The Perfection: Netflix

(**** out of 5)

     That's right.  Four out of five stars.  If you know me, that's a high score.  And you probably haven't heard much about this movie.  To be honest, I hadn't either.  I was browsing Netflix's new releases and had seen this pop up.  It was released on May 24th.  Based on the poster, I skipped over it and never anticipated watching it.  Then, as I was browsing my IMDB.com headlines, I saw one from Daily Mail that caught me off guard:

"New Netflix horror movie 'The Perfection' is making viewers physically sick with graphic scenes showing vomit and gore -"

     Since I rarely get scared or grossed out by blood and guts in movies, I decided to click the link and read about the film.  To not spoil anything, I read the first paragraph and then decided that I would be watching this film, which has earned an 84% from critics on RottenTomatoes.com.  I was very much impressed with this film.  Was it extremely bloody and violent?  Not as much as I was led to believe.  If you have a light stomach, you can probably handle this film.

     What's it about?  Without giving away too many details, the plot sounds pretty simple.  An aspiring musician, Charlotte, leaves her career to care for her sick mother.  Once the illness takes a turn for the worst, she decides to return to the life she left behind as a mentor for the girl who replaced her, Lizzie.

     Does that plot sound bloody and violent?  Not really.  And I'm glad.  The film features several twists and turns that you don't expect.  You will feel scared, disturbed, and confused several times.

     I like a good story.  I feel so many movies these days lack a good story, and instead replace it with strong characters.  Characters interacting can be entertaining, but only to an extent.  I watched Dead to Me on Netflix recently, which was all about character and not about the story.  Many viewers agree that the show did not keep them hooked.  The Perfection kept me hooked from the beginning to the end.

     The characters and dialogue developed.  At first, the lines were corny; it felt like Fifty Shades of Grey.  Once things began to spiral out of control, the dialogue flowed much more smoothly.

     Why did I not give the film five stars?  A few good reasons.  For starters, there was an odd placement of music in different scenes.  Most of the movie consists of orchestral music.  Oddly, there are a few scenes in which modern hip-hop music plays.  It actually diluted the intensity, especially near the end.  The film also staggers to fit in a genre.  This is the art of the director.  Sometimes, it felt like I was watching a made-for-tv film, while at other times, I felt like I was watching something more nostalgic.

     But don't let this deter you from watching it.  Netflix rarely puts out an impressive film, and this is one that you don't want to miss.

Wine Country: Netflix

(* out of 5)

     Wine Country is a new, Netflix Original film and also Amy Poehler's first, major directorial debut.  A group of friends embark on a wine tasting trip through Napa Valley to celebrate their friend's 50th birthday, and as you can predict, they all end up fighting with each other.

     While I can't pinpoint the particular word for this genre, it falls into your typical, dry dramedy that features a star-studded cast.  Another film I can think of to compare this to is Friends with Money.  The laughs aren't big enough and the tears aren't powerful enough.  I felt like I watched a bunch of drunk, middle-aged women bantering about their marriages for over an hour.  As usual, Maya Rudolph seems to be the only comedic relief and the highlight of the film.  Unfortunately, if this movie didn't have this cast that it did, it may have never been made.

     A stronger focus on the the wine experience and maybe more interactions with the winery employees would have developed the story better.  The few interactions the characters have with the sommeliers are intriguing, as well as the hosts of the AirBnB, played by Tina Fey and Jason Schwartzman.  Maybe it was too realistic to be entertaining?  Maybe this film would be better as a stage play?

     My verdict on this film is to go ahead and skip it; it feels like something that you've already seen.  Poehler has worked hard in the industry and I hope to see future films from her that have a few more laughs.

