"Straight Outta Compton" Review

Image Credit: IMDB

"Straight Outta Compton"

5 out of 5 stars

Family appropriateness rating: 1.5 out 5 stars
Rated R

-Strong language, including f-words, throughout
-Frontal female nudity as well as backside nudity
in a few scenes
-A few portrayals of sexual intercourse and one of

oral sex.

-Moderate amount of violence

"Straight Outta Compton" deals with issues that have become increasingly relevant today.

The film is a biopic about N.W.A., a group of artists who became pioneers of "gangster rap." When they first start out, people who did not grow up in tough neighborhoods (mostly white people) did not understand it. All they hear is "The police are horrible," and they have a negative reaction to it. They do not think of it as a serious art form.

This movie takes the controversial elements of rap music, namely the "F*** the Police" songs, and shows why the group would hate officers. It also shows why so many in the black community took it to heart.

The reason has to do with the racism that affected cops' decisions at the time. If there was a group of young black people anywhere, the police would assume they were gang members and approach them. Sometimes this would lead to either an arrest or brutal beating for no good reason.  

While many may argue "F*** the Police" is a harsh thing to say, it was obviously how the group felt. It must have been frustrating having to deal with the things members of N.W.A. had to live with. In the film, the character known as Eazy-E (Jason Mitchell) tells a reporter their art is a reflection of their reality. Eazy then asks the journalist what he sees when he walks out the door. This is a way to point out that our experience as white, middle class people is very different than what black people from Compton go through.

All of this has recently come to the forefront of public debate. A big chunk of it started in Ferguson, Missouri when an officer named Darren Wilson killed an unarmed black teenager named Michael Brown almost exactly a year ago. Since then, many other cases of police brutality on black people have come out, and many riots have erupted.

People who claim the Michael Brown shooting was not a racial thing have a point when they mention the forensic evidence. It shows that the narration of Brown putting his hands up in surrender could not have happened. However, the reason the officer approached the boy is hazy. Wilson claims it is because he had heard about a convenience-store robbery, but when that came out to the public initially, the chief of police said Wilson did not know about it. Another thing to point out is an investigation revealed the Ferguson Police Department had a lot of racist attitudes that affected their decisions before the Michael Brown shooting. In my opinion, even if Darren Wilson should not get any blame, the shooting was the straw that broke the camel's back.

The recent shootings were a catalyst for the movement known as "Black Lives Matter," which has been protesting modern-day systematic racism among police officers. Opponents claim police officers have a difficult job and the movement promotes disrespect towards them. They also think it diminishes the fact that white lives matter as well, and in fact, all lives matter. 

In my opinion, these people do not understand the movement. It is not that that cops should be disrespected. It is that they are humans who sometimes make racist decisions. The goal is to get them to not base their judgements on race. As for the "all lives matter" argument, that is a given. Everyone already knows white lives matter. We are not disproportionately targeted by law enforcement. When we get stopped or arrested, it is generally for good reason. That is not always the case when it comes to black people. Saying "Black Lives Matter" is important because it is what the public needs to understand, which it does not seem to know already.

Getting off the Soapbox

As a film, "Straight Outta Compton" gives me everything I want in a biopic. It is organized like a well-put-together, behind-the-music documentary that outlines the entire story about the rise and fall of N.W.A.

The thing that impressed me the most is the casting, particularly who plays Eazy-E, Dr. Dre (Corey Hawkins) and Ice Cube (O'Shea Jackson Jr., the son of the actual person). They look very similar to the real people they portray, and as the movie progresses, their appearance matures.

A big portion of the film outlines the relationship between the band members and Eazy-E, who I knew nothing about going in. Though he probably is not the most talented in the group, he is the one who leads them to getting a manager and a record deal. Ironically, he also causes some problems.

What amazes me about this film is just how fast N.W.A. gets really big. They put out one record, and everything falls into place for them. This may be because their style was so unique at the time that they had no trouble breaking out. 

"The Cokeville Miracle" Review

The Cokeville Miracle

4 out of 5 stars

Family appropriateness rating: 4 out of 5 stars
Rated PG-13
-Shots of injuries/minimal blood
-Some of the intense scenes may be too
much for some people, including small
children.









Note: There are minor spoilers in this review, but it is impossible to talk about the movie without having them. It is about a real event, and history is in itself a spoiler. 

In the film, "The Life of Pi," the title character tells his life story to a novelist. Building up to it, he says it is "a story that will make you believe in God." I do not agree that a story can make anyone believe something, but it can trigger the process of doing so or even reinforce someone's faith. "The Cokeville Miracle"is one of those stories.

