Gone Girl Review

I am glad that David Fincher only makes films now that have a great screenplay. That used to not be the case when he made Fight Club and Panic Room. He has come a long way since then. I am happy to say that this is easily one of his best.

The film starts off with Nick Dunne (Ben Affleck) waking up on his five year anniversary to his wife Amy Dunne (Rosamund Pike). He is stressed and decides to start off his character development by going to "The Bar" that he and his twin sister own. He takes a few shots of whiskey while reminiscing the past with his twin sister (Carrie Coon) wishing his life could be more stable. He eventually travels back to his house he woke up in, only to see a broken glass coffee table tipped over and that his wife has suddenly disappeared. He calls the police and immediately enters a Detective (Kim Dickens) and a Police Officer (Patrick Fugit) to investigate the home of Nick's to come up with a scenario in what could have happened.

Gillian Flynn (who also wrote the novel) knows not to waste the audiences time in getting straight down to the plot everyone came to see, but without leaving any details unexplained. It quickly escalates when the detective and her team of investigators find more clues that leads them to list Nick as a suspect of possibly killing his wife. The news quickly makes assumptions from whatever clues the police disclose, and end up pointing fingers at Nick, trying to make it seem like he's definitely guilty. That's where Fincher's middle fingers are pretty much pointed at the media from his director's chair. He's taking talk shows from Fox News and other unreliable resources and exposing them for their quick assumptions to a scenario they know nothing about. That leads to Nick eventually having to hire a famous expensive lawyer (played surprisingly well by Tyler Perry) to help defend him against the media by trying to play out the "nice and innocent" in his character to get the public on his side to avoid possible arrest and possible sentence. Meanwhile, Nick is ALSO trying to investigate clues of his own on the disappearance of his wife while trying to avoid the police detectives to see if he can prove his own innocence. All that struggle he goes through is what makes the movie fun and exciting from start to finish.

I've only given you 30% of the plot by the way, because the rest I can't even talk about. The writing and direction is so clever at moving the story along so fast that the twists in this movie will hit you when you don't see them coming. There are LOTS of characters in this movie that I can't even talk about because it could possibly spoil the movie for you. I will say though that Neil Patrick Harris' character is very important to the story and isn't just some brief cameo like you see in a lot of movies. David Fincher uses every actor only as much as is necessary to the plot. Not to mention, EVERY actor in this movie is phenomenal. Ben Affleck and Rosamund Pike are major contenders for awards season as much as Gillian Flynn's brilliant but gut wrenching script. Two more performances to keep an eye on as well are Carrie Coon and Kim Dickens especially.

David Fincher gets better and better EVERY time he does a new project. He challenges himself with the tone he decides to go with and the actors he decides to cast. It's safe to say that this is easily his darkest movie by far; not to mention most plot twist driven as well. This is the kind of movie I look for when I hear about an upcoming David Fincher project. He makes this two and a half hour movie seem like only 90 minutes. He doesn't waste a single bit of detail description in the foreground or background of his shots. He of course already knows to do so when he hires his same cinematographer, editor, sound editor and music orchestrator. This is easily one of the best films he's ever done and I'm happy to recommend it to everyone I know with this article and rating below.

****

Top Ranked David Fincher Films (Worst to Best)

It has been awhile since my last post. That's typical late August and all of September. Is it school that's delaying my blogging? No. Consider the fact that every year, most good movies don't start being released until October or late September where Summer blockbusters are at a close and so Oscar season can finally start up. We have been lucky to get a few late September releases here and there like Prisoners or Rush last year, or Moneyball especially three years ago, but nothing for this year unfortunately. Either way it is October and what's the first major contender? Well it's Gone Girl of course, directed by the man who Ben Affleck admits does his job better than anyone else which is the stated reason why he wanted to work with him on Gone Girl and delay directing another film of his own. Can I blame Affleck for that decision? Absolutely not! I have been a fan of David Fincher since the early 2000s when I first checked out Panic Room on DVD and saw something more unique than the average flicks I watched regularly. I couldn't tell what it was at first, but I was heavily intrigued by the camera placement and sound editing at my first viewing of the "Fincher flick". It made me focus more on the technical side of filmmaking than the actual plot of what was going on in the movie. That point on, it made me want to check out more of what this guy had directed to see if I could catch any similarities in his "technical style". How did my adventure go from there? You will be addressed that answer piece by piece as I go through my rankings of every David Fincher film before I do my review on Gone Girl; which is one of my most anticipated of the year. I'm not including the movie Alien 3 on this list because David Fincher had a falling out with the producers and walked away from post production immediately when they finished filming; so out of respect for Fincher and his fans I will not be including that on this list. Without further due, here are my rankings (with explanations why obviously):   
  
