"Interstellar" (2014) Love Spans Across Space and Time

The Trailer:

Director: Christopher Nolan
Main Cast: Matthew McConaughey, Anne Hathaway, & Jessica Chastain
Synopsis: A team of space explorers travel through a wormhole in an attempt to save the human race.

I was not prepared for how amazing Interstellar is. I vaguely remember seeing the previews for it, but I never payed much attention to them. I didn't really know what the film was about and when I decided to watch it, it was on a whim. And I am oh so glad that I did, because this is one of those films that is a true cinematic masterpiece. It's a wondrous story with great acting, gorgeous cinematography, and seamless CGI and production.

The world is on it's last leg, there's little food, and everything is being smothered by blankets of dust. So as an attempt to find a new planet to relocate all Earthlings to, a group consisting of Cooper (Matthew McConaughey), Brand (Anne Hathaway), Doyle (Wes Bentley), Romilly (David Gyasi) and TARS (voiced by Bill Irwin), an old military robot, board the Endurance and begin a mission that is both dangerous and exciting. That is the basic premise of Interstellar, but there is so much more than that. It is also the story of a father's fierce devotion to his children and vice versa.  I refuse to tell you anymore, though, because I don't want to ruin any of the wonders of the film for y'all. Just know that it is extraordinary and a bit of a cry-fest, well for me anyway. Also I'd like to take a moment to applaud the writers because not only did they write an amazing script, but they also stayed true to scientific laws and theories as we know them today. Everything that is said, explained, and shown (mostly everything) is scientifically accurate and I have so much respect for that. I hate watching movies about space travel and there is not one lick of accuracy to any of it. So bravo, writers!

Let me start with the acting. There are big Hollywood names in this film, so it can only be expected that the acting be superb, but all the actors went above and beyond to create a truly genuine experience. Matthew McConaughey playing Cooper— the pilot of the spacecraft named the Endurance and devoted father to Murph (Mackenzie Foy, as a child. Jessica Chastain, as an adult. Ellen Burstyn as an older woman) and Tom (Timothée Chalamet, as a child. Casey Affleck, as an adult)— is emotional, believable, and strong. I had no doubts about Cooper's capabilities as a pilot and of his unwavering faith in the promise he made to Murph that he would return home to her and that's all due to McConaughey's ability to wholly become this character. Because of the lack of attention paid to the trailer, I didn't even know Anne Hathaway starred in Interstellar and was a little weary of her presence in the film when she was introduced. Not that I doubt her ability to act, but my minimal exposure to her have been in films like The Devil Wears Prada and The Princess Diaries (I have yet to watch Les Mis).  And while those two films are wonderful in their own right, they're not anywhere near as serious and magical as this film, so I was worried. My worries quickly dissipated, though, as I saw how well she complimented McConaughey's easy-going, subtle intensity with her own emotionally charged energy. She played Brand, a scientist along on the space expedition, with such vigor and hopefulness, but not in an annoying way. She is smart and makes sound decisions yet has this unwavering faith that they will save the human race, no matter how hard it is or how long it takes. Jessica Chastain as the adult Murph, Cooper's daughter, is the perfect casting choice. Chastain has a determined air about her that works well with her Murph character. Murph is resilient and dedicated to the cause of bringing her father back home, whatever that takes. Then the secondary characters are just as radiant as the main characters. And there are quite a few, and yet all of them have a well-fleshed out story that is just as integral to the overall plot as the main characters. I salute the writers for their amazing script-writing and their ability to bring life and vitality to every single character within this leviathan of a film.

My holy Satan, the cinematography and production of this film is breathtaking. The way space is shown in all it's natural, muted, expansive beauty is awe-inspiring. I have always had a fascination with the immensity of the universe and the idea of space travel and this film fulfilled all my dreams and fancies about it. I wasn't only impressed by the space footage used in the film, but also by the minimal CGI used. The little CGI that is used, however, blends in seamlessly with the realistic images shown throughout. The only gripe I have with Interstellar is the score, but at the same time I can't imagine a more perfect score for this film. And it's not horrible in any way, I'm just entirely in love with it.

Interstellar is a wondrous, breathtaking, and poignant film definitely worthy of the awards that it won. It's not only a tale of saving humanity, it's a tale of a parent's unwavering love for his/her child. Everyone should see this film, everyone! Would I watch it again? Yes, always yes.

"The Sisterhood of Night" (2014) A Sisterhood or a Coven?

