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."

NEW MOVIE: The Boy

The Boy is the second horror film of 2016, and one of many creepy doll movies, one of many creepy house movies, and certainly not the last of bad horror movies. The Boy stars Lauren Cohan from The Walking Dead as an American who is hired to be a nanny in a secluded mansion in the UK. As we all know, the boy she is nannying is not just any boy; he's a porcelain doll named Brahms. While the concept is not in any way new or fresh (we just had Annabelle a little over a year ago, it has the same rule trope as Gremlins, and the attic scene is just Christmas Vacation with a Gothic vibe), there is something that makes the film interesting.

Rated PG-13 for violence and terror, and for some thematic material

Remarkably, the performances are actually good. Cohan makes most of her character's actions believable, especially when we learn some of the horror she's experienced in the past. Even though the concept is somewhat ridiculous (which is brought up in dialogue), she makes us the viewer believe the circumstances, making the first half pretty tolerable as far as the story is concerned. Rupert Evans, from The Man in High Castle (another popular television show), is also good as the family's delivery boy, and he and Cohan have good chemistry together as romantic leads (that doesn't mean I wasn't suspecting him of being a villain for half the movie).

It's also worth mentioning that the film builds suspense rather well. Where it disappoints is in scares, I thought. I felt uneasy at times during the movie when it was building up the tension. Unfortunately, all but maybe two of the scares in the movie are not silly jump scares. By that I mean, fake-outs. For example, the first scare in the film is the hand grab out of the portrait that ends the trailers. The build-up to it is nice: there's a bump in the night, she goes walking to figure out the source, sees the portrait, looks around, then there's a really loud noise as the ghost hand pops up!--and...it's just a dream. The next scare happens, and it's just a dream. Heck, there's even one scare in the attic where there's literally just a loud noise. I think there was supposed to be something on screen to accompany it, but I couldn't make it out. So I jumped because of the noise, but I was more confused than anything. As a result of the inefficiency, I didn't believe the movie the way the movie wanted me to. I'm sure the 13 year olds screaming behind me did, but the jump scares didn't do anything for me. Granted, I wasn't looking for a Jaws, but there could have been better resolutions.

But besides the lack of scariness to accompanying the suspense, there is an even worse offender that completely negates the moody suspense and the fine performances: the twist and the third act. I'll save you the spoilers if you do decide to see this movie (which you shouldn't), but I was angered by it. As we learn more about Greta through phone calls from her family in America, we learn that she was the victim of an abusive boyfriend that had terrible consequences. Because of those events and the trauma she experiences over the course of the film, I felt invested in a film about the psychological effects of these real-life horrors that also provided a tragic comparison between her and Brahms's parents. Just thinking about the potential makes me wish that was the movie I saw.

But, of course, the writer doesn't seem to recognize the potential behind the film to make a work that could raise awareness on an important issue while providing an unconventional horror. Instead what we get is a film that tells us that Greta was abused and then goes and abuses her, needlessly sexualizing her in a gratuitous (though non-explicit) shower scene and further torturing her when we realize the disturbing implications of the twist. The twist also reveals the inconsistency of the film: it began as a Gothic horror, developed as a ghost movie, then became an interesting psychological horror, then debased itself into a suspenseless PG-13 slasher that takes all the character development and important themes and burns them, throws them out the window, and dances on the ashes whilst making it rain with the millions in profit. When the theme music that introduced us to the creepy atmosphere plays during the last moments of the movie, it feels inauthentic and too good for the movie that we got in the end. We came in and got one thing, then left with something completely different and worse.

One may say, "Adam, it's just a stupid horror movie. You're thinking too much into it." To which I say, "Why shouldn't we look at a movie with depth?" Performances aside, this movie is beyond hollow. The fact that it disregarded the heaviness of Greta's past for a cheap finale chase and a stupid final shot that tries to set up Brahms as the newest horror icon is wrong. Greta was a well-developed character until the movie just didn't care. This isn't even a question of a strong female character or not--this is beyond that. This movie is morally wrong. It really upsets me how they made us empathize with a past that may have had sexual abuse and then goes on and metaphorically does the same to her.

