The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies - Movie Review

            

           The ridiculous notion of the studios to split a book half the length of The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring into three movies (especially since the movie adaptation of The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring was only one movie) has had its effects on all of the movies. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey was not received well by hardcore fans of The Lord of the Rings franchise due to its large pacing issues, being that the movie was only the first few chapter of the book. The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug added in characters that were not in the book - Legolas (Orlando Bloom; a key character in The Lord of the Rings) and Tauriel (Evangeline Lilly) - in order to add excitement and length the run time of the film. Because of that, it was received much better. The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies unfortunately has a problem that is not fixed, like the first. Being the third and final part, in which everything goes down, it becomes mostly payoff with no exposition and buildup, only action. Because of this, the action scenes become exponentially less exciting and exhilarating due to the lack of emotion and motivation behind the events. The Lord of the Rings: The Returnof the King, being the third and final part in which everything goes down, went in with the possibility of the same problems being in the final product. However, that movie took its time to further develop characters and add motivation, substance, and depth to its action. Because of this, that is a fantastic movie. This is a very flawed one.

            The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies is the grand finale of The Hobbit trilogy in which everything built up to in the previous two films goes down, as already stated. This movie picks up right after the last, with Smaug having an effect on things due to the events at the close of the last film. Then, we have the elves, dwarves, and orcs all trying to gain control of the abandoned but newly re-inhabited Dwarf Kingdom Erebor in what turns out to be The Battle of the Five Armies.

            This movie has a lot going for it. Its undeniably high budget contributes to some amazing scenes filled with spectacle. This film is very good-looking; the cinematography is very good. And some of the visual effects are great; some of them… Because some are very disappointingly obvious. There is some lazy, full-body CGI that does not work. It is so easy to tell that it is a computer generated image and it takes you out of the movie. Luckily, not all of the CGI is like that, though.

            Anyway, the action in this movie is fantastic. Many shots in it are excellent. And there are hints of the genius, excellent filmmaking used in The Lord of the Rings trilogy that made it so great. It is disappointing that there are not many times, but there are some when it shows. But besides that, the action is exhilarating and not-at-all boring. But as stated above, it could have been so much better if there was substance behind because there is little. Although the action is great, the drama is terrible.

            There is a lot of drama with Thorin (Richard Armitage) and what his character goes through. It is completely rushed and no character arcs are shown. In fact, it is like that with all characters. They go from Point A to Point B to Point C, all with no depth. Therefore, it becomes obvious that they are just used to advance the plot. And when there are rare scenes dedicated to the characters, they are the most convenient, clichéd and predictable scenes there are. They don’t reflect the nature of a living being in that situation at all (I would just say human nature, but since we’re dealing with dwarves and elves here, I can’t).

            A lot of the motivations for the eventual Battle of the Five Armies come from the elfish and dwarfish hate for each other. This hate is very much expressed in the leaders of each army to a maddening level. The motivation is taken to an extreme that is not realistic, and in that it again shows us, the audience, that these characters are just plot devices with no depth but the one distinguishing factor that he/she is given to advance the plot. And this is even taken into the battle, after the plot has already gone in a different direction.

            All of these scenarios are rare times when there is actually is an attempt for depth. The majority of the time, there is no depth. The film has as little as possible. Very convenient things happen so that the movie does not have to show things that are not yet completed and are in the works. A process of something happening or something lining up for something to happen is almost never shown. The armies seem to just appear out of nowhere and be ready, randomly. The buildup is so quick and rushed that the battle seems to come out of a dramatic scene. No real conflict is introduced; just an army.

            And it felt like major portions of the end of the battle were just left out. After a while, the grand scope of the battle is taken from the audience and we never see it again. It felt like scenes were just deleted from the movie, so the last half hour of it seem very rushed so we can have a nice ending wrapped in a bow to lead into The Lord of the Rings. You just have to assume some things happened, and then the credits start.

