This is just another one of those disappointing blockbusters led by a wasted cast and full of pointless scenes.  Just because Christian Bale, Ben Kingsley, Aaron Paul, Joel Edgerton, and Sigourney Weaver are all in the same movie, doesn't mean that the movie is any good.  This film disproves that theory, showing that they can all be a part of a trainwreck together.  The most obvious flaw with the film is Ridley Scott's casting choice.  Every single one of the main actors is white, causing a white-washed version of the Exodus story.  This is a perfect example of the lack of diversity in Hollywood.  There must have been other actors who could have portrayed these characters without distracting accents that aren't even remotely close to the setting of the film.

Clearly, Scott took more liberties with this film when he chose to portray God as a hot-headed child.  The real miracle of the film is that this character didn't end up killing every single character.  Sure, the God portrayed in the Old Testament is a bit harsh, but I never envisioned him as an immature child.  What the heck was Scott trying to say?  Also, if I were Moses and I had to deal with this kid, there is no way I would follow his lead considering he seems just as evil as Ramses.

The one thing this film does accomplish is a massive scale.  Most of the scenes are filled with crowds of "Egyptians" or crowds of "Hebrews."  It was truly amazing to see such a huge cast spread out throughout the film.  The visual effects also add to the massive scale with large open terrains and Egyptian grandeur.  However, the visual effects often come off as over-done.  I must say that I never would have expected giant sea creatures attacking people during the time of Moses.  But then again, who knows?

The Bottom Line: Ridley Scott creates a massive disappointment full of prime actors and not-so-prime visual effects.

​Score: 5/10

Robert Zemeckis's newest film brings the audience to the top of the twin towers using some great special effects, but falls short with its overly family-friendly feel.  My biggest problem with this film is the acting.  I would have preferred if Zemeckis had chosen a French native instead of using big name actors to portray French people.  Joseph Gordon-Levitt butchers the role with a poor attempt at a French accent.  The movie came off as a cheesy French genre film that never really created the charm of most French films.  Gordon-Levitt seems to be more like a tour guide for a theme park rather than a genuine storyteller.

While the acting falls short, the technical aspects of the film are very intriguing.  I saw the film in 3D and thought that the views were spectacular.  As someone who is afraid of heights, I felt the thrill of being on top of a wire strapped between two buildings.  At one point, the viewer next to me ducked to avoid a falling pole that flung out at the audience.  Many scenes in the movie had these types of eye-popping 3D effects.  If you decide to see the film, this is one I would recommend seeing in 3D.

Another praise for the film goes out to Alan Silvestri.  Silvestri has proven to be a good match for Zemeckis based on his scores for Back to the Future, Forrest Gump, and a few other films.  This film is no exception.  His score for The Walk creates a lot of the tension throughout the film.  This is necessary since a lot of the film just involves a man walking on a wire.  Some of the French music seems cheesy at times, but I won't argue that the score does not fit the film.

The Bottom Line: Zemeckis creates a heist film that takes the audience on a wild theme park ride with cheesy actors, but some unique thrills and memorable music.

Score: 7/10

In Annie Hall, Woody Allen creates a love story that can endure through time because of its relevance to everybody.  This is definitely the best film that I have ever seen by Woody Allen and clearly will remain a classic.  Not only is Allen's directing unique and attractive, but his acting backs up the fact that he is a diverse individual in Hollywood.  The first image in the film introduces us to his character, an uncomfortable young man who cannot seem to connect with anyone.  Allen pulls of the amount of cynicism necessary for the character's background.

Various different filming methods help the movie to flow freely.  A few of these methods are breaking the fourth wall, adding commentary subtitles, and putting two shots into one scene.  The audience can connect with Alvy Singer (Woody Allen's character) by going directly into his mind.  Whatever Singer is thinking at a given time is relayed to the audience through the different filming methods.  Not only do the methods put the audience into Singer's head, but they also make the film feel short because of the innovation.

One reason why Woody Allen has received so much applause throughout his career is because of the actresses in his films.  In this film, Allen puts Annie Hall at the same level as Alvy Singer.  Both of them are similarly lost in the world and cannot seem to live a steady life.  Neither of them is placed in a more powerful position than the other.  While at times Alvy might seem to know everything, Annie is there to point out that he is wrong.  This sort of equality is great to see in cinema, where actors seem to get the upper-hand over actresses most of the time.

The Bottom Line:  Annie Hall can relate to all viewers and it shows the creative mind of Woody Allen at his finest.

​Score: 9.8/10

It is amazing to see what kind of evolution Reese Witherspoon's career has endured.  From acting the role of a pretty-in-pink law student to the role of June Carter to the role of a woman hiking a 1,100 mile trail, Witherspoon seems to be able to pull off anything.  In this film she plays an up-tight high school student who is determined to become powerful through her influence of others.  Again, Witherspoon perfects the role through her straight posture and creepily friendly tone.  Not once does she seem to stray from the role, creating a whole new person that frustrates the audience with her precise antics.  She acts as a reminder of all of those frauds who you thought were your friends in high school, but turned out to really just want more popularity.

