Tag Archives: film

Rock’s New Comedy Won’t Make Your ‘Top Five’

Leave a reply

Top_Five_posterThere is a point at the beginning of “Top Five” when Chris Rock’s character says, “I don’t feel like doing funny movies anymore. I don’t feel funny”. Apparently he accomplished his goal because the movie he’s in isn’t all that funny.

Written, directed, and starring Chris Rock, “Top Five” tells the tale of Andre Allen (Rock), a former comedian who wants to be taken seriously as an actor, all while being shadowed by a journalist (Rosario Dawson) and dealing with the impending wedding with his reality star wife (Gabrielle Union).

Chris Rock is a great comedian, there’s no denying that, and even if he isn’t the greatest actor in the world, he still has produced some funny products the past decade. “Top Five” seems like it should work on paper, with Rock playing almost a version of himself, but it just doesn’t and for a comedy it isn’t that funny.

The cast looks impressive with the likes of Kevin Hart, Tracey Morgan and Cedric the Entertainer all popping up on the poster, but in reality this the Rock and Dawson show, with celebrities stopping by to cameo in one scene. Ironically it is the three scenes with Hart, Morgan and Cedric that each bring a little life and the biggest laughs to the screen, but the moment their characters exit you instantly miss them.

There are some tiny bits of inspired writing from Rock about how maybe we’re too tough on reality stars for having no real talent or how we expect too much from A-list celebrities, but those moments get lost watching scenes that go on for too long or are ruined by an awkwardly out-of-place crude joke.

I kept sitting through “Top Five” waiting and wanting it to pick up momentum and be funny, the kind of funny I know Chris Rock can bring, but it never does, and that is the film’s biggest problem: it is a comedy that just isn’t funny. The film never fully knows what kind of film it wants to be.

It wants to be taken seriously and address a man’s alcoholism? It throws is a montage with Cedric the Entertainer and two prostitutes. It wants to be filled with potty humor? It suddenly flips and makes some characters start a serious argument. Films like “Funny People” perfectly walk the lines of potty humor, drama and genuine laughs, but “Top Five” can’t.

The best part of “Top Five” is when Chris Rock’s character is shown doing standup, which makes sense because these are Rock’s roots. But a few celebrity cameos and a couple smart satirical moments can’t save a film that drags on and then suddenly just ends. I really, really wanted to like “Top Five” more than I did, if not for my sake then for Rock’s, but I could not.

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

Stewart’s Humor, Satire Shine Through in ‘Rosewater’

Rosewater_poster            A comedian taking on a serious film seems to be the trend this year. Michael Keaton and Steve Carrell are getting Oscar buzz for their roles in dramas “Birdman” and “Foxcatcher”, respectively, and now Jon Stewart temporarily trades in his Daily Show desk for a director’s chair with “Rosewater”.

Based on the true story, “Rosewater” tells the tale of Iranian-Canadian journalist Maziar Bahari (played by Gael García Bernal) who was detained and tortured for 118 days in Iran during the 2009 presidential election. Jon Stewart produces, writes the script (based on Bahari’s novel) and directs his first major motion picture.

In a lot of ways, “Rosewater” is like “Argo”. Obvious Iran setting aside, the film, despite taking place in the past, holds a lot of views and opinions about current events. There are also some moments of black humor to ease up the serious moments, and nice integration of stock footage. However there are also a lot of reasons why “Rosewater” is not the next “Argo”.

Despite maybe not being the most obvious choice as a film debut, Stewart does a very good job on the film’s dramatic script. There are those moments of black humor, but he also almost always nails the inner-feelings of Bahari as his days in solitary confinement begin to stack up.

One of the things the film does well is giving the audience a sense of empathy towards Bahari’s interrogators. While at times it paints them as uninformed, it never makes them look out to be delirious or unintelligent, and they even make a few valid points as to why they have imprisoned Bahari (such as “the CIA was behind the 1593 Iran coup, so why not this one?”). A somewhat ironic moment was that a piece of “evidence” the interrogators used was one of Stewart’s own Daily Show interviews in which Bahari took part in, and the Iranians saw this as cooperation with “Satan America”.

