Arrival (2016) - 10 stars out of 10

Arrival (2016) - 10 stars out of 10

“Arrival” is a story of communication and language in an impossible circumstance.  Its unique science fiction setting might seem off-putting to a lot of viewers but this is truly a film that every moviegoer will enjoy.  I think that it is an easily relatable sci-fi movie because it does not take place a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.  The events of this film could take place today in our own backyard.  Moreover, this film appeals to our sense of realism through a scientific approach to language.  The story is driven by the concept of linguistic relativity which hypothesizes that the structure of a language shapes the way that we perceive the world around us.  Much like the language of the heptapods, the entire film is circular and in the end, we see all of the pieces of the story as a whole.  It also helps that these otherworldly, animal-like aliens are different than the humanoids that we have come to expect from alien movies.  There is no question that this will be the Oscar-winning, mind-bending science fiction hit of 2016.  A Best Actress nomination for Amy Adams is inevitable.  She boldly carries the entire film on her shoulders with intensity, several different dynamics of raw emotion, and convincing interaction with the CGI.  I love that her character approaches linguistic communication with a teaching methodology.  This further enhances the realism when compared with a film like “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” in which a simple tonal language allows both sides to miraculously speak through music.  Jeremy Renner also turns in a nice performance through the chemistry that develops with Adams as the film progresses.  My main disappointment with the film is Forest Whitaker.  His presence in a film brings an expectation of great acting but his character is completely static and could have been played by any average actor, leaving me wondering why he signed on.  In spite of this small letdown, “Arrival” is a great film from top to bottom.  It answers all of the right questions to leave us satisfied but leaves enough questions unanswered to maintain the mystery.  Whether you are a fan of science fiction or not, “Arrival” is the movie that you need to see before Oscar Sunday.

[Pictured: The film's approach to deciphering linguistics is stunning]

Monkey Business (1952) - 4 stars out of 10

Monkey Business (1952) - 4 stars out of 10

“Monkey Business” (not the Marx Brothers version) is a silly film about a scientist who discovers a youth serum.  You need to approach this film realizing that there is 0% realism contained within and that it is just an excuse to put famous adult actors into juvenile situations.  If you are a fan of Cary Grant and Ginger Rogers, you will get a kick out of watching them act like 8-year-olds.  Unfortunately, what would make for a fun 10-minute sequence turns into an entire film and loses its charm after a while.  The cheesiness of the film is apparent even before the end of the opening credits, with Grant interrupting them only to be told “Not yet, Cary.”  Even with the star power of Grant and Rogers, Marilyn Monroe is the most memorable actress (probably because she doesn’t act like a child so we take her more seriously).  “Monkey Business” (not the Marx Brothers version) isn’t exactly a classic like “To Kill A Mockingbird” or “Some Like It Hot” but it is amusing and worth watching for a few good laughs.

[Pictured: The juvenile sequences are really funny.  There are just far too many of them]

10 Cloverfield Lane - 9 stars out of 10

10 Cloverfield Lane - 9 stars out of 10

Ever since I saw “Cloverfield” in theaters, I have been dreaming of its sequel.  And it is nothing like I expected.  Rumors of a parallel found footage film of the same events shot from another angle sounded incredible but the sequel that actually came to fruition aspired beyond a retelling of the original.  “10 Cloverfield Lane” is barely connected to its predecessor but delivers the thrills that we were promised.  The film sets its tone with a stunning opening sequence that creates a heightened sense of being trapped through its musical score and amplified sound fx.  Even though we are drawn in by the mystery of what may be happening to the world (if anything), the film is actually about being a victim.  This underlying theme takes many forms throughout the film and you won’t even realize it until the end credits begin to role.  Unlike the effects-driven story of “Cloverfield,” this story relies completely on the incredible performances by John Goodman, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, and John Gallagher Jr.  The film would fall flat with anything less than virtuosic acting and all three thrive as the script peels away each layer of their personality.  The film creates a fascinating mystery outside of the bunker and yet, the true mystery lies within Goodman’s character.  I know that he won’t earn an Oscar nomination for this performance but he deserves to be there.  I love the normalcy throughout the set as the outside world seems to fall apart.  The inclusion of oldies is reminiscent of J.J. Abrams’ work on “Lost” and I can’t help but wonder about the significance of these songs in his films.  As the mystery descended deeper and deeper, my worry of an unsatisfying conclusion grew stronger.  The ending has definitely been the most controversial part of this movie and it took several days to properly form an opinion on it.  While it may seem disjointed from the rest of the story, I actually think that it is the only proper way to end the character’s journey.  There are plenty of articles out there to spoil the ending for you so I won’t dig in too deep, but I feel that anything predictable would leave an incomplete story arc.  Once you reflect on the film, you will realize that the character’s transformation happens much later than you initially thought, further necessitating the shocking finale.  I am still trying to figure out how this film is connected to the original but does it really matter?  “10 Cloverfield Lane” is a seminar in impressive acting, chilling dialogue, endless layers of mystery, and an empowering moral.  Maybe we will understand its relationship to a found-footage monster film someday but until then, it stands strong on its own.

