"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.

"Interstellar" Review

Interstellar

5 out of 5 stars

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










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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Follow me on Twitter: @ChrisCampbell02

"The Judge" Review

The Judge

3.5 out of 5 stars

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







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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Follow me on Twitter: @ChrisCampbell02

"Gone Girl" Review

Gone Girl

5 out of 5 stars

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







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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Follow me on Twitter @ChrisCampbell02

Feature-length movies at the Logan Film Festival

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

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

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

Ephraim's Rescue: 3.5 out of 5 stars

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jammed: 4 out of 5 stars

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

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

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

The One Who Loves You: 4 out of 5 stars

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

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

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

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

Amber: 3 out of 5 stars

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

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

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

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

Follow me on Twitter: @ChrisCampbell02

"The Maze Runner" Review

The Maze Runner

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

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









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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Follow me on Twitter: @ChrisCampbell02

"Boyhood" Review

Boyhood

5 out of 5 stars

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







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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Follow me on Twitter: @ChrisCampbell02

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

"As Above, So Below" Review

As Above, So Below

2.5 out of 5 Stars

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










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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Follow me on Twitter: @ChrisCampbell02

"The Giver" Review

The Giver

4.5 out of 5 stars

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









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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Follow me on Twitter: @ChrisCampbel02

Robin Williams Tribute: "Good Will Hunting"

Good Will Hunting

5 out of 5 stars

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









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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Follow me on Twitter: @ChrisCampbell02

"Get on Up" Review

Get on Up

3 out of 5 stars

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






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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Follow me on Twitter: @ChrisCampbell02

"Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" Review

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles

3 out of 5 stars

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











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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*See what I did there?

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

Follow me on Twitter: @ChrisCampbell02