Starred Up Review

     I do my best to keep up with all movies that come out, in hopes that I manage to find a gem; but every once in a while one or two manage to fly under my radar. One of those is the recently released British prison film, "Starred Up." Now I had never heard about this film until two weeks ago, it premiered at a film festival last year and has been met with rave reviews ever since. After its limited release earlier this year, some have been calling it one of the best films of 2014. So I have been pretty excited for this movie, and going into it I had some very high expectations. And after watching it, those expectations were blown out of the water.

     Taking place in a high security men's prison in England, the film follows a young man named Erik who has just been transferred to the facility. Erik is a troubled young man, with some extremely violent tendencies. He was transferred to the prison from a young offender institution, at the same time his father is also in the prison and is one of the big dogs on campus. Despite being a piece of sh*t, he really does want to help his son and forces him into group therapy sessions. Despite being told to follow the rules, Erik quickly makes enemies of both the guards and several other prisoners; and is forced to fight for his life on more than one occasion. All he has to do is to play the game, and eventually get out on patrol; but for some reason, Erik doesn't really seem to care.

   "Starred Up" is straight up (terrible pun intended) one of the best movies of the year, and probably the best prison movie since "The Shawshank Redemption." Every actor gives the movie their all, but star Jack O'Connell undoubtedly steals the show in one of the best performances of the year. The movie is also very well written with funny and sincere moments, there's also a type of nail biting tension for a lot of dialog between characters; you feel that at any second someone is about to lose their sh*t and shank somebody. One thing I noticed was the great cinematography; not a lot of different locations are used and many are in small areas like prison cells, but the cinematographer makes the most of the situation. One thing that is very common among prison films would be violence, and "Starred Up" is no different. There are some truly brutal fight scenes in this movie and there are as intense as they come. The first fight in the movie is one of the best scenes of any movie I've seen this year, that alone is worth giving the movie a shot. My only problems with the movie would be related to pacing; "Starred Up" is a slow burn, it takes at least 15 minutes for something truly interesting to happen. And there are some long breaks between the more exciting scenes. The movie is never boring, but you’re always waiting for the next fight or emotional breakdown. That aside, this is a really incredible movie. Probably one of the five best movies I've seen so far this year, I'm certain you'll be seeing this somewhere on my best of the year list. If you've been looking for an intense drama, "Starred Up" is a must watch; and it has my highest recommendations. 

Pros: Great acting, gritty and realistic, well written, great cinematography, several very intense scenes, in your face brutality, nail biting tension.

Cons: Slow burn, long breaks between excitement.

4.5/5 Stars

Guardians of the Galaxy Review

     The second generation of Marvel movies is in full swing, and so far it has been a mixed back. Last year you had "Iron Man 3" and "Thor: The Dark World," which I found rather lack luster; but this year you had "Captain America: The Winter Soldier," which some would say is one of the best superhero movies ever. But at the start of this new wave there was one movie that had many people scratching their heads, "Guardians of the Galaxy." Based off the comic of the same name, the plot takes place within the same universe as Marvel's other movies. The thing is that this movie was a coin toss; before these movies came out there were a lot of people who knew iconic heroes like Iron Man and Captain America, but not a lot of people knew who the Guardians of the Galaxy were. There was no guarantee for this movie like the others. But ever since the trailer dropped a few months back, it’s been the talk of the town and one of the most anticipated movies of the year. And after all the hype and expectations, amazingly, it's even better than we were expecting it to be.

   Taking place in modern day in the same universe as The Avengers, mostly revolves around a thief and self proclaimed Star-Lord Peter Quill. Out on a job one day looking for a priceless item (an orb) wanted by a salesman, he is ambushed by some men working for a genocidal mad man named Ronan the Accuser. He manages to escape but is later arrested trying to sell the orb, along with him an assassin named Gamora and two criminals looking to collect a bounty on Peter's head Rocket and Groot. They are sent to a maximum security prison where they meet Drax the Destroyer, a murderer with a personal vendetta against Ronan for killing his wife and child. Gamora reveals that she has a buyer looking to pay an absurd amount of money for the orb, so to get their pay day they all team up alongside Drax (who Gamora promises she will help kill Ronan) in order to escape. And thus like that the Guardians of the Galaxy are born; a thief, two thugs, an assassin, and a maniac. And they are the only thing standing in the way of Ronan and death of billions of people. 

