsky (Alec Utgoff), would have been more relevant. He is a somewhat minor villain who has the face of a harmless young man, but he is actually very ruthless in the few scenes in which he appears. The role he plays ends up being important, but the character is not given enough exposure to where anyone cares about him.

I give this film four and a half out of five stars. It is a generic spy film, but it has enough intense moments to make up for its flaws. I recommend seeing a matinee showing of this, but I do not think it would be a disappointment seeing at full price.

Content: Rated PG-13. There is a moderate amount of language including two F-words. There is action violence with no gore, though there is a scene where it shows a character who is scraped up after an accident. 

For more details on how I rate films, visit http://criticalchristopher.blogspot.com/2014/01/defining-rating-criteria.html

"47 Ronin" Review

If it was my job to get people to see "47 Ronin," the easiest way to convince them would be to say "It is the one full-length movie that I have scene to feature a laugh track!"

In the land of Ako, a boy named Kai (Keanu Reeves) appears from a much different place. He is caucasian, so of course he is way different than everyone else there. He has scars on his head, which are speculated to be from having contact with demons. A man named Ôishi (Hiroyuki Sanada, "The Wolverine"), who has a high position in Ako, finds the boy. He does not want Kai to be there out of fear that he will bring about a great evil. However, their leader, Lord Asano (Min Tanaka) lets the boy dwell.

Kai grows up and is treated well by Lord Asano and his daughter Mika (Ko Shibasaki). He does not seem to be on good terms with other people because he is not like them. The exact nature of the prejudice against him is not very clear, which is one thing that is wrong with the film.

It is told through narration at the beginning that Kai is only loved by Asano and Mika and that he is discriminated against. However, the audience is never shown much of the tension that comes about from this. The only reason it is known is because a voice said so. There are some lines in a few scenes that suggest it, but it is something that is never discussed in enough depth to where this issue really matters.

One day, the family of Asano has a competition with a rival of his, Lord Kira (who is ironically played by a guy whose last name is Asano, his first name being Tadanobu). The Shogun came to watch. No one except Kai suspects that Kira is up to something. Previously, Kai had seen a wolf-like creature with different colored eyes, and when he sees a woman in Kira's company with exact same oddity, he knows she is a witch (played by Rinko Kikuchi).

Kai's warnings go unnoticed, and Asano is put under a spell in which he almost kills Kira. The lord is caught by the Shogun, who makes him commit suicide in a ritual called Seppuku in order to regain honor in his family.

The Shogun grants Kira the land of Ako as well as the marriage of Mika. Kira throws Ôishi to underground in solitary confinement. When he gets out, he plans to seek revenge and restore the kingdom. He knows the way to go about this is to team up with the person he never liked: Kai.

The basic storyline is really interesting because it is something that actually happened. However, the way it is presented is dull. It suffers from a poorly-written script that attempts to tell everything to the audience and poorly constructed characters we know nothing about. Kai is supposed to be the main character, but who in the world is he? It is revealed where he came from near the middle of the film, but that still does not give enough information.

Keanu Reeves is as stoic in his role as he is in pretty much everything else he is in aside from the "Bill and Ted" movies. The only thing that can be said about him is he is humble and he yields to higher authority, but the same can be said about all the other characters.

Kai is the only white character. Everyone else is Japanese. This is not a bad thing, but the film adds to a stereotype that many Americans have: all Asians look the same. In this movie, they are the same character with little variation. All they are are serious people who have blind respect for authority.

There are only two exceptions to this. One of them is the comic relief fat man (played by Takato Yonemoto), and the other is the witch. The funny thing is the witch is much more hilarious to watch than the fat guy. She is very over-the-top in her performance as she tries to be menacing. The result is a very cringe-worthy performance.

Yonemoto brings a certain likability to his role as the comic relief, but not much is given to him aside from the fact that he is fat. It is obvious the director wants the audience to chuckle at the very sight of him.

In fact, in a scene which involves him, a very subtle laugh track is placed. It is in the form of a few men laughing, and it sounds like it is coming from people within the theatre. However, when I saw this, I was the only person there! There is no way anyone else was laughing.

