Bad Boys 2

Directed by: Michael Bay

Written by: Ron Shelton

The Wibberleys

Starring: Will Smith

Martin Lawrence

Gabrielle Union

Runtime: 147 minutes

Release date: July 18 2003

Reviewer: The Ace Black Blog

Applying the principle of go big or go home, director Michael Bay goes huge. Transforming a buddy cop movie into an outright spectacle almost 150 minutes in length, Bad Boys II is somewhat enjoyable for its sheer bravado, and outdoes the original in glitz, glamour, and extreme violence. 

Large shipments of Ecstasy are being shipped into Miami. Narcotics detectives Marcus Burnett (Martin Lawrence) and Mike Lowrey (Will Smith) are assigned to find the importer and stop the flow of drugs. After tangling with the Ku Klux Klan, the trail leads to Cuban gangster Johnny Tapia (Jordi Molla), who is establishing himself as the lord of the underworld and brutally eliminating competing criminals. Complicating matters is Sydney Burnett (Gabrielle Union), Marcus' sister and DEA agent, herself part of a separate team trying to take down Tapia.

After numerous chases and gun battles, Burnett and Lowrey achieve a breakthrough when they uncover Tapia's favoured method for transporting drugs, involving dead bodies and caskets. But Tapia won't give up his empire quietly, and he grabs a hostage and heads for the refuge of his home country, triggering a climactic mercenary raid resembling more of a military operation than police work.

Bad Boys II soars during several exhilarating, prolonged action sequences. An ultra violent car chase that starts on the street system before migrating to the freeway has bad guys commandeering a car transporter truck and using vehicles as projectiles while Burnett and Lowrey give chase in a Ferrari. Bay elevates carnage to art, and sets a new standard for adrenaline-powered wanton vehicular destruction.

A bloody shootout in the hideout of a Haitian gang achieves similar brilliance. Bay's cameras seamlessly rotate around walls, squeeze through holes in the concrete, and zoom to where the bullets are heading in a highly kinetic visual ballet of impending death, as a steady stream of banter between Burnett and Lowrey adds humorous icing to the gritty scene.

And just to add an exclamation point, the plot contrives to have a Hummer plough through an entire hillside shanty town at breakneck speed, causing all sorts of hidden drug labs to explode in the process.

As can be expected in a knowingly overblown extravaganza, many other sequences in Bad Boys II don't work nearly as well. When Burnett and Lowrey verbally abuse a teenager who arrives on Burnett's doorstep to date his daughter, the exchange quickly degenerates from comic to hurtfully cruel. Burnett suffering the consequences of inadvertently swallowing two Ecstasy pills veers into cheap slapstick.

With the tornado of non-stop action, it is a surprise that the characters are not totally short-changed. There are enough dialogue exchanges to generate some clumsy humour and awkward humanity. Will Smith hits his stride quickly as the smooth Mike Lowrey, leaving the agitation to Martin Lawrence as Marcus Burnett suffers through a full-blown crisis of purpose caused by the high likelihood that wherever Lowrey happens to be, dead bodies are sure to follow. Jordi Molla is given plenty of time to develop Johnny Tapia into an entertaining, over-the-top drug ganglord. Gabrielle Union as Burnett's sister and DEA agent Sydney places herself in the middle of the buddy relationship by romancing Lowrey and going undercover as a money launderer providing services to Tapia.

Bad Boys II is about large explosions, vivid colours, wild shoot-outs, insane stunts, high speed chases, unconstrained energy, almost gruesome violence, incessant foul language and a dash of humour. With everything louder than everything else, it delivers artistically brawny sensory overload

Bad Boys

Directed by: Michael Bay

Written by: Michael Barrie

Jim Mulholland

Doug Richardson

Starring: Martin Lawrence\

Will Smith

Tea Leoni

Runtime: 119 minutes

Release date: April 7, 1995

Reviewer: Joshua Raynor

It's been over 20 years since Bad Boys was released in theaters, and after watching it again, it has definitely held up through the test of time.  It's a classic story, told in a classic way that can be done in any generation.  Whether it's Lethal Weapon and Beverly Hills Cop in the 80's, Bad Boys in the 90's, Rush Hour in the 2000's, or 2 Guns, which came out in 2013, the buddy-cop action genre doesn't get old.

These types of action films are where we see Michael Bay at his finest.  Films like this, Bad Boys 2, and The Rock are some of my favorite films that he's directed.  These are the types of movies I'd like to see him go back to, instead of these horrible Transformers films.  Part of me wishes he was directing the upcoming Bad Boys 3, which is in development, but I'd even be okay with something similar to The Rock or Pain And Gain.