     The best way I can describe "Guardians of the Galaxy" is if "Star Wars" and "Firefly" came together and had a glorious comic book baby. This movie does just about everything right from start to finish. Something that the people behind this movie had to face was that these are not well known heroes. Everyone knows Iron Man and Captain America, but not many people know Peter Quill; but it seems they actually used that to their advantage. It looks like they just had fun with the source material, and made a Marvel movie like no other. One thing that this movie did better than all the other Marvel movies was the humor, it is very funny and uses a several hilarious cultural references; but at the same time, it doesn't ruin the tone of the movie like what in "Iron Man 3" which was built up to be a much more serious movie that at times came off as silly. The movie also is able to switch between comedy and drama on a dime and feels very natural, and there are a couple of surprisingly heartfelt moments in it. I think one reason both the comedy and drama work so well are the characters, they're great. Each is unique and has their own tragic back story, but do their best not to show it. And yes, Rocket Raccoon and Groot steal the show. Pretty much every actor does a really solid job, but that leads me to my first problem. Dave Batista, who plays Drax, is not on par with the rest of the actors. He doesn't do a bad job, and I understand that they needed a big guy to play Drax, but you can tell he's not really an actor (he's known for his professional wrestling days). I actually really like the character Drax, he had some of the funniest lines in the movie; I just hope Batista takes some acting classes before the sequel. What this movie does best is something that other movies should pick up on, it's never boring. From start to finish it never slowed down and always kept you entertained. Using fantastic CGI to help with several awesome action scenes, this movie is just pure entertainment for both casual movie goers and those who go to the theater every weekend. It also helps that the movie has a great sound track that goes surprisingly well with everything happening. Now there is one real problem with this movie that left a sour taste in my mouth, the villain. He can best be described as lackluster. I think the reason you don't care about him is that you know in the next movie the Guardians are going to be facing off against the baddest mother f*cker in the galaxy, Thanos. But in this movie, Ronan is just kind of boring. He's not a bad villain, he's just kind of there; but other than that, this movie just did about everything right. 2014 has been a great year for super hero movies, first "Captain America: the Winter Soldier" then "X-Men: Days of Future Past" and now this. "Guardians of the Galaxy" is arguably the best movie of the Marvel franchise; I'd certainly place it in the top three or four. This is a movie I can recommend to just about anyone; whether you like comedy, action, sci-fi, or super-hero movies, this is a film you'll probably love. And after seeing it, I can't wait to watch the sequel.

Pros: Great CGI, very funny, humor doesn't ruin tone, switches between comedy and drama on a dime, awesome action scenes, rockin sound track, never boring, surprisingly heartfelt at times, solid acting from the cast, interesting characters, Groot and Rocket steal the show, entertaining cultural references.

Cons: Lackluster villain, Batista's acting isn't on par with the rest of the cast.

4/5

Wish I was Here Review

     In 2004, "Scrubs" star Zach Braff made his directorial debut with the comedy-drama film "Garden State." To the surprise of pretty much everyone, the movie was actually really good and won several awards. What made the movie special was that it had a lot of heart to it; you could tell Zach Braff truly wanted it to be great and poured his heart and soul into it. With the success of "Garden State," Braff expressed interest in directing another movie; but for some reason, no company wanted to give him a chance or let him make the movie he really wanted to. So in 2013 he went to KickStarter, and asked his fans for help in funding the movie. The movement was a success, and he raised over three million dollars and was eventually picked up by a distributor. So after ten long years, Zach Braff gets another chance to show off his directing skills with his second movie "Wish I was Here."

   The movie revolves around a man named Aidan, a wanna be actor and father going through some rough times. After learning that he owes some money to his kid's private school, he goes to talk to his father (who agreed to pay as long as he chose the school). Aidan learns that his father's cancer had returned and is spreading; his father decides he wants to try an expensive experimental treatment and can no longer pay for the kid’s school. Aidan is terrified of the public school system, since he was bullied as a kid while in it, so he decides the only option is to home school his kids. Unfortunately, he has no idea what he's doing. Not long after, he gets words from his father's doctor, the treatment didn't work and there was nothing more they could do. Faced with his father's mortality, his own failed career, an unhappy wife, a brother who doesn't seem to care that their father is dying, and challenges with his kid’s education, Aidan just tries to stay strong and attempts to keep his family together while fixing everyone's problems. 