The Trailer:

Director: Caryn Waechter
Cast: Georgie Henley, Willa Cuthrell, Olivia Dejonge, Kara Howard, & Kal Penn
Synopsis: Mary Warren (Georgie Henley), Catherine Huang (Willa Cuthrell), and Lavinia Hall (Olivia) Dejonge) form a secret Sisterhood consisting of themselves and other girls they've chosen. But when Emily Parris makes accusations against the Sisterhood, the small town in which they live is thrown into a frenzy.

The Sisterhood of Night is a modern-day witch trial that shows how easy it is to believe the worst of people labeled as outsiders, and how those beliefs can bring about a wide spread panic that isn't easily vanquished. It is the story of how a small town ostracizes a group of girls out of fear. It is a harrowing and poignant look at the bonds formed within groups of girls and how that bond can become tarnished through rumor and gossip.

What I appreciate most about this film is it's ability to make me hate and love the characters at various points. Mary Warren is annoyingly rebellious. What I mean is that her conviction to her self declared rules about the Sisterhood and her obnoxious aversion to adult authority is equals parts irritating and admirable. Because of her unwillingness to speak to anyone about the Sisterhood, she is constantly involving others who end up in just as much trouble as herself. Georgie Henley plays Mary Warren, the alpha-female, well and possesses a face of teenage apathy that fits well with the character. Catherine Huang, played by Willa Cuthrell, has this quiet wildness about her. She seems meek, but it becomes clear that there is a chaos that lives in her that she has reigned in and uses only when needed. She isn't as outspoken as Mary Warren is about their shared dislike of Emily Parris and the circumstances in which they all find themselves in, individually. She doesn't have any qualities in particular that I dislike, actually she might be the only character who is statically likable throughout the film. Lavinia Hall, played by Olivia Dejonge, is probably the weakest of the Sisterhood members. Her desire to be more than she is, more popular, more liked by the boy she has a crush on, more accepted is what ends up hurting her and I am saddened by it. I'm sad that her desires and hopes, two qualities that should lead to good things, are what lead her to be manipulated by others who have cruel intentions for her. I don't necessarily dislike her, I just dislike what happened to her and what she did to herself. Then the whole vow of silence made by all the members of the Sisterhood about their rituals angered me because if one of them just told someone what is was that they were doing none of the horrors that later happened would have occurred. Then there's Emily Parris, the one who makes heinous accusations about the Sisterhood and the pain they supposedly inflicted upon her, is the most unlikable character in any movie I've ever seen. Okay, maybe not the most unlikable, but one of the top. Her phony, unthinkable account of the Sisterhood's cult like rituals not only casts a dark shadow over the members, but catapults her into false fame among other abused girls. Emily Parris' desires to be popular made her into a monster who exploited other girls' pain and misfortunes in order to gain esteem among her fellow peers. Despicable! And then Gordy Gambhir, played by Kal Penn, is the school counselor who angered me because of his constant inappropriateness with the students. Let me be clear, he never actually does anything inappropriate with any of the students, but he does things that can easily be misconstrued. And in the midst of this Sisterhood cult accusations, with the entire town being under a magnifying glass, he does some rather stupid things that gets him in trouble. And I couldn't help but silently yell "what the fuck are you thinking?" at him! But on the other hand, he is the only character who believes the girls when they tell him that they didn't do anything that Emily Parris has accused them of, so I have to like him for that.

I especially like the way in which the story is unfolded. The movie is kind of told in a retrospective, documentary style format. Think Forensic Files or something along those lines, where we there is commentary from reporters and friends and family of the people involved in the crime or accused crime. It isn't until the very end that whatever truly happened is revealed. Personally, I appreciated that because it left me in the dark as much as the adult characters who were trying to discover the meaning of the Sisterhood. The format forced me to decide whether I believed the members of the Sisterhood or if I believed Emily Parris. The big reveal at the end of what the Sisterhood ritual actually was is a polarizing moment, I feel, for most viewers. You either like what they're doing or you were disappointed with what they were doing. And the cherry on top of it all, after the whole story is explained, is the dance routine/celebration through the town done by the Sisterhood members. It is a celebration of the bond between girls and the sense of safety in sisterhoods.

I enjoyed The Sisterhood of Night. It is a well crafted modern reworking of what we know of the Salem Witch Trials. It brings to the forefront the shame and disdainful connotation of what sisterhoods (or female groups of friends) mean. Would I watch it again? Yes, yes, and yes again.

"Ex Machina" (2015) More Human Than We Think

The Trailer:
Director: Alex Garland
Cast: Domhnall Gleeson, Oscar Isaac, & Alicia Vikander
Synopsis: Caleb (Domhnall Gleeson), a skilled programmer, is invited to participate in an experiment in artificial intelligence performed by Nathan (Oscar Isaac).

