Why Star Wars: The Force Awakens Is The Movie We Needed

This is what we've been waiting for, and it's as good as it was ever going to be.

Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens (heretofore known as TFA) has been a part of the world at large for over a month now. It's made all of the money, looking to break literally every box office record, and has been well received if not embraced by the general public. And yet, as there always is, there are major criticisms. The difference here is that I have issues with the arguments being made against the film and this blog gives me the opportunity to retort.

I have seen TFA a number of times now, and have enjoyed each viewing more than the last. And while I have always been a believer that everyone is entitled to their opinion and can accept that some might just not like the movie, specific issues with the film keep being brought up that I can and will defend. Frankly, I could talk about this film, and Star Wars in general, all day and invite anyone to that discussion as I don't want this writing to seem one-sided. Many of my friends have voiced negative opinions of TFA and they have vexed me. Since I'm not as good in expressing myself in person as I am on here, this is where I present my opinion on what I believe to be the second best Star Wars film released to date (Empire Strikes Back FTW).

Oh, yeah. Spoilers. But seriously, if you're reading this, then you've seen it already anyways.

• TFA is not A New Hope, it's better. 

I've never been a fan of Episode IV. It does a good job of setting up story for two better films, and is an excellent part one of a trilogy, but as a stand alone film it doesn't hold up for me. There's too much reference to past events that don't end up explained until the prequels are released, and nothing in the film has any lasting impact. We learn characters' names, the setting is explained. that's about it. I find it deeply ironic that TFA receives that same criticism considering we know for a fact that Episodes VIII and IX are inbound. The fact that the two films are similar in this way doesn't make TFA worse, it makes it better. There's an expectation that a story is in the process of being told, not that it will be told now from start to finish. We know that any unanswered questions we have by end credits will be addressed. We just need to shut up and be patient. 

The big complaint is that TFA is a carbon copy of A New Hope. I have two issues with that.

One, it's really not. TFA abides by a long standing tradition that every successful film franchise adheres to. A formula that applies from the first film to the last, as an identifier that this film is part of a bigger whole. It's why so many films telling superhero origin stories are similar. It's not unoriginal or lazy storytelling, it's an established and effective way to begin a story. Star Wars is just a specific example. TFA is an effective combination of new stories and familiar content. We can identify the beats because that's how a Star Wars story is told, but with new faces, words, and context. For example, if TFA were the copy of A New Hope that people are claiming, there's no way we find out Kylo Ren is the child of Han and Leia. Putting that up on front street already speeds up the pace of the established pattern, meaning there's more story that can be told in Episode VIII. To infer that this film is a recreation of an older one means that we know what's going to happen. We don't. 

Two, and more importantly for me, what's wrong with it? If the new trilogy is going to match the original three films beat for beat, isn't that a good thing? We can't ask for what we don't know we want. That's what happened with the prequels. We didn't know what we wanted, other than wanting MORE STAR WARS. We got the prequels and they were what they were. If I were charged with the task of continuing a franchise with as volatile a fanbase as Star Wars, after living through the notorious reaction that the prequels got 15 years ago, you bet your ass I'd be going back to what I know worked. 

• Character Development is a fundamental part of the story. 

This film is structured around the choices and changes made by the central characters of the story in a way that the other Star Wars films aren't. We see the lives of Rey, Finn, and Kylo Ren change drastically from the beginning of the film to the end in a way that is meant to, and succeeds in, creating a contrast with TFA's predecessors. We are given necessary background information on each character without too much detail (the movie can only be so long) but enough to understand them and can watch them progress from that point. Finn was conscripted into being a stormtrooper, but his moral fibre goes against his training and programming. It takes one opening scene and a throwaway line from General Weasley to establish all we need to know about a main character for the purposes of this film. He goes from that to trading lightsaber blows with his old boss in the span of two hours, and the story makes sense for that result to happen. 

While Rey has the most question marks left about her after TFA, the film is able to establish her as a better focal point than either trilogy before it. It's made clear that she has the same inherent skills as both Luke and Anakin had, only instead of having one specific skill (Anakin and podracing/piloting) or being a bitchy farm boy (Luke and power converters), she's more well rounded. She can do a little bit of everything but can't explain why. The audience can. We've seen it before. As the old saying goes, The Force is strong in this one. 

Development is most apparent and important in regards to Kylo Ren. It would have been so very easy for him to just be a younger, newer version of Vader. Clean cut bad guy, one dimensional face of the enemy. While Vader is and always will be #1 in the canon's villains, we don't really see who he is until the last 10 minutes of the last film he's in. Here, we see enough of Kylo to know he's dark side bound, but we get to watch him achieve that goal, we see him become Big Bad proper in a way we don't get to see with Vader. In short, Kylo Ren is what Anakin Skywalker should have been in the prequels. We have a clearly conflicted young man in the middle of being seduced by the dark side finally submitting to it by getting rid of the monkey on his back that might redeem him. In the beginning, we have a bad egg who could be influenced to either side of the spectrum, complete with inner turmoil and uncontrollable fits of rage. By the end, we have a focused, decisive, albeit injured, villain of the piece. 

• The true weakness of the dark side is addressed. 

At first viewing, I had one major complaint that fits with all the rest, and that's the retreading of the Death Star. OK, so it's been super sized, it's still the god damn Death Star. Until I thought about it for a second and realized that Starkiller Base fits a pattern that the Empire has been following since Episode IV and hasn't ever paid off. We've gone through 3 Death Stars now. Why? It's simple. Hubris. Overconfidence. It's what allowed a one-man fighter to be able to destroy Death Star I. It's why Vader was sure that Luke would join him. It's why the Emperor not only knew he would beat the Alliance, HE GAVE THE FUCKERS HIS HOME ADDRESS. They were wrong every single time. And they keep on being wrong because in their mind, there's no way the good guys can pull it off AGAIN. The devil-may-care attitude of the antagonist is textbook bad guy, and the repeating/escalation of the Death Star formula is a case in point example of it. Don't be surprised if by Episode IX we have a bunch of planets combine to make the equivalent of a fucking Death Star Megazord. 

• The 'Big Death' meant something.

So, Obi Wan died for literally no reason. Everything that Luke accomplished after that point, could have been done just as well if Ben didn't straight up stop trying and let Vader cut him down. The TFA equivalent to this is the death of Han Solo at the hands of his son. This accomplishes two things that are going to play out big in the story to come. First, as previously stated, it cemented Kylo Ren as Dark Side faithful. It effectively killed Ben Solo, the boy he once was, and now Supreme Leader Gollum can finish his training. The second is from Leia's point of view. The leader of the Resistance had a major conflict of interest going into the climax of TFA. She simultaneously wanted to defeat the First Order and to bring her son back to the light side of the force. That conflict of interest is, for all intents and purposes, null and void. If Kylo Ren had the capacity to kill Han in cold blood, there is no saving him. So now Leia can pursue her fight against the Order with a new focus. Although, I doubt she'll feel much need for vengeance at this point, for after all she's been though at this point, she still hasn't been tempted by the dark side. Because Leia = Head Bitch In Charge.

She knows. 

• While not the Star Wars film we might deserve, it's the one we need. 

