Inception

For many, this film is synonymous with complexity—and rightfully so. Its intricate plot has more than just dreams within dreams but also ideas within ideas. There is more to Inception than just its plot twists, however. Inception is above all the most innovative idea to come out of Hollywood since Donnie Darko and an exhibition of fantastic cinematography, good acting, a moving score, and a compelling plot. This review, like Donnie Darko, requires some explanation as part of the analysis.

Acting

Inception is a star-studded cast of Leonardo Dicaprio, Ellen Page, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, and Tom Hardy, with Michael Caine making a limited appearance. It is worth noting that Christopher Nolan is one of very few directors to use some of his actors in multiple films. Gordon-Levitt, Hardy, Michael Caine, Marion Cotillard (Mal), and Cillian Murphy (Fischer) all appear in his Dark Knight trilogy for example. None of these actors give the best performance of their career, but all are proven actors and give this film the performances it deserves. Dicaprio and Cotillard give the strongest performances as Cobb and Mal, and Gordon-Levitt is impressive as Arthur, but none of these actors are really challenged in this movie as they are overshadowed by the intricacy of the story. A perfect example of this is Ellen Page who normally plays very challenging roles (An American Crime, Juno, Hard Candy, etc.) but here gives a rather straightforward performance as Ariadne. Inception is a rare exception where great acting isn’t necessary for an exceptional film.

Cinematography:

There are several awe-inspiring visual scenes in this film which showcase Nolan’s skill as a director. The first of these scenes is when Leo is dunked in slow-motion into a bathtub while enormous tidal waves come crashing through the sides of the building. Nolan shows us first one scene and then the other, back and forth, creating a transition for Cobb from one dream to the next while also building tension for the audience as first we first feel concern that he will drown in Saito’s palace and then that he will drown in the tub. These feelings of anxiety are instantaneous, not drawn out like most action scenes, which make them more effective as there’s no time for the audience to become bored or lose interest in the character’s peril. Nolan also uses this back and forth technique to show what’s going on inside Cobb’s mind; we see a scene of what is happening in real time, followed by a clip of Cobb’s children, then back to real time, then an image of Mal, then back to real time. This is a simple technique and used quite often by directors but what makes it special in this movie is the amount that it is used and the role it has in helping the audience figure out what happened to Cobb. It’s not just his thoughts we are seeing but his memories and these help us to piece together the narrative of what happened to him. This technique also works as part of the story’s framework by providing a space for Mal to exist in addition to Cobb’s dreams.

Another example of the beautiful cinematography in this film is when Cobb and Ariadne meet on a Paris street corner and we see a book display and fruit stands begin to explode, then the glass from the nearby buildings, then the buildings themselves and then even the ground erupts all forming a slow-motion tornado of destruction around Cobb and Ariadne who remain perfectly still. When Ariadne asks about “what happens when you mess with the physics of it all” and turns a street upside down forming a cube is a great visual to help the audience grasp the ability of an architect to mess with dreams, just as the Penrose steps example is a clever way for Nolan to explain how dreams can be built as paradoxical mazes. Many of the scenes in this film are simply spectacular to behold because of their overwhelming amount of detail and magnitude: the buildings shown in limbo, the first maze Ariadne designs, Saito’s palace, the zero-gravity scene in the hotel, etc. These scenes exemplify the level of complexity that Nolan achieves both visually and through his writing.

Story

There are too many unique elements to dreaming and inception in this story to cover them all, but a list of some of them would include: that five minutes in the real world gives an hour in the dream, the concept of architects who design dreams as mazes, that there are projections of the subconscious who can turn on those who do not belong in the dream, totems, that dreamers use bank vaults as places to hide secure information, the concept of a forger as someone who imitates real people within a dream rather than the conventional definition, etc. Because Inception has so many of these original ideas, all of which are new to the audience, much of the movie must be dedicated to explaining these concepts to the audience. How these ideas are explained and how much time is given to their explanation is critical to the film’s success because there is a balance that must be met between providing enough information that the audience can understand what’s going on but not so much that the audience is overwhelmed and loses interest in the story. Nolan’s execution of this balance is flawless. By using multiple characters to teach the audience (Cobb, Arthur, and Eames) and dividing new concepts up between scenes, Nolan keeps his ideas fresh and manageable for the audience.

“An idea is like a virus: resilient, highly contagious. The smallest seed of an idea can grow. It can grow to define or destroy you.” This is how Cobb characterizes an idea and is clearly the definition at work in the film. The audience learns about the process of inception very gradually over the course of the film. We are initially told that it is a means of planting an idea into a dreamer’s head and, if successful, making them believe it is their own. Then Eames makes it clear to us that this process is very difficult to master because it requires the most basic stage of the idea in order for it to work. Lastly a much darker piece of inception is introduced: that the idea can destroy the one who receives it. Nolan intentionally leaves out this information until the final confrontation between Cobb and Mal, as it is the key to understanding what happened to Mal and the reason for Cobb’s guilt. Part of the Nolan’s genius in this film is the way he presents the story of the inception of Fischer and the bargain with Saito to the audience as if it were the main story of the film when really he is distracting us from the real story which is Cobb’s relationship with Mal.

