Black Mass (2015)

Black Mass is one of those movies that I really look forward to. Even from the trailer, you can see it checks all of the boxes: movie about a real gangster, set in the 70's, a great cast and great actor diving deep into the main role. Black Mass delivers on all of this. Mostly...

Black Mass, from this point in the review will be abbreviated to BM, which will certainly not cause any confusion with anything else, starts off with great dialog and a compelling story. I had no familiarity with Whitey Bulger before seeing BM, but it took no time at all to get into it. The story builds and builds, but then due to the nature of how the real life events played out, it loses steam towards the end. I won't spoil it here, but if you're familiar with Whitey Bulger, you might already know what I'm referring to. It doesn't necessarily ruin the movie necessarily, but it's an unsatisfying climax.

Welcome back, Johnny Depp. We missed you. After a series of shitty movies and silly roles, it's nice to see Depp return to serious acting. He's freaking fantastic and unrecognizable at times. Colored contacts usually weird me out, but here they were used to great effect. It really made his performance of Bulger that much more chilling and creepy. Don't be surprised if gets nominated come awards time. Joel Edgerton is great as well (supporting actor nod?). Just when I thought The Gift was the best I've seen him, he takes it to another level here. Jesse Plemons also really surprised me at well. The cast overall is fantastic. It's so stacked that there just isn't enough time to dedicate to everyone. How often can you say that guys like Benedict Cumberbatch, Kevin Bacon and Corey Stoll were underused?

BM also does one of my favorite things where at the end they show you pictures of the real people, and in some cases you'll see how much they really nailed the casting and look. They also use this to wrap up the loose ends to the story that they don't show you in the film.

Overall, Black Mass is an entertaining gangster drama and worth watching just for Johnny Depp's performance as Whitey Bulger. It's nothing you haven't seen before, but totally worth a matinee. If you wait for video, it would make a good double feature with The Departed or The Town.

3.5 (out of 5) Death Stars

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013)

Just remember, if you're not tired of The Hobbit yet, there's still three more hours on the way.

I mentioned in my The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey review that I haven't read the book this is all based on (loosely, I suppose).  That hasn't changed in the past year, so once I again I can't comment on the faithfulness to the source material.  I don't necessarily have any issues with some of the newly added characters or plot points that seem to be more of a reference to The Lord of the Rings trilogy than having anything to do with The Hobbit.  In some cases, they were a good thing, like with the addition of Evangeline Lilly's character Tauriel.  She's a total badass and gives the audience a strong female character to identify with.  It doesn't hurt that she's super hot dressed up as an Elf.  I think she might have replaced Antje Traue's Faora from Man of Steel as my current nerd crush.  I liked her character so much that I would totally support and happily watch Tauriel: Badass Elf Chick.  I liked how they brought Legolas (Orlando Bloom) back into the fray, as he got some really cool action scenes that showed more of a ruthless side that wasn't necessarily seen in the original films.

I don't figure there's a lot of need to get into the plot.  The Desolation of Smaug isn't so much a sequel than the continuation (more like extension) of a story that really could have been told in a single film, but whatever.  Smaug and An Unexpected Journey could have easily been edited into a single, three hour film, but for some reason I was never bothered by the length or pacing of either.  If you've followed my blog at all, you know that I tend to pick on a movie's length or pacing a lot.  Simply put, I enjoy this world so much and hanging around in it that I don't want them to end.  Hell, I've already sat through the Extended Edition of An Unexpected Journey twice already, even though it didn't expand on the story the way the Extended Editions for The Lord of the Rings trilogy did.  You don't even have to twist my arm to say that I've enjoyed the The Hobbit movies far more than the Star Wars prequels.  The Hobbit is how you make a prequel trilogy and throw in references to the originals.

The real question I think most people will be asking is do we finally get to see the dragon in this one.  Well, we do and it's glorious!  Smaug (voiced by Benedict Cumberbatch) is easily the best looking dragon ever seen in a movie.  It's not just a quick shot either.  We get an extended look and he plays heavily during the last part of the film.  The wait was worth it.  Although, I will add this, why is it so hard for a giant, fire-breathing dragon to kill a bunch of halflings?  Shouldn't he have been able to kill them like fifteen times each?