I'll be the first to admit that this movie isn't perfect. It's not my favourite film, Hell it's not even my favourite Star Wars film. But it's exactly what we needed a Star Wars movie to be at this exact point in time. By now, TFA may have made $2 Billion worldwide, and the vast majority of those who threw money at it have lived through two trilogies, three if you count the rereleases of the original trilogy. Star Wars fans have been put through the ringer over the last 20 years, JJ Abrams and company included. They knew what the average fan wanted to see. It wasn't Greedo shooting first. It wasn't a cartoonish throwaway scene with Jabba that was just a rehashing of Han's encounter with Greedo (but with BOBA FETT). It wasn't the Sarlacc having a fucking beak, and it wasn't Jar Jar. We wanted the magic that is the essence of Star Wars. The stand out moments. The destruction of Alderaan. Han saving Luke in the trench. Luke firing blind and destroying the Death Star. Vader's revelation to Luke about being his father. So many iconic moments that were either sullied by the rereleases or ignored by the prequels. There are moments like that in TFA that reach back and grasp that magic. Rey finding Luke's lightsaber in that basement. Starkiller Base wiping out an entire system. The death of Han Solo and Chewbacca laying waste to fucking everything. And one of my new favourite moments in film, where a trained but wounded Kylo struggles in a lightsaber duel with Finn. When the dropped lightsaber hilt was deflected from Kylo for Rey to catch it = chills in my soul.

Basically what I'm saying with all of this is TFA needed to be a reboot as much as it needed to be a continuation. It accomplishes enough of both. I've talked a lot here, so congrats on making it through, but I could go on more. That's how much I love and appreciate this movie. Not because it's perfect, but because it's flawed in the same ways that the films of the original trilogy were flawed. They all tell incomplete stories for either future films or our own imaginations to complete. TFA is equal parts new adventure and heartwarming nostalgia. And after all the waiting for justice to be done, all the hype and disappointment...sure, it's not the film we might deserve after all this time. It's just what we needed.

If George Lucas did indeed 'rape our childhoods', this is the therapy.

Knight Owl

The Knight Owl Returns; An Overview Of 2015 In Movies

*Turns on monitor* *Dusts off keyboard* *Adjusts chair*

And here we go again.

Due to the ass end of 2015 getting kinda hectic, I've been away from the old blog and haven't posted since mid August. A truly sad fact that I hope will not be repeated at any point this year. However, the hiatus was with good reason, and now that I'm back, I have the stored creative juices necessary to start off 2016 with a bang. In regards to what's been going on with me in the past 6 months or so, here are the bullet points:

• Mandi and I moved to a new place of residence. It is an improvement.
• We also got a dog named Bruce. However, in the best interests of both ourselves and Bruce, we found him a new home. We maintain contact with the new owners and when last seen, Bruce was happy, healthy, and not very well behaved.
• For unknown reasons, I had a near crisis about turning 30. Then I turned 30 and now everything is fine. Yay for me!
• I am now SUPER into the X-Wing Miniatures game. I'm not too bad at it. 

That's pretty much it. Now it's 2016 and while the past year wasn't my worst, it did have its ups and downs. The same, apparently, was true for the film industry. To be honest, there weren't too many movies this year that overwhelmed me with joy, but there were one or two that made up for the majority. Some really great trips to the theatre, some abysmal wastes of time, and a lot of gray in between. In order to get back up to speed, the following are a collection of hard and fast opinions of the major releases I saw from 2015 in the order in which they were released. I promise they aren't as long winded as I usually get, and some are even shorter due to my already having reviewed them. Enjoy, and as always your reactions and opinions are welcome even if/especially because they differ from my own. 

On with the show...

• The Wedding Ringer: Kevin Hart is one of those comedians that, while I love their stand-up, does not translate well into film or TV. I'm glad he's getting his due, as I do think he's one of the funnier people in the world right now, but this is just one of the billion films he's in where his character just isn't as funny as Kevin himself. At least his career didn't go the way of John Mulaney's TV show. 

• Jupiter Ascending: Remember what I said about abysmal wastes of time? See my review for elaboration.

• Chappie: While I have a lot of appreciation for Neill Blomkamp's talent as a film maker, it's time for the visual presentation and setting of his films needs to change just to prove he's not a one-trick pony. There's a lot to really like about this film that is undone, in my opinion, by the stunt casting that is Die Antwoord. I don't know or care why they were in this movie, but it nearly turned a respectable genre film into a really long and expensive music video, and the film experience suffered for it.

• Trainwreck: Apatow at the height of his comedic powers, and Amy Schumer lighting the world on fire. This is my R-rated comedy pick of the year, which is pretty much uncontested anyways. This movie is worth the watch if only for the scene stealing performance of John Cena, who I'd rather see in a comedic movie role than a wrestling ring any day of the week.

• The Gunman: This was a less entertaining version of Jack Reacher or The Equalizer staring the french bulldog that is Sean Penn. All too little action, forgettable characters, and a predictable plot. I'll assume the book was better.

• Furious 7: It is exactly what you expect it to be, which isn't a bad thing at all. Over the top action flick is all you need sometimes, and the star studded cast adding the likes of Jason Statham, Tony Jaa, and Rowdy Ronda doesn't hurt. I wish this was going to be the end of the series, as the heartfelt send off of Paul Walker would have been a nice epilogue to the franchise that made his career, but they'll keep pumping these movies out until Vin's old and gray and needs to park in the handicap spots.

• Avengers: Age Of Ultron: I really want to like this movie more, but I don't. It is a very conflicting combination of great individual scenes, trailers for upcoming movies, and dudes chilling on a farm. At least James Spader is awesome. My review goes into it further.

• Pitch Perfect 2: As much as I enjoyed the first film, I feel as though this was just an unnecessary retreading of a movie that was already pretty by-the-numbers. When Anna Kendrick can't sell me on a movie, it's a special kind of not great.

• Mad Max: Fury Road: If Star Wars TFA wasn't as good as it was, this would be my favourite film of the year, no question. A crazy clusterfuck of amazing visuals and impossibly great action scenes. Even more remarkable that the franchise hasn't seen life in 30 years and the mastermind George Miller is in his 70's. If you haven't seen Fury Road yet, witness it as soon as possible. WITNESS!

• Inside Out: Pixar again shows its ability to hit me right in the feels. The movie is as funny and entertaining as it is emotional and relevant to not only kids, but to those who have kids and, specifically for me, for those who haven't really finished growing up in the first place.

• Jurassic World: Not great, Bob. See my review.

• Minions: A perfect example of too much of a good thing. A fun and charming element of another more well rounded film becomes quickly tiresome and loses its edge pretty quick. I get that I'm probably not the target audience for this movie, but I really liked the Despicable Me movies and the role that the minions played in them. But a whole movie about the little bastards is just too much.

• Southpaw: I'm a sucker for a good fight movie, even if they all end up as Rocky clones, and Southpaw isn't far from it. I walked into the film thinking it would be hard to convince me that Donnie Darko could be a boxer but Jake Gyllenhaal pulls it off. The more I see of him, the more I appreciate his work. Southpaw is pretty good, but is nowhere near as good as the other boxing movie that came out this year.

• Terminator Genysis: Haters can hate, I had fun with this movie. See my review.

• Ant Man: While it was nice to see the Marvel movie formula changed, Ant Man still suffers from some of the same problems as every other film in the MCU. It was definitely one of the more fun Marvel films, and a fresh approach to the introduction of a character, but at times feels like it was only made to justify having one more character in Civil War. 

• Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation: Much like Furious 7, you know what you're getting out of this. I've always been a big fan of the M:I films (even the overly ridiculous M:I2) and this one's no different. Props to Tom Cruise for making it seem possible that a 50-year-old midget can be the world's biggest bad ass. 

• Straight Outta Compton: While the overall plot of the film reminded me a little too much of that episode of Saved By The Bell where the group is a famous band, the true story behind NWA truly is a harrowing tale that should have an impact on anyone, no matter who you are or what your musical tastes might be. This is a much more important film than some might think, only made more so by the brilliant performances the film features. 

• Black Mass: This is the Johnny Depp I prefer over the goofy, eccentric, Jack Sparrow-y roles that he's so famous for. A serious, committed character actor doing service to the subject matter. Black Mass is a dark crime drama in the same vein as The Departed, effectively presented as a 1970's period piece, and packed with great performances from the likes of Joel Edgerton, Benedict Cumberbiatch and what may be my favourite performance by Depp. 