Well, you did! You hurt me pretty bad after I had to sit through this awful thing.

I give this film 1 out of 5 stars. It's a thoroughly disappointing horror movie that had a lot of potential, good performances, and a creepy, suspenseful feel, but it ultimately threw all that away in favor of non-scary scares and a cheap, albeit surprising, finale that in turn cheapened the rest of the film to the point that it just felt wrong on so many levels. I left the theater hating it, and the more I thought about it, I hated it even more. If I hadn't seen Paul Blart 2 last year, I would've said this was the worst movie I've ever seen in a theater. But congratulations, Mall Cop, at least you've got that going for you.

So did you see The Boy? What did you think about it? How does it compare to other horror you've seen? Whatever you have to say about me or the movies, comment below!

GUEST REVIEW: Home Alone

For those of you who don't know, I'm the student representative of my school's Film Society. Our goal as the Calvary Film Society is to present films for those interested in not only the artistic and entertaining elements of films, but also the messages and worldviews they portray, following up each film viewing with discussion and analysis. At our annual Christmas party, we announced a contest for free movie tickets, that being a contest for the best review of the night's film Home Alone. In addition to the movie tickets, the winner would have their review published here on my blog. Our winner was Jordan Watt, and to close out the holiday season, here is his review, as promised. Congratulations, Jordan!

The film Home Alone is a unique film demonstrating the importance of family through the absence of family in the Christmas season. In this movie, Kevin, the protagonist, is set in a busy world and is neglected by the people whom he wishes most to be acknowledged, which is his family. When he does get attention from his family, it is in a largely negative way. Kevin, after being continuously rejected by his family, wishes for his family to completely disappear so he can live without always being neglected. What he didn't realize was that he would be mistakenly left behind on a trip to Paris and his wish of not having a family would become true. 

In his initial revelation of his family being missing, he is filled with jubilee. He becomes a rule-free child in his family-free environment. After his initial jubilee, he felt a gap in his life where his family once was. Kevin began noticing increasingly more the joy of other families and the lack of his, because of his ill wishes against his family. This was a symbolic standpoint in Kevin's view of his family. He had wished them away because of his own selfish wants, but he also realized how important they were. They cared for him and gave him a core in his life. After this point, Kevin becomes a more considerate kid towards his friendly surrounding people, and sought after becoming a better person. 

When Harry and Marv, the antagonists, planned to rob Kevin's home, Kevin sought to develop the religious part of himself. He went to church in a very symbolic way to be cleansed of his sins and confess his need for his family back. While doing this he is confronted by his mysterious neighbor, Marley, who Kevin's brother said was a murderer. Kevin was frightened at first, but was calmed by Marley's dismissing of the rumor. He told Kevin about the importance of family, and how even his family was split up because of arguments. Kevin, noticing that they were going through the same sort of pain, gave him advice on how he would approach it. Marley was thankful for the advice, and Kevin left him to prepare his home for defense. 

Kevin's vast imagination of a child allowed him to expertly trap his home. His new perspective on the importance of his family drove him to protect what belonged to his family. Harry and Marv were driven to steal from Kevin's family because of their selfish drive for possessions. Kevin sabotaged their plans by keeping a level head and through his newfound clarity. When Kevin is pushed to his limit and caught by the burglars, his impact on Marley cycled back to him. Marley incapacitated the burglars and rescued Kevin. The police arrived and all was well. 

