May 30, 2014

"Maleficent Review"

Maleficent

3 out of 5 stars

Family appropriateness rating: 4.75 out of 5 stars
Rated PG
-Several sequences of action violence, with no gore.
-Some images might frighten young children











Note: You may notice that the text looks uneven on this page. I do not know why this is. I tried to keep it consistent, but Blogger does not want to be my friend today. If anyone knows how to fix it, please comment below.

What the trailers promised with "Maleficent" was a deeper look at a classic Disney villainess. While the movie delivers this in some ways, it feels like the CliffsNotes version of what it should have been.

The story is a retelling of "Sleeping Beauty" from Maleficent's (Angelina Jolie) point-of-view. Anyone who grew up with the animated film — as I did — knows that in the beginning, everyone is gathered to honor the newborn princess, Aurora. While guests are bearing gifts, Maleficent crashes the party and curses the child. The villainess says on the princess's sixteenth birthday, Aurora will touch the spindle of a spinning wheel and fall into a deep sleep. There is no way to wake up from it unless she receives true love's kiss.


This exact thing happens in "Maleficent," but not until about a half-hour in. The first part is about where the title character comes from and what would drive her so far as to curse a child. She is a winged fairy who meets an unlikely friend. There is a romantic storyline that ends badly for Maleficent. As soon as that happens, she becomes vengeful.


Though her motivation for becoming this way is realistic, it is very rushed. She is good throughout the beginning, and then she turns evil without any kind of transition

This is true of the main antagonist as well. He is very two dimensional. He starts off as a nice guy, but his transition is even more rushed and choppy than Maleficent's. There are no scenes depicting what about his character changes for him to commit some of the actions he does.


After the curse is given, the story slows down a little bit to develop a relationship between Aurora (Elle Fanning) and the title character. The performances of Elle Fanning and Angelina Jolie are well executed, and there is great chemistry between them. This is especially true in a couple stand-out moments, including the one in which the title character reveals herself to Aurora, which is depicted in at least one trailer I have seen.


The overall idea of the story is good, but it feels like the studio used the rough draft of the script. It should have been about at least a half-hour longer. Everything in the beginning is so rushed that it is unbelievable. In fact, the entire first act could have been a movie on its own, and it would have been much better that way. The studio could have then decided to make a sequel that comprised the second and third acts, or it could have just stuck with saying that this film is the prequel to "Sleeping Beauty." 


The writers obviously did not work out some of the fine details that could have made this movie so much better. This is apparent from the beginning when the character's name is Maleficent even when she is good. Any English-speaking person with a high school degree should know that "mal" at the beginning of the word means "bad." That is why she was named that in the first place. Had the film been smarter than it is, the filmmakers would have played off of this more by giving her a different name when she is good. 


There is an interesting message at the end that is similar to what was done in "Frozen." However, in order to accommodate for this, the entire third act changes what happens in "Sleeping Beauty." While I often enjoy twists on classic fairy tale story-structure, I am not entirely sure how I feel about this one. To me it feels like the writers thought "Hey, we should do it this way since that is what was done in the last few fairy tales" and completely ignored how the original movie ended. There are people who might be offended by this because "Sleeping Beauty" is a classic. I do not claim to be one of these people, but I think the movie would have been better if it were a prequel rather than a complete retelling, as stated earlier.


The visuals are hit and miss. There are some beautiful shots, but there are some awful looking computer-animated characters. They look like they should be in a video game rather than a live action film. 


The three fairies who take care of Aurora also look bad. They are played by actresses Lesley Manville, Imelda Staunton and Juno Temple. Their role is often the comic relief — reminiscent of "The Three Stooges" — especially when they are in human form. When they are in fairy-form, there is something that looks off about them. Their heads look bigger than their bodies as if they were photoshopped. The filmmakers could have easily made them look more natural using the green screen, but they failed in this area.


While it does have a lot of problems, the film overall is enjoyable. Angelina Jolie does a great job in her role, and even though it is choppy, the film does a good job making likable a long-hated villainess. If you are looking for a feel-good family film, this would be good to see.


