Category: Movies

Contenders for the Best Film of 2014 so far

It may be a bit early to write a definitive ranking of the best films of the year. Usually it takes a few viewings of the contenders before I can make a true decision on what should be on top. That’s a mistake I made last year. When I did my rankings last year, I added films to the list as I want along. That’s why American Hustle and Nebraska ended up closer to the top of my list. After re-watching the films, I moved the latter back in the list and the former off completely in addition to moving Gravity back and pushing Upstream Color off. Two films that at a certain point held the top spot on my list. I’m not going to have that debacle again. So, instead I’m going to talk about some of the contenders for the best film of the year.

I think the first film I watched that I had thought could make it to the top of the list was Wes Anderson’s The Grand Budapest Hotel (check out Matt Flynn’s review here). Although I didn’t think it was his best work like many others (I still think Moonrise Kingdom surpassed it), it was clearly his most impressive work. The concept of having a story within a story within a story was brilliant and beautifully drawn out. As usual, the film was gorgeous to look at, however the underlying darkness was just as gorgeous.

Speaking of darkness (SEGUE!), the adaptation of John Green’s The Fault in Our Stars (review here) was pretty much as dark as it could get. Josh Boone was so adroitly able to capture the characters of the book while making the film just as, if not more, affecting. Topped off with an Oscar worthy performance from Shailene Woodley (see why I think she’ll be nominated here) and Fault becomes one of the best adaptations of a novel since The Picture of Dorian Grey in 1945. Okay, maybe not that far back, but it’s the first one I could think of.

Denis Villeneuve’s Prisoners made my list last year at number 7, and his latest collaboration with Jake Gyllenhaal is poised to make my list again. Enemy (check out Matt Flynn’s review here) is going to be a film that I have to watch a few times to place on my list. I was enamored by it, and not because I watched it during an insomnia ridden stormy night. It was a psychological thriller mixed with a character study, and it doesn’t really get much better than that. Throw in Villeneuve’s signature gloomy and beautifully color palleted style and you’ve got a film.

Speaking of signature styles (I am a segue machine today!), Jim Jarmusch’s Only Lovers Left Alive relies on it’s gothic style and simple plot to portray a century old love story. Or you could just look at it as Tilda Swinton and Tom Hiddelston playing hipster vampires. Whichever works for you. Anyway, this was a divisive film for me when I watched it. It’s far from perfect. Really far from perfect. However, it is damn fun to watch and damn fun to look at. I’m going to have to watch a few more times to decide if I’m gonna throw it in the top ten, but chances are looking pretty good.

Another divisive film for me was definitely the little watched (thanks Harvey Weinstein) Korean/American co-production Snowpiercer. The only way I could put it is that it’s a perfect action flick. It had a great post-apocolyptic concept, strong characters that you could root for, an impeccable visual style, and most importantly (and what most action movies forget) a clear end goal. Plus, Chris Evans plays a superhero who’s not Captain America, Jamie Bell plays the comic relief, and Octavia Spencer plays a sassy black woman, which is absolutely wonderful.

I’m not totally sure if Stranger By the Lake counts for this list since it technically premiered at Cannes last year, but had its American premiere in January. Either way, it has a great chance to make my top ten list this year or last year. Not only is it a smart, thought provoking drama, it is also dark, sexy, surprisingly funny, engrossing, sexy, entertaining, and did I mention sexy? Despite its full frontal nudity and erotic sex scenes, the film is a masterful work of thrills and suspense.

Lastly, the film that I am confident will end up in at least my top 5… of the decade… is Richard Linklater’s brilliant 12-year masterpiece Boyhood (check out my review here). I know I’ve made it clear that I’m not picking a top film of the year yet, but I’m adamant that this film is most likely, probably, almost certainly, will be at the top of my list. It’s not hard to say why the film will take my best picture slot because it’s just perfect. Plain and simple and perfect. It so gorgeously captures the magic and tragedy of growing up. Framed against an adroitly put together 12 year production, Linklater was able to give an honest look at life.

So that’s all I’ve got, what films are going to make your end of the year list?

July 22, 2014
“Guardians of the Galaxy” Film Review

I make it a general rule to try and stay away from any hype/reviews/general recommendations about what I’ll be reviewing. Marvel’s Guardians of the Galaxy was one of those films where I just couldn’t escape that stuff. Sitting through the coming attractions, I forced myself to push out all of the uber-positive feedback about the film, tried forget that this is supposed to be one of the greatest hero movies ever, and just watch the movie with a fresh mind as best I could.

Thankfully, this was a film that lived up to, and in some areas, exceeded the hype.

On the eve of his mother’s death, Earthling-child Peter Quill is abducted by a group of space pirates. Raised to be a pirate himself, Peter steals a valuable mystery orb, but a botched attempt to sell it puts him into prison. Teaming up with of his fellow outcast inmates, the newly formed Guardians of the Galaxy must fight off the destruction-bent Ronan the Accuser.

Now every superhero movie has some degree of emotional element, some better executed than others. It’s these emotions that drive the protagonist’s goals throughout the film. Yes, a love interest is included here, but the main emotional journey comes the death of Peter’s mother. His prized possession is a mixtape of her favorite songs, and he is seemingly haunted by an unfulfilled deathbed wish of hers. Peter’s character progression deals with finally being able to come to terms with her death, an angle not commonly taken by hero films.

The emotions shown by Pratt (and portrayed brilliantly by Wyatt Oleff as his childhood counterpart) are always blunt and truthful. They are sometimes sweet and heartwarming, sometimes funny, and sometimes gut-wrenching. Many of the minor characters have differing emotional battles throughout the film, ranging from feelings of isolation, to a simple romantic interest. Yet all are done amazing well.

Major kudos to screenwriters James Gunn and Nicole Perlman for injecting a ton of humor into the film. Ranging from slapstick to witty one-liners, the jokes never detract from the action, or take meaning away from the emotional scenes. In terms of character development, humor is used to effortlessly dig deeper into the various characters’ backgrounds. For example, Peter’s love of classic rock/pop hits makes for some always fun soundtrack choices, especially when combined with Chris Pratt’s always hilarious dance moves. Yet it also solidifies the relationship Peter had with his mother, which is a major character element.

