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!

MOVIE REVIEW: Life Itself

Roger Ebert was considered one of the greats, and is considered by many to be the greatest film critic to ever live and an example to aspire to (I'll include myself in that group!). His reviews were often entertaining and always showed a thorough understanding and a love of film as entertainment and as art. Roger Ebert is the man I look towards as I write these reviews and whatnot. Through him countless people and film fans were introduced to some of the greatest films of all time and then some. His writings were exceptional, his civil rights advocacy in the film community and abroad was admirable, and now his life is memorialized in Steve James's documentary, Life Itself, inspired by Ebert's memoir of the same name.

Rated R for brief sexual images/nudity and language

The film explores different times of Ebert's life: his early upbringing, his work with sexploitation director Russ Meyer, his marriage to Chaz, his time with Gene Siskel, and ultimately his final days. During exposition (which is often), we hear the voice of Roger reading excerpts from his memoir. In reality, it's a voice artist who is doing an Ebert impression, but it sounds so like him that it's like hearing Roger's lost voice giving his audience some last words. The documentary is moving in many regards. For those who had followed him since he and Siskel began "At the Movies" or "Sneak Previews," or those who only recently began reading his reviews of past movies, seeing him live his final months won't be a cheery experience. At the same time, many parts made me laugh.

But the film's greatest strength and beauty is its pathos. Above all things, Life Itself is a story of love and redemption: the story of how two alcoholics could break the addiction and find love so close, the story of how a man loved the movies, the story of two colleagues as close as brothers, the story of how two film critics brought filmmaker Martin Scorsese to keep going through hard times because he got loving, constructive criticism for that which he loved. It's a beautiful film no matter what you thought of Roger because there's so much more to it. Roger Ebert is painted as an imperfect man, a man who has gone through terrible times, one who has dealt in vanity--many of the interviewees bring forward Roger's faults--but a good man nonetheless. But that's just life itself, and through Roger's story we can see this.

It's informative but not overbearing. It's personal but not exclusive. It's favorable, but not untrue. It deals with life and death, but it's not depressing. The film shows us that life is more than what we like and dislike (say, movies), but every facet of our existence: love, family, friends, death, disease, and the little things, too. The archive footage between Siskel and Ebert bantering is delightfully hilarious as they ever were, Martin Scorsese's stories of Roger are surprising and shows the impact one man can make, and Chaz talking about her relationship with Roger reveals a side of Roger many people didn't know.

Director Steve James directed Roger's favorite film of the last decade, Hoop Dreams, and Roger was one of the most vocal people decrying that film's snub at the Oscars. Unfortunately, the trend continues as this film was one of the most evident snubs at this year's Academy Awards. It's an outrage that this film wasn't nominated, but alas the film still is fantastic. CNN has been showing it (that's how I saw it) and the DVD/Blu-Ray was recently released so if you get a chance, please see this movie. It may just be the best of the year. As for scoring, there's nothing more fitting that I can give it than:

Two Thumbs Up!

Roger Ebert: RIP 1942-2013

MOVIE REVIEW: God's Not Dead

God's Not Dead is not a bad film, but by no means is it the return to form for Christian movies that it is heralded to be. Indeed, with it being the champion in what could have easily been considered the Christian Film Renaissance (with at least 12 Christian/Biblical movies released theatrically in 2014), I would have hoped for a bit more than what is really a bloated ensemble piece that cares too little for its characters in its effort to send a message that you already know by looking at the title.