8. Fight Club   

*SPOILERS AHEAD POSSIBLY*
There's a reason why it says "worst to best" on the title of this post. I hate this movie a lot and I get a lot of crap from fans of this movie all the time. Just for the record, I have rewatched this movie six times and it only gets worse every time I try and give this movie a second chance. I'm sure you're asking why I think it's bad. Is it the direction? Absolutely fucking not. The direction and team of sound mixers and editors are what saves this movie from getting a zero star rating in my review of this. The reason why is because it's one of the most illogical presentations I have ever witnessed when it comes to the kind of characters they show off in this movie. I could not identify with any single one of them or the world they live in (or would want to live in). This is all personal preference obviously, but there are still reasons in my mind as to why I think it is illogical and cruel mannered. The movie is trying to show off characters that have problems "obviously", and the way they can "therapeutically" solve it is by starting a Fight Club (which they're not allowed to talk about "obviously"). The fight club isn't well developed emotionally for the average viewer, but it some how is for our main characters because it "feels right". It of course later leads to anarchy and wanting to blow up buildings with BARELY ANY explanation as to why in their actions or dialogue. I know it's trying to address that it shouldn't matter because they're crazy, but what could you possibly GET from this movie? We already know people in the world are crazy. I am aware that the "technological presentation" inside the mind of a psychopath was new and groundbreaking beyond belief at the time. I am aware that it's just a movie and that we're not supposed to learn something from Fight Club. I do however find it illogical that the script writer never went with the ending of the book to show that our main character (known as The Narrator in the film) was in a mental hospital the whole time (like John Nash in A Beautiful Mind). Instead what we get is a very loose ending of our main character killing off his "crazy self" without investigating why and acting like everything is finally okay even though there are fucking skyscrapers being blown up they he is aware he caused. I don't find it entertaining at all as I do annoying as hell. Am I glad that the people behind this film for production and post-production got jobs after this movie? Of course. The only person behind this movie I can personally be mad at is Jim Uhls who wrote the screenplay for this. I am happy that he never went anywhere big after this except for the movie Jumper (which did terrible by the way, lol). I do wish I could relate to the rest of the world when it comes to liking this movie, but instead can only relate to the 1999 box office results for this movie's release. I'd rather be watching Star Wars Episode 1, which is saying something. :(

7. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

The good news is that I give this movie three and a half stars out of four, which means that every other film on this list (including this one) has a high recommendation. I also won't be going on as much about each other movie as I did about Fight Club, which is ironically the most talked about movie. Anyways, on and about Benjamin Button. Why is it ranked down this low? In all honesty, it's probably the least "David Fincher like" film among everything he's made. I don't exactly know why a guy who enjoys making movies about serial killers and other crazy unique minds would sign on to make a movie that takes place in the south and is slow paced. It's kind of funny that the Academy finally gave David Fincher his first Oscar nomination for a movie that's nothing at all for what he's known for. Did Fincher prove to be a guy who could direct more genres than he thought? Well... sort of. Like Fight Club, the script is sort of to blame. Fincher had his mind on the visuals more than he could on the story because there wasn't much anyone could add to the characters in this type of story or environment. Visually it's fantastic and entertaining nonetheless, but it could've been better if the storytelling had been more unique and original. I still laugh that it's a David Fincher movie, but I still enjoy this every time I watch it, especially Julia Ormond's performance which I thought was the most overlooked among everything this film should've been nominated for.    
 
6. Panic Room 

Probably the most cliched that Fincher's ever directed, but still very well made nonetheless. This film is interesting enough though that I became more focused on the bad guys plot and intentions more than our main protagonist. Jodie Foster and Forest Whitaker give great performances in this as well as Kristen Stewart's. It's also kind of funny that among all directors to cast an eventually annoying celebrity in one of their films, it's David Fincher. She isn't the reason at all actually why this movie is ranked at only number 6. I can only go back to the script like the previous movies listed. Just remember that David Fincher wasn't as well known as he is now, so the scripts were more limited to what he could choose to direct. Either way, this was the film after all that made me discover Fincher's unique direction. It's just a shame that only this and Se7en were the only movies of his that I could enjoy at that time.  
 