I had a few small qualms with the film’s plot, however. Peter’s growing romance with Gamora wasn’t visualized enough on screen, at least for my personal taste. I know that the film was probably trying to shy away from the “normal” love storyline within a lot of hero movies, but any sort of romantic developments seemed to come a bit out of left field because of it. I’m not sure where the couple found the time to develop any sort of romantic interest, and it certainly deserved a couple more minutes of screen time to clarify this.

In addition, there were quite a few confusing moments due to backstory’s not being completely solidified. While we know that Gamora turned against her father and sister because they were evil, we are still left with very little information about where she comes from. However, I presume (and desperately hope) that minor plot holes like this will be filled in during the sequel (yup, it’s happening).

Finally, I need to give credit where credit is due: what little that I didn’t like about this movie was completely forgotten thanks to the hundreds of talented artists working for Framestore, Moving Picture Company, Luma Pictures, Method Studios, Lola VFX, Cantina Creative, Sony Pictures Imagineworks, CoSA VFX, Secret Lab, Rise Visual Effects Solutions, Technicolor VFX, and Industrial Light and Magic. The visual effects are quite possibly the best that I have ever seen in a film. Rocket has to be the most realistic anthropomorphic animal I have ever seen in a film, and all of the alien characters are just as lifelike. Battle scenes were flashy while maintaining realistic grit, and some of the landscapes were truly breathtaking. I saw the film in a standard movie theater, and I was amazed by what I saw. I can only imagine how it looked in IMAX or 3D.

To sum it up simply: the hype is right. Go out and see Guardians of the Galaxy, it is easily worth the time and money, and it honestly deserves to be seen on the silver screen.

Check out our other review by Matt Flynn here!

August 4, 2014
Netflix Flick of the Week: “Don Jon”

What’s not to love about Joseph Gordon-Levitt? He’s a talented young actor who’s good-looking and very charismatic. He starred in great films such as Inception, 500 Days of Summer, and Angels in the Outfield (He played the main character who saw the angels, I just blew some of you’re minds didn’t I?). So what if I told you that not only did he star in, but also written and directed a film where he plays a Guido from New Jersey who has an addiction to pornography and masturbation? You all probably are thinking “What, Really?” Well he does just that in the 2013 comedy Don Jon.

So what’s the film about? It’s actually simple. Gordon-Levitt plays Jon, a young man who only enjoys a few things in life, his body, his place, his girls, his family, his church and pornography. Oddly enough the thing he loves most of all is porn, more than sleeping with woman. Why? Because the girls will do anything and everything in porn that girls in real life won’t do. He enjoys his simple life that is until he meets Barbra, played by Scarlett Johansson. He immediately falls for her and they start to go out. The film follows Jon as he tries to balance his two loves, Barbra and porn.

Don Jon is Gordon-Levitt’s directorial debut, and for his first film, he does well. The story is simple and even though it has a few clichés in it, it does enough different where it keeps the film fresh and original. The film has a great flow to it and it doesn’t rush scenes where you don’t know what happen, nor does it drag, making you wish that it would just move on. You want to know what happens to our main character and how he solves his problem. The cinematography is pretty standard for this kind of film, good but nothing great. The only problem I kind of had was that the film kept going to same places over and over again. It almost seemed to repeat some scenes, but change them slightly.

You think you’re going to hate Gordon-Levitt’s character after the first 10 minutes. Being from New Jersey and absolutely hating Jersey Shore, (If you liked it, more power to you) I was ready to root against Jon. However as you watch the film, you start to like him. He’s confident and doesn’t believe he has a pornography problem, but he’s also hard working, caring, and he does try to change for Barbra. Gordon-Levitt is so good at making you like him, even if you don’t want to. Scarlett Johansson also does a great job of being both sweet and fiery, as she wants Jon to change for her. The other main character is Juliana Moore as Esther, a student with Jon in college as she tries to help him with his problems. Moore does great as always, but it is a little weird watching playing the role she does, trying to seduce a much younger Gordon-Levitt. The rest of the supporting cast is good as well, specially Hank Azaria as the crazy Italian father.

In the end, it’s Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who I think is one of Hollywood’s most underappreciated actors, who really sells this film. Having performed what I like to call the hat trick in films by acting, writing and directing, Don Jon is great comedy that people should give a watch.

July 18, 2014
THANK YOU FOR 10,000 VIEWS!!

We just hit 10,000 views on the website in 2 months. Thank you from everyone on the Smash Cut team. Here is a video message from Editor-in-Chief Karl Delossantos!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMP2-JXFm-0&feature=youtu.be

July 1, 2014
‘Girl Meets World’ Review: “Pilot” (1×01)

Girl Meets World is hard to review. I don’t mean that it’s particularly complicated, because it isn’t. I don’t mean that anything is difficult to discuss, because it’s not. But every time I try to talk about what I like and don’t like, I end up just curling up in a little fanboy ball and being happy seeing Cory and Topanga back on screen. So, with that in mind, let’s get to it.

For those of you who need to be brought up to date, Girl Meets World is a new series airing on the Disney Channel, and is a direct sequel to the 90’s sitcom classic, Boy Meets World. If you haven’t watched Boy Meets World, go watch it. No, like right now. Yes, all seven seasons. The review will still be here when you get back.

…You all caught up? Good, because if you weren’t a fan of Boy Meets World, then there’s probably not a lot worth watching in this pilot. It’s really reminiscent of early BMW, very earnest and hopeful. The pilot episode finds main character Riley Matthews (played by an eerily appropriate-looking Rowan Blanchard) being passed the torch by her father, Cory Matthews (a returning Ben Savage), picking up right where we left off at the end of Boy Meets World, with Cory figuring out what the title meant. She and her best friend, Shawn Hunter sound-alike Maya Hart, played by a stellar Sabrina Carpenter, pull a scheme straight out of early Boy Meets World and stage a revolution in Cory’s classroom, fighting against the unfairness of homework. Everything plays out exactly how you’d expect: mistakes are made, lessons are learned, everyone ends up better people.

