The Jungle Book (2016) - 10 stars out of 10

The Jungle Book (2016) - 10 stars out of 10

Disney’s most recent live-action remake of a beloved animated features is incredible.  I was skeptical when I first heard of another attempt to bring “The Jungle Book” to a live setting; after all, the 1994 version was very unmemorable with its animals that do not speak, the attempt to make it appear that Mowgli interacted with the animals without them ever actually being on screen at the same time, and the complete ignorance of Kipling’s original story.  It was one thing to flesh out the “Cinderella” story with a deeper backstory and a human cast, but the complexity of how to portray the animals made this film seem like another idea.  Luckily, this film is a perfect blend of live action, CGI, and motion capture.  There are few moments in the film where you remember that none of the animals actually exist.  A Best Visual Effects Oscar nomination seems inevitable.  From the terror of Shere Kahn to the cuteness of Grey Brother, these animals are capable of a wide array of emotions.  The story is darker and more complex than the 1967 animated film but the realism is tempered with comic relief and a series of morals.  Interestingly, the story reflects a shift in perspective toward nature over the past 100 years.  Rather than being something to be overcome, nature is now something to be protected.  The main flaw of the film is that it is too long and complex for younger kids.  Even though the content is entirely family friendly, I would not recommend this for children under the age of 8.  Still, I find it to be an awesome film for adults and a great introduction to dramatic film for kids.  When you initially look at the cast list, you have to wonder if all of the star power will be a distraction from the visual representations of each voice. With the exception of Christopher Walken (whose King Louie is purposely designed to look like and remind us of him, perhaps as a nod to the original Louie being reminiscent of Louis Prima), the talented voice actors enhance each character through the emotions deeply rooted in their voices.  Bill Murray as Baloo, Ben Kingsley as Bagheera, Idris Elba as Shere Khan, Lupita Nyong’o as Raksha, Giancarlo Esposito as Akela, and Scarlett Johansson with an inspired female interpretation of Kaa - could it possibly get any better than that?  Most importantly, Neel Sethi is perfectly cast as Mowgli.  He embodies both the physical characteristics that we associate with the animated version of Mowgli as well as the heart, curiosity, and gumption requires by the character.  It is impossible to tell which stunts are real and which ones are animated, but the final product is stunning.  His interactions with the characters are seamless and it is easy to see that he beat out thousands of other children for this role.  I believe that people would have left the theater disappointed without the inclusion of "The Bare Necessities" and "I Wan'na Be Like You," but the musical numbers felt a bit out of place.  I understand that director Jon Favreau did not want to turn this film into a musical.  However, I believe that a film requires three songs in order for musical numbers to feel like they belong in a film and any less takes away their flow within the story.  The songs created great moments of nostalgia but perhaps they should have included some of Scarlett Johansson's version of "Trust in Me" that occurred during the closing credits.  I love that they including the musical theme from the animated film at the beginning and end of this remake as it sets the tone of Disney Magic for the entire film.  The emotive musical score by John Debney enhances several key moments in the film that brought me to tears.  This latest iteration of “The Jungle Book” should be the final one because it will be nearly impossible to improve upon the realism that this film has brought to Kipling’s powerful tale of family and friendship.

[Pictured: The realism of this film makes it a masterpiece]

Clear and Present Danger - 5 stars out of 10

Clear and Present Danger - 5 stars out of 10

“Clear and Present Danger” feels very vanilla to me.  I guess that Tom Clancy stories just aren't my thing.  I have always had an interest in spy movies, particularly the “Mission: Impossible” series, but Clancy’s stories have more emphasis on politics than on the missions and that’s where they lose me.  I love a great political thriller and I love a great spy movie, but the Jack Ryan movies are somewhere in the middle.  They put me to sleep (particularly "The Hunt for Red October") and I find my attention waning, regardless of how interesting the plot may be.  This is no reflection of the impeccable acting of Harrison Ford, Willem Dafoe, Henry Czerny (Kittridge from "M:I"), and James Earl Jones as they properly portray every emotion of their characters.  The fault is in the story that focuses around the Colombian drug cartel, which is such an overused stereotype, and the long transitions between action scenes that continually slow the pace.  I do have to compliment the script on subtly painting the president as a sleazebag.  Rather than portraying him as a bad guy from the start, the story makes us question whether we agree with him or hate his actions for the majority of the film.  I wouldn’t say that “Clear and Present Danger” is a bad film.  It doesn’t do much for me but fans of political stories will probably enjoy it.

