On the Day That Carrie Fisher Passed Away

I woke up early today. On most days, if I am given the choice, I will stay up late and sleep late, living in the night for all it is worth then regaining the hours lost. Today was an exception, though. I was awoken by nothing in particular but the early opening of my eyes at around five in the morning, then after some unsuccessful attempts to sleep again, I entertained myself with an early morning, beginning my day at seven, and, unusual of me, I spent this morning, aside from a Instagram photo, an article from Relevant magazine and an episode of the Match Game, distanced from technology, choosing to spend my time in literature, specifically the Bible and Shusaku Endo's classic novel Silence.

After my wholesome morning, I spent the better part of the day exploring St. Petersburg, Florida, with my good friend and a former-teacher-now-friend. Until shortly around 6pm today, well after our explorations had ceased, I was unaware that Carrie Fisher had passed away.

I chose to absolve myself yet again from my phone, save to snap a few photos, during the St. Pete expedition, allowing myself to fully embrace the world I have lived so close to but never appreciated for what it is. But unbeknownst to me, shortly after my day had begun, Carrie Fisher had died.

I was completely aware of her major heart attack on December 23rd--it was the big talking point before the night's church service as headlines came pouring in on Twitter and the rest of the Web. I kept vigilant watch through Christmas, checking to see how her condition had shifted from her inability to breathe on the plane to her stay in the ICU and CCU. I even said a prayer for her during the Christmas Eve service when I tuned out Pastor for a moment, and not out of selfish ambition for the future of the Star Wars saga. When her family made public mention that she had stabilized, I had hope that she would make it through. I even thought that "the universe" had given up George Michael so that Carrie Fisher would live instead, but just the thought of that is terribly foolish now. It was not to be.

************************************************************************************************

My first memory of Star Wars is Carrie Fisher. Not the scene where she gives R2-D2 the Death Star plans in the seige of the Tantive IV, but the scene where she consoles Luke after Obi-Wan Kenobi sacrifices himself at the hands of Darth Vader aboard the Death Star. It shouldn't have been my first taste of the galaxy far, far away--it should have been the blaring yellow text and 20th Century Fox fanfare--but when I was having my mom preview the film before I watched it when I was but a wee lad, I stuck my head into her room out of curiosity and this was the first frame I ever saw of the film:

The only significance it ever held for me then was that it was my first experience with Star Wars...and the memory of my mom warning me that I would spoil the film if I kept peeking. Now, it's almost poetic: my first time seeing her on screen being her consoling Luke (Mark Hamill) after his mentor's untimely death; now, many of us seek a similar consolation in the wake of hers.

I never reviewed last year's The Force Awakens; I could never crack the prose, though I greatly enjoyed the film. It's a very special film for me, too, as it was my very first theatrical Star Wars film. Sure, I saw The Clone Wars pilot in theaters in 2008, but The Force Awakens was my first real Star Wars movie. I started tearing up when the fanfare blared and the giant STAR WARS logo came in 3D, and I shook in excitement as I was actually reading an opening crawl in theaters. And there, almost an hour into the movie, comes Princess Leia--nay, General Leia Organa--herself. I suppose Carrie Fisher is linked to many "firsts" when it comes to Star Wars for me. It saddens me, though, that when I see Episode VIII on opening weekend next December, it will be, instead, the last new performance of hers that I will ever see.

She meant a great deal to many people in different ways. She was and is the poster girl for strong female characters. She was a voice for those with mental illness. She was a fighter against substance abuse. She was a woman who proudly spoke her mind. She inspired young writers to pursue their calling later in life. Truly, she was an incredible human being. I feel like her death has moved me more than some of the other recent celebrity deaths because while I was familiar with her work, I never really bothered to explore it, especially some of the movies she wrote even though I'm sure I would enjoy them, while she was still alive. Robin Williams's passing was sad, but I got to spend my childhood watching him in many movies, and then come to appreciate his stand-up comedy on Pandora Radio in my adult life. So while it's sad he's gone, it's almost like he never left because of how much more I'm discovering of him. Maybe, in time, the same will be the case with Carrie Fisher.

************************************************************************************************

Towards the end of our adventure in St. Pete, we observed and admired some of the murals around the city, including the famous "Before I Die..." wall where passersby can leave their life goal on the wall where it stays until "it fades with the rains of time," as my former teacher described it. Some were funny, like "See the aliens;" some were pitifully vulgar, like "F*** your b****;" some were of love; some were philosophical, like "I WANT TO LIVE;" some were short-term goals, and others were long-term. Many of them, though, had to do with leaving some kind of legacy, mine included.

"It gives you perspective," he said.

I think about it often, my legacy. I wrestle with how I will--how I can--leave a lasting mark on this Earth for posterity. I pondered it when my Grandpa died in October. I pondered it when I listened to Hamilton. I think about it every time I write unfinished drafts of books and screenplays as I judge whether I want that to represent me after I'm gone. I heard a story in the wake of her passing about how, in an interview, Fisher said she was so glad she did The Force Awakens because it reminded her that she was still so beloved by people after she lived a relatively quiet career after the 80s, at least compared to her two co-stars Mark Hamill and Harrison Ford. She got to see her legacy personified.

For me, it feels wrong to say that "She is one with the Force," or similar allusions, since the Force is not real and does not do her career justice. I am, however, grateful for the work she has left on this Earth so that more people now may be impacted in the ways people were while she was still living. I'm grateful, too, that I learned of it later in the day so that I was able to experience an introspective adventure on the day that Carrie Fisher passed away.

Rest in peace. You will be missed, and your family is in our prayers.

Carrie Fisher (1956-2016)

What to Stream

While there were plenty of theatrical films released this year, the current market and advances in the internet has opened up a new part of the film industry. For a couple of years now, Amazon and Netflix have led the charge in bringing original content to their streaming platforms, ranging from television shows to films, while also introducing their audiences to lesser-known indies. This year, they brought a noticeable and rich amount of them. Because you, dear reader, are likely to come across one of these or want to see one of these during your late-night binges or "Netflix and Chill" sessions, let's talk about some of them, shall we?

The Fundamentals of Caring (Netflix) (TV-MA for language and sex references)

The Fundamentals of Caring stars Paul Rudd (Ant-Man) as Ben Benjamin, a newly-employed caregiver, and Craig Roberts (Kill Your Friends) as his patient Trevor, an impish teen afflicted with Duchenne muscular dystrophy whose aspirations in life are watching hot women on TV, eating waffles for every meal, and perhaps peeing standing up, if he could. Eventually, the two go on an impossible road trip, coming across rebel without a cause, Dot (Selena Gomez, Wizards of Waverly Place, Spring Breakers), and the quirky and pregnant Army wife Peaches (Megan Ferguson, The Comedians). Occasionally predictable but never terribly sentimental, Caring runs at a relaxed pace that lets its actors shine. All four actors have terrific chemistry, especially Rudd and Roberts. It's a lighthearted comedy-drama with plenty of laughs and emotional moments, emphasizing that true caring is very much putting someone else's needs above your own. A lovely surprise, I highly recommend it. 4/5 Stars


Elvis & Nixon (Amazon) (Rated R for language)

Elvis & Nixon is a hilarious concept stretched way too thin. Based on the famous photograph from the National Archives, the film concocts a story about Elvis Presley (Michael Shannon, Nocturnal Animals) wanting to meet President Nixon (Kevin Spacey, House of Cards) in order to fulfill his patriotic duty to save the youth and stop communism as an "undercover federal agent at large." It's a fascinating idea, but the movie is pretty uninteresting until the much-anticipated meeting at the end. Until then, we get a lot of Shannon doing a questionable Elvis impression, playing up the "Elvis is crazy" schtick, development and backstory for his friend Jerry (Alex Pettyfer, Beastly) which we really don't care about despite the film's best efforts, and not nearly enough of Spacey's immensely satisfying take as Richard Nixon. This is a film that would have worked best as a half-hour short, what we're left with, though, is a visually-good, mostly well-acted movie that's too dull for its absurd premise. 2/5 Stars