Gael García Bernal gives a nimble performance as Bahari, starting off as a happy, dedicated journalist and towards the end of the film clearly beginning to break, both mentally and physically (just ignore the fact that in four months of captivity his beard doesn’t change lengths at all). However Bernal never quite seems to reach the same level of desperation as, say, Tom Hanks in “Cast Away”, and that is in part one of the film’s largest flaws.

The movie never truly builds to anything grand. Sure, we know how the story ends, but we also knew the ending to “Apollo 13” and “Captain Phillips” and those are two of the most suspenseful films of all-time (I’m sorry for all the Tom Hanks praising; I swear when I came up with all these examples the connection was not intentional). “Rosewater” is edited so it is scene after scene, and the tension that we as an audience should be feeling is not there.

“Rosewater” is a well-written, capably directed and importantly timed film that is just not as good as it could have been. Still, it was enjoyable or interesting all throughout, and stands as a nice resume builder for a man who should need no introduction to the world delivering of political and social messages.

Critics rating: 7/10

Gyllenhaal Steals the Show in ‘Nightcrawler’

Leave a reply

Nightcrawlerfilm            Jake Gyllenhaal once patrolled the streets of Los Angeles as a cop in “End of Watch”; now he drives around them at night filming crime and accidents.

“Nightcrawler” is all about the people who independently film accidents and then sell them to news stations (“if it bleeds, it leads” the film makes sure to tell us a half dozen times). When Lou (Gyllenhaal) steps into this world, he begins to blur the line between observer and participant. Rene Russo and Bill Paxton costar as Dan Gilroy writes and has his directorial debut.

“Nightcrawler” is a nice looking, tense thriller that is almost completely driven by its characters. Every actor has a scene or two in which they own, but in the end this movie would be nothing without Jake Gyllenhaal.

Gyllenhaal is so creepy, unsettling and unrecognizable as Lou that it is impossible to take your eyes off of him. As the film progresses, we become more and more uneasy with every passing scene, as we know it is only a matter of time before Lou snaps; we just don’t know at what—or who—it is going to be at. Lou speaks almost completely in cliché business and motivational lingo (his motto is, “if you want to win the lottery, you have to earn the money to buy a ticket”) and it is not obvious if he is a brilliant negotiator or simply just insane.

Riz Ahmed plays Rick, a homeless young man who is hired as Lou’s assistant. Rick is too desperate for cash to turn away from Lou, or even realize what he is getting himself into, and by the time he begins to realize Lou may be a psychopath he is in too deep.

The rest of the supporting cast does a fine job as well. Russo plays a TV news director who buys Lou’s initial tape, and is equally repulsed and fascinated by him. Bill Paxton has a few fun lines as Lou’s rival, a fellow “nightcrawler”, and Kevin Rahm plays a TV executive, who serves as the voice of reason for the audience, questioning Lou’s methods and whether running certain clips is ethical, or even legal.

The film is edited and paced brilliantly, offering quick-cuts and perfectly timed scenes to keep the flow going, while never sacrificing content. The climax of the film is as tense and thrilling as anything I have seen at the movies this year, and even though while watching we have a feeling we know what is going to transpire, we just hope we are wrong.

Now there are a few points in “Nightcrawler” that feel like they were added simply to showcase Los Angeles, or try and make sure we are aware how “dedicated” Lou is to his job, and this makes the film’s narrative stray a bit and at times make the plot seem a bit aimless, but it is never anything Gyllenhaal can’t get back on track.

“Nightcrawler” is a solid thriller with a brilliant lead performance, shot in one of the most vibrant and neon-soaked cities in the world. The film is worth seeing simply because of Gyllenhaal, but the supporting characters, dark humor and exhilarating climax are a nice treat, too.

Critics Rating: 7/10

‘Interstellar’ Reaches for the Stars, Scratches Greatness

interstellar            In his first directorial effort since completing his Dark Knight trilogy, Christopher Nolan returns to the visually striking and mind-bending side of films with “Interstellar”.

Set in the future on a dying planet Earth, several astronauts (Matthew McConaughey, Anne Hathaway) set out into a wormhole near Saturn to try and find a new planet suitable for human life. Nolan favorite Michael Caine plays the intellectual head of the project and Jessica Chastain also stars.

Say what you will about Christopher Nolan films, but one thing that is undeniable is that every one of his movies has large scopes and ambitions. The problem most of his films not named “Inception” and “The Dark Knight” have are that the scope is often too big to fill. “Interstellar” sets the bar incredibly high (that bar being an entirely different galaxy) and for most of the film it appears like it will reach that bar and be something great; before the wheels come off in the final act.

