Before I went into this movie, I had a basic idea of the tone that Brett Haley would be going for.  The audience around me was older, which is seemingly Haley's target audience.  Based on my previous viewing of I'll See You In My Dreams at SIFF 2015, I expected something similar.  Just as I'll See You In My Dreams nearly invoked me into a trance, The Hero is an equally draggy and inactive film.  This film would play better in a nursing home than it would on the big screen.

The film has a star-studded cast, but never takes off.  The only exciting part of this film is the pleasure of listening to Sam Elliott's (Hulk, Up in the Air) voice for an hour and a half.  The cast is not bad, but the writing is just so-so.  There are a few chuckles here and there, but nothing too clever pops up.  The subject matter is deep and clearly relatable for older actors, but I never felt the connection to Elliott's character that I should have.  There is only one or two emotional scenes in the film, which had the potential of being a tearjerker.  Krysten Ritter (Jessica Jones, Breaking Bad), Laura Prepon (The Girl on the Train, Orange is the New Black), and Nick Offerman (Parks and Recreation, The Founder​) do a decent job in their respective roles, but feel interchangeable.  Any actors in similar age groups could have portrayed these characters.

Another problem that I had with the film was the dull color palette.  Haley basically replicates the palette from his previous work, sacrificing creativity for reality.  If the color palette were a bit more exciting, my eyelids wouldn't have felt so heavy.  At times, flashbacks try to bring the audience into the perspective of Elliott's character.  Yet, these deeply symbolic flashbacks are vague and uninteresting.  The symbolism is easy to figure out, mostly involving aging and death.  It feels as if this film has been made too many times before.

The Bottom Line:  The film subject and slow story drags down the acting abilities that Sam Elliott fans have become accustomed to.

Score: 6/10 

Every so often, you need to sit back and watch a classic comedy from the past.  Modern times are filled with bad news, indecent conflicts, and too much seriousness.  Mel Brooks (The Producers) reminds us of simpler times, when we could relax and not worry about who we offended.  This is a blessing and a curse for the acclaimed director.  I like the idea of his films, but a lot of the time they are too simple in their punchlines.  Throughout Blazing Saddles, Brooks relies on racial stereotypes and sexual content to make jokes.  ​Blazing Saddles is unique because of Brooks's direction, but grows stale after the same jokes continue to appear.

For me, it was hard to settle into the genre that Brooks has molded over time.  The first half hour of the film creates the western setting for the film.  We see a chain-gang working on a railroad in the middle of nowhere.  We see vast landscapes, saloons, and small-towns in the western setting of the properly-titled film.  However, the script shows us right away that this is not a typical western genre.  Offensive racial terms are dropped here and there, without any sign of remorse.  It's as if the offensive words were never outlawed by society.  After the first half hour, we finally get to see the redeeming trait of the film, the bromance between Gene Wilder (Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory) and Cleavon Little (Vanishing Point​).  Both of these actors carry the film forward, progressing a storyline that constantly changes.

The storyline remains interesting for the full runtime, because of how unpredictable it is.  Nothing really makes sense, but the plot is still linear.  It's as if Brooks had no idea of where he wanted to take the film.  From the very start, we are introduced to oddball characters that are not worth remembering because they only show up once or twice.  Rather than being a clear narrative, Blazing Saddles is an hour-and-a-half of improv filmmaking.  While it may not be for me, I do acknowledge that Brooks has defined his own genre throughout his career.

The Bottom Line: It is hard to relate with a comedy as obscure as this one, but the cast helps progress the story with likable and unlikable characters meshed together.

​Score: 5/10

Image credit: ​By Towpilot - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=1140646

For a three hour runtime, this is one of the quickest paced movies I have ever watched.  Scorsese (The Departed) directs this biopic about Jordan Belfort, one of the many salespeople who took advantage of others for their own gains on Wall Street.  I have not yet read Belfort's book, but I imagine that it is just as crazy as the film adaptation.  Drugs, sex, and all sorts of raunchiness progress the film forwards at a relentless pace.  Just when I wondered what could happen next, surprising events unfold as Belfort and his gang constantly get high and make millions of dollars.