[Pictured: This film is so tense that it will leave your stomach in knots.]

Man vs. Snake: The Long and Twisted Tale of Nibbler - 7 stars out of 10

Man vs. Snake: The Long and Twisted Tale of Nibbler - 7 stars out of 10

“Man vs. Snake: The Long and Twisted Tale of Nibbler” is riveting documentary about a man on a quest for redemption.  The title seems like it should refer to an adventurer like The Crocodile Hunter or Indiana Jones who must face off against a slithery foe; however, this is actually a film that chronicles a video gamer’s journey to reclaim his high score on Nibbler.  Nibbler is not your average video game.  It was notable as being the first game to include a score that went up to 999,999,999, meaning that it provided the ultimate challenge of scoring 1 billion points.  In order to ascertain this score, one would have to potentially play the game for 40 hours.  Through a series of interviews and clever animations (which are much more entertaining than the often lifeless reenactments that we see in documentaries), we learn the story of teenager Tim McVey’s 1984 Nibbler marathon in which he broke the billion point barrier.  Once McVey (not the terrorist) discovers that an Italian gamer claims to have beaten his record but cannot officially verify it, McVey sets off on a quest to settle the debate by achieving a higher score.  Throughout his journey, we learn about the marathon strategy of building up enough extra lives so that he can walk away for several minutes to eat, use the bathroom, or dunk his hands in ice while the game continues to play itself.  The story is full of interesting characters, unexpected twists, and an epic scandal.  You might not expect that a documentary about a simplistic arcade game could hold your attention for an hour and a half but “Man vs. Snake” creates so much suspense that you won’t be able to look away!

[Pictured: The animated segments are a great way to recreate scenes from McVey's climb to the top!]

Sully - 7 stars out of 10

Sully - 7 stars out of 10

“Sully” seems to have everything that you could hope for in an Oscar nominee: a strong performance by Tom Hanks, direction by Clint Eastwood, a topical event in American history, the emotions of a plane full of victims, and a fascinating disaster sequence.  Surprisingly, it hit well below the mark of expectation.  I can’t imagine that anybody would walk out of the theater disappointed, as it satisfies our curiosity about the events surrounding the Hudson River landing.  But it seems like such an obvious Oscar pick on the surface that it simply does not live up to that standard.  The script hits all of the right notes, focusing on the humble yet heroic Sullenberger, serving as an homage to New York’s first responders, and utilizing the vast array of emotions displayed by the passengers on the plan.  The script also hinders the story’s development.  It presents the events from several perspectives including the pilot, the passengers, the ferry boat operators, and air traffic control, but it becomes one too many reenactments of the crash sequence.  We walk into this film wanting to learn more about the events surrounding the Hudson River landing but by the time the last enactment rolls around, it is nearly a direct repetition of the previous one.  I was also disappointed to discover that the film’s portrayal of the NTSB is inaccurate, painting them as a group of prosecutors trying to force guilt upon the captain.  It makes for good drama as it emphasizes the humility of Sully in the face of his detractors, but it also strays from the true events of the hearing.  The film boasts good performances from Aaron Eckhart, Mike O’Malley, Laura Linney, and particularly Hanks.  He is convincing with gray hair and the role fits his likeable personality; however, when you rank this performance within his larger body of work, it comes out as average.  The largest disappointment was some of the airplane special effects that resembled a video game or simulation, while other moments would easily be confused with live footage of this catastrophic event.  If some of the special effects can be realistic, they all should be realistic.  "Sully" will not live up to your Oscar expectations but if you can view it outside of that lens, it successfully delivers a heroic story about a selfless man who saved a plane full of people.

