The Invitation

New Site: www.themovienutreviews.com -- Please read this there!

The Invitation actualizes an internal conflict many have faced:  We think something is wrong but fear the attention, scrutiny, or embarrassment it will bring if we point it out--especially if our assumptions are false.  The film sets upon a dinner party that on the surface seems innocent enough, but underneath lies palpable terror. It is a tale steeping in paranoia, that will have you anxiously squirming in your seat. 

After not seeing each other for two years, Will is invited to his ex wife Eden's dinner party. Present there are Will and Eden's mutual friends, a culturally diverse group that would make an equal rights activist nod in approval, along with Eden's new boyfriend, David. After the initial awkward introduction between Will and David, things stay, well, awkward. We learn that Eden and her boyfriend have joined a cult and Will (understandably so) becomes immediately suspicious that there is more to this dinner party than wine and food. 

The first half is a mixture of unusual conversation regarding death and obscure flashbacks as we patiently wait for The Invitation to unfold.  It stays sealed for an uncomfortably tense first hour and I wondered if the unsettling feel was due to the film's foreboding tone,or we were just witnessing one awkward dinner party. Either way I eagerly awaited for the tension to be cut with a literal knife-- perhaps into someones stomach?  

Will's friends sense something is not right but are either too polite or too unassuming to point it out. There are enough red flags early on that would make the majority of us stand up and say "okay thats enough for me."  But they don't. Will's paranoia is founded in rational thought yet his friend's lack of concern feels rather unrealistic.

In a nut shell: For a thriller, The Invitation manages to tackle themes of grief and loss rather effectively without compromising suspense. It is dripping in an atmosphere somewhere between tense and excruciatingly uncomfortable.  At times the the film can feel like a group therapy session you desperately don't want to be apart of.  While its final moment takes the film to absurd new heights, its 3rd act still delivers and is deeply satisfying. The Invitation puts the kettle on a low flame and expects it to boil.  It eventually does, but god I wanted my tea sooner.   (2.5 out of 4)

New Site: www.themovienutreviews.com

Hush

Like an unfaithful spouse, our mind can betray us when all the lights go out.  In the darkness, as we wait for sleep, our senses fight to block out the noise of the living world.  All the creaks of the floorboard and drips from a leaky faucet, have a harmless source. But our mind's eye does not see them, rather we conjure up a man with an ax in hand, ascending the staircase to the rhythm of our heartbeat. The dark may blind our eyes, but not our imagination.  Hush, now on Netflix, reintroduces the fear of home invasion many anguish over, with a twist. It is a chilling tale that feels unnervingly familiar.

Maddie, a young novelist, spends her days in isolation, working tirelessly on her new novel.  She inhabits a home with large glass doors in the middle of the woods, that would make any predator salivate. Her communication with the outside world is limited to texts and Skype with her sister and neighbor. On a seemingly ordinary night an intruder approaches looking to kill for sport. He creeps by the windows, quietly stalking his prey, contemplating when 'The most dangerous game' will commence. Maddie initially appears to be the perfect helpless victim; she is both deaf and mute. We, like the killer, underestimate Maddie's resilience and desire to live despite her inability to hear.

The film could have easily indulged in the depraved gore so many similar flicks feel the need to explore. While Hush certainly has its moments, it stays fairly restrained-- giving the audience more suspense and dread than outright violence.  It takes us methodically through the paces of the horrific night - the killer wants Maddie dead but is in no rush--savoring the terror.  Hush allows Maddie to utilize her strengths drawn from being deaf and a writer,  giving the storytelling a uniquely satisfying spin.

In a nut shell: Hush is a horror film for 'beginners' looking to get into the genre.  It is just foreboding enough to effectively scare you without much gore and those heart dropping "jump" moments.  This is a dark film that stays in the literal shadows. It is one bloody satisfying movie that will leave you double checking your locks and windows shortly before the nightmares set in. (3.5 out of 4)


Please comment and follow!