• The Martian: If Fury Road is my second favourite movie of the year, The Martian is a close third. What could have easily been a very tough movie to watch is made surprisingly entertaining solely by the efforts and performance of Matt Damon. This film would live or die on the back of who ever played Mark Watney, and Damon not only made it bearable but really fun. I know the joke is that Damon has to get rescued in movies a bunch, but performances like this make it worth the effort. 

• Crimson Peak: While a visually beautiful and dark film, there's just not a lot that happens in it. What was made out to be a Victorian era ghost story and horror film ended more like a Jane Austen novel. Not necessarily a bad film, just not what I was looking for.

• Spectre: As much as most people prefer Skyfall, I have to say I enjoyed this a lot more. Christophe Waltz continues his tradition of stealing every scene he's in by being equal parts charming and evil prick. If this ends up being the last of the Daniel Craig era of Bond films, then this is a nice way to wrap it up.

• The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 2: Much like the second half of the book that this film is adapted from, it gets going pretty fast and doesn't let up until the end. I'm happy to see that the craze of young-teen novel adaptations is dwindling, and that one of my favourite series ended with the same style and quality with which it began. And, as it goes without saying, Jennifer Lawrence is The Best, capital letters.

• Creed: When I first heard this movie's synopsis, I could not have been less excited. Now, I can say it accomplishes the same feel, the same heart, and the same impact of the original Rocky. Stallone delivers his best performance in years, maybe decades. Michael B. Jordan is the real deal, despite being in that apparently terrible Fantastic Four movie (haven't seen it yet, can't wait). Apparently this has been the year of resurrecting franchises from my youth, and Creed is one of the best examples of it. 

• Star Wars: The Force Awakens: And we have the best for last. I've seen this film 3 times now, and can officially say I can't empathize with anyone who doesn't think this is a great Star Wars movie. Sure, this movie has its faults, but they're the same faults as the original trilogy that everyone wanted so badly to be emulated in a new series of films. Yes, it's similar to Episode IV, but in the best ways possible. This movie is a perfect combination of leaving me satisfied yet excited to see more, something the Marvel films could learn a thing or two from. It might not be the Star Wars movie we deserve after all this time, but it's the one we need. 

And that's it for 2015, folks. Happy New Year!

Knight Owl

Knight Owl's Review of Terminator: Genisys; Not enough Bread Crumbs To Get Home

Nostalgia is a funny thing. It has caused Jurassic World to be one of the top grossing films of all time, a title it has no right having. It has sparked this surge in reboots and sequels for franchises old enough to drink. Basically, it's this weird thing that causes people in the film industry to either set money on fire for no payoff or make an unjust amount of profit on films that had no business being made. Still, I love many things from the long ago, and Terminator is way up on that list.

The sci-fi game-changer that is the Terminator series is one of the more infamous genre franchises, for its significant successes and shameful fall from grace. The Terminator introduced the world to Arnold "By God" Schwarzenegger, and T2: Judgment Day is widely considered to be the greatest action movie ever made. The special effects in the first two films were revolutionary for their time, and helped put James Cameron on the map so he can sink boats and remake Pocahontas or whatever. After T2 though, there were dark times. Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines was a terrible low-rent sequel that reminds me of the sad direct-to-DVD fare of Van Damme or Seagal, limping into existence solely on the back of Arnie's good name. It was so bad that Arnie had to find a new job to wash the stink off.

I hear he did OK for himself.

And then there was Terminator: Salvation, which I didn't hate but is in a strange place where it's only watchable if you do not at all consider it in the same context as the rest of the franchise. It's like comparing the 1966 Batman movie with The Dark Knight Trilogy. Same characters, completely different context. The good news is that Terminator: Genisys is the first of the post-T2 franchise to actually fit with the original two films. The bad news is that the bar is set super low, and doesn't mean it makes for a good movie.

The film Looper approached the concept of time travel best in my opinion, in that it didn't. They hand-waved the logistics of time travel and just accepted it as a thing that happens because the way time travel worked wasn't pertinent to the storyline. That's a trap that so many films tackling the subject fall into, whether they know better or not. Star Trek practically owns a patent on wishy-washy time travel arcs. Doctor Who contradicts its own rules almost episodically, which I could see driving people nuts if they took it seriously, but if there's ever been a show not to take seriously its The Goddamn Doctor. Back To The Future and The Terminator both fell into the trap at points, but were forgiven because they were so damn good. For a second, I thought/hoped that Genisys would pull a Looper and shrug away the timey-wimey reasons why the timelines in which the Terminator canon were changed, and it came close but in the end attempted to explain the whys and hows that led to the plot of this new film. By the end, as my title suggests, there weren't enough bread crumbs to get home. I was lost, and currently don't even remember the reasoning behind most of it. In the end, I said 'screw it' and tried to enjoy the movie for what it was, but this is fair warning to anyone who's bugged by such details. I know there are people who will be driven nuts by the overcomplication of timeline overlapping timeline or whatever the hell happens in this movie. I'm just not smart enough to care.

Major props to the casting director for this flick, though, because they knew what they were doing. Every major cast member on screen is a big deal right now, or close to it. First, we have Arnie, who regains the charm and humour he had in T2 and applied his new 'old, not obsolete' attitude making for a fresh but familiar feel to a film that desperately needed to capitalize on nostalgia. Sadly, in my eyes he wasn't featured nearly enough, but then again there's never enough T-800 for me. Sarah Connor is portrayed by Dany Fucking Stormborn and she brings all the badass from Game of Thrones with some to spare. In other words, she does the legacy of Linda Hamilton proud. Jai Courtney is in every action movie under the sun these days, and the exposure has done him good. His showing as Reese was effective for what it was, which is sadly a pretty one-dimensional character which is saying something considering he's sharing the screen with a robot with no concept of emotional complexity. Jason Clarke has also been a genre regular lately, with last year's Whatever of the Planet of the Apes as the most notable example. He had a bit more responsibility handling the role of human savior John Connor not only by holding true to the legend established in the franchise's canon but taking the character in a new direction. Add to that the always awesome JK Simmons of Whiplash fame, Storm Shadow, and Matt 'Geronimo!' Smith and the cast was well stacked. The performances delivered, and the film was so much better for it.

I understand the reasons why this movie was made, but the fact is it shouldn't have been. Really, none of the Terminator films should exist after T2 because, other than a fantastic action movie, it also covers all bases in terms of a conclusion to the story. It was an ending, a damn good one. However, we've now gotten to a point where time has been fucked with to such a degree that you can justify pretty much anything happening, which means bring on the sequels. As an action movie, Genisys delivers as much as any high-budget PG-13 fare does these days: lots of CGI, extravagant chases that defy natural law, explosions fit for Michael Bay's porn collection. What saves the movie for me is the dues it pays to its predecessors, and only the ones that matter. As a fan of the series, there were a lot of nods to T's 1 and 2, and I smiled at every one. It had the pacing of an 80's action flick, with just enough filler to keep you paying attention, but again not enough Arnold. All in all, it's not a great film, but it is the first to pay homage to the great films that preceded it and the first film in over 20 years even remotely deserving the name Terminator. But then again, that could be the nostalgia talking. 

So, pay no mind to the time travel and you'll be fine. I promise. 

Trust me.

 Also:

Owl be back. 

(Had to do it)

Knight Owl

Knight Owl's Review of Jurassic World; Smart People Doing Stupid Things

Well, I expected nothing, and that's what I got.

Like every child of the 90's should, I love Jurassic Park. I think that I can objectively say that it's one of the best films ever made, certainly one of Spielberg's greatest works, and it changed the way movies were made and seen. The combined use of practical and computer generated effects hold up to this day, which is remarkable considering CGI was still in it's infancy. Yes, Jurassic Park is a great and important film to myself and pop culture as a whole. But it's also 23 years old, so it must be time for a sequel!