True Memoirs of an International Assassin (Netflix) (TV-14 for action violence and language)

Kevin James (Paul Blart: Mall Cop) hopes to make a return to grace with Netflix's original action-comedy, and ultimately it comes up as passable. Director Jeff Wadlow (Kick-Ass 2) directs the action surprisingly well but unexceptionally, but the script hopes the farcical concept of a writer unwittingly getting involved in the schemes of the "Kings of Caracas," with each one of the Venezuelan villains wanting James to assassinate the other--all because a false publishing tactic and too close of an allusion to real life paint him as a real assassin instead of the lowly accountant that he is. It's silly stupidity but extremely cliched. Even though there are some creative transitions, especially in the opening scene, it doesn't make up for the fact that the rogue DEA agent (Zulay Henao) is embarrassingly underdeveloped, dull, and frankly incompetent. I wish the movie was more of a Get Smart than a Zookeeper, but at least it's better than Paul Blart 2! If Netflix puts it out on TV, you won't regret life watching it; but there's better things to watch if you have the choice. 1.5/5 Stars

Sing Street (Netflix) (Rated PG-13 for thematic elements including strong language and some bullying behavior, a suggestive image, drug material and teen smoking)

Sing Street is another music film from director John Carney, who brought us Once and Begin Again, although this film, unlike the previous two, treats music less as a character and more as a plot device. While I love the way Carney deals with music in those films, I didn't mind at all that music took a backseat this time around for the story that is Sing Street. Sing Street is about young Irish student Conor (Ferdia Walsh-Peelo, who seems to be channeling Ed Helms's Andy Bernard on more than a single ocassion) who has an awful home life, and how he starts a band with various members of the school in order to win the heart of the enigmatic yet enchanting Raphina (Lucy Boynton, Life in Squares).

This has been a critical darling ever since it premiered, and I admit that this is a most enjoyable film. The best way to describe it is as the best 80s movie to never have been released in the 80s. Throughout the entire film, I was smiling, whether it be the 80s period style or the songs or the relationships between the characters, and most importantly, I was invested. Honestly, this may be my favorite of Carney's films. It isn't as transcendent as Once or as much about the power of music as Begin Again, but it takes the best elements of both and translates it into a real crowd-pleaser with an unbelievably talented young cast. There's an element of innocence to it, too, with these students really not knowing who they are at all--Conor changes his look with every new band his older brother Brendan (Jack Reynor, Macbeth) introduces him to--but they're still ready to take on the world and treat is as their oyster. So if you love great films or music or the 80s, watch Sing Street. Truly, this is the year of the musical film! 5/5 Stars

For now, this will do. I will likely do another one of these before the year is out, because there's still so many to talk about! So tell me: have you seen any of these? Are there any you're looking forward to seeing now? What are some of the best "little" films you've caught on Netflix. Whatever you have to say about me and the movies, comment below!

NEW MOVIE: Rogue One: A Star Wars Story

When The Walt Disney Company purchased Lucasfilm in 2012, it was soon announced that, besides the release of the sequel trilogy beginning with Star Wars: The Force Awakens, we would be getting biennial "Anthology" films that deal with stories outside the main "Skywalker Saga" episodes. On December 16, 2016, we received the first of these Anthology films: Rogue One: A Star Wars Story.

Rated PG-13 for extended sequences of sci-fi violence and action

Rogue One acts as a direct prequel to the original 1977 film, Star Wars: A New Hope, detailing the theft of the Death Star plans which Princess Leia delivers to Obi-Wan Kenobi. As a result, we experience new characters, a Rebellion at the brink of defeat, an Empire struggling to meet deadlines, and the harrowing moments before Episode IV's opening crawl. Our heroine for this adventure is Jyn Erso (Felicity Jones, The Theory of Everything) as she reluctantly becomes involved in a Rebel plot to halt the finalization of the Death Star since her father, Galen Erso (Mads Mikkelson, Hannibal), is (reluctantly) one of the Imperial scientists spearheading the project.

Director Gareth Edwards (Godzilla) promised that this film would be darker and grittier than the main films, and that morals would reside in a mostly grey area; in this respect, he delivered. Even though the Empire is still the major villain, the blurred lines are on every side. The Rebel Alliance seeks to defeat both the Empire as well as anti-Empire extremists. The Empire still does power plays among its ranks and often treats its own as expendable. There are moles that the Empire wants done away with and the Rebels want killed because there's some part of them that neither like. Heck, I found Rebel General Draven (Alistair Petrie, The Night Manager) more unlikable than the film's villain Director Orson Krennic (Ben Mendelsohn, The Place Beyond the Pines)! It's interesting to see a more grounded Star Wars movie, for sure, and it reminds me of some of the better episodes from the two recent animated series. At times, the only reminder that this is a Star Wars film are the appearances of Stormtroopers and mentions of the Force. It's a distinctly less Romantic view of the sci-fi universe, so major props are due to Edwards for the successful execution.

There are some great action moments in this film, most of which are in the second half. The much-advertised "Beach Scene" climax on the planet Scarif is well-worth the price of admission, and the final scene is one of the best moments in the entire series. The third act reminded me of some of the best moments when playing the Star Wars Battlefront video games. Donnie Yen (Ip Man) as the blind Force warrior, a Guardian of the Whills if you will, also provides some of the film's best action moments while also expanding the lore and extent of the Force beyond just the Jedi and Sith. The space dogfights, too, reminded me of the Death Star Run from the climax of A New Hope--and it was great! How it all ties into Episode IV, though, is easily the film's greatest strength, personifying the stakes set up in the opening crawl of said episode.

Jyn Erso (Felicity Jones) prepares for battle.

With brand new characters comes necessary build-up and development, which the film does okay at, but not as great as it could have. Galen Erso may be one of the most critical characters in the film, but his reluctance of working with the Empire is only briefly established in the opening scene and touched upon throughout. Other than that, we don't get as much time with him as I would have liked, with an exposition-heavy (but necessary) sequence being the most we get to know about him...unless you read Catalyst: A Rogue One Novel. I've enjoyed Disney's two Star Wars movies thus far, but a lot of the development holes are being filled not by the script but by novelizations and related novels. I felt nothing when the New Republic was destroyed in its first appearance in The Force Awakens because I had no connection to it--because all of the connective threads were in the books. While I still liked the character of Galen Erso, it was evident that his character arc was in its last act when we learn about him--because the first two were in Catalyst. On the other hand, Krennic was introduced and characterized well as the antagonist and we got to satisfyingly see multiple levels to him. Clone Wars hero Saw Gerrara (Forrest Whitaker, Lee Daniels' The Butler) may just be the best developed character, even outside of his animated series appearances--I never saw his episodes or scenes before--and Whitaker brings a really strong performance for the morally ambiguous Gerrara. That said, the main Rogue One crew is nowhere near as well-developed as they should have been. We know enough about them to care about them in the final hour, but I feel like most of that is based on the performances that suggest more about them than the script. There's a Imperial deserter (Riz Ahmed, Nightcrawler) whose characterization is limited to...well, that--and the fact that he might know Galen Erso. Captain Andor (Diego Luna, Casa de Mi Padre) could've been fleshed out more--I didn't quite connect to his character until a monologue late in the movie--and even Jyn could have had some more beef to her. They're developed enough that we care for them in the intense Battle of Scarif, but they're not as memorable as they could have been. K-2S0 (Alan Tudyk, Firefly), though, has some good moments and he does well as a more agressive C-3P0 type.