The film is based on the true story of David Young (Nathan Stevens), former marshal of Cokeville, Wyoming, who ropes his wife, Doris (Kymberly Mellen), into holding-up an elementary school there. They bring all the children into one room and threaten to blow them up with a homemade bomb if they do not cooperate.

When it goes off, the only people who die are Mr. and Mrs. Young. The fact that all the children and teachers escape safely is a miracle in-and-of itself. However, Ron Hartley (Jasen Wade), a parent of two survivors, finds out there is more to this story than meets the eye.

After seeing the movie, I got the chance to speak to writer/director T.C. Christensen about the film. He said he had heard about the Cokeville bombing in news reports and in a made-for-tv movie, but none of those media exposed the spiritual side of the story. That is the angle he takes with this movie. It goes beyond telling us "There was a bomb. It exploded, and everyone lived, which is a miracle."

What makes this film so interesting is it really happened. Christensen did first-hand research in which he talked to the survivors and learned their stories. More than one of them had a spiritual experience during the incident. It is impossible to prove God's existence to someone, but the events explained in this movie can be a catalyst that gets people to at least think about it.

As far as storytelling goes, the film is hit-and-miss. When it hits, it engages. The best scenes are the ones in the classroom where the Young couple hold the children hostage. Christensen constructed the scenes in a way that put me at the edge of my seat. It shows that one wrong move by anyone can end in disaster.

Kymberly Mellen steals the show as Doris Young. She is an interesting, complex character. She seems like a typical mother-type who loves children, but what she does contradicts this impression. I looked forward to every scene with her.

Where this film falls short is in the script. Christensen said he spent a lot of time on it, and it shows with the accuracy of the story and the characterizations. He does a good job developing the characters to where they each have separate personalities and motivations. Where it goes wrong is with the dialogue itself, particularly in the first act. It is a little redundant at parts, and it does not sound like the way people talk.

Some of the drama does not have sufficient build-up to be as impactful as it goes for. The main example I can think of is a scene where one of the characters drives to the police station to tell the cops what is going on. She runs in yelling. I understand why she reacts this way, but the last time we see her before that, she is much calmer. There is not sufficient build-up to warrant yelling.

The last criticism I have about this movie is while I enjoy the message, the ending can come off as preachy. Before the credits, there are explanations about what happened to the characters later, which is pretty standard for movies about real people. After that, there is an explanation of what we just saw and what we can take away from it. The movie would have been better off letting us think about it for ourselves rather than telling us what to think.

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

Follow me on Twitter: @ChrisCampbell02

"Pitch Perfect 2" Review

Courtesy: IMDB.com

Pitch Perfect 2

3 out of 5 stars


Family appropriateness rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars
Rated PG-13
-Some mild language.
-Some of the jokes are about sex or body parts
-Some of the song lyrics are about sex










"Pitch Perfect 2" amps up much of what made the first film enjoyable. In some ways, this is a good thing, but in others, not so much.

The Barden Bellas are progressing. Instead of singing the same boring song, they perform creative mash-ups thanks to Beca (Anna Kendrick), who in the first film got the group to break out of its rigid mentality, and — much like an Apple commercial — to think different.

The fact that the characters are progressing is one thing this sequel has going for it. The main protagonists do not revert back to where they were at the beginning of the first "Pitch Perfect," and they end up in a different place as the film closes.

This is especially true of the Beca character. In this installment, she gets an internship and realizes the real world is not easy. She has doubts that her dreams can become a reality, and she spends much of the movie dealing with it. This plot point hits home for me because I am in the same boat as her. I too will be graduating college soon, and I am not entirely sure what I will do. I have big dreams, but I am concerned about whether or not they are realistic.

When I saw the first film, I thought it was decent, but it was overhyped by every girl in Utah. I saw it about five times the year it came out because people played it at most get-togethers. The film slightly disappointed me because there were not a lot of musical moments. The ones it had were good, but there were not enough. The second "Pitch Perfect" solves this problem by giving us more music. In that way, it is better than the first one. It finds every moment it can to add another song, and it has another, longer version of an a cappella battle.

Another aspect from the first film this movie amps up is the comedy, which does not work as well. Things happen in this film that are so ridiculous, they are unbelievable. The very premise of the story is Fat Amy rips her pants, revealing her private parts, during a performance in front of President Obama, and this causes so much controversy, the school threatens to break the Bellas up unless they can win the world a capella competition.