The acting in the film is great across the board. McConaughey, fresh off his first Oscar for the superb “Dallas Buyers Club”, shows that his 2013 was no fluke. He plays a father who is conflicted with possibly saving the human race, but while leaving his children behind for years in the process. He still has his signature droll and charm, but this is a side of McConaughey we’ve never seen. My future wife Anne Hathaway is equally as solid as McConaughey’s fellow astronaut, a woman torn between morals and emotion.

The visuals in the film are striking and much like last year’s “Gravity” there are shots that show the pure magnitude of space that will leave you breathless. On numerous occasions the camera pulls up to show the small ship riding among the sea of stars in complete silence, and for a split second it puts everything in perspective.

Everything was going great with “Interstellar”, and for a moment I thought maybe this could be the next space classic a la “2001”, but then the final act happens. I obviously can’t say much of anything without spoiling it, but it is one of those moments that while you watch it transpire you just think, “Oh. Well. Um…ok. Sure, I guess.” I really think the studio gave Nolan complete control of this project, and that may have been a slip-up on their end.

There are also the classic (at this point cliché) “Nolan-isms”, such as underdeveloped side characters, plot holes and the aforementioned unfillable scope, but they aren’t as prevalent or glaring here as with his other projects.

“Interstellar” has no right being nearly three hours long, but there was not a second during it that I was bored. The performances are great, the visuals are outstanding and there are several very well-directed moments of tension, one of which had the entire audience gasp at the same time. “Interstellar” reaches for the stars and they just barely evade its grasp, but just because it is not a stellar movie (*snickers*) does not mean it is a trip you can afford not to take.

Critics Rating: 8/10

Bill Murray Shines as ‘St. Vincent’

Leave a reply

St_Vincent_posterWelcome back, funny Bill Murray. After several years of making cameos and starring in indie dramas, Murray returns to his roots of comedy in “St. Vincent”, where he plays a cranky old drunk who is saddled with babysitting the son of his new neighbor, played by Melissa McCarthy. Hollywood rookie Theodore Melfi writes and directs.

It is a testament to a film when it can overcome all of its genre clichés and narrative familiarities and still be generally entertaining. “St. Vincent” is pretty standard, as we’ve seen the “grumpy guy bonds with the nerdy young kid and the two go on crazy adventures together” formula numerous times before (“Bad Santa” or “Bad Words”, for example). But in spite of all this, Murray shines in an honest, emotional and at times very funny performance.

Without Murray, chances are this movie would not work, and would have been stuck in the “schmaltzy and overdone” category. However Murray elevates the film with his dry wit, and it is a blast seeing him teach the young boy (played by Jaeden Lieberher) how to gamble on horses, mow dirt patches and stand up to bullies.

Melissa McCarthy, toning down her performance here, gives one of her best performances because she isn’t playing the swearing slob. She portrays a single mother who is simply trying to make a better life for her son, and in that he gets a few chuckles, but for the most part just displays true emotion and relatability.

The strongest points of the film are its opening act and its climax, for two very different reasons. The first scenes when we first meet Murray are genuinely funny and harken back to the golden days of his career. The final minutes of this scene are masterfully acted by the entire cast, especially Murray, who for much of the final scene speaks only with his facial expressions. The scene is very well done and will hit you right in the feels (seriously, I had a lump in my throat).

There is a point about halfway through “St. Vincent”, though, where the film seems to be aware that it is being too goofy and sentimental, and thinks it needs to fix this by adding extreme drama. This would have been fine, except the tone switch comes completely out of left field, and just doesn’t seem natural. Suddenly the movie becomes a dark, almost depressing drama, and it really just felt out of place. This likely falls on the shoulders of rookie director Melfi, but other than this one segment he does a great job mixing emotion and laughs, both with his direction and the script.

“St. Vincent” won’t win any awards for originality, but I really hope it wins something for Murray. He is the reason this film is as good and enjoyable as it is, and he alone is the reason to see this movie. It is an entertaining, multi-layered performance, and every scene he is not in, as few as there are, you notice his absence.

