Gone Girl

  Amy Dunne is missing and presumed dead, and her husband Nick is the prime suspect in her murder. Did Nick kill his wife, and if he didn’t then who did?
  Let me just start off by saying that I loved the initial trailer for this movie. Something about the sadness of it was moving to me, and I was excited to see the film based on the trailer alone, although the fact that it was directed by David Fincher (Se7en, Fight Club, Zodiac) didn’t hurt. I liked the trailer so much I added it to my favorites playlist on YouTube, and have watched it multiple times. To my great surprise the movie glimpsed in the trailer is not what you get when you see the final film, the difference is night and day. While I was a little disappointed that the movie wasn’t that first trailer stretched out to feature length, I was happy to be surprised. I only watched the first trailer for Gone Girl, I don’t know if the other trailers revealed more of the story, but if they didn’t then that is a great thing. Too many trailers hand the entire plot to the viewer, making seeing the actual film somewhat pointless. I’m happy this movie wasn’t spoiled for me.
  Rosamund Pike plays Amy, and her character is the heart of the movie. I’ve seen Pike in a few other films, while she is quite beautiful I never remember being particularly impressed by her acting, but she does great as Amy, showing off an intelligence and intensity that is frightening. I am a big fan of Ben Affleck’s career as a director, but not so much his skills as an actor, but I have to say here he does pretty good work. The relationship between him and his wife is crucial to the film’s success, and the chemistry achieved by the two actors is sufficient to hook the audience. There are some other quality performances in this, but due must be given to Tyler Perry as his scene stealing, Johnnie Cochran like lawyer. I’m not a fan of Perry’s movies, but he is great as this character.
  I’ve been a casual supporter of David Fincher for years, but that may have to change. With the possible exceptions of Panic Room and Alien 3, all of Fincher’s films have been worth seeing, and he is continuously proving his chops with every subsequent release. I didn’t enjoy Gone Girl as much as some of his other movies, but that is no insult to be sure. Zodiac is probably my favorite thing he’s ever done, but I’ll take Gone Girl over most other studio releases any day.
  While I was sold on the film’s gloomy trailer, the tone of the piece is all over the place, this movie is many things, frequently thrilling, funny and shocking. I want to say more about the plot but I think doing so would be a disservice to the reader, so instead I will tell you that you should see this movie and discover it’s surprises for yourself.

Night Moves

  Kelly Reichardt might be my favorite director, I’ve enjoyed all of her movies that I’ve seen, and I’ve watched them all save one. It was the film Wendy and Lucy that first brought her to my attention. After reading Ebert’s review of the film, I had to check it out, and it became one of my favorite films. I’ve said before that I love realism in movies, and that is why I adore Wendy and Lucy and Reichardt’s films in general. Her movies are ultra realistic, and contain nuanced characters. This is subtle film-making, without the stupidity and cheese that dominates everything playing at the multiplex. Last year when I heard about her latest movie Night Moves, I was very excited. I finally got to see the film a few weeks ago and I have to say I wasn't disappointed, I don’t think this is her finest work, but it’s damn good.
  The story revolves around three eco terrorists who plot to blow up a dam. Once their scheme comes to fruition, the three are met with unexpected consequences that result in conflict and tragedy.  
  Jesse Eisenberg plays the lead terrorist, with Dakota Fanning and Peter Sarsgaard as the other two. These are accomplished, big name actors, and Reichardt uses them to their grittiest. Eisenberg plays the usual neurotic loner that he does in all of his movies, but with a slightly sinister edge and he gives this character a sub current of anger appropriate of someone plotting a bombing. Dakota Fanning is the one who pays for the boat (which she names Night Moves) and the fertilizer needed to fashion the explosive, the other two write her off as a spoiled brat for this reason. Peter Sarsgaard is the bomb maker and most frightening of the three, as we learn that he has military training and has spent time in prison. What unites these characters is their passion for environmentalism and open hostility for the greedy, destructive culture they live in. While they start off friendly, as the movie progresses relationships are strained between them as the pressure from the ensuing manhunt tests them in ways they were not prepared for.
  I watched this movie with a conservative friend of mine, and she told me during the film that this was Hollywood’s usual environmentalist propaganda, a notion that I quickly dismissed. The three environmentalists are not portrayed as heroic or noble, and their destruction of the dam is questioned openly. A background character at one point voices the opinion that whoever blew up the dam has achieved nothing, and that multiple dams would have to be destroyed simultaneously to create any lasting impact.
  The movie played with my expectations during a pivotal scene. As the plot moves forward you’re expecting one character to do something, and when that something is done by a different character I was surprised, though others may have seen it coming.
  This is perhaps Reichardt’s darkest film to date, Meek’s Cutoff had characters brandishing guns but I don’t remember much, if any, actual bloodshed. This film has a bomb going off (though we never see the explosion, we do hear it) and a small body count, this isn’t Friday the 13th but compared to her earlier movies this is pretty gruesome stuff.
  If this movie sounds interesting to you, or if you’ve never heard of Kelly Reichardt, I would highly recommend you seek out Night Moves or any of the director’s other titles. This is one I will be adding to the collection. I await Ms. Reichardt’s next film with great anticipation.

