The Gold Rush review

Charlie Chaplin is one of the names synonymous with cinema itself.
Other people like that are John Wayne, Orson Welles, and Humphrey Bogart. People so deeply ingrained in the mythology of movies, that without them it seems as if film would cease to exist. They're the stars and directors of the "greatest" films ever made. People who embody the spirit and face of old Hollywood. They make what we consider to be classics. They were the Martin Scorseses and Al Pacinos of the past. Often, people seem to brush off classic movies as the kind of stuffy and obsolete garbage that snobby film professors drool over. What these people forget, is why these movies were deemed "classic" in the first place. They were entertaining, very well made, and they stood the test of time. Charlie Chaplin's 1925 picture, The Gold Rush, is one of these movies. It's listed on the AFI's Top 100 list and Sight & Sound's Top 250 films list. However, one should never judge how good a movie is by what others think of it. If a movie is heavily lauded by critics, there is a good chance it's a terrific film. But it's always important to form your own opinions on movies. The Gold Rush is one of those films that is just as good as its Rotten Tomatoes score (which is 100% if you were wondering). I spent the entirety of the movie with a big dumb grin on my face. I've only seen one other Charlie Chaplin film before, The Kid. It was quite good, but he's only improved with The Gold Rush. It's just as light and fun as it is genius and dramatic. Even though not one word of dialogue is spoken, I wasn't bored for a minute. The basic plot of The Gold Rush is Chaplin's classic character, The Little Tramp, takes to Alaska in the late 1800's to strike gold and get rich. In the process, he makes several friends and has some fun. In one particular scene, Chaplin sticks forks in two bread rolls and does a dance. It's classic scenes like that that keep you watching. A casual glance of any Charlie Chaplin film would make it seem like they're all sappy and light hearted. True, large chunks of the film are quite enjoyably light, but Chaplin knows how to create real drama and a character you really care about. The Tramp is comical and silly most of the time, but he's also very poor and lonely. He wears the same tattered clothing all the time and isn't so lucky with women. He dances around and makes many jokes, but he also has to go home and freeze and starve half to death in a shabby cabin that isn't even his. At one point in the movie, The Tramp must shovel for hours to make enough money to throw a New Years Eve dinner for some new friends. When the night finally comes, they all forget to show up. He's a sad character, but he's also always somewhat happy. And Chaplin never gives you a bitter and morose ending. That's the beauty of these films. They can be happy, sad, and exciting, but they always end making you feel warm and good. The Gold Rush reminds you of the magic of the movies, if you needed reminding. How they can make you feel, and just how damn good they really are. The Gold Rush is fun for all ages. Adults will  appreciate the character of The Tramp and his trials and troubles. The kids will love his funny slapstick. Everyone will enjoy the movie as a whole. If you can't understand why critics love these movies so much, watch one. Then you'll understand. Happy Viewing. If you haven't already, you should follow me on Twitter @WhitsMovies and like me on Facebook at Facebook.com/WhitsMovies!

The Wind Rises review

Who knew an animated movie about planes could be so damn touching.
I have never seen a Hayao Miyazaki film until now. I am a bit ashamed of this fact, but it is true. People have always raved about Spirited Away or Princess Mononoke, I just never got into any of it. After watching his newest film, The Wind Rises, I know I've been making a huge mistake. The Wind Rises was pretty terrific. It's about a budding young aviation expert and engineer named Jiro Horikoshi. When Jiro was a child, he dreamt of airplanes. They fascinated him on another level. Then he grows up and works for a company making planes for the Japanese and German governments. He is a genius, having the best mind for aeronautics in the entire company. Jiro tries to be a successful engineer, while also having a personal life and keeping a sane in a world filled with war and hurt. Soon he finds love, but many obstacles stand in his way. This is the story of Jiro Horikoshi. This is The Wind Rises. As I said before, I am in no way versed in the works of Hayao Miyazaki. So I wasn't familiar with his style or anything like that. In fact, the only reason I saw this movie in the first place was because it got nominated for Best Animated Film and was supposed to be good. I had medium expectations because I never really was a fan of anime. Yet, The Wind Rises "rose" to any expectations I had and made me just stare in wonder at the movie screen. Which is fitting because in a way, The Wind Rises is all about wonder. Wonder and dreams and even movies themselves. Tragedy too, but mostly wonder. Jiro is captivated by aviation and engineering as soon as he comes in contact with it. His awe and wonder is 100% genuine. He compares planes to dreams, and they appear in his dreams. It may seem far fetched, but I think  Miyazaki is talking about his (or anyone's) love of film. I completely related to Jiro's love and fascination of aviation, except with movies instead. It made a lot of sense to me. It could be that I am just unconsciously projecting my own thoughts and persona into the story. If that's the case (which it most likely is), I applaud Miyazaki even more. To make a film so emotionally relatable is amazingly hard. What he has done, is created a movie about wonder and the importance of dreams. Then pumped the movie with hope and a good story, to create the ultimate cathartic film. The movie has many dream sequences throughout it, often really helping display its themes. One in particular, shows Jiro looking in amazement as his idea for a plane be brought to life through the power of his dreams. Anyone who has ever made a film, or really done anything creative, can relate to this. The sense of sheer joy at seeing your creation come alive, even if it's just in a particularly vivid dream. All the use of hope and wonder is great, but it'd be useless without a decent story and the other things that make a good movie. Luckily, The Wind Rises has all these things. And it does them quite well.  It also keeps a nice balance between whimsy and historical tragedy, not blurring the lines between them and not going overkill on either one. Keep in mind, although this is an animated movie, it isn't necessarily for your kids. While it has a lot of wonderful visuals and things that they may enjoy, it's also about World War II and tuberculosis. The story is sad at times, but it's also a great story. Occasionally it borders on overplaying the emotion factor, but it never actually does overplay it. The voice actors are great at breathing life into the story too. Joseph Gordon-Levitt is very solid as Jiro, as he usually is. Emily Blunt teams up with her Looper co-star as his love interest, Nahoko. Mae Whitman plays Jiro's sister, but she came off very whiny and annoying. Maybe that's just the "little sister" character, but it didn't make her any less grating. Frozen won Best Animated Film at the Oscars. I haven't seen it, and it probably is good, but I highly doubt it's better than The Wind Rises. And I do wish this had taken home the award, however impossible that may be. The Wind Rises is as successful in storytelling and thematic tools as practically any of the better films of last year. Apparently, this is Hayao Miyazaki's last movie. This makes me quite sad, for I'm just getting started on this guy. Happy Viewing everyone. Don't forget to follow me on Twitter @WhitsMovies and like me on Facebook at Facebook.com/WhitsMovies.  