Rated PG for thematic material, brief violence, and an accident scene

The trailer promises that the film will deal with the debate of God's existence between professor and student, and for the most part it does. Shane Harper (Good Luck Charlie) plays a college freshman who refuses to deny God's existence because that's not what he believes. His philosophy professor (Kevin Sorbo, Hercules: The Legendary Journeys, Soul Surfer) challenges him to "prove the antithesis," which he valiantly and persistently does over the course of the film. However, one of my biggest gripes with the film is that the plot is too bloated, and it feels like it. The main plot, as described above, sounds really promising and it is inspiring, displaying a true role model for Christians. Yet if it had just focused on and thoroughly developed that plot, along with the relationships of professor and student (with pastors, significant others, fellow classmates), it would have had the potential for greatness, especially when we're inundated with under-par Christian films. Instead, the filmmakers felt it was necessary to add in way too many subplots, such as: a seemingly anti-Christian reporter who faces a major tragedy, a atheist son who hates his dementia-afflicted mother, a pastor and a missionary experiencing a series of unfortunate events with their car, and a girl raised in a Muslim home challenged for her Christian faith. None of them are significantly related to the main plot or to each other, and the last one is hardly in the film, making me wonder why it was even included at all. Furthermore, the cameos by the Duck Dynasty crew feel so forced. I understand that because of the A&E show their presence would get butts in seats, but they felt extraneous. Their only purpose is to make redneck jokes and deliver the message of the film...which is the title.

The ending even feels unearned. In time, the professor finds redemption after being met with tragedy, and at that moment, we the audience are supposed to cheer (or be crying because that was actually a well-done scene). This is going to have a dramatic impact on the remainder of the film, yes? Nope! Instead we cut to an event that condemns the professor and praises the kid for standing for his beliefs...before making a direct appeal to the audience to share "God's Not Dead" via text to their friends. So everything leading up to this--the mother with dementia, the reporter with cancer, the outcast Muslim, the debates, the breakups, the comic relief of the pastors, the businessman who cares for no one--all led up to an appeal to send a text message? Come on! In that moment, all of the emotional buildup was lost. One could give the argument, "The people at the event didn't know what happened to him," but the screenwriter ought to have had enough integrity to keep the audience engaged in this new connection and resolution.

The acting is alright, with Kevin Sorbo and Shane Harper rightfully stealing the show. Sorbo is probably one of the better actors working in Christian media today, so at least we have him to look forward to. But even then, the power of his performance is inhibited by a weak script that has him a complex antagonist in one scene, and the dastardly caricature of an atheist in the next. Harper impressed me for the most part, breaking away from the Disney sitcoms he was once a part of, which is nice to see. Otherwise, though, the acting is meh. Standing out in my mind is Trisha LaFache, who plays the reporter in an overly cartoony performance when interviewing Newsboys and the Robertsons, sacrificing emotion for a soulless "hard-hitting news break" over-the-topness. That's not to say she doesn't convey emotion at all; when she is diagnosed with cancer, her sadness felt real. I'm just disappointed that Christian films are stuck in a rut with overall quality.

I'm not singing the film's praises because I don't feel it completely deserves it. The Lost World: Jurassic Park and Divergent did not get great reviews from me because, even though there were promising aspects, the films themselves were incredibly flawed. I don't feel a Christian film ought to get a pass from such criticism just because I happen to agree with its worldview. The fact of the matter is God's Not Dead has problems that severely hurt it. The movie generally feels like the filmmakers threw good ideas at the screen, hoping that something would stick, regardless of how they meshed. Some parts do stick, which the filmmakers try to use as an "out" for including unnecessary, unmeshable material in the script. That's an appalling way to look at making a movie. The Christian audience deserves better than that, but the film is so concerned with telling the "message" that deaths, cancer, being an outcast, and dementia feel sad because the idea of it is sad. It's purely sentimental, just like a Hallmark movie; we feel no raw emotion because emotion isn't developed. Even The Passion of the Christ wasn't sentimental, giving us flashbacks that develop the character of Jesus, making his death so much more heart-wrenching; you won't be getting much of that here.

It's my belief that a Christian-made movie should stand well on its own right, regardless of the presence of "the message." It's my belief that Christian movies should be held to a higher standard because of their goals. This one fails to do that, being a pretty mediocre drama regardless of your beliefs. Take, for example, M. Night Shyamalan's Signs. Regardless of what you thought of the ending, you cannot deny that that film was so tightly-knit together that everything felt necessary. That movie has strong Christian themes, but there's not that need to tell "the message." It stands well on its own. Why couldn't have God's Not Dead have done the same if it's mission is to reach the secular crowd? Why couldn't Christian audiences gotten a movie worthy of the $12 they paid at the movie theater? Wouldn't the message be more effective if it was part of a genuinely great film instead of being the film itself? Wouldn't it get secular audiences interested in a genre that is filled with more lackluster pictures than horror?