Hardcore Henry

Hardcore Henry will be loved by some for the same reasons it will be hated by others. It is non stop adrenaline junkies' fantasy that refuses to take a breath. The film is aware of its own strengths--gratuitous violence, and spends the vast majority of time on outrageous stunts and merciless deaths. What it lacks in story it makes up for in over the top action that feels fresh.  If you have any inclination that you might like Hardcore Henry, then you probably will like Hardcore Henry.  For the rest out there, time to put down the popcorn and pick up the Advil, its going to be one nauseating ride.

With no voice and no memory from his past, Henry sets out to save his wife from the evil Akan, who bares a striking resemblance to Alex from a Clockwork Orange. Henry is assisted on his journey by scientist and certified crazy person Jimmy (Sharlto Copley). Many will remember Copley from his role in District 9.  Here he plays a charismatic contrast to Henry's bland persona. Henry, limited to hand gestures, is a rather uninteresting protagonist but the film's style and quick pace makes it hard to notice or care.

The film is shot entirely on a Go Pro, giving us a first person perspective through the eyes of Henry.  The camera shakes uncontrollably when Henry runs giving your eyes a workout they never wanted. This novel style of filming is a technical wonder and helps distinguish itself amongst the abundance of action flicks.  I just pray it never becomes the norm.

Hardcore Henry's heart is racing 1000 beats per minute but the film's soul is no where to be found. Henry is so thin on plot and character development you could mistake it for a hour and thirty minute trailer.  The filmmaker refuses to compromise his vision which makes the film intentionally inaccessible to a wide audience.  There is something to respect about that, right?

In a nut shell: Hardcore Henry never lets off the gas-- giving you little time to think and more time to soak in the violence. And it is violent. The filming techniques allow us to watch Henry punch, stab and shoot his foes up close and gruesomely personal. The music's intensity accompanies the violence to perfection. There is a lot wrong with the film, but if you can ignore its narrative shortcomings, you will have a good deal of fun. (2.5 out of 4)

Eye in the Sky

Films that blend politics so overtly into plot make assessing them, from a thematic standpoint, tricky business. Agreeing with a film's message does not always make it a good movie or vice versa. Although, it doesn't hurt. Eye in the Sky succeeds in blending a tense thriller with a relevant ethical dilemma regarding the use of drone strikes overseas.  It won't necessarily change your opinion, but it will highlight the complex nature and ramifications of these strikes. Timing is everything. Ambivalence can surround decision makers like a thick fog, leaving them hesitant and vulnerable. This is not a form of escapism, rather a glimpse into the harsh realities of modern day terrorism.

Eye in the Sky centers around a British Military operation attempt to capture two high profile radicalized terrorists-- who happen to be UK and US citizens--  in an Al Shabaab controlled section of Kenya. The situation escalates to a kill mission when two suicide bombers are spotted in the same location housing the radicals. Going in with ground troops is untenable and the use of a drone seems to be the only realistic option-- much to the detriment of innocent civilians.

The process of this mission is intentionally painstaking.  The filmmakers expertly capture the frustration government and military officials go through. Eye in the sky demonstrates multiple agencies across the globe working together like a finely tuned machine. But looks can be deceiving.  Behind these machines are indecisive human beings who do not want the culpability, almost as much as they don't want to pull the trigger.

The British are handed the keys to an American program and seem to weigh the political, legal, and moral ramifications far more than their U.S. counterpart.  The disparity between the two countries' attitude on drone strikes comes off comical in tone and brought back memories of Dr. Strangelove-- making me questions the validity of the film's portrayal.

In a nut shell: This is a tight thrill ride from start to finish. Eye in the Sky never lets up and makes the audience feel like an active participant in the decision making process. The film's strength comes from its ensemble cast whose feelings of doubt and moral reasoning are showcased through a nuanced script-- where pauses can speak louder than dialogue. The film gets bogged down in politics and at times makes the U.S look like a calculated war machine.  Despite its issues, Eye in the Sky is still a tense piece of fiction. (3 out of 4)

Please comment below!

Born to Be Blue

There is a scene early in Born to be Blue where Chet Baker (Ethan Hawke) is asked why he does heroin.  Was there something from his past so awful that only heroin could suppress? His response is one of childlike simplicity; he just really likes it.  It is a line that perfectly sets the stage for the tragic portrait of a Jazz musician who never grew up.  Chet Baker may be one of the most famous trumpet players you never heard of and Born to be Blue shows us why.