[Pictured: It may be worth watching just for the "You're going down with me" scene]

Inglourious Basterds (2009) - 8 stars out of 10

Inglourious Basterds (2009) - 8 stars out of 10

“Inglourious Basterds” is exactly what you would expect from a Quentin Tarantino war film.  It is a genre-bending, historically inaccurate look at WWII and it is surprisingly lighthearted (at times).  When I first watched this in 2009, I did not understand Tarantino’s films and found the splitting of the story into lengthy chapters (which effectively leaves particular characters out of the film for extended periods of time) to be frustrating.  Now that I have become more familiar with his work, I appreciate the film’s unique style and unconventional dialogue.  The story is fascinating and feels authentic because of the amount of dialogue in German, French, and Italian.  As in "Kill Bill," I appreciate that Tarantino always gives a reason for foreign characters to speak in English and uses a smooth transition to do so.  There was significantly less violence in this movie than other Tarantino films (ironic due to this being a war movie), but as a result the violent scenes have a huge impact.  The thing that makes this film so memorable is its acting.  This was the film that put Christoph Waltz on my radar and he was absolutely deserving of his Best Supporting Actor Oscar.  He always creates the most interesting portrayal of a bad guy, making them a personable character that you would want to hang out with while also exuding a passive-aggressive sinister quality.  Mélanie Laurent is an incredible young actress (only 26 in this film) and steals the spotlight during her interactions with Waltz and Daniel Brühl.  Diane Kruger is amazing as usual even though her screentime is limited and Brad Pitt brings great depth to his character.  The movie does have its disturbing moments that include scalping Nazis, carving swastikas into peoples’ foreheads, bashing in heads with a baseball bat, and the infamous scene where Tarantino legitimately chokes Kruger onscreen to guarantee the scene’s realism; however, it is much easier to avert your eyes from these moments than in the director’s other films.  “Inglourious Basterds” is full of blood, language, and graphic violence.  As long as you are prepared for those things, it tells an excellent story that makes it worth watching.  I believe that it falls short of “Kill Bill,” “Django,” and “Hateful Eight,” but that doesn’t make the film any less enjoyable to watch (if you can use the word "enjoyable" in regards to a film like this).

[Pictured: Christoph Waltz is one of my favorite bad guys ever, and Brad Pitt offsets him by creating a lighthearted mood throughout the film]

Hush (2016) - 8 stars out of 10

Hush (2016) - 8 stars out of 10

“Hush” is an interesting take on the slasher film genre.  Rather than frightening the audience with a series of graphic murders, this film frightens its audience through anticipation and suspense.  This indie-film-meets-classic-horror combination will keep your heart pounding from start to finish.  The entire movie is dark, as any moment that may seem pleasant is overshadowed by the stalker that is moving around behind the deaf main character.  It is simply a never-ending series of suspenseful moments.  While a lot of horror films give you a fear of being shot or a fear of being stabbed, this one creates a fear of being deaf.  The writers create one of the most helpless situations imaginable and exploit it.  The narrative of the story is impressive as it gains our attention and quickly creates connections to a character who cannot speak.  It quickly engages us in a mystery but if you want answers at the end, this is not your movie.  The story’s lack of clarification reminds me of J.J. Abrams’ Mystery Box theory, in which discovering what is inside of “the box” is always less exciting than the mystery of what could be in inside.  It doesn’t matter who the murderer is or why he is there.  What matters is his psychological rejection of morality and the resulting situation.  So much of the film is disturbing because of the murderer’s seemingly random selection of this victim.  Moreover, he inflicts psychological torture on her by frightening her until she can no longer handle being trapped.  There is very little blood for the first hour of the movie.  And then the entire movie busts open and things get completely out of control!  There is no big twist because the story doesn't need one; it is frightening enough in its very concept.  I didn't know if director Mike Flannigan could ever reach the same level of creativity and suspense that he attained with "Oculus," but he has proven himself by generating the same amount of psychological terror, only in a very different way.  Every minute of the film is well-acted with Kate Siegel telling most of her story through facial expressions and body language as well as John Gallagher Jr.’s merciless game of cat and mouse.  In an homage to "Torn Curtain," the film emphasizes the human will to live and the amount of brute human strength necessary to kill someone with your bare hands.  Those are the moments where these actors transcend the screen and become so real that it is uncomfortable to watch (particularly the part with her hand…)  “Hush” succeeds because it goes beyond the blood and makes a statement about the psychology of murderers.  If you want answers, you aren’t going to get them.  But if you want suspense, this film will fulfill your quota for the next two months.