To be fair, there is one character who has an arc, and that is Ôishi. It is very simple: at the beginning he does not like Kai, and (SPOILERS!) he likes him at the end. It really does not go any deeper than that.

Coming into this movie, I was not expecting anything brilliant, but I was expecting some great action scenes. Even they are a letdown. For the most part, the action is bogged down by unimpressive, cartoony CGI. These scenes are not horrible, but they are not memorable either with the exception of one, which involves some kind of supernatural entity killing people. It is a visually impressive scene that delivers an intense moment.

I give this movie two out of five stars. I would not recommend going out of your way to see it. It has an interesting story, but that is because it is based on something that actually happened. There are other adaptations to choose from rather than wasting money on this lazily-put together piece of blandness.

Content: Rated PG-13. There is some action violence with no gore, though there are a couple decapitations and implied disembowelment that is not explicitly shown. One scene shows a man with blood on his hands. There is no profanity. The only instance of sexuality is a woman showing her legs and trying to act seductive.

For more details on how I rate films, visit http://criticalchristopher.blogspot.com/2014/01/defining-rating-criteria.html

"Lone Survivor" Review

Before anyone tries to accuse me of hating my country, let me give you a disclaimer: I love the United States of America and I am grateful for the soldiers who risk their lives everyday for me. With that being said, "Lone Survivor" is a solid film, but it presents the "support the troops" message in a way that might have even Sean Hannity saying "This is a bit much."

Marcus Luttrell (Mark Wahlberg) is among other soldiers living on a Marine base in Afghanistan. An attack is being planned on a Taliban leader named Shah (Yousuf Azami), who killed a bunch of Marines the week prior.

The plan is complicated yet fool proof. It does not seem that there will be too much trouble in killing their man, and no one is planning to die. 

When Luttrell, along with a company of soldiers, get to the spot they need to be, they encounter some people who might be Taliban. They capture the people and face some harsh decisions that could mean their lives: let them go, leave them to die, or kill them? After talking out the gray areas in a very memorable scene, they come to a decision, and this brings about a lot of complications.

Mark Wahlberg does a good job at portraying a Marine, and all the performances are at least decent. However, none of the characters are especially memorable. There is some playful banter among them, but there is nothing defining about any of them. For this reason, Luttrell is the only character I mention in this review.

This creates a paradox in that the movie is intended to make us care about the soldiers. The reason for making it is to gain more support for the troops. I agree with the message. There are many people who died for our liberties and our protection. This movie is about such people, and they are real.

To make up for the lack of character development, there is a two-to-three minute slideshow at the end that features all the real people it is based on. This is not necessarily a bad thing. It is interesting to see what the people actually look like. However, it is a bit too long, and it seems desperate. It is the movie's way of saying "Look at me, I am supporting the troops, and you should too!"

It would have been so much more powerful if writer/director Peter Berg concentrated on letting the audience know more about who the characters are and why we should care about them through the script. We are watching a movie, so shouldn't the movie itself make us care?

This is not to say that Berg does a bad job with this movie. I like how he uses his direction to drive up the intensity. There is a part where the soldiers know something is approaching. The way the feeling is conveyed is through an absence of sound. Among the few things that can be heard in this scene are the flies buzzing and the faint breath of wind. It feels very natural and real. When conflict breaks out, the action is fast paced, brutal and entertaining.

Another great thing about this movie is the message it presents that not all Afghanis are bad people. This is really hard to discuss without giving away spoilers because it comes near the end. If you see this movie, you will know what I am talking about.

I give this movie four out of five stars. According to my rating scale, I recommend seeing it at matinee price. However, I do not feel it would a disappointment to see a regular showing. It is a well-done movie with good direction, decent performances and fast paced action. However, it could have been better.

Content: Rated R. There is language throughout including the F-word. It is a fairly gory film with blood splattering from gun shots. In one scene, a character attempts to dig bullets out of his body (it was especially disturbing for me because I was sick the night that I saw it).