Not only does this joke take a little too much suspension of disbelief to buy, it sets the tone for a lot of other jokes in the film: forced and unfunny. I realize I am making it sound like the entire film is unwatchable. That is not the case. The the jokes are hit and miss. Some are funny and even quotable. There are certain lines I may repeat in future conversations.

The hyper-focus on humor puts the plot on back burner. I had to constantly remind myself that the characters want to win the world competition. By the time they either accomplish or fail (no spoilers), I honestly did not care very much.

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

Follow me on Twitter: @ChrisCampbell02

"Mad Max: Fury Road" Review

Courtesy: IMDB.com

Mad Max: Fury Road

4 out of 5 stars


Family appropriateness rating: 2.25 out of 5 stars
Rated R
-Action violence throughout, some of it is bloody
-Some language including one f-word
-Some partial female nudity










Critics have raved about the new "Mad Max" film. It stands at a 98 percent on Rotten Tomatoes*. One of reviewers, Chris Stuckmann — who I have nothing but respect for — gave it an A+, which he rarely does unless the movie is really good. While "Max" will entertain you for the full two hours, it is slightly overrated**.

Tom Hardy plays a rebooted version of the title character, a vagabond living in a post-apocalyptic, lawless Australia. He travels alone, running from crazy people who drive suped-up vehicles through the desert. At one time, he served as a police officer because he wanted to help others. When he saw his efforts were in vain, he quit.

In this film, he gets captured by a group who work for the tyrannical Immortan Joe (Hugh Keays-Byrne, who also played the villain the first film more than 30 years ago). He rules over thousands of people by controlling their water source and uses a group of women to bear his children. When these "breeders" try to escape with the help of Immortan's most-prized driver, Imperator Furiosa (Charlize Theron), some of his henchmen take Max to recapture them.

This leads the character (and by association us as an audience) on an epic, sand-filled adventure with excellent stunts, beautiful cinematography and awesome music, some of which a guitarist plays on top of a vehicle with fire coming out of the instrument.

As you can see from my score, I thought the movie was really good, and I can see why other critics raved so much about it. The one I mentioned earlier, Chris Stuckmann, put out a video in which he gives a checklist for what action movies should have, and "Fury Road" satisfies every criterium in it. In a nutshell, he says a solid action flick needs to feature an un-recycled storyline (check), a hero who is both relatable and vulnerable (check), a well-defined villain (check), quality stunts done at least partially by the actors (check) and steady camerawork (check).


(Though I gave out the list, I would still recommend watching the video if you are a film fan. Stuckmann explains the reasoning behind his list, and it is interesting. Just a warning for those who care, this video contains some depictions of violence and brief strong language).

It is notable how this film handles the hero's motivation. Max struggles with the conflict between desire to help others and fear of failing to do so. This does not bog down the movie. It is shown just enough to illustrate the character as a human being and give him motivation for his actions: he appears to not care about others even though we as an audience know otherwise.

The only thing about this movie that may be classified as a problem is some of it looks sped up. This is something the director did on purpose, probably for an aesthetic feel. I personally was okay with it, but some people might not be, including the friend I saw it with. Other than that, the movie does everything it sets out to do: tell an interesting story while delivering some fast-paced action sequences.

I wrote that this film is overrated because that is how I feel about it. Coming into the theatre, I had so many expectations, having heard so many good things about it. I thought I would have — what I will start referring to as — "shout out loud" moments, or "sol" (fun fact: this also means "sun" in Portuguese). These are moments when something so awesome happens that I want to yell "That is so cool!" The most recent time I can remember doing this was in theatres was during "300: Rise of an Empire." The beginning scene when the Athenians charge against Persian invaders on the shores of Marathon was so epic, I turned to my friend and geeked out about it, jumping with pure delight.

"Mad Max: Fury Road" does not have any moments that were like that for me. It has plenty of cool sequences, but nothing so mind-blowingly awesome that it made me want to disturb other theatre goers. Maybe the fire-blowing guitarist would have done the trick had I not already heard of him. In any case, he is still awesome and the movie is still worth seeing.

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

Follow me on Twitter: @ChrisCampbell02

*Rotten Tomatoes is a website that takes reviews of all the film critics and determines what percentage of them like the film. This score indicates that 98 percent of critics gave a rating of three out of five stars or higher. The average good movie is about in the high 60s or early 70s.

