Reviews

Get out is the first movie, that I've seen at least, to take the racial paranoia that is present in our culture and exploit it to make a horror film. And while I was watching this film I began to realize how well Jordan Peele can blend comedy and horror when I was laughing and getting nervous at the same time throughout the film. Jordan does a fantastic job of building tension while also layering the film with his humorous point of view. So that there is an atmosphere of satire all throughout the film. I also have to respect that this is not an easy film to write, given the touchy subject matter. It could have very easily come out as racist or ignorant, however the comical undertones gave the film a tongue-and-cheek sort of vibe. And the paranoia I experienced in this film is actually one that is prevalent in our culture today. And even if the racial subject matter is very touchy, horror is not supposed to be kind towards our sensibilities, it is supposed to take something that scares us in real life and escalate it so that it can horrify an audience for around two hours. This one just happened to have a nice satirical edge to it. However, the film did feel short to me. There were some major plot holes in the film. One phenomena involving a phone that contributes to the plot in a big way is never explained. The twist in the film is very entertaining. However after the twist the story feels kind of rushed. There does not seem to be any sense of patience or building tension. It is more of just a transition from a horror movie to, all of the sudden, an action movie. I would have liked it to be longer. There is a lot of potential for more material in the film. The directing in the film is really eerie and well executed. I get kind of a Hitchcockian vibe from his directing style. There may be some influence from John Carpenter in there, which is hilarious given the satirical nature if the film. I did not expect Jordan to come off as such a seasoned filmmaker. He proves that he has a knack for bringing work to the big screen and I look forward to seeing more work from Jordan in the future. Less Keanu, more of this!

The controversial 13 Reasons Why on Netflix is a show created by Brian Yorkey, a new face to the TV production and writing platform, and is based on a novel written by Jay Asher. It is about a girl, Hannah Baker, who commits suicide and sends out 13 taped detailing why she decided to take her own life. The story revolves around a good friend of hers named Clay Jensen and his experience listening to the tapes. The show stars Dylan Minnette as Clay Jensen, who has been featured in well regarded films such as Don't Breath and Prisoners as well as critically acclaimed TV shows such as Lost. Katherine Langford stars as Hannah Baker. She has far less experience in the Hollywood scene then Dylan. 13 Reasons Why is her debut performance in television. That being said, both lead actors give strong leading performances. They are very intense, disturbing, and dark at times. And other times they can be very tongue and cheek and joyful. The Australian Katherine Langford does a very good job of disguising her accent to portray Hannah Baker. Watching her performance it is very hard to believe that she hasn't starred in any noteworthy television shows or movies in the past. The whole cast gives remarkable performances. Considering that most of the actors in this show are in there early twenties or younger, it is remarkable that the performances in this show are so professional. I did not get a sense of any amateur acting or too little experience among any of the cast members, which usually happens when a movie or show featuring too many young actors gets made. This show is also different from most high school dramas in the sense that it tries to push away clichés as much as possible and portray the high school experience as accurately as possible. It treats the characters as adults who happen to be in high school rather than the stereotypical high school kid you see in shows such as Saved by the Bell. It fails in some senses. There are still the stereotypical jocks who go around bullying people. Also the creepy nerds and the emo kids, so on and so forth. The characters are also far more one dimensional than I would like them to be. There were many opportunities for the writers of this show to really flesh out he characters and most of them were no taken. For example, one of the characters who is an in- the-closet homosexual could have really been given a rich backstory but we are left knowing very little about her other than she's a highly regarded straight A student and both her parents are gay. Even Hannah could have been fleshed out more. We are left not knowing anything about the school she moved from or her mental state prior to her experiences. That is my main problem with this show. It tries to focus too much on the moral of the story rather than the characters and plot development. But this show does do a better job of accurately portraying the dark side of the high school experience better than most shows. There are so many dark, stomach turning subjects covered that I can't even began to get into how depressing this show is. I highly don't recommend watching this so if you are easily triggered. There is a reason that there is so much controversy surrounding this show. If you can get past that, you will find that this show is beautifully directed, seamlessly edited, filled with beautiful shot compositions and cinematography. It feels atmospheric at times, being accompanied by an angst-filled soundtrack. Hannah's narration is so poetic. There are fantastic performances all throughout the show. The fact that it was made so well makes the show even more disturbing. This show gets right in your face with issues of sexual harassment, slut shaming, familial abuse, rape and suicide. It is supposed to make you feel disturbed and uncomfortable. TRW lets you grasp on to Hannah's experience and shows you her justification for taking her own life. This is one of those pieces of art that is necessary and not easy to watch. It will very likely stick with you for a long time. TRW has an important message behind it that holds the intent of showing the viewer the pressures of young life that can push someone to commit suicide. It brings up the point that no one is disqualified from being a bully, whether it is a popular athlete or an honor student. Anyone's child be could suicidal or could push someone to commit suicide, whether or not they know that they are doing it. Some people will feel that the show is a vital portrayal of teenage suicide and helps those who are or have been suicidal, and to others it will feel like a glorification or fantasization of suicide. There is really no wrong way to watch this series. You can make the argument that it may hurt some people more than it helps them but you can also argue that the opposite is true. What is important is that this show is starting a conversation that needs to be had. Which is actually the purpose of most of these 'social awareness' pieces. Know that the writers of show tried to accurately portray all of these character's experiences by consulting with psychologists and other professionals who have experiences dealing with victims of rape and suicide. They tried to make the experiences of Hannah Baker as three dimensional as they could possibly be. It is in no way easy to watch but this is art mimicking reality.