Except that Kevin remained without a family. He decided to set up his house for Santa, and prayed again for his family to be returned. He no longer wanted anything but for them to return. Kevin fell asleep, and awoke to a snowy Christmas morning. He rushed to check for his family, but with no reward. His family was nowhere to be seen. At this point his hope was crushed, and he was at his lowest. He felt he had truly lost without what he now wanted so badly. To his great surprise, his mother arrived at the house, and he greeted her with the greatest love. He was joyful that his mother was there, but he wished he could embrace the rest of his family and be reconnected with them. Again, to Kevin's great joy, they also arrived at his home and he was praised for his bravery. He was acknowledged and loved by his family like no other time. He felt the most joyful he had ever experienced. After greeting his family, Kevin witnesses again the impact he had on Marley. Marley had called his son and talked to him about their argument before. His son and family visited and they all embraced and were reconnected as a family, just like Kevin was. In the end, Kevin and Marley both developed as a family member, and in their faith. They truly experienced the importance of family, and the real reason for the season—Christ.

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

Now what did you think about Home Alone? What's your favorite holiday movie? Whatever you have to say about the movies, comment below! And Happy Holidays!

NEW MOVIE: The Hunger Games: Mockingjay--Part 2

This past weekend saw the end of one of the more successful YA book adaptations since Harry Potter. In the past few movies, The Hunger Games series showed that it could be taken seriously as a movie for all to enjoy. Does the trend continue in the finale Mockingjay--Part 2?

Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and action, and for some thematic material

Mockingjay--Part 2 picks up pretty much where the first part left off (it's a very sudden opening, as if one merely switched the discs in a 2-part movie). We clearly have our conflicts for the final chapter at the open: can Peeta (Josh Hutcherson, Bridge to Terabithia) be trusted after his brainwashing at the end of the last film, and how will the Capitol be taken down? The pace at which these things transpire and are resolved take much longer to find their footing, so the first hour or so is kind of boring.

The thing I loved about Mockingjay--Part 1, my favorite of The Hunger Games movies, was the propaganda war. It allowed us to see the evolution of Katniss's character from tenuous winner to revolutionary icon. Unfortunately, though, the sequel doesn't cut the cord, leaving less of a distinction between the parts. Meaning, the film wants to go its own way, but it's bogged down by elements from its predecessor. I liked the filming of the propos before, but their appearance here makes the film progress slower than it should for being the final battle. That said, the film is exciting at a few points, frightening even, though derivative. I swear the final season of Falling Skies on TNT followed an extremely similar plot as the first act, all the way up to the sewer scene and corrupt rebellion, that this film lacked a lot of surprise, even if the source material came out before the alien show.

That said, even though the film lacked surprise doesn't mean it wasn't still suspenseful and powerful when it needed to be. The acting performances from the whole lot, especially from Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, and Donald Sutherland (as Katniss, Peeta, and perhaps less villainous President Snow), kept me invested even when the film dragged. Donald Sutherland embraces the evil that his character surely is, but at the same time, lets Katniss and the audience see his point of view, making a delightfully justifiable villain that maybe we want to let live in the end. A shocking scene towards the end is disturbing in all the best ways (my mouth was actually open in shock), and really lets us understand why Katniss does what she does as the film closes.

Considering that this is the final film in the series, it needs to have a good ending that wraps the series up well. Thankfully, it does, closing the series out with a fantastic final scene that is completely believable, and really, the series could not have closed out any other way: peaceful, a reprieve after the storm. The long tumultuous road, from bravery and sacrifice, from anger and unrest, from confusion and chaos--from war--to love and peace.

So all in all, The Hunger Games closes with a rather fine finale, that at times is derivative and slow, but makes up for all of it by being well-acted and exciting, while effectively closing out the series in a grim yet beautiful and bittersweet way. The Hunger Games: Mockingjay--Part 2 gets 3.5 out of 5 stars.

One last shot for the franchise!

Did you see this one? What did you think compared to the others? Whatever you have to say about me or the movies, comment below!

Summer Movie Recap

One of the downsides to reviewing films while still in school is trying to find time to do so. I saw all of these movies over the summer around the time of their release, but I haven't gotten a chance to talk about them until now. That said, the time has come, and here you go!