A dream within a dream and the concept of inception are the defining characteristics of Inception for most viewers, but the real heart of the film is the backstory of Cobb and Mal. Throughout the film we are aware that their relationship is significant since Mal works as a multifaceted bridge between the real world, the dream world, and Cobb’s memories both for Cobb and for the audience. She is the real antagonist of the film as her character is constantly at work to stop Cobb from succeeding. We see her interference in the dream world from the very beginning of the film where she tells Saito about him and attempts to torture Arthur. She is Cobb’s cause of pain in the real world (the reason he cannot go home to his children) and she also haunts his memories’ Ariadne discovers Cobb keeps certain memories of her locked away off an elevator in his mind (“These are memories I have to make right” he tells Ariadne.) Part of the genius of this story is that at first the audience is meant to believe that Mal and Cobb’s relationship is a vehicle for explaining Cobb’s character and the reason he must perform inception on Fischer in order to go home. But towards the end of the film when Cobb enters Limbo and reveals that he performed inception on Mal which led to her suicide, we begin to realize that it’s the other way around; the Inception of Fischer is the vehicle to explain what Cobb did to Mal and the reason for his guilt. Mal is the basis for the film’s theme of questioning the reality we live in and the source of doubt for Cobb and for the audience as to whether Cobb lives in the real world or whether he is still dreaming while his children keep him grounded in the real world.

As dark and serious as the film’s story is, there are also brief moments of humor worked into the story. “You musn’t be afraid to dream a little bigger, darling” Eames tells Arthur while lifting a grenade launcher to fire at a troublesome projection. The audience can enjoy this moment of levity and still feel the tension of hoping they escape without being shot. This happens several times over the course of the film, usually right before moments of extreme tension, which add to the audience’s entertainment without changing the feel of scene. The successful infusion of humor into such a serious film shows just how layered this film really is.

Music:

Hans Zimmer is famous for his powerful soundtracks and this one just might be the highlight of his career. Zimmer delivers a raw musical score that seems to fill the viewer with the emotion of his music and places them within the scene. The power of Inception’s score creates a balance with the otherwise overwhelming visuals of the film’s cinematography. The man who gave us the Dark Knight, Lion King, and Pirates of the Caribbean’s scores has outdone himself with Inception.

Conclusion:

Grade: WRAP: 100%

A film to be watched again and again, Inception is a thought-provoking, mind-bending film for the ages. Its complexity is not limited to its story, but extends to its cinematography, and its score. This film takes special effects, which are sometimes the downfall of a film, and uses it as a strength to build on an already creative script. In today’s age of movies where three sequels to Avatar are being made and Hollywood is often criticized for its lack of imagination, Inception is the creativity we’ve all been searching for. 

Donnie Darko

Sometimes the best films are those you have to watch multiple times to fully appreciate. Such is the case with Donnie Darko. This film is so complex that in the director’s cut, writer and director Richard Kelly includes segments in between scenes explaining the rules of time travel to better explain these elements in the film. This film is one of a kind and therefore deserves a one of a kind review. Because there is so much complexity to this film which could easily be missed by someone who hasn’t seen it a dozen times I chose to provide my understanding of the themes and story of the film in addition to just a straightforward evaluation.

Characters

Jake Gyllenhaal’s breakout role may still be his best. Since this movie he has really come into his own as an actor with strong performances in Nightcrawler, Zodiac, Source Code, etc. As good as he’s been in those roles, though, there will always be a part of me that sees him as Donnie—the troubled and misunderstood teenager trying to make sense of his delusions. With so many movies having already been made about troubled teenagers whose parents don’t get them, seemingly every movie in the 1980s, it would have been easy for this age-old cliché to have detracted from such a complex story. Instead Gyllenhaal delivers a performance that is anything but cliché.

In English Class Gyllenhaal is the shy and quiet student, at home he is a sarcastic and vulgar teen, in his therapist’s office he is a vulnerable patient, around Gretchen a nervous teenage boy, and with Frank he is a possessed sleepwalker. While it is the many complex themes of the film which make it so unique, these themes are made possible through Gyllenhaal’s performance as Donnie Darko becomes the vessel through which we see into the portal (this film.)

Apart from Donnie there are several other actors whose roles serve two overall functions: the foils or “bullshitters,” as Mr. Darko calls them, whose narrow minded perspective on life provides a contrast to Donnie’s and the enablers who engage with Donnie’s view on reality and help him try to understand the truth. His sister, Maggie Gyllenhaal, serves as the overbearing but good hearted older sister who brings out the rebellious teen in Donnie. Other foils include his gym teacher Kitty and the source of her obsession Jim Cunningham both of whom preach his cult’s view of fear and happiness. Both of these characters show us the frustration building inside Donnie as they present oversimplified explanations and solutions of life’s problems which Donnie knows to be insufficient: “The world isn’t black and white,” he tells Kitty.

In addition to these “bullshitters” there are those characters who aid Donnie in his quest for the truth: his therapist, Grandma Death, his English teacher, and his science teacher. These characters are of far greater significance to the film as in addition to showing us the depth of Donnie’s character they are what progress the story. These “manipulated living,” as they are referred to in chapter 7 of the film, are portals of information for Donnie which drive him closer to enlightenment and ultimately help him to make a decision about his fate. In order to reset the universe to its original course Donnie requires the insight provided by these characters who function as Deus Ex Machina “God from machine” by providing the necessary resolution to the seemingly unsolvable problem of a collapsing space-time continuum.

Secondary characters like the English teacher, Drew Barrymore, have a vital purpose even though their screen time is minimal. We only see Barrymore a handful of times in the film, but her introduction of the term “cellar door” and the themes from The Destructors are instrumental in giving Donnie the knowledge he needs to make sense of time travel even though she does not understand the implications of what she’s saying. The information pours from her without her understanding because she, like the other characters who help him, have become the tools of God to put Donnie back on the path of his own death or else risk the destruction of the universe. I cannot imagine a greater purpose for secondary characters in a film than to highlight the strengths of the main character all while helping him to save the universe.

Special Effects 

Before I get to the heart of the film, its writing and story, I felt that I would give a deserving nod to some of the creative effects that Kelly uses to make time supernatural elements like time travel and a six foot rabbit feel like they belonged in this film. The bubble-like pathway which led Donnie to the gun he later used to kill Frank was both a unique and understandable way to show the audience how Donnie was being led to his fate. Donnie’s inability to cope with Frank, whom he sees as threatening, was very effectively displayed by having Donnie try to stab Frank through the mirror only for the knife to bounce off. Scenes of waves crashing and a pupil dilating captured the feel of his hallucinations as well as the tearing apart of the edges of the framework of the universe. The dark, foreboding cloud served as a visual symbol of Donnie’s death.