The story takes place in 1983 Hawkins, Indiana. When a middle school boy named Will mysteriously vanishes his three best friends, mother, brother and a local police chief become engrossed in supernatural events in an attempt to find him. The plot for this movie feels like something out of a Stephen King novel. It seems like the show is self-aware its own influences too. There are references made to eighties sci-fi horror films all throughout the series (Evil Dead, The Thing). So this isn't the most original show ever made, and I admit if I was just going off of the plot description, I probably wouldn't have invested my time in it. But this series offers something pretty interesting. It isn't something completely new, but it takes previous works and blends them together to create a story and style of its own. Imagine the Goonies and Twin Peaks colliding with a John Hughes film and a Stephen King novel and getting dropped in the middle of The Twilight Zone's universe. That best describes Stranger Things. Its creativity comes from its ability to mix influences and that's why it clings on to you with in the first episode. It provides something that is familiar but ultimately gives us something new.

Eighties nostalgia is alive and well and you can clearly see its influences in the today's art-work, whether it be music, film or fashion. The only problem I've ever had with eighties-influenced art is when the artist makes something that is outdated and clearly would only work if been made in the eighties. However, Stranger Things is different. It wouldn't work as well if it was made in the eighties. The modern visual effects, directing, and cinematography compliment the series beautifully and make it easier to immerse yourself in this type of art. The modernization of this story gives it a component of clarity. While if this was made in the eighties, it would have gotten buried because it would just be stamped as another clichéd sci-fi thriller. But today, it stands out as a uniquely stylized and beautifully composed masterpiece. But it isn't just the style and visuals that keep you engaged. The story line twists enough to always keeps you guessing, but never enough to alienate or confuse you (like an M. Night Shyamalan film). The acting is phenomenal. Wynona Rider showcases her incredible acting chops to their full extent. She gives an absolutely heartbreaking performance. While the young actors in this film show us that their inexperience never gets the better of them. They never get overshadowed by their seasoned co-stars.

One of the most admirable things about this series is that is stays well-grounded even with all the ridiculously abnormal activity. The charters never seem over-the-top or clichéd. Everyone in the series stays relatable. The story never gets confusing or incoherent. The blend of CGI with the natural backgrounds never gets sloppy or excessive. The score compliments the style beautifully. It never exaggerates a scene but keeps us submerged in the story by providing a signature eeriness to each scene.

Stranger Things is truly another one of Netflix's crowning achievements. I look forward to the seasons to come.