Overall, the special effects had more polish to them when compared to the first film.  There were times in Journey where it looked too much like a computer game, but I didn't get as much of that here.  I think a lot of that look was due to the high frame rate used.  I saw Smaug in IMAX 3D with the high frame rate, and there were still times where it still had that artificial, sped-up look.  I thought it was much less noticeable though, but I can see how some viewers may still have an issue with it.  If you're on the fence about what format to see it in, you should probably err on the side of avoiding the HFR screenings.  I liked the 3D though and don't have a problem recommending it.

Another reason I enjoyed Smaug so much is that there's a lot more action.  Journey took close to an hour before anything happened, but there's less setup in Smaug and more getting to the very creative and fun action scenes throughout the film.  The "barrel scene" has a almost Rube Goldberg feel to it, as did another scene later in the film.  Again, there there are many scenes with Tauriel and Legolas where they get to kick ass.  There are arrows to the head and beheadings galore.  Oh, and there's no musical sequences this time around.  It's not that I dislike them, but they're not always my thing or don't necessarily fit well in the story.  I also appreciated that there was less corny humor.  The whole tone of the film is much darker.

It isn't just better effects and action though.  There were many character moments I appreciated.  In particular, I liked how they took time to show how Bilbo (Martin Freeman) is slowly getting corrupted by The Ring.  I enjoyed how Thorin (Richard Armitage) was developed, and I came away liking him bit a more than I did after Journey. Many of the company of dwarves get to show more personality, especially with Kili (Aiden Turner), who is one of the few characters that gets a love interest.  If there was any disappointment I had it's that Gandalf (Ian McKellen) took a bit of a back seat in this chapter.  I'm assuming he'll be back with a vengeance in the final chapter.

I had a lot of fun with The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug.  Sure, it's too long, and purists will have issues with the story, but it's still an improvement over An Unexpected Journey.  If anything, it gives fans another opportunity to hang out in Middle-earth while providing more of the action and spectacle that made The Lord of the Rings trilogy so entertaining.  Plus, there's a dragon...

4 (out of 5) Death Stars

12 Years a Slave (2013)

I've said a few times recently that a certain film is one of those good films that I never want to watch again.  Well, 12 Years a Slave takes the final prize for that crown.  No film this year will come close to matching the intensity, dread and emotion I felt.

It's kind of ironic that the film begins with a phrase I usually dislike, "based on a true story".  When I see that, I expect some wildly embellished story that only vaguely resembles the actual one.  Here you can't shake the feeling that this is pretty much exactly what happened.

This is based on the experience of Solomon Northup in his published book, Twelve Years a Slave.  Northup (Chiwetel Ejiofor), a free-born man living in Saratoga, NY, was a respected violin player.  After his wife and kids take a job out of town for a few weeks, he's approached by a duo that offers him a job playing for a circus.  After they arrive in Washington, D.C., Northup awakens after a night a drinking to find himself chained and sold into slavery.  With no way to prove he was a free man, he's advised by others to keep his mouth shut, do as he's told, and not even let on that he's educated.  He's forced to adopt the name of Platt as he's transported down south.

I never realized that it wasn't uncommon for a free man to be kidnapped and sold back into slavery.  It's absolutely crazy to me, but in those times without papers or someone to vouch for you, there wasn't much one could do once in that situation.

He's first sold to William Ford (Benedict Cumberbatch), who realizes Northrop's skills and treats him fairly well all things considering.  However, he butts heads with one of Ford's underlings, John Tibeats (Paul Dano).  After one particular encounter, Northrop suffers in one of many scenes that's truly difficult to watch.

Northrop is eventually sold to Edwin Epps (Michael Fassbender), a slaver known for his ability to break slaves.  Epps along with his wife, Mary (Sarah Paulson), are the living embodiment of evil.  Epps has his eyes on Patsey (Lupita Nyong'o), a slave that consistently picks the most cotton, but his affection towards her doesn't go unnoticed by Mary.

Finally, Northrop befriends Bass (Brad Pitt), a Canadian carpenter working for Epps.  At great risk, Bass is able to contact Northrop's family and they are finally able to get a lawman down to the plantation to prove who Northrop really is.  I debated telling that part as a spoiler, but considering Northrop wouldn't have been able to write his account if he wasn't free again, you already know from the beginning what the eventual outcome is going to be.  Trust me, it won't affect your feelings during the film either way.