            Although the past four paragraphs have been making it sound like I think of the movie negatively, from my rating it’s obvious that I don’t. I really enjoyed watching this movie and was engrossed into the action, no matter how much depth it didn’t have. All of action scenes are done with fantastic direction by Peter Jackson, who is the King of the Vision of Middle Earth. His vision of this place makes it seem like a real place and his direction of the action scenes makes the battle so excellent and fun to watch. The sequences are exhilarating, despite the room for improvement.

            Overall, I think this is an alright movie. It is in fact my least favorite Middle Earth (The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit) movie, but An Unexpected Journey is just above it by a little. I wouldn’t really mind watching it again because of how fun it is, but some elements beyond the entertainment value of the movie are very flawed.

Exodus: Gods and Kings - Movie Review

            In the past decade, we have started to have trends in film. For a few years, there will be one or more “trends” going on in the type of movies that are being made. Granted, there will be many other films not in one of these categories. But multiple movies will be in one “trend” in a year. In the past few years, we have had more and more indie biblical films. But in this year, we now have two biblical major motion pictures - Noah and Exodus: Gods and Kings. With Exodus being a $140 million Ridley Scott epic, a new trend is being set in motion.

            Exodus: Gods and Kings follows the biblical story of Moses (Christian Bale), who is a Hebrew in Egypt, but not among those enslaved by the Egyptians. He is actually living with the royalty in the country and is being treated so. Although he was born a slave, he is believed to be the prince’s cousin. There are very few that know this, and Moses is not one of them. But when word gets out that Moses actually is a Hebrew, the prince (now the pharaoh) who had believed Moses to be his cousin for all his life, Ramses (Joel Edgerton), is forced to banish him, although the two had grown up close as brothers and been close for all their lives. When this happens, Moses seeks the help of the Hebrew God to help free his people.

            In the role of Moses, Christian Bale does a very good job. His performance is oftentimes sympathetic, and he’s able to create a general understanding of his actions. He gets every emotional cue and hits them well. Joel Edgerton is also impressive in the movie. Like Bale, he is able to create an understanding; but for him, it’s interesting, due to the fact that he is technically the villain of the movie. He does make sense at times, however. And that is due to the writing and the acting; the script actually sets up its two main characters well, and, for the most part, I liked the directions it took them in. The actors made sure to transfer these emotions to the screen in their roles, and they worked well together, too.

            Of course, like most of Ridley Scott’s movies, this one looks great. The cinematography, costume design, production design, etc. seem to have been taken to painstaking measures in order to engross the audience into this time period and location. And they do that. It’s great to look at and Scott makes sure that we see this entire place with his huge, wide shots. This non-minimalistic style makes all of the visual elements of the film more impressive and ensures the success of the effects in the movie.

            Scott is also able to take the camera during the scenes and create a sort of atmosphere that is present in many of his movies, especially Gladiator. He captures tone well in his direction and uses it to sometimes add entertainment to the movie. He succeeds in that here. However, he only exceeds to a certain extent…

            My compliments on the film now dwindle and then disappear. This is a very flawed movie that very much should not have been coming out in December. It succeeds in spectacle but fails in most everything else. As I said, I did like the direction it took the characters in; but after a while, they went the same clichéd way most do. I liked the initial direction they went in because I could understand both sides. But it got to a point when it was so familiar I knew exactly how it would play out.

            The overall script is not so great. With its four writers, there are inconsistencies, sudden jumps to a completely different scene, conflicting styles of dialogue, and poorly built scene structures. It seemed like there were communication issues between these writers; it seems like there was no working together on this project. Sometimes it takes up a minimalistic style of writing when things must be inferred and the dialogue is not very thick. Sometimes it takes up a style that draws out scenes and portions of the film. It jumps back and forth between these two. But each style doesn’t work its function and actually shows only its flaws. When minimalism is used, depth in the story is lost. When non-minimalism is used, enjoyment is lost due to the dullness that arises. There will be gaps where scenes could be, then a long stretch of boring scenes that don’t have much to do with character development, the plot, or anything.