Rated PG for some violence

Paul Blart: Mall Cop 2 was a movie I was cautiously optimistic for. I really enjoyed the first one--it's a guilty pleasure through and through--but after six years, could they really pull off a good comedy sequel? In short, no. It's not even that the jokes fall flat in the most bizarrely misguided fashion imaginable; it completely forgot what made the first film enjoyable. The film opens with a narrated montage of extremely dark humor with his wife leaving him after a day or two, and his mother being run over by a milk truck. It leaves such a sour taste that it really struggles to make us think: "This is funny."

Sandwiching the cliche takeover heist plot in Vegas are only two jokes that work, and that's only because it embraced the ridiculousness of the original. The thing that made the ridiculousness work in the first one, though, was the character of Paul Blart, which Kevin James and the writers really forgot in the six year hiatus. No longer is Blart a well-meaning underdog who, despite the trials in his life, is a lovable overcomer; now he's a stupid, clueless and dorky bozo who is embittered by the hand life has dealt him. At the end of the film, we see the kindness of Paul again...only for him to act completely against it, saying, "Shouldn't have done that." As a result, the film is a cliche-filled, poorly-acted, unfunny, and heartless affair in which I wanted to leave the theater many a time. I really, really disliked this movie, and it is shaping up to be the worst of the year in my book. I mean, if you're rating description doesn't even say "humor" in it (rude, crude, or otherwise), something is terribly wrong.  1/5 Stars

Rated PG for sequences of sci-fi action violence and peril, thematic elements, and language

Tomorrowland was a film surrounded in mystery. Nobody really knew what it was, aside from a pet project by Brad Bird (The Incredibles, Mission: Impossible--Ghost Protocol). I was very excited to see it, especially since it was based on the ideals of Walt Disney himself! In the end, it was pretty average. The film is more about the journey to Tomorrowland moreso than it is about Tomorrowland itself. Unfortunately, the journey is very slow and sometimes boring, despite a handful of action sequences along the way. The first rut in the road is the beginning. The film is structured around a message by Casey (Britt Robertson) and Frank (George Clooney), a message for whom we don't know until the very end of the film. It's a cute way to structure a film, but because of this, we know both will survive to create this message, and therefore the stakes are very much lowered for the remaining two hours. Add on that a 20-plus minute scoop of exposition that really drags, especially since we know it's just a clip to get to know Frank more. Again, not a bad thing narratively--but on screen in comes off very slow. The real saving grace of the movie are the acting performances. Robertson makes a great leading woman and George Clooney adds a realism to sequences that in less capable hands would seem weird, such as his relationship with young Athena (Raffey Cassidy). There are interesting set pieces littered throughout the movie, and despite my interest in the idea of the movie and the curiosity of the characters, I didn't think the movie picked up until the third act. It's a shame the movie wasn't better or made more money because I'm almost confident a sequel could improve on it greatly and better cement its own ideals. If you happen to catch this one on TV or on demand, go ahead and watch it, but the idealism and performances just barely outweigh the pacing.   3/5 Stars

Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of science-fiction violence and peril

Jurassic World is a more interesting picture to talk about. At this point, I'd only be adding additional commentary since every one in America's seen it, shattering box office records across the board. In short, this is the Jurassic Park sequel we've been waiting for. The first one is a perfect movie, in my opinion; the second one, despite still having the same feel as its predecessor, has way too many undeveloped characters for us to care outside of the action setpieces; and Jurassic Park III is just a crime to the series, feeling complacent to be a passable action movie.

Many have decried this film as being overly reliant on nostalgia and falling prey to common tropes of the action genre, especially in its abundance with CGI. But then again, I think that's what director Colin Trevorrow was going for, and I think it makes it a smarter movie. The film feels like a Jurassic Park movie in its exciting yet constant callbacks to the original film. I don't fault the movie for that, necessarily. As for the trope-falling, I think the movie is smart in its stupidity. In the film, dinosaurs and the Jurassic World have simply become commonplace, inspiring the same excitement as the Dumbo ride at Disney after 33 go-arounds. By making the dinos CG for all but one scene, we see them as unexceptional, just as the characters do, making that one scene with AAs hit all the more. By including so much product placement, it satirizes the consumerist culture and significantly (and purposefully) downplays John Hammond's original vision for the Park in the 1993 film. Why include Jimmy Fallon as part of a ride? Well, I think it's fairly obvious, now that Universal is actually cranking out a Jimmy Fallon ride. While I'm certainly defending what Trevorrow was going for, at times it gets bothersome, like the needless slo-mo shot at the end.