In the early stages of development, the producers (Don Simpson and Jerry Bruckheimer) had actually in visioned Dana Carvey and Jon Lovitz in these roles.  The film was even originally written for them and titled Bulletproof Hearts.  Now that would have been a VERY different movie, and honestly, I don't think it would have been nearly as successful.  Smith and Lawrence really made this film what it is and with Carvey and Lovitz, I think it would've been way too jokey. They brought a certain gravitas to their roles. Lawrence, I think, managed to be the naggy best friend without being overly annoying whilst Smith portrays the more serious, straight faced cop with losing any wit or charm. The fact that they manage to bring a great screen presence, especially since the both of them are just budding television star, seemed unreal to me.

The script was one of the problems Bay originally had with the film.  So, to remedy this, he had many of his actors (especially the main stars, Will Smith and Martin Lawrence) improvise their lines.  The best one was during the scene where Mike, Marcus, and Julie are in the convenience store and the clerk pulls out a gun and yells "Freeze, Mother Bitches!".  That line plus the lines "No, you freeze, bitch! Now back up, put the gun down, and get me a pack of Tropical Fruit Bubbalicious." and "And some Skittles." we're all improvised. This immediately give the film a more natural, flowing feel to it. Which I think is instrumental in the film’s sense of relatability. The characters felt real, they feel frustration and sheer exhaustion, especially at the film’s climax.

This film was important because it introduced my generation to a great genre of film.  After seeing this for the first time, I went out and watched Lethal Weapon and Beverly Hills Cop, and I love both those movies.  So, thank you Mr. Bay, for bringing into this world a great film like Bad Boys.  Now, hopefully he'll get back to those roots some day.

The Exorcist 3

Directed and Written by William Peter Blatty

based on his novel "Legion"

Starring: George C. Scott

Ed Flanders

Brad Dourif

Runtime: 110 minutes

Release date: August 19, 1990

Reviewer: Natheneal Hood

Dammit!  It isn’t supposed to work this way!  Everyone knows the rules to making Hollywood sequels, particularly for horror films!  The first one is supposed to be an instant classic that breaks the rules and challenges preconceived notions about horror (i.e. Jaws, Halloween, Nightmare on Elm Street).  Then a half-baked sequel comes out that receives lukewarm to negative reviews from critics and audiences (i.e. Damien: Omen II, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre 2, The Hills Have Eyes 2).  And then, in a last ditch effort to squeeze as much money from the public as possible, an abysmal third film comes out that mocks the franchise, offends the fans, and becomes a massive flop (i.e. Child’s Play 3, Amityville 3, Friday the 13th 3).  The Exorcist franchise was following the rules perfectly at the start.  The Exorcist (1971) was one of the few horror films in history to be critically acclaimed, ludicrously profitable, and nominated for several Academy Awards.  It was followed six years later by Exorcist II: The Heretic, a film that did a decent amount at the box office, yet was universally regarded as one of the worst horror sequels of all time.  And then, thirteen years later, it was followed by yet another sequel, The Exorcist III.  So, by all rational accounts, The Exorcist III should have been a horrendously horrible film, right?  Wrong!  Not only is The Exorcist III a fantastic horror film and sequel in its own right, at times it is even better than the original!

For the first hour or so, everything is up in the air.  It could be a deranged copycat serial killer or a case of the spirit of The Gemini Killer possessing people so he could carry out his murderous deeds.  By following Kinderman, an actual cop, the film focuses even more on the investigative aspect of the storyline.  There is more suspicion of foul play, more distrust of the supernatural.  Of course, in the last act the supernatural is revealed to be the ultimate culprit. That isn’t a spoiler, by the way.  There are supernatural forces at work in this film...but not in the way you’d expect

Also, The Exorcist III remembers one of the most forgotten rules of the horror industry: we won’t be scared about characters in danger if we don’t care about them in the first place. In The Exorcist III, the film takes its time, letting us get to know the characters.  We find faults in Kinderman, but we sympathize with them.  We watch him go to the movies and dinner with Father Dyer.  We see them shoot the breeze and reminisce about old times.

The Exorcist III is a true triumph of the horror genre.  It deserves to be as respected as the original.  It makes me weep that to know that he has only directed two films.  The Exorcist III proves that he has a genuine talent and distinct cinematic voice.  It frustrates me that I can’t tell you more about this film...but that’s just the way things have to be considering that it’s a horror film.  If I say too much, it’ll ruin the suspense.  All I can do is beg you all to go out and see this film.  You won’t be disappointed...or left unscathed.