5. Se7en

Speaking of Se7en, the main reason why this is ranked higher than the other movies on this list is because... you guessed it; the script is damn amazing and original. It was so original in fact that the studio desperately tried numerous times to change the genius twist ending, written beautifully by Andrew Kevin Walker. Fincher as well as actors Brad Pitt and Morgan Freeman all threatened to walk away from the movie if the studio went with a different ending. Thankfully they got their wish, as well as the audience did for some brilliant mind-bending entertainment. One hell of a directional debut for Fincher showing off his REAL visual storytelling skills while NOT under deep pressure by studios expecting a big money making sequel off a shitty script *cough* Alien 3 *clears throat*. Anyways, moving on...

4. Zodiac

This was the one that I believe made David Fincher the man he is today. When it comes to a movie like Zodiac, EVERY DETAIL has to be accurate. David Fincher was the perfect guy to make that happen. I can easily assume how challenging it is to make a film based on real characters events, and to make an EXACT replica of those events on screen. If you do your research on the Zodiac events, you'll find pretty much the exact details that are presented in the movie. The movie is over two and a half hours, but with everything happening, it feels like less than two. Most true events told on screen usually feel longer. That's why I love this film so much. 

Side note: this movie I believe has the most polite role that Jake Gyllenhaal's ever played. Just very interesting to me knowing it's a David Fincher film about cops and investigators vs. serial killer. 

3. The Game

This I know some readers will have issues with. I know you're asking why this among all his films is my number three and my hatred of Fight Club continues to show it's rage at the bottom (or top) of this list. I guess all I can say is because I was VERY entertained by the twists the script and direction had as well as our main character, who is not to root for exactly, learns something about himself at the end of this movie. Michael Douglas gives one of his best performances in this movie that I think he could've been nominated if it weren't that mind-bending thriller type of film for the Academy. I know a lot of people had problems with the ending to this movie (including David Fincher even), but I loved every bit of it. I guess it shows that certain movies can come off as illogical to certain viewers. That happened with the main audience for this movie, but with Fight Club for me. At least I'm on Roger Ebert's side if you read his reviews for The Game and Fight Club. :)

2. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011)

I can also see why many fans would be against this movie as well being ranked this high on the list. The reason for me because it's a remake done only one year after the original and yet it's better than the original in every way possible which I thought wasn't possible. Remakes like this don't ever happen. They never happen this quickly, and they never find better techniques to tell the story. Some how, David Fincher managed to accomplish that goal. It's also quite amazing how Fincher's casting director, Laray Mayfield saw potential in Rooney Mara who'd had a very small role in The Social Network as well as other films as the innocent preppy school girl who all the sudden went through one of the biggest transformations ever by getting real piercings and went fully nude for this kind of role she plays in this movie. At least it was worth it in the end when her name was announced on the morning of Oscar nominations. It shows that David Fincher gets better at every film he does.

1. The Social Network

To me, this is a no brainer. This is really the only film where every area of filmmaking and storytelling is at its perfection. Aaron Sorkin's script is as flawless as David Fincher's direction. I was absolutely amazed when I first saw this because my mind was pretty skeptical at first when I found out that Aaron Sorkin was working with David Fincher on a drama without violence or insane people. I had already seen The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, so I knew that Fincher could do drama, but with Aaron Sorkin? The only hope I had at that point was it could be like Zodiac's dialogue, only faster and possibly wittier. Thankfully I got my wish. The other reason why it's Fincher's best movie by far is because I believe it's his best character study. It comes off like a modern Citizen Kane set in our world and generation. The character of Mark Zuckerberg is played wonderfully by Jesse Eisenberg in the best condescending manner one could hope for the character that he portrays. It's interesting because he wasn't allowed to do any major research on Mark Zuckerberg because Sorkin and Fincher didn't want the whole biographical mind of Zuckerberg to interfere with the story that had already been written. The movie only uses Zuckerberg's image and occupation to tell a story that works for the message of the film as well as character they (including Eisenberg) come up with. I don't know if David Fincher could ever top this film. Him and Sorkin go together like bread and butter that it makes me wish they had begun working together sooner. 

Side note: If it weren't for Christopher Nolan's Inception, Fincher would've EASILY had my Best Director mention of that year. It is truly his best work by far.

I hope you enjoyed reading this list and would love to know your rankings as well. Feel free to share. :)

Let's Be Cops Review

I guess that whole 11% rating on Rotten Tomatoes wasn't just a misunderstanding for a huge group of critics. How did they manage to make such a funny and convincing trailer that you would manage to get the opposite result once you see the actual movie? All the funny parts were not just in the trailer, and there were plenty more to come by in the actual movie; so what WAS the big mistake here? It wasn't the hilarity actually, it was the realism. All the realism was in the trailer because I guess the trailer makers KNEW that the plot was so stupid and inaccurate that the trailer only included our two main characters trying to act as cops to random civilians instead of the actual plot that arrives only within the first three minutes of the movie. It's sad to say that having no plot to this movie would've actually made this movie better, which I didn't think was possible.