It’s a children’s show. It’s about what I expected the plotline to be, especially for a pilot episode. What makes this special is how much love the creators clearly have for the source material. Everything from the paper airplane in the opening credits to the closing riff is lifted from Boy Meets World and used in a new way. We even have a statue in John Quincy Adams middle school in the same place that it was in Boy Meets World’s John Adams. The family dynamic is still there, as is the classroom dynamic, complete with a stable of (mostly) interesting characters, like Farkle Minkus, who watchers of Boy Meets World will recognize as the son of Cory Matthews’ childhood foe, Minkus, who is supposedly going to be making a cameo in an upcoming episode. We even get someone that might fulfill the neighborly Feeny role in Jackée Harry’s Evelyn Rand, delivering wisdom unexpectedly on the subway.

This is not to say that the show doesn’t have its flaws. Lucas Friar, Riley’s “love interest”, is flat and almost completely without any characterization in this pilot episode. Likewise for Cory’s intervention in Riley’s romantic life. Part of the charm of Boy Meets World is that the adults were never directly interfering. They would offer advice, maybe a little bit of nudging, but they never got directly involved in their children’s lives like Cory did in this episode. Maybe it’s a direct factor of him taking on both the father and the mentor role, but I would really like a return to form, where Cory offers advice and guidance, but doesn’t pull his daughter’s new love interest physically away from her. We also see Topanga and Auggie, Riley’s brother, but only for maybe a line or two, and they were criminally underused.

Finally, we have to talk about the cameo of Mr. Feeny. It’s nice that they signify the real passing of the torch, from Boy to Girl, from mentor to mentor, but I’ve got a lot of questions. Is Mr. Feeny dead? Is he famous? How’d he get on all those posters in the subway? These are only half-joking, but if they’re going to be serious about carrying over all of the canon from Boy Meets World, they’re going to have to be meticulous with it. This show is going to pull in half its audience in adults who really want to be brought back to the years that they watched Boy Meets World, and if they start messing with the original show, they’re going to alienate all those people.

This show has a lot of promise, but it’s got the weight of one of the best sitcoms ever hanging over its head. I really want this show to succeed, and I’m going to keep tuning in to watch. If it lives up to its promise, I’m going to be so happy, but it’s got a lot of fighting to do before it comes into its own. Here’s hoping.

June 28, 2014
Top Five Movie Trilogies

Almost all of the time, movie franchises start off as an idea for one film that the producers are hoping can make them money. When these films are successful, Hollywood decides to capitalize on their success and make sequels. When it comes to film, three seems to be the magic number. We’ve seen many great film trilogies come by and I hear to name my top 5 favorite trilogies. Before I start, I’m just going to say that this is opinion based, so if you don’t agree with my list, then that’s perfectly fine. Now on with show!

5. The Blood and Ice Cream Trilogy (Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz, The World’s End)
I’m starting with three films that people probably have heard of, but may not have known was part of a trilogy. Director and Writer Edgar Wright teamed up with comedic actors Simon Pegg (who has also help written) and Nick Frost to make 3 different spoof movies. First was Shaun of the Dead, a spoof on zombie films (mainly George Romero films). Next was Hot Fuzz, a spoof on buddy cop films and finally The World’s End, a spoof on either alien invaders, the apocalypse or beer drinking, its kind of hard to tell. What makes these films different from other spoofs is that the writing great, with witty jokes and dialogue between the characters, Pegg and Frost work really well together and have great chemistry on set. All three films are fantastic and hilarious. The reason it’s only number 5 is that I wanted to try to stick with trilogies that tell the same story and have the same characters through each film. However these films we’re too good to leave off. Also why is it called the Blood and Ice Cream Trilogy? Because there is blood and ice cream in each film. Funny you wouldn’t it would be that simple

4. Back to the Future
Director/Producer Robert Zemeckis has a long list of great film achievements and the Back to the Future trilogy is one of his best. The first film is considered the pinnacle time-travel movie. The film not only had a great story, but also great comedic timing and many memorable scenes and lines (Great Scott! 1.21 gigawatts! Make like a tree, and get out of here, I could go all day). The acting is also fantastic. Michael J. Fox really sells it as the young, cool, kind of snarky Marty McFly and Christopher Lloyd practicly created the move scientist look. The score of the films are also very memorable. Its sequels were able to carry over the great things from the first film without rehashing the plot. It feels like one long story instead 3 of the same movie. While people feel that the third is too different, I actually like the change of scenery to the old west. It lets us see how our two main characters act in a completely different environment. Overall, a memorable experience.

3. Lord of the Rings
I know what you’re thinking… HOW THE HECK IS LORD OF THE RINGS ONLY #3!!!! Well let me explain: Yes these films are fantastic and definitly deserve to be #1 on a lot of lists. The thing is with me; I’m not that huge of a Lord of the Rings. Don’t get me wrong, I do like the movies, Peter Jackson created such a beautiful, mystical world with great characters. The action scenes are amazing and the overall cinematography is some of the best in film history. The acting is great and you get many memorable performances. While it can be a little slow at times, there is plenty to keep you invested. But again, I’m just not that huge of a fan. I do though really enjoy the films and recognize all of the great things here. It’s just not my #1 choice.

2. Toy Story
I feel like this will come as a little bit of a surprise to some people, but it really shouldn’t. I’m surprised that no one really mentions Toy Story in his or her top movie trilogies list. The first Toy Story move was one of those films that changed cinema. It was the first full computer generated film and one of the first to use CGI for children’s films (Prior it was mostly used for action). It has so many memorable characters, from Woody (Tom Hanks), Buzz Lightyear (Tim Allen) and Jesse (Joan Cusack), you enjoyed all of them. This is also one of those rare trilogies that got better as the films progressed. They also got much more mature and had a lot more heart as they went on. (I know you cried or almost cried at the end of Toy Story 3, don’t lie to me). I know when I turn old; I’ll still be watching these kid’s films. They we’re truly magical, the kind of magic that Pixar usually brings.

