Suspect's Reviews

You should see the footage of George Lucas coaching Christensen. I feel sorry for that kid, I don't blame him at all. But look at what Kubrick pulled off with Shelley Duvall as a contrast of how a great director can get excellent acting from a terrible actor.

I noticed a much better portrayal of the Queen when Portman was playing her, compared to Knightley. And I think Portman was actually very enthusiastic, as any young girl would be, to be in a Star Wars film. Consider how her role in The Phantom Menace actually did well for her career, while Christensen's career was pretty much killed by Revenge of the Sith.

While, Lucas may not have directed anything after A New Hope, his career didn't do too poorly as a producer/writer. But also I'm thinking of the mentality he must have had while making the first Star Wars trilogy, even if afterwards he didn't continue as a director. That could be largely due to the fact that he was sitting on millions of dollars, so he didn't need to do much else.

Anakin is older now and has the hots for the former Queen. But their love is forbidden, a Jedi shall not know love. Palpatine is growing closer to his dream of running a galactic empire and the Clone War is about the begin.

Attack of the Clones is essentially a poorly conceived love story. In The Phantom Menace we are introduced to Anakin as a young boy, he shows signs of being someone special. That's how George decided to introduce Anakin to us. Now he wants to develop the emotional connect between the future parents of Luke and Leia. It might seem a little creepy consider the kid was 9 years old in the first film. But my, how he has grown since then. The biggest failure of this film is indeed the one strong point that Lucas desperately needed to make. The love connection between these two should have been strong, the chemistry between the actors should have been strong. Here is a guy willing to disobey all that the Jedi believe in, just to get some action from a pretty girl.

Hayden Christensen plays Anakin Skywalker now, he continues the tradition of poor acting decisions and gives us an emo teenager. He possesses next to nothing that would indicate a future of evil doings. Save for the one scene that Lucas gives us, in which he slaughters some Tuskin Raiders. I honestly believe this is one of the biggest faults of the prequels. The development of Anakin Skywalker slowly turning to the darkside is non existent in two out of three films. Then we are given a quick 3 scene dedication in the third film and we are suppose to believe this? Lucas needed to gradually shift this character between the light and dark. Make him walk that line a bit more. He does nothing of the sort, instead he pines for Portman in poorly written romantic scenes.

Lucas is a decent story teller, but a good writer he is not. What should have happened was a hiring of a writing partner and a new director. This prequels are all static with Lucas' vision. He needed more people there to tell him "No George, that is dumb, we are not having that". These people did not exist. In Attack of the Clones we have numerous Jedi now, all battling droids. Too many Jedi maybe? Does having three dozen of them on the screen taint the allure of them at all? I don't know, something that crept into my mind while watching this.

Lucas for some reason feels the need to shoehorn fan service to a weird degree with this film. Why do we have the inclusion of Boba Fett and his father here? I feel this is an instance where Lucas did not know the popularity of Boba originally and wanted to recreate something here. Thus we get Jango Fett and his high flying abilities. We see the origin of the future storm troopers and some big battles, that again, fall flat with little to no excitement.

A new villain pops up, Count Dooku. He actually survive this film, only to be disregarded early in the next. Both him and General Grievous could have been condensed into one really great villain. Just keep Darth freakin' Maul alive and give him these roles. Then you have a thread to follow throughout the films. Palpatine wasn't enough in my opinion. He was too much behind the scenes and the trilogy needed a more recognizable face for the villain.

McGregor finally seems comfortable in his role of Obi Wan Kenobi. He is finally the highlight of the films and elevates the material, if only a bit. The first film to be shot digitally in the series and one that has propelled the movement of the industry to abandon film. Honestly....it feels digital. Lucas has almost fully abandoned real sets here. The actors don't fit naturally against the green screen and they feel out of place. Nothing in this film feels tangible and it suffers for it. While the action is a step up from the shockingly action-less first film, it still doesn't dazzle the eye.

