Tag Archives: book

‘It’ isn’t Perfect, but it is Pretty Fun

Leave a reply

It_(2017)_logo

No matter how this thing turned out, the bar to be the best Stephen King adaptation of 2017 was set very low by “The Dark Tower” last month.

 

“It” is based on the 1986 novel of the same name by Stephen King, and is the second reincarnation of the book after the 1990 miniseries. The plot follows a group of middle schoolers in 1989 Maine who are terrorized by a shapeshifting entity. Jaeden Lieberher, Jeremy Ray Taylor, Sophia Lillis, Finn Wolfhard, Wyatt Oleff, Chosen Jacobs and Jack Dylan Grazer all star as the kids while Bill Skarsgård plays the titular creature and Andy Muschietti directs.

 

The backstory behind the making of “It” is interesting, and like many Hollywood films (and especially King adaptations) it went through different stages and directors. Initially, “True Detective” director Cary Fukunaga was set to helm the project, with Will Poulter (phenomenal in this year’s “Detroit” but at the time only really known for his comedic role in “We’re the Millers”) to play Pennywise the Dancing Clown aka It. However “creative differences” led to Fukunaga dropping out, taking Poulter with him, although he retained screenwriting credit. I would have loved to see Fukunaga’s vision and Poulter in the white makeup and clown wig, but Muschietti (known for “Mama”) and Skarsgård make for a solid pairing in what is a sometimes creepy, sometimes funny, but never fully-realized fall flick.

 

I never read King’s original novel and I saw the miniseries forever ago, so I cannot attest as to how accurate and loyal this film is to those respective works. From what I remember, the miniseries is very campy (with the brilliant Tim Curry in the lead role) and has some effects that hold up by 1990 standards and others that very much do not, and one of the things I respected about this latest rendition is their apparent dedication to practical effects when possible.

 

The best thing this film has going for it are its musical score and cinematography by Benjamin Wallfisch and Chung-hoon Chung, respectively. The film has a warm summer glow about it, with just a slight tint to give you that 1990s feel, and the background score, while overused at points, is eerie.

 

The design of Pennywise the Dancing Clown is creepy in it of itself, with Skarsgård unrecognizable under all that makeup. It is a dedicated performance from a man I’m sure we’ll see more of, and there are points where he is intimidating and others amusing. But never at the same time, which is a repeating problem the film has (I’ll get back to that).

 

The cast as a whole is wonderful, in fact, with the standouts being Finn Wolfhard (the only actor from Fukunaga’s initial casting to be kept) and Jack Dylan Grazer (in his feature debut). These two young men are hilarious and deliver some one-liners with pitch-perfect tone and timing, and I see bright futures ahead of them. Jaeden Lieberher, great in “St. Vincent” and underappreciated in this year’s guilty pleasure masterpiece “The Book of Henry,” is as timid yet loyal as he’s ever been. You really get a “Stand by Me” feel from the lovable group of losers, and for anyone who was a kid in the late-80s this will a nostalgic trip. But, just like with Pennywise, the film never is able to blend the group’s fun moments with their terror.

 

There are points in the film that are supposed to be scary or sad but come off as unintentionally funny, like the face Pennywise makes when he bites off a character’s arm or right as he revs up to charge at one of his victims. And it clearly was not the filmmaker’s intentions to have those moments be comical, because there are other parts that are clearly funny, like Pennywise chewing on an arm before looking up using the severed arm to wave at someone. It creates an uneven flow, which isn’t helped by the film having a “and then this happened” feel about each scene, instead of a logical narrative.

 

The film also can’t escape scary movie clichés, like relying on heightening soundtracks and jump scares, as well as dumb characters doing inexplicable things. What’s even more damning this time around is the kids know they are being hunted by the creature, yet they will still wander off alone or approach a funny-looking object; it is almost insulting in certain scenes how the filmmakers have to go out of their way to set things up in order to work.

 

“It” really isn’t all that scary—it’s more tense if anything—but it will please fans of King or horror films. And unlike “Annabelle: Creation,” I was never bored watching the build-up scenes, because these are characters we know and care about. I am looking forward to Part II of this duology, to see the adults these kids become (and what actors play them) and watch them face off against Pennywise and their fears all grown up. As it stands, “It” is not the groundbreaking phenomenon the internet or box office will hype it up to be, it’s just a competently made, slightly inconsistent film that you can have fun laughing with or at, depending on how much clowns freak you out.