**I want to emphasize that this is my own opinion. It does not invalidate the views of other critics who enjoyed this movie more than I did. As a film-review blog, I do not think it necessary to say "in my opinion" within the text, but knowing how the Internet works, I do not want to come across as a prideful jerk who thinks only his views are correct.

Netflix Recommendation: "The Babadook" Review and Spoiler Discussion

The Babadook

5 out of 5 Stars

Family Appropriateness rating: 2 out of 5 stars

Not Rated (but it would likely be R if it were)

-Sexual content involving autoerotic stimulation

-Some blood and gore, but it would not be classified as a 

"gore fest"

-Some strong language: about two f-words

-Scary images

"The Babadook" delivers plenty of scares, but there is so much more to it than that.

It tells the story of Amelia (Essie Davis), a struggling single mother of the troubled-child Samuel (Noah Davis). About seven years prior, she underwent a tragedy, and now she has to cope with it while raising her son.

Samuel has been scared of a monster in his room, and Amelia tries to reassure him it is not real. He does not believe her, and he makes it his goal to protect them from it. This causes a lot of stress on Amelia. He does not just act up at home, he causes problems at school and with other relatives.

When she tucks him into bed one night, she finds a book called "The Babadook" and reads it to him. It looks like it was written for children, but it has a frightening message about a monster that will come over and haunt you. Weird things start happening after she reads the book, and she wonders if maybe this "Babadook" is real.

This may sound like I spoiled too much, but trust me, I did not. "The Babadook" has a much deeper meaning to it, and I will not reveal what it is because I would like you to see it for yourself.

The reason I mention this is I saw reviews on YouTube for it, and they spoiled what the movie was trying to do. Coming into the movie, this gave me certain expectations. 

Did this movie meet those expectations? It actually exceeded them. It is both terrifying and deep. Unlike most horror movies these days, it does not rely on jump scares. There is only one part that made me jump, and it is effective. 

Spoilers: What this movie means

As mentioned earlier, Amelia underwent a tragedy seven years ago. On her way to the hospital where she would go into labor, she and her husband were in a car accident. Her husband died, but she still had her son that night. 

Now, whenever she looks at him, he reminds her of the tragedy. Samuel has characteristics that are similar to his father, and this is torture on her. She has not been able to face what happened, and whenever someone mentions her husband, she tenses up. 

Going into this film, the question on my mind was "Is the Babadook real?" The answer is yes: in more ways than you would think.

The Babadook is the tragedy. She fears it, and the movie brilliantly puts you in her situation by comparing it to a horrifying monster. Just because it is in her head, does not make it less real. Everything she has to face is terrifying.

The Babadook does not only haunt her. It first goes after Samuel. For him, it is different. He does not remember the tragedy, but he has to cope with not having a father and living with a woman who seems to blame him for it. 

Not only is the Babadook real in the context of the movie. It is actually real. It can visit anyone. It is the demons we all have to face. For me, it is the fear that people do not like me because I am overweight. This came about when I was in elementary school, and other kids would make fun of me. Even at a point in my life when I was thinner, it still haunted me. Anytime I liked a girl, the Babadook held me back from having the confidence to take my relationship with her any further.

The film ends on an empowering note. Amelia looks at the Babadook and tells it she will not let the monster hurt her or her son any longer. This is her owning up to her fears and not letting them control her. After she does that, she is able to talk about her husband without any problems. The monster is still alive, but now, she can control it. 

"The Avengers: Age of Ultron" Revew

Courtesy: Google

Avengers: Age of Ultron

Recommendation

-Fun and engaging
-Worth seeing in theatres
-Not as good as the first one

Content

-Mild sexual innuendos that will go over kids' heads
-Sci-fi action violence throughout
-Some blood after characters are attacked, but it is not gory







Joss Whedon, the writer/director of both "Avengers" installments, knows the Marvel characters well and keeps the same witty dialogue in "Age of Ultron" that made the first film so enjoyable.

In the film, Tony Stark (Robert Downy Jr.) delves a little too far into the "mad scientist" category. He tries to play God, and it blows up in his face in the form of Ultron (voiced by James Spader), an advanced artificial intelligence with the ability to duplicate itself into robotic bodies. Stark's idea when creating it is protecting the world. The AI takes it to mean protecting the world from humans. To put the story in a nutshell, the Avengers try to stop him.

Like most Marvel films, this one develops the characters further. They are in a different position by the end. Their characterizations are solidified with well-written, often hilarious, dialogue, and some of their motivations are deepened in some brilliant segments that reveal their deepest fears.

One problem with this movie comes from one of these segments, which involves Thor (Chris Hemsworth). It connects to something that happens in the third act of the film, but it is never explained very well.