"Wow!", initially that is all I had to say about this film upon it's closing. After a few days of letting it marinate in my mind, I have much more to add. Ex Machina is breathtaking, muted, and thought-provoking. It's unlike most A.I. films in the fact that it's not this action-packed thriller about robots taking over humans, it's a bleak look at the perhaps near future of a chess game between robot and human: it's simple, smart, and tense.

The characters are all extreme versions of their archetypes, yet still conceivable as real. For instance, Caleb is the ultimate good guy: he has a strong moral compass, he is curious, he respects others' boundaries, and he's intelligent. Due to these attributes, he is the most likable character of the film, though he does have one flaw. His flaw is his inability to detach himself emotionally from the experiment at hand, which is an unfortunate for him and a benefit to Nathan. Now Nathan is the ultimate evil scientist: he is intelligent beyond measure, he is cruel, demanding, self-indulgent, self-destructive, and is fully aware of what his creation means for the future of humanity yet created it anyway. In other words, Nathan is a douche-bag with a god complex, not a good combination. Then there's Ava (Alicia Vikander), the ultimate machine-built-to-aid-humans A.I.: she is endearing, innocent, and seemingly harmless which evokes sympathy from Caleb and us viewers as we watch here pace around her living quarters. And even though I said they're extreme archetypes, each character has some trait that grounds them in reality. I applaud all the actors' portrayals and ability to make me love and/or hate their characters with such intensity.

Ex Machina was filmed in Norway, which is absolutely gorgeous and breathtaking. The scenery is lush greenery and fresh blue waters juxtaposed against Nathan's high-tech, modern house which really hones in on the constant struggle between what was and what will be. Nathan furthers this idea when he mentions how one day A.I.'s will look back on us humans the way we look back on fossil skeletons as "upright ape[s] living in dust with crude language and tools, all set for extinction". Nature is what was and technology is what will be. Anyways, back to the setting. Aside from the gorgeous natural scenery, we have the mechanical scenery that is Nathan's house. It's high-tech, bare, grey, and somber. It is reminiscent of a prison except with art and fancy furniture. All that solemness and the sheer isolation of it makes it feel like captivity, even to us viewers. Especially since we are only ever introduced to three characters (four if you count the maid, though she never speaks), it feels like there is no other life outside of what is happening in Nathan's house. The modern house versus the stark scenery is a bizarre comparison but effective at it's multi-textured symbolism.

The smart dialogue is really what makes this a film worth watching. The questions that are posed are interesting and really made me ponder the definition of humanity and what makes a person human and if being a living organism is the only factor in determining whether something is worthy of life. There's a scene in which Ava asks Caleb what will happen to her if she fails the Turing Test (a test to determine a machine's ability to exhibit intelligence equivalent to or indistinguishable to a human's), and when he can't answer she infers that she will be shut off. She then asks Caleb why it's up to anyone and whether there is a person who will test him to determine if he should be shut off. This question has stuck with me ever since I saw the movie as it delves much deeper than simply shutting off an A.I.. It is questioning why we humans feel we have the authority to be rid of anything we want such as animals, vegetation, people. What gave us the authority to do so: an evolutionary trait of higher thinking that we've gained, or a predatory trait we've yet to rid ourselves of? In line with the Turing Test  there comes a moment in the film where we wonder if we're in on the test as well; are we unable to distinguish between Ava's computer intelligence or if she does indeed possess artificial intelligence. Adding to the Turing Test conversation, there's a small discussion about nature versus nurture at some point in the film, though it's not really discussed in depth, but interesting nonetheless especially in context of a machine and its inherent nature and whether it is affected by it's environment. Sexuality is also explored in regards to Ava and why she needs sexuality or even a gender. What is the purpose of sexuality and gender in a robot? In a human? Really, every conversation within this film is something that can be discussed in depth with fellow viewers or any one who enjoys talking about such things.

Though I did thoroughly enjoy Ex Machina, there are some things about it that may be off-putting for other viewers. As I mentioned before, this isn't an action-packed thriller about A.I.'s taking over the world and I think some people, when they see a movie about artificial intelligence, want to see some intense, war-like movie with evil, and easily destroyed, robots. So this film definitely won't appeal to those who want that. Also, because of it's fairly over-done plot, there is a predictability factor. I mean, I pretty much knew more or less how it was all going to end. Though my assumptions were tested often throughout the film, my initial theories ended up being right when all was said and done. But, honestly, the cinematography, production, and wonderful script more than make up for the lack of creativity in the plot.

Overall, I love Ex Machina. It's an intelligent, subtle film that questions our authority as humans. It's beautifully shot and spectacularly acted. Plus there is a funky uninitiated dance sequence that has my heart in flutters! I have already recommended it to people who have yet to see it. Would I watch it again? Hell yes!!