[Pictured: This story comes up with the creepiest ways to exploit the inability to hear]

The Escapist (2008) - 7 stars out of 10

The Escapist (2008) - 7 stars out of 10

“The Escapist” is a complex thriller that details the planning and execution of a prison escape.  The complexity of the film comes from its non-sequential timeline which intermingles the scenes of each narrative.  Both parts of the story occur in chronological order but their simultaneous presentation enhances the incredible twist ending.  With this movie’s unique script, odd musical score, and raw portrayal of prison life, it screams “indie film.”  The setting also breaks the mold of big-budget prison films, favoring an old stone jail over a high-tech, maximum security prison.  It also has the high quality acting that we have come to expect from the indie film trend.  I find Brian Cox to be an underrated actor and this role (that was specifically written for him) gives him an opportunity to shine.  Amidst all of the naked butts that appear throughout the film, he plays his character with a consistent intensity that drives the film to its shocking conclusion.  He is surrounded by a handful of those talented actors that you recognize from other films but you can’t remember their names.  As a unit, his crew becomes a character of its own.  This “character” grows throughout the film as it deals with the internal conflicts of its diverse set of personalities.  The film is above average in many respects but its only earth-shattering quality is its final four minutes.  It is something that you just have to experience.  It may be better to wait until you are an adult, as the content of the film has a lot of grit and is beyond the comprehension of younger audiences.  “The Escapist” twists your mind with its unconventional timeline, but it all adds up in its final recapitulation which will have you rewinding to make sure that you understand what actually happened.

[Pictured: The unique prison setting creates all sorts of cool shots like this one]

Dirty Pretty Things - 7 stars out of 10

Dirty Pretty Things - 7 stars out of 10

"Dirty Pretty Things" is a well-acted film with a very odd plot.  This bizarre story of love, illegal immigrants, and organ harvesting will keep you curious from start to finish.  You really never know what might happen next in this one.  The driving force behind this entire plot is Chiwetel Ejiofor in the lead role.  This is the performance that brought him into the spotlight and he has continued to grow since he played this role at the age of 25.  He is complimented by Audrey Tautou, fresh off of her success in the critically-acclaimed “Amélie.”  Their meager love story is completely unmemorable, but I believe this to be the director’s intention in order to keep the film’s focus on the exploitation of immigrants.  The entire film has a deliberately disjointed feel through its odd musical score, rapid cuts from shot to shot, and frequent moments without dialogue.  The end effect is an edginess that makes the entire film feel slightly uncomfortable.  The disjointedness results in a film that isn’t really that “fun” to watch but it leaves an impression.  “Dirty Pretty Things” is a unique film that delivers a disturbing story with an unexpectedly satisfying resolution.

[Pictured: The strongly portrayed emotions of these two is reason enough to watch the film]

Minions (2015) - 5 stars out of 10

Minions (2015) - 5 stars out of 10

“Minions” is precisely what we thought it would be.  This spin-off of the “Despicable Me” franchise creates laugh out loud comedic moments with its sight gags but lacks the heart and compelling story of the original.  I will be the first to admit that it is nothing short of amazing that these writers were able to create an entire movie with three main characters that speak a combination of gibberish, Spanish, and… Pig Latin?  They are paired with a few characters throughout the film whose comprehensible dialogue helps to advance the plot, but the majority of the story progresses through the visual cues of the Minions.  Still, the story is very superficial.  The ending of “Despicable Me” had me in tears but this one is just a long string of sight gags that, funny as they may be, never reach us on an emotional level.  The opening sequence of the Minions throughout history is genius and the interpretation of 1960’s Queen Elizabeth II is hilarious; unfortunately, the film takes a few too many steps over the line between appropriate and inappropriate.  We don't need to see a minion in a thong, at least a dozen jokes about butts, the minions eyes inside of the woman disguise, and the British guards certainly didn't need to dance around in their underwear while slapping each other’s (you guessed it) butts.  Too much of the humor is aimed at adults with its intentional edginess but the movie is too childish for adults to watch on their own.  Maybe I’m becoming more sensitive in adulthood, but it feels like many of the gags in this movie go beyond what parents want their children to watch.  It is certainly a far cry from "Zootopia," which was a perfect balance of entertainment for children and adults.  My other issue with this film is that it praises villainy without delivering the message of its predecessors that it is better to be good than bad.  This movie doesn’t actually have any message other than “The Minions like to follow bad guys but accidentally ruin their plans.”  My issues with the story aren’t meant to take anything away from the impressive animation, the voice talents of Pierre Coffin (as the Minions) and Sandra Bullock as Scarlet Overkill, the creativity of the 1968 setting, or the many comical moments throughout the film.  “Minions” capitalizes on the popularity of these characters and their slightly off-color humor, but it also brings about a realization that the Minions work better as comic relief than they do as star material.

[Pictured: It's a ton of fun to watch The Minions get placed into a ton of hilarious historic situations throughout this film, but the story just lacks the heart of its predecessors]