I knew how I was going to feel about this right after I saw the trailer, and I wasn't optimistic. There are few film franchises old enough to drink that can effectively be reintroduced into today's audience. An example of such a success would be Mad Max: Fury Road, which was a damn near perfect film for what it was. Jurassic World is...not that. I understand the desire to cash in on aging films by repackaging them as fresh ideas, especially considering when we ask for original genre films we get Jupiter Ascending, but the fact that many efforts to do so fall flat saddens and confuses me. But for whatever reason, the magic that these original films once had cannot be conjured up again a couple decades down the road, and Jurassic World is another card carrying example of that.

Now that I've sufficiently buried the lede and given up my general feelings towards the film at the same time, let's actually talk about the damn thing. We jump to a time in a world where Jurassic Park was a thing, and the park actually becomes a success despite multiple instances where horrible death and mayhem proved this to be a bad idea. In and of itself, a huge problem solely based on the lack of common sense possessed by what appear to be even remotely intelligent people. At some point between the events of Jurassic Park III (shudders) and Jurassic World, a group of smart, resourceful and obviously wealthy people got together and decided to throw a fuck ton of those resources and wealth at a project that has claimed literally dozens of lives. And you can't tell me that no one died horribly while this new theme park was being constructed, but that's not important.

So we have this new park, and it's a hit. But as the market is wont to do when your attraction is hundreds of miles from literally anywhere, the popularity fades. The solution, as concocted by said smart, rich people, is to INVENT A NEW SUPER DINOSAUR. In this, I find two glaring problems. The first is that Jurassic World is, for all intents and purposes, a zoo full of creatures that this one place in the entire world has rights and access to, because they have been extinct for however many millions of years. That's pretty bad ass for a zoo. I don't know if you've been to a major zoo lately, but they're still pretty popular. There's no way that the money and time you'd need to dedicate to creating a brand new species of life could be justified by bring up the average number of visitors per day.

"Sure looks dead to me." - An idiot.

The second problem is mostly a reiteration of an earlier point that any progress made on this island up to this point has been bought with the blood of many, many people, and that was just from plain jane Raptors and Tyrannosaurs. They didn't have the benefit of being genetically altered or created from scratch. My point is that we obviously have a hard enough time dealing with the bastards that we've known about for 20+ years without adding a new challenger appearing at our own behest. But I guess this all falls under the genre trope of “smart people make bad decisions” leading to the plot of a movie. It's been done before, it'll happen again, and that's fine. Just, the fact that it happened once in this context 20 years ago, on this same island, AND THEY KEEP MAKING THE SAME MISTAKES. Somewhere, Jeff Goldblum is awkwardly laughing at these asshats. 

 

It doesn't help that 99% of the characters in the film do not inspire a whole lot of sympathy or respect. Many of the characters exhibit the stupidity I remarked upon above throughout the events of the film, making it hard for me to not root for Rex and co. But there's a silver lining to every lackluster film out there, and it's clear who that was here: God Damn Star Lord. If the only thing that comes of this film is the further rise in stock for Chris Pratt, then I'm willing to shut the hell up and see it again. If you enjoyed his performance in Guardians of the Galaxy (be real, who didn't?), then by all means go see this. He basically transfers the same attitudes and inflections over to Jurassic World as local badass who trains Raptors for what I can tell is literally no reason. He is the funny, brave, handsome prince who is also somehow the voice of reason that no one listens to. He's, like, an ensemble cast all by himself and it's amazing. It's just sad that he absolutely has to be, because everyone else sucks and is stupid. Truth.

So I've said a lot of not nice things about this movie, but for what is clearly an attempt to cash in on nostalgia and the 3D gimmick, there are far worse out there. Jurassic World is a shameless high-intensity popcorn flick designed for a generation that can't possibly appreciate the original because they weren't alive. And normally I can look past the flaws in films like this objectively because I understand who these films are designed for. It's how I got through the new Ninja Turtles movie. If there's one unforgivable element that Jurassic World has for me, it's that last week I watched a film that is 23 years old with the premise upon which Jurassic World was based, and it looked SO MUCH BETTER. 23 years have seen a lot of advances in visual effects in film, many of which started with Jurassic Park, so there's no reason on this earth that Jurassic World should look so much worse than its predecessor. It's weird, but as you watch the Jurassic Park series of films (I don't recommend it), the visuals seem to get worse and worse. The practical effects that were used were few and far between, hardly making up for the heavy use of CGI that I've come to expect these days. Another mark for Fury Road over this.

Clearly, I'm in the minority in not gushing over this movie, as JW is destroying records left/right/centre. That's fine, it's not the first time the majority disagrees with me, but even objectively this film is not good enough to be making the money it's making. And because of this, we will surely see JW2 before long with T-Rexs dual-wielding shotguns or some shit. And I'll see that too, because 1) that sounds awesome, and 2) pure nostalgia. Nostalgia is a monster in pop culture right now. It's why nothing is original. There are less and less original films in the top 10 grossing films each year. Nintendo hasn't had to make an original game in years because they're on Mario Kart 17 or something. Sony just announced the re-release of Final Fantasy VII, a game nearly 20 years old in its own right, and it's breaking the god damn internet. I get it, things were better then and our generation is more and more able to make that which is old new again. Just make better movies with it is all I ask.

Or maybe I'll just shut the fuck up and watch some dinosaurs.

Knight Owl

Knight Owl's Review of The Avengers: Age of Ultron; The Wonderful Future

First, some Real Life Stuff,

I've gone two months without posting anything on here, and it's seemed like so much longer than that. It's happened before, and never without good reason notwithstanding my lack of motivation. Being a grown up is tough sometimes, even if I'm admittedly not all the way there yet despite being on the precipice of 30 years old. Your priorities change without your permission. The money and time you used to spend on awesome things like movies and action figures now go to silly things like healthy eating and going to the gym (not that I go nearly as much as I should). And you only realize this when you get a second to sit down and think about the past weeks. My schedule doesn't help, in that many of the things I want or need to do can't be done in my waking hours. We did get ourselves a puppy though, which unfortunately coincided with my Mandi's health taking a turn for the worse, an example of the 'bad' of life arguably outweighing the 'good'. The weeks spent in adjustment to a new rebalancing of resources and priorities have exhausted me on different levels, but I find myself rallying now, not just because I have to but because I can. I don't mean for this to be any kind of complaint against life, just an inner monologue put into words. Hopefully I haven't scared off the 20ish people good enough to read my humble thoughts.

Enough of that though, let's talk about a guy with a bow and some arrows fighting an army of robots.

The Avengers may not be considered the greatest film of all time by most, and in my opinion Marvel has done better things since then. but it would be ignorant to say that The Avengers wasn't a milestone in the history of genre film making. The unifying of several marquee characters under one feature film with a cohesive plot, mesmerizing action sequences, and a generally smooth and light presentation was thought to be, and should have been, impossible. And yeah, a lot had to happen for it to work. A handful of films used as a foundation, a stellar cast of primary and secondary characters, a production company with the balls and resources to pull it off, and a director with the vision and the skill to put it all together. We watched, and we were grateful. However, when The Avengers came out, I wrote at length about the problem Marvel now had: How in the blue hell do they follow it up without being a disappointment?

Short answer: They don't, I'm afraid.

I said I'd wait and see what happens. Turns out, a lot happened. Iron Man 3 sent me on a love/hate spiral that I still haven't quite landed on. Thor 2 was what it was, a fine film that lost the magic of its predecessor. The Winter Soldier is in my mind the greatest film that Marvel has released. And then there was GOTG, which is pretty much The Princess Bride for a new generation. The three years in between Avengers assembling weren't hard to suffer through thankfully, but the sequel still had to live up to the original. It made a valiant effort, but like many sequels before it, the first one was better.