For more details on what I base my ratings off of, visit http://criticalchristopher.blogspot.com/2014/01/defining-rating-criteria.html

"American Hustle" Review

Note: There are some things about this movie that were pointed out as I finished this review. This is more of a first impressions review of what I thought after seeing it the first time. When it comes on DVD, I may rent it and do a follow-up review.

"American Hustle" has great performances, but the story is a little too convoluted for my taste.

Irving Rosenfeld (Christian Bale) makes a living of cheating people of their money with his partner-in-crime/lover, Sydney Prosser (Amy Adams). The couple does this by telling some poor, unsuspecting souls of an awesome investment opportunity. If they but write a check for $5,000, they will be paid back $50,000. The catch is, these people are not paid back. It is a scam.

This works pretty well until the couple tries to screw over the wrong man, Richie DiMaso (Bradley Cooper). DiMaso turns out to be an FBI agent, who arrests Rosenfeld and Prosser.

The agent makes a deal with the con-artists that if they can help him make four busts by using their skills, he will let them go. They decide to take on Carmine Polito (Jeremy Renner), a mayor in New Jersey who is well-liked for having taken steps create jobs. They want to bust him for taking money illegally, which he would only do as a means of helping the economy.

This movie has an all-star cast, and they all did a very good job in their roles. They were often over the top, but they were also believable.

Christian Bale does a great job. He gained a lot of weight to be in this role, and every time he was on screen I could not help but think "I can't believe that dude was Batman!" It is easy to forget that it is indeed a fatter version of Bale.

The person who stole the show was Jennifer Lawrence. She plays DiMaso's wife (yeah, he has a wife and a lover). Her character is an air-headed, blonde housewife who is constantly messing everything up. Some of the biggest laughs from this movie were caused by her. My favorite scene has to do with her and a microwave oven.

I really did not like Amy Adams in this movie. She is always dressed provocatively, leaving very little to the imagination. To me, who grew up in a religious home, it looks like her choosing to be in this film and show all the skin is demeaning to her. Every time she is on screen, that is all I can think about. It actually distracted me from the story. This is from my own personal bias, however. I know a lot of people will disagree with me on this.

As an actress, Adams does a good job in her role. A friend of mine pointed out that there might be reason for her to have worn what she did. It has something to do with what she plans to do with DiMaso. I will not reveal what it is, but she talks about it with Bale near the beginning.

I was a little disappointed with this movie. With a 93 percent on Rotten Tomatoes, I was expecting something as awesome as "Her." I did not think it was. The plot is very convoluted. As I sat in the theatre, I wished I had a remote control to rewind the film so I could hear some of the important plot points.

Leaving the theatre, I wondered if I was an anomaly for not thinking this movie was worth the hype. In order to get some confidence back, I watched one of my favorite internet reviewers, Jeremy Jahns, who speculates that the film might have been made because director David O. Russell had worked with a bunch of people in previous films. He wanted to make a super film with a super cast. Jahns said there were too many characters, and having a little less would have made the film better.

I have to say that I agree with him. The reason the plot is so confusing is because there are so many characters and side characters doing so many different things. Had it been more focused, it would have been much better. There is a really cool mobster played by Robert DeNiro, and it would have been great if the plot focused more on him and less on the complicated love triangle between Rosenfeld, Prosser and DiMaso.

What was great about this movie is how it ended. It is well executed and it leaves some interesting questions to ponder about right and wrong.

Overall, this is a pretty good movie. I do not think it is worth the 92% on Rotten Tomatoes, and I do not recommend seeing it in theatres. I give it 3 out of 5 stars. Go see it when it comes to Redbox.

Content: Rated R. There is some brief topless nudity. There is quite a bit of sexuality including one sex scene. One character is constantly dressed provocatively in tops that are very revealing. There is about the average amount of language for a rated R movie: quite a few F-words including some in a sexual context.

For more details on what I base my ratings off of, visit http://criticalchristopher.blogspot.com/2014/01/defining-rating-criteria.html

"Her" Review

The concept of "Her" sounds like it would be dumb and not worth seeing. However, it is a well-thought-out film with a lot of emotional depth.

Theodore (Joaquin Phoenix) is a man living in the not-too-distant future. He has been feeling down lately because of a failed recent relationship. His mind is constantly running flashbacks of how excellent things had been before.