Writing

The writing of this film by director and screenwriter Richard Kelly is brilliant for his ability to tell a compelling story involving a troubled teenager, a cult-like pedophile, a six-foot rabbit, and time travel all without confusing his story or his audience. In addition to the major themes of the film, Kelly also showcases his talent for writing in some of his minor scenes. The scene where Donnie and his friends have an extensive discussion about the sexuality of smurfs is particularly clever and reminds me of many of the conversations in Tarantino films.

At first viewing Donnie Darko might appear to just be a story about a boy who was supposed to die and the universe’s attempt to convince him to correct its mistake, but there is much more going on beneath the surface. What distinguishes most independent films, and especially this one, from blockbusters are the major themes that are intricately weaved into a complex story. Most films could not take on so many complex ideas without either overwhelming the audience or suffocating the story. Donnie Darko succeeds because all of the major themes in it, even those that are very different from each other, all tie into one theme: Donnie is meant to die.

The first major theme is introduced in Donnie’s English class where he discovers that destruction can be a form of creation in a story where children flood a school. Once this idea is planted in Donnie’s head we see him act on this knowledge as he floods the school, defaces the school’s mascot, and eventually burns down Cunningham’s house. This is the first time Donnie is given information from a Deus Ex Machina (in this case his English teacher) and then given a task which is meant to compel him to choose to end his life and restore order to the universe. By flooding the school and burning down Cunningham’s house he willingly commits acts for which Donnie knows he is likely to suffer great consequences: “I only have a few days left before they catch me” he tells his therapist. Yet ironically it is not fear which motivates Donnie to do these things, which Cunningham claims motivates Donnie, but loyalty to Frank who saved his life and, more importantly, a desire to “know his master plan” (Whether “his” refers to Frank or to God is never made clear in the film and whether it is one or the other is irrelevant since what the film is primarily focused on is Donnie’s figuring out that he must choose to die.) The audience is meant to understand that while the fear of being caught hangs over Donnie, pushing him away from any attachment toward this tangent universe, it is the search for knowledge that drives him.

There are several other themes which are raised in the film that also point Donnie towards his death. Time travel is of course a significant part of the film and while it is certainly used to make the film more complex and therefore interesting, its ultimate purpose is to make it possible for Donnie to change the past and die as he was originally supposed to (another example of Deus Ex Machina.) The acceptance of one’s fate and that we all die alone is a subtler but equally important theme that pops up several times in the film including towards the beginning of the film when Grandma Death tells Donnie that “Every living creature on Earth dies alone.” This is another example of how a theme which seems to stand on its own is really just a vehicle for getting Donnie to accept death so that he can more easily make the decision to save the universe. Death itself also serves as an important motivator as the one person Donnie loves, Gretchen, is killed by Frank’s car as a result of Grandma Death standing in the street (not coincidentally, right after Donnie cries out “Deus Ex Machina.”)

Gretchen’s death proves to be the most significant motivator for Donnie. The morning after Gretchen’s death, we see Donnie return home. Though Donnie is faced with plenty of reasons for not being invested in this tangent universe (those mentioned above as well as for murdering Frank) he still tries to flee from his fate by driving away with Gretchen’s body after he sees the cloud formation in the sky which he knows will bring about his death. Sitting on a hilltop overlooking the valley below, the film reaches its climax as Donnie is finally faced the decision of whether or not to sacrifice himself for the universe. Donnie gets back into the car, takes a long look at Gretchen’s body and realizes that the only way to save her is for him to die. Following his decision the screen immediately flashes the word “purge,” signaling an end to the tangent universe and a restoration of order. Ultimately Donnie was not motivated by fear as Cunningham alleged, but by his love for Gretchen.

Conclusion:

Grade: WRAP: 100%

The complexity of this story and its many themes all working towards one beautiful resolution is what makes this film such a masterpiece. Kelly’s genius is demonstrated by his ability to take longstanding clichés like the story of a troubled teen, young love, and an overbearing school and effectively combine them with as complex a concept as time travel. Gyllenhaal’s acting, Kelly’s directing, and one of the most thought provoking screenplays combine for one of Hollywood’s greatest creations.  

Nightcrawler

Acting

Jake Gyllenhaal stars as Louis “Lou” Bloom an aspiring “nightcrawler” who hunts down accidents and crime scenes for footage to sell to news stations. Gyllenhaal’s doll eyed expression has flashes of Donnie Darko in them but is made even creepier by the broad faced grin which rarely ever leaves his face. Gyllenhaal’s slicked back hair is also vastly different from his normally clean cut look. Gyllenhaal is captivating in this role and shows a level of intensity he had not previously exhibited. An early example of this intensity, which he maintains throughout the film, is the scene where he fails to catch a fire on film after speeding wildly and talking at the rate of a coke addict. We see this same intensity man when Gyllenhaal is able to talk about Mexican food while Nina asks him twice about blood on his shirt. Gyllenhaal is careful not to play this role over the top but maintains his credibility as an unsympathetic psychopath.

Rick Garcia, playing himself, does pretty well as a not too serious and overwhelmed intern who serves as a foil to Gyllenhaal. As the movie progresses and it becomes clear that Rick lack’s Gyllenhaal’s intensity he becomes an increasing source of frustration for Gyllenhaal and is not able to keep up with his insane pace. He is the rational and “normal” character in the face of Gyllenhaal’s insanity and while he acts the part well he doesn’t exactly distinguish himself as an actor.