            The dialogue itself doesn’t add much to the movie either. Most of it is there because there needs to be dialogue. It doesn’t seem like the writers explored the different ways they could make it interesting. And even when a change in the writing style occurs, the dialogue just seems like a plot tool and nothing more. When the audience needs to learn something about a character in order for them to understand something about the plot, there will be a quick line to them that. This is a very lazily written movie.

            And although Scott does a good job with tone, he does not do a good job with pacing. There were large portions of the film where I was bored. I was not interested in anything going on; and although that is partly the writers’ fault, Ridley Scott is at fault here as well. His directing style is so repetitive and overly-consistent that, although I knew it was a different scene, it seemed like the same scene over and over again.

            Although it does have some cool elements and it does not disappoint in spectacle, Exodus: Gods and Kings is a very disappointing movie. It is not a good epic, and although it’s not bad, it is pretty boring for sections of the movie. The script is poor and the direction has issues. It’s not a movie I’d recommend.

Birdman - Movie Review

            

            

            

            

            There was a total of five people in the theater that was showing this film. It was opening night for Birdman in this theater. However, it was also opening night for The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part I. People coming out of the theater showing that said it was full. There were four show times today for Birdman. There were twenty-five for The Hunger Games. It’s funny how this relates to one of the many things Birdman is about. One of many things, because there is so much more.

            Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) is about an actor, Riggan (Michael Keaton), who became very famous a decade or two ago when he stared as the title character in a popular superhero movie, Birdman. But since the Birdman franchise had crashed, he had become less and less famous. Now he is trying to make a comeback with a Broadway play he wrote, directed, and stared in. The film takes place as previews of the play are being debuted then actual showings happen.

            Emma Stone plays his daughter, Sam, who is battling a drug addiction is just now out of rehab. Zach Galifanakis plays Jake, Riggan’s assistant/agent. Naomi Watts plays Lesley, one of the main actresses in the play. Edward Norton plays Mike, an actor hired at the last second who is dealing with some issues and is very hard to work with. All of these characters are centered on around the play and have a part in conveying some of the ideas of the movie. But they are not just objects used for a theme; they are actual characters. They all have psychological problems they are fighting. That may contribute to the buildup to another theme, but it gives the characters depth, nonetheless.

            If could not tell by my A+ grade and nearly perfect rating, I loved every second of this movie. I think it probably is a masterpiece and is definitely one of the best films I’ve ever seen. Within seconds of it starting, it had me engaged, 100%, and I knew I was in for something special. I’ll start with the extraordinary directing job. Iñárritu’s style is magnificent. He tried to make most of the film seem like one shot, and it is accomplished through perfectly done editing. There are some very cool transitions in the editing, and these help engage the viewer even more. And the lack of any cuts at all during any of the scenes adds an odd feeling that makes this movie unlike any other. It is such an original movie both in story and style. There isn’t much out there that I can compare it to. It’s simply different.

            The direction also adds a striking realism to the film. Not only does it look great; not only is Iñárritu a master with the camera, he is also a master with his direction over the actors. The performances themselves and the script contributed to this, but the direction also plays a part in making every single scene seem like real conversation between real people, and not a staged scene in a movie. And another thing that’s great about the direction is the sense that every scene is important. The use of pans and zooms very much make it seem like many things are going on and the movie is constantly going at a fast pace. But it’s really not. However, the brilliant scene-to-scene structure in the script and the astonishing job done behind the camera make it a non-stop, always on, immensely entertaining picture.

            The dialogue is brilliant. Not only does it really help develop the characters and introduce themes without directly explain to the audience, it’s also simply realistic dialogue. It very much seems like in-the-moment dialogue that is quickly thought of by the characters instead of pre-written words on a page that actors read while standing in front of a camera. The plot is original and very interesting; the ideas and themes of the movie are introduced in the script very well for them to really be conveyed through visuals.