Theodore lives in a time in which technology has now become so advanced that operating systems with consciousnesses are being sold. Not only are the owners able to communicate with the them--which seems to have been the case anyway--but the computers are becoming very much alive. They think for themselves, they learn,  and they even have emotions.

Theodore buys one of these operating systems and sets the voice to female. She names herself Samantha (voiced by Scarlett Johansson). At first, they are just getting to know each other. But as their friendship deepens, an intimate relationship forms that helps him progress and be a better person.

Had this film been made by a studio that only wanted money, it would be as stupid as it sounds. A guy dates his computer. What a joke! However, this film constructs the relationship so brilliantly that by the time they start dating, it is not nearly as absurd as you would think.

The moment Theodore downloads the operating system and starts talking to Samantha, you can see why he would fall in love with "her." She is nice, she is charming, she is funny and she is lively.

What is interesting, is she is very much as human as anyone else. She has emotions and gets hurt when someone says something she does not like. With those emotions, she also feels joy, which comes about as her meaningful relationships progress and as she learns new things.

This movie could not have been pulled off without writer/director Spike Jonze's ("Where the Wild Things Are") construction of an interesting script with careful attention to detail. Not only is the dialogue believable, it brings out what my high school drama teacher always used to call "universal truths" that make scripts worth studying and provoke thought. For example, there is one part where they are walking along the beach, and Samantha says something about how humans look that is very close to some thoughts I have had before. It was interesting hearing it put the way she said.

Johnze also made sure the futuristic world is believable. His direction shows a world with advanced technology that could probably come about within the next twenty years. The people walk around with cordless buds in their ears that hook up to their computers and read e-mails to them. Their video games are holographic and require no controller. The computers are all activated by voice.

Even Theodore's job is something that is unique to the world created by Spike Johnze. I like how the film introduces it, so I will not reveal anything about it. What I will say is I think it is commentary by the director on how impersonal society is getting in their communication.

Joaquin Phoenix's performance as Theodore is excellent. I have only seen him in "Gladiator" and "Walk the Line." In both those films he plays a man who does a lot of despicable things. In this film, he is a normal man who is at a low point in his life. He brings out so much likability that when a character says something very hurtful to him in one scene, I feel his pain.

I give this movie five out of five stars. It is such a brilliantly crafted movie that it makes something that would be very dysfunctional in real life seem at least a little understandable. It also teaches a lesson about relationships that I feel is very important to know. Walking out of the theatre I felt edified.

Content: Rated R. Though it does not have any explicit sex scenes, there is a lot of sexuality and sensuality in this film, which is mainly provocative noises. There is also one scene of frontal female nudity near the beginning that happens while some of the noises are heard. There is also moderate language--about average for a film of this rating--with quite a few F-words. It is not a family movie by any means.

"Paranormal Activity: The Marked Ones" Review

“Paranormal Activity: The Marked Ones” is desperate in its attempts to be scary and further the franchise, but it is still an entertaining film.

Jesse (Andrew Jacobs) and Hector (Jorge Diaz) are two friends who are recording their post-high school lives with a video camera.

They notice a young man named Oscar, who Jesse and Hector know from high school, has been regularly visiting Anna (Gloria Sandoval), Jesse’s odd neighbor who lives in the apartment below him. This strikes them as weird because Anna is a middle-aged, heavy set woman.

One day while they are in Jesse’s room, they hear some noises from her apartment. They investigate by slipping a small camera through the vents. What they see is Anna doing something satanic.

Meanwhile, an invisible being enters Jesse’s life. At first it is benign, and it seems to be protecting him. However, as time goes on, it is apparent there is nothing righteous about it. In fact, it is completely evil.

Eventually, they find out that what Anna did has connection to why Oscar visits her, and it has something to do with paranormal experiences Jesse starts having.

The first “Paranormal Activity” was a breakthrough in horror films. It proves that the scariest movies do not need a big budget, to be overly gory or cause people to jump in every scene. It cost $15,000 to make, and it succeeds at being scary by creating a realistic atmosphere. It plays on the idea that sometimes at night, noises are heard that could be anything. “Paranormal Activity” assumes the worst and says that noise could be a demon. The first movie’s success spawned several sequels.

