Amanda Knox (2016) - 8 stars out of 10

Amanda Knox (2016) - 8 stars out of 10

“Amanda Knox” falls into the crime-mystery documentary genre that has been in vogue for several years.  Hot off of the success and buzz created by their “Making a Murderer” series, Netflix was smart to quickly bring this controversial story back into the public eye.  The key was their ability to get Knox to give them her first onscreen interview.  The one-sided nature of the documentary makes her innocence very obvious from start to finish.  The result is an emotionally-driven tale of empathy instead of a slow revelation of details that forces us to decide whether she is guilty or innocent.  The entire documentary hinges on our sympathy for Knox and it works.  Her opening monologue puts us into her position, claiming that she is either a psychopath in sheep’s clothing or she is as innocent as us.  It is unnerving to see the witch hunt that commenced with little-to-no evidence.  The filmmakers do represent the other side of the argument by providing interviews with the case’s lead investigator but he comes off as unintelligent and presumptuous in every word that he speaks about Knox.  Before watching this film, it is important to know that nearly half of it requires the reading of subtitles.  You have to commit to this one fully or else you will miss important information each time that you glance down at your phone.  Also, it carries a Mature rating for a reason, so be prepared for strong language and some fairly graphic crime scene footage.  I am around the same age as Knox but this story somehow eluded me back in 2007.  If you don’t know the details of the case or even if you wonder what ever happened to that study-abroad student who was convicted of murdering her roommate, “Amanda Knox” delivers an informative and gripping story that will stick with you for a while.

[Pictured: Hard to believe that such an innocent-looking person received such a harsh accusation with so little evidence]

A Room With a View (1985) - 7 stars out of 10

A Room With a View (1985) - 7 stars out of 10

"A Room With a View" is a classic-but-predictable story.  Its Oscar wins for Best Costume Design, Best Art Direction, and its nomination for Best Cinematography are no surprise as you take in the vivid Victorian-era costumes and the stunning landscape shots from Florence and England.  It went toe-to-toe with “The Mission” in these categories and its victories are a true compliment against such a strong competitor.  The cinematography is beautiful.  The extensive naked scene in the lake is... way too extensive.  Outside of the visual aspects, the film is most notable for its Oscar-nominated performances by Maggie Smith and Denholm Elliot.  Daniel Day-Lewis lives up to his reputation as a chameleon, harnessing his inner entitlement as if he grew up rich and knew nothing else.  Simon Callow is magnificent as Reverend Beebe and it is mindbending to see Helena Bonham Carter A. at a young age and B. wearing normal attire.  Unfortunately, the film does have its weaknesses.  I completely disagree with the Oscar win for Best Adapted Screenplay.  Maybe it is the delivery, but much of the dialogue feels clunky and fake.  This could also be due to much of the dialogue sounding like it was rerecorded in a sound studio afterwards.  The film has a lot of outdoor scenes but the fake-sounding audio is a big distraction.  I also found the film to move a bit slow, though it provides an interesting story with its theme of the breakdown of Victorian ideals in favor of the free-thinking world.  Pair the slow pacing with the ability to predict most of the film within the first 10 minutes and it proves itself to be an exercise in focusing for an extended period of time.  The slow movement of the film is tempered by a great operatic soundtrack, the likes of which will leave you unable to listen to the beautiful "O mio babbino caro" again without thinking of this film.  “A Room With a View” is an interesting story set on a beautiful backdrop, but its predictability makes it difficult to watch more than once.

[Pictured: The movie is a bit slow, but the view is fantastic.]

