"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. 

"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.

"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

"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

"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

"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

"Guardians of the Galaxy" Review

Guardians of the Galaxy

4.5 out of 5 stars

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










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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Follow me on Twitter: @ChrisCampbell02