Definitely the most astonishing fact of this film for me is the director.  Alexander Payne who recently directed the films Nebraska and The Descendants helms this film, steering it into a sort of organized chaos.  Through his use of montage, we see characters come to life before our eyes.  Each of them literally introduces themselves in the film, giving us their views of their lives in their own eyes.  Another use of montage connects all three of the high school presidential candidates together as they pray for their success the night before elections.  This montage shows that the characters are at the same point in their lives, but have different views on their positions and how they will succeed.  

Repetition throughout the film shows another key aspect of Payne's creative direction and the intelligent writing that went into the film.  Often times, characters are seen doing similar things, but with their own twists.  While Tracy is always doing things concisely, Paul is portrayed as a lazy character through these repetitive scenes.  Not only that, but clever one-liners are repeated throughout the film, getting the audience to really think about the script.

The Bottom Line: This film is very wittily written and has a sort of directorial organization that counters the more disorganized storyline used to connect a bunch of different characters.

Score: 7.5/10

This week's Ridley Scott film is so dense, I don't know where to start.  It seems as though this film combines themes from the noir genre, Star Wars, Tim Burton, and The Shining.  Finally I saw a film that revives Ridley Scott's career for me.  First off, I would like to applaud the tone of the film.  The mysticism and grotesque ideas need a dark, but not too dark, tone in order to work alongside the love scenes and overall fun of the film.  At times I felt creeped out by the oddity of each character, but every single character seemed to have a redeemable quality.  I found myself questioning whose side I was on throughout the film.

The solidity of the tone is set up with an elaborate futuristic set production.  The future seems bleak with garbage-filled streets and shady figures constantly featured on-screen.  Yet, there is a mysticism to it with its flying cars and mesh of cultures.  Vangelis contributes to the mysticism with a chilling electronic soundtrack.  The soundtrack also has a jazzy feel to it, adding to the noir genre that the film has.

Harrison Ford acts perfectly in a role that seems to be a noir detective, but in this case is a Blade Runner.  He has the charm for the role, creating a character that is relatable but also in the shadows.  To counter Ford's character, Rutger Hauer creates an equally mysterious villain.  I continually found myself questioning my thoughts on both of these characters.  Both have a worthy cause but are surrounded by a veil that is hard to see through at times.

The Bottom Line:  This mysterious film still has me questioning the conceptual ideas it works around and I will definitely need to watch it again sometime.

Score: 9.7/10

Great direction and strong acting work together to create a glorious cat-and-mouse chase that stands out in a classic action genre.  The French Connection plays out as a classic chase film that shows off William Friedkin's skills as a director.  With such a simple plot, Friedkin brings the audience into the forefront of the action by using multiple types of shots.  Most of the movie is compiled of chase scenes, which could have gotten old after a while.  Yet, they don't because they flow so well together.  Different long shots put the audience in a recon position, truly giving them the chance to hide from the connection.  My favorite shot of the film puts the audience up against a window, where they stake-out the connection through the glass.

To go along with this filming perfection, the acting is spectacular.  Gene Hackman plays Jimmy "Popeye" Doyle, bringing a sharp edge to the character.  As a NYC cop he and his partner go around intimidating drug addicts with witty, but harsh commentary.  Hackman's acting is perfect for this; sharp and direct when enforcing the law, but friendly and relatable when he is with his partner.  The dynamic between Jimmy Doyle and his partner Buddy Russo (Roy Scheider) also gives a buddy cop aspect to the movie.  Russo and Doyle connect to each other perfectly and are a great duo in action.

The one critique I have for this film is the ending.  Without giving away any spoilers, I felt as though the ending could have played out a bit more.  Friedkin takes a cop-out direction for the ending of the film and I just wished to see more.  Honestly, I would have loved if the film were two hours long just to create a more solid close.  

The Bottom Line:  This film is one the strongest directed and acted cat-and-mouse chase that I have seen to date!

Score: 9.8/10

This stylized film comes at a time where racism is being brought further and further into the forefront of the American public.  The film has a dramatic edge and somehow maintains a comedic value which kept me engaged in the storyline and every single one of the characters.  Each character is given a different point of view on racism, creating a detailed story that unfolds as the characters discuss the most important struggle at their school.  As a political science major who has taken classes on racism, I have seen various points of views on the topic myself and this film seems to tackle all of them.