1. Star Wars: The Original Trilogy
You can argue that Lord of the Rings is better or even Toy Story, but I don’t care. Star Wars is my number 1 movie trilogy. I was debating before writing this the other four spots what they would be, but I knew from the start that this would be my number 1 choice. Star Wars was one of the first films I’d seen, and so many moments have stuck with me today. From the Death Star run, to the lightsaber battle with Darth Vader, to the attack on Endor, the magic that this franchise has is truly amazing. The acting is great and everything else is good as well, such as the cinematogrophry and set and character design, but it’s the story that really sells it for me. The mythos that George Lucas created has stuck with me forever and these will be the first few movies that I show my kids. It’s just that simple, if you haven’t seen these films, give them a watch, you won’t regret it.

June 26, 2014
Netflix Flick of the Week: “Jack Reacher”

out of 10

I’ve got a confession. I will watch anything with Tom Cruise in it. Anything, no matter how bad. I watched Rock of Ages just because Tom Cruise was in it. I watched Cocktail, a movie in which Tom Cruise flips bottles and sleeps with rich women in New York City for half an hour, in Jamaica for half an hour, and then in New York City for another half an hour, with only the barest hint of a plot holding it together, and enjoyed myself. The man’s one of the last true movie stars, carrying terrible scripts on nothing but raw charisma and swagger. So, when Jack Reacher popped up in my “Recommended Movies” list, I stopped my current TV marathon (Burn Notice, in case you were wondering) because, hey, Tom Cruise.

The first thing of note about Reacher (by director Christopher McQuarrie) is the length. When I saw the preview image, Tom Cruise standing in front of an American flag, vaguely glowing, I expected this movie to be a tight ninety minutes, moving from action setpiece to action setpiece with vague exposition in-between. Instead, the movie stretches out into two hours, most of which is filled with semi-obvious investigation and moderately cliche dialog. It’s an odd fusion of crime thriller and mystery film, where every time I thought something was a little loose, it turned out to serve a purpose in the greater whole of the plot.

While otherwise this movie wouldn’t hold together, the cast keeps the movie running. The secondary cast alone is full of big names. Werner Herzog, director/writer/actor, plays our villain, giving the caricature Russian crime boss some real life, and Robert Duvall brings some real pedigree to the movie as Cash, our grizzled old soldier. Also notable are Richard Jenkins, recognizable from the recent hit Cabin in the Woods, and Michael Raymond James of Terriers, gone too soon, just like his television show. However, in a two-hour movie, none of these side characters is given much to do, and most don’t get more than twenty minutes of screen time, total.

Instead, the show is owned by Cruise and his co-star, Rosamund Pike, here showing off an American accent and an impressive range. However, she doesn’t get much to do next to Cruise’s Jack Reacher, who is always one step ahead of everyone else, no matter what’s happening. He’s a man with a mysterious unknown past, murky morals, and the skills you need to get the job done, and if that sounds cliche to you, it pales in comparison to some of the dialog written for the character. He actually speaks the sentence “I’m not a hero”, which alone should be cause for alarm, but when combined with the skills to shoot every gun, drive any car, fight any gang, and a photographic memory to boot, he’s almost superhuman.

And you know what? The fact that he was almost borrowed from a straight-to-VHS action movie from the 1980’s didn’t matter as much as it should have. This is the kind of role that Cruise excels in, taking a larger then life character and making him at least seem believable. He’s cool and confident, and that sells the fact that the audience should at least attempt to take Jack Reacher seriously as a character. I dug it, but then again, I’m not the most objective viewer of that (remember, Cocktail).

If you’re like me, and you’ll watch anything with Tom Cruise in it, then this is a must-include in your queue. Ditto if you’re into superhuman witticism machines. If you’re looking for a way to kill some time, this isn’t a bad one, but if I’m being totally honest, and I am, you could probably do better. The two-hour run time hurts, and if you’re not into the Tom Cruise variety show, guest-starring the rest of the cast, you’re not going to have too good of a time.

June 27, 2014
Netflix Flick of the Week: “Best Worst Movie”
out of 10

“Troll 2 is strangely watchable in a train wreck sort of way”. I can’t think of any better way to describe the b-movie to end all b-movies. While other films have come and sucked, “Troll 2” displays some of the worst acting, directing, writing, and everything else ever put on the big screen. So why is it so compelling of a film to watch? This is the subject of the film “Best Worst Movie”, a look at the phenomena that is “Troll 2” that aims to discover how a movie that aimed so high crashed so low, and why it’s still loved by so many.

Having started a b-horror film in my high school, not having seen “Troll 2” is like not seeing “The Wizard of Oz”. However, I realize it is possible that not everyone has seen “Troll 2”, so I will briefly recap the genius of it. “Troll 2” (No connection to “Troll”, but only named that to capitalize on its success) revolves around a family that vacations in a town called Nilbog, only to find that the town is infested with vegetarian goblins, and that Nilbog is Goblin spelled backgrounds. Along the way, there are ghost grandfathers, subtle homosexual relationships, and a boy peeing on a feast while time has frozen around him. Also, while there are plenty of goblins in the film, there is not a single Troll. You won’t recognize any of the stars because they went on to do very little to nothing else, and this is where “Best Worst Movie” picks up.

“Best Worst Movie” is directed by the man who played the young boy protagonist in “Troll 2”, and primarily follows George Hardy, the man who played the father in the film. The film opens looking at present day Hardy, a successful dentist living in Alabama, who is the most liked member of his community. Everyone interviewed from his staff to his ex-wife claims how great of a guy he is. The tone shifts, however, with this exchange between the interviewer and George’s mom.

Mother: “He’s one of the kindest people. Fun to be around.”

Interviewer: “What’d you think of your son’s performance in “Troll 2”?

Mother: (Excessive Laughter) “He’s no Cary Grant. I left in the middle of the movie.”