3 Days to Kill review

Pauline Kael once said "Movies are so rarely great art that if we cannot appreciate great trash we have very little reason to be interested in them." 

She has a point. Unfortunately, 3 Days to Kill isn't great trash. It's just plain old trashy trash. What a shame. 3 Days to Kill is about an aging CIA hit-man named Ethan Renner (Kevin Costner) who gets cancer and is given three to five months to live. Luckily for him, if he's able to complete some assignments for the CIA, he'll be given some experimental cancer drug that may help him stay alive to see his estranged daughter (Hailee Steinfeld) and his wife (Connie Neilson). Before I get into the meat and potatoes of my review, let me get something straight. I am not a pompous, uppity, and overtly critical movie watcher. I always try to look for the good in films. I can enjoy a crappy movie. I'm even sort of a fan of dumb action flicks. Sure, they don't have much cinematic sustenance, but they can be a load of fun. I can enjoy stuff like Escape Plan and White House Down. Which is why I was somewhat looking forward to 3 Days to Kill. It was starring Kevin Costner. Costner's last action outing, Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit, was more than halfway decent. I was sure this would be the same brand of espionage-y fun. I was wrong. 3 Days to Kill was as much fun as death and taxes. It got off to a decent start with a classic spy vs. spy set up. Then it quickly became half cliche and very predictable spy movie and half boring melodrama. I tried really hard to like this movie, but it couldn't be done. Kevin Costner has the capacity to be the kind of action star Liam Neeson has become. Unfortunately, he seems content to "act" in garbage like this. I'm putting act in parentheses because all Costner did was walk around the movie with one expression on his face. It seemed as if Costner was just acting in this so he could get a paycheck and get out of there. I don't blame him. The movie has a lot more problems than just Costner's performance. This movie is directed by some guy named McG. The only other McG directed movie I've seen was Terminator Salvation. I should have known right then and there that this was going to be bad. I don't know who taught this guy how to direct action sequences, but they did an awful job. Whenever some "exciting" action is happening, it feels as if they handed the camera to someone having a seizure and told them to film the scene. The supposed awesome action sequences were irritating to look at and amatuerly filmed. I guess we should count ourselves lucky there isn't much action in this action movie. Most of the film revolves around Costner's character bonding with his daughter and dealing with family melodrama. The script is weak so the family melodrama isn't even interesting in the slightest. Teenager problems and daddy issues rarely make good movies. Especially if a certain movie is marketed as a cool action flick and is actually a mind numbing and syrupy family movie. I didn't go see 3 Days to Kill to watch Kevin Costner teach his teenage daughter how to ride a bike! I don't care who she goes to the prom with! I came for an action movie not a mediocre family togetherness piece of crap! The thing is, it really has nothing going for it. It's very poorly written. The plot is fairly cliche. (So-and-so foreign villain has a bomb and he's bad and you need to take him down like in every other action movie. Except a lot more boring!)he acting is sub par. The action sequences are frenetic and annoying. There are also several half-hearted attempts at jokes here. The jokes aren't funny. At all. The whole movie seems like someone had half a good idea and then gave up there. I wanted to like this, but after a while I could barely stand it. I'm sorry, but this was just bad. Maybe if it had been directed by John McTiernan or J.J. Abrams and written by someone halfway talented it could've been great. But instead it is the opposite of that. Trash. I give 3 Days to Kill 2 out of 5 stars. Take my advice; if you want to see a good action movie, rent Die Hard or the original RoboCop or something like that. Don't waste your money on this. Happy Viewing. You can follow me on Twitter @WhitsMovies and like me on Facebook at Facebook.com/WhitsMovies.             