A trio of acting dominates the storyline with Leonardo DiCaprio (Inception, The Departed, Titanic) at the helm.  Leo's portrayal of Belfort balances on a tightrope of lovability and immorality.  Even with his wishy-washy character, Leo leads the film in what is his best performance to date.  Don't get me wrong, The Revenant is another great film in his filmography, but nothing beats the authenticity of this role.  The other two screen-dominating roles are Jonah Hill (21 Jump Street, Superbad) as Donny Azoff and Matthew McConaughey (Interstellar, Dallas Buyers Club​) as Mark Hanna.  At a time when Jonah Hill was starting to take off, he plays the perfect henchman for Belfort to work with.  Azoff is an oddball character that is shrouded in mystery.  No actor could have been a better fit for this role.  Alongside Hill and DiCaprio, McConaughey shines bright as a mentor for Belfort.  Even though his role is short-lived, he is iconic and exciting to watch.

It still amazes me that this film is directed by Scorsese.  The Wolf of Wall Street is not for all ages, but geared toward a specific audience.  Anyone who is interested in economics might take offense with the film and its display of Wall Street crookedness.  However, at a time when everyone dreamed of being rich, the film played well to young adults.  Honestly, who doesn't dream of a life with the comfort of Jordan Belfort's.  Of course there were clear flaws with living this sort of life, but you have to admit that being able to buy a yacht and go wherever you want in the world has an appeal.  Scorsese's character study is able to appeal to wannabe millionaires even with a story as immoral as Belfort's.

The Bottom Line:  Fine acting and a quick pace push this drug-filled film forwards, creating a piece of art that will be remembered by anyone who dreams of being rich.

Score: 9/10

Let's just start with the first scene.  Sound good to you?  

The film opens with a promising scene involving a monster that is very similar to Godzilla.  In fact, the monster is similar enough to Godzilla that Toho ended up taking Voltage Pictures and Nacho Vigalondo (Timecrimes) to court.  This movie seemingly held enough value for a lawsuit to occur.  Anyways, back to the first scene.  The monster looks aesthetically perfect and the soundtrack jumps in right away with the mere glimpse of the monster.  The soundtrack is grand and heavy, fitting into the movie seamlessly.  BOOM, the film jumps to 25 years later.  If the film had ended at that precise moment, I probably would've been okay with it.  Unfortunately, Colossal turns into a disaster.  

I had high hopes for Jason Sudeikis (Horrible Bosses) and Anne Hathaway (Les Miserables, The Dark Knight Rises, Interstellar).  While trailers looked odd, I was sold on the premise of the indie film.  Sudeikis and Hathaway seemed like an odd matchup, but so did Paul Dano and Daniel Radcliffe before the release of Swiss Army Man.  In all honesty, I was excited for this curveball of a film.  To my dismay, the two actors should never ever be on screen together again, especially for this genre.  At times, they both clearly overact and Hathaway's acting pushed me back into her Princess Diaries debut.  Gloria is an annoyingly shallow character.  On the other hand, Sudeikis's character constantly flip-flops between morality and serial-killer ideals.  Imagine the rough ending of The Girl on the Train.  That type of acting is prevalent throughout this whole film... 

Legion M's shareholders might be happy that one of their investments has come to fruition, but I doubt the payoff will have been worth the effort.  The one thing that Colossal deserves credit for is the monster scenes.  The monsters look great and are still fun to watch.  There are few monster scenes throughout the film but whenever they pop up, I was able to get the story out of my head and appreciate the effects.  If there were more monster scenes, I might have been able to rank this a bit higher.  Yet, it will sit at the bottom of my ranked 2017 film list for now.  

The Bottom Line:  Big flaws and odd acting bring out the worst in a story that could've benefitted from it's cool visuals.