Another thing that the movie lacks is memorable characters. Certainly, the film does a good job at making us care for their well-being in the heat of the action, but I can't remember many of them. While I can tell you--without Google--that in the first one, we had Dr. Alan Grant (Sam Neill), Dr. Ellie Sattler (Helen Hunt), Dr. Arnold (Samuel L. Jackson), Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum), Denis Nedry (Newman), John Hammond (Richard Attenborough), Lex and Tim, Dr. Wu, and the lawyer Genarro (heck, we even had one-line Dr. Harding, too)! In the new one, the only names I can tell you are Claire (Bryce Dallas Howard), the Two Boys, the Mexican guy, the nerd, Dr. Wu (hey, he's back!), that guy from Daredevil, and--is it Owen? Trevor? Noah? Ah, forget it--he's Chris "Raptor-Lord" Pratt. And speaking of that guy from Daredevil (Vincent D'Onofrio): his plotline with the military dinos was silly and didn't serve a great purpose aside from preparing him with some nice seasoning for his eventual role as dino fodder a la creme.

So all in all, Jurassic World brings us back to a good Jurassic Park movie that, despite falling on some modern tropes and lacking memorable characters, is an exciting nostalgia trip with plenty of action while also being an effective satire of modern consumers and movie-goers. 4/5 Stars

Did you see any of these films? What did you think about them? Also, I'll be publishing a review on the new Hunger Games movie in a few hours, so keep your eyes peeled for that one. Now whatever you have to say about me or the movies, comment below!

The 87th Annual Academy Awards: My Oscar Predictions

The Oscars are back this Sunday! And I have still not done my predictions? Boy, I'm behind. As a note, I've seen very few if any of these nominees (so is the nature of the beast), but no matter! I've managed to guess correctly 13 out of 24 winners for two years straight without seeing hardly anything that was nominated so it's worked for me so far. So without further ado, here are my predictions for the 87th Annual Academy Awards!

BEST WRITING--ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)
Boyhood
Foxcatcher
The Grand Budapest Hotel
Nightcrawler

Boyhood doesn't have a chance in this field. Too many have criticized it for its lack of focus and story. It really comes down between the sharp satire of Birdman and the critical acclaim of Nightcrawler. I'm gonna go with Nightcrawler simply because when that film received much acclaim, critics and audiences zeroed in on Gyllenhall and the script as the biggest components that made the movie great.

BEST WRITING--ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
American Sniper
The Imitation Game
Inherent Vice
The Theory of Everything
Whiplash

BEST VISUAL EFFECTS
Captain America: The Winter Soldier
Dawn of the Planet of the Apes
Guardians of the Galaxy
Interstellar
X-Men: Days of Future Past

Like The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is a new breakthrough in the world of motion-capture technology. If Towers can win for Gollum, Apes will win for Caesar and Koba and all the other virtual apes.

BEST SOUND MIXING
American Sniper
Birdman
Interstellar
Unbroken
Whiplash

BEST SOUND EDITING
American Sniper
Birdman
The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies
Interstellar
Unbroken

BEST LIVE ACTION SHORT FILM
Aya
Boogaloo and Graham
Butter Lamp (La Lampe au Beurre de Yak)
Parvaneh
The Phone Call

BEST ANIMATED SHORT FILM
The Bigger Picture
The Dam Keeper
Feast
Me and My Moulton
A Single Life

BEST PRODUCTION DESIGN
The Grand Budapest Hotel
The Imitation Game
Interstellar
Into the Woods
Mr. Turner