Directing

Director Dan Gilroy makes great use of close-ups to focus on Gyllenhaal’s doll-eyed face and upper torso, insuring that Gyllenhaal’s acting is the focus of the movie which, given his acting ability in this performance, he should be. A very unique element of this movie is the insight Gilroy provides as to how a news team operates and manipulates the news. The camerawork done by Gyllenhaal’s character is a clever way for Gilroy to show how effective camerawork is, particularly in the scene where Gyllenhaal and Rick are filming the two murder suspects and we see their filming through both men’s camera lenses while the rest of our screen around their lens is blurred. We see this technique used again during the car chase scene in which Gyllenhaal and Rick pursue the police chase of the remaining murder suspect and much of the scene is shown through the lens of Rick’s camera. 

Another technique Gilroy uses is controlling the pacing of the film. The film begins as a very fast paced but a straightforward enough storyline that the audience can easily follow it. Gilroy later makes use of the audience’s adjustment to this fast pace by slowing things down in order to build suspense at key moments and make it even more effective (the most obvious example being when he and Rick are tailing the two murderers and this scene feels like it is lasting forever because of the contrast with the rest of the movie.)

Story

The story begins as an almost cliché depiction of cutthroat journalists but quickly evolves to show these journalists possess a new level of emotional detachment from their stories. This is made clear when Nina tells Gyllenhaal to “think of our newscast as a woman running bloody down the street with her throat cut.” A few times the limitations of this detachment are stretched, especially with the reporting of the home invasion, but ultimately we see that the manipulation of fear and lack of sympathy wins out as again and again Nina encourages her anchors to scare the public.

Another main theme of this film is the relentless pursuit of success. Gyllenhaal tells the audience that “why you pursue is as important as what you pursue” while also promoting the idea of hard work being the only way to attain success. This keeps the audience wondering whether the success of his business is really his motivation or if there is something else motivating him. His collection of his successful stories more resembles a mass murder keeping a display of trophies than a businessman or entrepreneur driven to succeed. We see the beginning of Gyllenhaal’s psychopathic tendencies when he turns down Paxton’s offer to run a second van and the chance to make more money while also bluntly telling him that he feels like attacking him (the kind of matter of fact observational speech that sounds like a serial killer.) He repeats this process when he meets with Nina whom he bluntly tells which of her physical features he likes as well as threatening her job in the same meeting.

There are also several pivotal moments that mark the exposure of Gyllenhaal’s true nature. The first of these Pivotal moments transpires when Gyllenhaal realizes that he can move a dead driver’s body to create a better shot. This leads him to become fully invested in his work as a nightcrawler and gives him the arrogance that brings about much of his frustration which pushes him over the edge when it comes to finding increasingly gory stories and competing with Paxton. While a few of the other journalists maintain their lack of sympathy for the death and violence in the world, we see this lack of emotion taken to another level with Gyllenhaal when he films Paxton being taken away in an ambulance and Gyllenhaal refers to his accident as “profit” and again when he enters the home where a murder has just taken place in order to film the crime scene victims and all.

Another pivotal moment comes during his negation with Nina in which he refuses to bargain for a lower price—a complete role reversal from the beginning of the film when it was the construction manager who refused to lower his price with Gyllenhaal.

The final pivotal point happens when Gyllenhaal allows Rick to be killed by the second murderer telling him he “cannot jeopardize the success of his company for the sake of an untrustworthy employee.” This scene screams Godfather’s “it’s not personal, just business” and reinforces how psychopathic not only Gyllenhaal is but also Nina who represents the media as a whole. “You’re just like Lou” is the true message of this film, telling the audience that what so obviously bothers us and we so easily recognize as wrong in an individual, Gyllenhaal, is also going on in the media where these same psychotic tendencies are harder for us to detect but are equally reprehensible.

Conclusion:

Grade: WRAP: 70%

Overall I thought the film was quite enjoyable. Gyllenhaal’s performance was easily the highlight of this film and without it I think this movie loses most of its entertainment. I found the themes in this film about journalistic manipulation to be presented in a unique and clever way as well as being a refreshing message from Hollywood. This movie could have been a little faster paced as towards the end the plot began to drag a little, but I’m equally glad Gilroy resisted the urge to have some ridiculous plot twist at the end which might have compromised the integrity of the story and Gyllenhaal’s character. 

American Sniper

This film has generated a lot of controversy due to its subject matter of recounting real life sniper Chris Kyle’s tours in Iraq. American Sniper portrays Kyle as a patriotic and brave soldier who fights to protect his fellow men both on the field and after as both seek to recover from PTSD. This portrayal has led some to claim the film glorifies Kyle and that in actuality he was nothing more than a murderer. For the sake of this review I am not concerned with what the real Chris Kyle was like, but rather what to make of his portrayal in this film and the controversy surrounding what is actually shown.

Controversy

One of the first sources of controversy concerning the film itself is that this film is unfair in its characterization of Muslims and the Muslim faith. One scene in particular that is labelled Islamophobic depicts a child and woman who are both shot by Kyle while they are trying to blow up a tank. What concerns me about the characterization of this scene and the movie as a whole as Islamophobic is that the film makes clear in the scene where Kyle and a group of marines come across a Muslim man and his family in their house that all of the civilians are supposed to have left the city. This should have been an indication to the audience that the Muslims depicted in this film are not a representation of the Muslim population as a whole, but are restricted to only the radical terrorists who remained behind to attack US troops. Since real Muslims do not consider these people to be a part of the Muslim faith there is no reason for them to take issue with the depiction of these radicals as monsters like “The Butcher” who takes a drill to a child’s head. The fact that the film also showed an innocent Muslim family that was willing to help the US also shows that the portrayal of Muslims in this film was not slanderous as some claim. Eastwood’s intention was to make this movie as realistic as possible and that includes depicting radical extremists as they really act. People should be offended by what these groups do, not by Eastwood’s willingness to accurately portray them.

