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!

NEW MOVIE: Finding Dory

Pixar has, for a long time, been at the top of the animation game, typically producing work that is not only technically revolutionary, but universally affecting. With 2016 comes a sequel to one of their most successful movies. Does Finding Dory have the same Pixar touch as the best of its contemporaries?

Rated PG for mild thematic elements

Finding Dory takes place a year after 2003's Finding Nemo.  We open to a look of what Dory (Ellen DeGeneres) was up to when she and Marlin (Albert Brooks, The Simpsons Movie, Drive) first met, then follows the blue tang as she begins remembering elements from her past. So begins another cross-ocean/cross-country adventure to find those important to us: family.

Finding Dory is a fantastic film and a beautifully-animated movie. It stands firmly on its own while building on the strengths of its predecessor. Whereas the title Finding Dory suggests that it could very easily become a simple rehash of the original, just with a different fish, it isn't. Nemo told two stories: Dory and Marlin's search for Nemo, and Nemo's finding himself. Dory isn't just about Marlin and Nemo finding Dory after she's taken by the Marine Life Institute; it's about Dory finding her parents, and finding how to accept herself despite her disability of short-term memory loss. These plots make for a moving film.

That said, like the best of Pixar, the moving family drama is coupled with smart humor. This sequel introduces several new characters, and puts many of the original's supporting characters in fun and creative cameo roles. Luckily, this all works out to make an entertaining ensemble. Hank the septapus (Ed O'Neill, Modern Family, Married...with Children!) becomes Dory's escape partner in the Institute, and their dynamic is really fun to watch as he helps her try to find her family (although reluctantly at first). Her whale friends, played by Ty Burrell (Modern Family, Muppets Most Wanted) and Kaitlin Olson (It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia), are welcome additions and provide some great comedic moments. I love how Stanton thought to build on Dory's whale-talk by introducing actual whale characters; it's a natural progression! When Dory and the clownfish separate, Dory isn't the only one to meet new people. The clownfish meet some sea lion at the institute, voiced by Dominic West (John Carter, The Wire) and Idris Elba (in a much lighter role after voicing Shere Khan in The Jungle Book). They provide great comedic moments with their interactions with the stupid sea lion Gerald and loony common loon Becky. It's a pleasure to see Nemo encourage his father to be trusting in these people who seem useless on the outside, like Becky and even Dory; it gives them purpose and relevance in a film that is more about Dory.

It's a great balance this film has, where it can make us guffaw at characters like Gerald and the sea lions and otters, but also make us really emotionally invested in Dory's adventure. When she's at her lowest point and lost, the film feels like a mature drama. When we meet the colorful newcomers, the film feels like a hilarious adventure. Yet it never feels like a tonal inconsistency, but natural. The film never goes overboard with anything, and it's all treated in moderation. Even though Nemo's advice, "What would Dory do?" could get old if repeated too many times, it's not. Even though Dory's flashbacks when she encounters triggers threaten to get annoying and convenient, it doesn't. Even though it could make a preachy message on environmentalism, it doesn't, comfortable that we can get it through visual cues, like sunken Volkswagons, or wrappers and other pollution that characters get stuck in. Because of the moderation, there are no qualms to be had with the material, yet we're still affected by it, whether Stanton wants us to feel excited, adventurous, entertained, giggly, or worried. That's why I have to give Finding Dory a perfect 5 out of 5 stars.

Hank, a great addition, and Dory have the best interactions of any characters in the film.

There is so much more that could be said about Finding Dory, but I don't want to gush over things that would be better experienced for the first time in a theater without much prior knowledge. The film feels like an ideal and natural continuation of the characters of Finding Nemo. And perhaps there we find the genius of this Pixar sequel. It cares about the characters more than the story. Usually when we think of sequels, we start forming a story that would be in the spirit of the original, but then we either get a rehash or something too big for our characters. This sequel, though, takes us on a character's journey rather than a journey with beloved characters. Whereas an X-Men: The Last Stand creates bigger stakes and a bigger story for the characters to experience, Finding Dory's story evolves from the maturation of the characters, whether in dealing with a handicap or experiencing loss for the first time. Go see it at the theater, stay until the very end of the credits, and experience what has the Best Animated Feature Oscar in the bag. Also, the preceding short film, Piper, is the most beautiful animation I have ever seen: a cute story of a young bird learning how to adapt to its surroundings and being brave. The animation really is stunning in how real it looks.

Note: I have been made aware by some foster parents that the film's dealing with heavy topics of abandonment and loss may be difficult for some foster/adopted kids. If you are a foster/adoption parent, it has been suggested that you preview the film for your children before taking them to see it. I thought the film was fantastic, but I also have not had experiences like these characters have that would act as a trigger. I thought I would share this information with my readers.