The second and third movies had bigger budgets and attempted to explain why the events in the first film happened. They both had their creepy moments, but it was clear by the third film that it was starting to become desperate as it resorted to cheap, B-movie jump scares that were mostly done by regular people and not the entity that is supposed to be frightening.

This movie furthers the franchise’s desperation with cheap, jumpy moments, a disturbing scene in which a character takes a string out of his eye, a car accident, a witch’s coven and even a time travel plot point. The intention of adding time travel is to link this film with the others. While this adds new perspective for the audience, it does not have an effect on the chronology. Had the events of this film not happened, nothing would change.

This movie does deserve some credit. The time travel plot point is a little desperate and cheesy, but the film is still entertaining. The filmmakers clearly wanted to try something different, and it shows. Instead of cameras being set up around the house of white, middle-class people, this is filmed by a group of lower-class Latino youth shooting their day-to-day life. Some of the shots are done on the street rather than inside their house.

It is also entertaining to see Jesse’s relationship with the demon start. He actually interacts with it by doing trust falls in one scene. It is silly and misses the point of being scary, but it is still fun to watch.

Another interesting difference is they use an old version of the game “Simon” as a ouija board. This is a weird choice on the part of the filmmakers, but like the trust fall scene, it is entertaining.

The performances are decent, particularly Andrew Jacobs, who plays Jesse. The character changes from all-around nice to deranged and horrible. Jacobs does a good job making this character arc believable.

In one way, I would give this film two out of five stars because it pales in comparison to the first “Paranormal Activity,” and it completely misses the point of using simplicity to its advantage. However, looking at the entertainment value as a whole, I give it three stars. It has its silly moments, and I would not recommend wasting your money in theatres. However, if you like the rest of the franchise, it is worth a look when it comes to Redbox.

Content: Rated R. There is quite a bit of language including F-words. In some instances, the F-word is used in a sexual context. There is full-frontal female nudity as well as backside nudity. There are disturbing images. There is a scene of sexuality. The whole movie also deals with satanic rituals.

This review was published on the website for "The Utah Statesman," a student-run newspaper at Utah State University on January 7, 2014.

"Paranormal Activity 3" Review

"Paranormal Activity 3" is not as good as the first film, but it still creeped me out.

Kristi and Katie's childhood is filmed by their mother's boyfriend, Dennis (Christopher Nicholas Smith). He is messing around with his new camera when an earthquake is caught on tape. Looking at the footage, he sees some dust settling in mid-air.

Kristi (Jessica Tyler Brown), who is five or six years old in this film, has an imaginary friend named Toby, and Dennis is starting to think that maybe this might be something real. To investigate, he purchases more video cameras and places them in different areas of the house.

What he finds is that Kristi wakes up at night and talks to someone. When asked about this, she does not give a lot of information and says he does not want her to talk about it.

Strange things start happening, and Dennis sees it all on tape. He at first does not want to tell Julie (Lauren Bittner), his significant other. However, as it becomes more dangerous, he realizes something needs to be done about it.

This film is my second favorite in the series. The first film is definitely the best, and I stand by my opinion that sequels were never necessary. With that being said, some were made, and this particular one had some very creepy moments.

One of them is a scene involving Katie (Chloe Csengery) playing "Bloody Mary" in the bathroom with Dennis' friend Randy (Dustin Ingram). It is very creepy, and there are other great scenes like it.

Though there are some scary moments, there are others that show the filmmakers' desperation to scare the audience. There are several scenes in which something jumps out. Sometimes the demon does so, but there is at least one time I can remember in which it is a character who is not supposed to be scary. That part made me jump the highest, and it felt cheap. I was not really scared. I was startled.

I do not understand why it resorts to jump scares. There are a lot of scenes that are scary just because of the content, and the first "Paranormal Activity's" ability to be that way is part of what makes it great.

Another great thing about this film is the child actors. A lot of times, because they lack  experience, they can bog the movie down. In this movie, Chloe Csengery as Katie and Jessica Tyler Brown as Kristi both do really well in their roles. They reacted to situations in realistic ways, and it was not simply line memorization for them.