We open up with our two main characters of Ryan (Jake Johnson) and Justin (Damon Wayans Jr.). Ryan is an unemployed ex-football player who lives off royalty checks he made from a commercial about Genital Herpes. Justin is a "apparently gifted" video game designer, only his co-workers and bosses won't listen to his ideas at all for no real reason really, so the audiences mind will just assume that Justin's a pussy and we're supposed to root for him to do better and be manlier instead of his co-workers to just listen to him and grow a brain. When a party comes into the mix and our main characters have nothing better to do, Ryan decides to have he and Justin go to the party as Cops because he assumes it's a "costume" party. When people at the party point out everything that's wrong with both their characters and development, they decide to leave and coincidentally have the whole friggin city of L.A. award them with every good advantage in the book because people think they're actually cops. Drunk girls on the streets are making out with them because they're dressed as cops, they just happen to catch three teens smoking weed on the city sidewalk instead of going to a back alley like people in the "not-movie-world" would do, and ANY citizen just does what they say without ANY questioning what so ever on how they became a cop or how long they've been one.

When all is going well for them, Ryan decides to take his cop advantage one step further by trying to humiliate a few guys that hit his car a few days back; but of course those few guys just happen to work for a gangster, by the name of Mossi (James D'Arcy) who goes around collecting money from places like our main character's restaurant where Justin's love interest, Josie (Nina Dobrev) just happens to work there, and just happens to be single, and just happens to fall for Justin all because she thinks he's a cop. With that amount of idiocy and coincidence all occurring within the same friggin building, it's up to our two main undeveloped characters to save the day using an occupation they decided to lie about having. Also Rob Riggle's character is a real cop who teams up with our main characters because of the movie's convenience.

I couldn't tell whether the movie was winking at the audience or not in stating how ridiculous the whole premise is, knowing we see both our characters do that numerous times throughout the movie. I can only say that it was done A LOT better in 22 Jump Street which is what made that movie good. This one, I believe the filmmakers lost track in what the moral of the story is. At least we get funny and watchable performances from Jake Johnson and Rob Riggle (who were both in 21 Jump Street) who try and make the best of what's around them. Damon Wayans Jr. on the other hand did not have anything special (performance wise) to provide unless he was trying to be charismatic off of Jake Johnson's dialogue. The whole story with our characters is highly unconvincing and strikes zero interest with any character build-up. Before I left to see this movie, I looked on IMDB saw what else Writer/Director, Luke Greenfield had done. I then sank to the bottom of my seat when I saw it was the same guy who did the atrocious Rob Schneider flick "The Animal", and he clearly has not learned any lesson since then except for how to capture a funnier performance. Jake Johnson and Rob Riggle are the only reasons for checking this movie out because they make this movie at least watchable throughout. The rating I give this is A LOT higher than it deserves, but this might be my guilty pleasure of this year, all because Jake Johnson and Rob Riggle's performances make it so.

**

Boyhood Review

Can a thirteen year anticipation for a movie actually exceed your expectations? I don't know how, but Boyhood managed to accomplish that goal. When I first heard in 2001 about the director of School of Rock planning to film a feature film for twelve years starting in 2002, I thought it was just insane and couldn't be perfectly done.

Richard Linklater has now proven to be one of the best directors ever with his masterpiece that will go down in the books for ages to come. This guy managed to make a movie (yes, not a documentary but a MOVIE) using the same cast for twelve years with everything planned out ahead in how to tell a convincing story. Not one single soon to be Hollywood cliche got in the way. Not one original idea was shattered and improvised. Richard Linklater somehow managed to write a story from scratch and keep that same story on paper for over a decade as well as keep production moving for three weeks of every year they shot. How did they manage to convince the cast to keep coming back every year before they signed the contract? How did they manage to make the movie look as new as it did even though they started shooting over a decade ago with cameras and technology changing every six months? How did they manage to cast a kid who would devote his life on camera for three weeks of every year until he turned 18? Better yet, how did they manage to cast a kid that would look a lot like a young Ethan Hawke (who plays his dad) through his face and expressions towards the end of the movie but not at the beginning?! I don't know but this film already belongs in a museum!