This small exchange demonstrates to the viewer just how bad of a film “Troll 2” would have to be to not even get his mothers endorsement. The film continues to follow George, who in the beginning of the film wanted nothing to do with “Troll 2”, and had not told anyone in his town he was in the film. Over the course of the movie, however, he begins to realize the cult status that “Troll 2” has gained over the years, and ventures to different cities to attend showings of the film. He loves the attention and the fact that people love this film, despite his knowledge that everyone realizes how awful it is. They also recruit all of the other cast members to join them, as well as the films director, Claudio Fragasso. This is where the film shifts and even becomes a little bit depressing. While the cast can accept that people hate the film and get in on the joke, Fragasso still believes that he made a great movie. He was excited to learn of the films sudden popularity, but is confused when people laugh at both what they are supposed to laugh at and what they are not supposed to laugh at. It’s a cultural barrier that prevents the Italian director Fragasso from realizing that people like to laugh at his movie because of how bad it is, while he remains certain of its high quality, even saying that the actors remember the experience wrong and that they are “full of bullshit”.

I believe that the film is asking two questions here:
1. Why are “Troll 2” and other terribly made B-films like it so beloved despite the fact that they are so low in quality?
1. Should it matter to the cast and crew that the movie sucks as long as people still like it?
Being such a fan of b-movies, I agree with the films answer to the first question. These films are so loved because of how genuine they are. People put a lot of work and heart into making the film and it just didn’t work. It’s because everyone involved really believed in what they are doing, despite the fact that it failed miserably.

As for the second question, the film suggests that the people involved should be proud of the film because people like it, even if it is horribly made. Even the director, who believes he made a great film, says that making the worst movie ever made is almost as good as making the best. Either way, he is happy that he made an impression on people, because as he put it, movies are successful when they affect people. Looking at how happy the people watching the film are as well as how happy George Hardy is talking about the film, I don’t think it matters for a second what the movie intended to do. As “Best Worst Movie” states, films like “Troll 2”, so genuine and weird, only come around once in a lifetime. I, for one, believe they should be celebrated.

The film currently has 3.5/5 stars on Netflix.
June 20, 2014
’22 Jump Street’ Review: Avoids the Usual Sequel Pitfalls by Pointing Them Out

out of 10

As much as I enjoyed 2012’s 21 Jump Street, I couldn’t help but groan when I first saw a commercial 22 Jump Street. Don’t get me wrong, I was pretty excited to watch it, but I know how Hollywood sequels go. They’re created purely to make money, reformatting the same plot and jokes as the original movie, without being able to successfully execute either. While this plot was somewhat reformatted, 22 Jump Street exceeded my expectations by being smart enough to avoid a large amount of “sequel-syndrome.”

Taking up where the previous film left off, Officers Schmidt and Jenko (Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum, respectively) infiltrate a college to find the supplier of a new, powerful drug. Other than the setting change, the plot is more or less the same as 21 Jump Street. Screenwriters Michael Bacall, Oren Uziel, and Rodney Rothman wisely use this to their advantage, inserting a variety of jokes poking fun at the film’s sequel status. Most of these are pretty obvious, but there were a bunch of subtle one-liners that not everybody may pick up immediately. Ranging from parodies of romantic-comedy films, to some seemingly metaphorical lines, it was refreshing and impressive to see such a mainstream film not constantly feeding the audience hollow jokes.

Yet even when the film delves into some well tread upon comedic topics (drugs, drinking, crazy teachers, sex, police mishaps, funny accents), the jokes tend to end up being more mature than usual. They are short and to the point, never relying on gross-out or overly-crude humor. Amazingly enough, none seemed to be ripped off from the first movie (at least that I could notice). Sorry folks, but that recurring delayed-explosion gag from 21 Jump Street is nowhere to be found here. Many of the biggest laughs come from the interplay between Hill and Tatum, but Ice Cube steals the show as the ever-enraged Police Captain Dickson.

22 Jump Street is no cinematic masterpiece, but it’s one hell of a fun time. It may not become everybody’s favorite movie, but well worth the viewing. It manages to generally avoid sequel-syndrome, and is able to be and equal match for its successful predecessor.

(The film got a bonus point for having quite possible the funniest end credits sequence I’ve ever seen.)

June 15, 2014
Netflix Flick of the Week: “Pain and Gain”

out of 10

Pain and Gain is an action/comedy film directed by Michael Bay. Now before you close this page and immediately say this movie is crap, let me explain, because this film is actually pretty good. Starring Mark “Marky Mark” Wahlberg, Dwayne Johnson and Anthony Mackie, the film, based on a true story, is about three gym rats who decided to get rich quick by stealing wealthy business man Victor Kershaw’s (Tony Shalhoub) entire fortune. Their plan involves kidnapping Kershaw and forcing him to sign away his money to them. The film centers on their heist, the aftermath and everything that goes wrong.

The biggest strength the movie has is that it is a comedy. Being directed by Michael Bay this could’ve easily been a poor action flick that takes itself too serious about three guys committing a theft. However the film doesn’t do that, often making fun of the situation our “heroes” are in. While not all of the jokes hit, most of them do and they had me laughing. The film itself is very surreal; ranging from the cinematography to the actual story it is based on.

Mark Wahlberg plays Daniel Lugo, the leader of the small group of criminals. While at first glance it may seem like he’s playing a typical criminal, but surprisingly, his character goes through more than you think he would. Lugo’s personality ranges from an asshole gym rat, a determined go-get’er, a (somewhat) criminal mastermind, a psychotic killer, just psychotic, and a bumbling idiot. Wahlberg has to go through a lot, but he handles it well.

However, the one who really steals show though is Dwayne Johnson’s character Paul Doyle, an ex convict who reformed through religion and Jesus Christ. Now just the idea of The Rock playing a softhearted, religious nut case alone is funny enough, but I found myself laughing at almost everything he did, like comforting the man they just kidnapped to trying to steal money. You never know what his character is going to do, but it’s hilarious either way. The rest of the supporting cast does a good job, though nothing spectacular.

I did find a few problems with the movie though. Like I said, some of the jokes do miss, and when they miss, they really miss. It takes a little while in the beginning to get going and the end of the film gets away a little but from the surreal, goofy tone that was making the movie great. While Anthony Mackie does a fine job as Luco’s partner Adrian, he’s not as a good as Wahlberg or as funny as Johnson.