Kevin Sorbo delivers an acting performance worth seeing. Too bad the main story doesn't soak in all the limelight.

In short, this had the potential to be one of the Great Christian Movies, being a sleeper hit and all, and it just failed to do so. It placed less emphasis on the cake--character development, believable dialogue, meaningful direction, a sense of focus--and placed more emphasis on the icing--"the message"--and the sentimental sprinkles on top. It's not among the worst of Christian films, but I'd think twice (maybe thrice) before saying it's one of the best. A disappointment, I can only give this film 2.5/5 Stars, for its two leads and the positive examples displayed in the main plot. It's just too muddled for me to give it a more positive review. It may touch people, it may lead people to Christ, but a completely good movie it is not.

Did you see God's Not Dead? What was your favorite Christian/Biblical movie released in 2014? Whatever you have to say about me and the movies, comment below!

Most Anticipated Movies of 2015

It's the same drill as last year; this is just a fun thing to do that I hope introduces you to other films coming out this year. No need for introductions. As Monty Python famously said...

Cinderella (March 13)
Dir. Kenneth Branagh; Star. Lily James, Cate Blanchett, Helena Bonham Carter
The successor to last year's Maleficent (which received mixed reviews), Cinderella, directed by the man behind the unforgettable Hamlet and Much Ado About Nothing films, aspires to be a faithful adaptation of the classic Walt Disney film from 1950 rather than a complete reimagining. Furthermore, Cate Blanchett and Helena Bonham Carter seem to offer strong performances, and overall, I feel it will be the heartwarming, perfect family movie it needs to be. After the gritty retellings of Sleeping Beauty and Alice in Wonderland, perhaps this too will be a breath of fresh air before Disney does a live-action Pinocchio in May (more on that later).

The Water Diviner (April 24)
Dir. Russell Crowe; Star. Russell Crowe, Jai Courtney
This one seems weird to put on here, but for some reason I want to see it. This one stars Russell Crowe and is his directorial debut. It's not that I'm a huge Russell Crowe fan (the only movies I've seen of his are Les Miserables and Noah), but I feel like this movie about a father's search for his children after a great war with the Turks will be a film worth talking about and sharing, to analyze and find meaning. Almost fitting for a film society.


Avengers: Age of Ultron (May 1)
Dir. Joss Whedon; Star. Robert Downey, Jr., Chris Evans, James Spader
"I've got no strings on me." This easily had one of the best trailers last year, as things are looking really dark in the Marvel Universe, especially after all the schnozz that went down in Captain America: The Winter Soldier. Ultron looks so incredibly menacing and it only makes me more excited for the future of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, especially with the Civil War storyline coming up. Things are gonna go down. And it's going to be awesome. And I am going to be there.

Tomorrowland (May 22)
Dir. Brad Bird; Star. George Clooney, Britt Robertson
Another Disney movie! Made by the guy behind The Incredibles and Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol, this film is about an inventor and a young woman and a world known as Tomorrowland, accessed primarily through a magical pin. I'm optimistic about it. This could be the theme park movie to end all theme park movies. Imagine what this could do for Disney World and how they could integrate the lore of the film into the parks. The film could be revolutionary if executed right, and given the length of time Bird's been working on this, it very well could be Disney's most important film since Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs. I just hope they didn't shoot themselves in the foot financially by releasing it the same month as Age of Ultron.