While most of the special effects look really impressive, there are some surprise appearances from certain characters from the original films, one of which has a substantial role. However, due to their age or being deceased, they could not fulfill their appropriate duties in this prequel. In order to be more visually similar to their A New Hope counterparts, Edwards and his team elected to not recast them (like they did with Genevieve O'Reilly as Mon Mothma) but bring them back as CG performance capture characters a la The Polar Express. The less we see of them, the more impressive the effect. Also worth noting, composer Michael Giacchino, even though his scores are usually awesome--from The Incredibles to Tomorrowland, and Up to Jurassic World and Inside Out--just doesn't quite deliver this time around, which isn't entirely his fault since he was only given 3.5 weeks to do it since Alexandre Desplat (The Grand Budapest Hotel) left the project after reshoots. There aren't any notable or memorable themes like the rest of the Star Wars films and the main Star Wars theme is constantly and ridiculously teased and subverted. It's not a terrible score, but it wasn't as great as I hoped it would be.

All in all, Rogue One: A Star Wars Story a good addition to the Star Wars saga and a strong enough freshman effort for the Anthology films, reminiscent of the best of the animated TV shows and with plenty of fun fan-service cameos. It serves as a powerful prologue to A New Hope, even with its flaws. Then again, this film may grow on me with repeat viewings, as The Empire Strikes Back did, and the musical score may get better over time, like Episode II and VII's for me. Just seeing it once, though, I'll give it 3.5 out of 5 stars. If you're not a die-hard Star Wars fan or you're boycotting the Disney films, you'll be forgiven for skipping this one. If you do go out and see it, though, you're in for some of the franchise's best moments, even if it is nowhere near its best offering.

Have you seen Rogue One? What did you think about it? Have you been a fan of Disney's latest Star Wars movies? Whatever you have to say about me and the movies, comment below!

NEW MOVIE: Patriots Day

Before getting into the review, I would like to thank Allied Tampa, Gofobo, and the Regal at Citrus Park Mall for making the advance screening of Patriots Day possible. It was a great experience to see a film in a cinema in a completely different context.

Rated R for violence, realistically graphic injury images, language throughout and some drug use

Peter Berg's (Lone Survivor, Deepwater Horizon) latest film, Patriots Day, retells the true story of the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing. We experience the film from the vantage point of the people of Boston, from the victims directly affected, the citizens who unexpectedly become involved, those responsible, and the authorities who tirelessly pursue the attackers in the days that follow. If it weren't for Berg's calculated and creative direction, the film would still be grounded by how the film was cast. Mark Whalberg (Lone Survivor, Transformers: Age of Extinction) plays a police sergeant who is on his way out of suspension; John Goodman (10 Cloverfield Lane, Argo) is Boston Commissioner Ed Davis; Kevin Bacon (Apollo 13), J.K. Simmons (Whiplash), and Michelle Monaghan (Gone Baby Gone) round out the all-star cast of the "higher-ups" in this situation, or those closest to the investigations. Berg and the casting directors wisely decided to have lesser-known but capable actors from television and indie features fill in for the citizens of Boston, such as Melissa Benoist (Supergirl), Alex Wolff (The Naked Brothers Band), and Jake Picking (Goat). The exploitation of our psychological association with well-known actors in roles keeps us engaged in the investigative portions, while having unknown actors play the people of Boston makes them feel like real people and not just actors. It was a smart move, and it truly showcases the talent of these actors.

With a film about terrorism and tragedy, it is important to treat the subject matter carefully and respectfully. With only a three-year gap since the bombing, some may think it too soon to even touch the story. Personally, I felt the event was handled with grace. Even though the film deals with several story threads related to the bombing, Berg and his writers do their best to flesh out the characters and give them full dimensions. Mark Whalberg isn't a cardboard-cutout police sergeant who wants to avenge his city; he's a man who feels regret for letting the bombing happen under his watch, and the carnage clearly takes a toll on him. Even though he looks like fresh Marky-Mark at the top of the film, by the end, he looks haggard and exhausted, physically and emotionally. Kevin Bacon isn't just the FBI Agent in Charge who takes over operations. He has to carefully consider every step revealed to the public and its repercussions, not for his paycheck, but for the lives it will affect. The terrorists aren't just mindless jihadists looking for mayhem. The eldest is portrayed as a man who politically and religiously believes he is doing the right thing, on a crusade to destroy the guilty. The youngest is a college student/drug dealer who wants to impress his brother and get a gun. Despite that character development, the film does not justify their terroristic actions nor make them likeable in any way. Berg understands and reveals to us that caricature is not the only way to realize good and evil. It is, in fact, people--fleshed-out people, like you and me--who harbor good and evil within ourselves and act on such.

The film is effectively tense throughout. Though the film starts out rather happy and mundane with citizens joking with each other and Whalberg and Goodman going about a comical arrest, the dramatic irony of the situation brings the agony of inevitability, knowing the players are all walking into a tragedy they weren't expecting. Seeing the terrorists' side of the story, too, brings an extra layer of tenseness since we see them plant the bombs and begin their (planned) tour of terror. The film never does let up until the murderers are found. It is kind of odd, though, that the film has so much humor. There are comic moments throughout the film where the audience roared with laughter, and not in a bad way--the film wanted to elicit that reaction, and we responded appropriately. I found it strange that the film would want us to laugh like we did since the subject matter was so serious. It didn't really become clear until the end: the humor wasn't to alleviate the tension--because it really didn't--but rather to show love through the hate, unity during destruction, resiliency through the impossible, and the character of Boston. I think, more than anything, this film gives the rest of the nation and the world the personified definition of Boston Strong--a community that stayed together, never lost its attitude in grief, and worked in tandem with each other and its authorities to bring justice and take down those that hurt their home.

Bacon, Whalberg, and Goodman attempt to piece together the narrative.

The only real complaint I have about the film is that J.K. Simmons felt underused as the Watertown Police Sgt. Pugliese. He serves as great comic relief and proves himself again as an extremely capable actor, but for a while his character felt irrelevant since Watertown isn't affected by the terrorist brothers until much later in the film. It goes with the structure of the film, with different character arcs and plot strands unexpectedly being connected to the events surrounding the bombing, some later than others, but it was strange to see him in scenes early in the film with little to do but lighten the mood. It is, though, but a nitpick.

All in all, Patriots Day is an effectively-directed, smartly-edited, tense and powerful film that pays appropriate tribute to the victims and city of Boston. It may seem too soon to do a film like this, but it justifies itself by addressing relevant themes of terrorism, community, resilience, and the possibility of preventing these kinds of attacks. Whalberg and the rest give realistic and strong performances that puts in perspective the events surrounding that fateful Patriots Day. I'll give it 4.5 out of 5 stars. When it plays near you next month, please go see it!

So are you looking forward to Patriots Day? What's the most effective real-life event movie you've seen? Whatever you have to say about me or the movies, comment below!

We Need Movies.

It’s funny. I’ve often tried to measure the worth of my dream career, which is film criticism. Oftentimes I fail to find its merit. People are building things, discovering new horizons, curing us of our greatest afflictions, saving people… With a plethora of greatness of careers, what role does my pesky little “Is that a job?” have.

It wasn’t until a momentary existential crisis I realized my dream job has worth because its subject has worth. It’s no secret that books are heralded as greatness, the accessible and noble art with which all good and (at least somewhat) intelligent people must pursue. I love literature like the next guy. Books have incredible worth. As much as students whine and moan about the English class they are in and the monthly 400-page novel they must analyze, I am certain that at least everybody has a book that has impacted them dearly.