 

Critics Rating: 6/10

Warner Bros.

Warner Bros.

‘Captain Underpants’ About as Fun as a Wedgie

Leave a reply

Captain_Underpants_The_First_Epic_Movie_posterWell, they can’t all be “The Boss Baby.”

 

“Captain Underpants: The First Epic Movie” is an adaptation of the children’s book series of the same name. The film stars Kevin Hart and Thomas Middleditch as two elementary schoolers who hypnotize their mean principle (Ed Helms) into becoming a superhero. Nick Kroll, Jordan Peele and Kristen Schaal also star as David Soren directs.

 

I was actually a big fan of this series growing up, so with it finally getting a film it completes the trifecta of my top three favorite children books getting big screen adaptions (the other two being “Harry Potter” and “A Series of Unfortunate Events”). And maybe it’s because this series is aimed at six-year-olds and I’m, you know, not six, but the long overdue film version of “Captain Underpants” just isn’t that fun or inventive and commits the biggest movie sin possible: it’s boring.

This only cost $38 million to produce as part of an experiment by DreamWorks to see if they could create a cheap but successful animated film (may as well start with a brand name item to guarantee at least some business). To put that into perspective, most animated films cost around $125 million to make, and companies like Illumination take flack for only making their films for $75 million and getting lazy with some of the animations.

 

The lower budget here is felt, as a lot of the motions and scenes are flat and uncreative. Characters flail around and don’t really interact with their environment because that would cost money. This looks like a straight-to-DVD film from 2003, which is when this film should have been released; I don’t think too many kids even know about Captain Underpants nowadays. There are a few humorous moments where the film implements real stock footage of a tiger or sock puppets, but when the best scenes of your animated film are the ones that aren’t animated, that’s a red flag.

 

The voice acting here is uninspired and a lot of the time just downright awkward. Kevin Hart and Thomas Middleditch have seemingly no chemistry despite supposedly being best friends, and I get that the two likely recorded their lines in different booths on different days but look at a film like “Boss Baby;” the dynamic between Alec Baldwin and child actor Miles Bakshi felt genuine and they came across as real characters. I’m not sure if it is Nicholas Stroller’s script or Hart and Middleditch just not caring but their performances are hardly up-to-par with both other animated films and their own previous works.

 

I know I’m not the demographic for this film, I get that, but I have never subscribed to the “it’s a kids film so it’s OK that it’s stupid” because that is just an excuse for filmmakers to make bad movies with minimum effort just to make money. The good animated films, and even the second-tier ones, have jokes for both adults and kids and don’t just make a character run around and scream or fart when they can’t think of a clever way to end a scene.

 

There were kids in my theater laughing here or there, but even they didn’t seem to be overly enjoying “Captain Underpants: The Epic First Movie.” I got a brief sense of nostalgia watching one of my favorite childhood heroes finally get his place on the big screen, but about 40 minutes in I felt my eyes getting heavy and my head slowly dropping, and at the same time my friend then leaned over to me and said “I’d so rather be in ‘Boss Baby’.” Truest words have never been spoken.

 

Critics Rating: 3/10

20th Century Fox

20th Century Fox

‘The Martian’ is Overlong, Underwhelming

Leave a reply

The_Martian_film_posterWell, at least this is better than “Exodus: Gods and Kings;” whatever that’s worth.

“The Martian” is based on the bestselling novel and stars Matt Damon as Mark Watney, an astronaut who is left behind on Mars after his team must perform an emergency evacuation. He must then both find a way to grow food and contact Earth before it is too late. Jessica Chastain, Jeff Daniels, and Chiwetel Ejiofor highlight an all-star cast as Ripley Scott directs.

It seems to be a trend in the past few years to release a movie about surviving in space during the autumn season. 2013 gave us “Gravity,” and last year we had “Interstellar,” two very good movies that tinkered on great. Unfortunately “The Martian” does not continue that trend, as it a movie that is just OK, featuring flashes of what it could have been.

Like I said in the opening line, this is better than “Exodus,” and in fact may be Ripley Scott’s best film since 2003’s “Matchstick Men” (quick plug: see that if you haven’t). But the bar isn’t set very high for Scott, and many of the same problems that plagued his recent films like “Exodus” and “Prometheus,” like overstuffed plots and poor pacing, are front stage here.