Schindler's List

Directed by: Steven Spielberg

Written by: Steven Zaillian

Based on the novel "Schindler's Ark" by Thomas Keneally

Starring: Liam Neeson

Ralph Fiennes

Ben Kingsley

Embeth Davitz

Runtime: 197 minutes

Release date: December 15 1993

Reviewer: Victor Anderson

This is a film that is difficult to do justice in a review. A film so devastating, so well-made, so superbly acted, so ambitiously directed, so powerful and so full of emotion that it is terribly hard to describe it all in one review. I can tell you that my first time seeing this and falling in love with it, was one of the most important moments of my life: t’was my transformation into the film snob I am today. I do not regret what the film did to me.

Directed by Steven Spielberg. the movie opens with a Jewish family, lighting candles and singing in Hebrew at their table. As the song eventually ends and the candle goes out, the colours cease to exist and the film becomes monochrome. It then tells the story of Nazi-German businessman Oskar Schindler, portrayed here by Liam Neeson. As we meet him in Kraków, year 1939, shortly after World War II has started, he is enjoying a life of wealth and through a little bit of bribing he acquires a mess kit factory where, as we all most likely are aware, Jews will eventually work. A Jewish man, specifically the pure-hearted Itzak Stern who acts as Schindler’s silent conscience throughout the film, assists him in getting the business started. Stern tries hard to get as many Jewish people into the factory as possible, even those with faults. One worker, for example, has lost one of his arms.

 In one of the film’s greatest scenes, Schindler witnesses the liquidation of the Kraków Ghetto from a nearby hill; not until this moment has he realized the suffering of Jewish people; not until this moment has he exited his bubble of wealth and expensive parties

Instead of leaving Kraków as he had planned, Schindler bribes Göeth with much of his fortune in order to move the factory workers to his home in Moravia, helping them away from The Final Solution. Göeth eventually agrees, and Schindler and Stern begin writing a list of people who must not be put on the trains headed for Auschwitz – Schindler’s List.

Many scenes are perfect depictions of the horror that reigned upon the Jews during The Holocaust, just as many scenes are scarily believable depictions of the immense malice and malignancy of the Nazi Party. The black-and-white was a brilliant choice on Spielberg’s part as it not only symbolises horror, hopelessness and sadness, but it also perfectly fits the era in which the film takes place – back when moving pictures had no colour. The actors all give munificient performances which, naturally, helps make Schindler’s List feel so real, as do the production designs and the countless extras. Ralph Fiennes is especially great.

Anyone who has read my most of blog will know that I bring up this film a lot, when talking about film criticism. Why is that? It’s very simple: it’s because this is one of the best films I have ever seen. Everything in it is just pure magnificence – the direction, the screenplay, the visuals, the score by John Williams, the acting, the cinematography, the imagery and just the way it feels, both in how realistic it is and in how amazingly moving it is and Spielberg uses camera, color-tricks and superb music to make it all work.

Schindler’s List is a masterpiece that’s so well-done, so strong, so thought-provoking and so grimly real that it is hard for any filmmaker to match. This is the film that convinced me that Steven Speilberg is one of the greatest film directors to ever walk upon the surface of our planet. His talents are truly something to be desired. It shall forever remain one of my favourite films of all time.

Furious 7

Directed by: James Wan

Written by: Chris Morgan

Starring: Vin Diesel

Paul Walker

Tyrese Gibson

Jordana Brewster

Michelle Rodriguez

Dwayne Johnson

Jason Statham

Runtime: 142 minutes

Release date: April 3, 2015

This movie is a classic example of a how a popular movie turned into a commercial franchise that was far removed from its original theme. Every petrol-head loved the first three movies and hated every other movie after that for killing its core spirit. Furious 7, is probably one of the worst movie so far in the franchisee and that is surprising considering that it is supposed to be an ode to Paul Walker. The movie is a direct continuation to the sixth movie in the franchisee and is also a storyline continuation to Tokyo Drift and hence it is highly recommended to watch both of these movies before venturing into this one. After defeating Owen Shaw and getting a clean slate in London, Dominic Toretto (Diesel) and Brian O’Connor (Walker) have given up on their past and are trying to live normal lives. Especially Brian who is trying to fulfill his duties as a father for the sake of his wife even though deep down he misses his cars and the rush of adrenaline. However, their normal lives get shattered when Deckard Shaw (Statham), Owen’s brother comes hunting for revenge. Dom and Brian can only stop Deckard and save their families by helping a covert government agency get a software known as God’s Eye and use it to track Deckards every move and eventually finish him. Like I mentioned earlier, the movie has to go down as the most bizarre, badly scripted and completely irrelevant movie in the franchisee ever. The movie assumes you have seen Tokyo Drift and the sixth installment only yesterday since the references are far too strong to remember for a movie that came out years ago. A lot of the stunts in the movie are way too unreal and completely bizarre. The story seems like a jigsaw puzzle simply glued together with no clear transition between one sub-plot to another. The poor script can partly be put down to Paul Walkers death and the massive re-writing of his dialogues, footage and script that was needed to be done at the very last minute. A huge let down from such a great franchise and a huge let down to Paul Walker for having being remembered in possibly the worst movie ever.