Jurassic World (June 12)
Dir. Colin Trevorrow; Star. Chris Pratt, Bryce Dallas Howard
This is my most anticipated movie of the year, even over Star Wars. The original Jurassic Park was not only a cautionary tale about playing God, but it was a beautifully directed film with the best, most exciting special effects I've ever seen put to film. I'm still floored by them, and seeing the "Making Of's" make me love them even more. The second film continued the condemnation of man controlling nature, which was nice, but suffered from too many characters, an emotional core, and an ending that was kind of disappointing despite its scale. This has the scale back at the park (which is now open!), furthers the theme of the entire series, seems to keep the cast small, and has the right amount of nostalgia and effects. What could go wrong? I mean, there's the chaos theory, but besides that, there's very little keeping me from not seeing this opening night. This is the franchise I adore so much, I went on the water ride based on it at Islands of Adventure, and I don't do flumes typically. That should say something.


St. James Place (October 16)
Dir. Steven Spielberg; Star. Tom Hanks, Peter McRobbie
This is a film I've only heard about recently, but I'm still really excited for. It's Spielberg's first movie since 2012's fantastic (if long-winded) Lincoln, and it's written by the Coen Brothers, who have given us such great movies as True Grit and the cult classic The Big Lebowski. The film also stars Tom Hanks (who has appeared in more of my favorite films than any other actor) as James Donovan, a lawyer who gets caught in the middle of the Cold War when he has to negotiate with Fidel Castro and the Soviets for the release of a U-2 spy pilot. After 3 years, I'm so excited to see one of the greatest living directors go at it again, and with strong screenwriters behind it along with acting powerhouse Tom Hanks, Steven Spielberg in another war movie sounds like a great time at the cinemas in 2015.

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay--Part 2 (November 20)
Dir. Francis Lawrence; Star. Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Philip Seymour Hoffman
If you read my review for Mockingjay--Part 1, you know I've come to really enjoy these movies. They're on par with many other great films and the Harry Potter series. They take time to develop the characters so we care for them, which other YA adaptations fail miserably at doing (looking at you, Divergent) and engage the audience in not only the action, but the drama as well. The propaganda stuff was the best part of the last film, and after the ending we're left with at the end of that last one...yeah, I want to see this. And probably see the first film for the first time while I'm at it.

Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens (December 18)
Dir. J.J. Abrams; Star. Mark Hamill, Daisy Ridley, John Boyega
It's Star Wars. It has the original cast. The Force is awake. John Williams is doing the score. These aren't the prequels. Laser swords. It's Star Wars. These aren't the prequels. Awesome trailer. John Williams is doing the score. It's Star Wars. Seriously, what more do I need to say? Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year because Star Wars is back in theaters!

So what films are you looking forward to next year? Are you going to see the return of Jurassic Park and Star Wars? Do you want to see Adam Sandler's Pixels? What are your thoughts on the Poltergeist remake this year? (Oh yes, that's happening.)

Also, my Year in Review will be coming soon. There are still a handful of 2014 movies I want to see before I make it this year, so hang tight--it's coming soon! In the meantime, have a happy new year!

So whatever you have to say about me and the movies, comment below!

HOLIDAY SPECIAL: Santa Claus Conquers the Martians

I'll be straight with you. I had no interest in seeing this movie. I really didn't. Sure, I'd heard stories about it, but I never expected to see it. Furthermore, this was supposed to be review for The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies, but my showing got canceled, resulting in that review being delayed until a later date, hopefully by the end of the year. Regardless, though, let's sit back, enjoy some hot cocoa, and get into the Christmas spirit as I review what is considered one of the worst movies of all time, Santa Claus Conquers the Martians.

