Director: Ridley Scott
Writers: Cormac McCarthy
Stars: Michael Fassbender, Penélope Cruz, Cameron Diaz, Brad Pitt, Javier Bardem

Synopsis: A lawyer finds himself in over his head when he gets involved in drug trafficking.

[/info]

DIRECTION
Ridley Scott is one hell of a director and someone I adore but The Counselor is near the bottom of the list for Scott. This film is a muddled mess with a script that leaves Scott is a terrible place to begin with. When you put Scott and Cormac McCarthy (Author of books such as The Road and No Country For Old Men) together, you’d think it would be gold. But what Scott puts out is nothing short of misery and and pain. There are some glimpses throughout the movie though that are interesting. In particular a sequence between Javier Bardem and Micheal Fassbender’s characters as they are describing a flashback with Cameron Diaz’s character and it is…well interesting. Outside of there, there’s not much to like here.

Grade: D+

[divider]

SCRIPT
I have a lot of respect for McCarthy as a book author but his first attempt for a screenplay is nothing short of a disaster. It’s incredibly bleak, lifeless and full of characters that are anything but likable. You kind of feel for Fassbender’s character a little bit, but his own choices put him in the situation. The dialogue is too intelligent for it’s own good and takes the audience right out of the film. It’s also unrealistic, sets up almost every scene in the third act and makes the characters seem unbelievable. The story is messy and expects you to assume things that go unexplained and will be confusing if you don’t pay attention to it. It’s nothing more than a situation where no one is a winner, hope is all but gone and everything is grim. McCarthy’s story isn’t unique or new, just bleak and lifeless.

Grade: D

[divider]

PERFORMANCES
Finally, something worth talking about. The performances are pretty solid for the most part. Fassbender is really good and brings a lot of emotion to the character. His character doesn’t have a ton of depth but the emotion is something that is extremely well done. Brad Pitt and Javier Bardem don’t have a ton to do expect spit out unrealistic, heavy dialogue but they do it in an engaging way. Penélope Cruz is the only innocent one in the bunch and, again, isn’t given much to do. Diaz is probably the worst one and the one you hate the most as well. She does a great job of making you want to punch her in the throat, which I give props for, but she isn’t always believable either.

Grade: B+

[divider]

SCORE
Daniel Pemberton’s score is absolutely beautiful. The sad thing though is that it’s in a movie that is forgettable and only enhances the worst features of the film. There are some scenes where Fassbender’s character is really emotional and the score is absolutely gorgeous. It’s even high-paced thriller in some of the more exciting spots. But since the film is full of despair and brokenness, the score unfortunately only enhances those elements.

Grade: A-

[divider]

FINAL THOUGHTS
There is a scene toward the end of the film where Fassbender is in tears realizing the situation he is in and the consequences he’s caused. While on the phone with a friend, who is explaining him the realities of it all, we see a scene that is actually one of the better one’s of the year. Again, like the score, it only enhances the worst parts of the film, but it’s well done and sums up the whole tone and story of The Counselor. The movie tries to be outside the box but only lives in despair and lifeless blunder.

Overall Grade: D+

Director: Jeff Tremaine (Jackass Movie Series)
Writer: Johnny Knoxville with story support from Fax Bahr, Spike Jonze, Adam Small, Jeff Tremaine
Stars: Johnny Knoxville, Jackson Nicoll
Synopsis: 86-year-old Irving Zisman is on a journey across America with the most unlikely companion: his 8 year-old grandson, Billy.

[/info]

DIRECTION

Just as the old saying goes, when something ain’t broke, there’s no need to fix it. Jeff Tremaine has worked with Knoxville and his band of jackasses on all of the Jackass theatrical releases over the years. In the newest release, he continues to up the ante a bit on the production end of things, as well as his choices in the cutting room. Due to Johnny Knoxville’s experience with minimal budgets and resources, lack of footage has never been a problem for these projects. Throw in veteran craftsmanship, time to come up with new and hilarious ideas, and a somewhat different avenue of the Jackass brand (the fictional Bad Grandpa) and what you’ll find on the screen is a wildly successful demonstration of how to make audiences laugh. Tremaine stays out of Knoxville’s way while still exercising his position to maintain a most satisfying duration and mix of comedy.
Grade: A

[divider]

SCRIPT

Johnny Knoxville is the mastermind behind Jackass, and more than likely this is the brand he will be remembered for. It’s no surprise that he wrote the screenplay or that he gives his director some story credit as well, but what is interesting to me is the inclusion of three others as it pertains to the story. First are Fax Bahr and Adam Small, an experienced comedy writing duo whose writing credits include In Living Color and MADtv, as well as the screenplay for In The Army Now. On top of those two is Spike Jonze, a star director in Hollywood whose credits include Being John Malkovich, Adaptation, and the upcoming Joaquin Phoenix led OS-romance entitled Her. I’ll talk more about Jonze in the performances section, though. What makes this a great film is the evolution of Jackass as a property, and this is a good example of an experience group of people who keep building to make a franchise better and better. It’s too bad so many other properties don’t receive the same love and affection.