“Martian” is 2 hours 20 minutes and you feel most every moment of that. I checked my phone one time expecting the film to be approaching the climax, and it was only 90 minutes in. Much of the film plays out in a rinse and repeat pattern: Damon needs to solve a problem, he solves it rather quickly, and a new problem then arises. Meanwhile the suits back at NASA argue on how to go about performing the rescue mission, which normally ends without much conflict.

The most interesting points of the film aren’t even featuring Damon trying to survive on the distant planet, it’s back on Earth where space experts Donald Glover, Ejiofor and Sean Bean all try and figure out problems and debate the best solutions. These moments are the most engaging but often end too quickly, instead sending us back to Damon who is eating potatoes for the 300th straight day.

What the film does do well, however, is establish the characters. We don’t really know about Watney before the accident (he gets left behind in the first 10 minutes of the film), so Damon’s video logs give us a feel for the character. He is a calm, down-to-earth (well, figuratively, not literally) guy who even though he just awoke 140 million miles from home with a needle plunged into his chest, still manages to crack a joke. The film itself is pretty funny, which makes sense when you have career comedians Glover, Daniels and Kristen Wiig as part of your cast.

I really wanted to like “The Martian” more than I did, but for every gorgeous shot of Mars’ desert terrain or each scene of Damon making a breakthrough, there are two or three slow scenes that add nothing but exposition to the already hefty plot. It is far from a bad film, but it is certainly one of the bigger disappointments of 2015, and kicks the Oscar movie season off with a whimper.

Critics Rating: 5/10

Variety

Variety

There Are 100 Things Wrong with ’50 Shades of Grey’

Leave a reply

Fifty-Gray-posterWell…let’s get this thing over with, shall we?

“Fifty Shades of Grey” is based off the best-selling novel of the same name by E. L. James (maybe you’ve heard of it?). The film stars Dakota Johnson as Anastasia Steele, a recent college grad who falls for a young billionaire named Christian Grey, played by Jamie Dornan, who has very specific tastes, to keep things PG. Sam Taylor-Johnson directs.

I really had no idea what to expect as I walked into this film. I knew that the novel was controversial (I also heard it was one of the worst books ever written), but that’s about it. Even the trailers of the film didn’t do much to suggest a plot summary. Walking out I now know why the trailers didn’t show much: it’s because this movie isn’t about anything and is just downright awful.

I could probably write a thesis paper on what is wrong with this movie, but let’s start with the two leads, Johnson and Dornan. By themselves they’re both serviceable, but together they have almost an awkward amount of lacking chemistry, and are given some of the worst dialogue in the history of cinema to recite.

Seriously, within the first 10 minutes of the film I was cringing at some of the writing, and my friend even leaned over to me and said that the dialogue was awful. I can’t even repeat most of the lines because they’re hilariously intentionally vulgar, but I’ll give you an example of a scene that had me shaking my head.

After having met Christian Grey on two occasions combining for probably about 25 minutes of together time, Anastasia Steele drunk-calls him while out celebrating having just finished college. He gets all upset and mad at her, a 25-year-old woman, for being at a bar, and then somehow (never explained how) he finds her and brings her home. And then the next morning she’s all impressed and they begin their relationship. Like, no. I know Grey is supposed to be a control freak, but no one is that uptight about people they just met.

The pacing in this movie is also an atrocity; I saw people checking their phones every 10 minutes. Every scene consists of essentially the same arc. Christian and Anastasia do their “Fifty Shades of Grey” thing, Anastasia wants Christian to open up to her, he yells and says he can’t, she cries, rinse, repeat. It’s so mundane and repetitive that it makes this two hour runtime feel like an eternity.

It’s also worth noting that there are three scene transitions that burned my eyes. It goes from inside a dark room at night to a bright Seattle skyline instantly, and everyone in the audience exclaimed at once.

Let’s get to the positives. …I mean… director Sam Taylor-Johnson used to be an artist, so the film looks nice. Some of the scenery and tonal colors work well together…that’s actually all I can think of.

I was bored out of my skull watching “Fifty Shades of Grey”, and it isn’t even like the graphic and racy parts live up to the hype (I’ve seen way worse in movies). The whole movie is about Christian Grey tying up and torturing Anastasia, yet I felt like the only one trapped and abused. This isn’t a “so-bad-it’s-good” movie. This is a “so-awful-I-actually-feel-dumber” movie. The actors have no chemistry, the writing is cringe-worthy and the plot is pointless.