            Every single actor in the movie is absolutely terrific. From the second they were on the screen, I was amazed. It did not take long at all before I started seeing the characters instead of the actors. They are all fantastic in their roles.

            As the past paragraphs have stated, the execution of this movie is basically as good as it can be; everything is flawless. The performances, direction, overall look… and sound. The sound design of this movie is fantastic. There is one room with a clock on the wall. This room appears in the film many times, and every single time, through every single second of the scene, you can hear the clock in the background. The sound also contributes to the striking realism of the movie.

            With all that said, now we can get into some themes. This movie has a lot to say about general American audiences, but those are not themes because of their obviousness in the movie. They are said through dialogue. However, I’m glad it’s in the movie and very much agree with it. It serves more as a message to the main character than a theme to the movie.

            The plot, characters, and some dialogue contribute to the overall themes of the movie, but it’s mostly some images shown near the close of the film. There is some truly beautiful imagery that conveys something that cannot be conveyed with dialogue; only an image. We have a motif of admiration in the movie, and there are things on the flipside as well. The desire to be great, to feel important, to feel like you’re transcendent, also plays a role. The ideas mostly have to do with the admiration of all of the characters to be transcendent. The desires of humans and a way to look at life. But there is flipside: the ignorant. The movie is not called Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) for a reason. No one wants to be ignorant. But is there is a light in the situation. To not know may be best in some situations. The general American theater/film audience can be included in that area.

            There are many ideas that can be deciphered from the film; many people can look at it and see many different things. And I think that is the beauty in films like this: they become poetry, something that can be studied and looked at, something that can be analyzed. But this film is even more than that; it’s one of the best in modern films in terms of the making of it, the ingenuity behind it, all of the technical aspects. You pile up some messages and poetry on top and you have a great work of art that is among the best of all time.

            Of the mess of ideas I have tried to put together, I’ve found that the movie tells us that everyone has the admiration in them to want to be better. Everyone wants to be able to fly above everyone else and see that they’re better. But there are the ignorant that will stop that from happening. And ignorance can be a virtue in some situations. It can keep from knowing all that went into what you see before your eyes. It’s an unexpected virtue indeed, but a virtue nonetheless.

Interstellar - Movie Review

                

            In 1968, an American film that changed cinema forever was released. Decades ahead of its time, the film was misunderstood and not regarded well at first. It was a highly complicated film, but once you can understand the thinking behind the making of it, the countless themes, messages, ideas, and questions regarding the human race can be discerned. Many people believe it to be one of the best films of all time. It is in fact my favorite film. That movie is 2001: A Space Odyssey.

            In Interstellar, we are in a futuristic world in which the Earth is dying. Many companies have been shut down; the military in America is no longer there. There doesn’t seem to be much governing going on, but the people in this part of America are trying to keep some form of society going. Cooper (Matthew McConaughey) was a pilot before the Earth stopped being able to grow plants. He is now, like everyone else, a farmer/engineer. But he is obsessed with planes and things that fly. Mackenzie Foy plays his daughter, Murph, at the age of ten. When she is at this age, Cooper accidentally stumbles upon the last part of NASA, which no one knows exists anymore. When the few people still working for NASA find out that he is one of the best pilots they can get, Cooper is sent away from his family on a mission to go through a wormhole to find a planet that can support life in order to save the human race.

            In the paragraph above, you will find my attempt at the description of the plot. But this is not a film that can be summarized in a paragraph, or even two. There is so much more to this movie than above, even in the beginning. But I will not say so, due to my saying it possibly ruining the movie for anyone who will want to see it.

            Brand (Anne Hathaway) is one of the few other people that accompany Cooper on the mission. She is the daughter of Professor Brand (Michael Caine) who is basically the leader of all of this. Jessica Chastain plays Cooper’s daughter Murph at… Jessica Chastain’s age. This movie jumps some time in relation to how long Cooper and the others are on their mission.