Rewatch: I Am Legend

(** out of five)

     I think the last time I saw this movie was when it was released in theaters: December 2007.  That means eleven years have passed with so many other post-apocalyptic movies.  Even the Hunger Games were released after this film.  This film may be a favorite to many, but I never got the spark from it that so many audiences did.  Recently, a group of my friends were talking about this film and how good it was.  I decided to revisit it on Netflix.
     To quickly summarize the plot of this film without giving away much, Will Smith plays Robert Neville, a scientist in search of a cure at ground zero of a viral apocalypse.  A cure for cancer is found, but it quickly mutates humanity into violent monsters.  The virus can be passed on by a bite, but after it becomes airborne, only a few survive.  Neville is the last human.  Accompanied by his canine pal, Sam aka Samantha, they search the city for supplies and signs of life.  Neville has a daily routine, with his watch constantly beeps when the sun is starting to set.  Once it's dark outside, the monsters can freely hunt.  Ultra-violet light can kill the monsters.  They hide in buildings and dark places during the day in almost a trance, unless disturbed.  Things turn south for Neville once he gets stuck outside while the sun is setting.
     Because I love character development so much, it's hard for me to enjoy films with one character.  The main character is only developed in the flashbacks.  The present-day protagonist is quite boring and sometimes annoying.
     There was a ton of potential for this film based on the story.  We don't know if he is going to discover a cure.  We don't know what the monsters are truly capable of, but we know that the group in the film has a leader.  Neville never focuses on what the monsters want or what they need to survive, yet we see anger in the main monster's face.  As the plot develops, the movie comes to a sudden and abrupt ending.  Now that I think about it, I Am Legend really reminds me of Birdbox.
     I don't think I will watch this one again for another eleven years. Without a thick plot and a character with a lot of depth, I didn't find it exciting.  The focal point of this movie is the creator's vision of a future world after a disaster.  One particular scene that stands out is when a herd of deer are going through the city.  Other than that, not much else stands out.

Avengers: Endgame

(**** out of 5)

     It's safe to read this review if you haven't seen the film as I will not be revealing any major spoilers.  I do have a few critiques about characters that may allude to certain plot developments, and if you haven't seen Infinity War, then I would skip this review.
     While this film brings an end to the Avengers team that we have all fallen in love with, the style of this movie highly contradicts the traditional style of all the other Marvel movies.  The running time for this movie is about three hours, making it the longest in the string of films released over the last eleven years.  My expectation was that it would follow in the footsteps of Captain America: Winter Soldier and would be an action-packed blockbuster from the beginning to the end.  Instead, the majority of the movie is a character-driven story about a team torn apart by an enemy, considering the possibility that they might be able to save the universe.  The movie begins with an assembled team, then quickly jumps five years into the future.
     The Avengers are dealing with loss after Thanos wiped out half of all living organisms in the universe.  The movie doesn't spend much time assembling the Avengers back together, which I found as a relief.  We've seen so many movies about trying to reconcile a split team, and the team is not much split as they are grieving.  Black Widow has taken over the leadership position, and new characters enter the picture, such as Captain Marvel, Doctor Strange and Ant Man.  The meatiest part of the film consists of the team figuring out how to time travel in order to reverse the events that destroyed their lives.  There are constant twists and turns from the beginning to the end.
     The most surprising character in the film, in my opinion, is Captain America.  With his strength and kindness, he balances the entire team while growing into his position of command.  From the beginning of the movie until the very end, Captain America wards his suit and shield as a true representation of what hero is supposed to be.  Actor Chris Evans typically does better in comedy, but he really nailed this role and I applaud him for it.  Iron Man eventually takes an equal position, and the two put their power-struggle aside and work side by side.
     Unfortunately, not every character impressed me in Endgame.  My least favorite character was none other than Thor.  I guess this might be a little bit of a spoiler, but in this film, he has gained a lot of weight, which is highlighted by putting him in a fat suit.  Personally, I find this offensive as I believe fat-shaming only feeds bullying, and I don't like that the majority of the audiences seeing this are made of impressionable, young adults.  Thor lost his hammer in Infinity War, but gained a new weapon.  Now, he has lost his strength and his physique.  There are several jokes made by other characters in the film about his weight gain.  If you are expecting Thor to magically shed all of the weight in the film, you might want to lower your expectations.
     I was not disappointed with the story, and the three hours actually went by fast.  If you've followed all of the movies, the last twenty minutes are an epic battle which will quench your thirst for one of the best battles in movie history.  Is this a film that I want to rush back to the theaters and see?  Not necessarily.  The running time does make it hard to see this movie multiple times.
     So what could have made this movie better?  I only gave it four out of fives stars and here is my simple reason why:  It needed more suspense.  Due to the story scattered in so many directions, I didn't feel the struggle or the suspense that it's predecessors carried.  Can you see it if you haven't seen the other films?  Possibly, but I would not recommend it.
     I did enjoy this movie and I liked that the Avengers came to an end.  It was a refreshing and fun.