Score: 4/10

Image credit: 
​​By younghollywood - www.younghollywood.com, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=53611751
By Christopherpeterson at en.wikipedia, CC BY 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=3840611

As my first Jim Jarmusch (Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai) film viewing, I am quite impressed.  Jarmusch brings out great performances in his layered characters, while subtly dropping heavy symbolism throughout Paterson.  The film is a deep look at a single person's daily routine as he gets up, drives his bus for work, and ends up at the bar each night.  Rather than being repetitive like Groundhog Day, this film is a closed circle of commentary.  Yes, the story loops and certain elements are kept constant.  However, we do not have to drudge through the same thing happening over and over on a smaller scale.  

The shining element that keeps this film rolling is the character development.  One might argue that there is not a lot of development in the characters, but I would argue that each day there is a different perspective for each character.  Adam Driver (Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Inside Llewyn Davis) fits perfectly into the role of Paterson, a bus driver by day and a poet by night.  Everything around Paterson is constantly changing, yet his routine remains the same.  Driver plays a passive and yet productive character, which is a hard concept to understand.  Alongside Driver, Golshifteh Farahani (Exodus: Gods and Kings​) plays a great supporting actress as Laura.  As Paterson's partner, Laura can get into his mind and yet never fully understand him.

This film would be fun to view and then discuss in a group because of its deep metaphors and symbolism.  No matter how many times I watch this one, I will always have different thoughts about what Jarmusch was getting at.  Right now, I am contemplating a theme that relates to twins.  I am not sure what Jarmusch was trying to say with the theme, but clearly there is something there.  If I ponder this one for a while, maybe I will have an answer in the near future.  Yet, if I rewatch the film I might change my mind.  That is the beauty of this film!

The Bottom Line:  It's not full of action, but it is full of dense character writing and a deeply symbolic screenplay.

Score: 9.4/10 

​Image credit: By Georges Biard, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=49203449

I am 22 years old and have just now had the privilege of investing my time in a viewing of Animal House.  This film was a base for its genre, opening new doors for coming-of-age/college movies.  John Hughes reigned over high-school coming-of-age with Ferris Bueller's Day Off, but John Landis (The Blues Brothers) reigned over college coming-of-age with this one.  Animal House is quirky, wild, and of course raunchy.  While the story is too rushed and poorly scripted, it seems like the creators knew exactly what they were going for with this one.

That begs the question: with a dull story and odd happenings, how has this film continued to attract audiences?  Well, maybe it's the cast.  Tom Hulce (Amadeus, The Hunchback of Notre Dame), Stephen Furst (Babylon 5), Kevin Bacon (Footloose), and many others keep the film enjoyable and zany.  But the real star is the neanderthal-like John Belushi (The Blues Brothers​).  As John Blutarsky, Belushi keeps the audience guessing what he will do whenever he is on the screen.  Belushi was cast in a heck of a lot of fun films, but there is a reason why this one sits towards the top of his whole filmography.  

Okay, so the cast is fun to watch.  There has to be more to this film than just a fun cast.  After all, Batman v. Superman had a fun cast, but still was very unenjoyable.  Animal House has become a sort of initiation into the comedy genre for cinephiles.  Why is that?  I think it has to do with the initial release of the film.  In 1978, this was surely a huge shock for film audiences.  Beer and topless women constantly pop on-screen as Landis decides to bring out fraternity life to the world.  Sure, not all fraternities are well-represented by this film.  Yet, there are definitely college students and fraternity brothers that are relatable to the characters in the film.  The scattered story doesn't matter, so long as viewers can reminisce on their college memories.  Even though most of us did not go through college like this, we probably know someone who did.  

The Bottom Line: Don't expect a grandiose and well-rounded story, but rather a beer-cladden romp through a stereotypical fraternity.