I will say this: just because the first one was better doesn't make this one less good. Avengers AOU is a good popcorn flick and one of the better Marvel films to date, with a direct, intriguing plot, effective use of established and new characters, surprises, nerdgasms, and one of the most charismatic evil robots you'll ever meet. The new additions of Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver were fresh and welcome, as were the cameos made by several characters established in previous stand-alone films (but I won't say who, it would spoil the surprise!). The cast was just as spot-on as they were in Avengers (heretofore known as A1, like the sauce), keeping what could be a very dark setting entertaining and easy to watch. The chemistry between so many major characters is surprisingly great, proving that the first film wasn't a fluke in that regard. And of course, the lead was taken by force by Robert Downey Jr., chewing up scenery like only he can. However, it says a lot when RDJ's spotlight could be taken from a guy's voice alone, but it happened here with James 'By God' Spader voicing the antagonist Ultron. Alan-fucking-Shore took this role and made it his by basically taking every trope that applies to evil machines, from the monotone voice to the humourless disposition, and tossing it out the helicarrier window. I may have truly disliked this movie if it weren't for Spader drinking Tony Stark's milkshake.

Another shout out goes to Joss Whedon for putting together a second film that should be impossible to do, more so with the added characters and side plots. From the cold open into a tracking action scene to the logistical nightmare that turned into a thrilling climax, this was another accomplishment under the belt of the patron saint of nerds. If he truly is done with the franchise then I will be sad to see him go. That said, there is a big slow point in the dead centre of the film that takes things down a peg. I understand the need for it, as it is well over two hours of movie, but when you have so many characters and so much potentially going on, it almost seems wasteful for, well, nothing to be going on. The film also does one thing that so many shows and films featuring ensemble casts pull that infuriates me to no end: it separates the group for no reason. Characters disappear to do their own thing, to accomplish basically nothing while hindering the group as a whole. Again, no details given for the sake of spoilers, and I know this is borderline nitpicky bullshit, but I see it all the time and it drives me nuts. Next thing you know, Cap's serum will wear off or Thor will lose his hammer, rendering him useless. I see the neutering or straight up writing off of characters a lot, and it just seems lazy to me. It's 'The Dresden Files' approach to supporting characters: you've got a legion of superpeople on your team, but 90% of them can't help you when you definitely need them to. With friends like that, no wonder Cap and Stark are about to get into a bitchfest.

And there's the big problem for me. I know what's going to happen next, and it's not even my fault. Last year, if not earlier, Marvel went out and released every intended movie project from here until forever like a bunch of jerks, and with additional thanks to the internet, the proverbial cat is out of the bag. Now, this wouldn't be much of a problem, except that AOU spent a good amount of time doing not much but setting up future events. Sure, there are a great many things that happen within the context of the movie, and are important to that context without looking outside of it. And like A1, it took from that which came before it to build on that context. But there was a lot of importance put on things that had no impact on what was happening in the film. From little things like the mentioning of a person or place that might make the ears of the comic faithful perk up, to whole scenes and subplots dedicated to those same people saying 'oh, that's gonna be good in Captain America 3' or 'that was a big deal in Guardians of the Galaxy, I can't wait until Avengers 3 in another three fucking years!' It took me out of the movie and turned it, if only for a minute, into a trailer for another movie we're at least a year away from seeing. That's what the stinger scenes at the end of credits are for. You've seen this movie, thanks for the money, now here's a taste of what's to come, see you next year. It's exciting, and it's worked for however many films that have been put out since 2008. Marvel is just too excited and has so much on the plate that they had to spend maybe 20% of a film people were already excited for...well, getting people excited for movies that were not this one. I'd have the same complaint about GOTG if it weren't so goddam great.

When I wrote about my feelings of dread in regards to the world post-A1, I mentioned the Superbowl Syndrome (TM), resulting from "sadness after witnessing the culmination of a significant amount of time and investment", basically a state of melancholy set in after Avengers wrapped up, and we had to start the hype machine all over again for AOU. The good news is that we don't have to start over again now. The bad news is that we should. Instead of being a culmination or conclusion to anything, Age of Ultron is just an extension of the hype started when the credits to Avengers rolled and our heroes had those shwarmas. We are in a holding pattern that will last at least another year until Captain America: Civil War comes out (AND I WONDER WHAT THAT WILL BE ABOUT /sarcasm), if not until 2018 with Avengers 3, which will only be part one of a film in two parts so really we'll have to wait until 2019 to get any kind of real resolution. At least I'll have Batman v. Superman to tide me over.

And hey, we've gotten some good times while we're waiting. Here's to a few more.

Knight Owl

Knight Owl's Review of Kingsman: The Secret Service; Give Me A Far Fetched Theatrical Plot Any Day

In my opinion, this is the first great film of 2015, for better or worse.

As a director, Matthew Vaughn has done no wrong for me. Layer Cake was an excellent British crime film in the vein of Guy Ritchie's best. Stardust is one of the most underrated fantasies around. Kick Ass is still one of my favourite Graphic Novel adaptations, and X-Men: First Class is easily my favourite X-Film. So I've been looking forward to Kingsman: The Secret Service for a while with high expectations. The excitement increased knowing that this film was an adaptation of another Mark Millar novel, the writer of Kick Ass. So yes, I was expecting an ultraviolent satire on the apparent turn on old school spy flicks. For the first time in 2015, I was not disappointed.

This film's greatness begins with King Colin Firth. Given his filmography, there's a good reason to disbelieve anyone saying he could be a badass but this movie proves his versatility. He serves his purpose both as the lead in an action film and a walking throwback to the spy films of old. On top of that, he brings a respectability and sincerity to the film that it would miss if Firth wasn't there. The perfect contrast, of course, is Samuel L. Jackson at his overacting best. He brings the gravitas that only he can to a role meant to be simultaneously overly theatrical and legitimately dangerous. Again, not unlike the Bond films of old (you see the theme here?). Add in some British mainstays like Mark Strong and Michael Caine, and newcomer Taron Egerton as co-lead Eggsy, and the cast is strong enough to carry the film alone. Thankfully, it didn't have to.

The plot of the film is fairly simplistic, but effectively tells two stories in one. The film splits time between following King Colin leading an investigation into the acts of Sam Jackson trying to take over the world (because of course he is), and the training of Eggsy as the potential new member of the spy organization that Firth's character is a part of, the Kingsmen. It's always tricky spliting up stories like this, but it's a common occurrence and this film is more fluid with it most times. The two storylines intersect often and in a way that makes sense. It's easy to follow, light hearted (for the most part), and so much fun.

If there's a problem, it's that the silly, fun feel of the film contrasts with the shocking violence of the film. This was something I expected after having seen Vaughn's past work and after reading the source material. But with the way the film is marketed, it would be very easy to be misled. The language and violence of the film seems out of place a lot of the time. Kingsman is very reminiscient of Kick Ass in this way, but differs in that most marketing for Kick Ass featured teases of what was coming. No one was caught off guard. Don't get me wrong, the action was very well done, with a fast, hard hitting pace that fits the chaotic presentation of the film, and I thought the ultraviolence added effect to the satirical elements of the film, but it could easily rub people the wrong way if the audience isn't expecting it.