Maybe it is my own bias, but I just could not see why the film received the praise it got. It is too long, even for me, and I am one of those people that would watch a four hour long cut of “The Return of the King.” Although I would credit director James Wan for his courageous move to branch out of his signature realm. Sure the product is not good, but I would give him a thumbs up for trying.

In conclusion, “Furious 7” is a clunky mess of a film. The action sequences are tepid to say the least. The dialogue consists of exposition and the word “family” and the acting at this point is not even legible to call it half assed anymore. The movie’s main marketing stance is a “touching” tribute to Paul Walker, and even the eulogy is not that emotional.

Star Wars Episode 7: The Force Awakens

Directed by: J.J Abrams

Written by: J.J Abrams

Lawrence Kasdan

Michael Arndt

Starring: Daisy Ridley

John Boyega

Oscar Isaac

Harrison Ford

Peter Mayhew

Carrie Fisher

Mark Hamill

Runtime: 135 Minutes

Release date: December 26, 2015

Almost 10 years after the last Star Wars movie came out, the stories continues from where Return of the Jedi last left. It has been 30 years after the destruction of the second Death Star and the last known Jedi, Luke Skywalker has disappeared. It seems he has gone into hiding on an uncharted planet and away from all the war and bloodshed. The First Order has risen from the fall of the Galactic Empire and continues the same objective of destroying the Resistance and the New Republic, which backs the resistance, and to find and kill Luke Skywalker and hence kill the last of the Jedi’s. There exists a map which determines the location of Luke but the map is fragmented and various pieces are in different hands. Kylo Ren (Driver) is leading the Stormtroopers and needs the last piece to complete his map. The Resistance too is in need of the map which is hidden inside the droid BB-8 and the now-defunct droid R2D2. Resistance pilot Poe Dameron (Isaac), erstwhile Stormtrooper Finn (Boyega) and a scavenger Rey (Ridley) come together to deliver the map to the Resistance, led by General Leia Organa (Fisher). On the way they encounter Han Solo (Ford) and Chewbacca who agree to help the trio in their mission. It is amazing how George Lucas simply decided to bypass Episode I, II & II, acknowledging the mistakes made in those movies and continued the story of the original trilogy. The movie has lived up to expectations and every fan boy would have loved the way the movie allowed them to indulge in nostalgia and re-connected trivial things from 30 years ago. You actually do not need to be a crazy Star Wars lunatic to know what is happening. Yes, it is better to have seen the original trilogy to understand the story better, but you do not need to re-watch everything to jog your memory. 30 years ago is just fine! The movie has very creatively crafted a new story from an all-new cast and built a strong foundation for the forthcoming movies. A must watch for every fan and if you are not, your probably will become one after you watch this movie.

JJ Abrams’ direction in the movie is impeccable.  He somehow manage to keep the film’s pace brisk whilst not being too overwhelmingly fast. It knows when stop, when to slow down and when to sink in the moment. The action sequences are also breathtaking. It is crisp, clear, cohesive and comprehensible. The acting are also a vast improvement over the dry acting of the prequels. The actors are allowed to emote, and the writing team put just enough human qualities in its characters, causing to care about the forthcoming events of the story.

In conclusion, “The Force Awakens” jolts the franchise with an immense energy. It once again reminded moviegoers why Star Wars is one of the most enduring piece of Hollywood mythology and one of the most beloved. It may not be an instant classic, but it surely a film worth watching.

The Exorcist

Directed by: William Friedkin

Written for the screen and produced by: William Peter Blatty

Based on his novel.

Starring: Linda Blair

Ellen Burstyn

Max von Sydow

Jason Miller

Lee J. Cobb

Runtime: 123 minutes

Release date: December 26, 1973

I can only imagine the horrified looks of theatre goers everywhere when they saw the movie, especially since it was released on Boxing Day. What a change of pace.

I have been dying to review the movie since I first saw it, but I kept delaying it. But, I believe the time is right to finally talk about a perennial classic. What an amazing film! What an achievement in filmmaking! I can only speak praises about the picture.

The film did such an amazing job in building the tension in just the first few minutes alone. It might have taken place in the desert, but there is this feeling of uneasiness that permeates throughout the opening, before we are hit with the predicament, an evil is coming, before cutting to a Georgetown colonial styled house. What I like about the setting is that it is not your typical haunted house. It is relatively new, and not that fancily furbished as well, which is essential to the film's realistic approach. It felt tangible as if it could occur anywhere, which is why when the possession finally happened, we, as an audience, felt violated.