!!!Spoiler Alert!!!
Okay, so as I said before, Ex Machina is predictable, so you can probably guess that Ava manipulates Caleb into setting her free and then kills him, or, rather, leaves him to die. Yup, that's what happens after an entire movie of playing she loves him she loves him not. But I have a theory as to why she does it. I don't think it was out of hatred or lack of affection for Caleb, I believe that with her very human desire to live and with her computer-like intellect, she decided that she had a higher chance of survival if she left him to die, because with him alive there would always be a chance of him exposing her or deciding she needed to be dismantled. Or she could just be a heartless robot with no sympathy for humankind! Who knows?

"Circle" (2015) Let's Stand in a Circle And Talk About Our Feelings

The Trailer:

Director: Aaron Hann & Mario Miscione
Cast: Too many to name. So here's a link: IMDb Page For "Circle"
Synopsis: A group of fifty strangers find themselves in a strange room arranged in a circle. They soon realize that every two minutes a member of the group must die, and they are in charge of deciding who will be next.

At times I liked this movie, at other times I was annoyed. This is definitely an interesting premise, but it's been done before. Not necessarily in this fashion, but in some similar circumstance that forces a group of people to kill off others in order to survive. Despite the less-than-creative plot, I was intrigued enough to watch until the very end. Yet, I'm still on the fence about whether I like it or not.

Okay there are too many actors to even mention, so I won't go over each role and the actors ability to portray them. I will say that every actor did a good job at the task at hand, even if they were only on screen for a limited time. Well, there were a few flubs but they were killed off early on, so we didn't have to see too much of their sub-par acting. Sometimes, in films, having too many characters is annoying because we never get to know any of them personally and it gets frustrating trying to remember who is who, but here in Circle it works. The fact that there are so many people, most of whom never reveal their names, makes it easy to imagine being there with them, as though we are living in this nightmare too. What this film really comes down to is in dire circumstances which of the most basic human qualities will we choose: compassion or survival? Again, because of the nameless strangers, we aren't viewing any one particular group of people, we are viewing humanity in general, it's most raw form. We see our own judgments about others and how we determine what a worthy existence is, what the criteria someone must meet in order to be deemed deserving of a life. We are shown how, when liberated of our fear of potential consequences, we will carry out immoral actions. And it is a constant battle between doing what is right and doing what is going to keep you alive.

Equally as  it would be good to note that the directors and producers on this film were smart with their budget. Having the movie be filmed in a single location allowed them to divvy out the funds onto other things in order to add more quality to the overall product. The effects of the mysterious "killing machine" in the middle of the circle aren't overly dramatic, but interesting enough to get the point across that it may be some sort of extraterrestrial weapon. Additionally, because of the simplistic and minimal visual stimulation of the lone setting, we are forced to actually pay attention to the character's predicament. We are forced to stare into this mirror of sorts, that reflects back our worst, most instinctive qualities. It's a smart way to truly get under viewers skin and to make most of limited funds.

Now for the annoying bit. With the large amount of people in this group, there was very little distress and/or panic over what is happening. I mean, it took very little time for the people to assimilate to the situation and assess what their next move should be. The panic is delegated only to a few people who are killed off in the first few minutes, after that the frenzied panic that we'd expect of a situation like this has vanished. Next annoyance: the repetitiveness. Yes there is a system in place in the circle that every two minutes someone is killed, but after seeing about the fifth person it gets a tad annoying. And not only the formulaic killing, but the discussion is also quite repetitive. My satan, it's like beating a dead horse. Every time they start discussing, bickering, all-out yelling match, it is about the same thing: who deserves to live and who deserves to die. Though the metric of which they judge the worthiness of life is discussed through various lenses such as religion, economy, society, morality, ethically, etc., but in the end it's the same basic question. After a while it just feels like filler to prolong the running time. Then there's the ending. There is a lot of build up, but it never pays off and that makes me angry.

All in all, this isn't an entirely horrible film. On a scale of bad to good I'm leaning more towards the good side. It still has an interesting premise, albeit not very creative. The ending is a bit of a disappointment, but I can deal with it. I'm not angry that I watched it or anything and I would still recommend it to someone. Would I watch it again? Yeah.

"Stonehearst Asylum" (2014) We're All Mad Here

The Trailer:

Director: Brad Anderson
Cast: Kate Beckinsale, Jim Sturgess, & Ben Kingsley
Synopsis: A young doctor, Edward Newgate (Jim Sturgess) goes to Stonehearst Asylum to intern with Dr. Silas Lamb (Ben Kingsley), and while there meets the mysterious Eliza Graves (Kate Beckinsale) whom he believes to be sane.