 In the 50s Chet was an iconic star in the Jazz world, but we catch up with him in 1966  when he is nothing more than a drug addicted has been. Blue is set at possibly the most pivotal point in Chet's life, where he is practically handed a chance for redemption; if only his grasp was firmer.  Born to be Blue tracks Chet's comeback, facilitated by his new girlfriend, Elaine(Carmene Ejogo) and methadone, a drug which he describes as having all the addictiveness of heroin with none of the fun.

The performance from Ethan Hawke carries what might have been a forgettable drama into a fascinating biopic. Hawke transforms himself into Chet, a reserved and soft spoken man who has a whimsical like innocence about him. I wanted to see him succeed even if I couldn't fully understand what motivated this character-- a true testament to Hawke's portrayal. The relationship between the two leads feels genuine and not overly sentimental.  He loves Elaine and playing music but more than anything Chet loves Chet...... and heroin.

What the film lacks is major conflict. Once he is off heroin, it is hard work that brings him back to relevancy, but where is the drama in that?  Chet is a man who never gets to a low enough point to drastically change. With Methadone eliminating withdrawal, he is not forced to confront his inner demons, and maybe a little pain in his life would have done him some good. There has to be more to Chet Backer than the film explores.  At least I hope so.

In a nut shell: This is the story of a selfish yet gifted man.  Loser may be too harsh a word but without his talents I believe Chet would have amounted to very little. I wanted the film to go deeper into his character, but perhaps there wasn't much more to him. Hawke's performance is remarkable and brings wit and charm to an otherwise pitiful man.  The film's second act goes on far too long and its 3rd act, which contains the films finest moments, is squeezed into the last 15 minutes.  It may not please the average moviegoer but Blue left an impact on me.  (2.5 out of 4)

Well, I guess I'm luckier than some folks.
I've known the thrill of loving you.
And that alone is more than I was created for.
Cause I was born to be blue.......  Yes you were Chet, yes you were.


Please comment below!

Superman Vs Batman: Dawn of Justice Review

Remember when product placement in film was reserved for coke, pepsi, and lucky strike cigarettes? BatmanVsSuperman takes the concept of product placement to new heights. It is more of a walking billboard promoting the expansion of DC's universe than it is a complete film.  If Coke were granted the same overt advertising the film uses on its itself, there would be a scene where Ben Affleck grabs a Coke, drinks it, turns to the camera and says, "God, I f***ing love Coke." In truth, I wanted to like this film and, with top critics most likely panning it, there is an opportunity to set myself apart.  It's looking like that isn't going to happen.

To be fair, there were two factors that hindered my movie going experience:
1. Fanboys: I'm all good with the guys who gets excited by an obscure comic reference, but the three seated behind me were annoyingly disruptive -- thereby taking me out of the moment.
2. Standard Screen: If I had to do over again, I would watch this in IMAX and just deal with the 3D.  There are scenes that look spectacular but didn't leave me as awe struck as they would have in IMAX.  See it in IMAX.

From a traditional cinematic viewpoint, this film is a disaster.  Its pacing is awkward, narrative structure incomprehensible and dialogue so generic that I wished they would stop talking and just fight the entire time.  There is such a endless supply of scenes that I found myself unable to recall which preceded which.  It is as if the director went to the editor and said "you can cut down the individual clips length, but I'll be damned if you're going to cut out a single scene."  The result is an extended director's cut version of the film, usually reserved for DVD box sets.  We see what Bruce is up to, then Clark, then Lois, then Lex--back and forth and back and forth for what felt like an eternity. When the stories attempt to intersect, BVS turns into a disjointed mess.

Surprisingly, BVS's initial premise is clever and deals with Batman's increasing fear of Superman's capabilities.  Sure, Superman is good now but what happens if he changes his mind?  Even during Superman's acts of heroism, he leaves behind a trail of destruction. Batman's point is a compelling one and makes for the strongest story in BVS. Unfortunately, the film takes an excruciatingly long time for this plot point to build and its resolution made me scratch my head.