Score: 6/10

Image credit: ​By Visitor7 - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=29127671

When superhero movies start to grow stale, there is one thing that Hollywood can do to revive the genre... more LEGO movies!  After The Lego Movie, I craved more LEGO Batman.  After a few years, I was still excited for this film and it did not disappoint.  The Lego Movie introduced us to the crazy world of the LEGO cinematic universe, unknowingly opening a whole new children's film sub genre.  Yet, this film is a fun time for adults along with children.  Subtle jabs at political figures (President Trump himself) and self-centered characters push the film's subtle adult humor.  However, an inspiring message for the kids is still revealed towards the end of the film.  That way, we don't feel guilty about the film's education value.

Throughout The LEGO Batman Movie, I was constantly trying to figure out who was voicing each character.  Of course, Will Arnett (Despicable Me, Ratatouille) returns as one of the best cinematic Batman characters ever along with Michael Cera's (Juno, Superbad, Scott Pilgrim vs. the World) addition of an oddly flamboyant Robin.  Other familiar names round out the cast of villains and heroes.  Zach Galifianakis (The Hangover, Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)) might not be your typical Joker, but I will admit that I enjoyed his rendition more than Jared Leto's (Requiem for a Dream, Dallas Buyers Club).  

Whenever a film as innovative as this one comes out, I have to take the time to admire the effects.  As a LEGO action movie, this film has some super cool effects that had me wondering how hard it is to create such a film.  Warner Bros. seems to have struck gold, but I am sure they put in a lot of gold in the creation of this piece of art.  The cast is probably expensive enough, but the LEGO effects must have taken a lot of workers and time as well.  I should be able to maintain my interest in this genre for at least the next half-decade.  I know nothing about the NINJAGO universe, but the trailer for that next franchise installment already has me hyped!

The Bottom Line:  This is truly a family film that LEGO and Batman fanatics can enjoy in the same theater.

Score: 7/10

Image credit: ​By Gage Skidmore from Peoria, AZ, United States of America - Chris McKay & Will Arnett, CC BY-SA 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=56228004

I'm glad that I have never been put into a position where I have had to rank the Coen brothers's (No Country for Old Men, True Grit, The Big Lebowski, Fargo) films because that would be really hard.  However if I was forced into doing this, it is very likely that Hail, Caesar! would sit close to the top.  The creativity of this film is where the Coen brothers strike gold.  Every one of their films is different with a common thread of comic relief throughout most of them.  Unlike previous works, the Coen brothers take a period piece and turn it upside-down.  

The casting for the film finds past actors from the Coen brothers's previous filmography.  Josh Brolin (Sicario) returns from No Country for Old Men and George Clooney (Gravity, Up in the Air, The Descendants) returns from O Brother, Where Art Thou?  Brolin leads the all-star cast as a Hollywood studio problem-solver.  It sounds weird, but that is probably the best way to describe the character.  As Eddie Mannix, Josh Brolin travels around multiple sets in Hollywood, solving problems ranging from a scandalous actress, played by Scarlett Johansson (Lost in Translation, The Avengers​), to a missing movie-star played by George Clooney.

The comedic aspects create a flow for the film that made me wanting more after the first watch-through.  The best part about the Coen brothers is their witty script-writing.  While No Country for Old Men was a fantastic movie worth a lot of praise as one of their greatest films, it was missing the amazing wit of the talented filmmakers.  They are capable of keeping me entertained during the continuous repetition of a western movie star struggling to say the lines and act for a classic film director.  This is just one of the many small gags throughout the film that keep the camera rolling.  Of course, the film is a beautiful piece of visual art as well.  I cannot imagine how hard it must have been to choreograph most of the scenes, considering there are musical numbers and even synchronized swimming scenes.  Once again, the Coen brothers created a masterpiece.

The Bottom Line: As expected, the Coen brothers create another fun piece of art for audiences to chuckle about.

Score: 9.4/10

​Image credit: By Rayukk - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=46780191

20th Century Women finds itself in a message of hope that could not be more relevant to current times.  The film reminds us that we often feel alone in life, but can rely on each other in order to get past this loneliness.  Throughout the film, we walk in the footsteps of vastly different characters.  The creative streak maintains itself all the way through the movie as Mike Mills once again proves himself capable of telling a story through a less-than-linear fashion.