There is no main plot for the movie because the title is really self explanatory. It's about Boyhood and whatever happens through the eyes of our main character, Mason, who we witness grow from age 6 to age 18 in almost three hours. It feels so much faster though since each year of our main character we see for only an average of thirteen minutes each. It's like watching a series of shorts featuring the same cast aging throughout. As interesting as it is to see Ellar Coltrane (who play's Mason) age, as well as Lorelei Linklater (the director's daughter who play's his older sister) age; it's really interesting to see Patricia Arquette and Ethan Hawke (who play the parents) age, because of how familiar one could be with the other projects they were doing at the time of filming. When we first see Ethan Hawke, it's like he just finished shooting Training Day and is about to shoot Before Sunset (another Linklater film worth watching). Same goes for Patricia Arquette for guessing which season of the show medium she finished shooting. 

The movie doesn't want us to get sucked into any plot really. In fact every plot is just a sub-plot to our main characters. The movie just wants us to get sucked into our characters and wants us to witness them mature through the examples of the events that happen. Any supporting characters within those events provide great detail in helping either support or damage the development our main characters had with their surroundings. I know that sounds complicated, but we see Mason's mom get remarried a couple of times where the stepfather either helps or damages Mason's look at life providing either fear or bravery for him. Linklater really put focus on that detail which makes Mason's character seem more accurate each time we visit him in the next year because it really does look like he was abused by a drunken stepfather at age 9. It really is like witnessing someone in your real life grow up. The best thing is that there are no flashbacks AT ALL. It's great because the best way to make a movie is to have it not feel like a movie, ESPECIALLY if it's under the title "Boyhood".

The performances we get from our four characters we see grow up are beyond perfect. None of them seem tired or weak like they've been working on the movie for eight years or nothing that hints or spits out that they're in just a movie instead of an experience of a lifetime (literally). Ellar Coltrane provides a true performance for every age he is. He's not a 7 year old playing a character written for a 12 year old for vice versa. He really does act each age in the movie. Lorelei Linklater could be classified as the just the older sister who also has a character somewhat, but somehow always acts the same and never changes personality. I'm not sure whether it's a good or bad thing since I've never been a female at any age in my life. She does provide an excellent presence as Mason's older sister because she does act like that throughout the whole movie as well, which is a very good thing. Without her in the main ensemble, it wouldn't have provided as much depth for Mason or the parents. That's where we get to the BEST performances... the parents. Both Patricia Arquette and Ethan Hawke have already proved to be Oscar contenders this year. Not one minute do we not believe they are parents. Not one minute do they seem tired or bored with the material they have to provide each year. Not one minute was I bored with their characters and didn't want to give them a big hug for their commitment. Same goes for director Richard Linklater as well, who I will say has formed a better bond with actor Ethan Hawke than any other Actor/Director duo. I'd like to see Tim Burton and Johnny Depp stay committed to a singular thirteen year project.

I'm not sure whether the Academy will go for this sort of movie since it could be over qualified as "too original", but in my book, this is easily the Best Picture of the year BY FAR so far. Unless Christopher Nolan manages to make Intersteller like Inception times 10, then the best director award from me goes to Richard Linklater for this masterpiece in the thirteen years of writing, filming and editing. Ethan Hawke easily has my award for Best Supporting Actor of this year so far, same for Patricia Arquette in Supporting Actress. If you're looking for a movie with the most realistic portrayals of parenting (even though I'm not a parent myself yet), these are it. This is the most fun I've had watching Ethan Hawke on the big screen in the long time because he is very energized throughout this movie, especially at the beginning. Patricia Arquette's very last scene in the movie made me weep because that's exactly how my mom was when I was the age Mason is when the movie ends. I'm not going to be descriptive of what that scene is about, but Linklater's twelve year build up in filming makes it pay off perfectly since that was like THE SCENE he wanted out of Arquette more than any other I believe.
 
It was spectacular getting to finally witness this over-a-decade build up on the big screen. It's not easy making a movie when so many things go wrong on set. How did Linklater manage to keep it all together? What if one of the actors or crew members died? What if the footage somehow got destroyed? That kind of stuff happens within only a year in the making, but twelve years?! THAT'S amazing. What's more amazing though is how the film came together without any unimportant scenes or years they filmed. Every scene in the movie is necessary when trying to capture the moment each character lives in the film. It could've easily been a documentary, but those have obviously been done before. When it comes to making a scripted feature film, that's literally unlike anything that's been done before, and I am extremely proud of Richard Linklater managing to accomplish that goal with no barely any problems that I for the rest of the fans of this movie know about. I'm proud to call it the best film of the year so far and these four stars I'm giving it are an understatement to how I really feel about this journey Linklater has presented to us. It makes me respect life more than ever. :)

****  

Guardians of the Galaxy Review

I'm just gonna start off this review by saying this IS Marvel's best movie to date. Why? It's not much of an ensemble "superhero" movie as The Avengers or X-Men: Days of Future Past is. They're just a bunch of outcast characters that have no choice but to join the plot and fight crime because of odd timing. There's a good amount of action, but we mostly get to know the characters more than actually see them fight... which is exactly why I DO like this movie A LOT more than any other Marvel movie.