Beverly Hills Cop - 4 stars out of 10

Beverly Hills Cop - 4 stars out of 10

“Beverly Hills Cop” is a crude, poorly acted action comedy.  A would-be interesting story is clouded over by nonstop f-words and Eddie Murphy’s obnoxious laugh.  It is also clouded over by a repetitive electronic soundtrack, but there are no complaints there.  It is a shame that such an iconic soundtrack comes from a nearly unwatchable film.  The irony is that it gets really entertaining in the last 40 minutes when all of the profanity disappears, but it isn’t worth enduring the first hour to get there.  This film was critically acclaimed and considered to be one of the best of 1984 – what were these critics thinking?!?!?  Every time that Murphy delivers a serious line, it feels like a mistake.  And apparently the Academy watched a censored version of the film when they nominated it for Best Original Screenplay because the incessant profanity cheapens every line of dialogue.  The one positive attribute of this film is the humor generated by John Ashton, Judge Reinhold, and Murphy.  The majority of their dialogue is improvised and you can occasionally see one member of the trio struggling to hold it together.  Reinhold really nails the sidekick role as the wide-eyed, naïve Billy Rosewood.  If I could cut out all of the profanity, I’d watch the film again just for his cluelessness.  All of the other actors in the film are completely unmemorable and perform well below the expectation of a Hollywood blockbuster.  Perhaps the most maddening part of the film is that nobody is asking the big questions like… what kind of a name is “Axel”?  And why doesn’t anybody question it?  I want to love “Beverly Hills Cop” because it is a classic, but between the poor acting and overblown volume of profanity, it is tough to consider watching it ever again.

[Pictured: This trio is the only redeeming quality of the film]

Now You See Me 2 - 6 stars out of 10

Now You See Me 2 - 6 stars out of 10

"Now You See Me 2" is an average crime thriller that is hindered by the success of the series' first installment.  The unique nature of the original demands that this sequel moves in an entirely different direction and as a result, the only connection between the two films is that they contain the same main characters (one of whom is replaced). The first issue is that the opening of this film does a terrible job of recapping the first film.  Any person who sees this after a 3-year hiatus from watching the original will have completely forgotten the characters and important events, making for a very confusing opening flashback.  Since the film couldn’t center around Robin Hood-esque bank heists without being a total repeat, the thematic focus shifts into several different directions that include a love story, a character dealing with the lingering memories of his father’s death, an evil twin brother, a new international enemy, and a better understanding of The Eye.  There is way too much going on and this oversaturated story would work better as standalone film than as a continuation of the original story.  We loved “Now You See Me” because of the clever incorporation of magic tricks into “Ocean’s Eleven” scenarios, but every aspect of the sequel falls short.  The whole card-throwing-around-the-secured-room sequence goes on for so long and is so farfetched that we lose the belief that this film could actually be real.  The actors are decent, particularly Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine; meanwhile, Daniel Radcliffe feels like he was pigeonholed into this role in order to sell tickets and Woody Harrelson’s dual role is as ludicrous as it is comical.  Jesse Eisenberg, Mark Ruffalo, Dave Franco, and Lizzy Caplan work well together, but the magic tricks are the real star.  Also, the cinematography of Macau and London outshine anything written in this script.  I didn’t hate “Now You See Me 2” but I also believe that it has killed the momentum of the series instead of enhancing the story introduced by the first film.

[Pictured: The ensemble cast is good but, considering the names, you would expect a lot more]

Florence Foster Jenkins - 9 stars out of 10

Florence Foster Jenkins - 9 stars out of 10

I had been anticipating “Florence Foster Jenkins” for nearly two years since it was first reported and it is everything that I hoped it would be!  There is nothing better than listening to Meryl Streep butcher opera's greatest hits for two hours.  But beneath the obvious comic value, there is a story that celebrates Jenkins’ spirit and passion for music, in spite of the sounds that she produces.  This film required a delicate balance in order to recreate the bad singing of Jenkins without making fun of her.  If anything, Meryl Streep's singing isn't bad enough!   It provides the perfect amount of comedy to earn “Madame Florence” a whimsical place in our hearts.   The cast of this film deserves a SAG, solely for keeping a straight face throughout Streep's singing.  The facial expressions of Simon Helberg during Florence's first vocal lesson are some of the greatest expressions that I have ever seen on screen.  And the laughter on the elevator will have everyone in the theater laughing out loud.  I have taught my middle school students about “the worst opera singer of all time” for many years but my perspective has completely changed now that I know the whole story.  Honestly, this film taught me a lot about judging others and the importance of empathizing with a person’s circumstances.  You could say that I used to be like the critics who delighted in writing scathing reviews about Jenkins' abominable performances, but now I feel more like the metaphorical character of Agnes Stark who cheers her on and celebrates the joy that music brought to her.  The script is well-written, the acting is fantastic, and the serious content is given a proper amount of attention within the context of the film’s lighthearted mood.  I appreciate the inclusion of Cole Porter (who was one of Jenkins' biggest fans) and loved the boldly crass acting of Nina Arianda (in the role of Stark).  The most stunning piece of the film is Streep as she captures every nuance of Jenkins' poor vocal technique.  From the unrefined register breaks to her painfully flat upper range, and she "perfectly" recreates every error contained in Jenkins' infamous recordings.  It is inevitable that “Florence Foster Jenkins” will appear on the Oscar ballot next year, but this film is more than just Oscar bait.  It is a testament to the power of music when one expresses it with passion , even if there is a disconnect between the music in their heart and the sound that emerges from their mouth.