Here we finally get Yoda as a digital creation. I still remember getting chills when I saw the film in the theatre and we were going to see Yoda fight. This fight sequence is short, but still pretty neat to see. Only to be outdone in the next film. Attack of the Clones is a poor continuation and Lucas needed help with the script, badly with this one. The flaws show and Attack of the Clones is a mess of a film. With two misses, I'm surprised anyone bothered with the final entry. Lucas seemed more concerned with furthering technology, than the story in his universe.

__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews

Hmm, her performance in The Shining is one of the weaker aspects of the film, IMO.

Lucas did direct stuff after A New Hope, these new Star Wars films. I was saying that he hasn't directed anything outside of the franchise since A New Hope. He sacrificed his directing career and his marriage for the sake of the franchise. Sure he produced a lot and that's where the man belongs.

I didn't realize people became directors for the money. I would love to see another Lucas film that is NOT Star Wars. Something new, maybe even low budget.

Does Christensen have a career outside of Star Wars? I liked him in Shattered Glass and Life as a House but nothing else stands out. Poor guy.

So, what makes you think he "sacrificed" his career? I mean, did you read or watch something that informed you of that, or is it something you're inferring?

I wonder if he didn't direct anything besides Star Wars movies after A New Hope because he's just not a talented director. His resume seems to suggest to me that his film career has done pretty well. He is sitting on billions of dollars after all.

I've seen THX 1138, it wasn't bad.

He sacrificed more than his career, his marriage as well. I say that because he left the DGA so that he could NOT include opening credits. He without a doubt became financially successful, one of the most financially successful people in Hollywood, mostly from the Star Wars merchandising.

He's an interesting producer, I'll tell you that much.

After a leaked script of Tarantino's next project, The Hateful Eight, he swore that he would not film it. Instead he did a live read and it got a lot of applause. This apparently gave him enough reason to shoot the film anyway...and in 70mm no less. With The Hateful Eight, Tarantino finally steps out of the revenge theme that has steered his career since Kill Bill. This is a welcomed change of pace, but he still succumbs to things that plague his recent output of films, mainly self indulgence and a lengthy running time.

A bounty hunter is travelling to Red Rock with his bounty, a woman by the name of Daisy. Along the way he encounters two men stuck in a blizzard and unenthusiastically gives them a lift. They reach shelter where there are other men shielding themselves from the freezing cold. Yet something seems odd, are these men really who they say they are? Is one of them lying? Will anyone make it out of this cabin alive? For the first time since Reservoir Dogs, Tarantino dives back into a little bit of mystery. In Reservoir Dogs, someone was a cop, here, we have no idea what it going on or who is who. This perfectly amps of the tension and in typical Tarantino fashion, he lets us stew in it for a really long time. It's not a Tarantino movie if there is not a long winded, yet well written and cool monologue that will undoubtably end in blood shed. This film delivers that in spades as the blood does indeed shed and everyone has their chance to give a few quips here and there.

One thing Tarantino always seems to hit the nail on the head with is his casting. This film is no exception. Kurt Russell, Samuel L. Jackson, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Michael Madsen, Walton Goggins, Tim Roth, Bruce Dern and Demian Bichir all play their roles perfectly well in this slow burner that feels more like a stage play than a film shot in 70mm. Tim Roth's character reminds me so much of a role that Christoph Waltz would play that it was hard NOT seeing Waltz in this film. Roth stands out in the crowd with a more exuberant character in line with Waltz's Dr. Schultz. Leigh is also on the bit eccentric side and deservedly should be recognized come awards season. Always being a fan of Kurt Russell it's nice to see him back in the Tarantino fold after Death Proof, which Russell was the best thing. Goggins is also a stand out, but if you've followed him enough than you'll know that this is not a surprise. He's always one of the best things about whatever he is in. Dern and Madsen aren't really given too much to do and Madsen in particular seems to be on auto-pilot. Not that the man gives great performances, but Tarantino usually gets a bit more out of his actors.