           

For my generation, this was J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series. It wasn’t just an engaging 40,000-page adventure that people have an unhealthy obsession over because of that cheap thrill. It taught us about humanity and how to be good to our fellow man and those who are different than us; it created relatable characters who we can learn from in similar circumstances (outside of defeating the Dark Lord); it showed us the reality of death and the beauty of life, of friends, of family. I’m sure I’m forgetting some things but ask your local millennial; they can fill you in on the rest.

In many ways, film and television are the “new book.” (In reality, they’re merely a companion in the art of story, but they function much the same as books.) Much like we need books, I believe we need movies. In many ways, it’s easier to relate to a character in a movie than in a book. Sure, we can technically know a character better in a book because we have several paragraphs that inform us about them and get in their head. Yet in a film, you see the actor’s portrayal of a character: you see this representation of a character go through events and relatable crises; lines stick out more because you heard them—they’re not merely phantoms of impressions that most books tend to leave behind (often one has to read a book multiple times to remember a notable quote).

I think of Begin Again, a recent musical film with Kiera Knightley and Adam Levine. As Levine sang “Lost Stars” in the final scene, I was blown back by how the scene—the lyrics, the performers’ expressions, the melody, Levine’s tone—affected me; I related to them. It brought me back to a time when a relationship with a friend was at its nadir and later remedied. I think of The Tree of Life, Terrence Malick’s magnum opus. The film impacts me spiritually in the way only a film can, with stunning imagery and effective musical cues, with a difficult theme to tackle—our place in the universe and our relationship with the God that made it. I think of the TV show The Office and the many times I felt a personal connection with these characters, relating with the real-life situations they go through outside all the chaos. Even now Andy Bernard’s farewell line has relentlessly hooked itself to my mind and emotions as I’m in a whole new and unfamiliar college environment: “I wish there was a way to know you’re in the good old days before you’ve actually left them.” And I think, in the wake of a controversial and divisive election, we all enjoy a good two-hour musical or comedy to take us out of the vitriol and sadness that has invaded our casual conversation.

           

Movies have an underrated worth. They have the artful quality of literature yet transcendentally affect the common man in all of us. As much you may celebrate the high art of a The Grapes of Wrath or The Scarlet Letter or (somehow) Things Fall Apart, you must admit you were captivated with Ross and Rachel’s many “breaks” (or when Chandler and Monica got together!) and the fate of Luke Skywalker when facing Emperor Palpatine. Movies are more than conduits for escapism, though. They harbor the lessons and characters and stories from which we learn and relate and become better people. They act as windows to the things we need, and show us that in a relatively short amount of time (and they’re cheap!). Sure, there are countless bad ones, but we can all admit that that is a relative way of speaking. They are contemporary and real; they help people through their stories they may never here anywhere else.

I remember watching an interview with the writer of the 1993 film My Life, where Michael Keaton plays a man afflicted with cancer. The film was critically derided for being melodramatic and cliché. Yet the writer was still proud of it, not because of the ego all writers have about their “babies,” but because of certain audience reactions. At some moment of time after the film came out, a family came up to writer Bruce Joel Rubin and told him how that movie helped them get through a similar crisis in their lives. “We write movies for them,” I remember him saying. This is the transcendental quality of film. So go out and watch movies and learn from them. Let them impact you! I hope in my work I can guide you to the right ones you need.

Coming Down the Home Stretch: The Last 2016 Movies I Want to See

2016 is coming to a close, which means the end of the fall term is also coming, and winter break is nearing, which means it'll be time to go see movies! Frankly, the end of the year seems to have several movies that pique my interest, so I figured that since I cannot get out to the cinema often due to a general lack of transportation or a budget great enough, I might as well talk about something of note!

In this list, I'll talk about the seven movies I'm most looking forward to seeing at the end of the year. Two films of note that I didn't want to include here due to the fact I'll probably not see them but still interest me are Army of One and Voyage of Time: Life's Journey. Army of One is a direct-to-video comedy based on the true life story of a middle-aged American (played by Nicholas Cage) who thinks God (Russell Brand, because why not?) has called him to go to the Middle East with only a sword to take out Osama Bin Laden--alone. I don't expect the movie to be good--I really don't--but I feel like based on the one trailer we got, it'll be fantastically insane in all the best ways. And Voyage of Time is Terrence Malick's follow-up to his divisive film The Tree of Life (which I love dearly). It's been subject to several delays over the years (it was in my most anticipated films of 2014 list, for some perspective), and even though it was finally released (in two versions, no less), the release is so limited that it'll probably be a long while before I see what the wait was for.

Now without further ado, the real list:

7. Assassin's Creed (PG-13)

Typically, video game movies don't have the best rap. The Resident Evil movies seem to exist solely as guilty pleasures, Warcraft bombed hard at the domestic box office this summer, Prince of Persia is rather a bore, and Super Mario Bros. is something else entirely. Yet I'm still cautiously excited for Assassin's Creed. I don't have a terribly close relationship to the games; I've played some of the first game, but the concept is so intriguing. Michael Fassbender is one of the most celebrated actors today, and he's been a strong proponent during the film's development. Together with a cast including Marion Cotillard and Jeremy Irons, this historical science fiction film about assassins during the Spanish Inquisition may be the game-changer for video game movies (or a fluke).

6. Moana (PG)

Disney has had a steady track record with its "canon" films since Tangled. Even if they aren't all the best they could be, you'd be hard-pressed to say that they're less than good. What sets Moana apart from a film like Frozen for me is all in the recently released clip of Maui (Dwayne Johnson) singing his song, "You're Welcome." Lin-Manuel Miranda of Hamilton fame is one of the composers on this film, and that's part of the reason I'm excited. The performances seem to be especially good for an animation, and the animation looks pretty great, too! Overall, it looks like it will be a safe bet for a great film, and surely an Oscar contender; Disney's been neck-and-neck with neighbor Pixar in recent years.

5. Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (PG-13)

My anticipation for this film comes from the fact that I very much like the Harry Potter franchise. The seven books were marvelously translated to screen, save for a handful of quirks, and they all still hold up. I'm interested to see how author J.K. Rowling does in her first foray into the cinematic screenwriting world, and so far, the trailers look promising. The underrated Colin Farrell (Saving Mr. Banks) and Oscar favorite Eddie Redmayne (The Theory of Everything) should bring engaging performances to the forefront, and if anything else it'll be a grand return to the wizarding world on screen, as it is, basically, an original story (its source material had next to no story, serving merely as a fun magical encyclopedia created to raise money for Comic Relief). My only trepidation is that the most recent expansion of the franchise, the two-part play Harry Potter and the Cursed Child, had a less than stellar script that was released. I'm so hoping that Fantastic Beasts can hold up.

4. Hacksaw Ridge (R)

This film is already out, and I still want to see it! Mel Gibson returns to the director's chair after 2006's Apocalypto and stint on the Hollywood blacklist due to a controversial outburst. This tells the true story of a man who fought in World War II and never fired a gun because of his moral beliefs. Reviews for this movie have been glowing, and it may turn out to be one of the best of the year if what people say is true. Simply put, I want to see this as soon as I can.

3. Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (Not Yet Rated)

Like I said when Episode VII was coming out: it's Star Wars. Of course I want to see it. More than that, this is the first risk that the franchise has taken since 1977. Rogue One now deals with an entirely original cast to tell an entirely original story separate from the Skywalker Saga of the main episodes. The concept is interesting, and the tone they're going for--that of an actual war film--should be a fascinating experiment if nothing else. But it's Star Wars. I'm gonna see it.