You're Next review

I'm next, she's next, you're next.... Who's keeping track anyway?
Horror movies seem to have been steadily going downhill for a while now. There's been a few good hits here and there, but there's been a lot of garbage in the genre recently (the entire Paranormal Activity series and Final Destination 5 to name a few). The trailer for You're Next was basically a generic horror movie preview but with Lou Reed's Perfect Day put over it. While the ironic use of the music intrigued me, I wasn't intrigued enough to buy a ticket and see the thing. Maybe I should have. You're Next starts out as a very predictable horror flick. Starts out showing a bit of violence, then establishing the "normal" world and environment. Setting up all the conditions of the situation and surrounding, and of course taking a little time to develop character and add a bit of suspense. Then, for lack of a better word, shit goes down. The movie completely spins everything on it's head and creates one of the more jaw dropping, well made, and surprisingly funny horror films I've seen in quite some time. Not to mention it has one of the best uses of practical effects I've seen since maybe the original Evil Dead movie. First off let me state, the movie isn't perfect. It occasionally ventures too far into the homage territory and starts becoming more of a bloody rip off. Then it quickly bounces back and surprises you while at the same time even making you chuckle. I've never seen anything else Adam Wingard has done, but he defintiely shows promise. He not only directed You're Next, but edited it too. I know editing is a frustrating and hard thing to do. Wingard does it wonderfully. He makes it all pair so well with the plot and his direction. He cuts between the horrific murder scenes and the regular scenes with such skill it seems almost seamless. And his ironic use of music really adds to the sort of awesome black comedy vibe it has. Let's just say it, the guy did a terrific job. He's not the only one. The acting is alright here, nothing too special. You can't expect flawless acting in a low budget horror flick most times. Although sort of newcomer (she's only had bit parts until now) Sharni Vinson did a bang up acting job here. She plays this sweet Australian girl who goes through a bit of change and becomes quite awesome. I won't spoil it but her character and her acting become very cool as the movie progresses. Most of the rest of the cast is just alright. They scream and cry and laugh when they have to but not much else. Then again, the acting doesn't really matter here. The other two actors who shined here were Joe Swanberg and A.J. Bowen. Swanberg plays this douche bag big brother of A.J. Bowen's character and he plays him so well that you actually hate him for a while. His character has his moments though and is the subject of much of the aforementioned dark humor. A.J. Bowen doesn't do much until later in the film, where he gives a sort of speech that I found funny and very well delivered. Speaking of which, the writing here, while not Oscar worthy, was still very good. The story and all the twists were fresh and original and some of the dialogue and situations were very comical in the best way. I feel like if the Coen Brothers wrote a gruesome home invasion movie, it'd somewhat resemble this. The gore and blood here is a tad excessive at times, although not to the extent that some scary movies have gone to. What also helps is the wonderful use of practical effects that Wingard uses here. It all looks real, but if you really pay attention to the little details, you can see, say, that the blood is a bit too sticky and looks a lot like corn syrup. Yet, Adam Wingard uses it all so well! In a cinema world so polluted by CGI, special effects, and editing tricks it is rare to see stuff done this realistically and raw. It's actually damn refreshing to see this. I've mentioned the twists and turns this movie has. It has a very healthy amount of them. Not too much where it gets gratuitous, but enough where it keeps you excited and guessing. They're not the obvious twists either. I give much credit to the writer for this, and for the director for carrying it out so well. You're Next is one of the most coherent, well thought out, and entertaining horror films I've seen in a long time. Yes, it's better then the original Paranormal Activity. Which on a side note I find to be an overrated and mediocre found footage movie that isn't as revolutionary as people say it is. But more on that another time. If I had seen this before I made my Favorite Films of 2013 list it would've probably gotten the #15 spot, or at least honorable mention. I recommend you see it, even if you're not a horror buff. You do need to be able to have a moderately strong stomach though. It gets bloody. As always, Happy Viewing everybody. You can follow me on Twitter @WhitsMovies and like me on Facebook at Facebook.com/WhitsMovies to keep up with my movie related thoughts and escapades.

Once Upon a Time in the West review

I really hate the word epic. It's overused in all the wrong ways and it's never used when it should be. In the case of this movie, I believe the word epic can be used.

As you very well may know, I'm partial to westerns. Sergio Leone westerns in particular. And since I'm trying to watch a lot of westerns to learn about and understand the genre more, it was only natural of me to watch Sergio Leone's famous 1968 western, Once Upon a Time in the West. I had tried to watch the whole thing about a year ago, but I kept getting distracted and not being able to finish it. Finally, I sat down and watched the entire film from start to finish. While I can't say it's Leone's best movie, it certainly is a very good one. Once Upon a Time in the West is a story of Jill McBain (Claudia Cardinale), whose family was killed by a group of land hungry bandits led by the very evil Frank (Henry Fonda). Cardinale teams up with the notorious Cheyenne (Jason Robards) to help her stay safe. Meanwhile, a stranger known only as Harmonica (Charles Bronson) also helps Cheyenne, while simultaneously attending to his own agenda. I feel like Sergio Leone movies just get better as they go along. Starting with the very good A Fistful of Dollars, and getting increasingly better from there. The only exception of the rule is that The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly came before Once Upon a Time in the West. In all fairness, it is quite difficult to beat The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly. The rest of his movies follow that path though. Maybe because he just got more and more experienced. Once Upon a Time in the West is one of his later films, and one of his best. It combines serious drama with classic western standoffs and good acting. While I really do love all of Sergio Leone's westerns, the acting in them is never great. Granted, I've unfortunately never seen Once Upon a Time in America. Sure, Clint Eastwood's outlaw is a classic character, but is the performance really good? He is passable, but most of the other roles can be laughably bad. What makes Once Upon a Time in the West stand out is its talented all star cast. Charles Bronson is alright in the role of Harmonica. He plays him with a nice mix of deadpan and comedy, while still maintaining the mystery of the character. Jason Robards is good too as Cheyenne. He's nothing truly special though. Henry Fonda is deliciously bad as the main criminal, Frank. I don't think I've seen Fonda play a bad guy before, but he is good at it. The real star here is Claudia Cardinale. She is talented, pretty, and able to carry this movie on her shoulders. I haven't seen her in anything else but I'd certainly like to. Despite the film being made in a time when woman weren't as respected, Cardinale plays a strong and independent woman who isn't a nagging housewife or Playboy girl. She isn't exploited here, and she isn't left in the background either. Cardinale is front and center, showing off her skill. And that is just were she deserves to be. As I mentioned above, this film is really epic. It spans a whole three hours, and makes use of every minute. The last forty minutes are riveting. There is an incredible gunfight, and a terrific bittersweet ending that shows us that no matter what, the growth of the West will prevail. Ennio Morricone's terrific score helps too. The composer always teams up with Leone for his films, and the finished product is always great. I recommend you to listen to all of his western musical scores. They're all great in their own way. Overall, this movie is about the hardiness and promise of the Old West. It rings with the message of prevailing through the darkness and triumphing evil. It's a good old fashioned adventure epic. It's not Sergio Leone's most meaningful western, (Duck, You Sucker takes the cake for that) but it's a hell of a lot more thoughtful than some of his other stuff. I do recommend the movie. It's nowhere near perfect, but it still is awe inspiring and  good. Happy Viewing everyone. Don't forget to follow me on Twitter @WhitsMovies and like me on Facebook at Facebook.com/WhitsMovies!         