What really endeared me to this film, though, is the open shots it takes at the modern action film. Spy films in particular have taken a very dark, earnest turn over the past decade or so. Comparing a Connery-era Bond film with Skyfall is like putting the Dark Knight Trilogy up against the Marvel films. Similar content and source material but nearly polar opposite tones. While I certainly like a lot of the new generation of films such as the Craig-era Bond films, the Bourne movies, etc., Kingsman reminds us of another time. In more ways than one, since on top of being stylistically similar to the spy films of old, Kingsman calls the modern films out on their shit. The characters have open discussion about the old spy movies and how they are missed when compared to the darker, more serious films of the new age. All done with sting that only British humour can pull off. When Skyfall came out, I expressed my displeasure with it for essentially shitting on the horse that brought it. The backbone of James Bond is the legacy of cheeky one-liners, femme fatales with ridiculous names, and overelaborate and easily escapable death schemes. Kingsman not only remembers that, but points the finger at those that don't but should. It's basically Kick Ass meets Austin Powers, but in the best possible way.

Just remember not to expect a carbon copy of your favourite Bond movie. It's not that kind of movie, bruv.

Knight Owl

Knight Owl's Review of Jupiter Ascending; Must Love Dogs

I asked for an original genre film. Be careful what you wish for.

I'm not sure why, but I had hopes for this movie. I guess there are a couple reasons. Firstly, my hope for original work is everlasting, and Jupiter proudly brandished the claim of originality. The look of the film as per the trailers was unique and beautiful. I'm a big fan of Channing Tatum, or at least a certain version of him. Mostly though, I want to believe that the Siblings Wachowski are more than a one-trick pony. Their reputation are built upon the back of The Matrix which was a renovation of sci-fi/action films, and equally tainted by that film's sequels. They've done some things since the facepalmingly bad conclusion to the Matrix Trilogy, such as the screenplay for the amazing V For Vendetta and directing 2012's artful but never fucking ending Cloud Atlas, but the siblings will forever be known for the adventures of Neo and company, for better or worse. I legitimately hoped that Jupiter would, in one way or another, be the next big thing for a couple of talented film makers only held adrift by a 15-year old Keanu Reeves vehicle.

I was wrong. Very wrong.

Instead of getting the original, groundbreaking film I was promised/hoped for, I was given two hours of recycled material on an unfamiliar background. I could have told you how this film ended before the opening credits finished, but I wouldn't have to because you've seen this movie before. Everyone was. It's Space Opera 101, the same fantasy film formula that emerged from the 1980's with Star Wars, Willow, Labyrinth and the like. Only less interesting (because those movies are over 30 god damn years old), failing to hide behind a pretty presentation, and has more bestiality jokes. Seriously.

"I have more in common with a dog than with you."
"I love dogs."
"NOPE."

One thing I don't think the Wachowskis can do, talented as they might be, is conjure a good performance out of their actors. If ever there was an overwhelming example of this, it's Jupiter Ascending. Mila Kunis is so bland in this, which is tough to say because she is damn charming most f the time. There is a spark of that in her performance, but the words she is forced to say in this film choke the charm out of her. I felt bad for her character right out of the gate for being named Jupiter, and that feeling worsened as I realized she's a god damn idiot.

And then we have Eddie Redmayne, currently nominated for a Best Actor Oscar for the Stephen Hawking biopic, overacting his ass off. I really hope the decision makers behind the Academy awards don't watch this movie until after the Oscars, just to give this poor asshole a fair shake. He was SO BAD. Just, Nic Cage in Wicker Man territory level of bad.

But my buddy Channing got me through this movie. Not on purpose though. More often than not, it's the version of Tatum I hate: sullen, overdramatic, unnecessarily serious. Like Kunis, all charisma was torn from him by this horrendous screenplay. But every once in a while, he'd have this look on his face like he just couldn't believe he was doing what he was doing, saying what he was saying. They must have tied his arm to his waist to prevent him from facepalming himself to true death.

Claiming this is an original story is a stretch, but I am more than willing to give credit where it's due. First, I said it looked pretty, and it sure did. The many glory shots of slow moving spaceships and elaborate alien cities might have extended the film unnecessarily but were a welcome breath of fresh air that weren't accompanied by the film's ridiculous script. Second, while the story is far from original, there are many elements of the background, the setting of the film that are attempts at originality that I did like, absurd as they may be. For the sake of spoiling the film, I won't go into the particulars but I would have been much happier with this film if the setting provided accompanied a better story. I'd much rather see more of what was going on behind the scenes of the universe the film has built than sit through the attention deficit plotline we were given.

It took a minute for me to realize what this film reminded me of, and it hit me. Jupiter Ascending is Avatar. It's a superimposition of a tired story on a shiny new look with blue catpeople, or pointy eared dogpeople in Jupiter's case. It's a film bad enough that it can't even be enjoyed ironically, and that kind of bad movie breaks my heart. The storyline attempts to do too much, moving from one place to the next in a rushed fashion, almost scared to run long. The movie's script was irredeemable, just fucking ridiculous, and at least one of the film's stars seemed to know it. We know that films in this vein can be done well, even great. Guardians of the Galaxy proved it just last year. But Jupiter Ascending has more in common with Twilight than it does with GOTG. The only hope I have now is that this shit heap doesn't make enough money to justify a sequel. I will continue to hope for more original genre films, because this just wasn't one. Not even close.

Knight Owl

Knight Owl's Review of American Sniper; The Further Adventures of Rocket Raccoon

It's Oscar season! A time where movie goers are finally told by people we assume are smarter and better than us what films were actually 'good' from the past year. If you're someone like myself, you either haven't heard of many of the titles nominated, don't live in a place important enough to see the nominated films in a theatrical release, and/or are just pissed that The Lego Movie didn't get nominated for Best Animated Film or whatever. As a film buff/movie geek, I feel a responsibility to make an effort to see the films nominated for the oh so prestigious Academy Awards. Sometimes, my opinion differs greatly from that of the Academy (there's no way 'movie about boy growing up' is better than 'talking raccoon with tree sidekick') but thankfully this is not the case with American Sniper.

Over the past decade or so, the world has been treated to several films and television shows addressing the real world trouble that was the 'war on terror'. Being a fairly oblivious person, I only really know the Coles Notes of the whole thing but I get the gist of it. As it always goes, real life tragedy makes for compelling storytelling, and nothing's won acclaim in film notoriety like films on the war. The Hurt Locker put Jeremy Renner on the map as a mainstream star, and won a bunch of awards including Best Picture and Best Director in Kathryn Bigelow. Her follow up to that was Zero Dark Thirty, a film telling the true story behind the hunting and killing of Osama Bin Laden and was nominated for a good number of Oscars itself. Those are only the most notable examples, of which there are many, and American Sniper looks to be the next film of its kind to gain such high standing. Good, the film deserves it.

The film is based on the true story of Chris Kyle, an American veteran who holds the impressive title of most lethal sniper in 'Mericuh's history. At first, I was hesitant to see the film, as I have gone into films such as this one expecting something along the lines of Hurt Locker or Platoon and being thoroughly disappointed in one way or another. This film was anything but a disappointment. American Sniper is well enough put together that it tells a compelling and empathic story of a normal guy with a natural talent and a self-imposed responsibility to use that talent, while still able to feature some gripping and tense action sequences. And in a world where the last Transformers film was damn near three hours long, to be able to do what American Sniper did in just around two hours is truly remarkable. Kudos to Clint 'Get Off My Lawn' Eastwood for bringing his A-game.

Speaking of A-game, let's talk about Bradley Cooper for a second here. This guy is incredible. Easily one of the most versatile actors we have going right now. He's gone from the asshole in Wedding Crashers to Rocket 'By God' Raccoon, and has been picking up Oscar Noms on the way. This is the third straight year he's been nominated for an Oscar for acting, and if he loses this one not only will I be surprised, but he will be reaching DiCaprio-level status of Oscar denial. The Academy loves a good drastic body change, and Coop pulled off some bulking up for the role of Kyle.

And his everything grew three sizes that day...