            Now, to get into my opinion, you know I love this movie. The first paragraph of this review may seem irrelevant, but after seeing the movie, it is obvious that the screenwriters (Jonathan Nolan and Christopher Nolan) and the director (Christopher Nolan) took a large amount of influence from 2001: A Space Odyssey. There are many shots that seem like Stanley Kubrick was behind them. And the overall themes and ideas of Interstellar very much relate to some of those in 2001: A Space Odyssey.

            There are many messages having to do with the overall purpose of mankind. Some of these ideas have to do with the ingenuity of the race. Some have to do with the folly. There are differing views on how to keep the race alive present in different characters. Which should we go with? Which is the right one? That is what the film asks us. Different emotions are put in the ideas of the film and the relevance of them is questioned. But there is evidence put on both sides. The question is put on us, the audience. There are many ideas present in this film and they are all expressed to the near full extent.

            Interstellar also has a lot of very smart writing not having to do with the universal themes. Thought-provoking ideas are also shown in the science of it. Interstellar travel is not mastered easily. There are things that must be mastered for it to happen and the scientists have to do some literal rocket science to figure out how to pull it off. Time and gravity and very much put in the film and I found the science of it intriguing. It was another good element to mix in with the greatness of the movie.

            As for the making of the movie, Interstellar is masterful. Christopher Nolan does an absolutely incredible job directing this movie. It all feels so under control and well done to the point where it seems like these things could really happen. Nolan’s notorious editing sequences are definitely in the movie; and they are as powerful as they have been. Nolan’s style plays into making the movie a non-stop thrill-ride. His homage to Stanley Kubrick and his film 2001: A Space Odyssey is impressive. And his vision of the movie along with its ideas helps to imbed these themes into the film even more.

            This movie is highly original. I could not feel a beat coming. And that is thanks to the script. It’s truthfully a great screenplay. There are some really fantastic dialogue sequences. And as already mentioned, the scientific elements are brilliant. The plot is thought-out and so well realized through the script. It gets just about everything right.

            The cinematography is beautiful and Hans Zimmer’s score is magnificent. It’s a very original score and it adds so much to the film. The music is not recognizably Hans Zimmer’s. This is a very different score of his. It adds a lot. And with Wally Pfister not being the cinematographer of the movie because of his desire to direct a terrible one (Transcendence), I was wary of the cinematography. I wasn’t sure it would be up to par with Pfister’s at all. And I’m not sure if it’s as good as Pfister’s, but the cinematography is fantastic. And the visuals in space are great. They are very imaginative and inventive. And they also look somewhat realistic.

            One of the things that surprised me most about the film is the acting. Every single performance, even Mackenzie Foy as ten-year-old Murphy, is great. Matthew McConaughey, Anne Hathaway, Michael Caine, Jessica Chastain… All of the leads were great in both their dramatic, emotional performance and their acting chops.

            With all the praise I’m giving Interstellar, you might be wondering why it doesn’t get an A+ and something closer to a 10.0/10 than a 9.0/10. That is because I do have a flaw - and quite a large one, actually. It’s the last fifteen minutes of the movie. At one point something big was about to happen, and I thought that the movie was about to take a turn that could either be awful or fantastic. It turned out the turn was not awful, but still bad. Once it took the turn, I predicted every reveal that would happen in the scene and I predicted correctly. At that point, the movie almost left its themes and it certainly strayed away. I thought that it went too far and could’ve stuck with something else. It took a wrong turn. Its reach escaped its grasp. Luckily, that was the only wrong turn in the plot and the ending came soon after, so the loss of much enjoyment from me in that scene did not screw up the entire second half of the movie. Only the last few minutes.

            Overall, Interstellar is a fantastic movie. Yes, its ending was bad, which was a shame; but other than that, all elements were amazing. It hits in every category, delivers in every way. There are messages to be deciphered and ideas to think about. It makes us think about ourselves as a race, not quite so good as 2001: A Space Odyssey did, but don’t expect it to outdo one of the best movies ever made. It serves its purpose as a movie. There is but one part some entertainment was lost. And that was the end.