Writer/Director James Gunn is mainly considered unknown in the Hollywood universe when compared to other Marvel directors like Joss Whedon or Jon Favereu. The only mainstream work he's known for are underrated films like Slither and Super. Everything else he's done were projects for Hollywood that were probably holding a gun to his head while he was in the writer's or director's chair. Examples? The live-action Scooby Doo and Movie 43 (which he won a Razzie for). Why does this make me respect Marvel more? Because they could be becoming the new United Artists. It was a company back in the golden ages of film that let directors show off their true line of work without Hollywood producers ever interfering with filming or final cut. It seems Marvel really wanted to become that likable company by first starting off by getting the writer of Swingers to direct the first Iron Man, starring America's most drugged up 90s star (back then) Robert Downey Jr. Since then, they have been on a role non-stop and here's the best result released by Marvel since... Captain America: The Winter Soldier earlier this year directed by the same directors of You, Me & Dupree. My point exactly. This time it's a Hollywood outcast writing and directing a movie of superhero outcasts that has most viewers relate to more than they could with Iron Man even.

The plot is pretty simple really. Our main character, Jason Quill (also known as Starlord) is after this orb which contains a weapon that could destroy worlds, which he wants to sell for money. After Starlord becomes a bounty target which introduces two more of our main characters, Rocket Racoon and Groot who try to capture him for bounty money while another main character, Gamora is also after the orb for another purpose we find out later. With that hilarious cluster fight happening, they all get arrested and have to figure out a way to escape jail with the help of our final main character introduced, Drax who's on the path for revenge against somebody that killed his family. That somebody of course is our main villain, known as Ronin who happens to be after the orb as well, who is pretty much the reason why our five main characters stick together for the rest of the movie. 

The coolest thing about the rest of the movie is that the characters actually TALK and GET TO KNOW one another instead of just fighting and using cliche Hollywood dialogue as if we're supposed to care about the characters in that manner. I'm sure when James Gunn and his co-writer Nicole Perlman got their script green-lit by Marvel, I bet they were both like "FINALLY! A studio that reads and listens to what characters have to say instead of just do!". We really get to care for every character in just the way you see them interact, which makes the movie really hilarious too, which is why the action scenes are even funnier because of the build up through the character development. Starlord is the main human who lives in the past by listening to his old cassette tapes of old 70s and 80s jams on his Walkman. Gamora is unselfish in every way where she interacts with every character's plot and development and not just her own. Rocket and Groot provide great dialogue and genius charisma (which I'm sure was inspired by Han and Chewbacca from Empire Strikes Back). Drax also shows kind heart and interaction as well because his reveal at the beginning for lack of friends shows what can payoff when you have somebody fighting by your side.

You get to know the characters more than the plot itself which is why it can be GREAT build up for any Marvel sequels involving these five oddballs that go well together. They're really funny as well as they know exactly what to do when they work together instead of being trapped in their own selfish shield like most action characters. In fact, they actually show what happens to each character when one tries to make their own selfish shield and do their own shit them self without the other one's help, especially Drax. This is a perfect example of an ensemble piece because everybody is different, including the side villains and government agents of certain planets. They also have their own personalities and don't really fall under any stereotypical caricatures except maybe the main villain (Ronin) himself, which is my only problem with the movie if I had to pick one. Glenn Close provides great dialogue and plot only when needed and they don't give her an over the top introduction like they do with every Hollywood veteran to say they're in this movie, which is why we like her character even more. Double of that goes to John C. Reilly who's pretty much playing himself (which is NEVER a bad thing at all) as a government agent introducing each character when they're arrested at the very beginning and when the plot needs to expand to multiple environments. I'm sure Gunn and Perlman just wrote him last minute as a character to avoid any writers block, which every Hollywood action movie should do.

I will say again, I loved this movie more than any Marvel film to date. The characters are great. The action is really fun. The dialogue is spectacular and not just cliche filler. It gives you every reason to care about the characters which is why the friggin title is named after them. It also never has one dull moment because it moves subtly fast, which you don't get from many movies in today's world. I know the rating I'm gonna give it sounds crazy, but I honestly can't think of a single major reason not to.