12 Years a Slave focuses much of Northrop's experience on Epps plantation, as this is when you truly see the ugliness of slavery and their condition.  The Epps' cruelty seemed to know no bounds.  Already a drunk, Epps is a twisted person, but he's equally matched by Mary, who takes almost any opportunity to turn her wrath towards Patsey.  You'll be shocked and appalled at that brutality of their treatment.  There are several very graphic scenes that make The Passion of the Christ look tame.  These moments are painful and agonizing to get through.  I'm not exaggerating when I say this is the most physically uncomfortable I've ever been watching a film.  You'll likely hear many people around you crying, and I defy anyone to not have a dry eye by the end of the film.  It's conclusion is absolutely heart breaking.

This is a rated-R film and not something I recommend for the faint of heart.  I was surprised to see many families with small children with them.  It's an important film though, so if you have an older kid that you think that'll be able to handle the images, then you will want to consider taking them.

It's a good thing they got recognizable actors that you normally like to play these roles, or otherwise you'd hate them for real.  I sometimes feel for actors that take on roles where they are forced to be so horrible, say the n-word and have to mean it.  It must be very uncomfortable to them at first, but kudos goes to the whole cast for their performances.  Paul Dano once again manages to play a creepy weirdo that you just want to see get the tar beaten out of him, and love it when it does.  Paul Giamatti and Benedict Cumberbatch are are great as they always are.  Alfre Woodard stands out in her lone scene.  Fassbender and Paulson are also fantastic.  Like I said earlier, they personify evil with their performances.  I get this feeling that Fassbender is going to one of those actors that's always great, but slightly overshadowed by another performance in the same film.  He's gonna deserve some hardware at some point for all these great performances.  Another standout performance belongs to Lupita Nyong'o.  Just her first major role, she shows that she's another actress to look out for in the future.  However, this is all about Chiwetel Ejiofor.  I've been a fan of his for a while, but this is finally the role that I think is going to put him up at the top of short list.  Every scene he's in captures your full attention.  There's one particular scene towards the end where he's just looking around, thinking, and it's so powerful.  It is truly a commanding performance.

I think you're going to see many, many Oscar nominations across the board for this film.  The screenplay by John Ridley is note-perfect.  There's no throwaway dialog here.  After just three films, Steve McQueen has proven to be a brilliant director, and this is his masterpiece.  Every shot in the film seems to say something.  He's gonna have hard time topping this, but I can't wait to see what he does next.  Even the soundtrack by Hans Zimmer is haunting, and I was surprised to see that Zimmer did the music, as it didn't feel like one of his typical scores.  It felt more like the score from a horror film, which this is in a way.

Because of what 12 Years a Slave is about, I hesitated initially to call it great.  It feels wrong to call a film about slavery great, but that's what it is.  Brutal, emotional and powerful, it's a film that's going to stick with you long after viewing.  12 Years a Slave is a flawless film that's masterfully acted, written and directed and completely unforgettable.  I give it my highest recommendation.

5 (out of 5) Death Stars

Star Trek Into Darkness (2013)

What are Star Wars and Star Trek fans gonna argue about now that the franchises share the same director?  Can you just imagine how it would go?

"The last Star Trek movie had superior direction than Episode VII.  Ugh, and those lense flares on the lightsabers!  Are you kidding me?"

"Um...weren't they directed by the same guy?"

"Oh yeah..."

J.J. Abrams, uniting geeks since 2015.

It's really weirding me out that there's no colon in the title of Star Trek Into Darkness.  Shouldn't there be a colon between Star Trek and Into Darkness?  Otherwise, isn't the title saying that they are taking a trek, based in the stars, into darkness.  And what kind or darkness?  Space is dark, or do they mean darkness as in emotional tone?  I don't know why I'm hung up on that.

If you've been following my blog at all, or just look at my online name, it won't be a surprise to you that I'm not a huge Trekkie.  I didn't get into Trek until The Next Generation, which I loved.  I've also watched a fair amount of the more recent shows like Voyager, Deep Space Nine, and Enterprise, but I never really got into the Original Series.  Even the films featuring the original crew I've only seen once or twice each.  I understood the characters and the relationships, but I always felt like the Original Series and crew was a little before my time.