Have you seen Finding Dory? What's your favorite Pixar film? Whatever you have to say about me or the movies, comment below!

NEW MOVIE: The Jungle Book

Walt Disney Studios has released yet another live action remake of one of their animated classics. Beginning with the "okay" Alice in Wonderland and continuing on to a widely well-received Cinderella, how is The Jungle Book?

Rated PG for some sequences of scary action and peril

Directed by Jon Favreau (Elf, Iron Man), The Jungle Book is a retelling of the 1967 animated classic (also Walt Disney's last film) and follows the story of Mowgli and his journey to find himself in the jungle. For me, this film had a lot to prove. The original animation was one of my favorite movies growing up, and I still love it when I watch it today. Gratefully, this new one exceeds the original in almost every way.

In a creative choice, Favreau chose for the film to be completely animated besides Mowgli, and the choice pays off. The film is absolutely gorgeous, especially in 3D, and really brings life to these characters in ways that other family films have never reached. I felt completely immersed in this world, and while I knew everything was animated, I never doubted it was real. Neel Sethi, in his debut performance, is much to thank for this. Though being young, he had such chemistry with the animated creatures, and very rarely did he betray that he was actually talking to crew members with colored sticks and puppets in a soundstage. Furthermore, the voice cast is stellar. Bill Murray (Ghostbusters, Garfield) is the standout as Baloo, the lovable, relaxed bear who befriends Mowgli with his knowledge of the bare necessities of life. It really is a perfect match. Ben Kingsley (Gandhi, Schindler's List) and Idris Elba (Luther, Pacific Rim) are also rather good as Bagheera the paternal panther and Shere Khan the villainous tiger, respectively.

But the real question is: is it worth seeing if I've seen the original? Voice acting and animation were two things that the original succeeded in completely, so what sets this one apart at all? Simply put, the story is better. For as fun as the original animation is, there's very little connecting the pieces together; Mowgli travels from one animal vignette to another, and Bagheera and Baloo look for him. The new film cuts many of the vignettes, such as the marching elephant brigade scene (though they still appear in a more reverent role) and the vultures to streamline the film, and thankfully develops and expands what remains. We care more for Mowgli's wolf family, even after he leaves, since Favreau gives them stakes as Shere Khan terrorizes them, and the cubs are so adorable. The time with King Louie (Christopher Walken, Pulp Fiction, Catch Me If You Can) is extended into a thrilling chase sequence, and the film even develops a moral through the original book's Law of the Jungle passage. The result is a film that feels more concise and powerful than its predecessor.

That's not to say the film is no longer fun. In tradition with the other recent Disney remakes, this is not a musical, though there are two musical sequences, taking the two most popular songs from the original film and using them in basically the same way. Baloo and Mowgli sing a new rendition of "The Bare Necessities," which is a joy to hear from the jazzy baritone of Bill Murray, and we get an odd but still delightful version of "I Wanna Be Like You" by Christopher Walken. The latter is the only one that feels somewhat out of place because of how they jumbo-sized Louie to a Gigantopithicus ape, changed the story, and made Louie into a more antagonistic presence. However, I could still give it a pass while watching it because it's simply delightful. There are other easter eggs and character rapports that provide additional levity.

The only part that feels short-changed in this new film is the much-publicized character of Kaa the snake (Scarlett Johansson, The Avengers, Her). Honestly, she's not given much purpose in the film other than to provide exposition about Mowgli and the fiery "red flower" plot device. Her scene is well-done and is hypnotizing, but it is her only appearance in the film. Heck, the elephants have more screentime than her and they say nothing. Her role is now humorless and her song, "Trust in Me," is cut. Oddly enough, that song, in which Scarlett Johansson does a rather good job, is in the credits with the other two numbers mentioned above, so part of me thinks her scene was trimmed for time to get to Baloo and Bagheera quicker. I still felt she was relatively useless in the film, though, and I would have liked to have seen her play a bigger role in the film like in the original. Regardless, that is really my sole complaint in a film that is very strong and will most definitely get some Oscar buzz next year, at least in visual effects.

The film is gorgeous to behold, and feels real due to the performances.

To conclude, The Jungle Book is a textbook example on how to properly do a remake of an already great film and make it still stand sturdy alone. It is visually masterful and it reeks of passion. Despite a short-changed snake scene and slightly awkward reworkings, the film streamlines the original film and develops it into something stronger that respects all the material that came before it. I give it 4.5 out of 5 stars. This is hands-down one of the best films of the year, and it is definitely worth your time. Furthermore, it gives me hope for future remakes of Disney films, such as August's Pete's Dragon and next year's Beauty and the Beast. Because of my tardiness in getting this review out (regrettably, I saw this opening weekend, and didn't find an opportunity to review it until now), it may be harder to find a theater still showing it, but if you get any opportunity at all to see it, take it. Favreau has definitely given Andy Serkis and Warner Bros. a run for their money in 2018.