Nighcrawler - Movie Review

                

         

          

            In modern times, few movies that come out are actually, truly, great films. Yes, there have been films even this year that I have said are great movies. But among The Lego Movie, The Grand Budapest Hotel, Captain America: The Winter Solider, X-Men: Days of Future Past, Edge ofTomorrow, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, Guardians of the Galaxy, and Gone Girl, none are truly fantastic films. However, I do stand by my statement that they are all great for their genre. What I believe to be a great movie in what it goes for in its genre and a truly great film are two different things. Film critic Roger Ebert had a very profound definition of a great film, and I analyze that to be a film that goes beyond being a piece of entertainment and into a study on something; a statement about something, perhaps. There was one movie which came out earlier this year that I would consider a great film, and that movie is Snowpiercer. Nightcrawler is also truly great film.

            Louis Bloom (Jake Gyllenhaal) is a thief who does many illegal things and earns money for a living off of selling random things. He has no career and no real job. However, he is a very smart man, maybe even a genius. And when he sees that people are making money by finding events in which people are gravely hurt using a police scanner and filming them to sell to the news, he takes that up and it leads him down a dark path.

            As I just said, Bloom is an incredibly intelligent man. But he has some very odd views. He thinks of life in a very straightforward, pro-or-con, way. When he decides to do something, it is because it would affect him positively. When he is thinking about doing something illegal or “morally wrong,” he does it if the positives generated from it outweigh the risks of doing it. He doesn’t really care about other people is does not show much emotion. He basically turns everything into a mathematical equation.

            This film can offer many thrills to the audience, as it did to me, but the film is not made specifically for its thrills, but it’s made as a character study on Louis Bloom and a social commentary on several things. But I cannot go in-depth about them, because they don’t really come into play until the very end of the movie, and it’s easiest to discern them after viewing the movie. Since I would like you to be able to experience these things yourself, I will not talk about my analysis on the film’s themes. All I will say is that it gives you a possible insight on media and some new ideas about how business really works and what life can possibly be about. Does the movie condone some of the actions of its main character? No. But the movie raises questions, and could thought to be asking them itself, on the success of Bloom. Does the director/writer think Bloom is smart or insane? That is for us, the audience to decide.

            Many of the moral punishments of the film are put on the audience to decide, and that is reflected in the conclusion of the film. See, this isn’t quite a normal movie. It does not have the same plot structure - beginning, middle, and end - that most films do. The focus of Nightcrawler is not on its plot, but on its character. And that is one of the things that make it a great film. Much of the attention is given to Louis Bloom, and that is how the themes are entered into the movie. The themes do remain subtle, but not so subtle that you need to view the film six times to find out what one shot means.

            As far as the technical aspects behind the production of the movie go, we have all positives. For one, Dan Gilroy does a very great job directing the movie. It looks authentic and real with a great vision of the big city - especially at night. Because he also wrote the film, he had a great idea about the social commentary he wanted to put into it, so he could focus on the character and create a dark tone that coincides with the messages. He also does a very good job at using the camera to give us information. He has a unique style of directing, and he is able to make every scene his own. Lastly, Gilroy creates an even pace that retains throughout the entire movie.

            Jake Gyllenhaal gives a top-notch excellent performance, which is probably the best of his career. He gives every single line as if he is the character, and after a while, I started seeing the character more than I did the actor. Gyllenhaal is able to sell every single scene and performances excellently under Gilroy’s direction. He seems so natural in the movie that it’s almost shocking how good he is at the start of the film. Although none of the performances are bad, Jake Gyllenhaal’s leading one more-or-less carries the entire movie.