If you want to have a good time with some friends and watch a silly film about three idiots trying to pull of a kidnapping, then you can’t go wrong here. It has a few moments that make you scratch your head, but as a whole, the film is crazy, funny, and above all else, enjoyable.

June 13, 2014
Confessions of A Crazed Fan (Part 1): The Night Before Our Stars Review

Smash Cut Review already published a wonderful review of The Fault In Our Stars which pretty much says everything about why the film not only didn’t disappoint, but also exceeded expectations. But as someone who attended The Night Before Our Stars event, I feel I have a unique perspective on the film which I hope to bring you with this review thing. I say “review thing” because I’m pretty sure this will end up being more the ramblings of a crazed madman/fan of the movie, partially in list form, than an actual review. But I promise if it is anything, it will be entertaining- just like The Fault in Our Stars was.

THIS SERVES AS A WARNING- SINCE THIS IS A COLLECTION OF MY THOUGHTS AND RAMBLINGS AFTER HAVING JUST SEEN THE FILM, IT WILL CONTAIN MANY, MANY SPOILERS ABOUT THE PLOT AND ENDING OF THE FILM. YOU HAVE BEEN DULY WARNED:

I’d like to start off by giving quick review of my The Night Before Our Stars event experience. First things first, I was delighted to receive the poster below (along with a pendant I will almost assuredly never use).

Entering the theater, I knew I would be one of the older audience members in attendance, but I was not nearly prepared for the sheer amount of teenage girls in attendance wearing “Okay, Okay” shirts and sporting arms with DFTBA written in permanent marker. This is definitely a film with audience skewed much younger and probably primarily female- so take that as a warning for your ears (more on that later). But once the film started, I was mostly able to tune that all out (except the occasional sobbing).

Once the film was done, there was a short break and then the livestream session began. The livestream ran into a number of technical difficulties in my theater at least, with a few frame-rate buffering issues and a few heavy blasts of feedback being played through the theater’s speakers. But it was mostly a decent quality broadcast.

Overall, the Q+A with the cast, director Josh Boone, producer Wyck Godfried, and author John Green was somewhat interesting, with the host, whose name I cannot remember bouncing back and forth between questions from the live theater audience in Georgia and questions from twitter. However, some of the questions asked were pointless or just downright stupid- like for example one person asking the cast if they felt “connected to the characters they played,” or another person asking, “Why wasn’t Sisyphus the Hamster in the movie” (which, by the way, a reference to Sisyphus the Hamster was in the movie) that the whole thing just seemed sort of like a waste of time. For a long while, the thing the people in my audience found most interesting about it was that one of the twitter questions they took was from a user named “ConWhore,” which elicited giggles from the fifteen year olds in the audience who believed the word “whore” to be taboo.

The saving grace for the 45 minute livestream was the musical performances. Birdy, an eighteen year old British singer talented beyond her years, played two songs, starting off with her wonderful “Not About Angels” from the Original Soundtrack, and then following it up with her stunning cover of Bon Iver’s “Skinny Love,” which prompted me to ask on twitter: “What was more devastating: The Fault in Our Stars, or watching Birdy cover “Skinny Love” live?” The performance actually led to Shailene Woodley being in tears for the first twenty minutes of the Q+A, as she noted that Birdy’s performance was “beautiful.” After the Q+A, a performance from Nat and Alex Wolff that was enjoyable but not up to Birdy’s level, and a showing of the deleted scene involving a John Green cameo closed out the livestream (thank God the cameo was cut from the finished film as not only would it have been a distracting fourth-wall nod at the audience, but his performance was also particularly wooden). Overall, it was a fun experience, but I’m not sure the livestream itself was worth the time and money I spent on it.

Now to my general thoughts on the film itself, in list form: CHECK OUT PART TWO!

June 6, 2014
Confessions of A Crazed Fan (Part 2): The Fault in Our Stars Review
Smash Cut Review already published a wonderful review of The Fault In Our Stars which pretty much says everything about why the film not only didn’t disappoint, but also exceeded expectations. But as someone who attended The Night Before Our Stars event, I feel I have a unique perspective on the film which I hope to bring you with this review thing. I say “review thing” because I’m pretty sure this will end up being more the ramblings of a crazed madman/fan of the movie, partially in list form, than an actual review. But I promise if it is anything, it will be entertaining- just like The Fault in Our Stars was.

THIS SERVES AS A WARNING- SINCE THIS IS A COLLECTION OF MY THOUGHTS AND RAMBLINGS AFTER HAVING JUST SEEN THE FILM, IT WILL CONTAIN MANY, MANY SPOILERS ABOUT THE PLOT AND ENDING OF THE FILM. YOU HAVE BEEN DULY WARNED:

5 scenes that made me cry
1. The trophy scene- First to the one’s that made me cry happy tears. This scene in particular made me laugh harder than I have in any movie since This Is The End’s credits scene (you know the one). Shailene and Ansel keeping a constant serious conversation going as Nat Wolff exacts carnage just off-screen was perhaps my favorite moment in the whole movie. Extra props to Nat as he keeps screaming “ALWAYS” while he slams the trophies into the wall.
2. The scene near the end in which Hazel confronts her mom about hearing her say she would no longer be a mom, and her mother saying “I will always be your mom,” and then admitting that she had been taking classes for social work. Happy tears everywhere.
3. The pre-funeral scene. I’m not sure a single scene has been adapted from a book that perfectly ever before. More on this later
4. Though I surprisingly didn’t cry during the scene in which Hazel finds out Augustus has passed away, I did cry quite a bit at the scene in which Augustus calls Hazel from the gas station near death. This is by far Ansel Elgort’s best scene in the film, and it is emotionally gripping as he slams his hand into the steering wheel and shouts that he hates himself for his weakness.
5. The obvious choice for the final time I cried, the final scene in which a voiceover of Augustus eulogizes Hazel left me an emotional wreck. While so much of that final scene was taken directly from the book, I believe it is Shailene Woodley’s performance as she lays in the grass in a stunning white dress (which subtly refers back to John Green’s marriage-referencing ending) to look at the stars that sells the beautiful closing of the film.
Things I Loved:

1. The film’s score and Original Soundtrack- The film is impeccably scored with swells and emotional resonance at the perfect moments, emotionally impactful songs punctuating emotive acting performances, and carefully selected songs enhancing the cinematography of the film. Really the only misstep is a song that is far too high in the mix as the film shows off aerial shots of Amsterdam for the first time.