Henry Cavil is lucky he is so damn handsome because his acting is not very good.  He plays a reserved superman who is either always deep in thought or thinking about absolutely nothing; most likely the latter.  Ben Affleck on the other hand plays a rather effective Batman and is too good for this film.  Moving on to Jesse Eisenberg. Perhaps this is hyperbole, but I think we have reached a watershed moment for Jesse.  He was great in the Social Network, but his range doesn't span far enough to encompass the eccentric genius of Lex Luthor.  This film is on such a grand scale and Eisneberg doesn't have the screen presence to pull off this menacing villain.

Having said all this, there is no doubt that comic book purists will find this movie engrossing and walk away pleased.  It has stunning visuals and its format flows much like a comic book-- jumping back and forth between multiple characters while also giving insight into the DC universe.  But this isn't a comic book; it's a movie. At the end of the day, it needs to be a film first because that's the medium in which we are viewing the story.

In a nut shell:  BVS is just too long. The first half drags and has an ending that would make only the likes of Peter Jackson proud.  Having the name Batman in the title will get most people off the couch and into the theater.  Regrettably, they will be met with a film that is so worked up in its own universe, it forgets to deliver a compelling and coherent story. BVS takes itself far too seriously and, with the obscure DC universe references, feels like insider baseball.  Regardless, this movie will be a cash cow and is just good enough to open the flood gates for spin-offs galore.  In truth, it doesn't really matter what critics say for this one; you're going to see it. (1.5 out of 4)

The Dawn of Superhero Dilution

As we approach the Batman Vs Superman premiere, a term I use loosely with the prevalence of advance screening(is nothing sacred?), I want to reflect on my growing ambivalence for the genre.  As I stand in line on Thursday at 5PM- the premiere's 'early bird special', I will be struck with one realization - I'm not that excited.

Growing up there were few things that I looked forward to more than a new superhero flick.  The anticipation of its release was tantamount to those final days of class before summer break.  As I got older that feeling began to dwindle and I no longer counted down the days for the next superhero to hit the big screens. The anticipation was as strong then as it is ephemeral now. What changed? Getting older certainly plays a role but more notable may be the over-saturation of the superhero film market.

In the past 10 years we have witnessed a surge in the Superhero film genre.  The Marvel universe, being the largest, has created a monopoly in Hollywood, manufacturing movies quicker than Apple puts out new iPhones.  There are the occasional missteps such as the Fantastic Four series which just cant seem to get it right but overall audiences are happy.  The consumer demands a product often and the distributor is more than happy to put one out, devoid of quality inspection.  So shouldn't I just be happy with the abundance?  Maybe I miss having to wait.

Waiting, remember that? We still do it at supermarkets and the DMV.  For superhero films however, waiting is a thing of the past. They come out so quickly that my reaction has gone from "Only two more months till the new .........!" to ".......is coming out next week? I guess I'll go see it."

Many of these films have become less about their own story and more a way of setting up sequels and spin offs. The end result is a product that doesn't have to fully deliver.  I remember reading write-ups on the original Captain America and Thor, the consensus being it's an adequate film on its own, but really serves more as a set up to the Avengers. They are blinding the consumer with future promises so they won't notice or care about the current film's mediocrity.  It's essentially giving the film a handicap.

That was not the case in the early 2000's. The films stood on their own and if they were bad, even in a good series, (think Spiderman 3) they got panned. Not only did we line up to see these superheroes in the theater, we eagerly awaited their DVD release. There was something special about buying the DVD. We re-watched them, showed them to our friends, and took pride in the collection we had amassed.

The superhero genre has hit the point of diminishing returns. We are so caught up in the spectacle and polish of the film's visuals that we no longer mind an average story(think Avengers:age of Ultron). That is not to say some don't excel to deliver a thought provoking story-- I am pleasantly surprised when they do. BVS may mark the beginning of the DC film expansion and I can't say I want this train to stop; I just fear the great superhero films will get lost in the crowd.  Christopher Nolan's  Batman series were more than just good superhero flicks, they were great films. The need to put out a product of such high caliber in order to be successful simply is not there. I hope we get more superhero films on par with The Dark Knight, but with the current trend, I'm not going to hold my breath. In the end I shouldn't be complaining, I'm still going to see them.