A second source of controversy centers on the depiction of Kyle as a hero. Some, like the ever corpulent Michael Moore, have since called the real Kyle and his portrayal in the film “a murderer” because he was a sniper. Here again the focus of outrage and offense is misguided. Focusing just on the character of Kyle, to label him a murder is as ridiculous as calling Indiana Jones, Luke Skywalker, or Gandalf murderers. Have we as a society sunk to such depths of self-loathing that the heroes who kill our enemies are vilified for their actions? The real focus of outrage in this film should instead be directed at two areas: the radicals who kill innocent civilians and the state of our veterans who return home and suffer PTSD. The real controversy should be over why more isn’t being done to end these two threats.

Acting

Bradley Cooper IS Chris Kyle. This film should start with a video of Chris Kyle speaking if only so that the audience can appreciate how accurate Cooper’s portrayal of Kyle was. Cooper put on more than 40 lbs. to look like Kyle and he studied his mannerisms in order to act like him. The end result was a performance that left Chris Kyle’s mother saying she saw bits of her son in Cooper’s portrayal. I can think of no higher praise for an actor. Cooper is almost unrecognizable in this role compared to his roles in Limitless, the Hangover, or American Hustle where he plays relatively the same suave pretty boy, while here he is a patriotic, soft spoken, Texas cowboy. Cooper’s performance is the centerpiece of this film and he delivers a masterful performance that might have won him an Oscar in a less competitive year.

Sienna Miller’s performance as Taya Kyle is much less impressive. While Miller does look extraordinarily similar to Taya without having to put on 40 lbs. her performance in this film is not nearly as entertaining. Perhaps the role of a worried and stressed out wife of a solider is inherently unenjoyable to watch, but Miller seems to exacerbate this unpleasantness. Her performance does not contribute much at all to this film and what is probably intended as anxious worry instead comes off as selfish and annoying. It certainly must be difficult for the wife of a soldier to go through the fear of losing her husband and not knowing what might happen to him and in seeing such worry the audience should feel sympathy for her. Watching Miller’s phone calls with Kyle and her insistent whining about how she couldn’t take his being overseas any more felt more like watching a soap opera than an Eastwood film. Admittedly, part of this whining could just be the nature of the role or what Eastwood wanted from Miller, but without that knowledge I must evaluate her for the performance she gave and overall I found the notion of a wife complaining about how lonely she felt while her husband is risking his life abroad to be an unnecessary side story that at times made the film feel disjointed.

Directing

Eastwood’s primary vision for this film, at the insistence of Chris Kyle’s father, was to create as accurate a depiction of Chris Kyle as possible in honor of his military. Eastwood succeeded in achieving this goal. He gave us the Chris Kyle that Kyle’s family, friends, and documentaries with Kyle all remember. While one could argue Cooper’s portrayal was void of any negative characteristics, biopics like this do not necessarily warrant negative attributes of their subject just for the sake of being “well rounded.” The lack of any negative side of Kyle was appropriate here just the movie Lincoln did not go over his suspension of habeas corpus or his statements that Blacks would be happiest being sent back to Africa. Perhaps it is a valid criticism to say that not raising the controversial side of such figures in history glorifies them in an unrealistic manner, but such is the nature of biopics in general and I cannot fault Eastwood for his decision not to include critiques of Kyle in a movie meant to honor his legacy. One could also argue that the strain Kyle’s multiple tours placed on his wife and family back home was a sufficient enough conflict of character to hush any who might claim this movie deified him. American Sniper shows that Chris Kyle was not perfect and had to make decisions at the expense of his family’s happiness.

One area of directing which I do take issue with in this film I have previously touched on. I thought there were too many scenes of Kyle at home and how unhappy his tours were making Taya. The first scene sufficiently communicated the tension and unhappiness of Taya to the audience. Subsequent scenes, with the exception of maybe one close to the end of his tours to show how it had progressed, were unnecessary and broke up the flow of the movie. Since this was a movie about Chris Kyle the soldier and less about Chris Kyle the husband, I would have preferred fewer scenes with Kyle on the phone with his wife, at home with his wife, his wife having their child, etc.

One area where Eastwood succeeded as a director in this film, apart from his portrayal of Kyle, was in creating the realism of each combat scene in the movie. The scenes with the mother and child trying to attack the tank, the child with the RPG, and the Butcher drilling a child’s head were all difficult to watch but they also provided the audience with insight into the mind of a US sniper. Watching these scenes through Kyle’s scope made you feel the same intimacy a sniper feels with his targets as well as the conflict a sniper feels when trying to decide whether or not his target is a threat. Watching the kid pick up the RPG it felt like the whole audience was pleading, along with Kyle, for the kid to put it down; you didn’t just want him to, in a powerful, gut-wrenching way you needed him to. There are several of these scenes like this that pull an audience into the movie to the extent that they feel a part of it and they are a mark of Eastwood’s skills as a director.

Story

Though some have criticized American Sniper for giving too much attention to Mustafa when in actuality he was a very minor part of Chris Kyle’s tours, I agree with this decision. It would have been an impossible task to have shown all 160 of Chris Kyle’s confirmed kills (out of his 255 probable kills) and would have made for far too dark of a movie. By narrowing the story of Kyle’s tours to one particular sniper the screenwriter was able to showcase Kyle’s talent without having to repeatedly show us kill after kill. By making the story more about Kyle than about particular missions or events, the audience was able to hone in on Cooper’s performance and to get a more detailed insight into what it’s like for a soldier to battle PTSD both on the frontlines and at home.