Another problem comes from the Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) character. Some people have critiqued Whedon's handling of her as anti-feminist. I did not get that from this film. The problem is more about the direction Marvel decides to take her love life. This will be discussed in detail at the end of this review.

There are more action scenes than in "The Avengers." Some are really fun to watch. The filmmakers got creative with the choreography, and even had characters like Thor and Black Widow use Captain America's shield.

BUT...much of this is wasted by bad shooting and editing. There are too many tight shots on the characters' faces so when he/she/it hits an enemy, the audience cannot see what happened. The editing between shots is so quick, my eyes had a hard time seeing the action itself.

I know Whedon can make good action scenes. In the Avengers, he produced this one

Courtesy: imfdb

in which the Hulk jumps on a plane, thrashes at it and throws the ejecting pilot in the opposite direction. This scene is so good because it uses a combination of wide, tight and medium shots. It is not just a few quickly-cut close-ups of the Hulk's face.

I look forward to the next "Avengers" installment, which will be directed by Anthony and Joe Russo, who directed "Captain America: The Winter Soldier." Out of all the Marvel films, that one had the best-shot action sequences.

Spoilers: Black Widow's love life

This film proves the people behind Marvel do not know what they are doing with Natasha Romanov. In "The Avengers," her and Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner) deny having an intimate relationship, but the film implies they do. In "Captain America: The Winter Soldier," her and Captain America (Chris Evans) show chemistry, and it looks like something will happen there. In this one, her interest lies in...Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo)?

This leaves the audience thinking "Wait a second, what about Hawkeye? Isn't she supposed to be with him?" The film answers with "Actually, he has had a family the entire time, and Natasha is that friend the kids call 'aunt' even though she's not related," which came out of nowhere and seemed forced.

In a way, Natasha and Bruce is an interesting match-up, given their history, and "Age of Ultron" addresses this. In the first film, Natasha is the one who recruits him even though she is afraid of him. Later on, it is her who is with him when he turns into the Hulk on the helicarrier. This plot point could still be handled better than it is.

"Cinderella" Review

Cinderella


Content: 

-Safe for families
-One or two very mild innuendos

Recommendation:

Adults and children alike will enjoy it. Adults may even like it more. If you have a family, take your kids to see it. Even if you are single, it is worth your money.







When I first heard Disney was going to make live-action versions of their classic animated films I thought it was a dumb idea after seeing Maleficent. However, after seeing Kenneth Branagh's "Cinderella," I am on board. Bring on Hermione playing Belle!

In many ways, this "Cinderella" updates the original, which was released in 1950. It was a simple time when everyone needed to get married in order to move on with their lives, and the animated version reflects this. While there are several lessons girls could take, the one that sticks out is having a man to marry will make their lives better.

Values have shifted over the years, and while marriage is still important, it has become less of an end-all to happiness. Society has learned through the high divorce-rate that if two people get married, they should be in love. It should not be looked at as the only thing that will make one happy. An unhappy single person will still be unhappy after marriage.

The 2015 live-action version changes this in a positive way. The film repeats a different lesson several times: kindness and courage will win out in the end. Cinderella (Lily James), first hears this advice from her mother (Hayley Atwell), and she takes it to heart. While her step mother (Kate Blanchett) and step sisters make her life a living hell, she tries to make the best of things.

When she meets the prince (Richard Madden) for the first time, what attracts him is not her physical beauty but her kindness. She makes such an impression on him that he tries convincing his dad (Derek Jacobi) to let him marry for love rather than politics. Because of her, the prince throws the ball where commoners have just as much a chance as princesses to meet him.

Another way this film improves upon the original is the development of Cinderella's life story. In the animated version, it is introduced through a brief narration. It never introduces the audience to her parents. We simply know they died before the story starts. The 2015 film shows the parents and develops them well enough to create a heart-breaking death scene of Cinderella's mother.

It also does a good job showing how the relationship between Cinderella and her step mother evolves. Kate Blanchett brings a sense of depth to her character. She is evil, but the film hints that the reason for this may stem from jealousy of Cinderella's loving relationship with her father.

While this is undoubtedly a modernized update, director Kenneth Branagh masterfully keeps the same magic that was present in the original. This shows when the fairy godmother (Helena Bonham Carter) transforms animals, clothing and a pumpkin to make Ella ready for the ball. It is also there when Ella dances with the prince in the ballroom. The way the camera moves to the music makes us as an audience feel we are dancing as well.