****
Also P.S: the songs on the soundtrack to this also make it worth the price of admission alone as well.

Transformers: Age of Extinction Review

I figured I might as well review the worse film of the year so far before I see more contenders for the worse film of the year so far will this weekend, like Sex Tape and The Purge: Anarchy. So... *sigh*... here it goes.

I don't blame Michael Bay for directing as much as I do blame Ehren Kruger for writing. Why, must you ask? It's because Michael Bay made at least one good and tolerable Transformers movie which was the first one; whereas for all the rest of them suck donkey dick, in my personal opinion. Where does Ehren Kruger fall in? Why he's the guy who wrote every other Transformers movie EXCEPT for the first one. Maybe THAT'S why all these other Transformers movies are getting such bad publicity. They're all the friggin same movie! The reason why the first one was tolerable was because it was obviously new and not the same movie because it was the first one made. 

I hate Kruger's writing because he never comes up with anything new at all unless it's a racist stereotypical scene or setup. Examples? The two racist ghetto robots from the second movie. How much more racist can you get than that? Watch this new fourth one and find out... or don't and just let me tell you so you can save three hours from possibly being wasted (yes the movie's that long). What this movie has is a bad portrayal of people from Texas. More examples? Apparently according to this movie, EVERY girl in Texas acts like a slut and dresses in short-shorts and cowboy boots. Every guy in Texas (yes including Mark Wahlberg's character) is over protective of everything and is an asshole to every person they come across, whether it's doing business or saving someone's life. Is that all? Of course not. Why not insult the Chinese as well? Well you have your typical Chinese women who speak the most stereotypical accent you can think of; as well as Ken Watanabe who is a Japanese actor voicing a Chinese transformer who doesn't believe in guns and only uses swords to fight in combat. Who hates that of course? Why a big fat redneck Transformer of course who is voiced by John Goodman. I have no idea why those two good actors who have starred in recent Academy-award-winning films would even provide voices for this garbage. They should know better.

As the plot is concerned, it's pretty much the same damn thing again. The Decepticons (or BAD ROBOTS) invade and want to destroy the city and it's up to the Autobots (the GOOD ROBOTS) to stop the Decepticons while the main human characters, that we follow more than the Transformers, (even though Transformers is in the friggin title!) scream and run for their lives the whole time. The only difference is that this time the government has turned bad and is working with the Decepticons this time; so it is up to Mark Wahlberg's character of Cade Yeager (yes, that's actually his name in the movie) to put a stop to the government's plans. The government is played by Kelsey Grammer. Yes, I'm aware of what I said. The reason why I state that flawed sentence is because literally everyone who is associated with the government in that movie does what he tells them to do. Nobody of any higher ranking has control over Grammer's evil character. Why is he evil and working with the bad robots? Well the script forgot to explain that of course. Seriously, f*ck you, Ehren Kruger.

If you're not interested in the plot and just want to see some eye candy and action, this movie may still not be for you. The action was so dull that I couldn't take it. I've seen it so many times in this franchise that I don't get why Michael Bay doesn't get bored with this crap. He apparently says that his reason for making another Transformers movie was because he saw a very long line at Universal Studios theme park for the Transformers RIDE. *facepalm* Even if it's a different plot with different characters, that doesn't somehow occur to him to change the action sequences in a way where we can tell the difference in the movies themselves. Hell you can't tell the difference between the robots that are fighting one another. Which one is Optimus?! The only thing good I can mention about the action scenes is that they actually have Mark Wahlberg doing something. Unfortunately it's not anything to explain what's going on with the plot, but at least they have him with a made up prop gun (that is never explained how it works or what it's power usage is) fighting robots instead of running away from them. That is the only step up this movie has.

Oh and I forgot to mention, Mark Wahlberg has a daughter in this movie, played by Nicola Peltz. She doesn't do anything in the movie though, at all. She just bitches and complains the whole time. Her makeup also stays perfect throughout the whole movie even though there's fiery explosions happening everywhere around her and she has no access to a makeup kit anywhere. I can't tell whether she's doing bad acting or terrible acting because the guy who plays her boyfriend (Jack Reynor) does acting that's beyond terrible in this movie. He is apparently the driver in this movie, even though he only has a couple of short driving scenes throughout this whole three hour movie. Other than that he just bitches and moans the whole time as well.