Like my Facebook page: www.facebook.com/criticalchristopher
Follow me on Twitter: @ChrisCampbell02

May 29, 2014

"Inside Llewyn Davis" Review




Inside Llewyn Davis

4 out of 5 stars


Family appropriateness rating: 2 out of 5 stars
Rated R
Strong language throughout including the f-word in both sexual and non-sexual contexts.







At first glance, "Inside Llewyn Davis" seems like an anti-climactic version of "The Pursuit of Happyness," but it is deeper than that.

Oscar Isaac plays the title character, a beaten-down folk singer who is doing what he can to survive. Though he has a contract with a record company, he is not making any money from it. He is so poor, that he does not have a place to stay. Living the nomadic lifestyle, he is constantly going place to place each night.

There are a few people who regularly let him stay, including a musical couple, Jean (Carey Mulligan) and Jim (Justin Timberlake), and an upper-middle class couple, Mitch (Ethan Phillips) and Lillian (Robin Bartlett) Gorfein.

Part of the film is about his interactions with these people, but it is also about how he tries to get out of the not-having-money rut he is in. He goes to Chicago to see if he could get a deal with producer Bud Grossman (F. Murray Abraham). Two other people ride there with him: Roland Turner (John Goodman), a rude old music performer and Johnny Five (Garret Hedlund). Turner is easily my favorite character in the movie. He is quirky, and a lot of what he says, while incredibly rude, is hilarious.

Oscar Isaac in the lead is very believable in all of his scenes. He has a certain laid-back quality to him, but there is a lot more to his character than that. He sees himself as a professional musician, and the movie does a good job showing what makes him tick. It explains why he does not just make his life easier by choosing a different career.

All of the actors do great except for one: Carey Mulligan as Jean. She is very mean to him. There is good reason for this, but her meanness is a little over-the-top. While it is entertaining to watch, it does not seem very believable, and it takes me out of the movie.

There is no question that the writing is very well done, and the pacing is very even. There are no moments that seem faster or slower than others. It is consistent. A majority of the scenes are dialogue-based, but it is often witty and entertaining.

The movie is very enjoyable to watch, but the storyline is a little confusing. The events are simple enough, but the reasoning behind all of what happens is not very apparent. I had to see it twice before doing this review. The first time, I was not sure what to think. My expectations were that it would be like "The Pursuit of Happyness," in which nothing works out for the main character until the very end. However, that is not at all what this movie is about.

Watching it the second time, I thought that maybe it is about why things do not work out for Llewyn. I did a little research, and I think that is more what the Coen brothers — who wrote and directed the movie  were going for. However, I still do not think that is completely what it is about.

There is an article I read in "The New Yorker" that outlines why all the characters are important. Both times I saw this film, I thought Roland Turner and Johnny Five were completely random, but after reading the article, it made a little more sense why they are there. A link can be found here: "The New Yorker" article. Just a warning, it has spoilers, so be sure to see the movie before you read it.

That is partly what makes this movie great. Not everything is given to the audience. In order to understand the intention of the filmmakers, it requires thought and discussion. The best movies are ones that are unforgettable and that is how this is.

Those who do not wish to see a movie they may not understand completely, may be interested in the music. There are several scenes depicting performances by the characters. The word to describe all of the songs is "chill." It is easy-listening, folk music that creates a relaxing atmosphere. Writing this review, I have had several of the songs stuck in my head. Had I completely hated this film, I would have definitely recommended the soundtrack.

Like my Facebook page: www.facebook.com/criticalchristopher
Follow me on Twitter: @ChrisCampbell02

May 27, 2014

Why all other X-Men films are still relevant (spoilers)

Warning: This post contains spoilers for "X-Men: Days of Future Past" as well as other X-Men films. If you have not seen this movie do not read any further unless you do not care.

When I first saw the new X-Men film, I thought the overall it was incredible. However, I had mixed feelings about the ending. It makes the timeline of the cinematic universe so that the events of all the other movies, except for "First Class" did not happen.

I have since warmed up to the way it ended because it does a good job making me want more X-Men and causing me to really think about the film after it ends. Furthermore, though the timeline has completely changed, every single film before it is still relevant because Wolverine's character arc is allowed to continue.