2. La La Land (PG-13)

This is the part in the blog post where I'm bouncing out of my seat because of how excited I am for this film. La La Land, a darling at film festivals, is an original musical film by Damien Chazelle, director of Whiplash, another acclaimed movie that I want to see but still haven't. I am a sucker for musicals, but there have still been a handful of stinkers in that department. The best way to describe the vibe I'm getting from this is magical. It's refreshing old-fashioned yet modern-feeling, like the precious love child of Singin' in the Rain and Begin Again. Ryan Gosling plays a jazz pianist and Emma Stone plays a struggling actress; they fall in love and work together, and I know my heart will be full seeing an original musical. I could give it a perfect score after seeing the latest string of trailers, but I promise I'll give it its day in court.

1. Silence (R)

La La Land would be most anticipated film for the rest of the year if it wasn't for Silence. Martin Scorsese's passion project based on Shusaku Endo's novel of Jesuit missionaries who endure persecution in Japan is, for me, building up to be the most powerful film of this awards season. The only snippets we've seen from it are haunting photographs of Liam Neeson and Andrew Garfield in costume, but I'm still so excited to see this film. The subject matter and its importance to Scorsese lead me to believe this film won't be anything less than excellent.

What about you, dear reader? Are there any films you still need to see this year to mark off your movie list? Whatever you have to say about me and the movies, comment below!

NEW MOVIE: Goat

My number one goal in writing about film was to attend an advance screening, which is a viewing of a film before it is released to the general public. It is a privilege that professional film critics enjoy, so you can see why I seek out opportunities like this. Being a college student has its perks, which in this case was an advance screening. Thanks to the joined forces of Paramount Pictures, HazingPrevention.org, and CAMPUSPEAK, my college was one of five chosen to be shown a free early screening of the new film Goat on Thursday.

Rated R for disturbing behavior involving hazing, strong sexual content
and nudity, pervasive language, alcohol abuse and some drug use

Based on the 2003 memoir Goat, the film tells the story of Brad Land (Ben Schnetzer, The Book Thief, Snowden) and the relationship with his brother Brett (Nick Jonas, Camp Rock, The Jonas Brothers) as Brad copes with the aftermath of being a victim of assault then going through the hazing process of joining the college fraternity of his brother. In other words, Animal House this is not.

The film's subject matter is awfully heavy and director Andrew Neel, who is more known for his documentary work, deals with it in appropriately brutal ways. The film is hard to watch, and at times downright sickening. However, Neel gives a sense of unease throughout the film. The disturbance isn't limited to just neverending kegs, characters getting urinated on during Hell Week, wrestling in God-knows-what, and being forced to suck on dildos and bananas (with the pretense it's a heck of a lot more graphic). While these scenes are mostly soundtrack-less, scenes away from the frat are often covered with a minimalistic electronic score akin to that of recent horror film It Follows, and a notable scene is just a disturbingly up-close visual of Brad struggling to put in his contacts--I suppose after being shamed for not fighting back against his attackers, wearing glasses makes him feel emasculated.

That said, it is important to note that the film pulls no punches in displaying the brutality and humiliation the pledges (called "goats" by the fraternity) goes through. The film is bloody, some scenes are disgusting, and in general it is hard to get through--but that's its point. It takes you by the scruff of the neck into the atmosphere of this real-life story, and it never lets go until it's too late for you to not be affected. Combined with strong performances by Jonas and Schnetzer (even if the dialogue they are given is not all that creative), this is easily the strongest part of the film.

Where the film falters, though, is in the character department. While the Land Brothers are pretty well-fleshed out with clear arcs and motivations, the other characters in the film do not receive the same benefit. I can tell you what the characters are--the nerdy friend, the mean one, the ringleader, the cute girl Brad likes (at least for a scene before she disappears; it's a shame, they had great chemistry!)--but I really can't tell you much about them since the movie doesn't really explore their characters all that much. That said, the relationships in this film were fleshed out--I understood how the various characters interacted and how our two main protagonists related to them; I just wish they added a few more minutes to let us know more about them as people. I think the greatest example of this is late in the film, when the third act begins to take off. One character says, "You hardly knew him." Another character replies, "Yes, I did. He was my roommate." We're familiar with the character relationships--why this character would be upset--but aside from the shock surrounding the event, I wasn't emotionally invested enough in this particular character for it to punch me in the gut because we really did hardly know him.

But even some of our protagonist development is lacking, in that the film decides to go down a route of telling us things instead of showing them. After the tense opening carjack sequence, we're told that Brad is having trouble in school and may not make it to Rush, or even the fall semester. I would have liked to delve into this aspect more or get rid of this, in the end, pointless conflict; but the movie drags its feet on the subject while Brad reels with the trauma until he makes the inevitable choice to go to college and try to join the frat. I'm sure the movie could have spared a few of its graphic sex scenes for some character (granted, some sex works for character or atmosphere-building--it is a frat movie; other times...not so much. I still haven't figured out if the film tried to briefly touch on the role of porn in Brad's life or not). I question why the film spent more time on some smaller things instead of building on bigger things.

This is one of the milder moments of the film, and it still feels inhumane.

All that said, the film does touch on a pertinent subject and it handles it appropriately and brutally. Despite problems in some of the character development, I cannot deny that I was affected by this film, that I was moved by the film. Even if it struggles to relevantly connect the dots between its two major events--the carjacking and the hazing--outside of the thematic sense, it does combine for a powerful, if flawed, movie. I'll give Goat 3.5 out of 5 stars. It does its job without falling in the realm of propaganda, and I was invested in the relationship of the blood brothers and the dichotomy between that and their relationship with the Frat Brothers. And James Franco (The Interview, Spring Breakers) has a meaningful, if glorified, cameo as an alumnus and Frat Brother!

It's a hard film to watch, for sure, but if you want an independent film that's not afraid to show modern issues in a realistic light and that was mostly acclaimed at festivals (as Paramount let us know at the screening), it's worth it. 

Goat is now showing in select theaters and is available on Digital HD and On Demand.

MOVIE REVIEW: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice--Ultimate Edition

I saw the blockbuster event Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice on its opening weekend, eager to join the conversation that would inevitably ensue, even more so with the intense backlash by critics. I was disappointed in it when I saw it March, not because of the characters or the plot, but rather by the editing of the film. It was so choppy that it felt annoying: we'd be at LexCorp for 30 seconds, then in a rainy street for a minute, then somewhere else completely for more brief moments of time. There was no cohesion to the film; for as long as the film was, it felt empty. I debated whether to give the film 2.5 or 3 stars, and then I heard there was an extended cut. The editing problems were noticeable because there was an entire half-hour cut from the film at the last minute, thanks to Warner Bros. In respect to director Zack Snyder and the film, I elected to wait to review this film until I had seen the original vision for the film once it was released--now on Blu-Ray, entitled Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice--Ultimate Edition. Now clocking in at a solid three hours and toting an R rating, does the Ultimate Edition improve on the theatrical cut? Heck, is the full movie even good?

Rated R for some violence

Note: In case you have not yet seen the film in any form, be mindful there are some spoilers in this review.

In its attempt to build a new cinematic universe, DC Comics pulled out its trump card in its second installment: the monumental face-off of its two biggest heroes for the first time on screen, and the first cinematic portrayal of Wonder Woman. For the most part, it pays off, and it's impressive how well the extended cut follows Man of Steel and establishes its new characters. Granted, the film still has flaws, many of which were inherited from the theatrical cut.

First off, the film gave itself the challenge in having Lex Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg, Now You See Me, The Social Network) orchestrate a global chain of events that lead up to the climactic duel while having Lois Lane (Amy Adams, American Hustle) follow his breadcrumbs, while Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck, Argo) and Clark Kent (Henry Cavill, The Man from U.N.C.L.E.) go on their own personal hunts against each other's super-identities, not to mention making Diana Prince/Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot, Fast & Furious) relevant in linking her to the eventual Justice League. It has several threads, but in a three-hour cut, the job is done and is rather well-connected.