Critics Rating: 7/10

‘Annabelle’ Boring, Lazy and Unscary

Annabelle-posterThere’s a trend I’ve noticed with Hollywood in 2014: if a title of a film is simply a female name, then the end product is trash. First we had “Tammy”, then “Lucy” and now “Annabelle”.

A prequel/spin-off/rip-off of “The Conjuring”, “Annabelle” tells the tale of how the creepy little doll became possessed in the first place, and how it torments the lives of a married couple and their newborn baby. The couple is played by Ward Horton and Annabelle Wallis (crazy first name, right?!) and the film is directed by John R. Leonetti.

I wasn’t the biggest “Conjuring” fan. I appreciated its production value and acting but I just didn’t find the film very scary. And like I said in my review, a horror film that isn’t scary is like a comedy without any laughs; it failed at its objective. That being said, if “Annabelle” was intended to be a horror film, then it botched even harder than “Conjuring” ever could have hoped to.

Nothing in this film works. Let’s start with the acting. It’s as wooden as the rocking chair that the Annabelle doll sits in the entire film. The actor’s deliveries are off and their emotions are non-existent. As my one friend brilliantly said to me, “you know you’re in trouble when the doll is the best actor in the movie.”

The script is just as awful as the acting. The plot makes no sense and puts no effort into explaining how Annabelle actually comes possessed, and it takes until the final scene to tell us why the demon is after the family. The dialogue is equally as dreadful. Like I’m perplexed as to how some of these scenes made it into the finished product. At one point the husband says “ha ha it’s true; everyone HATES her grandmother”. Like, in the most awkward tone possible. And nearly completely out of context to the conversation. That would mean the director had to have looked at that take and said, “Perfect! Cut. Print.”

Speaking of direction, Leonetti does nothing special here at all. All my issues with “Conjuring” aside, director James Wan (who produced “Annabelle”) knew how to build tension in a scene using practical effects (his mistake was never having much of the tension boil over and lead anywhere). Leonetti lingers on actors faces for too long and stares at a still Annabelle for extended durations. There were a couple interesting camera tricks he employs, such as showing a little girl running past an open door only to have her turn into a full-grown woman upon entering, but I think if you had simply put a camera on a tripod it would have done a more engaging job.

All of this could be forgiven if the film was scary, or even interesting, but “Annabelle” is neither. It is boring and uneventful, and by using all no-name actors to ensure the budget was as low as possible it’s not even like we have a big-name star to hold our hand (I would pay good money to see Nicolas Cage scream and throw the Annabelle doll).

I can go on and on bashing “Annabelle”, but then I would be just hurting my brain more than this film did by itself. It is a lazily constructed and awfully executed horror film that should be condemned alongside the demons that control its title character. The silver lining about nearing the end of this review is I will never have to revisit this film ever again. Well, except when I write my Year’s Worst Films list in December. Or until they milk yet another sequel out of this already dried up franchise and I have to relive it all over again…

Critics Rating: 3/10

‘Fury’ Is Powerful, Gritty and One of Year’s Best

Leave a reply

Fury_2014_posterBrad Pitt and World War II. So far, it has proven to be a potent combonation. First Pitt was hunting Nazis in “Inglorious Basterds”, now he is commanding a tank in Germany.

“Fury”, written and directed by “End of Watch’s” David Ayer, tells the tale of five American soldiers who get stuck in their tank behind enemy lines. Outnumbered and outgunned, they must fight their way through and defeat the surrounding Nazi forces. Brad Pitt, Logan Lerman, Shia LaBeouf, Michael Peña and Jon Bernthal portray the members of the tank.

There’s really no point of sugar coating it or beating around the bush: “Fury” is one of the year’s best movies and one of the better, and most realistic, war films of all-time. From the haunting depictions of battle, to the heart-wrenching performances, to the high production value everything about this film is as beautiful as it is chilling.

The performances across the board are nothing short of fantastic, with the standouts being Pitt and Lerman. Pitt plays a man who has clearly let the evils of war shatter any morals and sensitivity he ever had, and this is demonstrated when on the first day of the job for the tank’s new recruit (Lerman), Pitt orders him to execute an unarmed German solider.

I have never been a Logan Lerman fan, I believe he plays a pretentious, spoiled boy in every role he takes (“Noah” and “3:10 to Yuma”, just to name two), but the man shut me up with his performance here. He is a soldier who was pulled away from his desk and put on the front lines, and it seems like he will never get used to the idea of taking a human life. But throughout the film we see him begin to change and become more desensitized to the notion of war, but he never loses the innocence that we empathize with.