In general I thought the story was very well done. Showing us Kyle at a young age and before he became a Seal, provided the audience with a helpful understanding of his character without the distractions of fight scenes. It is important for the audience that his character have a solid foundation initially so that we can see how he develops as a result of PTSD. The overall pacing of the story was well done and other than a few scenes of Miller, no scene seemed unnecessary. It would have been very easy for this movie to have gone overboard with fight scenes and sniper shots, but it did not and as a result the impact of each scene was more meaningful. Not until the end did we really see a significant firefight and to have had one before then would have detracted from the tension of this scene. It is also worth mentioning that I heaved a sigh of relief when it became clear that they were not going to show Kyle’s death and I applaud American Sniper for not doing so. Seeing Kyle killed on screen, even in a reenactment, would have been unnecessary and honestly not as powerful as the more subtle decision to show his killer climbing into the truck with him. The focus on Kyle’s role as someone who died helping veterans with PTSD was a classy touch by Eastwood and a powerful reminder of the type of person Chris Kyle was.

Conclusion:

Grade: WRAP: 80%

Even though some choppy scenes and a subpar performance by Sienna Miller kept this movie from being great, the level of absolute silence I experienced in the theatre as the credits began to roll is unlike anything I’ve ever experienced and is a testament to how impactful this movie was. Most of the audience was moved to tears at having witnessed the story of a real-life American duty who sacrificed so much for all of us. For political reasons and misguided views of Chris Kyle as a person this movie will probably always be controversial and not receive the full recognition it deserves, but for all the lives Chris Kyle saved, for all the veterans with PTSD he helped, and for all the sacrifices he made as a navy seal, this was a movie that needed to be made. 

Casablanca

This movie is widely regarded as the greatest movie ever made and stars Humphrey Bogart who is worthy of being called the greatest actor who ever lived. Casablanca is the pinnacle of what filmmaking can achieve and stands as a testament to the power of phenomenal acting and the power of a compelling story. A timeless classic, this movie stands above all others and should be watched again and again.

Characters

The brilliance of Casablanca begins and ends with Humphrey Bogart. Rick Blaine is the performance of a lifetime given by the world’s most skilled actor. Here we see Bogart’s incredible range on full display; he is the cutthroat and cynical saloon owner, the romantic in flashback, the jilted lover, and the heartbroken man who is torn between choosing the woman he loves and doing what he knows to be right. Bogart is entirely believable in this role, so much so that it’s hard to imagine Bogey isn’t the cynic with the heart of a sentimentalist that he portrays. Anyone who hasn’t seen Bogart as Charlie in The African Queen, Sam Spade in The Maltese Falcon, or Captain Queeg in The Caine Mutiny cannot appreciate how diverse an actor Bogey was and while he was great in every role he played, Rick Blaine stands above the rest. When watching Casablanca and seeing the story of Rick’s past romance with Ilsa unfold we feel his pain, we share his anger and his confusion as if it was our own, whether we are watching for the first time or the hundredth time. Rick is every man who has ever been in love, who has turned cynical after having his heart broken, and who will do anything—even sacrifice his own happiness—to ensure her happiness. To be able to connect with such a complex character is possible because of Bogart’s genuine delivery. He succeeds where so many rom com actors fail in forcing us to feel his pain and to root for him to get the girl in the end, even after we’ve seen the movie before. Bogart’s onscreen love for Bergman is all the more impressive when one considers that Bogey and Berman hardly talked off screen, but their acting performance was enough for Bogart’s wife to accuse him of having an affair with Bergman. Bogart’s role as Rick will stand the test of time as one of the most legendary performances in film history.

Along with Bogey, the support he receives from every other actor in this film is astounding. Ingrid Bergman is flawless as Ilsa Lund. Her cold demeanor towards Bogey throughout most of the film combined with the frustrated love of his character creates the perfect chemistry. Bergman holds her cards tight to her chest and keeps us guessing as to whether she will choose to rejoin Rick or escape with her husband Victor Laszlo and even more importantly, which man she loves more. In many modern romantic comedies, tv shows, or dramas that involve love triangles there is usually an element of cheesiness towards the whole situation that is thankfully absent here. Both Bergman and especially Laszlo are compelling characters with a purpose greater than acting as a love interest and foil to the main character’s love for a woman. Additionally the audience does not feel the resentment towards Bergman that is common towards women in love triangles as quite often the woman is portrayed as either willfully manipulating the two men for her own pleasure or as painfully indecisive about who she loves more. This is not the case with Bergman’s character for whom we feel genuine sympathy for her genuine dilemma between choosing her husband she thought dead, or the man whose love kept her going afterward.

My personal favorite character in this film is Captain Renault played by Claude Rains. Rains portrayal of the French captain whose loyalty “blows with the prevailing wind” is brilliant in its own right and in no way overshadowed by Bogey and Bergman. Part of what makes Rain’s performance so impressive is that he is able to add a level of comic relief to the film while still maintaining the seriousness of a captain of the police when the occasion calls for it. He is both the man who can shut down Rick’s Café for gambling while collecting his winnings. This balancing act is noteworthy because so often characters in comic relief roles today are reduced to either a bumbling incompetent fool who we can laugh at or when they try to contribute lines outside a strictly comedic purpose they cannot be taken seriously. Consider John Rhys-Davies performance as Gimli in the Lord of the Rings. While Davies succeeds in his role as comic relief, he is unable to provide any serious contribution outside of it and therefore becomes limited by it. Such is not the case with Rains whose ability to amuse us with his one-liners and charming smile for most of the film does not restrict his ability to deliver real suspense when he is faced with decision of whether to have Rick arrested or let him go.

While Rick, Ilsa, and Rains are the primary focus of Casablanca, what puts this movie over the top is the depth of talent it receives from its secondary actors. There are strong performances all around from Sydney Greenstreet as the profit oriented businessman Senior Ferrari, Peter Lorre as the sleazy criminal Ugarte, and Sam as the warm-hearted and amenable pianist. These characters may not contribute on a large scale but their performances maintain the film’s high quality of acting.