Joe

  Nicolas Cage plays Joe, an honest, hard working man trying to go straight after spending time in prison. When he hires an abused teen named Gary, Joe finds himself getting back into trouble as Gary’s problems become his own.
  Despite all the horrible stuff he makes, I am still a fan of Nicolas Cage. When he isn’t turning out shit like Left Behind or terrible movies about Ghost Rider, he occasionally shows audiences why he is a star. Say what you will about Bangkok Dangerous or National Treasure parts one and two, the man can act. If you’ve never seen him in a good movie, I would highly recommend Leaving Las Vegas, his performance as a guy drinking himself to death is heart breaking. Adaptation is another fine performance, in which he plays twins, giving each their own distinct personality.
  Joe isn’t a great movie, but it’s a solid film and as a fan of Nicolas Cage I was happy to see him in something good. Joe is a character on the razor’s edge, he has been through an awful lot and his pain is raw. He is trying hard to survive and follow the rules, but life is constantly testing him. When he takes in Gary, a good kid with his own problems, things go into overdrive. Gary’s abusive father and a local thug with a grudge against Joe team up to put him to the final test.
  The movie is quite dark and violent, but it does have some positive scenes. Joe’s relationship with Gary is touching, the two seem to really appreciate each other. Joe at first does not want to get involved in Gary’s problems, but by the end of the movie he cannot resist himself as he seems to genuinely care for the youth.
  Cage doesn’t completely pull off the character of Joe, at least not the pure machismo that Joe requires. This character is a hardened bad-ass, a violent man that can barely contain his pain and rage. Cage nails the pain, but I wasn’t fully convinced that Cage was the violent force of nature Joe is supposed to be. I like this movie but it might have been better to cast an actor who is more physically imposing, like Tom Hardy or one of the Wayans brothers. I’m just kidding, fuck the Wayans brothers.
  This movie has two good villains, Gary’s father Wade is a lazy, despicable monster who is capable of horrifying acts. In one scene we see him follow another drunk around, until he eventually strikes up a conversation with the man, before casually murdering him for his wallet and booze. The other bad guy is Willie Russell, a maniac with a scarred face that oozes sleaze. Watching the movie, I was eager to see Joe’s righteous fury consume these two creeps, the tension built was palpable.
  Joe was directed by David Gordon Green, who started off his career by making critically acclaimed, low budget dramas. Since then Green has moved onto more audience friendly films like Pineapple Express and Your Highness. I liked Pineapple Express but I’m glad to see the director go back to his roots, stoner movies are good in small doses but I know I’m more interested in movies like Joe.
  There’s a subplot about Joe’s love interest, a young woman who’s staying with him, but it doesn’t really go anywhere. Joe’s a pretty damaged character, and at this point it’s probably too late for romance to save him.
  I am giving Joe a recommendation, it’s not Earth shattering, but it is good stuff, and one of the better entries from Cage’s growing filmography of awful films. I had fun mentioning some of the shit movies the man has starred in, so to end this review I will mention some more. The Rock. Con Air. Face/Off. Windtalkers. The Wicker Man remake. Next. Season of the Witch. Drive Angry. The Sorcerer’s Apprentice.
  Jesus Christ, they’re making a National Treasure 3? Who watches this shit?