Note: The Jungle Book is more intense than the original cartoon, so be wary of showing it to younger children. They will connect with Mowgli and his adventures for sure, but they will lose interest once they're screaming because of scary large snakes, scarred murderous tigers, and a jump-scaring Gigantopithicus (they won't be comforted by the fact it is Christopher Walken) over the course of the film's near-2 hour runtime. The PG rating is definitely deserved on this one so I'd wait till they're 8 or 9. If they can handle Indiana Jones or Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, they can handle this. If they can't handle Monsters, Inc., you might want to hold off a little longer.

Have you seen The Jungle Book yet? Which version have you preferred of this story? What is your thought on the recent Disney remakes? Whatever you have to say about me or the moves, comment below!

NEW MOVIE: Love & Friendship

Today, I'm reviewing Love & Friendship. "What is this movie? I've never seen a single trailer for it on the telly!" you are 99.9% definitely saying. "Why would I want to see this?" Well, I suppose I could be of some use to you!

Rated PG for some thematic elements

Starring Kate Beckinsale (Underworld, Total Recall, Much Ado About Nothing), Love & Friendship is based on Jane Austen's novella Lady Susan and is a romantic comedy about love and deception set in Victorian England. Lady Susan (Beckinsale) is looking to wed and stays with her relatives in Churchill to court the much younger Reginald DeCourcy (Xavier Samuel, The Twilight Saga: Eclipse, Anonymous) whilst juggling domestic affairs with her unhappy daughter Frederica (Morfydd Clark, of the stage) and with other suitors.

I must disclose that I am no expert in Jane Austen's literature, having never read one of her novels (though I do have a book that seems interesting on my shelf called I Was Jane Austen's Best Friend that I still haven't read). I did, however, see the adaptation Emma with Gwyneth Paltrow in middle school, and I did enjoy it, so I was optimistic about this one. I was not disappointed; this film is rather good, as well, though not without issue.

Not having read Lady Susan, I found the plot occasionally hard to follow. There are several characters to keep track of, and because I was unfamiliar with many of the actors in the film, it was hard to keep track of who was who and who does what. Additionally, the film is relatively slow-paced. The first fifteen minutes (or so it felt; I wasn't keeping track of time) didn't quite hook me in as a film should and it was difficult to connect to the characters in this time of introduction--it felt distanced from the audience, which, come to think of it, is natural. This is from a completely different time and culture than we are in now, and feels very different from a typical film or modern drama, and the classical-style score very much cements that feeling. Director Whit Stillman (Metropolitan, The Last Days of Disco) attempts to properly introduce his characters by having characters appear in their own extended frames with their names underneath with a witty description, as if it were a play's program, but the frames are fleeting and therefore not always useful, though provide good chuckles. He still tries to make sure we leave the theater knowing who the characters were and reintroduces them before the final credits roll with actor and character name superimposed on a brief clip of a scene of them from the movie. It's a flip of the coin whether it was effective or not, but it certainly makes it feel like the movie never actually ended after it does, which is unfortunate but not terrible.

Gratefully, the film does pick up with plenty of time left, and in the end, Love & Friendship is a fun, witty, independent comedy with great performances. Everyone seems to enjoy the roles they're playing. Kate Beckinsale is rather good as Lady Susan Vernon, a sly and deviously deceptive woman. Luckily, the mix of script and cold performance ensure that the characters' reactions to her actions and biddings are believable, but also make sure that the audience knows she's not a woman to be trusted. When Emma Greenwell (Shameless) as sister-in-law Catherine Vernon tips off to her mother that Lady Susan is a genius who can manipulate any man to bow to her will, I very much believed it. However, Beckinsale is not the only standout. Tom Bennett shines as the gleefully stupid Sir James Martin, a delightful mix of Dogberry and Michael Scott. He had me doubling over in my seat. His performance is so ridiculous, the film is worth seeing for him alone.

Now Sir Martin is involved in the giant love affair: he's Frederica Vernon's "unintended" suitor, meaning she does not like him at all in the prospect of marriage (though she could "if he were a brother or a cousin or a second cousin or a step-something). Frederica, though, has begun to fall for Reginald DeCourcy, much to the joy of the DeCourcys. Actors Clark and Samuel have tremendous chemistry and are a joy to watch, sometimes outshining Lady Susan's own plots. Their pairing makes them incredibly likable heroes in this often farcical story.