Directing

Casablanca is a rare case where the Michael Curtiz, the director of Casablanca, deserves credit for recognizing that remarkable acting and an exceptional story should be the focus of this film rather than intricate camera work or special effects. Essentially Curtiz deserves praise for having a mostly hands off approach as a director and not trying to insert a particular style unnecessarily into this film. In Casablanca we see nothing out of the ordinary for a typical movie from 1942: some flashbacks, a gunshot, and mostly scenes of dialogue. While on its surface this may appear boring to a modern audience, this is all part of Curtiz intentional effort to direct the audience’s attention away from special effects or props, both of which were limited during the war effort, and towards the masterful dialogue and acting.  A more modern audience should understand that not only did Curtiz play to the strengths of the film but all of Hollywood was limited in its special effects and Casablanca is the model of all that can be achieved without great effects.

Dialogue:

Along with acting, what separates this film from all others are its lines. Not just the half dozen that appear in the American Film Institute’s most famous movie quotes, twice as many as any other film, but lines like “You’ll get along beautifully in America,” “There are vultures, vultures everywhere,” or “I stick my neck out for nobody…A wise foreign policy” are what make this movie not only powerful but enjoyable to watch. It all starts with great acting but to be the best movie of all time you have to have a great script and Casablanca has the best.

Music:

“As time goes by”, “Knock on wood”, and “The Marseilles” deliver a lot for just a few songs. The Marseilles scene is arguably the most emotional musical performance is cinema history, made especially powerful by the fact that many of the French citizens in the café were real-life emigrants during the war and shed real tears as they sang in the movie. While “As Time Goes By” may be the song most famously remembered for Sam to play again, it is “The Marseilles” that marks the turning point in the film. Showing the French citizens overpowering the Germans serves as a powerful symbol of the French resistance to the Nazis and was also written for an American audience that had just entered the war following Pearl Harbor only months earlier. The audience feels the genuine struggle of war-torn Europe instead of the artificial feel of propaganda that made some other films feel like a war time commercial and a cheesy ploy for enlistment. This scene is also of significant importance to the story because of what happens right before it. While it is Laszlo who tells the band to play the Marseilles, the band does not do so until Rick nods for them to go ahead. In this moment Rick does much more than tell the band to play, he breaks the last and most important of his precedents that he had maintained before Ilsa arrived: his neutrality. By nodding for the band to play, Rick knows that he is symbolically siding with the French and that the Germans will now view him as a threat to their mission to arrest Laszlo. It is in this moment that Rick makes the decision to help Laszlo and to give up Ilsa and his café. Scenes like this display the powerful acting at work in Casablanca and the beauty in the power that one look and a simple nod can have.

Conclusion:

Grade: WRAP: 100%

Simply the greatest movie of all time. Citizen Kane and The Shawshank Redemption cannot hold a candle to this movie and with the current trend towards emphasizing CGI over acting, it is possible no film ever will. 

Hard Candy

This film is everything every independent film should aspire to be. I saw this film for the first time because I had just seen An American Crime and I was looking for another movie with Ellen Page. I had no idea that this movie would lead to Ellen Page becoming my favorite actress, that I would be blown away the acting genius who is Patrick Wilson, and that I would fully appreciate what a low budget film with nothing more than great acting, creative directing, and a thrilling story could accomplish.

Acting

Ellen Page and Patrick Wilson deserve Oscars for their performance in this movie. For a little over an hour and a half they are able to captivate an audience without a set larger than a few rooms or the assistance of any other characters, let alone special effects.

Ellen’s role as a sixteen-year-old girl who turns the tables on her would be predator is really a story of two roles. For the first half hour she sells the audience on her performance as a naïve, oblivious teenage girl who will do anything to impress mid-thirties Patrick Wilson, only to drop the charade and reveal her true character’s nature as a “cute, vindictive, little bitch.” Her transition from naïve to manipulative is an incredible transition that most actors in Hollywood could not pull off, which makes it all the more impressive that it’s coming from eighteen-year-old Page. Her performance throughout the film is one of the most honest I’ve ever witnessed and the credits might as well say that Ellen Page never appears in this film but that Hayley is cast as herself. Not only is her character entirely believable but the range of emotions and the depth of her character is incredible; she is a combination of weakness, power, anger, sadistic joy, and sarcasm rolled into one. This range is fully displayed when she pretends to become reassured by Wilson that he will not punish her if she releases him. This movie, not Juno, marks the launch of her success as an actress.

As fantastic as Page is in this movie, Patrick Wilson is arguably superior. His role as a thirty-something predator in disguise presents a challenge for any actor and Wilson more than delivers. He begins the movie as a coy, flirtatious, and confident man whose witty charm is only unsettling when the audience realizes it is being directed toward an adolescent girl. Just as Page transforms over the course of the movie, so too does Wilson. From a suave and seemingly innocent stranger Wilson becomes a helpless captive who plays with our sympathies and then, once his true nature is revealed, violent and emotional. Yet even as his character develops, peeling back the layers of his innocence to expose himself as a monster, Wilson’s performance continues to project the sympathies that make his character so complex. What makes this movie so compelling is the conflict the audience should feel between condemning Wilson’s character for being a pedophile and their sympathy for the terrible situation he is in at the hands of Page; much of this conflict is owed to Wilson’s ability to sell the audience on his character.