There’s a part in the film when Christian is talking about a disclosure contract he makes Anastasia sign, and he says, “forget the contract, it’s getting redundant”. I just rolled my eyes and thought, “this movie is getting redundant…”

Critics Rating: 2/10

fifty-shades-of-grey-berlin-film-festival

Variety

‘American Sniper’ Shows the Horror, Necessity of War

American_Sniper_posterBecause, America.

“American Sniper” is based on the autobiography of the same name by Navy SEAL Chris Kyle. The film follows Kyle, dubbed the most lethal sniper in U.S. history with 160 confirmed kills, as he struggles to balance his duties on the battlefield with the ones at home. Bradley Cooper stars as Kyle, Sienna Miller plays his wife and Clint Eastwood directs.

Last January “Lone Survivor”, another true story about Navy SEALs, was released and it was an above-average, well-intentioned war film that had its fair share of miscues. “American Sniper” is right on par with “Survivor” as another real-life tale telling the story of some of the best and bravest men in the world, but it trips up along the way.

Clint Eastwood’s directorial filmography is really a tale of two types of films: engaging and interesting (“Gran Tornio”) or slow and mind-numbingly boring (“Hereafter”). His most recent film, last year’s “Jersey Boys” was a bit of both as the first half was great and the second half was Nyquil. “American Sniper” follows “Jersey Boys” because there are some parts that soar and are beautifully shot, but there are also some glaring narrative and pacing issues.

I know the story of Chris Kyle, and the man is a true American hero. Bradley Cooper does a very honorable portrayal of Kyle, playing a man who enlists in the SEALs because he wants to do something more with his life, but by the end of the film is questioning why he is doing what he is doing. Cooper essentially is playing two characters: badass super soldier and struggling husband.

The film does a good job showing Kyle in the early stages of his relationship with his wife, and by the end of the film how he has drifted apart because of the things he has seen and done in combat (despite him claiming his only regrets are the men he couldn’t save). Unlike most war films that are clearly pro-war or anti-war (or “Lone Survivor” which is accidently both), “American Sniper” walks the line quite delicately of what conflicts are actually worth getting into, and are they worth the lives of our soldiers?

One of the problems with the film, however, is how it handles the transitions between home and battle. The film opens up with Kyle sniping on an Iraq rooftop before abruptly cutting to a scene of him hunting as a child, as part of the obligatory “you’ve got a real knack for this sniping thing, kid!” moment. The rest of the film jumps back-and-forth between locations, sometimes without much explanation.

Sienna Miller does fine work as Kyle’s wife and she shares some tender scenes with Cooper, even if sometimes she is given nothing more than cliché “pregnant soldier wife” dialogue. The rest of the cast is solid, especially those portraying PTSD soldiers; however none of them are fleshed out or given too much to do.

“American Sniper” is a good-not-great movie that is a fitting tribute to its real-life subject, and features some well-shot battle sequences from Eastwood and some great scenes from Cooper. The film’s largest problem is its almost whiplash-inducing jumping to-and –from war scenes, as well as a frustrating ending that likely stems from the filmmakers not knowing how to properly handle the subject matter. Still, it is an enjoyable and at times tense and heart-breaking film about the horrors of warfare, and is one of the more honest war stories in recent years.

Critics Rating: 7/10

american-sniper

Variety

‘Unbroken’ Is A Good Movie About An Amazing Story

Unbroken_posterAnother Oscar Season, another Hollywood biopic.

“Unbroken” tells the true tale of Louis Zamperini, a USA Olympic athlete who is taken prisoner by the Japanese in World War II after his plane goes down over the Pacific Ocean. Jack O’Connell stars as Zamperini and Japanese singer Miyavi plays the POW camp’s leader. Angelina Jolie directs as the Coen Brothers worked on the script.

The film takes place in essentially two locations: the ocean and the Japanese prison camp. Zamperini’s plane crashes over the ocean and he and two fellow soldiers (Domhnall Gleeson and Finn Wittrock) are adrift for 47 days. These scenes were my favorite of the whole film as they show the true perseverance of Zamperini, as well as feature some intense moments including several run-ins with sharks and enemy fighter planes. The score and cinematography really excel here as well.