The rest of the cast are all cookie-cutter roles (minority member, jerky sociopath and Bible-thumper), but the actors all have their moments to shine.

Ayer has proven that he is more than capable of shooting an engaging action scene, but never while sacrificing drama or content. Even when the bullets are flying and shells are being rocketed off, we see the characters’ weaknesses and at times hesitation in their actions. Even at the end of the film, in the midst of an extended battle, the action never feels derivative or redundant, because we are getting heavy doses of human drama, accompanied by a fantastic score from composer Steven Price.

What holds “Fury” back from the greatness it so clearly was striving for is a scene in the middle of the film. After taking a town, Pitt and Lerman come across two German women, who proceed to make lunch. The scene drags on for 22 minutes (I remember looking at my phone twice), and in the end the entire interaction took place simply for a plot point down the road.

If that one scene had been shorter, which it should have been, then “Fury” may have been able to be mentioned in the same breath as “Saving Private Ryan” and “The Hurt Locker” for greatest war movie of all-time. That being said, “Fury” is still a fantastically shot, grittily depicted and powerfully acted war story, which features a climax that had my theater silent when the credits began to roll.

Critics Rating: 9/10

‘Judge’ Clichéd, but Charasmatic

The_Judge_2014_film_poster                As if it needed to be confirmed, I don’t think there’s a more charismatic actor in the business than Robert Downey Jr. He once again lends his charm and talents to “The Judge”, in which he plays Hank, a slimy big city defense lawyer (is there any other kind?). When visiting his small hometown in Indiana for his mother’s funeral, Hank’s elderly father (played by Robert Duvall) is accused of murder, and Hank must defend now him. David Dobkin directs as Vera Farmiga and Billy Bob Thorton costar.

“The Judge” is an interesting movie. Not because it is perplexing or fresh (because it’s pretty straightforward and standard), but because it has moments of brilliance that are then followed by 10 very slow, sometimes awkwardly schmaltzy minutes. Honestly, the best thing I can compare it to is “Jersey Boys”: it’s overlong and at times too self-serious, but also has some soaring scenes and is certainly worth a view.

The best part of “Judge”, by far, is Downey and Duvall going at it. One of the film’s many clichés is that they are a father and son with a strained relationship, but they make sure that this plot point does not feel stale or derivative. Duvall growls and Downey does his fast-talking thing; it all elevates the film higher than it would have been in the hands of less-capable actors.

While the courtroom scenes aren’t as nail-biting or riveting as they could have or should have been, they are still entertaining, and seeing Downey spit out lawyer lingo will always make me say “shut up and take my money!”.

The director of the film, David Dobkin, is known for such classy dramas as “The Change-Up” and “Wedding Crashers” (sarcasm, of course). I can respect that he wants to make a serious Hollywood film but I can’t help but feel he’s a little out of place. It is a lot like Ruben Fleischer, who directed comedies “Zombieland” and “30 Minutes or Less”, then tried to make a serious film with “Gangster Squad”. My personal feelings for “Squad” aside, you can tell the film’s narrative and tone are not quite confident, or consistent, and that inhibits the movie from reaching higher levels.

Dobkin, who wrote the story for “Judge” as well, knows how to make a shot look pretty or show character emotion, but his scenes draw on too long, and moments of attempted humor will come at such random times that you aren’t sure whether to laugh or cringe.

Like I hinted at earlier, the movie has a lot of clichés. From the estranged son, to a character maybe having a daughter they never knew about, all the way to the diner full of townspeople with one of them literally saying “we’ve eaten breakfast here every week for over twenty years” (which is followed by you rolling your eyes). If there’s a book about “Things to Include in a Movie about a Small Town”, the screenwriter probably has it on his shelf.

“The Judge” is pretty much going to be as good as you thought it was going to be when you saw the trailer. If you’re like me and you thought, “oh, there’s a drama with forced comedic moments but will feature two great performances from the Roberts”, then you’ll enjoy yourself. If you thought, “this thing looks like a sappy, unfunny version of ‘My Cousin Vinny’ meets ‘Doc Hollywood’”, well then I can’t tell you you’re completely wrong; that’s how perplexing this movie is.

Critics Rating: 6/10

‘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