What I don't understand about this film is the kind of attention it's getting these days. American Sniper has been plagued with political controversy over the past few weeks, mostly overlooking the movie altogether and jumping into the issue of whether Chris Kyle is a hero or a monster for his actions. It's become very ugly, as these things often do thanks to Twitter and the like. Here's what I think: when I say that this is based on a true story, it should come with an asterisk because in fact it's based on Kyle's autobiography because no film in this world is original anymore. Of course the film is going to paint Kyle in a certain light, and whether it's 100% true or not should be a moot point because a more accurate and detailed look at his experiences and life would 1) be a shitty, hard to follow story; and 2) be long as fuck. As a quiet but opinionated person, I can appreciate either side's approach to the man whose life is reflected in this film, but not liking a man or his actions should not impact an opinion of a film which is at best an adapted truth. It's like how I feel about Tom Cruise: yes, he's batshit insane IRL but does that mean I'm not going to see Edge of Tomorrow a bunch of times? NOPE. At the end of the day, it's a fucking movie, people. And a good one. 

Knight Owl's Review of Taken 3; It Ends Here (Thank God)

This movie makes me sad.

One of my New Years resolutions is to see more movies and write about them. I'm starting out strong, but already behind. It doesn't help that the first movie of the new year that I sit down to see is what I can only hope is the last of a franchise unable to live up to its first entry.

I can gush over Taken all day, so I'll keep it short by saying that the film was an unexpected hit and, in my opinion, a perfect action movie. Short in length, simple plot, heavy on the violence and threat thereof. It also gave new life to the career of a man I've always been a fan of but never clicked with the mainstream. Taken is inarguably one of the best action films in recent memory, and possibly one of the best ever. But as with any other moderately successful film these days, it just had to have a sequel.

Taken 2 was a shadow of its predecessor, neutering both the main character and the franchise itself as quickly as possible. The change in director was evident and not for the better. What should have been an easy path into a franchise became a sad extension of the first film, much like Quantum of Solace was to Casino Royale. I was willing to forgive Taken 2 if the third installment gave me what I wanted out of the second. Needless to say, Taken 3 failed spectacularly.

In my mind, the logical path that the Taken franchise was simple: Liam Neeson's work in the first film earns him a spot back on his old team, also established in the first film. They then go off on hijinks involving rescuing highly valued captives from shady individuals with broken wine bottles, threatening phone conversations and general badassery. Instead, Taken 3 becomes a far too convoluted whodunnit mystery a la The Fugitive with not so much action as there is a whole bunch of people on cellphones.

The plot we are given is as such: Old man Liam is framed for a murder and must go on the lam using his very particular set of skills to both evade capture and uncover who set him up and why. Even this synopsis sounds simple, but there is layer upon layer of unnecessary subplot that makes the film seem hours longer than it was. Also would have been fine, had there been as much action as the previous films. There wasn't, and the action we do get is over-edited and choppy. Extremely hard to watch. And with at least 30 minutes without the only reason to see the film (Neeson) onscreen, it's easy to forget why you're even there.

The big problem I have with this movie is simply that it falls into SO MANY TROPES, and everyone's the worse for it. First off, when I said Neeson had to 'evade capture', what I meant was that he beat the everliving crap out of every cop that crossed his path. Now, this has been a bit of a problem for me in every 'the hero's been framed' action film I've ever seen (which is an approximate fuck ton). So, you're innocent. That's great and all, but laying smacks down on every cop in line of sight might not be the best way to make your case. Now, even if your innocence for the murder is proven, you're going to jail forever on a billion counts of resisting arrest and assaulting officers. And that's after you get many batons and tazers shoved up unpleasant places.

And hey, while we're at that, you might not have to run so fast if you didn't make yourself seem so god damn guilty. Neeson makes every innocent-man-finds-crime-scene mistake you can. He fondles the murder weapon, he disturbs the body, he tries to talk the cops out of taking him in, and wraps it all up with a bunch of THROAT PUNCHING. This, ladies and gentlemen, is a man with a very particular set of skills which, I imagine, involved him being even the slightest bit covert. If anyone should have an understanding as to what's going on, it's him. Setting stuff like this up was his job, and the past two films were spent establishing that it was a job he was pretty god damn stellar at. But here he is, doing a fine job of being an asshole to the people trying to find a killer. You're losing your touch, Liam.

I know that this review has been living on the negative side of the film, but there's good reason. At the end of the day, a film franchise that was once razor sharp has completely lost its edge. Everything that I liked about Taken 3 was a direct callback from the first film (ie. Liam hiding under a body to surprise oncoming bad guy). I truly hope that either this is the true death of the franchise, or that new life is somehow breathed into it. Trust me, if you're looking for an action film on par with Taken...well, just rewatch Taken. It's still great.

Knight Owl

Knight Owl's Most Anticipated Films of 2015

So, 2014 happened.

Like most years, it had it's ups and downs but was better than the shit heap that was 2013 by leaps and bounds, so I'll take it. For me, though, one of the bigger disappointments was in the overall releases in film over the year. Just not a lot to talk about. There was an unlikely Marvel movie that had a talking tree, a talking raccoon, and a likeable Dave Bautista that obliterated the box office. That, and a bunch of sad sequels and reboots. And so, I threw myself into TV and Mass Effect, both of which are awesome. You can see this lack of interest in my posting here, as I barely put out one post a month. Sorry to my 20-ish loyal readers, but good news: 2015 is going to be so much better on this front.

New Years' Resolutions are a thing, and one of mine is to be more reliable with my bloggity-blogs. And this is the first step of that mile. The following is a collection of reasons I'm looking forward to the year to come. I hope to bring some gems to light to some, while being painfully obvious about others. There are also some notable films not on the list (cough*Jurassic World*cough), simply because I'm not convinced they'll be any good. I'm ever willing to be surprised though. So yeah, these are some films coming out in the next year that I look forward to, with a short reason behind each because an opinion is only worth the 'why' behind it. Drink it in, folks, and get used to it. I'm back.

February 6: Jupiter Ascending

Why?: This is a hopeful return to form for the Siblings Wachowski from their work on The Matrix, as it is their first original screenplay since then. It is also a rare original genre film in a world flooded with adaptations and sequels. It looks like a healthy blend of Sci-fi and Fantasy a la Star Wars, and I'm totally on the Channing Tatum bandwagon. Even if he's playing a blond, jacked-up elf.

February 13: Kingsman: The Secret Service

Why?: Director Matthew Vaughn opted out of guaranteed money with X-Men: DOFP to do this movie. There's got to be a reason for it. He's also responsible for my favourite X-film (First Class) as well as Kick-Ass and the incredibly underrated Stardust. The British spy film looks like the Bond film that the world has been missing since 007 lost his sense of humour, and Colin Firth is a damned genius.

March 6: Chappie

Why?: The Neill Blomkamp/Sharlto Copley combo hasn't failed me yet. District 9 is still one of the best genre films of the past decade, and Elysium was proof to me that Blomkamp wasn't the one hit wonder that so many others have proven to be. Where Chappie differs is in the film's apparent light-heartedness. The synopsis is essentially Wall-E as a live action film, but also with violence. Sold.

May 1: Avengers: Age of Ultron

Why?: Do I even have to write anything here? Avengers seemed like an impossible thing to pull off, and then it happened. It can't not happen again, especially now with so much behind it. The only problem is keeping expectations reasonable Avengers 2, and not just assuming it will be much lots better than its predecessor. But seriously, I'd be happy with maintaining the status quo and not have a “Revenge of the Fallen” situation on our hands.

May 15: Mad Max: Fury Road

Why?: The sheer look of it. Watching the trailer on youtube does not do it justice. This film looks god damn insane. Tom Hardy doesn't hurt, either. I'm usually very critical of sequels/reboots coming out so long after the last installment, as Beyond Thunderdome came out 30 years and several Mel Gibson breakdowns ago. But I'm pretty sure that I'm not going to give a shit while watching this movie.