Luckily, the film is well-buoyed by performances. Ben Affleck and Gal Gadot steal the show as Batman and Wonder Woman. Though some have taken ill with the DCEU Batman, which appears to kill more than any other iteration, Ben Affleck portrays perfectly the Batman the film was going for. Gadot, though her character is obviously shoe-horned in, makes herself relevant and unforgettable, being the best part of the final Doomsday fight. Thankfully, Amy Adams and Henry Cavill are given more to do in the extended cut and are able to shine (although the writers are grasping at straws to keep her relevant in the third act), and Jeremy Irons as Alfred gets a few good quips in, too. And even though Jesse Eisenberg's take on Lex Luthor is divisive and different, I honestly don't mind it. It grew on me an hour into the theatrical cut, and I haven't had a problem with it since. It's appropriately neurotic for the madman that Luthor is in this franchise.

The mountain of a task Warner Bros. gave Snyder before March this year was insane. The film is of epic length and story, and it lost a lot by being cut to 2.5 hours. With an extended runtime, the movie can breathe and entertain. With an R-rating, the movie is easily the darkest we've seen any of these characters. Superman is no longer the Christopher Reeve Boy Scout, and the mood and tone surrounding Batman is even darker than the Nolan trilogy. It's a violent, gritty movie--definitely not for young children. There's war violence, human trafficking, superhero violence, large-scale explosions and destruction, and blood. It's all purposeful, though, with convincing character conflicts and long-term repercussions and motivations.

On second watch directly after watching Man of Steel, I enjoyed seeing how they continued Superman's quasi-allegorical arc. In Man of Steel, Superman's father Jor-El (Russell Crowe) remarks how Earth "will see him [Superman] as a god." That film is essentially the clash of gods among men, with the battle of the Luciferian General Zod against the messianic Superman. With repercussions felt across the world, Luthor, embittered by a powerful yet cruel father, equates power with injustice, without innocence, and upon seeing omnipotence personified through Superman he rejects the notion that Superman could be in any way good. "If God is all-powerful, he cannot be all good, and if he is all good, he cannot be all powerful." As a man, he tries to take on the god, but uses Gotham's Batman as an unwitting puppet to deal with it, fueled by rage for the seemingly-cruel carnage left in the wake of Man of Steel's climax. With a truce at the end of the titular duel, Luthor proclaims, "If man won't kill God, then the Devil will do it!" summoning the Doomsday monster from Zod's corpse. In a way, Luthor succeeds here, as Superman sacrifices himself to destroy Doomsday. The world is saved by the god's sacrifice (at least it appears that way until they hint at the resurrection in the final frame). For me, the hint of allegory and the futility of trying to destroy God made the Doomsday sequence and the final frame more meaningful than they were when I saw the theatrical cut. It's not a direct allegory by any means, but I think Snyder and writers David S. Goyer and Chris Terrio have concocted an interesting take on a Messiah story that gives their universe a bit more weight than the average superhero franchise. Additionally, I liked the set-up of Superman's sacrifice being the fire for Justice League's round-up, giving Bats and Wonder Woman appropriate motivation for creating the meta-human squad.

Of course, not everything improved in the new cut. While the film is holistically more coherent now, I still think the infamous "Knightmare" sequence is unnecessary. It kind of works for further establishing the psychological toll hunting a superhuman is on Bruce Wayne, what with the apocalyptic visions, but The Flash's (Ezra Miller, The Perks of Being a Wallflower) cameo immediately after just makes the whole scene bizarre and more confusing than necessary. Unfortunately, this scene probably won't be getting appropriate context until a future movie years from now. There are also a few too many dream sequences than is probably necessary. Even though I see a justification for Doomsday on second viewing, I still struggle to agree that he belongs in this movie that's already stuffed to the brim, especially when he only comes across as little more than a Cave Troll from The Hobbit movies.

Though the Batman v Superman makes way for the dawn of justice, it's still an entertaining picture.

In short, any plot problems present in the original theatrical release is still around for the Ultimate Edition, but there is some nice padding with the extra half-hour, letting the movie breathe and answering more than a few plot holes. In many ways it is superior to Man of Steel and is a well-paced story, even if some of the interpretations of the characters are unorthodox to say the least. I appreciate what Snyder's vision was for this film, and for the most part, it works. In the end, despite its flaws, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice--Ultimate Edition is lofty, but it makes its many moving parts feel relevant while having several gorgeous shots, all while firmly establishing the direction of the franchise and continuing where it left off in 2013. I give the Ultimate Edition 4 out of 5 stars.

I feel like I'll be in the minority on this one, but numbers aside, there is no doubt that the Ultimate Edition is a superior version of the Batman/Superman story. Even though it is long, I hope Warner Bros. learns from this and lets its directors execute their visions in the DCEU. Though the extended, intended version of the movie is flawed at times, studio interference really hurt the whole thing exponentially back in March. From here, Wonder Woman and Justice League look promising. Time will only tell.

Whatever you have to say about me or the movies, comment below!

NEW MOVIE: Ghostbusters

Let's just open with the elephant in the room: did this film warrant the amount of backlash it has received from its YouTube trailers? In short, not at all. Was it good though? Well, we'll see.

Rated PG-13 for supernatural action and some crude humor

Ghostbusters, or Ghostbusters: Answer the Call--the marketing of this movie was extremely confusing and the end credits don't make this any clearer when the latter appears as the title--is the cinematic return of the Ghostbusters franchise after 1989's Ghostbusters II. However, this is a brand new team and a whole new story, essentially a reboot that strives to stand alone while paying homage to the originals. Kristen Wiig and Melissa McCarthy reunite along with director Paul Feig after 2011's Bridesmaids, and are joined with new blood from SNL--Kate McKinnon and Leslie Jones--as well as Chris Hemsworth (Thor, Vacation) as the blockhead receptionist. In this film, the girls form the titular team and eventually end up in a mission to save New York from a cataclysmic apocalypse of supernatural proportions.

The best way to describe this movie is a harmless fun time. There are some delightfully spooky portions, which director Paul Feig handles nicely for being primarily known for comedy, and the action scenes are, I thought, really well done. I wanted to be a Ghostbuster and knock out the dead while watching the gals go at it. "Bustin' makes me feel good" sums up my feelings pretty well. I do wish some of the comedic elements landed better, though. There's a repeated gag about Chinese food that I didn't find particularly funny or clever, but it doesn't get obnoxious. While not all the jokes land, none of them bomb like the running gags in Daddy's Home or the majority of Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2 (I still hate that movie) did. I admire the wit of the 1984 original, and I'm disappointed this one went for broader jokes.

However, Ghostbusters (Answer the Call), is its own beast. When the giant ghost battle climax is happening, I thought to myself, "I really wish they included the whole Zuul thing like in the original." But then there would be no point to the film's existence if they just did a remake of the original. So I'm glad they did something relatively fresh. Granted, some portions seem familiar from other movies and stories--the dumb receptionist, the apocalypse-mongering small fry, an apocalypse itself--but the new film does, for the most part, stand apart from its counterpart. This is definitely for a new generation of viewers, with humor, pacing, and story beats directed towards this audience, so it doesn't have the same tone or attitude of the original films. In fact, I think when it tries to reference the original film, it actually falters more; it wants to stand apart, but it also wants to stand on the shoulders of what brought it here. For example: in theory, it should be a great idea to see the old Ghostbusters in cameo roles, but for the most part, they come off as joyless. Maybe it's because they're not the 'Busters in this film, but rather skeptics. Perhaps fittingly, Sigourney Weaver and Annie Potts have better things to do in the film than the men do in their cameos. It struggles to please all crowds, but it works best when it shoots for the 2016 crowd instead of 1984's.