2. Nat Wolff, Nat Wolff, Nat Wolff- It’s hard-impossible nearly- to believe that this nineteen-year-old who holds the comic center of this film together was once the lead vocalist of the Nickelodeon-pop act The Naked Brothers Band. I don’t see any of the Jonas Brothers with this masterful a comedic performance. He transforms the character of Isaac from a blubbering mess to a triumphant, witty sidekick. I wish he had more screen time, but blame that on John Green. I can’t wait to see what he does with Quentin’s character in the Paper Towns adaptation.

3. Everything about the pre-funeral scene- in which Isaac and Hazel read their eulogies to Augustus. It was so charming to see all three actors both tearing up and laughing together. You can tell that these actors truly came to love each other, and it’s apparent as they sit there in The Literal Heart of Jesus, reenacting that wonderful scene from the books to a T- almost word for word even.

4. Mike Birbiglia- Dude is just straight up hilarious. He nails Patrick, and despite only probably 2 minutes max of screen time became one of my favorite parts of the film. His deadpanning Christian songs on an acoustic guitar had me rolling.

Things I Didn’t Like:
1. The Crowd- First of all, it was definitely skewed female and very young. The “squeezing” was palpable every time Hazel Grace and Augustus did something semi-romantic on screen- especially at the first moment in which Ansel Elgort’s Augustus appears on screen as he bumps into Hazel. Second, the crowd was downright disrespectful at times, talking loudly during quiet moments of the film.
2. One particular line that was omitted that I wish was left in: Gus telling Hazel Grace near the end of his life, “You used to call me Augustus.” In John Green’s books “What’s in a name” is a recurring theme, and that theme is obviously present in The Fault In Our Stars as well- as Augustus deliberately calls Hazel “Hazel Grace” despite her assertion that it’s “Just Hazel.” In the book, when Augustus says the above line to Hazel, it’s in that moment that you realize how frail Gus has become. His delusions of grandeur, which have led him to introducing himself with his full, regal sounding name, have been stripped from him as his health deteriorates, and even the person who thought of him as larger than life, Hazel, calls him by the child-like name “Gus” near the end. That line in the film would’ve really helped to characterize Augustus as he headed towards death.
3. I still think having Augustus and Hazel share their first kiss at the Anne Frank House is a little overwrought with sentimentality and a bit insensitive- comparing the love of two kids with terminal disease to the desire to stay alive in a Holocaust is a little too farfetched a comparison. I understand why John Green did it originally, I just don’t know if I necessarily agree with it.
4. I know it’s dumb to nitpick things like this, but I particularly loved that Hazel instinctively knows in the book that Augustus wrote his number in the copy of CounterInsurgence he lent her- this playfulness at the early stages of their relationship were forsaken for wistful shots of Hazel looking at her phone waiting for Augustus to call her- which I felt was unfair to Hazel’s characterization in the book.
Changes they made to the film that I liked:
1. Changing the last line “I do” which was obviously supposed to be a reference to the wedding Gus and Hazel would never have, to the much more relevant “okay, okay” which really epitomizes Gus and Hazel’s relationship made for a much more poignant ending to the film. The story’s ending still isn’t perfect, but that simple line change makes it much closer to being right than it was.
2. I know I spoke before of and omission from the book that hurt Augustus’ character, but I want to speak about one change the film made that I think benefitted Augustus’ character, or at least Ansel Elgort’s portrayal of the character. In the book, the pre-Amsterdam scene involves Hazel and her mom pulling up to Augustus’ house as he yells at his mother- simultaneously giving away the book’s twist. In the film, they switched this to Augustus pulling up to the Lancaster’s residence in a limo, head out the sunroof and cigarette in mouth. Not only does this preserve the bombshell of the film’s twist, but it also helps to signify Augustus’s showmanship and penchant for grand gestures.
3. Part of the duty of a great adapted screenplay is cutting the fat from a novel in order to fit the story into a neat two hour story arc. Two cuts that Scott Neustadter and Michael Weber made for the film that ended up making the story line much more concise and linear were: the removal of Augustus’ dead ex-girlfriend Caroline from the story, and the combination of the two post-Amsterdam Peter Van Houten scenes-the second of which fixes the farfetched ending of the novel. The removal of Caroline keeps the focus directly on Hazel and Gus’ relationship and makes Gus more sympathetic as he wasn’t solely interested in Hazel because he saw her as a ghost of his ex originally. You don’t need Caroline to exist to understand why Hazel feels she is a “grenade.” The later Van Houten scenes being combined to one in Hazel’s car after the funeral clear up what was one of the dumber parts of the ending of the novel. In the novel, Van Houten had received correspondence from Augustus in his dying days that he must attend Augustus’ funeral, but Van Houten had not received the all-important letter from Augustus with Hazel’s eulogy. In the film, he did in fact receive the letter with Augustus’ eulogy to Hazel, and delivers it to Hazel at the funeral. This clears up why Van Houten would’ve received some letters from Augustus, but not all of them, and also makes the transition from the funeral to the film’s ending with Augustus’ voiceover of the eulogy much more streamlined.
I hope you enjoyed the film as much as I did, but if you didn’t what do you think they could’ve done better? I’d be interested in hearing what you think, or even seeing what you loved, hated, or thought was done better or worse than the book?

Want to know what I thought about The Night Before Our Stars event? CHECK OUT PART ONE!
June 6, 2014
Netflix Flick of the Week: “Stuck in Love”

Dir. by Josh Boone

Written and directed by Josh Boone (the director of the highly anticipated film adaptation of John Green’s The Fault in Our Stars. See our review here.), Stuck in Love (2012) was Boone’s debut, and a star-studded one at that.