Though the X-Men films have a lot of different characters, I would argue that Wolverine is the main protagonist. Throughout each film, he is the one with the biggest character arc. He is constantly learning new things and changing. The story starts with him not remembering who he is or where he came from. For the first few movies, the audience becomes very interested in knowing the answer to this question, and he learns the most about it in the second film, "X2."

Whether you like the movie or not, Wolverine goes through a traumatic experience in "X-Men: The Last Stand." Jean Grey, who he has loved from the beginning, becomes extremely powerful and unstable. She causes a lot of harm, and if she does not stop, a lot of people will be killed. Wolverine, being invincible, is the only one who can approach her without dying. Because of this, it is him who must kill her in the end.

While I did have some problems with "The Wolverine," I really liked how it continues this arc. Killing Jean Grey causes him to feel depressed and guilty. The intention of that film is to show the title character coming to terms with what happened and realize she had to die so a lot of innocent people would be spared.

In order for "X-Men: Days of Future Past" to happen, Wolverine needs to be in a state-of-mind suitable to mentor Professor Xavior's past self. It is not until the ending of "The Wolverine," that he is able to do so.

At the end of the newest installment, Wolverine is apparently the only person who remembers these events. This means his character arc will still be able to continue despite the fact that the timeline is now completely different.

May 24, 2014

"X-Men: Days of Future Past" Review



X-Men: Days of Future Past

5 out of 5 stars

Family appropriate rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars
Rated PG-13
-Quite a bit of brutal violence including stabbings, but nothing gory.
-Two instances of sexual content.
-One instance of backside male nudity.
-Moderate language including one f-word.






"X-Men: Days of Future Past" utilizes a unique, comic booky plot to beautifully continue the character arcs that left off in both "The Wolverine" and "X-Men: First Class."

Humans and mutants are at war. The mutants are losing because of the Sentinels, machines built by the government that have the ability to track down and kill them. Furthermore, these machines have the ability to mock mutant powers, which is why they are so successful.

They were designed by a scientist named Dr. Trask (Peter Dinklage) in the 1970s. Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence), angry at what he was doing, assassinated him and was captured on the spot. This gave humans even more motivation to get rid of the mutants, and they studied Mystique's body. It was through this that they were able to give the Sentinels the ability to mock mutant powers.

In the present, there are only few X-Men left, and they want to stop this war, reversing the devastation that has been happening. The way to do this is to stop Mystique from killing Trask. Kitty Pride (Ellen Page) has the power to send a person's consciousness back in time to his or her past self. Because it is so difficult for someone to go that far back without being killed, Wolverine (Hugh Jackman) — being invincible  volunteers to go.

In the past, he must utilize both past Professor Xavior (James McAvoy) and past Magneto (Michael Fassbender) to stop Mystique. Of course, things are a lot more complicated than that, which is what makes this film great. There is non-stop conflict that is believable given where the characters have left off.

This continues the events from "X-Men: First Class," in which several of Xavior's friends have left him to join Magneto. He is in a very confused state-of-mind, and he is very different from present Xavior (Patrick Stewart), a Gandalf-like man with a lot of wisdom to offer. Past Magneto is just as extreme as ever in his worldview, and there are parts where Xavior seems to agree with him.

At the end of "The Wolverine," the title character finally accepts the fact that he needed to kill Jean Grey (Famke Janssen) in order to save the world. Not only does "Days of Future Past" address this, it continues his character. He is now charged with the responsibility to be the mentor rather than the mentored. Every performance in this film is believable enough to carry on all of these established character arcs.

The plot is simple enough to follow but complex enough to keep the audience involved. Without overcomplicating things with useless subplots, it is very straightforward with a ton of twists and turns that makes it hard to predict what will happen in the end. It goes above and beyond the conventional super hero flick with an overarching theme of redemption and change that is beautifully placed rather than forced in.

This film has just the right amount of high-energy action to keep it fun. There is not too much  like the "Transformers" movies  but it is not bogged down by too much dialogue. Every action scene is well-choreographed and helps move the story forward. The best sequence involves a new character named Quicksilver (Evan Peters) and his mutant power of super speed.