Zelig review

Say what you will about Woody Allen's personal life, but the guy can make a good movie. Granted, he's still one weird dude.
We've all seen Woody Allen movies. Whether it's his classic romantic comedies like Manhattan and Annie Hall, or his newer stuff like Blue Jasmine and Midnight in Paris. None of those movies are anything like this one. Zelig is a fictional documentary about a strange man in the 1920's named Leonard Zelig who blends in to whoever he is around. Meaning, if he's around Chinese people, he becomes fully Chinese. If he's around doctors, he becomes a knowledgeable doctor. This film documents his exploits as he's treated for his disorder and becomes a national sensation. It's an unarguably strange premise that's truly unlike what Allen usually does. Yet somehow, it really works. Under the wrong direction, Zelig could have easily become unnecessarily weird or even boring. Under the writing and directing prowess of Woody Allen, Zelig becomes an entertaining and funny look at society and one strange man. The movie starts out showing how Leonard Zelig was discovered at a party by F. Scott Fitzgerald, and then goes on to tell how he was apprehended in Chinatown and brought to a hospital where he underwent lots of testing. The film is interwoven with realistic looking news reel footage and "real" interviews with people who knew him. As preposterous as the whole thing is, at times I almost believed it was real! The pictures are all in black and white and are all scratched up and gritty as if they were archived news reels. I have to admit, before I got really into the movie, I honestly thought the whole thing was an actual documentary. It's just done so well. The acting is great too. It's a mix of seemingly regular people and famous ones like Mia Farrow. They all put on the airs of a regular 1920's civilian. Like the movie, the acting here could have easily been overdone or underdone. That being said, Zelig isn't a masterpiece in cinema. It isn't perfect. It does sometimes poke fun at society and how we blow things out of proportion and put too much attention in a trivial story. It does this by embracing the tabloid wackiness of it all and presenting the story as 100% real. Yet, it doesn't always get it's point across or even seem to know where it's going at times. When it does do things right, it's one of the most wonderfully wacky things I've seen in a while. Allen excels at what he does here. As a Woody Allen fan, I'm a late bloomer. Although it depresses me to say this, the first of his films I saw was Blue Jasmine last summer. While it wasn't bad, I was incredibly underwhelmed and had numerous problems with the movie. As a result of that, I was very turned off to this seemingly overrated Woody Allen guy everyone keeps raving about. Then I watched Annie Hall. I was so blown away by it's sheer comedic genius, I didn't know what to think. I loved it! But surely this could not be the same write/director who did the stuffy and overblown Blue Jasmine? It was. So, I watched Manhattan. Almost as great, equally as funny, a truly terrific film. Then I watched Play It Again, Sam (which he wrote and starred in) and I was hooked. Only after watching Zelig do I realize how much I love Woody Allen. It makes me want to watch all of his movies. And I do plan to. The last time I got this excited about a director was back whenever I started watching Martin Scorsese or Quentin Tarantino. I can finally see why everyone seems to love Woody Allen. He is a cinematic genius, and I don't say that often. Seeing how great he can be really makes me want to go back and revisit Blue Jasmine. Maybe I missed something. If you haven't seen Zelig, or any of Allen's other films for that matter, I highly urge you too. As for me, I think I'll go watch a Woody Allen movie. Happy Viewing guys. Remember to follow me on Twitter @WhitsMovies and like me on Facebook at Facebook.com/WhitsMovies to keep up with my blog and talk to me about movie related things.