The Jungle Book (2016)

(*** out of 5)

Yes.  It's been a year since I wrote in this blog.  Whatever you want to say, my response will be "point taken."

Now...

Unfortunately, there is that annual gap between the Academy Awards and the summer, in which not many decent movies arrive in theaters.  Spring is a time for Netflix and rentals.

The best movie in theaters right now is The Jungle Book (until the summer movies start).  It takes the original story and adds CGI animals, bringing the original tale to life in a whole different perspective.  Some of the characters were not as prevalent in this version.  (Kaa only has a minor part, which disappointed me).

What I really enjoyed was the interesting political twist.  Shere Khan, a tiger who had been previously attacked by a human, wants Mowgli to be dead by the time the rains return to the Jungle.  He is able to convince many of the animals in the jungle that Mowgli will learn that he is a man and will possess the power to make fire.  Once Mowgli discovers fire, Khan believes that Mowgli will destroy the Jungle.  Khan knows that he is not the only one who feels threatened by Mowgli, and he uses this to his advantage.  The casting director made a perfect decision casting Idris Elba as the voice of Shere Khan, as it makes the villainous tiger sound rough, yet betrayed.

The beginning of the movie is a serious tale, until they introduce the warming personality of Baloo, voiced by Bill Murray.  Baloo becomes the comic relief of the film, much like the original version.  Baghera and Baloo behave more like adults, and there isn't as much bickering between the characters, and there is more of understanding.

Baghera was not much different from the original version.  Sir Ben Kinglsey voices the giant black panther, paying homage to the original movie.

The graphics were amazing.  My favorite scene was near the end, when Mowgli faces Shere Khan alone in a burning jungle.  It felt much like the animated film, but took the suspense up a level.

The character that I did not enjoy was King Louie.  It was not necessarily the character; it was the fact that he was voiced by Christopher Walken.  While the scene was supposed to be dark, I wanted to laugh.  I thought I was watching a mafia movie with apes.  I later read that they wanted the character to be the ape version of Marlon Brando.  The director accurately did this, but it felt out of place in the film.

Overall, I think The Jungle Book is a fun, family movie to go see.  It earned its PG rating, but there were lots of small children at the theater that seemed to enjoy it.  That being said, I am looking forward to summer films.

The Academy Awards

Ladies and gentlemen, start your engines.....

While 2014 wasn't the most amazing year for the box office, I will say that it's going to be a close race in some of the categories.  I believe the focus will be directed towards the acting, as there were several roles that were more than difficult to portray.  If you are attending any Oscar watching parties, hopefully my predictions will help you win prizes.  As usual, there are films that I think will win, but I am always rooting for the underdogs.  So, traditionally, I will write about who I want to win, and who I think will win.  On some of the major categories, I will talk about the nominees, and then some I will just list my rankings.  I have seen all of the Best Picture nominees, and you can read the full reviews on my blog.  On your mark.....get set.....Go!

BEST PICTURE

WILL WIN:  Boyhood.  Even though I didn't think the film was that great, you got to give the director, Richard Linklater, some credit for filming a movie over twelve years.  It was definitely cool to see the actors age and go through many real life situations that would happen over that period of time.