The opening shots of the winter landscape look glorious, of course. Then we are subjected to interior shots of people talking for almost the rest of the film. Which makes one wonder why bother shooting or even seeing this in 70mm. Tarantino has said that after he's done making movies he'd want to direct a stage play. So far, this is the closest he's gotten to it. Most of this film is merely interactions between people within a log cabin. The interactions are wonderful and show us the talent of Tarantino and those on the screen. Even at 2 hours and 47 minutes, the film never really feels like it drags in any parts. That was the biggest surprise to me. I felt engaged the entire time. Maybe on repeat viewings this will die down a bit, since most of the tension and suspense will be gone, but imagine the basement bar scene with Fassbender from Inglorious Basterds, only extended to a feature length film.

There are two sequences that took me out of the film and it's one thing that happens twice. Tarantino did the same thing with Inglorious Basterds, where random narration pops in to tell us exactly what we are seeing on the screen. Adding insult to injury...it's Tarantino himself narrating the events on the screen. I was confused more than anything. Why include this bit of storytelling randomly? If you want narration, give it at the start, not two random scenes, it makes no sense.

Tarantino falls back on his chapter storytelling element here. Much like Kill Bill and Inglorious Basterds, the film is split up into chapters with scene headings. Also, like his other films it also includes flashbacks, this has become a staple in his films and I feel like his uses the same font every damn time. Again, like Django Unchained, the film contains a lot of racist remarks from the characters casually throwing around the n-word. Something that has become too common in his films. Small quibbles aside, The Hateful Eight is exactly what one would expect from Tarantino. It's violent, it's talkative and packs one hell of a cast. Hateful Eight finds itself in the middle road in Tarantino's resume, it's nowhere near his best, nor his worst.

You can't imagine how happy this line makes me.

__________________
Letterboxd

That's really well put, and it makes me even more excited for this.

read your review of rudderless and remember seeing a trailer, put in a request at the library to check this one out. Thanks

Hope you enjoy it.

Fifteen minutes into the film, right after the Native attack that opens the story, two people next to me got up and left the theatre. It was about ten minutes after that that I looked over to my wife, she seemed bored out of her mind. As the credits rolled, I asked her what she thought. She went on to list off all her problems with the film, mainly the length and how 'boring' she found it. I on the other hand, found it utterly visceral in the unrelenting grittiness that bathed over my eyeballs.

After a vicious bear attack, Hugh Glass is left battered and beaten. His men try their best to help transport him back to their settlement, yet the harsh environments and tracking Natives on their heels make it near impossible. Three men, including his son, decide to stay behind with him, while the others venture forward. One of those men is Fitzgerald, who only volunteers due to the promise of extra money when they return. Fed up with waiting, Fitzgerald takes matters into his own hands, leaving Glass behind to die. Fueled by revenge, Glass is determined to stay alive, crawl 200 miles and kill the man responsible for leaving him in the dirt.

There's been a lot of talk about the behind the scenes drama surrounding this film. Multiple crew members quit mid production over the shooting conditions, which included harsh cold weather, dangerous stunts and only using natural light. The trials and tribulations of those who created this film, benefits us, the audience. The film is absolutely gorgeous and should undoubtably win Lubezki a third straight Oscar for the cinematography, a first in the Academy's history. There were multiple moments where I simply sat in awe at some of the beautifully painted pieces of nature that both Lubezki and Iñárritu give us. There were many times during this film that I felt like I was watching a Malick film, which makes sense since Lubezki shot The New World, which feels similar to The Revenant.

There's been a lot of buzz around Leonardo DiCaprio's performance, how it might finally earn him that alluding Oscar statue. Honestly, he deserves it. The man ate raw meat and he's a damn vegetarian. Most of his performance, which is brutally savage, has him fighting for his life. He doesn't say much, it's hard to talk after having your throat slashed by a bear. DiCaprio always delivers great performances in my opinion, this one took him to his utter limits. It's hard to see another performance this year that deserves it more. I pass equal praise to Tom Hardy who stars as Fitzgerald, the "villain" of the picture. Hardy always seems to disappear into his roles, this one is no different. He's equal parts menacing and rough. DiCaprio is strong and you need just as strong a performance to support him, Hardy does this in spades.