The performances were top notch too. Linda Blair's performance as Regan remains as one of the most haunting piece of acting I have ever had the privilege to see. Though, she did not really shine in the first half, she undoubtedly steals the show once she is possessed. Her mannerism, her body language, changed exponentially.

Ellen Burstyn's portrayal of the doting, loving yet ill tempered mother rings true. You can truly feel her frustration as she is trying to wrap her head around just what causes her daughter to act the she does. Is it puberty? Penchant for attention?

But nevertheless, you can feel her motherly vibe which is why I feel, and apparently the audience, sympathetic to the character.

Jason Miller is born to play Damien Karras. Not only did he look the part, he embodies the part. His eyes welcoming yet gleaming with a dark presence. Confident yet fragile. His acting chops were impressive, bringing an air of sympathy to a character that is dangerously hovering on the whiny category.

Max von Sydow is perfect as Lankaster Merrin. He perfectly exudes the grace, wisdom and mannerisms of an experienced priest. Never for a moment do I feel that he is playing a character, quite the opposite actually.

The film is also beautifully constructed. From Blatty’s great screenplay, to its direction, to its cinematography, to how the film progresses, to its music, there is a sense of effort being put into each frame. The subplots were also evenly distributed, none of it were ever eclipsing the main point of the story.

In conclusion, the film is a smartly written, beautifully filmed, wonderfully acted film that is quite ahead of its time. Even the greatest of exorcism movies, still had to face the predicament of living in the film’s massive shadow. It more than did its job in scaring the audience whilst at the same time deliver a chilling, disturbing, darkly humorous and emotionally potent story.

Insomnia

Directed by: Christopher Nolan

Written by: Hillary Seitz

Based on the 1997 film of the same name by Erik Skjoldbaerg

                       & Nikolaj Frobenius

Starring: Al Pacino

                    Hilary Swank

                       Martin Donovan

                     Robin Williams

Runtime: 118 Minutes

Release: May 24th 2002

His eyes were reddened by the cruel prank of life. His demeanor, tired from the scrutiny of the people, and when he discovered his friend's demise might have been caused by him to begin with, a whirlwind began to drive him to the edge.

The film concerns Will Dormer. A seasoned detective sent to the town of Nightmute, Alaska to investigate the murder of a young woman although there are rumors that he is merely escaping the accusations held against him for tampering with evidences in regards to a previous case. When his friend, Hap died in action. When a man named Walter Finch begins taunting the detective, he lost his mind.

When I first watched the picture back in 2010, I had no clear consensus of what the film is all about, what the conundrum behind everything the movie stands for. It was a suggestion made by a teacher of mine to watch, whilst I recommended "Gremlins." My first impression, I thought it is going to be a joyless, unnecessarily bleak film. Once I watched it though, the first thing I realized is that the acting in the movie is amazing.

Al Pacino is mesmerizing as Will Dormer. He perfectly embodies the dry, tattered, experienced detective, though he never really took himself so seriously, as evident by his interaction with Ellie Burr, the rookie. He is also great at embodying a tormented man with only his facial expressions and his body language.

As is aforementioned before, Hilary Swank is perfect as Ellie Burr. She nails the character's tenacity and will but she also exude innocence and naivete, obviously unaware of the hardships and filth her job will entail.

Robin Williams surprised me as Walter Finch. His presence alone sends chills down my spine. He is cold, calm, calculative and more than capable of creating a façade of an approachable old man.

The movie is also beautifully filmed and lit. It is bleak enough to emphasize the general tone of thestory, but it is not pretentiously filmed. It is beautifully filmed enough to serve the narrative without sacrificing the grit.

Despite this, I have a few gripes. There are some action sequences that I felt did not anything to the story at all. The psychological tension of Will Dormer is perfectly entertaining enough. Why studio executives felt that a movie that is brimming with tension needed action sequences is baffling to me. The ending to me, is also problematic. A film this great deserve a much more powerful and palpable ending that a clichéd shootout that we've gotten in a lot of other movies of cinema's past and present.

Despite this, I thoroughly enjoyed this film. I enjoyed its themes. I find the suspense breathtaking. Its ideas dark and fascinating. Despite having a few gripes, the film all in all is a competently made, gorgeously filmed, beautifully acted masterpiece. This is Christopher Nolan at his simplest and at his most potent. Movies like this are too far and few in between which is why I will savor every moment when it does.