     Right off the bat I'll say that I certainly enjoyed "Wish I Was Here," but it is a mixed bag; it does many things right but just as many wrong. For the most part, the movie has a really good balance between comedy and emotional moments. Some jokes do fall flat, and it feels that the movie tries a little too hard to be emotional and philosophical at times; but the movie is still quite funny and there are a few scenes that might bring a tear to your eye. Probably the biggest problem with the movie is that the plot gets jumbled a times. Different things are happening with Aidan, his dad, brother, wife, and daughter all at the same time; and while they're related things can get a little messy. And with so much going on, I'd say it's about 20 minutes to long. Acting from the entire cast is really good; everyone from Zach Braff to the little kid who plays his son plays their roles very well. One thing that was evident immediately was the cinematography, this movie was shot beautifully. It's bright, colorful, and fits the mood of the movie perfectly. An aspect of the movie that I'm sure fans of Braff will like is that the movie is very reminiscent of his previous movie "Garden State;" some may see this as retreading of old water, but it still has that level of charm that made his last movie lovable. And like "Garden State," the movie has a really great soundtrack. This movie has many flaws, many of which can straight up ruin movies; but there is something here that many movies don't have, passion. Zach Braff puts more love and passion into every shot than most directors put into an entire movie, and you can see that throughout. "Wish I Was Here" isn't a perfect movie and came close to me giving it a bad review. But Zach Braff's hard work and determination didn't just save it, he made me like it. 

Pros: Often very funny and emotional, great soundtrack, good performances from the entire cast, beautiful cinematography, reminiscent of "Garden State," a lot of passion put into this movie.

Cons: Plot gets jumbled, 20 minutes to long, a few jokes fall flat, tries to hard sometime.

3.5/5 Stars

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes Review

     "Planet of the Apes" is one of the most recognizable and culturally significant series to come out of America in cinema history. With a total of eight movies dating back all the way to 1968, few movie franchises have a legacy like this one; but it hasn't been all sunshine and roses. While the series is incredibly well known, I would call only two of the films good. For the longest time only the original was the only good one, but in 2011 we were greeted with a surprisingly great remake. "Rise of the Planet of the Apes" acted as a reboot for the series, and takes place long before the events of the original movie. It takes place just as the apes are starting to become more advance. One of the surprise hits of 2011, the movie was a critical and financial success and had fans begging for a sequel. After three the next installment has arrived, and it will most likely be remembered as one of the greatest sequels of all time.

   Ten years after the events of the previous film, the human population has been decimated. The drug used on the apes turned out to be lethal to humans; it caused a virus that spread throughout the planet. While humans have suffered, the apes that escaped from captivity and their children have thrived. Gaining even more intelligence, Caesar and his legion have set up a fully functioning society in the forests outside of San Francisco. To them, all seems right in the world; Caesar has a family and has led his people to success. One day some apes out hunting come upon some humans, the first they had seen in years. One of the humans ends up shooting an ape, which sparks the first conflict between humans and apes in a long time. It turns out the humans had been traveling to a dam near the forest that they hope can generate power for a small colony in the city. Most of the apes aren't trusting of the humans, and vice versa; but the humans need the dam, and are willing to go to war for it. So Caesar needs to make a decision, trust the humans enough to let them work on the dam or risk a war that could claim lives on both sides. 

     Putting it simply, "Dawn of the Planet of the Apes" surpassed my expectations and my high hopes. Its 2011 predecessor was a surprise, and managed to reboot a series that had been dead for years. So all I wanted from the film was to be as good as the last one, but it managed to be better. The aspect of this film that is most evident would probably the great CGI and amazing motion capture. The CGI is Oscar worthy, and the motion capture is some of the best I've ever seen (matched only by a handful of films). It also helps that the movie is just beautifully shot with all around great cinematography. Throughout the film the acting is really good, everyone manages to hold their own and do justice to their characters; but the stand out star is easily Andy Sircus. Doing the motion capture for Caesar, he is incredible. Known for being one of the guys to pioneer motion capture by playing Gollum in "The Lord of the Rings" movies, he's able to put more emotion into an ape than most actors could ever hope to show. He's truly incredible, and if there was ever a case when someone doing motion capture could win an Oscar it would be him. Being a summer blockbuster, the movie's main purpose is to entertain; and fortunately it does just that. The movie is just plain exciting, I was never bored and it always managed to keep my attention. I had never had to pee so badly while sitting through a movie until this one, but I refused to get up because I didn't want to miss a thing. Filled with raw emotion and complimented by some intense action sequences, you'll never want to take your eyes off the screen. One of the biggest surprises was just how complex the movie was, it was so much deeper and had more interesting themes than the last movie; and that's exactly what a sequel needs to do in order to improve upon its predecessor, take a solid base and just make it more. "Dawn of the Planet of the Apes" is to "Rise of the Planet of the Apes" as "The Dark Knight" is to "Batman Begins." I only had one real problem with the movie, the humans. They're just not that interesting, especially compared to the apes. Whenever humans are on screen, you just want them to go back to the apes. They're not bad characters; some just come off as bland. "Dawn of the Planet of the Apes" is fantastic; it's as simple as that. The 2011 film managed to bring a dead series back, and they seem to just be improving on it. There has already been a confirmation that a third film is in the works and should be released in the next couple years. It has a lot to live up to but I think the people behind it can do it. 2014 has been a pretty great year for summer blockbusters, and "Dawn of the Planet of the Apes" might be the best one yet. 