At first, I had a problem with the way the movie ends. It is believable enough given the rest of the storyline, but it fails to explain how everything works. However, this is actually a good thing. It does not give all of the answers. It forces the audience to really think about what happened, and it gives another reason to anticipate what is next for the franchise.

Specific thoughts on the ending (spoilers): After having taken part in changing history, Wolverine wakes up in the mutant academy. He goes to Xavior's office, who finds out that his past consciousness has finally caught up to himself in the present. The professor welcomes him and says they have a lot of catching up to do. There are also characters who died in previous installments who are presently in the mutant academy, which suggests that the entire timeline has been altered.

This raises a few questions: why does his consciousness come back to the present? How does he still make it to the mutant academy even though the timeline should be very different? Does everyone else involved in protecting Wolverine and Kitty Pride remember everything? If not, why is Wolverine the only one who does remember it?

I have some tentative answers to these questions. A lot of it is he is the only one whose consciousness is in a different place from his present body. Since the timeline is altered, which causes Kitty Pride to let go, his consciousness has to come back to himself in the current present. I do not think everyone else remembers everything because Bobby (Shawn Ashmore) seems to be dating Kitty Pride at the beginning, but when Wolverine comes to the alternate timeline, he is dating Rogue (Anna Paquin) again. Professor Xavior only knows about the mission Wolverine is back from because he remembers the events of the altered timeline.

What do you think of the ending? Do agree with my thoughts on it? Go ahead and comment what you think. Just be sure to warn other readers of spoilers.

May 20, 2014

"Heaven is for Real" Review




Heaven is for Real

2.75 out of 5 Stars

Rated PG
The only sexual content is when a wife whispers something in her husband's ear that is implied to be sexual, but the audience does not hear it.
The only violence is a sports injury and a little girl punching some classmates.







Though it is interesting to see a child's vision of life after death, "Heaven is for Real" is an overall bland film that should have been a made-for-tv movie.

Todd Burpo (Greg Kinnear) is a pastor with a lovely wife, Sonja (Kelly Reilly) and two kids, Cassie (Lane Styles) and Colton (Connor Corum). One day Colton gets very ill with appendicitis and is rushed to the hospital. Though he does not die, the boy tells Todd about some experiences he had in heaven while being operated on.

Todd does not know what to believe because he thinks what Colton experienced is impossible. However, Colton has a lot of insight about what went on the day of the operation that he could not have known. Most of the film deals with the doubts that Todd has. 

This was kind of confusing to me. I myself am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, more commonly referred to as Mormons. For me, it is a no brainer that heaven is real. It is a major point of doctrine in my own church. It only makes sense that a pastor of a Christian church would think the same thing, but that is not the case.

I am more than likely not the only person who would be confused by this, which is why the movie would have been a lot more powerful had there been better set-up of exactly what he believed.

That is the main problem with this film. It does develop the main character, but it does not address what it needs for the story to make sense or even be enjoyable. It portrays Todd as a good family man, but it does not give him much personality besides that. It is the same for most of the characters. Some are given good moments, but they are overall pretty bland, which makes the movie itself a little boring.

I would not say it is a horrible film. There are some parts that make it entertaining. When Colton talks about heaven, it is very interesting to hear what he has to say and to see how the filmmakers envision it. For me, these are great moments because I believe that what the child says is completely possible. The film would have been so much better had it concentrated more on it.

It will probably not convert filmgoers who do not believe in God, but the appeal of seeing a possible view of heaven in a respectful way may be of interest to those who are already religious. For those people, it does not necessarily need to be seen in theatres, but it could be good to watch with the family.

May 16, 2014

"Godzilla" Review



Godzilla

3.8 out of 5 stars

Rated PG-13
Moderate violence involving creature destruction
A monster gets its head torn off, but its too darkly lit for blood
Very mild sexuality between a husband and wife: they kiss and it is obvious it will lead to something more, but they are interrupted.
Mild language





"Godzilla" is a series of incredibly-shot scenes that make up a sub-par storyline.

I was excited for this film because one of my favorite actors, Bryan Cranston is in it. He plays Joe Brody, a scientist who sees that there are some irregular movements below the earth at the time of a huge earthquake that takes down a large nuclear facility in Japan in 1999. Fifteen years later, he sees the irregularities come back. When he goes to investigate it with his son, Ford (Aaron Taylor-Johnson), everything goes wrong, and a monster emerges.