June 19: Inside Out

Why?: It's Pixar, man! My blind faith in the Disney/Pixar collaborations has faded over the past few years since Brave came out, and I'm hoping that this adorable sounding film about the personifications of a child's emotions brings me back. Also, it stars Amy Poehler as 'Joy' and Lewis By God Black as 'Anger'. Best casting ever.

July 17: Ant-Man

Why?: Guardians of the Galaxy proved that a ridiculous concept for a comic book can be turned into a great, if not worth while and lucrative film. Ant-Man will be the lay-up to Guardians in this category, because it too is a goofy concept that only works in comics. Until it doesn't only work in comics.

October 16: Crimson Peak

Why?: Guillermo Del Toro is a genius with the supernatural/horror genre, and Crimson Peak is right in that wheel house. Pacific Rim was not the smash hit I think it deserved to be, but Del Toro's reputation in the genre world speaks for itself. Now that he's done helping out with the Hobbit films, I'm hoping to see more Pan's Labyrinth-like stuff, and Crimson Peak is a step in that direction.

November 6: Spectre

Why?: I didn't love Skyfall, but do like the Craig regime of Bond films. As stated earlier, I think the franchise has ditched the funny for the sake of the violence, and it's made me wishy-washy on my opinions of the films but they are still so fun to watch. Casino Royale is easily my favourite Bond film, and with Christophe Waltz in as the big bad my hopes are high for a similar parkour-laced action flick.

December 18: Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens

Why?: JUST YES.

Knight Owl's Review of Interstellar; I'm going to try SCIENCE!

I don't even know how to talk about how good this movie is.

I guess I'll start with coming clean about a bias I have when it comes to Christopher Nolan. It's a sure bet that I will love anything the man does, because I trust him implicitly. Yes, it does have a lot to do with the fact that he is responsible for arguably the greatest interpretation of my favourite character of pop culture. But, taking my love for all things Dark Knight out of the equation, Nolan's work is pretty consistently spot-on. Memento. The Prestige. Inception. Insomnia. All of his work is darkly beautiful and intensely cerebral. Interstellar keeps the trend going but changes the pace, for better or worse.

Because of how the film tells this story, the synopsis will have to be brief. Basically, Earth is on its way out, and Cooper (Matthew McConaughey) (Gods, that name is a nightmare to spell) is the pilot of a mission to find the human race some new digs. Sounds simple, yes? Nope. Like I said, Nolan's works tend to be thinkers. Pieces are put into play throughout the film that causes the audience to constantly question the path that the film is taking. The what's and the why's of the film are everchanging until the very end, and even then some is left to interpretation. In many ways it is like Inception, only Interstellar is in for the long con.

Interstellar may follow the same patterns as Nolan's previous works, but throws in something I didn't even realize wasn't there before: emotion. This film is as heartwrenchingly tragic as it is complex, which, in my eyes, is a huge step for Nolan; for all my praise I've always felt his films to be, I dunno...cold, I guess. His films have always focused on the puzzle being solved to take a hard look at those solving it. Interstellar puts the players under a microscope and not only has the audience empathizing with the characters, but has that emotion play a huge part in the telling of the story.

A lot of credit for this emotional element of the film goes to the actors. Everyone knows that Mr. 3xAlright is on a hot streak lately with taking home the Oscar for Dallas Buyers Club (well deserved, btw), and while I don't think that he'll be taking another one home for this I do think his portrayal of Cooper as a family man whose duty to the human race tears him from his children is more than adequate and at times heartbreaking. Anne Hathaway's performance of Brand, a scientist along for the ride with Cooper, is also very effective as sharing the duties with him without his emotional attachment. The pairing drives much of the film as they are very much opposite sides of the same coin; on the same side but with nearly opposing motivations. Nolan film mainstay Michael Caine brings his usual gravitas to the film as Prof. Brand, Hathaway's father and designer of the mission. The performances he gives in Nolan's films makes you forget you're watching a sci-fi movie about finding a new world, or a man dressing up as a bat, for example.

With what filmmakers have to work with these days, there's no excuse for a film to not look great when it has a budget. So when I say that Interstellar is fucking gorgeous, I want you to understand my full meaning. If Gravity hadn't come out last year, this film would have been the best looking piece of cinema I've seen in a good long while. That being said, I'm very happy I didn't see it in IMAX or anything. Gravity nearly killed me. Speaking of which, I could see how one might compare Interstellar with the hit space drama of last year, but don't be fooled: while Gravity was breathtaking and beautiful and fucking terrifying, the synopsis of that film is essentially 'Miss Congeniality has a VERY BAD DAY'. Interstellar not only has a plot, but it's a complex plot with multiple layers and lots going on. Gravity was pretty. Interstellar is smart and pretty. Basically, Interstellar is my fiancee. Gravity is my fiancee when she's sleeping: nice to look at, not a lot going on, and if something bad happens, you may die.

The major gripe I've heard about this film from the media is that the science isn't real, or is at least incorrect. To which I say GOOOOOOOOOOOO FUCK YOURSELF. It's a goddamn movie, people. No one is saying that when the time comes to fuck the lemons and bail that this movie is telling us how to do so. This is the first time, that I'm aware of, that the science of a SCIENCE FICTION film has been held up to such a standard, and it's bullshit because if this was done by someone else, no one would say shit. Roland Emmerich blows up the White House every other year with aliens or natural disasters or whatever, no one cares. Mark Ruffalo blows up to become a living green mountain of rage, people shrug and be like 'comic books, am I right?' How is Michael Bay still alive with these people so angry about mishandled science in a film? In an interview, even Nolan himself calls them out for it, saying that for whatever reason his films are held at a higher standard, despite the fact that all of his films feature plot hooks that are very much impossible and considered the same 'movie magic' that allows us to believe that Tony Stark actually has Iron Man armor, or that Jon Favreau actually has had sex with both Scarlett Johansson and Sofia Vergara (check out Chef, it's pretty good). Also, if Neil DeGrasse Tyson is cool with the film (see here) then I don't know what else there is to say.

OK, I'm done kissing this movie's ass and am ready to scold it a bit here. This shit is long, folks. A little short of 3 hours from top to bottom, and it feels like it before the end. It's helpful knowing that before going in, but there are a couple of emotionally exhausting scenes where you hope the film will wrap up soon after and it doesn't. Few films have tired me out emotionally like Interstellar (a compliment) but the length of the film didn't allow me to catch my breath, leading me to my other major complaint. This movie was so far over my head that even if I wanted to spoil the shit out of it to you guys, I really don't think I could. And I don't feel like I'm alone here either. Interstellar doesn't have the mass appeal that Inception does, and certainly not as much as the Dark Knight films. In many ways, Interstellar is Nolan's best work. But I'd struggle to call it my favourite film of his, even disregarding The Dark Knight. There's also a secondary problem involving the sound mixing of the film, which Nolan copped to. His goal was to use speech as a sound effect amidst the chaos of the film during the more tense scenes, leading to the realism of the film. He wanted the audience to experience the moment how the characters were, all loud noises without being able to hear each other effectively. It's true, and effective, but incredibly distracting at times. Knowing it was on purpose makes it better, but not by much. It's a good thing the music is pretty.

I've been really inconsistent this year with my reviews. Most of it is my fault. With being a grown-up, having a fucked up schedule and not a lot of readers to attend to, my motivation has been lacking. Another reason is that this year has been wholly unremarkable for film. But that makes Interstellar that much more remarkable to me. It is a true masterpiece of art, beauty, intelligence and emotion, and evidence that a filmmaker can noticeably evolve. I don't know if Nolan will win any awards for this, but Interstellar helps cement my belief that he is one of the greatest working directors in the world today, maybe ever.

And if not, we'll always have Batman.

Knight Owl