            Last to mention is the script. As I said earlier, because Dan Gilroy wrote and directed the film, he was able to include his ideas in both the script and the direction. And the dialogue is fantastic. It is so realistic, but also very original. The film does not create its own boundaries, it just goes in. Gilroy uses his writing to make the movie seem so real. The plot does not exactly move quickly, so there is not a bunch of stuff going on all at once. The movie takes a lot of time to lock in its themes that would later be expressed. And because of this, it seems so real that when events take place near the end, it’s shocking to point of which it seems like they are, actually, happening. With an unconventional plot, an incredible main character, and excellent dialogue, a fantastic script is created.

            Nightcrawler is definitely a great movie. It goes beyond being a piece of entertainment and emerges into a piece of art. The direction, script, and lead performance work together to create many ideas and introduce a social commentary. The only thing I can really say is “wrong” with the film is that at some times it does meander and some enjoyment was lost, but that’s it, and those times were rare due to Dan Gilroy’s good pacing job. I loved Nightcrawler and urge anyway reading this to go out and see the movie in theaters.

John Wick - Movie Review

            It was probably Point Break that made Keanu Reeves famous, and then after that Speed. But everything was set in motion when The Matrix really made Reeves into the star he is now. People say he’s “the most liked bad actor.” And I believe that to be true. However, he is a good actor in some ways. He does usually fail in his emotional performance, but he almost always delivers in his physical performance. And he proves that here.

            In John Wick, Keanu Reeves stars as the title character who just lost his wife to illness, but soon after receives a gift sent from his wife right before she died - a dog in place of her. But as people who are relative to somebody in his past do him wrong, we learn about who he Wick used to be as he goes on a quest for revenge against his past employer.

            Sound familiar? That’s because this story has been done multiple times before. Yes, this film is disappointing generic. Just about everything in the plot of John Wick has been done before multiple times. Therefore, it’s a very predictable and rather dull movie. I will grant that there were times where it held my attention and times in which I was enjoying it. However, those times are not in abundance. Most of this film had me slightly bored. No, it was not painful to sit through. But it was not exactly entertaining either. And by the one-hour mark, I checked my watch.

            As clichéd as the plot is, it’s hard to make this movie good. However, there is some relief in it. For one, David Leitch and Chad Stahelski (only Stahelski was listed in the film’s closing credits, but both were present in the IMDb credits) provide good-looking and, at times, stylish direction. Some moments (most dialogue) come off as cheesy, but the action sequences are directed smoothly and with precision, not to mention the incredible stunt work. That is where Keanu Reeves shines in this movie. As usual, his portrayal of John Wick as a character with emotions isn’t very good, but his work in the action scenes completely sell the stunt work. And the products are very good action sequences that can compensate for some of the clichés in the plot. But not all of them…

            The familiarity is not only in the plot of this movie. We have the typical action clichés here, like a character blowing something up and slowly walking away from it, not looking - little things like that. They are profuse here and do not fail in annoying the viewers. I, myself, stood them, but definitely did not like them.

            The dialogue wasn’t great either. Not that it was bad, no, but it was very thin and quick. You mostly learn about the character of John Wick through his various actions, but some of it has to be given in dialogue. And that’s basically all the dialogue does - cover the general idea of some of the characters… and provide one-liners for Reeves to say in order to exhilarate the audience. They didn’t work for me, though. They just added onto the various action movie clichés. No good was done.

            One thing that takes away from the action sequences is the score. There aren’t very many compositions exclusively for this film. Most of the music choices are big, hip-hop, loud music to help the audience have more fun with the film. I thought it was a mistake to put those songs in the movie. It made the well-executed sequences seem more silly and unrealistic. The loud music did not add anything to the film. It just drowned out everything else and annoyed me. And when there were actual compositions, they were no different. Loud music meant to do the same as the song choices, just without words.

            John Wick proves to be an over-composed and mostly dull experience. It’s riddled with clichés and the plot is familiar. The dialogue just provides clippy one-liners and some character exposition. Yes, the action sequences without the music are very good, but other than that, there’s not much here. I say skip this movie. Maybe rent it when it comes out on DVD or stream it on Netflix, but don’t go to the theater.  