Worth It

Title:  Worth It

Artist:   Fifth Harmony

  Kid Ink

Writers: Priscilla Renea

        Ori Kaplan

    Stargate

Producers: Stargate

                       Ori Kaplan

Release: March 2, 2015

Runtime: 3 Minutes 44 Seconds

I have been called many things, one of the being a hipster, or at least a pseudo hipster. But really, how could I blame them? All of music, especially pop, has a certain alien quality to it that I simply could not wrap my head around. I used to think that in order to be successful in the industry, one needs talent, tenacity, a good sense of music even. Well, apparently all you need to be a pop star nowadays are serviceable vocals from mannequins that are barely proficient in solmization, sound mixers that are more interested in making unintelligible noise than a coherent musical number and a rabid fanbase. All of these problems are entirely present in the track, "Worth It."

First of all, let us start with the production itself. It is utterly boring to listen to. I am fully aware that a pop song is a pop song, which means I am not expecting it to be a 12 piece orchestral sonata, but a pop song should at least sound lively, which is not the case for this dismal track. Everything about it just screams factory manufactured with hardly any passion in its assemblage. The synths are quite literally the exact same two notes. The percussions, underpowered yet somehow turgid and the saxophones did not add anything to the track, except for a rather catchy yet pointless hook. I think that they are trying to aim for minimalism, but then they half baked it.

Kid Ink's rap verses are especially vapid. In fact, I might argue that if the producers decided to cut the rap out of the equation, it would still be just as awful. It did not add anything to the track, nor did it detract. It is the musical equation of adding salt to a scrambled egg, sure the egg is bland, but I can do well without it. There is no effort nor direction in it, it is almost like the producers asks Kid Ink to just make up lines as he went along as long as it hits the tone and rhythm. I know this because the verse repeated the exact same line for four straight times. There are four writers working on the lyrics on the lyrics, FOUR! Yet none of them even bothered putting some effort into it?!

Fifth Harmony are easily the weakest link in the entire song. Nothing about them stood out from other pop acts. Their vocals are serviceable, but uninteresting. They had presence, but not that powerful. They are gorgeous to look at, but there are others that are more aesthetically interesting. This is especially problematic for a band that is still trying to establish themselves. The track betrayed whatever potential they had, obviously unaware that the record producers had probably never heard of first impressions.

In conclusion, the track is vapid, uninteresting and dull. It is nothing but a blank slate of a song. The production alone should have been lively but they composers did not even bother to do that. Instead, we have nothing but a cheap, watered down, artificial product assembled with very little passion, and they are awarded with a triple platinum selling album and one of the most intense fanbase this side of My Little Pony.

Annie Hall

Directed by: Woody Allen

Written by: Woody Allen

                             Marshall Brickman

Starring: Woody Allen

                Diane Keaton

               Tony Roberts

                         Christopher Walken

Runtime: 93 Minutes

Release date: April 20th 1977

 

It was a warm, festive day when I finally took it upon myself to watch "Annie Hall." Woody Allen's film about an eccentric comedian who strikes a relationship with a struggling nightclub singer. Together they faced many adversities, which culminate in a pretty poignant ending.

 

In reality, I should hate the film. For one, it is a romantic comedy. It snubs the best picture statuette from Star Wars and I was practically coerced by my sister to watch it. But then a thought began to dawn on me, for a romantic comedy to beat out one of the most influential fantasy film of all time, it must have done something right.

 

Against all odds, the film somehow managed to not only entertain, but enchant me. Each scene brims with creativity, thought and wit. Which is surprising considering the fact that the film is basically people talking with each other. There are no action sequences, no pyrotechnics yet somehow, it manages to grab the attention of the viewer.

 

One of the main reason why it occurs is its usage of fourth wall breaks. Usually I find the technique to be the scapegoat of untalented storytellers that desperately tried to add some form of credibility into their story. But here it is done masterfully, it fully encapsulates the audience into the thoughts of the characters, making them relatable and giving a glimpse into their lives and views.

Just a small hint of the film's brilliant use of fourth wall breaks.

 

The performances are great as well. Woody Allen is perfect as Alvy Singer and Diane Keaton is mesmerizing as the eponymous character. They worked off their personalities really well, Alvy is the awkward yet brash man and Annie is the confident yet vulnerable, but still independent woman. The two characters have a great dynamic, and are always entertaining to watch. The acting did not feel like a performance, that in turn gives the film a sense of  believability. The characters could exist in real life, or at least let the audience see themselves and connect with them. 

 

The humor is also particularly well balanced, it gives the film a lighter tone in what could essentially be an overly dramatic film but at the same time, the film did not lose its merits by being too jokey. It is quite a challenging rope to walk on, but somehow, Brickman and Allen managed to pull it off perfectly. Due to this, the film felt relaxed, deft and wonderfully paced.