This film is based on a short story written by Edgar Allen Poe titled The System of Doctor Tarr and Professor Fether, a story which I have not read (I know, what kind of student of literature am I if I haven't read all of Poe's works?) so I can offer no comparisons. Though I haven't read the story, I feel I must now after viewing this spectacularly Gothic, sinister film. From the first opening scene, which entails Kate Beckinsale being groped by a doctor in front of a group of medical students (all male) in order to trigger her "hysteria", we are introduced to the twisted ideology that is asylum medicine of the late 1800's, early 1900's; it is cruel, unfair torture cloaked as medical procedure. And so we, the viewers, know that the movie will be steeped in dark and disturbing matters.

The era in which this story occurs is one of my favorites: the Victorian Era. Some of the characters— Edward Newgate, Silas Lamb, Eliza Graves— are dignified and posh, while some others are seedy and unsavory beings, a good juxtaposition that is ever present in films and literature about that time period. I was impressed with all actors aboard; they all played their parts with such ease that it is easy to become engrossed in their story without ever feeling like "oh that was a bad casting choice". Jim Sturgess, as you may or may not know, is one of my personal favorites: he has this face that oozes sincerity and trustworthiness and so was perfect to play the part of Dr. Edward Newgate, a doctor who is compassionate and genuinely cares for the patients. Kate Beckinsale floats on a cloud of determined elegance and grace as her character Eliza Graves, and beckons to us and her doctors to believe that she is sane, she is haunted yet courageous. And Ben Kingsley as Dr. Silas Lamb is the most perfect casting choice ever made (maybe not the best ever made, but one of the best). Dr. Silas Lamb is chaos laced up tightly in a distinguished exterior on the fringe of a meltdown and Ben Kingsley plays this part to a tee and with such credulity. All the secondary actors are just as believable and likeable, not including some of the doctors and one unsavory patient. In the end this is a fantastic tale of love and hope that stems from a dark place. To add to that, what I love most about Stonehearst Asylum is the theme of opposing cruel, tortuous procedures that, at the time, were deemed necessary and totally safe in order to cure these people of their peculiarities. That theme is weaved into every step, frame, scene of the entire movie. I love it because as people of the 21st century we know that those medieval practices are ridiculously insane and that there are no such things as "hysteria" or "incurable homosexuality". And to be reminded of how narrow-minded medicine was in that not-so-distant past and to see how far we've come from that is truly amazing.

While yes there is a sinister air about Stonehearst Asylum there is also hope and healing: healing of physical and emotional wounds. There are also some fun twists and mysteries that will pique most people's interest. I would definitely recommend anyone to watch this. Would I watch it again? Heck yessss!

"Mr. Nobody" (2009) He's Nobody, But He's Somebody

The Trailer:

Director: Jaco Van Dormael
Cast: Jared Leto, Sarah Polley, Diane Kruger, Linh Dan Pham, Allan Cordumer
Synopsis: Nemo Nobody, an elder man, recounts his life to a reporter, often confusing the reporter with unclear stories and the, confusing, explaination of his parallel lives.

Holy Mother of Satan, this is the type of movie that is inconceivable on paper and quite impossible to write about without giving too much away. But I'll make an attempt anyway, though I can't talk about plot too much; good thing the plot isn't the only phenomenal aspect of this film.

So we have a man named Nemo Nobody (Nemo, in Latin, means Nobody, so he is literally named Nobody Nobody) who explains that in life there are choices we make that dictate what the rest of our lives will be like, but if we're to make no choice what will become of us? It's an interesting question, one I've often pondered in my own life and one that is shown in the most poignant, beautiful way through this film. And since that is about as far as I'm going to go on plot, I will move directly to the production to which my reaction is "Wow!". There are various settings for the various lives, each detailed and explained— there is always a reason or a choice that lead to these separate parallel lives— stunning cinematography, and more than believable acting by all actors. The settings of each life look lived in. Does that make sense? Like each life had a history and a future, and it is shown through the minute details of the houses, the apartments, the cars, the schools, so on and so on. Each life is fully fleshed out and fits perfectly with the timeline of that particular life. Onto the cinematography. Again, wow! Every scene in Mr.Nobody serves a purpose and hosts so much symbolism with allusions to other scenes and/or other lives that creates this really strange interwoven tale of the various lives of Nemo Nobody. There are these amazing little scenes that take time to explain a concept such as the butterfly effect (a scene near the beginning of the film) that quite literally shows a butterfly flap his wings and what effect that has on the rest of the story and it's shown in this very crisp, easily comprehensible tiny scene. And I just eat that type of stuff up. There are so many expertly crafted and directed scenes throughout the film that are either ethereal, or very tangible, or most surreal (very surreal, think Vanilla Sky), all shot through lenses or filters and all for various purposes, which engrosses us viewers to become totally immersed into this story with the desire to figure out what it all means. And the cherry on top of this most strange cake is the wonderful acting on all parts. Honestly there are too many actors involved in this glorious film but I can say with the most certainty that all of them play their parts to a tee and with such effortless poise. I will single out Jared Leto, though, because through each parallel life and with it's respective version of Nemo, he does such an amazing job and plays them with such passion and confusion and sincerity. He is a true master of his craft. And the way that all of this is brought together— all the lives intertwined, separate, and meshed together in a way that makes it difficult to distinguish each life, the direction, the acting— create this amazing movie that is unlike most films of today.