BEST ORIGINAL SONG
"Everything Is Awesome" from The Lego Movie (Shawn Patterson)
"Glory" from Selma (John Stephens and Lonnie Lynn)
"Grateful" from Beyond the Lights (Diane Warren)
"I'm Not Gonna Miss You" from Glen Campbell...I'll Be Me (Glen Campbell and Julian Raymond)
"Lost Stars" from Begin Again (Gregg Alexander and Danielle Brisebois)

It's a mostly good year for music this year. However, the black sheep in this Oscar race is "Grateful," which not only pales in comparison with the rest of the nominees, but in any other situation would be little more than white noise on the radio. It's unexceptional, unmemorable, and unfairly took a spot for a far better song like "Mercy Is" from Noah or, if it was eligible, "The Hanging Tree" from Mockingjay--Part 1. However, life goes on and we stick with what we have. "Everything Is Awesome," while being an earworm, is just not as good as the other three nominees. So now we're between a gospel song about civil rights, Glen Campbell's last song about being unafraid of death, and an moving Adam Levine song. My personal favorite is "Lost Stars," and if it wins, I'll be glad. Though if we're being realistic, "Glory" is gonna go home with the gold since it really is more powerful. (Watch it be "Lost Stars.")

BEST ORIGINAL SCORE
The Grand Budapest Hotel, Alexandre Desplat
The Imitation Game, Alexandre Desplat
Interstellar, Hans Zimmer
Mr. Turner, Gary Hershon
The Theory of Everything, Johann Johannsson

It's a tight race between Theory and Interstellar, as both are very characteristic for their respective films while also being strong on their own. Theory is beautiful and sweeping, fitting for the love affair between Stephen and Jane Hawking, but I think Interstellar is going to edge it out because the music was so much a part of the film, with Nolan strategically using it at certain points. From what I hear, the music was a character in Interstellar. And then of course, there's the celestial organ in the score, so, yeah, Interstellar for the win!

BEST MAKEUP AND HAIRSTYLING
Foxcatcher
The Grand Budapest Hotel
Guardians of the Galaxy

I'm not chic at makeup or hairstyling, but my lord is it close this year with each film completely transforming its actors with this art. Grand Budapest made Tilda Swinton unrecognizable, Guardians of the Galaxy flawlessly designed its actors into their characters, and Foxcatcher made Steve Carell and Mark Ruffalo unrecognizable. I'm still struggling to bridge Carell with his appearance as du Pont. Hotel's purpose for M/H seems to be for comedy, Galaxy's for immersion, and Foxcatcher's for separating preconceived notions of the actors to allow us to see these characters as characters rather than actors. For that reason, I'm gonna predict Foxcatcher, but man, is it an honor to be nominated this year. Kudos to all these guys.

BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM
Ida (Poland)
Leviathan (Russia)
Tangerines (Estonia)
Timbuktu (Mauritania)
Wild Tales (Argentina)

BEST FILM EDITING
American Sniper
Boyhood
The Grand Budapest Hotel
The Imitation Game
Whiplash

BEST DOCUMENTARY SHORT SUBJECT
Crisis Hotline: Veterans Press 1
Joanna
Our Curse
The Reaper (La Parka)
White Earth

BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE
CitizenFour
Finding Vivian Maier
Last Days in Vietnam
The Salt of the Earth
Virunga

BEST COSTUME DESIGN
The Grand Budapest Hotel
Inherent Vice
Into the Woods
Maleficent
Mr. Turner

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY
Birdman
The Grand Budapest Hotel
Ida
Mr. Turner
Unbroken

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE FILM
Big Hero 6
The Boxtrolls
How to Train Your Dragon 2
Song of the Sea
The Tale of Princess Kaguya

For the second year in a row, I've seen none of these films. Based off what I know and see, the Japanese Kaguya seems to be a culturally important film, as well as moving, beautiful, and universally appealing. Big Hero 6 isn't being hyped nearly enough for a Disney film in Oscar season, and The Boxtrolls looked unappealing all around. Song of the Sea isn't well-known as well as it should be at this point, and I just have a feeling Kaguya, with all it has going for it, will edge out over Dragon.