Goodfellas is a one of a kind film. That feels kind of strange to write considering that this film has been repeatedly attempted to be copied. The narration, the fourth wall breaks, the over-the-top violence; it all seems like a cliché in the "true-crime" genre. Blow, Casino, The Wolf of Wall Street, Donnie Brasco and many more films have tried to capture the same essence that Goodfellas had back when it was released in 1990. But, in this film-lover's humble opinion, they have all failed. That's because Goodfellas holds a style and atmosphere all of its own. But in the minds of the Hollywood "big-wigs", if something works once then it must work a dozen more times. Which is why every year we get an eye-rolling remake of a movie that was just fine when it came out. As I am typing this a remake of the 1959 classic Ben-Hur is about to be released. A film that won a record eleven Oscars is being remade! And, needless to say,many, including myself, do not think this film will hold up in comparison to its predecessor. Anyways, I think that the same thing is happening with Goodfellas in a more indirect way. I don't think that it will ever be remade frame-by- frame, but stylistically, it has been remade a dozen times, including a few times by Scorsese himself. It feels like every time Scorsese releases a new film it is trying to top Goodfellas, but no matter how good his films get, they never do. Goodfellas is his crowning achievement and it always will be. Because you can't remake Goodfellas, you can only come close. The acting, the camera movement, the cinematography, the lighting, the writing, and the overall unapologetic grit all come together to make a cinematic masterpiece and one of the best crime films of all time. I'm not saying that this film is better than The Godfather, but if you made that argument, many film-buffs would have a hard time debating you. Joe Pesci's Oscar- winning performance is just one of the many great highlights of this film. Jaw-dropping aggression, unchained violent nature, and unmercifully abhorrent personality highlight the surrealistically vicious world of Henry Hill (played by Ray Liotta). That and his narration which sounds more like reminiscence rather than straight-forward storytelling. Henry Hill describes his time in the mob in a musing tone as if to show admiration for his sinful past-life. Say what you will about how the true story actually relates to the film, but there is no denying that this film captured the spirit of Henry Hill and the mafia lifestyle. And that's what a good film based on a true story does. A biographic film is by no means a frame-by- frame record of every factual event that happened in an individual's life, but rather an homage that sums up that person's life and what impact it had on other people. Even if it was a negative impact, it can still make for a d****-good story. I could write about this movie for a hundred more paragraphs talking about Scorsese's decision in camera movement, the amazing performances given by the various actors and actresses (Robert De Niro, Ray Liota, Lorraine Bracco, Frank Vincent, even Samuel Jackson's small role), the way that the screenwriter, Nicholas Pileggi, nailed the character narration, fourth wall breaks, and witty dialogue just right, and a bunch of other elements that bring this film together so beautifully. But, to be honest, you wouldn't want to read that much text anyways. So, I will leave it up to the film to show you what I mean. And if you haven't seen this film yet, STOP READING THIS AND WATCH IT NOW. Seeing it is always better than talking about. You won't regret it. Even if you do, you can still be glad that it was made. Without Goodfellas, there would be no Sopranos, Boardwalk Empire, Pulp Fiction and any of your favorite TV shows or movies that were influenced by this movie. Goodfellas isn't just a film, it helped make film what it is today.

Carol is set in 1950s New York and is about a young woman, Therese Belivet (Rooney Mara)who falls in love with a middle-aged wealthy divorcée, Carol Aird (Cate Blanchett). In this movie Rooney Mara plays a restrained and very shy character but she tends to open up to Cate Blanchett's lavish and very confident one. I have to say that I didn't really like Cate and Rooney's take on their characters. They didn't feel very realistic or fleshed out enough for me to really get engaged with these characters. It just felt too cliché . Like they were portraying a rough caracecher of their personality types. The art direction and costume design did catch my eye quite a bit. Its interesting to see the subtle details in the architecture and clothing design through out the film. The close ups and framing in a lot of scenes was detailed and well executed but I wouldn't call them beautiful or breath-taking. A lot of the shots seemed to be dull in terms of color. They also lacked ambition in terms of exploring different camera angles and shot setups. The theme of the film was pretty interesting. Two women are sexually attracted and in-love with each other during one of the most conservative time periods in American history. The fact that Carol is so much older then Therese just adds the theme of rebellion in this film. However, this film isn't very bold or straight forward. This is a film is kind of about the repercussions of homosexuality in 1950s. This film could have been much more gritty but it was filtered and cleaned up into something that the typical soccer mom can stomach. It really doesn't fully utilize its R rating. As artful as this film is it failed to actually capture forbidden love in the same way that "Blue is the Warmest Color" or "Brokeback Mountain" did. This film was essentially a build up into one sex scene between the two main actresses and then the repercussions unfold from there. The only thing that actually kept me engaged was the tension between Carol and Therese. They really take their time to build up the tension between the two leads and keep their audience engaged as these characters are developed throughout this film. I give it a decent 6/10