The main thing I do not like about this movie is the way it ends. It left me confused. It is clear the movie tried to be more complicated than it should have been.

I give this movie four out of five stars. According to my rating system, I would not have been disappointed seeing this in theatres. It is not nearly as good as the first film, but there are parts that scared me.

Content: Rated R. There is moderate language including "F" words. There is sexual content and a scene of sexuality. There are also disturbing images including some satanic symbols.

For more details on what I base my ratings off of, visit http://criticalchristopher.blogspot.com/2014/01/defining-rating-criteria.html

"Paranormal Activity 2" Review

"Paranormal Activity 2" is an unnecessary sequel that tries too hard.

The movie is inappropriately named in that it is technically a prequel rather than a sequel. It is about Katie's sister, Kristi Rey (Sprague Grayden, "White Collar"), who is actually mentioned in the first film. When Kristi and Katie were children, they both felt the demonic presence, and it went off and on for a while.

In this movie, Kristi is living with her infant son, her step-daughter Ali (Molly Ephraim, "Last Man Standing"), and her husband Daniel (Brian Boland). They experience a break-in at the beginning, and they decide to get security cameras. This film is a combination of footage from those cameras and from a home video camera used by Ali.

As more weird things happen, they realize that the break in is probably something else entirely. Kristi is starting to suspect that the demonic presence is coming back to haunt her. Daniel does not seem to believe her. Whenever Kristi or Ali try to prove what is going on by showing tapes, Daniel blows it off as the wind.

Ali figures out through some research a possible reason they are being haunted. Without revealing anything, she is correct about it, and this actually connects this with the first one in an interesting way.

Though the two movies connect, this movie was unnecessary. The first one was obviously not made with more films in mind. It is a found footage film, which means someone shot all the activity in the house. The fact that someone else was doing the same thing right before is a little ridiculous when you think about it.

It seems like in the making of this film, the writers and producers had to rack their brain to come up with some way they can continue the franchise. What they thought up is a movie that is bigger than the first one. They had a bigger budget with $3,000,000, and they decided to get a bigger cast. Instead of making it about one couple, it is about a family. Instead of having footage from only one camera, they managed to write more into the script.

That is precisely why this movie is not nearly as good as the first one. The original "Paranormal Activity" proved Charmin Ultra's catchphrase that "Less is more." There are only two characters who the audience gets to know very well. It is a more intimate experience. It gives off a sense of loneliness, and that adds to the horror.

The one camera also makes it much better in the first one in that if something happens off screen, it is not recorded by anything. The couple has to investigate the aftermath, and it adds more mystery.

I also had a problem with the character Daniel. He is very annoying. He brushes off everything until the very end when it is pretty much too late. The man comes off as overly insensitive. I think this has to do with him being badly written as well as badly acted. In the first film, Micah is also doubtful of everything, but he is more charming and realistic. This might have been because the man who played him was a better actor all around.

I have to give this movie credit, however. It is very interesting to see how it connects with the first film. Even though it was unnecessary, it needed to be made because the producers wanted to make a lot of money from it. With this in mind, what the writers came up with was actually pretty interesting, and there were some legitimately creepy parts. However, the movie still felt like a remake of "Paranormal Activity" with more cameras and more people.

I give this film 2 out of 5 stars. It has its good moments and it is interesting to see the way it connects everything. However, the film as a whole has already been done before, and it was done better. Just watch the first movie.

Content: Rated R. There are a couple scenes with sexual content. There is no nudity, though it shows a woman in a bath naturally censored with bubbles. There is moderate language with several "F" words. There is a little violence especially at the end. There is a little blood at the end, but it is a stain on a character's shirt.

For more details on what I base my ratings off of, visit http://criticalchristopher.blogspot.com/2014/01/defining-rating-criteria.html

"Paranormal Activity" Review

Introduction

I will be reviewing "Paranormal Activity: The Marked Ones," here and in the newspaper I write for, "The Utah Statesman." However, from what I understand, one needs see at least the first three films in the franchise to understand it. Because of this, I will be reviewing these movies on this blog.