One more thing to note: I very much appreciated Stillman's use of color in the film. The costumes are very bright, as you can see in the photograph below, but the screen aesthetic also plays a role. The film has that mildly dull, period piece look to it, but once a certain event happens at the end of the film, when things come out right (it is a comedy!), the film becomes much, much brighter, almost blindingly so, with light blues and bright yellows coming out. There's also a fun but subtle bit of humor at the end that underscores an innuendo that I thought was very clever, but for the sake of you, dear reader, I wish not to spoil with explanation.

"A lovely family portrait."

In the end, Love & Friendship is a delightful film. The humor is sharp and witty, many thanks to Beckinsale and Bennett's dedicated performances. Despite losing me at times, the film comes together and comes out a fun story of true love and deception. For the most part, you know what you're getting going into this--if you like Jane Austen, you will adore this movie (the six other people in my theater were very much into it); if not, you may find enjoyment. Either way, I feel like it was $10 well-spent. If you catch it someday, you will likely enjoy it. I give Love & Friendship 4 out of 5 stars.

Have you heard of this film? Are you a Jane Austen aficionado? On an unrelated note, I do plan to catch up on earlier films I have seen and not yet reviewed due to other priorities, such as The Jungle Book and Deadpool, so keep an eye out for those. But whatever you have to say about me or the movies, comment below!

Farewell to the Calvary Film Society

On May 13, 2016, the Calvary Film Society screened its final film for the 2015-2016 season, The Shootist, as part of the theme "First & Last." Incidentally, it was also my last film night. I have been a member of the Film Society for four years--all of high school--and even wrote up a post about it in 2013, "The Film Society: Culture Made." To commemorate my parting and having written about my introduction to it, I find it only fitting to share my parting words with the greatest thing about Calvary Christian High School:

I remember going to my very first Calvary Film Society meeting. The film was The Birds. The whole week leading up to it, black birds were abound, circling CCHS. It was an uncanny connection, to say the least. Usually these birds resemble the death of something, but in October 2012 they signaled the beginning of my involvement with the most formative extracurricular activity for me during high school.

It was more than just a club. It is a society that makes one think intellectually about a film--not a movie: cinema--as art, and forces you to consider media from a spiritual, philosophical, and critical perspective. No film confirmed that more than Terrence Malick's The Tree of Life, Mr. Jon Seals's swan song.

At the beginning of my junior year, Mr. Bohlander approached me about serving as the President of the Calvary Film Society (Student Representative, publicly). He, Mrs. Johnson, and Mr. Perkins explained this was not a usual position. They only appointed someone as such only if they saw it fit to, and if there was a true love, a passion for film--the last one to fill it was Matt Voor who has since graduated from the FSU Film School. I happily accepted the position.

Since then, I have helped organize the (quasi-)monthly film nights, assisted with film selection, and some other things. Amongst those, I was blessed enough to be able to lead three discussions, my own pick--Noah--on March 2015 (in retrospect, I am surprised that that made it into the CFS canon--thank you, Sponsors, for your faith in me!). This year I was able to lead two. In January, we talked about horror and style through Jaws, the first blockbuster, and in April, I led a discussion on the 1959 Journey to the Center of the Earth and talked about its place smack dab in the middle of film history. This year I have also given introductions to most of the films. Doing this has made me a more mature film aficionado and more knowledgeable on how to best communicate with an audience.

As the credits roll on my last night, I should reflect on the three pictured items. Every meeting, I have carried around a blue notebook. This notebook, originally purposed for Spanish class on virtual school, has since become synonymous with CFS. I have recorded my Oscar predictions in it, have written notes of films, and have preserved almost all past Film Society discussion notes in its pages (back when we printed them). This will always be a token of what the Calvary Film Society was to me.

Beside it are parting gifts from the three people who gave me this leadership opportunity. They signed a colorful "picture documentary" (as Mr. Perkins called it) on the work of Wes Anderson, The Wes Anderson Collection. I will treasure it and study it, using it to look deeper at Anderson's films. To me, this represents what the Calvary Film Society always is.

Finally, there is the Ticket Stub Diary. Should my path not change. I will be going to the cineplex quite often for the next several years. Ever since 2012 I have saved my ticket stubs (unless they curiously disappear) and I will continue to do so. But it will also become a collection of the films I will talk about and write about intellectually, critically, etc. For me, this represents the legacy of the Calvary Film Society in my life.

For the past seven years, the Calvary Film Society has affected so many students and has brought back student and faculty alumni. With the other founder returning and an ever-growing collection of student patrons of this art, I do not anticipate the end anytime soon. I will not be as regular as I have been the past four years (for obvious reasons) but I hope that through my tenure I have been able to affect you all by a t least a fraction of how the Calvary Film Society has affected me. Thank you for the discussions, thank you for the opportunities, and thank you for everything else.

Until next time, "I'll see you at the movies."