Throughout the movie, filmmaker Justin Simien builds a connection between the audience and each of the characters.  At one point, I felt that Sam White (played by Tessa Thompson) had the most valid points.  Yet at other times Lionel Higgins (played by Tyler James Williams) seemed the most innocent character and the most ideologically connectable character.  Over time, all of the characters endure a change that either contributes or takes away from their points of view on racism.  All of this leads up to a great twist at the end of the film!

Simien also creates a fresh style for the film through the sleekness seen on screen.  On-screen text appears every so often, bringing the audience directly into the film.  At times, it seems as though the audience is receiving the text messages that are displayed on screen.  Simien also brings the audience into the film through his use of medium close up shots.  I always felt as though I was in the middle of the conversations with each character.  

The Bottom Line:  This film has a fresh and sleek view on racism through its strong character studies and stylized imagery.

Score: 9.4/10 

After a long weekend away from reviewing, I have returned with the second review for Ridley Scott month!  However, this film granted a dull biography on Christopher Columbus's life.  A wasted cast, poorly paced timeline, and odd score add up to create a lackluster film that uses a grand scale to underwhelm its audience.  Gerard Depardieu gives off a strong performance with what he is given, but ceases to bring the audience fully into the film.  I loved his speeches, but they seemed too short and the movie felt too driven away from his performance.

The film moves from place to place, which is expected in a film about an explorer.  But, the pace is offbeat, causing the audience to feel transported into confusion.  While in one scene, Columbus is in San Salvador, the next scene he is in Spain talking to Isabel.  This leaves a huge gap that left me feeling like I was lacking quite a bit of information.  Of course, a film cannot span a whole person's life in two hours and thirty minutes, but maybe Scott should not have focused on his whole life if he could not manage to firmly connect each piece of the story.

Lastly, the soundtrack to the film felt completely out of place.  As a student who has studied music, I enjoyed the music on the soundtrack (mainly the theme), but could not find its connection to the film.  It just felt too grand and modern for this period piece, detracting from the setting and causing a sense cheesiness with its electric sounds.  Certainly, Vangelis is a unique composer for film but he should not have composed this type of music for film.

The Bottom Line: If you are a fan of Ridley Scott, this film might be a disappointment because it fails to become the epic that it strives to be.

Score: 6/10

With just a simple plot, some action, a pumping soundtrack, and elaborate costuming, Walter Hill creates a classic film that might be considered a smooth form of art.  This film's main focus is on a journey home for a gang framed for the murder of an upstanding citizen.  With just that plot line, the film could have ended up being boring and dull, but Hill uses creative costuming along with a diverse cast to create a quick-paced action thriller similar to Mad Max: Fury Road.  "Can you dig it?"  Oh, I can dig it.

Throughout the film, the audience is guided through a gallery of figures in a gang controlled New York.  At the beginning, all of the gangs are displayed in a meeting.  This creates a full picture of the city's gangs, some of which will be seen more specifically later on in the film.  I must admit that while I enjoyed the gang of mimes, the baseball players with face-paint stood out as the coolest gang.  If I were cast in the movie, that would be my gang for sure. These different gangs create a diversity for the film, which is unique to a film from 1979.

Alongside the race diversity, Hill adds quite a few female characters.  But, these are not the average objectified female characters of many other films.  Rather, these actresses are given a lot of the power, often times antagonizing the Warriors when they cross paths.  Even today, many actresses are offered roles that objectify women, but in The Warriors the actresses become the real fighting forces of the film.

The Bottom Line:  This film breaks barriers of its time as diverse gangs of New York make for a quick-paced action thriller that most audiences can enjoy.

Score: 8.7/10

Man was this an odd film!  Within the first fifteen minutes, I could tell why this is considered a cult film.  With so many clever one-liners and not so clever one-liners, I could not contain my laughter at multiple times.  I am not sure if the writer was planning on making this film so comedic, but it surely is.  Whether I was laughing at the parts that were supposed to be funny or not, I cannot really say.

The most entertaining aspect of the film would have to be the characters.  By the end of the film, it seems as though each character is or was a bully at some point.  Of course, this is excluding Martha 'Dumptruck' Dunnstock, the poor girl who is the center of much of the school's bullying.  I must also add that Christian Slater's character is one of the most unique characters I have ever seen.  At times, he reminded me of the Joker from The Dark Knight while at other times he reminded me of Johnny from The Room.  This is relating one of the worst acting performances in history with one of the best.  Therefore, I am still unsure of whether I liked Slater's character, but I am sure that he kept my attention throughout the film.

For such a shallow script, the film delves into some deep concepts such as bullying and suicide.  Most of the dialogue in the film is filthy insults being thrown from one character to another, but at times there are some very deep lines that just don't seem to fit along with the others.  It is as though the writer went from creating a film for teens to attempting to create an Oscar nomination for himself.  Overall, the product was enjoyable but tonally unclear.

The Bottom Line: This film is great and awful, has a strong and weak cast due to its poor but powerful script.

Score: 7/10