The story is captivating because of the characters.  Mills (Beginners) writes each character with a separate background, creating a sea of lives that at times can be hard to follow.  For the first half of the film, I found myself wondering what the storyline even is.  In my head there is a story throughout the film, but if you asked me to relay the story I would stumble through an answer.  Involving so many different lives into one film is one of Mills's many talents.  To add to the characters, everything is staged and filmed subtly and uniquely.  Without detracting from the story, old footage is added to bring the audience back to the 70s.  As someone who was not alive at the time, I might have found it hard to connect with the characters if it were not for this footage.

The casting for the film is also quite worthy of praise.  Elle Fanning (The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Super 8), Greta Gerwig (Mistress America), and Billy Crudup (Watchmen, Almost Famous, Big Fish) support the two lead actors as they guide both of the main characters through the time period.  The most praise must be given to Lucas Jade Zumann (Sinister 2) and Annette Bening (American Beauty​).  Zumann plays Jamie, a boy struggling with coming-of-age.  His character is easily influenced by his surroundings and other characters.  Zumann is a genuinely perfect fit for the role.  Of course, most of the award nominations for the film have gone towards Bening's portrayal of Dorothea.  Her performance is reminiscent of Charlotte Rampling's performance in 45 Years.  It is subtle, yet endearing.  Just as the plotline is hard to convey in text, her performance leaves a blank slate for praise in this review.  It is blank because of a loss for words, not because it holds less value.

The Bottom Line:  It takes a while to get rolling, but once you get the hang of it you will have trouble looking away from the awe-inspiring performances.

Score: 9.4/10

This was definitely one of my most anticipated films of 2016.  After Whiplash, I was left counting down the days until the next film that would be under the direction of Damien Chazelle.  Little did I know that his next project would be a gleeful movie musical, and an extremely good one!  Chazelle's genre seems to revolve around jazz and drama.  Yet, he is capable of creating successful films with completely different tones.  After coming out of the theater, I was left with a craving for jazz.  I've never been a big jazz listener, but Chazelle's new movie further peaks my interest in the musical style that dates so far back in time.  

I'm not one to smile much during a dramatic film, but I found myself smiling throughout every scene in La La Land.  It is majestic, magical, and beautifully shot.  There are long takes that must have taken a long time to coordinate in the perfect manner that is produced.  At times, the characters float around on the screen.  The glitz and glamor of an older Hollywood is constantly popping up in every scene.  Yet, we also get a glimpse of the problems that have haunted Hollywood since its conception.  As smooth jazz melodies play, the typical viewer should fall into a trance of pure musical joy.

In order to create a strong musical, there are three key features necessary.  First, you need a good story.  The story for La La Land is somewhat ambiguous, causing some confusion along the way.  Still, the simplicity of a love story ties the frays as the story becomes deeper than a simple meeting between star-crossed lovers.  To create a strong musical, you clearly need good music that is relevant to the storyline.  From the get-go, La La Land introduces us to classy jazz numbers which often lead up to strong vocal performances.  Finally, you need to have a cast that can perform well on a stage and sing the various musical numbers.  This is probably my favorite role that Emma Stone (Birdman, The Amazing Spider-Man) has ever been in, and quite possibly my favorite role for Ryan Gosling (Drive, The Big Short).  Both of them sing their hearts out and create deep characters with their strong performances.

The Bottom Line:  La La Land captures our hearts as we cannot help but smile at the magic that comes from combining Hollywood's cinema and Broadway's musicality.

Score: 9.7/10

Image credits:
By Gage Skidmore from Peoria, AZ, United States of America - Emma StoneUploaded by maybeMaybeMaybe, CC BY-SA 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=22894460
​By Elen Nivrae from Paris, France - Ryan Gosling, CC BY 2.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=41215867