In the interest of time, I will only write short reviews of the first three films. I will concentrate more time on the one that is coming out this weekend.

Review

"Paranormal Activity" succeeds as a horror film because it uses its simplicity to create a realistic feel.

Katie and Micah (played by actors with the same first names: Katie Featherston and Micah Sloat) are boyfriend and girlfriend living with each other. Before they moved in, Katie neglected to tell Micah that she has had past experience with some kind of presence. She has been visited by some kind of entity, and she does not know what it is. It is revealed in the beginning by a paranormal expert that this presence is demonic.

The presence has been felt off and on in her life. It has been dormant for a while, but she is starting to see weird stuff coming back to visit her. Micah decides to document their life with a video camera to see if what she is saying is true. During the day, he records their day-to-day interactions. By night, he records them as they sleep to see if there is anything out of the ordinary happening.

Each night, something happens. It starts out fairly subtle, but after a while it becomes more and more bizarre.

From beginning to end, this movie is very entertaining. The filmmakers knew that in order to give a good sense of horror, the audience needs an emotional attachment to the characters.

Watching the couple interact is part of what makes it fun. Micah is funny at times because he is sarcastic. He does not seem to believe that there is any such thing as demons, so he does not take anything seriously. Katie, however, knows what she has seen and felt, and she gets really mad when he makes fun of her.

What is interesting about this is the men watching into this movie can relate to Micah and the women to Katie. *I do not mean to make a lot of assumptions, but in my experience, women are usually more scared of horror films than men. Before I saw this movie, the women I talked to thought I was crazy that I would even watch it.

At the beginning of the movie, I felt calm like Micah. However as it progresses, he starts getting more concerned, and I could definitely feel the intensity build itself up.

This film was very cheap to make. The main actors are both not very famous except for in the franchise this film started. Paying them must not have been difficult. The camera is a cheap one that most people can afford. The special effects are also fairly inexpensive in that it mostly involves things moving around. According to IMDB's "Paranormal Activity" page, the estimated budget for this film was only $15,000.

The simplicity and cheapness of it all is why it ended up being horrifying. Knowing that there are no great special effects, the filmmakers had to focus their efforts on making sure it is well written with what they had. The demonic presence shown is usually subtle with a door creaking or a big noise. The biggest effects are things moving around. By the end, it gave me a good sense of terror.

I give this movie 5 out of 5 stars. It succeeds in a way movies with a higher budget often fail to do: scare me. It does so with its simple special effects and outstanding writing.

Content: Rated R. There is a little sexual content and implications that a couple is either about to engage in intercourse or has already done so, but it is nothing you would not see in a standard PG-13 movie. There is maybe a little bit of blood at the end, but it is not very clear. There is moderate language including quite a few "F" words.

*I just want to make one thing clear: I do not intend to start any stereotypes that are wrong about women. I am just talking about how men and women tend to react differently according to my own experiences. I know that there are quite a few women who love horror and are not scared of it at all. 

"Grudge Match" Review

"Grudge Match" definitely has its dumb, cliché moments, but with a talented cast and interesting relationship dynamics, it is surprisingly enjoyable.

Henry "Razor" Sharp (Sylvester Stallone) and Billy "The Kid" McDonnen (Robert De Niro) are former boxing rivals. Previously there had been a few matches between them that ended with no clear winner. A grudge match was planned, but Sharp dropped out for some reason.

The movie starts about thirty years later. Sharp is now a poor, blue collar worker. Kid is now a successful businessman who owns a restaurant and dealership. Kid is a womanizer who looks at his past with fondness, while Sharp is more introverted and does not seem to want to talk about his boxing career.

They both somehow had the same manager whose son, Kevin Slate Jr. (Kevin Hart, "This is the End"), is now wanting to make some money off of them.

There is a boxing video game coming out, and Slate is able to convince Sharp to be in it. The game designers need him to go to the studio so they can program his computerized character according to his moves. What he does not know is Kid is also there to be in the game. When they see each other, they get in a fight, which gets recorded and becomes a viral video.