When the group is “rescued” by the Japanese the film slows down, and never fully recovers. Zamperini is continuously beaten and tested by the camp’s leader, called “The Bird” by fellow prisoners, and these scenes become numbing after a while. I’m not saying the film should have overlooked or sugar-coated this part of Zamperini’s imprisonment, however after a while it seemed Jolie was just beating us over the head with the fact that torture happened in prison camps.

Zamperini is depicted as a womanizer and troubled child, and in real life this was true. While on the raft, Zamperini talks about how he may not believe in God, and then in a storm he promises to dedicate his life to God if He saves his life. While this is all in-line with the true story, the idea of God doesn’t play a part in the rest of the film until text comes up before the credits. The film’s poster brands the story to be about redemption, yet Jolie abandons this notion and replaces it with a man who can take a severe beating and show no bruises in the next scene. Instead of Louis’ spiritual redemption we just see him as a superhero that is capable of taking extreme physical punishment, and I didn’t feel this worked.

The climax itself is a catch-22. Because it is the final confrontation between Louis and The Bird, the scene should be empowering and moving, as well as have tension because if Louis fails, he is ordered to be shot. The acting in the scene is superb, with Zamperini showing his strength and The Bird trying his hardest to break him. Both actors say more with their eyes than their words, and the duo add something extra to the scene.

The problem is that the scene has no sense of time, and you are unsure if the incident has lasted five minutes or several hours. Characters are standing around watching the event unfold, and any tension you should be feeling is instead replaced with confusion.

“Unbroken” isn’t as moving as it could have been, but it is a well-intentioned biopic that features solid performances and some intense scenes. Had Jolie known how to properly manage the narrative and hadn’t felt the need to show the torture simply for the sake of showing torture, then perhaps it could have been something great. Instead it is a good movie about a great man who had an amazing story.

Critics Rating: 7/10

‘Hobbit’ Trilogy Ends on Low Note

The_Hobbit_-_The_Battle_of_the_Five_Armies            The Twitter campaign for this movie was #OneLastTime. So it only seems fitting that Peter Jackson, the man who truly doesn’t know how to stop when he’s ahead, took one final shot at ruining his far superior Lord of the Rings trilogy.

Written and directed by the aforementioned Jackson, “The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies” is the final film of the Hobbit trilogy, the prequel series to the Lord of the Rings. Martin Freeman stars as Bilbo, Ian McKellen plays that lovable wizard Gandolf, and Richard Armitage plays Thorin, the leader of the Dwarves as the trio try and protect their mountain from invading foreign armies.

I’ll say what everyone has said since it was announced that the Hobbit films would be broken up from two films into a trilogy: it does not have the substance to sustain three films. To me, all I heard when Jackson explained it was “cha-ching!” (an additional movie means an additional $900 million). And after “Five Armies” features more of the made up characters, forced side plots and slack narrative that made the first two films so mediocre, it is only confirmed that this trilogy was a cash grab.

It is really hard to review a movie like this. I can’t really knock it for having no real pacing, plot, or character development because it was set up to be a huge epic finale with lots of confrontations. Sure, whatever. But the entire time the orcs were killing dwarves, and elves were fighting orcs, and humans were kind of just running around, all I could think was, “what’s the point of all this?”.

Truly, though, for all the fighting and violence in this film, it is hard to tell who is who, and each of the “five armies” motivations is only mentioned in passing. And then it all comes to an end. A glorious, anticlimactic end. No, but seriously: some of the conflicts just end, and there are some main characters who disappear into the conflict before never being seen again. Got to love Jackson and his inability to have a proper wrap-up, right?

There is also the forced elf-dwarf romance that on top of being a waste of time also features some cringe-inducing lines about love.

It will upset fanboys, but here’s the truth: Peter Jackson is the new George Lucas. He creates this grand trilogy, with interesting characters, fantastic storytelling, and above all, practical effects. Years later, he creates a prequel trilogy with underwritten characters, forced storylines connecting the two trilogies, and worst of all uses an overabundance of CGI. The orcs don’t look so glaringly fake here as they did in the first two films, but still. The original Rings films were made famous for using costumes; the Hobbit trilogy is just like the Star Wars prequels, and it is really hard to defend Jackson.