Grade: A

[divider]

PERFORMANCES

Johnny Knoxville is barely recognizable as Irving Zisman, and while we know it is him under the prosthetic, it is never obvious. This character feels like a part of Knoxville, a unique character which all great comedians have in them. The prosthetic is amazing, and we get to see a sneak-peek at the transformation in the credit scenes. Rarely are makeup artists mentioned, but Steve Prouty deserves recognition for the job he has done here. It’s no surprise though, since he is hard at work. Most recently, you might have seen his work in Thor, Star Trek: Into Darkness, Zombieland, and Men in Black III. Interestingly enough, Catherine Keener and Spike Jonze had larger roles in the film that were trimmed out to focus more on the main story arc, but Jonze has said that we’re certain to see the material at some point. With all of that said, the performance that seemed to consistently win over the audience was Jackson Nicoll’s Billy. Being the grandson of Irving has its comedic benefits of course, but the kid is not just a sidekick. He has a lot to do and when he is given the lead, he is entirely genuine and quite a pleasure to watch. I hope we see him again soon.

Grade: A

[divider]

SCORE

Ben Hochstein provides the usual Jackass tunes but throws in some nice complementary material as well. While the score never shines bright, one cannot dismiss the major brand identity that Jackass derives from its simple guitar riffs and sounds.

Grade: B

[divider]

Final Thoughts:

If you like Jackass, you’ll love Bad Grandpa. With a great grandfather-grandson dynamic between Johnny Knoxville’s Irving and Jackson Nicoll’s Billy, a fantastic director who compiles a perfect amount and variety of footage, and hilarious sketch ideas from a host of talented writers, this grandpa turns out to be actually quite good. Seek it out in theaters and have a good time with audiences this weekend.

Overall Grade: A+

Director: Mikael Håfström
Writers: Miles Chapman (screenplay), Jason Keller (screenplay)
Stars: Sylvester Stallone, Arnold Schwarzenegger, 50 Cent, Jim Caviezel

Synopsis: When a structural-security authority finds himself set up and incarcerated in the world’s most secret and secure prison, he has to use his skills to escape with help from the inside.

[/info]

DIRECTION
Mikael Håfström kept things pretty simple for Escape Plan. Håfström let the story speak for itself and he let the actors carry the movie and the action in the ways you thought he would. There are a few shots that showcase the prison well and we get a unique glance at how the prison is built and why it’s so unique. When we finally get to “the reveal” of what’s happening, it was handled really great. Håfström’s biggest win though? This movie is fun. It’s the typical action you’d expect and the fun you’ve always had with these actors in the past.

Grade: B+

[divider]

SCRIPT
The script is mostly pretty straight forward, although it does have a few (and probably unnecessary) complications in the middle of the film. The story follows Breslin, Sylvester Stallone, who escapes prisons for a living and is now having to escape a prison he essentially built himself, via a book he wrote. The reasons he is captured and in a new prison will involve spoilers and is also the part that could of been a little less complicated. Outside of that small subplot, Breslin meets up with Rottmayer, Arnold Schwarzenegger, who become friends and now work together to find a way out. That’s pretty much it. There are a few twists but it’s fun and what you’d expect for a movie like this. It has cheesy dialogue but lines that you’ll be able to repeat over and over again. In other words, it’s a Stallone and Schwarzenneger movie.

Grade: B+

[divider]

PERFORMANCES
The performances are pretty solid. One of the most amazing things about Escape Plan, is that they managed to turn 50 Cent into the most gangster computer geek of all time. And I mean that. He didn’t have much to do, but he was awesome. You got to give a lot of love to Jim Caviezel here. He was incredible as the bad guy and pulled it off extremely well. Faran Tahir and Amy Ryan gave descent supporting roles as well. Sam Neill was also great and I wish he had more to do. His role was very small, but crucial to the story which was pretty great. And what you gonna say about Stallone and Schwarzenneger? They are who they are and it’s awesome. This is a much better movie and story than the movies they both had earlier this year. The characters are deeper, more fun and in a situation that would be awful. But that’s why we enjoy watching these guys’ do it.