Before seeing this film, I watched an interview with Cranston by AMC Theatres in which he plays up the character development in the film. He said since "Breaking Bad" had such phenomenal writing, he was nervous that whatever he chose next would be compared to it. When he got the script to "Godzilla," he thought it was one that no one would even think about doing so. However, after reading it, he realized that it is a story that is very character-driven. Here is the full interview:



I wonder if he was smoking Heisenberg's meth before the interview because "Godzilla" is not like that at all. His character is a main character for only a small portion, and then the focus goes on his son, Ford. Not only is Aaron Taylor-Johnson a less experienced actor, the character is bland. I don't know much about him aside from the fact that he is a family man who is an expert at bombs. There is a hint of a character arc at the beginning in which he has been estranged from his father, but in the end, there is no reason for this to be shown. His character does not seem to change in any way. He is perfect throughout it.

The film certainly tries to develop the characters, but it rushes way too much. In fact, I would argue that "Transformers" has a lot more development than this film. Though that movie is more cheesy, I know who Sam Witwicky is, and he is likable. In this movie, all of them are just there to move the story along, which is pretty slow at the beginning.

When it picks up, it is essentially the average monster-movie, but there are some good twists to it. Without spoiling anything, there is more than one monster, and they fight each other.

Though the film is a little disappointing in its characters and story, seeing the monsters on the big screen is well worth the price of admission. Director Gareth Edwards seemed to have spent most of his effort getting some really cool visuals down, and it pays off. The most awesome shots involve seeing the monsters from the point of view of civilians. Like the dragon in "The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug," a lot is done to show just how enormous Godzilla is.

The lizard's design definitely pays homage to the original look. It is more updated, but it does not look like it came from Jurassic Park like the 1998 version does. It looks like the original Godzilla.

Overall, I recommend seeing this film in theaters. It has flaws in the story's construction, but there are some awesome, intense scenes that make it worth seeing. Just don't expect the high-emotion drama of the year.

May 12, 2014

"Neighbors" Review




Neighbors

3 out of 5 stars

Rated R

A lot of crude, sex related humor
Brief sex scenes
Gags involving sex toys
Strong language with lots of f-words
At least one scene of topless female nudity







With a funny premise and great performances by Zac Efron and Seth Rogen, "Neighbors" is an enjoyable film to watch.

Mac (Seth Rogen) and Kelly Radner (Rose Byrne) have just had a baby when a group of fraternity boys moves next door. Worried that the fraternity is going to be too loud for their baby to stay asleep, the couple goes over and asks that the boys keep the noise level down. The fraternity's president, Teddy Sanders (Zac Efron) agrees that if the music is too loud, the couple is welcome to tell him so he can accommodate.

At first, this works, and Teddy even invites the couple in to party with them. However, the next time the music is too loud, the Radners call the cops on the fraternity after being unable to reach Teddy by phone. This starts a string of events in which the couple and the fraternity go back and forth fighting each other.

What works about this film is the set up of the Radners. They are a couple who want to live their lives, and it is apparent that they are transitioning from their younger years of partying. When the fraternity moves in next to them, they do not want to appear as one of those old couples that are constantly complaining about the noise level. However, they have a baby who needs sleep. In one funny scene, they try to figure out how they will tell the boys to keep the noise level down while keeping a "cool" appearance.

The film is perfectly casted, especially with Zac Efron and Seth Rogen. Both actors seem to be at the same stage in life as their characters. Rogen pulls it off as a pot-smoking, party animal who is transitioning into responsible adulthood. While I am not a huge fan of Zac Efron, he is perfect for this role. I always thought of him as a guy who has only gotten as far as he has on good looks. That is pretty much how he is in this film.

Another good performances is Lisa Kudrow as the dean of the fraternity's college. This is the only thing I have seen her in since “Friends,” and her character is one of my favorite things about this film.   Her character is more concerned about how the fraternity makes the college look than anything else, and this makes for some funny moments.