BEST ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE
Patricia Arquette, Boyhood
Laura Dern, Wild
Keira Knightley, The Imitation Game
Emma Stone, Birdman
Meryl Streep, Into the Woods

BEST ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE
Robert Duvall, The Judge
Ethan Hawke, Boyhood
Edward Norton, Birdman
Mark Ruffalo, Foxcatcher
J.K. Simmons, Whiplash

BEST ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE
Marion Cotillard, Two Days, One Night
Felicity Jones, The Theory of Everything
Julianne Moore, Still Alice
Rosamund Pike, Gone Girl
Reese Witherspoon, Wild

BEST ACTOR IN A LEADING ROLE
Steve Carell, Foxcatcher
Bradley Cooper, American Sniper
Benedict Cumberbatch, The Imitation Game
Michael Keaton, Birdman
Eddie Redmayne, The Theory of Everything

From what I've read and heard, it was the year of performances. Steve Carell was unrecognizable in every way, Bradley Cooper was great as Chris Kyle, Benedict Cumberbatch toned down his Sherlockism to portray Alan Turing the Genius as a relatable, reserved individual, Michael Keaton was Birdman, and Eddie Redmayne transformed himself to be Stephen Hawking. As much of the great praise I've heard for Keaton and Cumberbatch, and even though I thought he was one of the weakest parts of Les Miserables, Eddie Redmayne is the one I think the Academy is going to award for entirely being Stephen Hawking and realistically portraying his descent into ALS.

BEST DIRECTOR
Alejandro G. Inarritu, Birdman
Richard Linklater, Boyhood
Bennett Miller, Foxcatcher
Wes Anderson, The Grand Budapest Hotel
Morten Tyldum, The Imitation Game

As if there was a question, Richard Linklater will win solely because of the ambition of Boyhood. Managing to succeed in the task of filming over the course of 12 years and then make that something cohesive puts him ahead of any of the other directors, even Inarritu who made a more stylistic film in Birdman.

BEST PICTURE
American Sniper
Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)
Boyhood
The Grand Budapest Hotel
The Imitation Game
Selma
The Theory of Everything
Whiplash

Unliike past years, there is really no clear cut winner. Even after my formula that's worked the past two years, I'm still unsure. Regardless, I think Whiplash will come out on top. American Sniper was too unexpected to even be considered as a contender, though Cooper's nomination as well as those of Last Days of Vietnam and Crisis Hotline: Veterans Press 1 could point to a military takeover in terms of wins. The Theory of Everything, despite boasting strong performances, was considered too trite and not setting itself apart from other biopics. The Imitation Game, while critically lauded across the board, isn't what too many critics are going to for their number 1 pick. While The Grand Budapest Hotel may be the dark horse of the evening, the big four are undeniably Selma, Boyhood, Birdman, and Whiplash. Selma wasn't recognized nearly enough in the other categories to be the winner, and Boyhood was derided by too many for its lack of structure despite its ambition. Boyhood's ambition will be recognized in its directing win, so it doesn't need Best Picture, making it a bloody battle between Birdman and Whiplash. While Birdman was stylistically more impressive than Whiplash, Whiplash has been most consistent in terms of audience and critical response. Argo and 12 Years a Slave were the same way. And they won Best Picture. Whiplash, whether you're dragging or rushing, the prize is yours.

Well, that was exhausting to make. I'm still disappointed that Life Itself wasn't nominated for Best Documentary--biggest snub this year, in my opinion--but life goes on...like life itself. Snubs aside, it should be a most enjoyable evening with Neil Patrick Harris as host, which means musical numbers at the start. Of course, people will complain about who wins and loses, and John Travolta will mispronounce names, but no matter! This is my Super Bowl and I will watch this ceremony to the bitter end; I just hope I get more than 13 of these right. Who do you think's gonna win? Whatever you think about me or the movies, comment below!