Grade: A-

[divider]

SCORE
Alex Heffes get’s the score here and it’s not bad. It’s typical action-fare score but it’s good for what the movie needs. It doesn’t stand out in any particular way but it also doesn’t detract.

Grade: B

[divider]

FINAL THOUGHTS
Before I get any comments, don’t be confused with my final grade and the title of this review. The action is grade A and it’s what we’d expect from these guys. However, it’s not something we have a section for in our reviews. Overall, it’s fun, it’s cheesy, it’s chaotic and it’s good. You gotta love these guys together.

Overall Grade: B+

Director: Peter Landesman
Writers: Peter Landesman, Vincent Bugliosi (book)
Stars: Zac Efron, Tom Welling, Billy Bob Thornton, Paul Giamatti, Marcia Gay Harden

Synopsis: A recounting of the chaotic events that occurred at Dallas’ Parkland Hospital on the day U.S. President John F. Kennedy was assassinated.

[/info]

DIRECTION
Peter Landesman’s Parkland is defined by one word: Chaos. While this film may not work for many, it’s actually a great representation of what the situation probably felt like for many. Landesman uses a lot of real clips and embeds them into the situation as President Kennedy arrives in Dallas to begin his final moments. While the actual assassination isn’t shown, the initial reactions are contrived and not real but you understand that chaos is ensuing. Once that moment occurs Landesman doesn’t relent on the intensity of the situation. From the moment President Kennedy was assassinated, I can imagine people were running around scared, confused, shocked and trying to deal with what just happened. And Landesman captured that confusion and chaos really well for the most part but the direction only works if you look at it from that perspective.

Grade: B+

[divider]

SCRIPT
Parkland‘s scrip is unfocused, doesn’t build characters and is all over the place. It’s not even about the hopital the title of the movie is named after. In the traditional sense of storytelling, it’s awful. But here’s the thing. Given the direction, if this movie had all of those things, it wouldn’t of worked for what it was doing. Once President Kennedy is shot, he’s rushed to Parkland Hospital where we see doctors, FBI agents and the Secret Service rushing in the body as they feverishly try to save President Kennedy’s life. There’s blood everywhere and incredibly intense as they do everything they can. We then meet Robert Oswald who has learned his brother killed the President and the residual side effects that come from that. We also see the FBI and Secret Service watching the Zapruder film and the astonishing first moments they see the film and the shock and horror of what just happened. The story then cuts to the FBI who learned they’ve been tracking Lee Harvey Oswald for awhile and had the ability to stop him but didn’t. So yeah, the story is all over the place. But what the script provides, is a look into the craziness of what the situation would of felt like. Everyone was in shock and people’s emotions were sky high as a beloved president was just killed in a very public setting. It would of been chaotic and the movie reflects that. So in a really strange, un-traditional way, it works if you’re okay with looking at the film from that perspective.

Grade: B+

[divider]

PERFORMANCES
This movie is pretty un-traditional and has characters that we only see in glimpses. That being said, for what the movie was doing, the performances were great and pretty intense. Paul Giamatti as Abraham Zapruder was very good and a character that never recovered from the emotional tragedy he experienced that day. Zac Efron, who plays a medical doctor, was pretty good since he didn’t seem to fit the role at first. However, he didn’t have much to do so it was actually pretty fitting. Billy Bob Thornton plays an Secret Service agent who just lost the president and plays the role intensely and very passionate. James Badge Dale plays Robert Oswald and we see the effects on the Oswald’s family and how Lee Harvey changed the whole dynamic of that family. There are many more characters and all the performances were good. Like the theme of the film, they were passionate and chaotic, which is what they were trying to achieve.

Grade: A-

[divider]

SCORE
James Newton Howard is a pretty reliable composer, especially for films that call for dramatic themes and scores. This movie is unrelenting in it’s intensity and the score reflects that well. From the very beginning, the score is ramped up and in your face the whole time. It’s got some great themes and works really well. Perhaps, it’s a little bit much but musically it’s still appealing to the ears.

Grade: A-

[divider]

FINAL THOUGHTS
Parkland only works if you see the film for what it’s doing. Landesman is only giving you glimpses of the situation from many different characters and perspectives. From a traditional standpoint, it’s all over the place, very unfocused and is…well chaotic. However, that’s what everyone involved in that situation would of felt and it would of been chaotic for them. People’s emotions would of been sky high and all over the place. People were heartbroken and not sure what to think. So for that reason, the film works on that level. If you see the film and you don’t see it that way, you’ll struggle finding much to like about it.