I'm sure there are people out there that will have the same reaction as my wife. The film isn't perfect, it has some issues. There are numerous sequences that showcase DiCaprio's dead wife, these elements stall the already lengthy film. Had these sequences been cut out completely, or even down to one scene, it would have helped significantly. The film clocks in just under two and a half hours. That is a long film about a fur trapper slowly making his way across some rough terrain. Add on top of that the long take shots that Iñárritu loves to show off and you have yourself a film that feels long. Iñárritu loves to showoff his fancy camera work, he did this almost obnoxiously with Birdman a film I did like. He does it again here, sometimes to great effect, sometimes to annoyance. The camera gets so close to the actors at times that their heavy breathing literally fogs up the lens of the camera. It takes you out of the experience and reminds you, this is a film....

...but what a film it is.

If someone were to sit me down and ask me what my most anticipated films of 2015 were. I would say that Mad Max was it, beginning and end of list. Then I saw a trailer for a film called Spotlight. My list immediately grew to two.

A new editor-in-chief from Miami comes to work at the Boston Globe. His first big action while there is to question why no one has investigated the claims of a priest molesting kids. After some pushback, he finally decides to hand it to ‘Spotlight’, a team of four journalists who tackle in depth investigative projects. They make it their mission to expose not only the disgraceful actions of a few priests in their neighbourhood, but the system that tried to cover it all up.

For some reason, films that deal with newsprint appeals to me. I don’t get why, they just do. One of the more underrated films that falls into this category, is coincidentally another Keaton film, The Paper. Maybe I had that in the back of my mind when I decided I needed to see this film, but I’m glad I saw it because it deserves to be seen.

Spotlight isn’t afraid to tackle a serious and touchy subject matter and it does so with careful precision and thought. What makes the film relatable is that is never leaves the current situation of the neighbourhood. We see the story through the eyes of the journalists and the streets of that neighbourhood. We don’t get these grand aerial shots of the city of Boston, because we are confined to the horrors that live on those neighbourhood streets. Spotlight isn’t a showy film, save for one scene; it’s mostly static shots of people talking. Yet I was glued to the screen.

One of the biggest things going for Spotlight is how well the cast works together. There are some heavy hitters here: Michael Keaton, straight off his career high with Birdman, delivers another knockout performance of Spotlight team leader Walter Robinson. The real Robinson would go on to say that it feels as is Keaton has "stolen his identity, that’s how weird it was to watch him become me". Mark Ruffalo is reporter Michael Rezendes, who goes to great lengths to make sure the story is told, no matter what the consequences are to them. Ruffalo has the grandiose scene where he breaks down about wanting to print the story immediately, but is being told no. He conveys the right amount of emotion without going over the top. The lone female of the group, Sacha Pfeiffer is played by Rachel McAdams. She is able to hold her own against more heavyweights and has one of the most uncomfortable scenes in the entire film when she confronts a priest who admits that he molested children, but sees no wrongdoings in it. That scene in the film took place in real life.

I could go on and on about how excellent the cast is here, Liev Schreiber, John Slattery, Brian d’Arcy James, Stanley Tucci are all excellent, with Tucci having the more underrated performance of the film. He’s a lawyer trying to fight the good fight, being the voice of the victims, when others looked away. He has a line that he delivers to Ruffalo about being an outsider, which strikes everything home.

I did find myself being a little emotional towards the end of the film. There are some emotional moments scattered throughout, specifically one involving victims recounting the abuse. Spotlight is a magnificently crafted film that soars due to the cast and the horrific nature of the content. Seeing the names of the cities at the end of the film left me in shock as to how close some of them are to me. One of the best of the year.

Some great reviews here, I still need to see The Hateful Eight before it leaves theaters, and Spotlight I probably won't be able to see until it hits shelves. I do like your Revenant review, and my theater-going experience with it is a lot like yours. When it ended and I was leaving the theater, it seemed like a lot of people thought it was boring.

Even the people that gave it good reviews say that it's a little slow/boring/long. I'm not sure if it's just me but I thought it was one of the best movies of the decade. I was completely caught up in it and thought everything was perfect. Did I completely miss something wrong with it that everyone else caught?