A lot of the gags involve the characters making each other miserable. As is expected, some of it is funny, and some of it falls short. Being a rated R comedy, a lot of it is gross-out humor involving sex toys, jokes about genitalia and one disgusting scene involving a woman’s breasts. Like most films in this genre, sometimes the crude jokes are funny, but sometimes they are just there because they can be.

The narrative is a little sloppy at times. Certain plot points are filler. For example (this might be a spoiler, so if you are concerned, skip this paragraph), the Radner couple gets in a fight and splits up, but within two or three scenes, they get back together. This is not even the ending scene. It is an unnecessary plot point that is only there to fill the movie's run time of just 96 minutes.

The story plays out like a sports game. First the couple is on offense, then the fraternity, then the couple. Though this does not make the film horrible, it is not a very creative way to tell the story. It feels like the writers had an idea for the premise and had to fight to keep it going.

Though there is good set up for the couple, there is a theme this movie tries to convey through a change in the Radners' mindset at the end. They seem to have a different view from the beginning, but it is not explicit at the start, which makes the ending less powerful than it could have been.


Rated R comedies are not my favorite movies. However, for those who like them, I would recommend this movie. It is not something that needs to be seen in theatres, but it is enjoyable.

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

Follow me on Twitter @ChrisCampbell02

May 7, 2014

The Top 5 Things a Movie/TV Show Needs to be Great

There are times when a string of mediocre or bad movies come out that I ask myself "Why do I subject myself to this kind of torture?"

It is when I see a truly great movie that this question is answered. There are films out there that blow my mind. They not only tell a story, they make me feel what the characters are feeling. They are not necessarily realistic in any way, but they seem real to me, the humble audience member sitting in a dark room. 

There is a quote I read in several places on the Internet that is commonly attributed to Roger Ebert. I do not know whether or not he actually said it because I have only found it on social media posts. Despite this, it is still a good quote:

"It is said that the human brain divides its functions. The right brain is devoted to sensory impressions, emotions, colors, music. The left brain deals with abstract thought, logic, philosophy, analysis.

"My definition of a great movie: While you're watching it, it engages your right brain. When it's over, it engages your left brain."

In other words, it should appeal to the senses AND it should make you think even after it is done. While there is no definite formula on how to do this, there are five things I have noticed both great movies and great television shows have.

5. Believable performances

Viewing a movie should be an emotional experience. In order to be effective, we as audience members need to relate to the characters. Therefore, the actors should do their part to be as realistic as they can in showing how they would react to the given circumstances. 

The Matrix is an exception. It is
 a great movie, but some of
 the performances are just okay.


There needs to be a balance. They should express more emotion than just "Wo" when seeing a man leap from one building to the next.

In "47 Ronin" Rinko Kikuchi tries so hard to be
villainous that her performance is laughable.



But they should not be so over-the-top that it is hard to watch without laughing.









They need to reflect real people who have real emotions. An example of a show with great acting is "Breaking Bad." Bryan Cranston has won several Emmys for his performance as a high school chemistry teacher who uses his expertise in science to make methamphetamine to support his family. In the beginning, he is a normal family man, who has a ton of moral hang-ups. By the end he is a hardened criminal, who does not mind killing to get what he wants. Cranston does such a great job executing this through every phase of the character's downfall that it is hard to notice just how much the character has changed by the end.




A great, memorable scene from the show is when he talks to his wife, Skyler (Anna Gunn), about how dangerous a man he has become. Both actors do an excellent job. Cranston is angry and intimidating while Gunn is legitimately scared for her family's safety.



"Breaking Bad" was created by Vince Gilligan and is owned by AMC Networks

4. Well-developed characters

If you read or watch reviews, chances are the term "character development" has come come up, but what exactly does this term mean?

According to the Collins English Dictionary online, it is "The portrayal of people in a work of fiction in such a way that the reader/audience seems to learn more about them and watch them develop."




Whenever storm troopers in the Star Wars movies get shot, do you really care about them? Of course not. That is because they are not developed at all. To the audience, they are just there to be shot. There is no insight into who they are, where they're from or how their relationships are.








However, the scene in which Darth Vader reveals that he is Luke's father is one of the most iconic in film history because the audience knows these characters. Vader was developed as the ultimate bad guy and Luke as the lovable hero who had been told his father was dead. This revelation would be tough to take in.