Slate sees this as an opportunity to promote a grudge match between the two veteran boxers. They are both pretty old, so there is a lot of doubt that having them box is a good idea.

Coming into the movie, I had very low expectations. When I saw the advertisement, I thought it looked a lot like "Rocky Balboa," which also stars Sylvester Stallone. There are quite a few similarities. An old veteran boxer played by the same actor does not want to be in any more fights, but because of new technology, people are curious to see how he would hold up now.

There are also quite a few differences, however. This movie does not deal with one, but two veteran boxers who were bitter rivals back in the day. One seems okay with doing another match, but the other has a lot of reservations. In a way it is more how a sequel to "Rush" would be rather than a rehashing of something that has already been done.

That is what is good about this movie. It is not as cliché as I thought it would be. The relationship between the rivals is interesting in that it goes deeper than what the world knows.

Another interesting dynamic that is introduced is between Kid and his son B.J., played by "The Walking Dead's" Jon Bernthal. B.J. finds out that the father he knew is not his biological father, but that it is actually Kid. He goes to talk to him, and a relationship develops as he becomes Kid's trainer. I am not going to go into too much detail about this, but I will say there is also a connection between this and Sharp's relationship with Kid as well.

This is one of the rare movies in which the more funny parts are not in the trailer. If you have seen the trailer, you may have noticed that the jokes are hit and miss. There are some parts that legitimately made me laugh. Other scenes tried a little too hard. Some of the time it seemed like it tried to force the audience to laugh by being crude. It worked on me some of the time, but at other times it did not.

The performances were all good. Robert De Niro plays a complete womanizer, and he did a good job at it. I really believe him as an old horn dog.

Sylvester Stallone also does a good job in his role. It is not different from what he usually does. He played a boxer in at least six different movies, and a reluctant hero in both "Rocky Balboa" and "Rambo" (2008). It is familiar territory for him, which is why he did so well.

Alan Arkin also did a great job as Sharp's trainer. He is a quirky old man who has a hearing problem. Arkin is no stranger to comedic roles, and he does a good job in this film.

I also enjoyed seeing Jon Bernthal in this. He is better known as the unstable Shane Walsh in "The Walking Dead." I grew to hate his character in that show, and this is partly due to the actor doing such a good job. In this movie, he is a very good person. He is a responsible father who loves his son and wants to get to know his own dad. It is a breath of fresh air seeing him as a likable character, and I hope to see him cast in more films.

There were a couple problems I had with this film. One of them is that the script is redundant at times. The dialogue is not horrible, but there are some moments in which it seems the characters take too long to say something in an attempt to be funny. At other times, there is forced exposition that should have been handled a little more subtly.

A bigger problem I had is there is a section that goes into annoyingly cliché territory. I made an audible groan as one of the characters made a decision that is very stupid and horrible.

Without giving anything away, what happens is the same kind of thing as in romantic comedies when one person finds out something bad about his or her significant other and breaks the relationship off. It always leads to the two ruminating how good they had it, and they ultimately get back together in the end.

Fortunately, in this film, a couple does not break up, but there are relationship issues. It is very predictable that everything will go well in the end despite the fact that one character did something very stupid. Despite knowing what was going to happen, this coming back together was not very believable. What the character did was deplorable and a out of place. It made me as an audience member have no respect for that person, and this movie would have been so much better off without that section.

I give this movie 3 out of 5 stars. It does have its dumb cliché moments, but it is still a good movie that I did not regret seeing. The characters are interesting with believable motivations. The relationship dynamics are entertaining, and there are some parts that made me laugh. It is worth at least renting when it comes to Redbox. If you want to see it in theatres, I do not think you would be disappointed seeing it at matinee price.

For more details on what I base my ratings off of, visit http://criticalchristopher.blogspot.com/2014/01/defining-rating-criteria.html

Content: Rated PG-13. There is moderate language throughout including one "f" word that I do not personally remember hearing (I know about it because of IMDB's parents guide). There is quite a bit of crude humor and sexual content that might not be appropriate for children. There are boxing fights with hard hits and some blood, but there is nothing too gory.

Topic for Comment: What is your favorite fighting movie and why?