Ah well, I thought it was a masterpiece. Here's hoping it wins multiple Oscars!

excellent review of revenant. So many great reviews recently is making me want to make it back to a theater to truly experience this film.

Spotlight! is one my roommate is very hyped to see and I'm beginning to feel the same.

My knowledge of Paddington the Bear consists of one red hat, one blue coat, somewhere in England and the fact that he is a bear. That's it. When the film came out I had no interest in seeing it. The only reason I decided to watch it was because my uncle suggested it to my wife. I'll tell you this, I'm really glad I did watch Paddington because it is charmingly cute and surprisingly hilarious.

Deep in the darkest Peru, a geographer stumbles upon a rare species of bear who are extremely intelligent and can speak. He befriends them and just before he leaves he tells the family that they are welcome back in England anytime. Tragic events strike Paddington and his family and he finds himself on an adventure to England. While waiting at Paddington station, the Brown family spot him and decide to take him in while he searches for the geographer. Meanwhile, a taxidermist who kills and stuffs exotic animals is on the hunt for the bear to add to her collection.

The original voice of Paddington was Colin Firth, yet the final film has Ben Whishaw. This was a smart choice as Paddington is a child and has child like wonder. A voice of a 50+ year old man wouldn't suit the character or the tone of the film. Whishaw brings a feeling of innocence to Paddington and with the wild animation the character feels real even though he is presented in a slapstick comedic way most of the times. The film has no problem putting Paddington in these weird and comical situations, specifically his first visit to the washroom. Over the top physical comedy that I'm sure the kids will get a kick out of.

The Brown family that Paddington finds himself a part of all have their own quirks. Hugh Bonneville is the overprotective father who only sees trouble taking in a bear. His wife, Sally Hawkins is ecstatic about Paddington. Hawkins is adorable, but plays her usual self here. Their two kids don't have too much to do, their daughter is at first the rebellious kind until Paddington wins her over and their son is a dreamer of fun, held back by his father. Julie Waters is also a part of the family in a maid like role, the 'fun grandmother' of sorts, not afraid to tell the kids stories of their parents from when they were once fun. Nicole Kidman has a surprising and deliciously fun turn here as the villain. She'll stop at nothing to get her prize, a stuffed bear.

Potter fans will see a surprising number of cameos from those who held a wand. The aforementioned Waters is joined by Jim Broadbent, Imelda Staunton and even Michael Gambon. The film looks and feels utterly British, King makes sure of that. Every chance he gets you'll see something recognizable, be it a red phone booth or Tower Bridge (not to be confused with London Bridge). It all feels magical at the same time and Paddington's interaction with everything is a comical delight.

I had a lot of fun with this film and I urge people to go see it. It's family friendly, hilarious at times and one of the most charming films you'll see all year.

Nice review Suspect. i'll have to give this a watch. My little boy wants to see it and we have never managed to get around to watching it.

__________________

An avid Coen fan, I looked forward to this one. Wanting something a bit more to chew into than the soft effort that was Burn After Reading. Unfortunately I got a boring story that drags every chance it gets. Add to the fact that the Coen's have their own weird spin on things and like to play with the audiences perceptions, I knew I was going to be left unsatisfied by the films ending and of course that was the final outcome.

Larry's life seems to be falling a part. His wife wants a divorce, his kids don't pay any attention to him or even respect him. Additionally, his brother is always in trouble with the law, he's having nightmares and medical tests and finally a student has bribed him for a passing grade. Talk about kicking a man when he is down.

A Serious Man has some great performances, specifically from the lead Michael Stuhlbarg. If it weren't for his unique pathetic charm, I might have disliked this film more than I did. My main problem here is that the film is full of nothingness. I'm sure there will be people that simply adore this aspect of the film, but it left me frustrated.