[Pictured: Hanks rocks the gray hair, Eckhart's mustache is off the cuff, and then something happens involving an airplane]

Monsters (2010) - 6 stars out of 10

Monsters (2010) - 6 stars out of 10

"Monsters" is an alien film that is more about people than it is about aliens.  The film is set against a backdrop of enormous alien beings that inhabit an "infected zone" on the border or Mexico and America, but the focus of the story is the developing relationship between two survivors as they journey to the American border.  There are a few moments of intense alien attacks but the majority of the film is conversational in nature.  The acting of Scoot McNairy and Whitney Able is decent but the unique setting is the real draw for this film.  There is something compelling about this abnormal-yet-not-quite-post-apocalyptic world in Mexico.  The imagery of gas masks, warheads, and giant squid-like aliens is contrasted by the typical lifestyle that the residents of Mexico live as they accept the threat as a part of their reality.  The unanswered questions regarding the aliens are definitely more compelling than the actual plot.  Also, the ending created some compelling questions to be answered by a sequel but Rotten Tomatoes tells me that the sequel missed its mark and is not worth wasting your time.  There are better alien movies and better dramas than “Monsters,” but this film is worth seeing for its creepy imagery and presentation of a world where humans attempt to live with inevitable alien attacks.

[Pictured: The giant alien monster carcasses laying on top of buildings are a bit unnerving]

We're Back! A Dinosaur's Story - 2 stars out of 10

We're Back! A Dinosaur's Story - 2 stars out of 10

If I mention an animated Steven Spielberg film about dinosaurs, what is the first thing to come to your mind?  I doubt that it is “We’re Back! A Dinosaur’s Story.”  This is just another cheap attempt to get a piece of Disney’s success during the Renaissance.  How did Spielberg get sucked into this one?  It has plenty of big names, a score by James Horner, and a song performed by Little Richard, but the entire thing is painfully cheesy and trite.  When you consider that this film hit theaters between Disney’s releases of “Aladdin” and “The Lion King,” it emphasizes its lack of quality in an era of critically acclaimed animation.  Even better: this film was released the same year as “Jurassic Park”!  Was it meant to be a companion piece to Spielberg’s box-office shattering dinosaur thriller?  This is probably the first time that one studio managed to create a box-office smash AND a box-office bomb about dinosaurs in the same year.  The main issue is the film’s shallow story.  The sight gags, stereotypical 90’s children, and simplistic plot probably appeals to kids but leaves the adults feeling like they were conned into watching something that is (frankly) stupid.  The concept of running away to join the circus was popular in the early 20th century but seems awkward in a 90’s setting where kids enjoy technology and skateboarding.  Not to mention the inevitable disappointment when any young viewer expects to see living dinosaurs at the Museum of Natural History.  They tried to make up for the plot with big names like John Goodman (good choice, good man), Martin Short (but as a dimwitted clown with strong convictions?), Jay Leno (an awkward choice for an animated film), Julia Child (also awkward), Kenneth Mars (King Trident, stolen from Disney), Charles Fleischer (Roger Rabbit, also stolen from Disney), and Walter Cronkite.  Even with a great plot, this random group of actors (and news journalists?!?!?) would have struggled to build chemistry.  The entire film feels disjointed, pointless, and lacks the heart of Disney’s animated output.  But it has a Ferris Bueller-proportioned parade, so there’s that.  “We’re Back! A Dinosaur’s Story” is able to hold the attention of young kids and make them terrified of the circus, but certainly not a film that will please the entire family.  If you are really craving an animated Steven Spielberg film about dinosaurs, stick with “The Land Before Time.”

[Pictured: Cute cartoon dinosaurs running around New York City: so much potential, so much disappointment]