Whitewash

  After accidentally killing a man with his snow plow, unemployed widower Bruce drives it deep into the woods where he becomes stranded. With the authorities looking for him and the man he hit, Bruce must battle the freezing cold and his own sense of guilt. Is there redemption in the forest, or just ice and snow?
  This is one of those artsy fartsy type of movies that a large percentage of moviegoers will hate, but I usually love. Smaller stories are more interesting to me, they feel less like movies and more like glimpses into a person’s everyday life. As someone who just gave X-Men: Days of Future Past a favorable review, I can safely say that I love stupid, big budget schlock as much as the next guy, but it is movies like this that increasingly interest me as I get older.
  The highlight of this film is definitely Thomas Haden Church’s performance as Bruce. This is Church’s show, and he gives a compelling performance as a guy in some pretty bizarre and miserable circumstances. Bruce is alone for most of the movie, so we get to see him struggle to survive the elements while battling his own demons. We observe Bruce rehearse the lies he will tell the police if he is caught, as well as witness instances of him lashing out at his surroundings. This movie probably isn’t as good as Church’s performance in Sideways, but it sure as hell beats what he did in six seasons of Wings and that awful, third Spider-Man movie.
  As the film continues, we learn that Bruce and the man he killed were connected, a relationship that definitely seems to haunt Bruce. The movie also subtly suggests that the main character is an alcoholic who misses his wife, who we learn died of cancer some time ago.
  One thing I must mention is that this is one of those movies that just stops, something I don’t mind at all but I know can bother a lot of people. If you hate it when movies don’t wrap up everything in a neat little package, then look elsewhere.
  Like I said before, this is a small story, more of a character study then your usual action movie nonsense. If watching a movie about an internally conflicted snow plow driver sounds appealing to you, then check this out. Anyone who likes Thomas Haden Church and wants to see him conduct odd conversations with himself while freezing his ass off is in for a treat. Recommended.

X-Men: Days of Future Past

   Before I start the review I thought I’d give some background on my history with the X-Men and superheroes in general. Growing up I was a huge comic book fan, I used to ride my bike to my local comic shop frequently and have a blast looking at all the cool stuff. While I was more into Marvel then DC, I bought a little bit of everything. I would buy third party comics like Dark Horse and Image and more from more obscure comic companies. My favorite Marvel comics were Spider Man, the Avengers, and Thunderbolts. I was into X-Men, but not so much the comics, I think I had a few but I was more about the 90s cartoon, the video games and the toys. When the first Bryan Singer X-Men movie came out I was pretty excited, the idea of a live action X-Men film was awesome, even if, re-watching the movie today, it’s not that great. Still, the first Singer X-Men movie was important because it helped create the superhero movie renaissance we are enjoying today. 

   X-Men: Days of Future Past was released in the summer of 2014, I was too busy doing other stuff last year and did not get a chance to watch it, until a few days ago when Netflix delivered the disc to my house. After such a long wait, was I happy with the movie? In a word, yes.  

   The movie takes place partly in the future, where we see the X-Men facing tough times. A war with highly advanced robots called Sentinels has wiped out nearly all mutants and humans alike. These are bleak days, and the surviving X-Men are in a constant struggle to stay one step ahead of their inhuman pursuers. Eventually our heroes decide to send Wolverine into the past so he can prevent this grim future, in a battle that will unite life long enemies Professor X and Magneto. 

   I enjoyed this movie about as much as the last X-Men movie, which was X-Men: First Class. Both movies are solid additions to the X cinema verse, although neither film is enjoyable as, say, an Avengers, Iron Man or Captain America: The Winter Soldier. Fox does moderately good work with their franchise, but they’re no Marvel Studios. 

   I didn’t find a lot of flaws with the movie, aside from a goofy/ridiculous plot the only main fault I had with the film was it’s focus on the character of Mystique, specifically the idea that she was involved in a kind of love triangle with Professor X and Magneto. The last X-Men film did spend a little time on Mystique, but not in the way that Days of Future Past suggests. To suddenly overstate her relationships with Prof. X and Magneto felt strange to me, and somewhat forced. I kept asking myself at what point did Mystique suddenly become such an important character. 

   The effects and action were fun, especially if you want to see scenes of the X-Men being slaughtered by robots. The fight scenes are also somewhat inventive, as you get to see mutants using their powers to aid one another in cool ways. This film also introduces some new mutants, including Bishop, Sunspot, Warpath, and Blink. There is also a great sequence featuring Quicksilver, who basically steals the whole movie. The upcoming Avengers: Age of Ultron will also feature the character of Quicksilver, and I have to say, Days of Future Past sets the bar pretty high in this regard, I doubt Avengers 2 will have as memorable a version of the character as the one seen in this film.

   Would I recommend this movie? That depends on how much you like the X-Men and superhero movies in general. If you can’t get enough superheroes then you’ve probably already seen this movie, but if you’re on the fence and you like the X-Men then I would say yes, this movie is worth checking out. If you aren’t a big fan of costumed heroes or are starting to suffer from superhero exhaustion then you might want to skip this one. As someone who grew up with these characters I was pleased enough with the movie, though your mileage may vary.