Philomena review

I would make a joke about the name Philomena, but I don't have the most run-of-the-mill name either so.... I'll just keep my mouth shut.
Philomena is about this old lady named Philomena Lee (played by Judi Dench). When Philomena was a mere teenager, she has sex with a boy and becomes pregnant. This is bad, although most people can deal with it some way or another. The problem with Philomena is that she lives in a nunnery-type place and gets her child taken away from her by the nuns to be adopted to an American family. This understandably hurts Philomena very much. You'd think at that point you'd try your hardest to get your baby back or at least try and go see him, right? Well Philomena has been brainwashed into thinking what she did was an unforgivable sin. So, she never tries to find her child at all. She thinks that she's paying for what she's done everyday. After 50 years of this, she finally tells her daughter. At a dinner party, the daughter confronts recently laid-off journalist Martin Sixsmith (Steve Coogan) about her mother's story. Sixsmith is reluctant, but he does take up the story and helps Philomena find her long lost son. On hearing about this movie, I really wasn't interested in it at all. It sounded like an emotionally manipulative and sappy piece of Oscar bait that I just wouldn't be able to stand. Well, it went and got nominated for four Oscars (including Best Picture). While I do think we often put too much attention and weight on the Academy Awards, I still like to be up to date with them. Plus, a movie has to be pretty damn good to be nominated for four major Oscars right? RIGHT? Maybe. Philomena is a pretty decent film. I didn't hate it, and I really liked certain aspects of it. Yet, in no way is it deserving of Best Picture, or really any of the Oscars it was nominated for. It was better then I expected but worse then many critics made it seem. Philomena has a very interesting and incredible story. That's not because of the writers or director though. That is just because this actually happened. The film is just showcasing the story. I feel like the story could have been showcased in a better and less manipulative way. The story is just sort of thrown up there for you to see. It uses big swells of music and the acting of Judi Dench as a crutch for the sometimes weak direction and script that didn't have a lot to say. What the music and acting doesn't hide is how very cheesy this movie feels at times. The aforementioned swells of music paired alongside especially emotional moments feels incredibly cheesy and worst of all it feels like the director is shoving emotions in you face. It's like he's practically shouting at you "Feel sad!" "Feel happy! This is heartwarming so you should feel happy!". While a little little bit of that when used the right way (like The Shawshank Redemption) can work wonders, a large heaping amount of it used the wrong way can make something like Philomena feel all wrong. Now don't get me wrong, this movie isn't all bad. Philomena's screenplay can be weak at times, but at other times it's quite funny and filled with wonderful British wit. Also, the acting is pretty great. Dame Judi Dench is terrific here as Philomena. She displays equal parts naive innocence and a determined demeanor that works great here. Her acting nomination is the only one I think is even halfway deserved. After seeing her play M in the James Bond flicks the past few years, it's nice to see her show what other ability she has. Steve Coogan, while not fantastic, does a solid job playing the sarcastic and skeptical journalist. Coogan has proved he can be funnier and better, but he understands this is Dench's film. He let's her take the helm while simultaneously providing support and funny lines along the way. This movie is a nice story filled with emotion that the whole family can enjoy. Yet, it's not all that great. And it could've been done a lot better in my opinion. Philomena has different parts that are great, but as a whole I felt it faltered a bit. It's not bad, but it sure as hell isn't Best Picture worthy. I give Philomena 3.4 out of 5 stars. Remember you can follow me on Twitter @WhitsMovies and like me on Facebook at Facebook.com/WhitsMovies. Happy Viewing!        

Lone Survivor review

SPOILER: Only one of them survives.

Lone Survivor is the true story of the botched Navy SEAL operation that left all but one dead. So first off lest me say that I feel very conflicted about this movie. On one hand, it's a very well-shot, fairly inspirational, decently directed, and well acted true war film that can be quite gripping. On the other hand, it really isn't sure on what it wants to say, the dialog is really not very good at all, and it doesn't seem to really have an underlying message. While part of me liked the film, another part of me really didn't. I feel very torn. Lone Survivor is directed by Peter Berg. He's the "acclaimed" director of such "classics" like Battleship. I'm using parentheses because Battleship really sucked. Regardless of Lone Survivor's faults, it's still a huge step up from Battleship. While Battleship was a stupid, pointless, vapid, and loud movie, Lone Survivor is much better made and is at least trying to be a good movie. Granted, it's still not great. At first, the film seems like it wants to be an uber patriotic movie filled with lots of Proud-To-Be-American kind of moments that almost border on propaganda. While this could get irritating, it's not the worst thing a film could do. Then the tone switches to what seems to be a very anti-war film. Showing the gritty, gruesome, and downright horrifying aspects of war. You see Americans getting shot with blood spurting everywhere and bones sticking out. People are dying and it's pretty sad and pretty scary. It only shows the American point of view though. The Afghan troops are nothing more then nameless enemies that need to be shot down. While I completely understand that the Taliban are horrible, horrible war criminals, I still think they should have at least tried to show things from there point of view. Or maybe just show where these people's hatred is coming from. Instead it focuses solely on the Americans. I get that this is about the American soldiers but I feel like they could have approached the Afghans differently then they did. If the film had taken a single stance and stuck with it, that would be okay with me. If it was a very patriotic war movie focusing on the sheer heroism and honor of the soldiers, that'd be fine. If it had been an adamant anti-war movie like Platoon, that'd be just as fine. But instead it's stuck in the middle. Often times, Lone Survivor seems to be trying to say something meaningful. Yet, it gets lost in translation. I know it sounds like I'm really hating on the movie, I suppose I am, but that doesn't mean I hated it. While it had numerous problems, it still did a lot of things fairly well. For one, it was really intense and absorbing. Ridley Scott made a similar war film a few years ago (coincidentally also co-starring Eric Bana) called Black Hawk Down. I hated it. It focused 100% on these loud violent battle scenes and nothing else.  I can appreciate a well done fight sequence and there have been some great ones (think Saving Private Ryan), but Scott really overdid it. The whole movie was one overlong mess of a battle scene. It got really boring. Lone Survivor could have easily fallen into being a movie like that. Besides a few scenes in the beginning and end, the film is pretty much one long battle. Yet, Peter Berg manages to make this whole exciting and gritty battle also tense and emotional with at least a little focus on character. Well actually he only really focuses on Mark Wahlberg's character (the aforementioned 'Lone Survivor'). The rest of the cast isn't developed much and isn't given all that much time to shine. Their deaths are the only time they get some real focus. It's not a huge deal and doesn't really hamper the film too much, but it is a bit annoying. The film is definitely helped by some great performances by Wahlberg, Ben Foster, Taylor Kitsch, and Emile Hirsch. While there's little focus on the other characters besides Mark Wahlberg, they all still do a bang up job. I was actually pretty surprised. It also helps how beautiful this all looks. There are some breathtaking shots of this sweeping Afghan landscape and the movie as a whole looks very polished and good. Even though some of the choices Pete Berg made here really ticked me off, I was still wowed by how damn beautiful everything looked. Regardless of everything, the film was incredibly well shot. Yet, none of those wonderful shots were really used to say something. At least the movie could have tried a little harder for an anti-war message. I felt like Berg was trying to say some things here, but just didn't follow through. One thing the movie did succeed in doing, was telling an inspirational true story that is pretty damn amazing. It wasn't told in the best way, but it was fairly gripping at times and it was very well shot. And it certainly did benefit from Wahlberg's performance. I didn't hate it, I just felt it could've been done a lot better. Maybe if it was made by a Born on the Fourth of July-era Oliver Stone with access to today's technology. Now THAT would be a movie right there. It's inspirational and gripping, but not that great in other ways. I give Lone Survivor 3.2 out of 5 stars. Happy Viewing y'all. If you haven't already, you should definitely follow me on Twitter @WhitsMovies and like me on Facebook at Facebook.com/WhitsMovies. Thanks for reading.            