3. Quality writing and dialogue

Writers who do this right will not only create unique situations and concepts through the storyline, they establish interesting characters through the dialogue.

An example of this is "Her." It is set during a futuristic time in which a new operating system is invented that has artificial intelligence. Joaquin Phoenix plays Theodore, a lonely man going through a divorce, who needs some company. He buys the new operating system and becomes friends with the AI, which he names Samantha (voiced by Scarlett Johansson). Their friendship eventually leads to an intimate relationship.

It sounds like a weird concept, but it is a great movie because of the writing. It gives both Theodore and Samantha distinct personalities through their dialogue. Theodore is likable, and we want to see him happy. Samantha is witty and funny, and it is easy to see why Theodore would fall in love with "her."

The film takes events that would seem very weird if they happened in real life and makes them believable to the audience. They all lead to a theme about how to approach relationships that is very insightful.

At times, the regular plot structure the audience is accustomed to is flipped on its head, which is the case with "Pulp Fiction." This film does not have a normal beginning, middle and end. It is comprised of three stories that connect but are not in chronological order.

Furthermore, the dialogue is not always used to further the story but to establish character. Some of it is thought provoking and some is just there for the audience to further understand who the people are.

One thought provoking piece of dialogue is between the two characters, Vincent (John Travolta) and Mia (Uma Thurman). They are simply eating a meal in a restaurant when Mia says something very interesting:


NOTE: This film is Rated R. I edited out the F-word for anyone reading this who might
find it objectionable. However, there is another four letter word, which is the synonym of
"feces" that I did not take out.

2. Excellent direction

A movie can have great writing, excellent characters and superb performances but still fail if it has sloppy directing. The director is who determines the look of the film, how it will be put together and the performances.





A director can be responsible for making great actors, like Natalie Portman, deliver monotoned or cheesy performances.









But he or she can also be responsible for making mediocre actors, like John Travolta, deliver a performance worthy of an Oscar nomination.




1. Attention to detail

Since movies and television shows are fictional, filmmakers have to lie to the audience. In real life, the most believable lies that have been told to me are as detailed as possible. This means going beyond the story. Don't just show a beginning, middle and end to a plot. Show a world that is made believable by the little details in it.

"Her" is an excellent example of this. Not only are the characters given depth, the world in which it is set is as well. For example, Theodore works as a writer of personalized letters for people who hire him to do so. This is a very small part of the story, but it is a detail that suggests how impersonal the world has become.


One of my favorite animated shows is "Avatar: The Last Airbender" because of all the details behind it as well as the character development. The world it is set in is so different from our own that talking about the storyline involves explaining the details

It involves four nations, each with people who have the ability to manipulate a specific element: air, water, earth and fire. Only one living person has the ability to manipulate all four, and he or she is known as the Avatar. When that person dies, another one is born.

The story is about an Avatar named Aang, who is only ten years old. When he is burdened with overwhelming responsibilities, he runs away and is frozen underwater for 100 years. During that time, the fire nation takes over the world. When Aang wakes up, he sees what has been done, and he goes on an adventure to restore the nations with two people from the south pole: Katara — who has the ability to manipulate water  and her brother Sokka.

Throughout the series, there are a lot of details that make this world unique. For example, the nations are all different in size and culture, the earth kingdom being the largest, and the air nomads technically being the smallest because Aang is the only one living by the time the show starts. There are also different animals within this world, which are normally combinations of real ones like the platypus-bear. It gets detailed even down to myths behind the show. One episode discusses one such myth that explains how the city of Omashu got its name.

"Breaking Bad" is another example of a world full of little details. The concept behind it is not so far fetched that it cannot be done, but there are fictional businesses like one described in the first season called Tampico Furniture. This business is mentioned as Walter White is deciding whether or not to kill a man named Krazy-8 (Max Arciniega), who Walter finds out comes from the family that owns the store. In the conversation, it is revealed that Walter had bought his son's crib there years before the show starts.

Not only does this add depth to the world of "Breaking Bad," it adds character to Krazy-8. He is not just some guy involved in the drug business, he has a mother and father, he had a childhood, he is a person. This information helps the audience feel the gravity of the situation Walter is in.