By the time “Battle of the Five Armies” is wrapping it, it ties into the beginning of “Fellowship of the Ring” before slowly panning onto a map of Middle Earth, clearly a nod by Jackson that it is the end of the Lord of the Rings saga. In “Moneyball”, Billy Beane asks if you would rather die from a shot to the head or five to the chest. The Hobbit trilogy seems like it falls under the latter category, as all it did was make me miss the original trilogy, and be glad that this grueling series has finally come to an end.

Critics Rating: 5/10

‘Mockingjay – Part 1’ Best Hunger Games Yet

MockingjayPart1Poster3They say the third time’s the charm. While that is usually not the case with movie franchises (give me one third film that eclipsed the first two which is not named “Return of the King”), the saying does ring true with “The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1”, which is the best film in the series.

Picking up right where “Catching Fire” left off, Katniss (fan-favorite Jennifer Lawrence) is now in District 13 and has become the symbol of the rebellion against the Capitol, led by the love-to-hate-him President Snow (Donald Sutherland). Liam Hemsworth and the late Philip Seymour Hoffman return as Julianne Moore joins the cast. Francis Lawrence returns in the director’s chair.

The first two Hunger Games films both served their purpose, but I never felt any real connection to the characters, even Katniss. I’ve honestly always found her extremely unlikable and hard to root for, a claim she herself has pointed out on numerous occasions so it isn’t exactly like I’m grasping at straws. However “Mockingjay – Part 1” replaces the PG-13 shakycam action with well-acted scenes involving propaganda and the sparks of a revolution and that is why it is the best entry in the Hunger Games series to date.

The direction in the film is what makes it so good; without director Francis Lawrence, the film would not work. He utilizes fantastic production value and impressive CGI to immerse us in a world that is dark, both in tone and visuals. Whether it is the remains of a bombed district or a secret underground bunker, he knows exactly how and where to place the camera to get the most from every shot. There is also one incredibly impressively executed raid scene inside the Capitol that is as entertaining as it is nerve-wrecking.

Hoffman yet again shows why he was truly a rare talent, and we lost one of the all-time greats. Playing a master of political propaganda, Hoffman has some moments of humor and makes a few fantastic points about society, and he plays well off of the stubborn Katniss. Woody Harrelson once again is the comic relief, and at times stands as the voice of reason for the audience. Southerland is the best he’s been so far as the sinister Snow, and one monologue gave me chills just by the pure evil in his eyes.

Now “Mockingjay – Part 1” isn’t for everyone. There are no kids-killing-kids this time around, and Katniss only shoots her trademark bow and arrow once. It is certainly the slowly burning wick at the start of the exploding powder keg, so there is lots of talking and almost no action. But what that does is make the action scenes that do take place hold even more purpose and weight, and make you even more excited for the epic finale that awaits.

If you open a history book, the American and French Revolutions are some of the most interesting and exciting time periods you can read about. This holds true for “The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1”, as it is tense, emotional and leading to something grand. Does it warrant the final book being broken up into two separate movies? Probably not, but time will tell. Who woulda thunk that the best film in the Hunger Games franchise would be the one that doesn’t even feature the Hunger Games at all?

Critics Rating: 7/10

‘Gone Girl’ Powerfully Acted, Capably Executed Thriller

Leave a reply

Gone_Girl_Poster                Do you smell that? It’s the smell of Oscar Season returning to grace us with its presence, and it is brought upon by director David Fincher’s newest film, “Gone Girl”.

On the morning of his fifth wedding anniversary, Nick (Ben Affleck) arrives home to find his house in shambles and his wife (Rosamund Pike) missing. When the media begins to put the spotlight on him, the police and American public start to wonder if Nick is an innocent victim, or a killer? Neil Patrick Harris and Tyler Perry also star.

It is hard to say why “Gone Girl” is a good film without spoiling anything. In fact it is hard to really talk at all about this film without giving away one of its many twists. But it’s my job, so here we go.

The always reliable David Fincher, who directed films ranging cult classics “Fight Club” and “Se7en” to the fantastic “Social Network” and American version of “Girl With the Dragon Tattoo”, directs “Gone Girl” in such a stepped-back, impartial way that at times you forget you are watching a movie. It is almost like you are simply watching events unfold, and you do not know who to trust.

Gillian Flynn, who wrote the novel on which the film is based, as well as penned the screenplay for the movie, has such a way with words that she is able to work in moments of dark humor that just feel natural. Sometimes in movies characters are deadly serious all the time and it almost takes you out of the film, but never with “Gone Girl”. It makes sure to have a little strategically placed bits of humor or lightheartedness just when a moment may be getting too serious or stale.