American Hustle review

American Bullshit was the original title for the film. Which is so much better in my opinion.
American Hustle is a movie about cons, tricks, hustles, and lies. The plot itself is about that, and much of the movie has little things that reflect the whole "con" theme. In the beginning of the film, the screen reads the words, 'Some of this actually happened'. It's hard to tell what's real here. The whole movie is one big con. That's what makes it so damn fun. American Hustle is the kind of movie that you want to see again. You want to pick up on all the little things you missed, and also just enjoy it all again. The film is about a con artist named Irving Rosenfeld (Christian Bale) who, through a series of not-so-legal business transactions, gets himself involved in a sting operation led by federal agent Richie DiMaso (Bradley Cooper) involving the mafia and Camden New Jersey Mayor Carmine Polito (Jeremy Renner). Swept up with him are his business colleague/lover, Sydney Prosser (Amy Adams), and his crazy wife Rosalyn (Jennifer Lawrence). This is directed by David O. Russell. I'm not as familiar with his filmography as I should be, but his last movie, Silver Linings Playbook, was one of my favorite films of last year. He's done it again with American Hustle, because this is one of my favorite movies of this year. It's actually pretty amazing that this guy can make a spectacular film one year and pretty much immediately make another hit. This movie is crazy entertaining with some awesome performances and a really good screenplay. The film takes place in the 70's. Although it was the actual time the ABSCAM operation, it's also an ideal setting for the movie. The 70's was an era of fake hair, which there is a lot of in this film, and fake music. This whole movie is about fakery, cons, and other stuff of that nature. The whole 70's setting works perfectly for the film. The whole movie just works so well. If you haven't heard by now, the acting here is terrific. Christian Bale is the obvious standout playing the head con artist, Irving Rosenfeld. He gained a decent amount of weight for the role, but his performance is much more than aesthetic. He portrays his character perfectly. Everything from his Bronx accent to his 'elaborate' comb over. While his character is funny, it could be easily turned into a thin caricature. Bale, despite all his cons and tricks, makes the character seem completely real. It's amazing how damn versatile he is. Going from a psycho killer, to Batman, to this takes some skill. Christian Bale obviously has skill. The female leads here are also great. Amy Adams gives another knock out performance as Rosenfeld's partner with a fake British accent, Sydney Prosser. Amy Adams has continued to prove that she is a more than capable actress. She was awesome in last year's The Master. She's even better here and I hope she wins an Oscar for this role. I can honestly say she is one of my favorite actresses. Jennifer Lawrence already won an Oscar for David O. Russell's last film. I wouldn't be surprised if she won again. It's incredible how she can give a great performance in a small indie film, then star in The Hunger Games and in the new X-Men movie, then star in two smaller, more acclaimed films. You could say she's the female Christian Bale. Anyway, she's fantastic here. most of the time she plays a very likable character. Here she's playing a crazy and generally annoying character. And she does it very,very well. Bradley Cooper is really good too. Which if two years ago you called Bradley Cooper a very good actor I would have laughed in your face. After Silver Linings Playbook, The Place Beyond The Pines, and this, I have a lot of faith in Mr. Cooper. Jeremy Renner has a smaller role as Mayor Carmine Polito and i know he's going to get zero recognition for his role but I thought he did a great job. Renner is a very underrated actor. Although American Hustle has done very well critically, recently I've heard a lot of complaints about how overrated it is and how it will win Best Picture but won't deserve it. It's not The Wolf of Wall Street but I'd be perfectly happy if this won Best Picture. It's certainly making my Best of the Year list and I would certainly see it again. American Hustle is one of the most enjoyable films I've seen all year and it entertained the hell out of me. It combined comedy and serious filmmaking very expertly. It's soundtrack also worked really, really well. I am going to give American Hustle 4.8 out of 5 stars. Happy Viewing you guys. Remember you can always follow me on Twitter @WhitsMovies and like me on Facebook at Facebook.com/WhitsMovies.        