Pros: Great CGI, amazing motion capture, good acting from the entire cast, beautiful cinematography, more complex than expected, amazing performance from Andy Serkis, intense action sequences, gets pretty emotional at times, always keeps you interested, all around exciting, one of the best sequels ever.

Cons: Human characters aren't as interesting as their ape counterparts.

4.5/5 Stars

Locke Review

   A few months ago a friend of mine got to a special screening of a type of experimental film called "Locke." He said it was like nothing he'd ever seen, the entire 85 minute run time is just a single actor sitting in a car talking. At first it didn't sound very interesting, but he vouched for it and the reviews for the movie had been great. So I decided to give it a try, unfortunately I couldn't find it anywhere. It had been released in the UK, but only a limited release in the States. I looked everywhere but it didn't seem that it would be coming to a theater near me anytime soon. Well after months of waiting I finally got to watch it; and it's safe to say that "Locke" is truly a tour de force. 

     The story revolves around Ivan Locke, a construction manager, during an hour and a half car drive. The following day, Ivan is supposed to over see the largest concrete pour in Europe for a new skyscraper, unfortunately he is being plagued with family problems. A while back during a night of heavy drinking, he cheated on his wife; and later found out that the woman has decided to keep the baby. On this particular night, she has gone into premature labor. Ivan could very easily walk away from this situation, but stemming from problems with his own father he decides to be there for the mother and his baby. Originally, he was supposed to travel back home and watch a big soccer match with his family, who he ends up telling about the woman. And on top of all that, there are a series of problems involving the construction tomorrow that threaten to ruin everything. So he has to deal with his family falling apart, the baby that is about to come into this world through adultery, and work problems that threaten months of work all from the confines of his BMW. So it's pretty safe to assume this will be the single longest car ride of his life.

     "Locke" isn't really like any movie I have really ever seen; literally, the entire film involves one actor talking on the phone in his car for the entire run time. The closest comparison I can think of would be "12 Angry Men," but that had a dozen actors carrying the movie. In "Locke" the entire film rests on the shoulders of one actor. This movie could have been an absolute failure, a boring, uninteresting film that could put you to sleep. But to my surprise, it turned out to be one of the most compelling movies of the year. "Locke" is a one man show; Tom Hardy is the only person you see the entire movie, and he is incredible. He manages to show such range and emotion, and keeps you interested the entire time. It is the best performance of his career, one of the best performances of the year, and I really hope he gets nominated for an Oscar for this movie. In a film like this, where the driving force is the writing, dialog is the key. "Locke" is filled with great writing and smart dialog that keeps you interested for the entire film. One of the most striking aspects of the movie would be the cinematography; since the entire movie takes place in the car, I wasn't sure we would see much variety. But the cinematographer does a great job with a series of angles from inside the car as well as shots from the passing cityscapes. They really managed to turn this into a beautiful and expertly shot film. "Locke" manages to do just about everything right, but it does suffer from a single flaw; the movie lacks action. You’re always interested in the film, but watching it you really hope something dynamic would happen. While I was captivated the whole time, I imagine there are a lot of people who would find this movie plain boring; if so, that's their lost. "Locke" is a one of a kind movie; it's a unique experiment that's expertly executed. You can find "Locke" online, and if you have any interest watching it I would highly recommend it. It's one of the best and most interesting movies you'll see in 2014. 

Pros: Oscar worthy performance from Tom Hardy, surprisingly compelling, great writing with smart dialog, meticulous and well done cinematography, a unique experiment that's expertly executed.

Cons: Locks action and may bore some.

4/5 Stars