 

In conclusion, I enjoyed watching "Annie Hall." It is one of those films that demonstrates the fact that if a storyteller shows some respect for his or hers audience, putting effort into the story, and creating relatable characters, even the simplest of story wedged into the most derelict of genres can be an amazing, even life changing experience. The film also made me realized that the Roger Ebert quote on Woody Allen being cinema's greatest treasure has its own merits now. This is a chance encounter that I will never forget, and never regret and I will proudly hail this picture a masterpiece.

 

 

 

 

Pretty Girls

Title: Pretty Girls

Artist: Alyson Stoner

Release: 2015

Runtime: 3 minutes 42 seconds 

Ever since I promoted this song, I’ve been receiving a lot of negative comments, saying my taste in music isn’t exactly as special as I thought it was, that it was generic, and too simplistic. That it promotes sex and promiscuity, a trait I frequently detest in pop music. Let me be clear that I am not an easy man to please when it comes to listening to pop music, and when I think that an artist did a good job, I will champion it.

Not to be confused with Britney Spears and Iggy Azalea’s godawful single of the same title, Alyson Stoner released her debut single “Pretty Girls” off an upcoming debut album, and it is proving to be a darkly pulsing dance track. The cut is a sexy dance number supported by sparse but frenzied production that falls away in a series of beat drops over the dramatic chorus, during which Stoner repeatedly declares “pretty girls learn to work it early.”

Stoner’s vocals are absolutely commanding and infinitely sexy, with the musician singing and even rapping during a spoken word bridge that is entirely encapsulating. Lyrically, Stoner comments on a pretty girl’s ability to effortlessly get what she desires with a simple bat of her eyes. Ironically enough, the song is just as spellbinding as the most beautiful of sirens. Armed with its racing electronic production and a sharply snapping drum line, the song is dangerously danceable, so much so, that I am unabashedly dancing in my chair as I write this review (judge me if you must).
In the accompanying music video, Stoner plays the role of a pretty girl (because obviously, have you looked at her?) who finds herself a nice little Sugar Daddy to bankroll her projects.

The video follows Stoner through a variety of scenes and costumes, as the pretty girl works her charms in a boardroom while pitching a major project (we all saw the way you twitched those hips, girl), seduces with a booty pop or two in the dance club (she is the dancing queen after all), and joyously reaps the benefits of her Sugar Daddy’s gifts (jewelry, checkmate). In other scenes, Stoner can be seen serving face and modeling a studded leotard while singing along to the track, presumably as a dancer in the club.

In off of the scenes Stoner exists as the starring character, donning wigs, batting her eyes, swiveling her hips, and entirely aware of the power that she commands; however, the star also appears as a knowing onlooker. While her character plays the men around her, the musician herself looks on with a smirk on her face implying that she is entirely aware of the power she wields.

Over the years, beautiful women have been known for the power they hold over men. Helen of Troy may be the original pretty girl, and a war was fought over the right to her hand in marriage. She was already married at the time; that is how in demand she was. Over the years, these girls have only learned more about how to ensnare their target with a single look. Alyson Stoner asks an age-old question on her new single, “Pretty Girls.” Over a chilly electronic beat, she ponders how pretty girls learn to work their good looks to their advantage, which adds to the satirical undertone to it. I love the fact that Stoner made her expression plastic-like, making a point that these pretty girls can emote but does not feel and her seductive yet emotionless smile just adds to the eeriness of it, making these people even more sinister.

All in all, I love this song. I think it’s almost a cautionary tale of assumptions and choices. Now, this is a song that is easily misunderstood, with complex messages hidden under the mask of an “average” pop song, which in turn requires multiple listening and viewings. A trait rarely seen in today’s pop songs and this reason alone will make the song an easy target to hate, leading to its own undoing.

Why I'm Okay With William Friedkin's "Sorcerer"

Directed by: William Friedkin

Written by: Walon Green

Based on "The Wages of Fear" by: Georges Arnaud

Starring: Roy Scheider

               Bruno Cremer

                 Francisco Rabal

    Amidou

Release date: June 24 1977

Deep in the jungles of Chile, in the outskirts of Porvenir. There lived three fugitives, Jackie "Juan Dominguez" Scanlon (Scheider), Victor "Serrano" Manzon (Cremer) and Kaseem "Martinez" (Amidou). They all have one thing in common, they longed to get back to their home town but their meager salaries and notoriety prevented them to do so. That is until an oil well over 200 miles (320 km) away explodes, and the only way to extinguish the fire is to use dynamite. Since the only available dynamite has been improperly stored in a remote depot, the nitroglycerin contained inside has become highly unstable; the faintest vibration could cause an explosion. With all other means ruled out, the only way to transport it is to use trucks. The company seeks four drivers to man two of the vehicles. Kassem, Victor, Jackie and 'Marquez' are offered the job, but they have to assemble the trucks using scrap parts. Shortly before their departure, Nilo kills and replaces 'Marquez', which angers Kassem. The four drivers embark upon a perilous journey of over 200 miles, facing many hazards and internal conflicts. Despite their differences, they are forced to co-operate. 