Amy Schumer is a stand up comedy superstar that has recently gained a lot of serious leverage in the comedy writing world. For the last couple of years, she has been the lead writer on her hit show on Comedy Central, "Inside Amy Schumer". She has also reportedly been studying screen writing under the wing of the legendary comedy filmmaker Judd Apatow ("40 Year Old Virgin", "Funny People", "This is 40", "Knocked Up"). Hence, Amy Schumer decided to come out with "Trainwreck". Amy is still a screen writing novice and she is venturing into new territory by making this film. That is why, thanks to the influence of Judd Apatow, this film is flooded with celebrity appearances. John Cena, Lebron James, Method Man, SNL cast member Leslie Jones, Chris Evert, Mathew Broderick, Tony Romo, and many more. Most of these big celebrities just show up in one scene and those who don't can't act for crap (Lebron James & John Cena). Daniel Radcliff plays a character inside of a movie inside within the actual movie. He is starring in a movie about being a dog walker, which actually seems more interesting than the actual movie I'm watching. I feel like most of Trainwreck's humor comes from 1) fourth wall jokes 2) recycled material that Amy uses in her stand up re-purposed for the screenplay and 3) sex jokes and shock humor. The appearances by all of these celebrities seemingly, was an attempt to mask Amy Schumer's weak script. All of the characters were these parodies but not in the sense of a funny exaggeration but more a cliché, rough sketch of various personality types. While all the characters in this movie seemed to be flimsy stereotypes or comedic tools, the one character that was probably written the best was herself. Which shows that at least she is following the core rule of writing in general: Write what you know. There are scenes were we get a very vulnerable Amy, a self-centered Amy, and a goofy and raunchy Amy. However, any emotional connection you are trying to establish other than laughter can just be left at the door of the theater because this movie solely operates on Amy's sense of humor, her observational comedy, and very stale take on relationships. There are some scenes where Amy does her own narration in an attempt to establish a Woodey Allen-Esq tone to her movie but it really does not connect with its intent, not even as a parody. However, she does showcase a lot of personality in this movie. I think it's because she plays just a fictionalized version of herself rather then come up with a completely new character with a new personality. She tried to be different in this movie by showcasing a new female narrative. In the typical romantic comedy you would have a guy who is a womanizer not looking for any emotional connection what-so- ever. Then one day he meets the perfect girl and he falls in love. He then has to struggle with his womanizing tendencies while the girl starts to change him into a better person. This movie is exactly that except with a woman. Amy is loose, she doesn't want any romantic connection, she just wants to party and sleep around. The thing is it doesn't become any less of a cliché just because you reverse the gender roles. We get it, women can be just as sexually aggressive as men, if not more. The thing is its 2015! Everyone knows. It's not breaking any new ground when she makes these statements and I don't think she is trying to. That's just who she is. That is the personality that she feeds to the media and she's benefiting off it immensely. So as a result we get the perverted and raunchy side of the female characters and some innocent well- intentioned men all throughout this film. Again, the gender roles have now switched. The females are chasing the males rather then what we see in the typical romantic comedy. However, it's still as stale as any Ryan Reynold's cheesy romantic bullshit that I've seen. The comic potential is not used to its full extent. The comedy genius, Dave Attell, is constricted to a few scenes as a comedic element rather than thrown into a more relevant role where he can put his own comedic spin on the dialog. However, the film does a pretty good job of utilizing the comedic potential of Colin Quin, former SNL member, who portrays a pretty convincing "asshole" father. I wish she would have more funny people in this movie like Bill Hader but for some reason she decided to cast people like Brie Larson, Tilda Swanson and Erza Miller. Serious actors who can't really give the same funny performances that Seth Rogan, Leslie Mann or Paul Rudd could have (these are Judd's go to actors). Overall, the movie set out what it intended to do which was boost Amy's career but it didn't do it in a very well-constructed or entertaining manner. This film is mildly amusing at best.