[Pictured: Beneath the elaborate costumes and mountains of money, Florence was simply a woman who loved to sing.]

Spanglish - 7 stars out of 10

Spanglish - 7 stars out of 10

“Spanglish” is an unexpected drama from funnyman Adam Sandler.  On the surface, it might look like a multicultural chick flick but the film has more layers than you might expect.  The key is the well-written script that manages several interwoven conflicts without feeling cumbersome.  The main conflicts require a lot of depth from Sandler, who proves to be excellent in his serious acting, but his quirkiness occasionally takes us out of the moment.  A script this heavy requires comic relief (with great examples from Cloris Leachman throughout the film) but the “Happy Gilmore” passive aggressive dialogue delivery doesn't fit the character.  The real winner in this film is the bond between mother and daughter.  It is interesting because the trailers focus on the love story but the opening narration sets the expectation for the mother-daughter relationship to be the most important plot point.  Paz Vega is a true treat to watch.  Her feistiness is reminiscent of Penelope Cruz while maintaining her own unique identity.  I wish that she had made a larger splash in the American film market.  Téa Leoni plays the erratic, materialistic mother very well.  I think that her performance is overlooked because we don’t like her character, but that is because she plays this bratty character so perfectly that we forget that she is acting.  My final takeaway is that “Spanglish” predicted the foodie trend in film and television that would appear a few years later.  When I first saw this in theaters, the food aspect didn’t leave any sort of impression; however, now that I watch it in the context of foodie culture, I can really appreciate each scene that involves gourmet cuisine.  “Spanglish” is far from a comedy but too quirky to be a serious drama.  As long as you are prepared for something in the middle, this movie will provide you with plenty of great ups and downs.

[Pictured: Amidst the chaos of the story, the best takeaway is a strong sense of familial love]

Days of Thunder - 6 stars out of 10

Days of Thunder - 6 stars out of 10

“Days of Thunder” is an attempt to retheme “Top Gun” into a movie about car racing.  The young hothead that doesn’t follow the rules, the mentor that tries to get him in line, the female authority figure that becomes a love interest, the rival that becomes a friend - it’s all there.  Unfortunately, none of these plot points are done as well as they are in “Top Gun.”  The movie’s full-throttle race sequences are entertaining because of imaginative cinematography and clever editing, but the story is all over the place.  Between a crew chief seeking redemption, a driver learning to race, and a weak love story that feels out of place, it is difficult to identify the film’s identity.  “Top Gun’s” love story is iconic and relevant to the story but “Days of Thunder” would have been better if the love story was completely omitted.  It is used more as a comic device than as a key factor in the transformation of the main character.  On top of that, there is way too much unnecessary swearing for an action movie about NASCAR.  If you removed the 90% of profanity that has no bearing on the plot and a suggestive love scene, this film could carry a PG-rating, making it ideal for families (these cars are so cool for young boys) but edgy enough to satisfy adults and critics.  The acting is a bit of an anomaly.  The performances of Robert Duvall, Michael Rooker, and Tom Cruise (in his racecar driver capacity) are all well done.  But once Cruise’s character dons his romantic side and pairs up with Nicole Kidman, both actors suddenly lose their charm.  The love story is so inconsequential that it makes the characters unlikable.  The real story is between the driver and his mentor.  “Days of Thunder” is not the most original film nor is it the most interesting.  If you watch this film, be prepared for stereotypes alternated with breathtaking race sequences.

[Pictured: Tom Cruise makes a great racecar driver but the love story is weak]