Overall Grade: B+

Director: Kimberly Peirce (Boys Don’t Cry)
Writer: Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa and Lawrence D. Cohen 
Stars: Chloe Grace Moretz (Kick-Ass, (500) Days of Summer, Let Me In, Hugo) and Julianne Moore (Magnolia, The Big Lebowski, Children of Men)
Synopsis: A reimagining of the classic horror tale about Carrie White, a shy girl outcast by her peers and sheltered by her deeply religious mother, who unleashes telekinetic terror on her small town after being pushed too far at her senior prom.

[/info]

DIRECTION

Kimberly Peirce does an acceptable job of making this movie work. She could’ve done much more to preserve the magic of the 1976 adaptation directed by her close friend Brian De Palma, but supposing she wanted to make her own mark on the character she did fine. Peirce’s Carrie is much more cliche in that she doesn’t seem very different to us than modern horror villains. In fact, it gets a bit ridiculous at times. Scenes involving actors other than Moretz or Moore were tough to watch at times as the cuts Peirce used were pretty atrocious. Other scenes were spot on. It was a strange film from the standpoint of the director in my opinion. Some shots were pretty cool, others were total throwaways. Some missed opportunities, but some added effects. Overall I feel like this movie just never found its rightful place, and Peirce just didn’t feel overly enthused with creating anything special to me.

Grade: C-

[divider]

SCRIPT

The script felt very toned down from the novel and the De Palma film which really disappointed me. However, in this day and age of cinema, I can understand why Peirce went for the PG-13 rating. Oh, wait, it’s Rated R? Wow, why not be a little edgier then? I’m not so sure what happened here, but beyond the gratuitous violence scenes toward the end, this felt very boring to me. By simply re-arranging what happened in other versions of the story, Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa and Lawrence D. Cohen did little in the vein of creativity. I felt like this script must have been rushed at some point, because the movie seems to lose focus of who Carrie actually is. Is she an innocent infected by a dark power that takes over, or is she an evil scorn young woman who uses her powers to her advantage to sadistic extremes? The scene post-Prom felt especially out of place considering what Carrie has been through and done up to that point in the film. The ending seemed overloaded with unnecessary plot twists and at the end of the day, this was just another forgettable horror movie. If not for the franchise following, we’d forget about this one pretty quickly. As it stands, whoever takes on this material in the future has a lot of room for improvement over the most recent incarnation.

Grade: D

[divider]

PERFORMANCES

Chloe Grace Moretz is one of my favorite young actresses. As far as the lead role in Carrie though, she just didn’t have the emotional range at this point in her career. Moretz seems too likable, too empirically beautiful, and most of all too confused on screen as Carrie. At times she seemed to believe that the audience was supposed to empathize with her character, but at others she seemed to play Carrie as evil beyond moments of anger and passion. Even when not comparing her to Sissy Spacek, she still just never felt right for the character from King’s famous novel. Some of the other performances in the film were acceptable, but the only one worth mentioning is Julianne Moore as Margaret White (Carrie’s super-religious mother). Moore seems to give the director what she wanted, and for the most part she was solid. There were times where I felt like her facial expressions felt the same in many different situations–do we really keep the same expression when in a fight for our life that we have at our boring jobs? I just didn’t buy some of it. The supporting roles were very fluffy and didn’t require a lot of heavy lifting, but for the most part they were played just fine. Nothing above average in this whole film to these eyes.

Grade: C

[divider]

SCORE

The score here featured a modern indie soundtrack as well as some solid original music from veteran composer Marco Beltrami. Some of the better tracks were provided by artists such as Vampire Weekend, The Civil Wars, and Rogue Wave. While the score was not on par with the 1976 version, it was still a good one and Beltrami added quite a bit to several scenes.

Grade: B

[divider]

Final Thoughts:

Upon hearing of the new adaptation, King remarked, “The real question is why, when the original was so good?” That really says it all. I am not against remakes, but in this case the new one stole and shrunk great scenes from the original and added little of anything of value. Moretz was a big miscast and I wish we had gotten Lindsay Lohan (she was who King and Spacek both suggested). Bottom line is stay home and watch the old version. You won’t miss a darn thing.

Overall Grade: C

Director: Bill Condon (Twilight: Breaking Dawn, Dreamgirls, Kinsey, Gods and Monsters)
Writer: Josh Singer
Stars: Benedict Cumberbatch, Daniel Brühl, Stanley Tucci, Laura Linney
Synopsis: A dramatic thriller based on real events that reveals the quest to expose the deceptions and corruptions of power that turned an Internet upstart into the 21st century’s most fiercely debated organization.