I will say that Mr. Nobody is not a film for everyone. There's a bit of thinking involved and puzzling moments about it that some movie watchers just don't want to deal with when watching a movie. Additionally, the storytelling is jumpy and never makes sense, not until the very end that is. But if you're a true cinephile and want to see a movie that is well-made and with a more-than-interesting story, and you can get over the non-linear storytelling, this is definitely the film for you! Would I watch it again? Yes, yes, and yes again!

"The Woman in Black 2: Angel of Death" (2014) Another Sub-par Sequel

The Trailer:

Director: Tom Harper
Cast: Phoebe Fox, Helen McCrory, Oaklee Pendergast & Jeremy Irvine
Synopsis: Eve Parkins (Phoebe Fox) and Jean Hogg (Helen McCrory), two school teachers, evacuate London during WWII to the Eel Marsh house.

Hmm, The Woman in Black 2:Angel of Death is a perfectly decent horror movie. It's not horrible nor is it great, it just is. And to be honest, I wasn't expecting much from it as I didn't think much of the first one. But I gave it chance anyway because sometimes sequels surprise us and surpass the first movie in overall quality. This is not the case, though, with this one and I should've known from the low ratings on Netflix (one star) and IMDb (4.9/10).

What I appreciate about the movie is the time period. As of late I've had a historical fiction addiction to WWII stories, thus was excited to see that TWiB2 (abbreviation for the unbearably long title) was set during this time. I was saddened, though, that this didn't play much of a part in the film. Or not as much as I would've liked. The war is the catalyst that sends Eve and Jean along with their students to the Eel Marsh house, but really that's about it; the war is rarely mentioned and if it is, it is only in passing. Like "Oh my God, there is a terrifying ghost and she's gonna kill us... oh and there's a war going on". The acting is excellent as well. In fact, the acting might be the best component of the movie. Phoebe Fox, who I'm not familiar with, is wonderful at playing the part of a broken woman who tries her best to always look at the bright side, even when the bright side is only a sliver of light. Helen McCrory, who I know and love from Penny Dreadful, does a fabulous job at the severe, strict leader of the group; she has that air about her that makes people feel like they must obey her. Then little Oaklee Pendergast as Edward, a child orphaned due to a bomb attack, is adorable while also deeply sad. After losing his parents, he is depressed and won't speak and is the most vulnerable to the suggestions of the ghost of Jennette Humfrye (the woman in black) and Pendergast does a good job at playing a sullen, lonely child. In fact, all of the child actors in this film are excellent at their parts though most of them are only secondary characters who don't have many lines. Oh, and Jeremy Irvine as the haunted pilot and love interest of Eve (ugh, a romance angle? I'll get to that later) is handsome and a superb actor, but really serves no purpose. Well he does serve one purpose, but I have the feeling that he was only written into the script for that one reason alone.