If you hear anything about the film, it will likely be one of two things: Rosamund Pike’s performance, or the twists. This film has more twists than a pastry from Cinnabon. At first they are small things, like the police finding a clue, but as the film goes on, they get more and more elaborate and hit harder and harder, until the ultimate punch to the stomach in the film’s final moments.

As for Pike, there is so much that could be said but I’ll keep it brief. As she narrates the film via her diary passages and flashbacks, we see at first the fairytale marriage that she and Affleck have, but then how they begin to become more and more distant, until finally she begins to fear her own husband. It is a multi-layered performance that is sure to earn her award talk.

Now as much as the film wants to front itself as a brilliant Oscar contender, there are some glaring flaws. The first act of the film, when police are collecting initial clues and samples and Affleck is doing interviews, can drag a little, as we aren’t really learning anything new or earth shattering, but still are sitting through it all. It is a little like watching a behind-the-scenes, paperwork-only edition of “Law and Order”, just with more awkward pacing. The film may also leave some viewers, including myself, craving a better delivery of the climax.

“Gone Girl” is a perfectly cast, capably directed film that just suffers from some narrative and pacing issues, as well as a possible weak finale. That being said, it is an engrossing, dark and intelligent, and may leave your brain hurting when the credits start to roll. Is “Gone Girl” as entertaining or memorable as it wants to be? No. But that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t come close.

Critics Rating: 7/10

‘Tombstones’ a Cliche, Slightly Engaging Thriller

A_Walk_Among_the_Tombstones_poster           When Liam Neeson isn’t playing Zeus, training Batman or killing European men to save his daughter, he works as a private investigator in 1999 New York City.

In “A Walk Among the Tombstones”, Neeson plays Matthew Scudder, a retired New York City cop who now finds employment as a PI. When a drug kingpin contacts Scudder about finding the men who killed his wife, Scudder finds himself in a race to catch the men before they strike again. Dan Stevens and Boyd Holbrook also star, as Scott Frank writes and directs the film, which is based on a Lawrence Block novel.

Liam Neeson has had quite a diverse 2014. After starting the year voicing a Raccoon and a Lego cop, he saved a hijacked airplane (oops, spoiler. But I mean…if you haven’t seen “Non-Stop” at this point then I doubt you really want to) and he also played an American cowboy with an Irish accent (because, sure). Now Neeson takes a step back and takes on a much more serious and reality-grounded film with “Tombstones”. And how is it? …I mean, it’s alright.

The setup in this film is very solid. We get a little bit of Scunner’s backstory as to why he became a PI and quit the NYPD, but just enough to wet our appetite; we get bits and pieces throughout that complete the puzzle. We are then introduced to the kingpin, played by Dan Stevens. The guy seems like he has a few demons he himself is dealing with, and he is drug dealer, so we are not sure if we can trust him. However when he shows Scunner what the men who kidnapped his wife did to her, we quickly learn that they are not human, and that they need to be stopped.

“Tombstones” isn’t really a mystery, as we know 15 minutes in who the bad guys are, and what their motivation is. The movie even shows several scenes from their perspective. But it continues to treat itself like it is a mystery, as if every time Neeson himself finds a clue we are supposed to act all surprised and begin racking our own brains. This is one of the film’s largest flaws.

As interesting the characters and despicable the villains, we are never really met with many moments of tension or suspense. Sure, sometimes you feel like Neeson is being followed, or that a character knows more than they’re leading on, however the matter is quickly resolved, before you can really absorb the situation.

The ending also could leave more to be desired. Obviously I won’t spoil anything, but the ending seems like it is going to get interesting, but then takes a cliché route before cutting off and rolling credits entirely. You wish for all the set up the film had (or at least tried to have), it would give the audience more of a payoff.

Neeson and the rest of the cast do fine work, and Frank’s direction and screenplay are both nice and neat. The production value is also impressive, considering the film is set in New York on the eve of the Y2K crisis (because why not?). There just aren’t enough new things in “A Walk Among the Tombstones” to make it memorable.

I was never bored while watching, and Neeson does get to flash his BA badge a few times, however I just couldn’t help but think as I sat there and watch that all I really wanted was for Neeson to answer a cellphone and yell “give me back my daughter!” and before hopping on a plane to France.

Critics Rating: 6/10