[/info]

DIRECTION

The Fifth Estate is a sharp looking adaptation of true life events that makes the picture a hot topic of discussion worldwide. Bill Condon is at the helm of this controversial look at Julian Assange and Wikileaks, the organization which infamously leaked top secret documents, videos, and other highly classified information belonging to many of the world’s governments starting back in December of ’06. Bill Condon does his best to guide us along the way, utilizing a controversial screenplay as well as his cast & crew (notably featuring Benedict Cumberbatch as Assange). Condon has already taken home an award this year for his direction of Twilight: Breaking Dawn Part II. That may sound like a good thing, but actually he was recognized as Worst Director at the Razzies. I can’t speak to that because by the time that part of the series had arrived I had already checked out, but I can say that the direction for The Fifth Estate will not net him any Razzie nominations. Condon may not always get the best material to work with, but he manages to do some interesting things here. Not being any more familiar with the material than the average audience member who will go to the theater to see this film, I never felt lost or confused, and that is an accomplishment in direction. Condon uses intertitles very effectively and we truly get a grasp on each location as its own unique aesthetic.

Grade: B

[divider]

SCRIPT

Based on material written in two separate books by Daniel Domscheit-Berg (Inside WikiLeaks: My Time with Julian Assange at the World’s Most Dangerous Website) and David Leigh & Luke Harding (WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange’s War on Secrecy), the screenplay ends up being a near-complete history of Wikileaks. Yes, the Assange character receives the most attention of any character in the script, but it is because he is the founder of Wikileaks as opposed to being a character study on the man himself. The story really reminded me a lot of The Social Network in that we are being shown the foundation of a website in a way that explores not just the “what” but the “why”. Both films feature a dictatorial, egotistical genius at their respective helm, and in both cases helps explain why the websites were so successful. The Assange character mentions that it takes two things to make something successful: a good idea and maximum commitment. The script for The Social Network had both, but The Fifth Estate, I would argue, has neither. There are some good ideas here (such as the fantasy/dream-like representation of the size and scope of the organization) but none seem correctly placed or finished. The lack of commitment to one specific area of the script makes this a paper-thin patty with a huge bun–not enough meat, but lots of breading. The amount of time Singer spends on the relationship between Daniel Berg (Daniel Bruhl) and his significant other was inexcusable and poorly thought out as it seemed like something else just pulled from The Social Network to add drama. What Singer delivers on is an average script which can keep mainstream audiences interested. What he does not deliver is anything more than that. For the cultural importance this story holds, that is not enough.

Grade: C-

[divider]

PERFORMANCES

Benedict Cumberbatch is having one heck of a year, and his portrayal of Julian Assange only adds another notch to his belt. His performance as Assange was as flawless as I can imagine him giving under the circumstances of the screenplay, and credit must be given to him for doing his best to give justice to a character of current historical relevancy. Daniel Bruhl was good as Daniel Berg, but he just didn’t get a lot of interesting material to work with. His character in The Edukators was much more interesting, and I really wished I was watching that movie instead of this one for his sake (and mine). Laura Linney and Stanley Tucci played as what felt like two characters pulled straight out of Zero Dark Thirty (they were the middle-aged geopolitical experts pulling strings from Washington) and had to have one of the worst introductory scenes of any major actors I’ve seen in a film this year. The scene features them both stone-faced and is nearly laughably bad and should be lying on the cutting room floor. Overall though, the performance by our two leads makes for a mostly well-acted film.

Grade: B-

[divider]

SCORE

The highlight of the film for me, the score created by Carter Burwell was edgy, slick, and again reminded me of the modern feel of The Social Network. This score is not quite up to par with that one, but it is very imaginative. I felt like I was in a Euro dance club at times (which did happen more than once in the film) and that gave me a real feeling as to where this movie took place. It never felt American to me, and I give credit to Burwell for scoring a film in a way that keeps us at a global perspective.

Grade: A

[divider]

Final Thoughts:

The Fifth Estate is not a great film. The subject matter makes it interesting, the directing and performances make it watchable, and the cultural relevance Wikileaks holds may allow it to have box office success. But as a film that seems to try to inspire and provoke, it fails miserably. The melodrama and contrived scenes involved in the script had me rolling my eyes more than once, and by the end I felt like I was listening to someone speak his opinion as opposed to feeling motivated and that the governments of the world were scared of my ability to seek out information and share it with others. This is a real shame, as I think the opportunity for a great film was there, and the tools seemed to have been as well. It just didn’t quite work.

Overall Grade: C-