Now for the problems, and let tell you they are plentiful. No character development. Oh how a movie can suffer without proper character development and TWiB2 is a perfect example. Because of a lack of character development, or more texture added to them other than their tragic experiences in life, I didn't really care about any of them. I didn't care about Eve, I didn't care about her romance with Harry (Jeremy Irvine), I didn't care about Edward even though he is so adorable, and I definitely didn't care about Jean. Other than a sad experience that each of them experienced in their lives, separately, their is no other background given about them and no other character traits given to them other than what was molded of them from that one experience. Did they have no other facets to their personalities? (Side note: why was Eve's smile mentioned so much? Yes she smiles through her pain, but why did everyone take notice of it and then proceed to tell her that they noticed it.) Then the romance angle. If you've read any of my other posts you know how an inevitable, annoyed groan escapes my lips when an unnecessary romance crops up in a horror film (or any film for that matter) and this is definitely what happened when Harry was introduced in the story as I knew right away he was going to become the love interest of Eve. As I mentioned before, there is the feeling that his character was only written into the script for one reason (the fairy tale ending) and that's just shitty writing to me. I don't appreciate it and I'm not amused. Moving on. The biggest problem with this movie is the fact that similar or the exact same scare tactics are used from the first movie. Like there is the thumping of the rocking chair, the toys moving by themselves, the same jump scares, and so on and so on. How droll, I say! And speaking of jump scares, I completely dislike them. Once in a movie is fine, but when there's multiple jump scares over and over they simply lose their scare factor. I particularly don't like jump scares because once you've seen 'em they're never scary again so that automatically takes away my desire to view the movie again. Then there is the weak logic as to why Jennette Humfrye (the woman in black) targets Eve with her regretful past and uses Edward to do so, it just doesn't make sense. Production isn't great on this movie either, The lighting is horrible. I understand this sequel had a far less budget than the first one, so then why film mostly in the dark when there is a lack of funds for lighting? The movie is so dark and I have a feeling that the director, with such limited lighting went for an art house style of filming but it just didn't pan out. Perhaps this is the director's first foray into the horror genre, so his flubs can be excused but that still doesn't make this a good movie. Then, of course, being a PG-13 movie, it is overwhelmingly predictable. So much so that there really is no point in watching because we all know what is going to happen in the end. And then there's the obvious desire to make another sequel to which my reply is "NOOOOO!", we don't anymore sub-par, unoriginal horror flicks. Bring us something new and creative, please!

Overall The Woman in Black 2:Angel of Death is a decent horror film, but is ultimately forgettable. This is a movie that is probably only scary for people who aren't horror fanatics like I am. Even still, those people wouldn't find this movie memorable or would they want to view it again. And I suppose that answers my own question of would I watch it again. 

"Bernie" (2011) To Convict or Not Convict

The Trailer:

Director: Richard Linklater
Cast: Jack Black, Shirley MacLaine, & Matthew McConaughey
Synopsis: Bernie (Jack Black), a lovable and well-liked mortician, becomes entangled with a morose widow, Marjorie (Shirley MacLaine). But when she becomes too controlling, Bernie takes great risks to rid himself of her.

This might be one of the most interestingly made films I've ever seen. Sometimes it is a true crime drama, other times it's like a documentary with dramatizations thrown in. There is commentary from real-life residents of the small Texas town of Carthage in which this true life story takes place. And it all just works so well together.

To elaborate on the synopsis a bit, this is the telling of Bernie and Marjorie's unorthodox, questionable relationship and how that ended in Bernie murdering her and, more interestingly, how the town stood behind him despite knowing the truth. The murder of Marjorie isn't a spoiler as it is implied quite early on in the movie. Besides, that's not the point of this film. Bernie is a dramatization of Bernie and Marjorie's relationship and not so much a who-dun-it mystery. And through commentary from real life Carthage residents it's apparent that everyone loved Bernie; he was a man of many talents and who was adored by all. Bernie was a giving man, constantly giving to charities, and buying things for people just to make them smile. He was heavily involved in the community and helping people with housework, taxes, whatever, you name it he would do it. Marjorie on the other hand wasn't very well liked.In fact most people of Carthage despised her because of her bitter disposition and her penchant for cruelty. What is so fascinating is how supportive everyone was of Bernie even after he admitted that he murdered Marjorie. It's as though they had the sentiment that Marjorie was a bitch and deserved what she got and that Bernie was doing everyone a service by killing her. Also due to this sentiment, nobody thought Bernie should be convicted; he is such a gentle and kind soul and didn't deserve punishment. Everyone except Dave Buck (Matthew McConauughey) that is, the DA on the case. Regardless of how everyone felt towards Bernie, he saw that a real crime was committed and wanted real punishment doled out.

The acting is fantastic. I've never doubted Jack Black's ability to enter and completely transform into a character whether that character be silly, serious, or whatever. And as Bernie, Jack Black just proved his knack for transformation through acting. Bernie is a complex man who, despite being respected and loved by all, is also shrouded in mystery. Nobody really knew much about him other than he was an endearing man who was totally walked all over by Marjorie. Jack Black really took the time to learn Bernie's mannerisms and mimic his speech inflection, and also really got into Bernie's head to understand his feelings in all times of  his and Marjorie's relationship. And ohmysatan, Shirley MacLaine as Marjorie is phenomenal. She is the best at playing a mean, bitter old woman like her character in Steel Magnolias. The way she bosses Bernie around and is so cruel really adds to the town's, and us viewers, hatred of her. MacLaine just has that air about her that allows for us to really dislike her. And Matthew McConaughey is maybe the best acting talent to come out of Texas and it really shows here. As Dave Buck, McConaughey is witty, smart, and dedicated to punishing Bernie for the crime that he's committed. His resolute attitude about convicting Bernie despite how the town and he, himself, feels about Bernie is amazing and what any good DA should do.