This movie was a waste of time and it is mind blowing how this had a higher weekend opening than Dawn of the Planet of the Apes or Captain America: The Winter Soldier. Those movies had logical characters, a moving plot, and carefully constructed action scenes. In this, you have none of that. I can easily predict that this will win Razzie awards for sure. I am pretty sure Nicola Peltz has it in the bag for Worst Supporting Actress since nearly every female in a Michael Bay film has been through that phase, and not to mention she has been nominated for one already for The Last Airbender. I hope Mark Wahlberg has learned his lesson by now after doing TWO Michael Bay films. I hope Jack Reynor will take acting lessons as well as receive a Razzie for Worst Supporting Actor as a reason to partake in those lessons. I hope Michael Bay realizes that the only way to save his career is to either stop making Transformers movies or if he does, fire Ehren Kruger and hire the writers of the Fast & Furious franchise to make them as funny and ridiculous as possible. I know Michael Bay can direct comedy all right, but he just chooses the worst scripts to do so... like Pain & Gain. My final hope for this review is for Ehren Kruger to quit writing movies FOREVER. That guy has a gift for making everything a lot worse whenever he touches it.

My final sentence for this review is "Stay away from this movie!".

* out of **** 

Life Itself (Roger Ebert Documentary) Review

One of the main reasons why I decided to get into reviewing movies and wanting to blog about them was Roger Ebert. He's still my favorite film critic of all time even though he has passed away. He was one of those critics that straight forward in his opinions for what he reviewed. He cared about the unknown films in the art house world enough to do everything in his power to promote them on him and Gene Siskel's show 'At the Movies'. His good intentions towards reviewing films won him the Pulitzer Prize in 1975. It was sad to see him go after seeing and reading his reviews he did for the past 45 years. Watching this documentary on him was what I needed for inspiration to get my blog going again and keep reviewing movies.

The documentary is directed by Steve James, who was the most appropriate guy for the job knowing Ebert loved his film Hoop Dreams. In fact he loved it so much that he not only listed it as his top film of 1994, but the top film of the 1990s. I'm sure Ebert was as thrilled to have a film made about him by that guy as I would if Steven Spielberg decided to make a feature about me... or Morgan Spurlock if it was a documentary. The way Steve James approaches Ebert's life story is very interesting.

The documentary starts off by showing the impact Ebert has had on his fans, then cuts to Ebert himself in the hospital (filmed by Steve James himself) months before his death. We then progress back to Ebert's past about his life and family before he became a writer, but then the film keeps cutting back to Ebert in the hospital as the stories are told. It's interesting because there are three different types of narration going on as the story is being unfolded. We have Steve James' narration, Ebert himself talking in the hospital through his laptop voice and previous interviews, as well as a Roger Ebert impersonator narrating quotes from Ebert's book 'Life Itself' that the documentary is based off on. It might seem confusing at first, but it matches the pacing that Steve James is going for in telling Roger's life story. The hospital scenes to some viewers may seem unnecessary and depressing, but it fulfills Ebert's wishes in wanting to show his true self in what he's going through daily. Ebert promised that publicity of his health problems to the public after Gene Siskel's death, because Siskel hid his brain tumor from the public including Roger himself before his death. You can call it petty or odd; but for me I liked it because it was a wish fulfilled.

About 69% of the documentary tells Roger's life story at best, where the other 31% are all hospital scenes. Some of those hospital clips are uncomfortable to watch, but technically it does qualify for the title of the movie Life Itself. The hospital scenes do answer questions at the same time though where Steve James does send Roger a few email questions after filming a day and would get an answer from Roger about his childhood or how he would review his films in minor detail. He would always end his emails with the signature "Cheers, R".

There is plenty of behind the scenes footage (as most would want to see) of 'Siskel and Ebert At the Movies'. You find out how it was developed and how they were hired for the job. A fan of that show wouldn't be disappointed in this documentary if they are aware that this film is about Ebert featuring his life in that show. There's also interviews with his wife Chaz Ebert, old friends of his, famous filmmakers like Martin Scorsese (credited as executive producer of the documentary), as well as other filmmakers that may not possibly have a career if it weren't for Ebert's major thumbs up and publicity.

That's really all I can reveal about what there is. It's better in my opinion to watch the documentary to see the true results. It's a beautiful tribute to my favorite movie critic of all time who never stopped fighting to get his reviews out. When Siskel died, he got a new host. When he had thyroid cancer and had to leave the show, he made a website and twitter to post his reviews. When he couldn't attend theaters or festivals anymore to get a first look at the new release, he had the producers send him DVD copies of the film. That man never stopped reviewing movies literally till death. All I can say is this is a great piece to watch if you're a Roger Ebert fan.

A special thanks to Roger Ebert for the inspiration you gave me and millions of others. You were a smart and terrific human being. :)

***1/2