The film's not as hilarious as it could be and the cameos don't always work. Luckily, the four girls triumph with their chemistry, and they seem to be having a blast. I was pleasantly surprised by Leslie Jones. Based on the trailers, I thought she was going to be the most annoying part of the film, but she really brought great comedic timing and had some of the best lines and gags, especially in her encounters with the ghosts. I genuinely cared for Kristen Wiig's character in the film, and I loved seeing the four bust some ghosts together. Also, Chris Hemsworth, though the character he plays is impossibly inane, shows good timing that makes his stupid gags work. McCarthy and McKinnon also dedicate themselves to their characters, more notably McKinnon. Thankfully, they don't just seem like female versions of the original four. Sure, you could draw connections between Leslie Jones and Ernie Hudson (heck, the movie kind of does that, too), but McKinnon's Holtzmann is definitely no Egon, and Wiig's Erin feels different from Bill Murray's Peter Venkman.

Perhaps the biggest fault of the film is the villain, Rowan, played by Neil Casey. When he's introduced, he's pretty interesting: an enigma who knows about as much ghost knowledge as the Ghostbusters themselves but uses it to attract ghosts. Then almost as soon as he's introduced, Feig chooses to reveal his master plan in a not-very-subtle way. Rowan's not a very interesting villain, and the chaos he causes is far more memorable than he himself--I couldn't remember his name until I Wikipedia'd it. They could have done more with less, so that we discovered his plan alongside the Ghostbusters then revealed his character quirks, making the finale more of a pay-off. We just see way more of him than we probably should have and he ends up being meh.

In the end, Ghostbusters (Answer the Call?) ends up like a The Lost World: Jurassic Park in the Ghostbusters franchise. It's not as good as the original, but it's still a worthy and watchable entry in the series. However, it's pre-release disdain will haunt this movie for some time, which seems to be a trend for Sony. When Sony came out with The Interview, the North Korea controversy preceded the merit of the film; audiences got so riled up with the preceding press that people were surprised when the film was considered an average Franco/Rogen comedy. Now the backlash to this film's marketing will obscure the general merit of the film, which is, frankly, just alright. The film tries to do new things, and it does well with most of it. It has serviceable chuckles, but not enough hearty laughs (although the two older ladies in front of me were having the time of their life with this one). It's spooky, there's fun action, and it's worth seeing if you just want to have a good, fun, carefree time at the movies.

Nothing less. Nothing more.

Can't deny. Bustin' makes me feel good! 3 out of 5 Stars.

So have you seen the new Ghostbusters? What did you think? Whatever you have to say about me or the movies, comment below!

A Open Letter to Annoying Filmgoers

I almost included this blurb in my review of The Conjuring 2, but I judged that that wasn't the right place for it. However, in light of my screening for The Conjuring 2, I feel that audience etiquette must be addressed:

Dear Audience Members Who Forget Themselves,

If you do go see this film [The Conjuring 2], or in fact any movie at the theater, please be respectful of the other patrons in the auditorium. An evening show costs over $20 for two people, and we really don't want to hear your personal audio commentary track. If I wanted one, I'd buy the Blu-Ray, and those are by professional people who say things of worth. My mother and I watched the first film on Amazon and really enjoyed it, so we were excited to spend quality time enjoying the sequel in the theater. However, during a really tense scene, some people in our theater, you four in particular, were talking and giggling, and later singing along to Patrick Wilson's Elvis (which is a great character moment and a lovely scene), disrupting the entire atmosphere. Mother, bless her heart, snapped at them sternly and politely, finally shutting you up.

If you went to see a scary movie, I'm sure the only scary thing you wanted to see was up on the screen, but if you insist on being insufferable, you'll have a bunch of angry-faced patrons staring into your soul. And that will suck. So if your normal exercise is to talk during a movie, stay at home and wait for the DVDs, so the rest of us can enjoy a high-quality movie the way it was intended: with perfect surround sound and image quality, and none of your voice. I know this doesn't apply to many of my dear readers, who stumbled upon this note and respect movies and other people, in which case the "yous" used in this memorandum, can be ignored. There are others, though, who should not fool themselves. Don't think of yourselves at the movies, and don't merely think of the case of me and my mother. Think of others. After all, Jesus said, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." And I'm pretty sure you wouldn't want me talking during your quality time after spending $20 either. And that's without a jumbo popcorn.

Sincerely,
Patrons of Cinema and Good Times

Don't let this be your audience. Be respectful during the motion picture.

NEW MOVIE: The Conjuring 2

In 2013, James Wan introduced us to the terrifying history of the Warrens through The Conjuring. Three years later, he has returned to the case files to bring the story of the Enfield Poltergeist in The Conjuring 2. The Conjuring was one of the best horror films I've seen; does the second one hold up?

Rated R for terror and horror violence

The Conjuring 2 once again stars Vera Farmiga (Bates Motel) and Patrick Wilson (Insidious) as real-life paranormal investigators Ed and Lorraine Warren. As Lorraine witnesses terrifying premonitions after the case in Amityville, she's ready to give the paranormal activity a rest. However, the Catholic Church requires somebody to check to see if a widely-publicized case in Enfield, England, is legitimate or not before it can get involved. The Warrens go and soon become involved in a case that threatens to tear families apart, including theirs.

The Conjuring 2 is longer, more intense, more scary, more powerful, and more emotional than the first, but it's not always better. Farmiga and Wilson still have great chemistry, and it really shows in this one more so than in its predecessor. Whether you believe the stories or not (admittedly, this one takes too many evident liberties to take the "true story" label at face value), the reality of the characters, if not the story, is palpable. Much like the first film, The Conjuring 2 refuses to be a straight-up horror film, and often acts as a family drama. While the Hodgson family is having trouble being believed, the Warrens take it upon themselves to reunite a broken family, making for great scenes that further explore the Warrens' relationship, such as when Ed plays Elvis for the children to cheer them up or when Ed and Lorraine, on different occasions, share their love story with the tormented girl Janet (Madison Wolfe, Trumbo, The Campaign). An improved soundtrack also makes these moments resonate. A sensitive soul could get teary-eyed watching this, and not just from getting the kitchen sink scared out of them.

The aforementioned chemistry comes into play with the love of Ed and Lorraine being challenged by evil forces opposing their work. Again, The Conjuring 2 plays with the issue of the Warrens' faith. In the first film, a lot of this was on Ed's nervousness about performing an exorcism. The second film plays with it on a more personal level as now Lorraine is the one in conflict. Lorraine becomes increasingly worried about a demon nun that's been haunting her visions and the accompanying threat on her husband's life. Because of this, she's far less willing to get involved in Enfield than she was at the Perron farm. Through this arises an interesting scenario: trusting in God's will in her family's plight against the demonic, or securing her husband's safety by neglecting those in need of their help. This drama leads to an exciting finale that had me feeling one of those "Yes, hallelujah, Jesus!" moments more than God's Not Dead or War Room ever mustered. (I don't mean to insult War Room by putting it in the same company as the former, as it was better than average, but I did feel more hallelujah in this horror film than in that drama.)

The acting is also exceptional this time around. Even though the movie's showing of scares at the house undermines the reasonable seeds of doubt it tries to plant (this is one of the more questioned hauntings in paranormal history), Young Madison Wolfe as Janet is extraordinarily good as she performs a wide variety of characterization. While we do believe what she's experiencing--the movie shows us--she does a good job portraying innocence, demonic evil, and possible deception. This all isn't to say that the acting in the first film was bad; I just found the sequel's to be more notable.