I was one of the guys that embraced the reboot and changes made in 2009's Star Trek.  I thought it was a good way to introduce Star Trek to the mainstream and a new generation, while still showing some respect to the Original Series.  In some ways I enjoyed Into Darkness even more than the previous film.  I didn't have to spend any time accepting a new cast or wrapping my head around the fact that it's set in an alternate timeline.  I was able to just sit back and enjoy the movie for what it is, and for most of the film that worked for me.  However, many things happen in the second half that really detracted from the film, and not just from a Star Trek perspective, but from a general storytelling one.

I can't really get into the plot too much without spoilers, but I will say that if you've been following the rumors about what Into Darkness was going to be about, I can say that much of what I heard was true, to varying degrees.

Everyone is back for another adventure.  This time the crew is responsible for tracking down a terrorist that has committed several attacks against the Federation.  This terrorist is a rogue Starfleet member named John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch).  He's retreated to Kronos, the Klingon homeworld.  Admiral Marcus (Peter Weller) tasks Kirk (Chris Pine) and the Enterprise to hunt him down, even though this may risk full on war with the Klingons.  This manhunt, as well as travelling so close to Klingon territory isn't something that sits well with several members of the crew.

Without revealing anything, they do a twist on a familiar Trek story, but I felt that many of these elements were totally forced.  Even if you weren't aware of any internet rumors or spoilers, the film has few surprises.  This will be especially true if you're familiar with the previous Star Trek film Into Darkness mostly references.

Another thing that really bugged me about the story is that they setup a climax that's supposed to have all this emotional significance, but a previous scene in the film has already let you know that what you're watching is not going to have any real consequence.  Knowing this takes all the impact out of it, and you could feel that the audience wasn't really affected by this either.  They should have been moved by it.  Another twist in the film is spoiled simply by having Peter Weller playing the role.  This isn't Weller's fault, but he's become one of those actors that when you see him in a role, you kind of have him pegged.  I didn't find these things plot holes (there are a few though), as much as just telegraphed storytelling.  It doesn't completely ruin the movie for me, but the more I think about certain plot elements, the more they bug me.

Plus, with shoehorning these familiar Trek elements into it, it takes away from this being original.  Why go through the trouble of rebooting Star Trek and going in a different direction if you're just going to spend a good portion of your second movie doing fan-service to previous stories?  The sad part is that until we get about halfway through the film, it still felt like it was going for something original.

Even though the story was a bit of a disappointment, I wasn't disappointed at all with the look of the film or the action.  J.J. Abrams certainly knows how to make an action packed film that's filled with great effects and is never boring to look at.  There are some great sequences throughout the film and it doesn't let up for a minute.  People have joked for a while that when he made Star Trek he really just made a Star Wars film, and now it's clear that he really is ideally suited for Episode VII.  I can't wait to see what he does with it now.

Seriously, this is only a slight exaggeration this time around.

The 3D is actually good for a change.  I saw this in RPX and this is an example of where I thought it enhanced my enjoyment of the film.  I just heard that 30 minutes of this was shot in IMAX, so even though I didn't see it in IMAX, I'd recommend seeing it in that format if it's available to you.  Oh yeah, this movie's got lense flares galore.

Another strength is that it does have some very funny dialog.  The cast still has great chemistry, and that's holding these films together.  I was a little surprised by how much people say "shit" in the future though.  You'd think we would have phased that out by then.

While in the last film, I thought Uhura (Zoe Saldana), Sulu (John Cho), Chekov (Anton Yelchin), and especially Bones (Karl Urban) had their moments, I felt like this time the real standouts were Scotty (Simon Pegg) and Spock (Zachary Quinto).  Simon Pegg in particular is a total scene stealer.  I also enjoyed Benedict Cumberbatch's performance even though there were many things about his character that bugged me.  I wasn't quite sold on Chris Pine this time around though.  While I really liked him in the first film, I had a harder time buying into some of the scenes where he was trying to be intense and angry.  I think some of this comes from how the characters were written though.  The motivations of both Kirk and Harrison weren't consistent for me.

As far as summer blockbusters go, there's a lot to like about Star Trek Into Darkness.  If you're a fan of the last Star Trek or sci-fi action in general, then it delivers on exactly what you're expecting.  However, if you're a Trekkie, your mileage may vary, especially in the third act where even a non-Trekkie like myself had issues with some of the forced plot elements.  Still though, it has great effects, tons of fast-paced action and enough funny moments to please those looking for a good time at the movies.

3.5 (out of 5) Death Stars