This movie is listed as  black comedy and so there is an air of humor about it from the dramatization to the funny commentary by the townsfolk, such as this lovely gentleman who describes the "five states" of Texas;

Stating that West Texas is just a "bunch of flat ranches" then up North is the "Dallas snobs with their Mercedes", then there's Houston "the carcinogenic coast", then San Antonio (whoop whoop!) "where the Tex meets the Mex", then the "People's Republic of Austin with a bunch of hairy legged women and liberal fruitcakes", and funniest is how he left out the panhandle which according to him "most people do", and then Carthage where "the south begins". Maybe those descriptions are only funny to Texans as I got a good laugh about it, especially the panhandle bit. Anyways, the commentary and the superb, perhaps exaggerated, acting all lend a hand to the humor of the movie that is about such a serious situation. After watching Bernie, it somehow expanded my already immense love of Texas, though I'm not sure why. I really enjoyed this film, it's a weird mix of fun and seriousness that makes it totally entertaining. Would I watch it again? Hell yes I would.

"Life After Beth" (2014) Life? More Like A Snooze

The Trailer:


Director: Jeff Baena
Cast: Aubrey Plaza, Dane DeHann, John C. Reily, Molly Shannon, & Matthew Gray Gubler
Synopsis: Zach's (Dane DeHann) deceased girlfriend, Beth (Aubrey Plaza) comes back to life but slowly deteriorates into a flesh eating zombie.

Oh man, I had high hopes for Life After Beth. Before watching it I had heard so many good things about it, how funny it was, how original it was, how whatever whatever, etc. But after watching it I have to wonder if I even watched the same movie other people saw? Life After Beth is so slow and quite frankly boring. Or perhaps I just don't understand the humor? I can't say for sure, but the lack of humor isn't the only problem: there is murky unsuccessful "genre-bending", the use of well-known actors to bring in viewers, and finally shit that doesn't make sense nor is it explained .

Let's start with the murky, unsuccessful genre-bending. I am all for indie-horror-drama-rom-coms, that sounds awesome... if done right. Life After Beth starts off like a drama with Zach grieving over his dead girlfriend with small bits of humor thrown in. Then we get into the zombie element, which isn't really that scary anymore due to over-saturation in pop culture, but that's where the horror comes in which in turn leads to the comedy element as Zach attempts to navigate this new situation with zombified Beth. But instead of actually molding these elements together to shape an amazing film, it's almost as if each genre has a mind of it's own and is trying to force its way to the forefront in an attempt to be the focal genre. Consequently this leads to a movie that seems to have no distinguishable genre and no direction. In addition to that, everything that occurs throughout the movie is off. Like the parts that are supposed to be funny are off-putting and/or depressing and then parts that are actually humorous are too far in between and still not even that funny or kind of childish. The dramatic moments are silly due to outlandish premise of the movie. And then the zombie bit is not explained nor as cool as it could have been.

Apparently Aubrey Plaza is quite known for her character on the show Parks and Recreation, I didn't watch that show so I didn't know who she was going into this. But among people whom I know, she was a big draw for them to see this movie. The there's John C. Reily who is known for his quirky, silly roles. Similar is Molly Shannon who is known for her ridiculous roles. Then there is one of my indie favorites, Matthew Gray Gubler; he is always a joy to watch and brings a certain hipster flare to his humor. Dane DeHann is also known for his roles in Chronicle and Lawless. All these actors are well-known and distinguished enough to have avid fans and viewers and I think the movie-makers utilized that in order to get people to watch Life After Beth, but didn't focus enough on the story to get people to actually stay interested enough to watch the whole thing. It's almost as if they thought "Oh, we just have to get people to pay to see it, but they don't have to like it and we don't care 'cause we already got payed".

Then, of course, there is the shit that doesn't make sense. For some reason, smooth jazz placates the zombies, but why? Why not any other kind of music? This is one of those things that seems to be thrown in the mix to be funny, but it's not. Then there's the strange fact that zombies gravitate towards attic spaces. Again, why? There is no logical reason for this to be true. And I know, this is just a movie and not real life, but it's still weird. And to top it all off, nobody makes a big deal about the zombies for a good chunk of the movie. Like zombies are walking around, delivering mail, cooking at diners and nobody even seems to notice or care. I just don't understand.

Finally, I know that this is just a silly indie film that appeals to a nice group of people, but I'm just not one of them. I didn't think Life After Beth was funny or innovative or fun. It's a boring snooze that seemed to last forever with no end in sight. When it finally ended I was relieved! Would I watch it again? Hell no!