Dracula Untold - Movie Review

            

            Now that it seems as if all of the other gimmick ideas have either failed or run in short supply, we now have a Dracula film. The “Untold” story that has in fact been told multiple times before is now on the big screen… again. Luckily, the film has a budget of $100,000,000. Will that save it? As reflected in my rating. I think not.

            Dracula Untold tells the back story of Dracula. We learn how he became the vampire he was and his life before the story of Dracula came into play. He was a prince - an English prince. His father had given him away as a slave to the Turkish, who were ruling over many lands at the time, to show his loyalty. But Dracula was such a fierce warrior that he got away and was able to retake his castle. Now, many years later, he is an adult. The Turkish and Dracula are at some crazy form of peace, but they are soon brought to war, and because Dracula is outnumbered greatly, he must do something that he does not want to do in order to protect his people.

            Dracula is not known as Dracula in the beginning of the film, but as Vlad. Luke Evans is credited as playing Vlad. Dracula becomes his name later on… Luke Evans tries to give a good performance as Vlad/Dracula. He tries… but the director of the movie does not seem to know how to direct actors. All of the performances come off as either over-acting or just simply bad performances. No matter how much they try, no one is good here, and that includes Evans. Sarah Gadon, playing his wife, also tries. And she is not good either. Neither is Dominic Cooper.

            But it’s not only the poor direction of actors that makes Gary Shore pail at directing this film. Every scene feels halfway done. This film is not well made. It seems like every take put into this film was the worst of the bunch. It really felt like people going out and making a movie, and not doing a good job at it. Does the film look good? It looks fine, but it’s not getting any extra credit for that, because the cinematography is not above average. It is… average. No points lost, no points gained.

            One praise I can give the director is that the action sequences are not filmed poorly as I expected them to be, judging from the poor direction of other scenes. There are actually some shots that I felt were very stylistic and added something to the movie. There were times here in which I felt that the director had some vision. However, those times were not in abundance.

            Now it’s time to move on to the poor writing of the film. The near-90-minute run-time of the film is highly reflected in the very small amount of depth, sense, and justification of the film. Things just happen. And the scenes don’t fit together either. One ridiculous dialogue scene happens with Dracula/Vlad and his wife, and then the scene ends in a way that the next scene regarding something having to do with a plot or subplot is set up.

            As for the character development, there are but about two scenes. Of course Vlad/Dracula got the most character development, but I really never felt him to be a fleshed-out character. Even he didn’t have very much, and the rest of the characters had either little or none. His wife is there to be his wife. His son is there to be his son. The villain is there to be his villain. And the villain is to the hero as black is to the white. The hero is good. The villain is bad. The conflict goes no further than that.

            As for the dialogue, it’s not bad… but still not good. There are some scenes with bad dialogue, and no scenes with good dialogue, but the dialogue in most scenes is not ridiculous but not compelling. Most of it is just moving the plot along. But there definitely are clichés in it. This film is filled with clichés. There are clichés having to do with the husband and wife, the father and son, the hero and villain, the hero and the devil, etc. The film is filled up to the rim with clichés that succeed only in making the audience bored. The dialogue in the script is not good. The characters are only plot devices. The story is nothing new and the arrangement of scenes makes no sense. There is a plethora of logical errors and there is little-to-no reasoning behind what happens. The script is simply bad.

            The bad script and poor execution work together to make Dracula Untold a dull and highly forgettable movie. Throughout the first half of the film, I tolerated it. I didn’t like it, I wasn’t entertained by it, but I tolerated it. Throughout the entire second half, I was ready to get out of the theater. I was done with the film and mentally checked out. I didn’t care what happened; I was just ready to get out. I continually checked my watch for the time and tried to figure out about how long it would be before the film was over.

            The studios found that they could make money off of the gimmick of another Dracula movie because they’re sure to get all of the Dracula fans in there as well as other people who may be interested in vampires.

            This gimmick is not worth seeing and definitely not worth spending money on, renting it or seeing it in the theater.