The Wolf of Wall Street review

Gordon Gekko's got nothing on Jordan Belfort. Nothing.
Jordan Belfort is a multi-millionaire stock broker and founder of Stratton Oakmont, a brokerage firm on Wall Street. He has a huge mansion gloriously furnished on the most expensive property there is. He often will have events at his firm that involve throwing a dwarf at a target, and bringing a marching band accompanied by strippers into the office. He has a trophy wife, and still enjoys the company of prostitutes many days of the week. Belfort takes a cornucopia of  drugs everyday to keep him going, including morphine, because, as he says "Morphine is awesome!". He is the subject of Martin Scorsese's newest film, The Wolf of Wall Street. The film opens with Jordan Belfort (Leonardo DiCaprio) explaining who he is over voice over while, as I mentioned earlier, he is throwing a very small man at a Velcro target. Thus begins the extremely entertaining and often ridiculous tale of Mr. Jordan Belfort. This is one case where you can say truth is stranger than fiction. The film documents Belfort's rise from ambitious kid to multi-million dollar entity. And it also document his fall. First off, this film was incredibly entertaining. It may be Scorsese's best film since The Departed, maybe even since Casino, but it isn't Scorsese's best movie. What I can say is that it is Martin Scorsese's most entertaining, insane, and funny film yet. Truly, it is awesome to have a 71 year old man make a film so vibrant, crazy, and entertaining as this. The Wolf of Wall Street runs at about three hours. I was completely absorbed the whole time. Some critically acclaimed movies like Lincoln and Blue Jasmine were well done in many ways, but failed to keep my attention and entertain. Scorsese (with the help of screenwriter Terence Winter) manages to craft a wonderfully enjoyable film, that is also a truly good film. He's not sacrificing content and message for flashy-ness and beautifully filmed scenes (like movies such as Spring Breakers kind of did). Point is I really enjoyed The Wolf of Wall Street, and it was really good. For many, many reasons other than just being incredibly entertaining. The acting was quite good, for one. Leonardo DiCaprio is one of the most committed and talented actors working today. He is occasionally talked up for more then he is, but overall I think the guy is really good. He's proved he can act in movies like The Aviator, Django Unchained, and What's Eating Gilbert Grape. I can honestly say The Wolf of Wall Street showcases Leonardo DiCaprio's best performance yet. Him and Scorsese are a fantastic actor/director team that I hope keep on working together for many movies to come. I really hope Leo wins an Oscar for this. He not only personifies the money and drug addled craziness of Jordan Belfort, but takes the role to many different levels. Jonah Hill also gives a more than decent performance as Belfort's close associate and partner in crime, Donnie Azoff. Hill is definitely a capable actor as he's shown before, he only solidifies that now. The rest of the supporting cast is really good too. Matthew McConaughey shows up for a very funny cameo. McConaughey is an actor who I used to hate, and now really appreciate and love. His role here may be small, but it's still pretty damn good. Many of you may know that Martin Scorsese is my all-time favorite director. I have a lot of favorite directors like Quentin Tarantino and Wes Anderson among others, but Scorsese is the only one who never disappoints and always continues to wow me. I can't think of a bad movie the guy has made! His work here is a fantastic return to the insane form that inhabited some of his stuff like GoodFellas, Casino, and After Hours. The Wolf of Wall Street is insane and excessive and over-the-top, but Martin Scorsese does it all so, so well. He uses old devices like voice over and constantly moving camera to really tell this story. You could easily fail at doing the story of Jordan Belfort. You could make it too gratuitous without really giving meaning to the story and exploring the themes. Luckily Terence Winter and Martin Scorsese know what they're doing. The Wolf of Wall Street is about not only the excessive greed and malpractice of Wall Street, but it's about learning from your mistakes and the misinterpretation of the American Dream. What frightens me is that people will miss the meaning of the story and use it as an excuse and guide for trying to live like Jordan Belfort. Many people completely missed the meaning of Scarface, how excessive greed and power will eventually bring you down, and took it as a handbook on how to be a "cool" gangster. Similar to that, many people were "disgusted" at the film because of it's many scenes involving drugs, sex, more drugs, and other devious acts of debauchery. What these critic don't understand is that these acts are necessary to the themes and message of the movie! The Wolf of Wall Street is a cautionary tale. I just hope people realize that. I've heard a lot of talk recently about how 2013 is one of the best years for movies in a long time. With stuff like this coming out, I can't help but agree. We are in a golden age of cinema. Martin Scorsese is just one fine example of that. Scorsese is focusing on Wall St. for this movie. He is known for his mafia films like The Departed and GoodFellas. I think they're very similar. Scorsese paints a picture of excessive and crazy Wall Street life in the 80's and 90's, that isn't all that different from the mafia life he told us about in some of his other films. Making movies like this seems to be what the guy was born to do. If you haven't noticed by now, I really liked this film. Call me crazy, but it may be the best of the year (so far). And yes, I would watch it again in a heartbeat. I give The Wolf of Wall Street 5 out of 5 stars. Happy Viewing everybody. If you want to keep up to date with my reviews and other things, you can follow me on Twitter @WhitsMovies and like me on Facebook at Facebook.com/WhitsMovies.              