I’m kind of obsessed with family resemblances, and the casting is pretty spot-on there. The Mortal Instruments’ Lily Collins radiates confidence as Samantha, and Nat Wolff’s Rusty, as Sam’s younger brother, is an endearing stoner-wallflower. Both resemble their mother, played by Jennifer Connelly. Oh, and Kristen Bell plays the neighbor that the novelist father is having casual sex with! The film is about love (obviously), realism versus romance, and writers.

Samantha and Rusty grew up in the kind of house where their dad, novelist William Borgens (Greg Kinnear), would pay them to write in their journals, and sure enough, both of them have inherited their father’s writing talents. Even though I hate Samantha for getting a book published while in college, she is the one who tells her father he can’t behave like that when she finds out he has been spying on his ex-wife. Samantha is a realist, and somehow Collins plays her as sophisticated (if often cocky), even when she refuses to talk to her own mother.

Rusty is the hopeless romantic, and his writing forms the opening lines of the movie (“I remember that it hurt. Looking at her hurt.”). I would call his father, William, a hopeless romantic too, with the way that he stalks his ex-wife, Erica—but he has sex with Kristen Bell’s Tricia often enough to forgo that title.

And yet, when Erica accuses him of being in denial about everything, I agree with her; when she comes to his house in distress about their daughter, you can easily see that he thought she came back for him. Stuck in Love has such beautifully heartbreaking moments that made me love it.

Logan Lerman plays baby-faced fellow writing student Lou who “reeks of romance and good intentions” according to Samantha, and has the nice guy thing going for him while she’s a rather cynical manic pixie dream girl. Eventually, though, she admits, “You make me feel less cynical.”

And that’s not a spoiler because these characters and their relationships go through all sorts of developments and grow throughout the story. This film is very character-driven, not plot-driven, but it is exciting, heartbreaking, and surprising. The soundtrack is also pretty stellar, featuring Conor Oberst and Elliot Smith.

The film has an average rating of 4.1 out of 5 stars on Netflix.

June 6, 2014
5 Video Games that Should be Turned into Movies

[metaslider id=2075]

May 19, 2014
7 Great Stage to Screen Adaptations (Musicals)

In honor of The Sting being turned into a musical to be put up on the great white way, we decided to go the other way. Here are 7 great stage to screen adaptations.

7. Chicago (2002 | Directed by Rob Marshall | Starring Renee Zellweger, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Richard Gere, Queen Latifah, and John C. Reilly)
SIX ACADEMY AWARDS including BEST PICTURE

Some people consider this one of the worst Best Picture winners in history, but I could never see why. After a lull, it essentially revived the movie musical. What made Chicago so successful as a film was the filmmakers’ decision to utilize dream sequences for the musical numbers. Every thing was made up in Roxie Hart’s jazz infused mind. It made the leap that some people had to make to watch a musical more bearable.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbebD653agE

6. My Fair Lady (1964 | Directed by George Cukor | Starring Audrey Hepburn, Rex Harrison, Stanley Holloway, Wilifrid Hyde-White, Gladys Cooper, and Jeremy Brett)
EIGHT ACADEMY AWARDS including BEST PICTURE, BEST DIRECTOR, and BEST ACTOR

It’s another musical that is purely successful off charm, but Hepburn’s wonderful performance as Eliza Doolittle was yet another asset. She, along with Cukor were able to take this seemingly cold musical into something full charisma and of pure entertainment.

5. On the Town (1949 | Directed by Gene Kelly and Stanley Donen | Starring Gene Kelly, Frank Sinatra, Ann Miller, and Betty Garrett)

It’s such a charming story with such a charming score. It produced such classics like New York, New York, Lonely Town, and Some Other Time. More importantly, the film acted as a love letter to the big city. Filled with excitement, humor, and a bright outlook on life, it almost helps you get past the pure spectacle of it all.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aO3Gb5mkwTc

4. Funny Girl (1968 | Directed by William Wyler | Starring Barbara Streisand, Omar Sharif, and Kay Medford)
BARBARA STREISAND WON THE OSCAR for BEST ACTRESS

In addition to proving Streisand is a magnificent actress, it also proved that with the right direction anyone can be funny. Her timing was as good as any comedian. The movie is over-produced, over-done, and overwhelming, but its saving grace is Streisand’s amazing performance. It’s simply a star vehicle and that star turned an overly dramatic musical into something bearable.

3. West Side Story (1961 | Directed by Robert Wise and Jerome Robbins | Starring Natalie Wood, Richard Beymer, Rita Moreno, and George Chakiris)
TEN ACADEMY AWARDS including BEST PICTURE and BEST DIRECTOR

No list about movie musicals is complete without the classic Stephen Sondheim and Arthur Laurents tale about lovers on different sides of the track. It is a straight forward adaptation, but the story transfers so well onto screen. What also helped was Jerome Robbins’ careful and tricot direction that ensured the adaptation was done well. It also didn’t hurt that Rita Moreno and George Chakiris turned in magnificent performances.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIjobdArtiA

2. The Sound of Music (1965 | Directed by Robert Wise | Starring Julie Andrews and Christopher Plummer)

FIVE ACADEMY AWARDS including BEST PICTURE and BEST DIRECTOR

We know countless songs from the musical: “Do Re Mi,” “The Sound of Music.” “My Favorite Things,” but the success in the musical is not familiarity. It’s sentimental to a fault, with a little bit of camp. It’s irresistible, even to the most cynical. The Sound of Music essentially one of the most charming movie musicals out there that will fill you with warm puppies and rainbows.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xfh_nsMOM0

1. Cabaret (1972 | Directed by Bob Fosse | Starring Liza Minnelli, Michael York, Joel Grey, Fritz Wepper, Marisa Berenson)
EIGHT ACADEMY AWARDS including BEST DIRECTOR and BEST ACTRESS

Cabaret isn’t just one of my favorite movie musicals out there, it’s also one of my favorite movies of all time. It is a film that is crafted so well with techniques being born on the screen. Everything from its cinematography, to editing, to sound is so well done and ahead of its time that it is clearly a timeless classic. It’s catchy, sexy, and electric. Plus, it’s Bob Fosse, who could resist?

May 30, 2014