Coen's don't fall under any specific thumb. It's hard to pin point them, especially after they have given us this weird entry into their filmography. I guess this is black comedy in its true form. Are the Coen's too good to give us another Big Lebowski? Are they on auto pilot now after winning their Best Picture Oscar? Am I suppose to laugh at how this guy's life is falling apart before him? Am I suppose to laugh at the punch line ending to the film that feels like one long joke? I have no idea, neither do the Coens.

Connecting the ending of the film to the story that the one rabbi gave Larry is not hard, but does it make it smart? Not in my opinion. It gets me angry. The film solves nothing and gives us nothing. It feels like a waste of time. The end of Burn After Reading had the Coens basically throw their hands up in the air and say "Hey, we don't know how to end this, so let's just wrap everything in a nice, neat little bow". They do the same here, not knowing how to end the film, so they give us something ambiguous.

I can't hate the film too much though, after all it is well written and directed. It's the Coen Brothers, so come on, they know how to shoot a film. I just wish that it had more for me to get into, more for me to want to get into. It felt like it was just there with no substance. This film is coldless, empty and excruciatingly boring.

That's one Coen Brothers movie I have never been interested in.

You should have known that it was going to be boring just by looking at the title.

Villeneuve's recent output has been extremely tight filmmaking. Prisoner was a mature take on revenge and how far one grieving parent will go to get their child back. In the same here he teamed up with Gyllenhaal for Enemy, a mind boggling film about one man's quest to find his purpose after discovering an exact double of his living in the world. To try and decipher Enemy might give you a headache. Now he gives us Sicario, an expertly crafted film from a talented director. So why did I not enjoy the film that much?

Kate is an idealistic FBI agent whom, along with her partner, stumble upon a house full of dead bodies. The house is booby-trapped and the team suffers a few loses. This garners the attention of Matt, a CIA specialist who recruits Kate to his team with the promise of getting the man responsible for those bodies. On her way to join the team, she is introduced to Alejandro, a mysterious man with no ties to any American agency. She soon finds herself in way over her head as moral, legal and ethical questions are raised with the team's operations.

Sicario promises one thing and delivers another. People were expecting, at least I was, Emily Blunt to be a hard nose FBI agent who can run with the boys, maybe even one upping them. Was she to be the next bad-ass female agent? Maybe my mind was trying to refresh itself with Blunt's Edge of Tomorrow performance because her role here is nothing but smoke and mirrors. Villeneuve flips the script on us, many times. Kate is a good agent, yes, but she is also completely clueless the entire film. She has no idea what she is doing, who these people are, where they intend to go or do and it frustrates her. She is basically being used for one specific thing and she doesn't realize this. People expecting her to be shooting people left right and centre will be disappointed. I admit, I was a bit at first, but have since then come to appreciate the realness of it. She is indeed over her head and doesn't know what to do.

Brolin, Blunt and Del Toro all do a decent job here. Del Toro is deliciously corrupt in an honorable way. Do we root for him? He makes us feel like it sometimes, other times he makes us hate him. The performance is precise, in line with the character and the direction. Brolin is Brolin, that's a good thing. He's played this part before and he can play it in his sleep. Blunt is the performance where I'm on the fence. I wanted to like her more, but her utter stupidity of everything around her is sour. We have no idea what's going on either, so we are forced into her perspective, one that I did not really like being in. Thank God it shifted focus later on.

One of my problems is how the film really amounts to nothing. The entire thing plays itself like it's something bigger than the sum of its parts. The reveal of why they are doing what they are doing is lackluster to me and is another aspect of Villeneuve pulling the rug out from under us. Maybe I'll come to appreciate it later on, but right now I feel as if it's all just a wasted opportunity. I didn't know where they were going, but it felt like it was heading nowhere. The final scene with Del Toro in the mansion is quite good and serves as the right payoff for the direction they went in, but I just can't shake the bad taste left in my mouth.

Deakins shooting the film is marvelous, of course. A legend in the business. The final raid sequence has enough going on to confuse you and it looks great doing it. The most memorable sequence for me had me on the edge of my seat, which is when they were crossing the boarding. Talk about a tightly directed, edited and acted sequence. Sicario is one of the best directed films of the year, it's just too bad the material isn't as good.