It's a wonder that this movie even exists; the premise is so ridiculous, the script is laughable most times, and the naming of these characters is incoherent. After the opening credits, we see two Martian children entranced by a beyond-cheesy "Earth program" of a tour through Santa's Workshop in the North Pole. Their father, the king of the Martians, is disturbed by their lack of motivation to do anything after watching TV, so instead of being a reasonable father and commanding them to stop watching them, or better yet, eliminating the TV, he and some council members seek advice from the elder Martian, Chochem (not that that's important). He, with a laughable acting performance that seems as if he's about to die any second, reveals he has feared that the "adults in child bodies" are wishing for fun and a childhood, which can only come about by the presence of Santa Claus. After all, that's all a childhood is. Anyway, the council, even though no one can agree on anything, leave in their spaceship to capture Santa and bring him back to Mars only to find out the blubbering idiot Martian hitched a ride with them! They arrive in New York, find two children creatively named Billy and Betty, realize that New York isn't the North Pole, abduct the children, and redirect their flight up north where they avoid the terrifying MAN IN A POLAR BEAR SUIT and take old St. Nick, whose only weapon of defense are puns that rival those of Mr. Freeze in Batman & Robin. I mean, it's not like the Martians are any more fearsome; their most feared weapon is a stun gun that "will wear off in a few hours..." indeed, there is much to be feared as the Martian reactions are every time they point one at each other. Meanwhile, the US Government sends a spaceship out to hunt for the Martians that took their children...and that's the last you'll hear of them even though we're only halfway through.

For the rest of the movie, the antagonist, a Martian whose character development only goes so far as Betty crying out, "He's the mean one!" is simply a nuisance hellbent on getting rid of Santa...somehow. He's more of a man of words than actions as he becomes more of a caricature than an actual villain. His biggest work of evil is switching some wires in Santa's Workshop on Mars... the villainy! Terribly filmed (and acted) fight scenes follow, the Martians realize that the true embodiment of childhood fun and merriment was with them all along in Buffoon Martian, and Santa goes back to Earth with the children...without conquering anything but puns. As if the movie wasn't laughable enough, it ends with a sing-along! Not even Rudolph has a sing-along after his end credits.

This movie thinks so highly of itself it has a singalong. What is this? Frozen? #SantaClausConquersTheMartians pic.twitter.com/CseS6Oabys
— Adam Johnson (@adamj_film) December 24, 2014

Overall, the movie is like an overextended sitcom episode with the charm of a Holiday TV Special. It's not overtly bad, but it's bad in a "so bad it's good" kind of way. The movie is full of unintentional laughs, jokes that fall hilariously flat, numerous plot holes, very minimal production value (note that in this same year we got the technically brilliant Mary Poppins and the critically acclaimed Goldfinger. It's not like this was the best possible product, especially in terms of practical effects), and overacting out the wazoo. Furthermore, the film doesn't know what it wants to be. At the beginning, it seems like it'll be a film that demonstrates the detrimental effects television has on children, which is complemented by Betty confusing humanlike Martians for televisions because they have antennae. Then later it seems to pride itself on how great the "Earth programs" are then wants to criticize industrialization and how it's gotten rid of practicality, such as when Santa bemoans that "I'm not tired, but my little finger is!" after working the automatic toymaker on Mars instead of making toys by hand back at the North Pole. Then sometimes it seems like it just wants to be a screwball comedy with Three Stooges-level pratfalls among the villains. Sometimes it wants to be taken seriously but everything about is laughable, intentional or not. Thankfully, it's only an hour and a half But none of this really matters; it's a Christmas movie, so if you're tired of watching Elf for the 25th time or been about dried up with the Hallmark Holiday "Classics," this one's available. But as a critic, I have to give this 1/5 stars. It's enjoyable to an extent, but only because it's so atrocious.

Can you see the zipper?

So how about you? What's your favorite Christmas/holiday movie? Have you seen this one? Whatever you have to say about me or the movies, comment below.

And finally, to you and yours, have a blessed and most merry Christmas!

NEW MOVIE: The Hunger Games: Mockingjay--Part 1

Ever since the Harry Potter film adaptations showed what a blockbuster gold mine young adult literature can be, it seems as if they've been coming at us non-stop. Some have fared better than others; the Potter and Twilight adaptations are among the top grossing franchises of all time, joining the ranks of Star Wars and James Bond. Others have been forgotten like chaff in the wind, such as The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones, or failed to surpass mediocrity, like Divergent. However, with the past two installments, The Hunger Games film series is shaping up to be not only an adaptation on par with Potter, but also a film series demanding respect from the most avid film buffs.