It doesn't seem right to review this film. It actually feels like some sort of moral infringement. This is because I feel like "Spotlight" is one of the most important non-documentary films ever made. This story had to be told and Nicole Rocklin and Blye Faust (the film's producers) couldn't have hired a better cast to tell it. Given that I was looking for film-editing that flowed together more smoothly and cinematography that was darker and more shadowy to represent the shadiness of the Catholic Church at the time. But I can easily overlook all of this films flaws because of how intense this story is. Not to mention how well all of the lead actors fit their parts. My favorite performance has to be Mark Ruffulo's. His character is so awkward and twitchy is a very subtle sense that is pretty hard to get down for any less of an actor. It didn't seem that any of the other actors had to really try to nail any impressions or anything like that. The worst thing that they could have done really is overact and that didn't happen. As a result of how most of these characters being pretty much just average, every day type people, there weren't really any performances that were really Oscar-worthy to me but again the story that this movie tells just overshadows so many flaws for me and just turns this film into an eye-opening masterpiece. I love this film's tone. It doesn't really try to glorify anyone. It doesn't try to make anyone look like a hero. It just tells the truth about what happened, which is everyone was just doing their jobs. As a result, the Catholic church was allowed to get away with a lot of sexual molestation of minors. But, ironically, it also prompted their downfall. If the journalists of the Spotlight team portrayed hadn't done their jobs correctly, who knows how long it would have taken for all of this to unfold. 'Spotlight' does not sugar- coat or over dramatize. It is a film encapsulated by realistic dialog and an attempt to tell this a true event exactly as it happen. It is in no way a film that has some sort of deep social commentary against organized religion. It doesn't try to encourage the audience to deviate from the Catholic fate or tell them what to believe. It is just a film about exposing the deepest and darkest side of supposedly one of the most holy and morally just institutions in the world.

I have been waiting to write this review since around 2012 when it was announced to the public that LucusFilm had been sold to Disney and that a Star Wars new movie was going to come out in 2015. So as soon as I could, I hopped into the next open IMAX Theater (which was at 530 in the morning) and saw the film. The movie was pretty much what I expected it would be. The visuals were stunning and crisp. The editing flowed together with the movie very beautifully, so did the sound mixing and editing. The acting was great. The movie was shot in real JJ Abrahams fashion with a lot of lens flares and unique camera angles. The cinematography was stunning as well. Daniel Mindel, who also did the cinematography on Star Trek, did a very good job at setting up shots that capture how well the visuals team revitalized the beautiful landscapes from the previous films. This was a very good remake of the old films and I really think the cast really revitalized the Star Wars franchise. However, I didn't expect it to be perfect and it wasn't. Most of the issues I had with this film, surprisingly, had to do with the writing. The way this film was written was like it was pretty much just a remake of the original movies. Within a couple of minutes into the movie, it started to become obvious that JJ was playing it safe with this movie. I would say that the overall tone of the movie was "Hey, remember this? How about this? This was really cool right? This is a Star Wars movie!!" While it's not bad enough to ruin it as a stand- alone movie, it is enough to call it unoriginal and unimaginative. I wouldn't argue with anyone who had that opinion of it. However, I also wouldn't argue with anyone who says that this is a well a great remake. Overall, my feelings about the movie were pretty mixed. While, it isn't as bad as the prequels, it also isn't as creative and visceral enough to compete with the original movies. It doesn't seem that JJ even wanted to do that though. It seems that he caught a bad case of 'fanboy' when he started working with Ford, Hamill, and Fisher. Also I blame Lawrence Kasden a bit for not going "Ok, we need to come up with something new for this movie. The new characters have to be memorable and engaging. The plot shouldn't copycat the movie me and Lucas wrote in 77'. We should take out the scene where they hide under the floorboards of the Millennium Falcon and every other scene that has that kind of unoriginal feel to it. Let's move forward not backward." But to be honest. I don't there is too much to complain about. It actually felt good to visit those places over again. I don't think that a lot of other audience members mind it either. It wasn't the most revolutionary piece of art to hit the screen. As a matter of fact I would say that the script was pretty average. It just felt like it was another fan remake that has been done a billion times. However, it does get the job done. It isn't a huge disappointment and anyone that thinks so should keep in mind that it was marketed and built-up for more than two years. The expectations for a lot of people shot through the roof. If the anticipation for a movie matched its quality, then 50 shades of Grey would have been the next Casablanca. I give this movie a decent 8/10.