Even though Bathsheba was a terrifying villain in the first film, the ghostly Bill Wilkins and the demon nun have her beat this time around. While they don't have the same oppressive force over the home as Bathsheba did, they are much creepier and scarier, and I believe it's because overall they affect not just the haunted family, but the Warrens as well, even more so than the Annabelle scare scene in the predecessor. Conceptually, they are more terrifying than the Bathsheba demon, and they stay the course of scares for the most part until the very end. The revelations that occur and the way the two connect are interesting and exciting to unveil, and really terrify me for The Nun spin-off that is reportedly in the works.

Not exactly the first thing I'd want hanging around, but okay, you do you.

As much as the sequel builds upon The Conjuring in terms of plot, character, and scares, it does have a handful of issues. For one, the film is longer, which isn't a bad thing. Because of it, we get to explore the characters more. Unfortunately, a good beginning chunk of this time is spent struggling to figure out where it's going and figuring out what the movie wants to be. When we see all the connective tissue at the finale's end, it doesn't seem as bad, but it didn't start out as strong as one would hope. Also, while most of the scares are very good, very well-built-up, and very effective, there is one in particular that started out clever then just seemed out of place. Without spoiling anything, an object transforms into a monster. Understandably, there is CGI used to achieve the effect, but I was surprised when the monster stayed CGI until the end of the sequence considering how practical the original was. It took me out of the movie for a little bit, but it soon righted itself. In the end, The Conjuring 2 is another strong entry in the Warren franchise. Despite a few notable missteps, the film does end up being scarier and more intense, but also more powerful and emotional than its predecessor. I give it 4.5/5 Stars. It's not perfect, but it still does a lot of good.


So what is your opinion on The Conjuring franchise? Did you feel this was a worthy entry? Also, please take a moment and read this brief open letter on my experience of watching The Conjuring 2. I felt the review was not an appropriate place for it, but it still needed to be said. Whatever you have to say about me or the movies, comment below!

MOVIE REVIEW: The Conjuring

When The Conjuring came out in 2013, it was best known for being rated R just for being so scary. The MPAA told the filmmakers that there was nothing that could be cut to make it PG-13. Now that we know the film is confirmed to be scary, does the film succeed in other aspects, such as story and character?

Rated R for sequences of disturbing violence and terror

The Conjuring stars Vera Farmiga (Bates Motel) and Patrick Wilson (Insidious, Watchmen) as famous (or infamous) paranormal investigators Ed and Lorraine Warren. Over the course of the film, they become involved in the haunting of the Perron family at their new farm and try to help the family battle the demonic forces at work.

The Conjuring is a great film, no question about it. The scares are extremely effective and steadily built upon to make reveals even more terrifying. Each scare sequence peels back layers that make the next build-up tenser as it leads to a scare that peels back more layers, culminating in a terrifying and exciting finale. Much like Jaws, the suspense and terror comes from knowing what is the force at work without actually seeing it, and it is that idea of suggestibility that makes the film scarier than your average horror or Jason slasher.

James Wan (Saw, Insidious) uses lighting and colors to clue the audience in to what is good and bad, what is innocent and what is insidious. Towards the beginning of the film, Ed gives a tour of his museum of hellish artifacts, where he makes it very clear that what is in there is dangerous and the only reason they keep all of them at home with them is so they don't wreak havoc on anybody else. When he leaves the museum, his black shirt becomes apparent and starkly contrasts with his wife's white outfit; she stayed out of the museum and resembles the purity in contrast to the spiritual muck Ed was walking around. Other than the museum area, the Warrens' house is bright and inviting. Contrast this with the Perron's farm, which has a very dark aesthetic. Of course, that's where everything hits the fan. Whenever we were at the Warrens or a university they visit, I was relaxed. Whenever we were at the Perron's, I tensed up like a deer on the highway. The metaphorical fresh air made the terrifying sequences stand out as even more terrifying, much like we were only nervous about a shark during Jaws when there was a beach scene...or Brody was stuck in the middle of the ocean with a killer shark. It's a master craft.

Now back to the idea of suggestibility. There are certainly times when you see the demons and ghosts in The Conjuring (that is, if you're not covering your eyes), but one sequence that I can never forget is towards the climax when the demons strike back against the Warren family on a personal level: terrorizing their daughter. In this scene, tension is built by what is unseen. We hear banging, we hear silence, we see light. Then the light disappears and the darkness submerges the once-haven that is the Warrens' home; the creepy Annabelle doll is gone. The daughter tries to escape it by hiding in another room, but the darkness submerges that room and the banging returns, too. Then silence: all but a creaking. She turns around and there's a rocking chair with an old hag combing Annabelle. It is terrifying; for me, mostly because we never see the hag's face. In this scene and other scenes like it, such as the iconic clapping scene, our imagination, with the atmosphere and build-up, conjures up something so terrifying it must be inhuman.

The technical parts of the film are also strong. The makeup for the Bathsheba demon (Joseph Bishara, the film's composer) is terrifyingly disgusting and hellish, and when she possesses a character the merger is creepy. Overall, the makeup helps the dead (or supernatural) look otherwordly. Furthermore, the makeup department clues us in on the physical impact of the hauntings on this family, with the mother Carolyn (Lili Taylor, I Shot Andy Warhol, The Haunting) look worse and worse with each scene. The special effects are subtle and make the terror seem real and palpable. A lot of them are very low-key, so it stays intimately horrific instead of a SFX guy showing off what he can do on a computer; we've come a long way since the first Poltergeist. I have no idea how James Wan accomplished some of these shots--what is real and what is not--so major props there. The costuming helps put us in the 1970s period the film takes place in. Although sometimes, the dialogue's attempts to put us in the era aren't so "groovy," but the scene in question is light-hearted.

But where the dialogue isn't always so radical, the script makes up for it in characterization. The Warrens' relationship is so well-realized you can't help but get behind them. Furthermore, I found it especially interesting how they were characterized as devout Christians who believe they "were brought together for a reason." Lorraine's belief that the Perron case is the reason God put them together, as well as a dramatic flashback that explains why Ed is so concerned for Lorraine, really raises the emotional stakes for the final exorcism scene. Because of this, the finale isn't a conventional "gotta get the demon out" spectacle, but a emotional culmination of character arcs.

The Warrens are great characters, mostly due to how the film makes us care for them.

Whereas the stereotype for horror films is that they only try to make a bloody spectacle with a gruesome beast with no regard for the human characters, The Conjuring is nothing like that. The film is not gory, nor is there strong language. I see the film rather as a drama with scary scenes. Yes, the film is frightening and I still look over my shoulder and get spooked in the dead of night because of it, but the film also is full of hope. The idea the film conveys of the power of God and of love being greater than the dark and oppressive evil is especially powerful.  While it doesn't market itself as a Christian movie, the Christian vibe is very much there, opening with a Bible verse and ending with a quote by Ed Warren, warning us of the reality of the supernatural, of Hell, and of God, and the decision that makes an eternal impact. The Hayes Brothers, who wrote the film, do a fantastic job of conveying a powerful Christian message without beating it over our heads nor slandering other people like God's Not Dead or other PureFlix "inspirational dramas" do. To me, this makes it not only a great and deep film, but required viewing for Christians who wish to use media to connect to our culture. It's not a film about the terror of demons; it's a film about the power of faith in Christ despite the very real terror of the demonic. This is a very well-acted, well-written, powerful, scary drama masterfully crafted by James Wan and the Hayes Brothers. Because the only qualm I had with it were two lines, I have to give it 5 out of 5 stars. If I ever see the Blu-Ray, I will buy it in a heartbeat. I also encourage you to read and listen to interviews with the Hayes Brothers if you get the chance.

Have you seen The Conjuring? What did you think about it? Are you anticipating The Conjuring 2? Whatever you have to say about me or the movies, comment below!