#tbt The Searchers review

This film stars John Wayne. The movie star, not the notorious and horrifying serial killer. Just wanted to clear that up.
As many of you guys may know, I'm focusing mostly on watching and reviewing westerns this month as part of a project to really understand the genre. I started by watching High Noon (which I thought was very overrated, but not that bad), and then proceeded to watch John Ford's 1956 classic, The Searchers. Let's juts say this movie has earned it's 100% Rotten Tomatoes score. The plot of the film is that a group of Comanche Native Americans murder almost an entire family but kidnap the youngest daughter. Civil war veteran Ethan Edwards (John Wayne), was the brother of the man whose family was killed. So Edwards and his adopted nephew, Martin Pawley (Jeffrey Hunter), go off  in search of the missing girl. I have mentioned, in some of my other reviews, that westerns seem to have fallen out of favor in the past few decades. I can only think of about three great ones that came out in the 2000's, and two of them are remakes. Yes, I think it's fair to say that the western genre is endangered. It truly is a shame though, because the western was a once great genre. The Searchers is proof of that. The whole movie is just fantastic. It's an epic, mixed with a revenge flick, with a little bit of buddy movie thrown in there. And it's incredibly watchable. I never thought of John Wayne as a "good" actor. He always seemed to play the same character, and just never wowed me.Even most of the stuff I saw him in was just alright. I felt that the supposedly great Rio Bravo was a fairly unoriginal movie with a mediocre performance by Wayne. I can't say the same for The Searchers. His performance here is the best I've seen of him yet. Especially one of the last scenes he really displays some acting prowess. I won't ruin it for you though. Just see the movie. There's a common misconception that old films are boring, stuffy, and irrelevant. I won't lie, I once thought the same thing. There are many great oldies out there, The Searchers being one of them. The last 10 minutes are some of the coolest and more exciting sequences in film history. It involves John Wayne's character and a whole bunch of cavalry dudes charging a Comanche camp and it's pure awesome. I'm sure many movies have been inspired by this. It's not just a straight western either, it goes deeper than that. Ethan Edwards is very cautious and prejudice against Comanches, partially stemming from his experiences in the war and partially just from the mindset of the time. His partner and adopted nephew, Martin, is part Comanche. This proves to be a big problem for Ethan  throughout the movie. The fact that his niece has been kidnapped by people of that race doesn't help him at all. At one point he learns that Debbie, his niece, has lived with the Native Americans so long that she has begun to accept them as her people and live like them. This angers him so much to the point where he wants to murder his own niece. The transformation he undergoes is pretty astounding, and Wayne does it terrifically. I have no idea why this film received no accolades at all, especially for John Wayne's performance. My only problem with The Searchers is that it drags occasionally, especially in the middle of the movie. Otherwise it really is a damn good western. If you haven't seen it, even if you don't like westerns in particular, you really should. It's a well done movie that I wouldn't hesitate to watch again. Happy Viewing y'all. Remember you can follow me on Twitter @WhitsMovies and like me on Facebook at Facebook.com/WhitsMovies.        

#tbt Annie Hall review

"I'd never want to belong to a club that would want someone like me as a member."
This is how comedian Alvy Singer (Woody Allen) describes his love life. Finally being with a woman he wants to be with, and soon growing bored and detached, eventually leaving her. Soon Alvy meets Annie Hall (Diane Keaton), a lovable and occasionally clumsy girl who he soon falls deeply in love with. Woody Allen creates a relationship and a story that is very funny and fresh. I haven't seen a romantic comedy done this well since Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Annie Hall is the movie that pretty much rocketed Woody Allen to stardom and placed him on everyone's top directors list. It's the film that everyone points to as a sign of Allen's genius. It won 4 Oscars, including Best Picture. I can see why it's not just brilliant, it's one of those movies that may have actually changed film itself. So yeah, I think it's safe to say Annie Hall is pretty good. And it's a real shame I haven't seen it until now. Woody Allen's most recent film, Blue Jasmine, got a lot of praise and is even getting some awards buzz. Personally, I didn't think it was all that great. It had some really nice performances, but overall it just wasn't that special. But I'm not here to review Blue Jasmine. What I can say, is that Annie Hall makes Blue Jasmine look like Grown Ups 2. It's that good, I assure you. Spike Lee sometimes uses the technique of talking to the camera. That same documentary-style technique is used in many TV shows today like The Office, Parks and Recreation, and Modern Family. It seems to have all started with Annie Hall. The film has such a simple plot: a man looks back at his broken relationship wondering what went wrong. Yet, Allen makes it work so well. I've never been as captivated and entertained by a romantic comedy like I was with Annie Hall. It's so well done. Especially the screenplay, written by Woody Allen himself, is so witty and smart. It mixes very interesting and original techniques with pop culture references and poignancy into a truly fantastic movie. There's one scene in particular where Alvy and Annie are just getting to know each other and are talking on Annie's roof. They're making small talk, but in subtitles is what they're actually thinking. Alvy will say one thing, but underneath him it'll say "I wonder what she looks like naked.". It's really quite clever. I probably don't have enough life experience to "get" Annie Hall. But I can still enjoy it. And boy, did i enjoy it. If I watch Annie Hall a few more times, I'm sure it'll make it as one of my favorites of all time. Maybe it already is. Annie Hall is the kind of movie you want to watch again. Happy Throwback Thursday and as always, Happy Viewing. You can follow me on Twitter @WhitsMovies and like me on Facebook at Facebook.com/WhitsMovies!
P.S. I've decided to devote this month to westerns. So for the rest of the month I'll be watching and reviewing exclusively westerns in order to really understand the genre as a whole. Then at the end of all that I'm going it write a piece on my thoughts about the entire western genre. Just wanted to let you guys know so you're not wondering why I'm only doing westerns for my next Throwback Thursday reviews. Thanks for reading!