Rated PG-13 (intense sequences of violence and action, some disturbing images and thematic material)

I have never sat down and watched the original film nor have I sat down and read the series despite the countless requests for me to--I make no guarantees on the latter. However, I saw Catching Fire, the previous adaptation, with a group of buddies and quite enjoyed what the franchise had to offer. Despite some uproars about the two-way split of the final chapter, Mockingjay--Part 1 does not disappoint in the least.

We're quickly caught up with what has happened since the final moments of the previous film, which ended on the cliffhanger to end all cliffhangers, and Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence, American Hustle, X-Men: Days of Future Past) is still in shock and mourning over the potential loss of her friend in the Quarter Quell. However, the government of the rebel community she and thousands others have taken residence in (Philip Seymour Hoffman and Julianne Moore) hope to use her as a propaganda tool-- or rather, the Mockingjay-- to incite the fires of rebellion among the districts against the evil and autocratic Capitol, led by President Snow (played to villainous perfection by Donald Sutherland). And that's the film really. We see propaganda being made, and we see how evil the government is, while also growing to care for these characters, so that Part 2 makes a huge emotional impact.

Even though the film deals a lot on propaganda production, which many critics have called boring, lending to its 66% on Rotten Tomatoes, but through the propaganda we see Katniss's evolution from reluctant hero to angry revolutionary; it's absolutely invigorating. She questions the consequences of her actions: if I shoot this piece, who will it affect? who will die? what will happen? We see very quickly that while the Capitol plays along in the propaganda game, they mean serious business in some very shocking action scenes. As Katniss comes to realize the how appalling the Capitol is to its people, she cries in anger, "If we burn, you burn with us!" and gives us a very moving revolutionary movement in vein of "Do You Hear the People Sing?" from Les Miserables. The latter was easily the best scene in the entire picture, mixing James Newton Howard's subtle yet powerful musical capability, Jennifer Lawrence's skill as an actor, and director Francis Lawrence's solid direction and sense of buildup as we see the districts starting to feel the fires of revolution. If the song is not utilized at all in the final film, whether in promos or in the finished product, Lionsgate is doing themselves a huge disservice. That's not to say there's no action. There are scenes of explosive scale, but they feel a natural part of the film as they make us more emotionally involved. There's also a well-cut bin Laden-style raid that sets us up perfectly for the final chapter. Try calling that boring!

Despite the lessening of action since Catching Fire and the fact it's only half of a film (it is the first part, after all), the film keeps us occupied, ogling at the performances of this movie. I've never been the biggest Julianne Moore or Josh Hutcherson fan--I found her useless in the second Jurassic Park film and really annoying in Non-Stop, and Hutcherson's passable in everything else--but they were really, really good in this movie. Hutcherson disturbs us with his performance, as we fear for his safety and sanity--is he being controlled by the Capitol? Are Katniss's actions going to do well for him?--and Moore is subtle but grand as the president of the rebel movement. There is not one bad performance in the film (except maybe an extra on screen for 5 seconds playing with her hair at the most predictable moment, but what does that matter?). Lawrence and Hoffman also bring humor to their roles despite the somberness of their situation (war). Not to be forgotten are Woody Harrelson and Elizabeth Banks, who are pretty outstanding. If there's one reason to see the movie, it is because of the acting. I'm not saying an Oscar is coming their way, but I'm still in shock as to how good everyone was.

Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) witnesses the horror of the Capitol.

All in all, this is the best Hunger Games movie yet, heads and shoulders above its predecessor (why did we need monkeys?). There's very little to complain about, except that it ends abruptly. It's part of the poison of making a film two parts, but that's not to say it can't feel like a whole movie. The first part of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, I felt, left us better satisfied and equally ready for the grand finale. Though let's be honest here: it doesn't matter. I give the film 4.5/5 Stars. I'm excited to see the final part, and I wouldn't complain about seeing this film again.

Have you seen the other films? What did you think? Do you plan on seeing this one? Whatever you have to say about me or the movies, comment below!