SHOULD WIN:  Whiplash.  I think a movie that makes me want to go back and see it right away deserves an award.  While Whiplash was not a "thinker," it was a fun film that was beautifully made.

BEST ACTOR

WILL WIN/SHOULD WIN: Michael Keaton.  This is one of the categories that was complicated.  However, I think Keaton did some of the most amazing acting I have seen in years, in the film Birdman.  However, over the last few weeks, critics have started shifting their vote towards Eddie Redmayne for The Theory of Everything.  Both acted excellently, but Keaton took on an extremely controversial role and nailed it in every aspect.

BEST ACTRESS

WILL WIN/SHOULD WIN:  Julianne Moore.  She is one of the most talented actresses in the industry.  In Still Alice, she is able to make the audience cry from a simple look in her eyes.  The movie wasn't all the great, but Moore took every part and made it hers.  Her only close contender is Reese Witherspoon for Wild, but I did not think Witherspoon had a role nearly as intense as Moore's.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

WILL WIN: Ethan Hawke.  He really captured the role of playing a dad during the twelve years of filming.  And all the hype is around him.  This category was too hard to simplify, but I am rooting for the "should win" on this award.

SHOULD WIN: J.K. Simmons for Whiplash.  He played one the best onscreen villains I have seen.  I hope he wins, and the critics do believe it will also be a close race.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

WILL WIN: Patricia Arquette.  I don't know.  Maybe she does deserve to win it.  Her role in Boyhood was much more complicated than Ethan Hawke's.  She did an amazing job.

SHOULD WIN:  Emma Stone.  Believe it or not, she had a scene that blew me away in Birdman.  Although her most powerful scene was extremely short, this does not make a difference in the Academy's eyes.  Viola Davis was nominated for a brief scene in the movie Doubt (2008).  She didn't win, but she definitely deserved a nomination.

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE

WILL WIN: Big Hero 6.  It was a pretty cool movie, right?

SHOULD WIN: Song of the Sea.  A creative film made in, check this out, 2D.  I loved the story, but it doesn't compare to the action that audiences want.

Now I'll be going into the categories that many people don't understand.  I am not going to explain them, but if you don't know what it is, you can use my prediction for your ballot or you can make a guess.  Here they are.

CINEMATOGRAPHY

WILL WIN: Birdman.  It was filmed in only eight conspicuously placed cuts.  That's some talent right there, but did it really affect the overall film?

SHOULD WIN: The Grand Budapest Hotel.  Amazing scenes.  I just think the critics hate Wes Anderson for some reason.

COSTUME DESIGN

WILL WIN/SHOULD WIN:  Into the Woods.  That may be one of the awards it actually wins.

DIRECTING

WILL WIN/SHOULD WIN: Richard Linklater.  It takes some effort for a director to get a cast together for that many years, AND to front some of his own money for the project.  It'll be a close call with Alejandro G. Inarritu for Birdman.

DOCUMENTARY FEATURE

WILL WIN/SHOULD WIN: Virguna.  To make a documentary about primates that we haven't seen yet, takes some talent.  If you have Netflix, you can actually watch this now.  The underdog in this category is Finding Vivian Maeir.  I like that one, too.

DOCUMENTARY SHORT SUBJECT

WILL WILL/SHOULD WIN: Crisis Hotline: Veterans Press 1.  For a short documentary, this was intense.  Maybe it was because I used to be a 911 dispatcher, but this film really got to me.  I hope it wins.

FILM EDITING

WILL WIN: Whiplash

SHOULD WIN: The Grand Budapest Hotel.  There were some fun edits in this film.  I am not confident about this category, so either one may win.

FOREIGN FILM

WILL WIN: Timbuktu.  I didn't like it that much.

SHOULD WIN: Leviathan.  It's been a while since there was a film about crazy Russians getting angry with each other.  I found it to a similar style as The Godfather.