The film, when initially released, received mixed to negative reviews. Leslie Halliwell went as far as saying the following : "Why anyone would want to spend 20 million dollars on a remake of The Wages of Fear, do it badly, and give it a misleading title is anybody's guess. The result is dire." Its box office income is meager, grossing only $9 million over an estimated budget of  $22 million.

The film is also responsible for putting the Friedkin in the director's jail before making his comeback with 1985's "To Live and Die In L.A." Even after it enjoyed a critical re-evaluation, it is still not as popular as the director's other efforts such as "The Exorcist" and "The French Connection".

My opinion regarding the film? I enjoy it. Sure, it's no masterpiece by any means but to be completely honest, the moment the movie's title appeared on the screen, I was hooked. One of the advantages that the film had is that it took its time to develop the characters. I clearly understand their reasoning behind their exile and their reasoning to return to their lives. I also find the pacing brisk, and fast. Which is both a blessing to the film. I love the fact that they took a much faster pace than the Henri-Georges Clouzot's film. The action scenes are especially astounding and benefits from the tightness of the editing but at the same time  I felt like they are rushed, cutting short on a few moments and the film somewhat lost its gravitas. The journey alone should have taken a large chunk of the film's runtime, developing character conflict and tension as it is supposed to be a descent to Hell.

But what the film excels best is setting up the tone. The film felt dirty and real and grounded. One of my biggest gripe with the Clouzot version is that it felt romantic at times. It felt a little too glamourous. That is a bit of a smudge on a story that is meant to be relentless and gritty. Friedkin's version nailed the tone. It is just the right amount of cinematic and documentary-like tone.

In conclusion, despite its flaws. I enjoyed the movie as a whole. This is easily one of Friedkin's weakest effort but I can feel the love in every single frame. It is not an easy film to watch, but it is still enjoyable and I will certainly watch this film again.

The Roommate review

TITLE: THE ROOMMATE

DIRECTOR: CHRISTIAN E. CHRISTIANSEN 

WRITER: SONNY MALLHI

STARRING: LEIGHTON MEESTER

         MINKA KELLY

            CAM GIGANDET

               DANNEEL HARRIS

RUNTIME:  94 MINUTES

This movie could have been summarized in the following sentence: "A feature length commercial for the CW." "The Roommate is the latest addition into the "Single White Female" pantheon. Honestly speaking, even if you didn't see the spoiler heavy trailer, one could predict the plot to a fault, right down to the progression of said plot, and the outcome.

Despite this, the film does have its own surprises up its sleeves. First off, the casting. I must admit that the actors played their parts perfectly. Minka Kelly played the part of Sara Matthews perfectly. She captures the spirit of a young woman, eager and determined to prove herself. She captures the perfect balance of warmth, naivete and tenacity that it reminds me of Naomi Watts's performance as Diane Selwyn in Mulholland Drive.

Cam Gigandet plays Stephen. Sara's muse. Gigandet's performance is serviceable. He captured the sassy yet kind hearted complex of the character. He's funny, charming and just bastardly enough that it didn't come off as blood boilingly awful.

Leighton Meester undoubtedly steals the show as the psychotic Rebecca Evans. So much so that she receives top billing even though she's not the main character. Her performance is energetic and manic. Almost like the character herself. Her smile, inviting yet menacing. Her presence, miniscule yet overwhelming.

The cinematography and camerawork are also astounding. There are times in the movie where the lighting sets up a scene as creepy only to have it botched up by some of the most awful executions I have ever seen. Which is truly a shame.

The film is riddled with problems, which can be traced to the film's script. The characters are pretty standard, and the dialogue consists mainly of meaningless drivel and exposition heavy tripe. Though the film had some unintentionally hilarious moments, they are too few and far in between. It tried to aim for a dramatic tone and it couldn't even manage get it right.

In conclusion, the movie is slow, droning and not even intriguing. There are moments in the film that I like, but that alone could not save the movie. It's too hilarious to be taken seriously and not nearly credible enough to be viewed in a serious light.

THUMBS UP: The performances and cinematography for adding a thin layer of class into a clunky, clumsy production.

THUMBS DOWN: Virtually everything else about the movie.