Like my Facebook page www.facebook.com/criticalchristopher

Follow me on Twitter @ChrisCampbell02

May 2, 2014

"The Amazing Spider-Man 2" Review


The Amazing Spider-Man 2

4 out of 5 stars


Rated PG-13
Action violence throughout
A few non-gory disturbing images
with little blood
Very mild language









Though it has its share of problems and Saturday-morning-cartoon cheesiness, "The Amazing Spider-Man 2" presents the best depiction of the comic book character that I have ever seen.

Those who have read the comic books know that Spider-Man is a wildly sarcastic character. While he fights the biggest super villains, he talks trash to them, which often makes them very angry. Unfortunately, this has not been translated very well into film. Sam Raimi's depiction of him in the 2000s had a couple moments of this, but one who knows the character solely off of those films would not have known that he is supposed to be sarcastic.

This changed a little bit when Sony rebooted the franchise into "The Amazing Spider-Man" in 2012. In that film, he does this several times, but in the sequel — which was released today — he does it a lot more.

Where the first film had a more intimate, darker feel with its use of cinematography and lighting, this one is more grand and light. Spider-Man (Andrew Garfield) is already established as a major super hero by now, and it starts off with breathtaking shots of him swinging his web in New York City, looking for criminals to fight. The ones he encounters are met with his hilarious sarcasm, which is a big part of why I fell in love with the character in the first place.

Another reason has to do with him being a role model. He is met with a lot of adversity that he utilizes to become a better person. The first major one being his realization that he cannot be selfish with his powers when his actions cause the death of his uncle.

This film is about another piece of personal adversity he needs to sort through. At the end of the first film, Peter Parker is forced to promise his girlfriend's dying father (Denis Leary) that as long as he is a vigilante, he will stay away from her. The reason is Spider-Man will make a lot of enemies, and this could be dangerous for her.

This proves to be difficult as he and Gwen (Emma Stone) are in love, and it is too hard for them to move on. They continue seeing each other, but Peter feels so guilty that he sees images of her father in random areas. A big portion of the film is Peter figuring out what to do with himself.

The on-screen chemistry Emma Stone and Andrew Garfield two is very good. Several scenes feature them in moments of silly banter that are actually entertaining. In the end, I care about what happens to the relationship, which is exactly what the film tries to do.

After seeing it, I was super excited because for once they got the character right with the sarcasm and moral dilemmas. When I got home, I watched a YouTube video in which it was stated that a lot of critics gave poor reviews to this film. Being a critic myself, I try to stay away from websites like Rotten Tomatoes because they tend to bias my opinions. However, knowing that this film has been getting negative reviews, I decided to look it up. It currently has a 54%, which means only that amount of critics liked it.

The reason that was cited is the unfocused plotline. Peter's relationship problems are the focus at the beginning, and then there are several other things including him finding out what happened to his parents, Harry Osborne (Dane DeHaan) trying to find information he desperately needs and Max Dillon (Jamie Foxx) become an electric-powered mutant out for revenge.

Ultimately these plots all lead to a couple of bad guys wanting to kill Spider-Man. This would be an okay plot point if it weren't for the laziness of the writers. They could not seem to come up with a very good motivation for the villains to want to kill the hero. While Max Dillon's could be justified because of his emotional instability, the other villain is a total cry baby. Without a proper reason to want to do something so serious, the film feels like a Saturday morning cartoon, which is not the tone it was going for.

With that being said, Jamie Foxx kills it as Max Dillon. The set-up for the character is very well done, with some hilarious scenes establishing who he is. If it were not for the weak development after he becomes a super villain, he would have been an awesome bad guy.

The climax is very satisfying. Even though the villains have very weak motivations, the fight scenes in the third act are epic. They are some of the best action sequences I have ever seen in a super-hero movie.

There is something very big that happens. Without spoiling anything, it is something that affects Peter Parker. In fact, it should have affected him more. The last five minutes are about what happens after the fact, and it feels very rushed. There should have been an entire movie dealing with it.

Overall, this movie is definitely worth seeing. It does have its share of quirks and lazy writing, but the visuals and characterizations make it very entertaining.