MAKEUP AND HAIRSTYLING

WILL WIN/SHOULD WIN: Guardians of the Galaxy.

MUSIC ORIGINAL SCORE

WILL WIN: Interstellar.  Bleh.  That was one of the biggest disappointments this year.  The music, at least, wasn't a let down.

SHOULD WIN: The Theory of Everything.  Moving. Elemental.  The music was inspiring.

MUSIC SONG

WILL WIN/SHOULD WIN: Everything is Awesome.  From the Lego movie.  Who doesn't hum it from time to time?

PRODUCTION DESIGN

WILL WIN/SHOULD WIN:  The Grand Budapest Hotel, but I have a feeling Into the Woods might make an appearance here.

SHORT FILM ANIMATED

This category is always the most complicated for me, because I love all the animated short films.  But I guess I have to pick one.

WILL WIN: Feast

SHOULD WIN: A Single Life.  It made me laugh my butt off.

SHORT FILM LIVE ACTION

WILL WIN/SHOULD WIN: The Phone Call.  It has some major actors in it, and it was well executed.

SOUND EDITING

WILL WIN: Birdman

SHOULD WIN: Interstellar

SOUND MIXING

WILL WIN/SHOULD WIN: Whiplash

VISUAL EFFECTS

WILL WIN: Interstellar

SHOULD WIN: Guardians of the Galaxy

WRITING - ADAPTED SCREENPLAY

WILL WIN: The Theory of Everything.  While I am not a published screenwriter, I do love to write them.  Adapting a screenplay from a book is much harder, because the writer has the readers' expectations to live up to, which rarely happens.  I did not read the book the film is based upon, but I am guessing it stayed true.

SHOULD WIN: The Imitation Game.  It was a fast film.  I am sure the screenplay took a bit longer to adapt.

WRITING - ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY

WILL WIN: Boyhood.  But I don't want it to win this award.

SHOULD WIN: Birdman.  Obviously, the writer must have been thinking about Michael Keaton's real life before writing this one.

The Imitation Game

(*** out of five)

     The Imitation Game was a fun film to add to the season of Academy contenders.  While it is not as emotionally driven as some of the other nominees, it is a brilliant portrayal of recently surfaced historical data.  This was my last film to see among the Academy nominees, and while I do not think it will win best picture, I was not at all disappointed.
     While I have not done any research, this film is based on a true story.  It is about a group of young people who are hired by the British government to decipher the code used by Germans during World War II.  Mathematicians and cryptographers are picked fresh from the surrounding universities, and the students know the government is running out of resources.  They must learn to work as a team, bringing their minds together before it is too late.
     The movie mostly centers around the life of Alan Turing (Benedict Cumberbatch).  When his character is first introduced, the audience knows that he is socially awkward.  At first, we think he is just joking, but moments later, this abnormal exchange paints the canvas for his social skills.  As a loner, Turing does not like to work with others.  During a time of war, he must learn that this is not an option, and he needs a team.  Weeding out some of those that are not well enough for the job, he soon discovers a brilliant-minded Joan Clarke (Keira Knightley).  After Clarke breaks a code faster that Turing, he realizes that she may indeed be his counterpart.  He confides in her, believing she is the only one that can understand him.  Even with Clarke by his side, Turing learns how to develop his social skills and to lightly put aside his arrogance.  Throughout the film, there are flashbacks of his childhood, explaining why it is hard for him to be social, and these moments amplify some of his personal trials.
     The movie goes at a fast pace, and it did not leave enough room for emotional development.  If the director had allowed the audience to become more emotionally involved with the characters, it would have made for a stronger movie.  The acting was well executed, but Cumberbatch and Knightley have had stronger performances in other films, and I do not believe they will win Best Actor/Actress.
     I do recommend seeing this film, at least for the history.  Due to the true story not being made public until 2013, this is something that did not appear in our history textbooks.  I do think the film will make the audience feel as if they are part of solving the puzzle, and do that, I give a thumbs up.