Dialogue

Part of the brilliance of this movie should be credited to the screenwriter Brian Nelson. One unique aspect of this film is the nature of the dialogue between Page and Wilson. As the story of Wilson’s alleged pedophilia and potential acts of murder unfolds, the audience is left wondering which character is the real monster. At first Wilson seems the obvious monster as Page confronts him about giving alcohol to a minor and being drugged by teenage flesh. “Busted.” But the audience’s judgement becomes muddled as Wilson attempts, through his dialogue, to convince the audience first of his innocence then that he is undeserving of his punishment. The audience is caught between an epic tug of war between Page and Wilson that leaves the matter of whether justice was served unresolved. While the performances from Page and Wilson are the drivers of the story, the intense and clever writing of Nelson is its vehicle.

Directing

From the opening scene, director David Slade introduces us to the types of innovative methods rarely used in mainstream movies; the decision to have the camera swivel and zoom in during the IM’ing between Page and Wilson, the early reference to Lensman319 which carries significant relevance later, and the symbolic use of red and blue in the text. This first scene is representative of Slade’s brilliant directing throughout the film; he takes an ordinary and functional plot device (an IM chat which tells the audience that Page and Wilson have a flirtatious relationship and are making plans to meet for the first time) and very effectively enhances the audience’s interest with his camera work. The gradual zooming in and lingering on particular lines of text provides an eerie and unsettling feeling that contrasts with the flirtatious tone of what Page and Wilson are typing. From the beginning of the movie the audience is held captive by the tension between these two characters and the uncertainty of what will happen next. This initial camera work subtly highlights that tension in the same way that creepy music enhances the audience’s feelings of suspense in a horror movie. That Slade is able to achieve the same effect with the way he uses his camera is a testament to his directing abilities in this film.

We see this same subtle affect also with his use of colors, mainly red and blue, throughout the film to manipulate the audience’s emotions. These colors appear in many forms; the color of page’s jacket is red and Wilson’s shirt is blue, the colors of the walls in Wilson’s house are various shades of red and blue, and the camera lens at times takes on either a reddish or bluish tint. Slade appears to have two uses for these colors, the first being representations of the characters themselves. Page wears red which is the color of passion, anger, love, etc. all emotions that she displays throughout the film as she seeks to exact revenge on Wilson. There is also a possible correlation between Page’s character and that of Little Red Ridinghood who likewise enters the lair of the wolf except in Page’s case not unknowingly. Wilson’s character on the other hand wears blue: a much cooler and calmer color than red and representative of the cool innocence he desperately clings to not only in an attempt to convince Page but also to reassure himself that he is not a monster.  Slade also uses these same emotional associations with red and blue to provide an added layer of emotional depth to each scene: most notably when Wilson reaches his emotional eclipse and goes after Page with a knife only to finally embrace his identity as a monster, the backdrop of this scene is the blood-red walls behind him which he actually engages with when he begins stabbing the picture on the wall. This scene is one of many where the color transcends its role as just a symbolic reflection of the emotions being displayed and becomes a part of the scene itself. Another example is the way the camera acquires a blue filter in the scenes where Page is interrogating Wilson. The blue is more than just a color in that scene or a representation of Wilson’s cool demeanor in the face of her questions, it becomes the visual gateway of how we are to view the characters, dialogue, and emotions in that moment. For the sake of this film colors are more than mere symbolism they are a roadmap for how we are to follow and decipher the emotional rollercoaster this film takes us on. While the story of a girl who holds a potential pedophile hostage and threatens to castrate him is already an interesting story, Slade’s clever use of camera work (zooming, fade outs, his choices of how to transition from one scene to the next, etc.) and his creative manipulation of colors are part of what makes this movie the pinnacle of independent films.

One final element of Slade’s directing in this film that is worth noting is his use of close-ups. Slade uses more close-ups in this film than I have ever seen in another. The audience is frequently shown the faces of Page and Wilson, bringing every detail of their emotions to the forefront of the screen. For most movies this technique would not only not work, but it would give audiences a headache or it would reveal the limitations of the actor in question. The reason it works so well here is because this film only takes place in one building with only two characters and therefore requires techniques such as this to keep the audience interested. It also works because Page and Wilson not only stand up to such a level of scrutiny but this technique actually becomes a showcase for displaying how completely immersed they are in their roles. Credit should be given to Slade for taking this risk and for its successful execution.

Conclusion:

The greatest independent film and one of the best films in general I have ever seen. This movie reminds me of Casablanca on a lesser scale because of how well executed it is across the board: acting, directing, screenplay, etc. Films like this which don’t require CGI or even more than a limited set and a couple actors are a refreshing reminder of how much film can do with so little. Hard Candy is exceptional because it does not rely on special effects to maintain the audience’s interest but instead, like movies before the 1980s, makes use of great acting and directing. This film should be a reminder that audiences can appreciate the nuances of film (acting and directing) and be more than the simple minded and attention deficit masses that filmmakers like James Cameron and Michael Bay assume them to be. Whether an audience is consciously aware of all the directing techniques at play or fully appreciates the level of acting in this film, these elements enhance this film nonetheless and make it the masterpiece that it is.

Grade: WRAP: 100%

Jurassic World

Let me first say that I went into this movie knowing it wouldn't live up to the first movie and after all, how could it? The first Jurassic Park is one of the greatest movies ever made and to hold this movie to that standard would be unfair and only leave me disappointed and frustrated. I knew from this movie's previews and current Hollywood trends that this movie would overwhelm me with CGI, most likely at the expense of the characters and the story. So with all that in mind, here it goes.

Directing: Who the hell is Colin Trevorrow and how did he get this job?

The most glaring flaws in this movie could have been prevented had someone with more experience directing than a few shorts and one independent film been at the helm. From the incredibly painful to watch and headache inducing close-ups to the very rushed pacing of this film (especially in the first ten minutes) Trevorrow's inexperience as a director was glaringly evident. Without holding Trevorrow to the impossible standard of Steven Spielberg who has proven himself to be one of the greatest directors of all time, there was several areas where this movie proved too momentous a task for him. No failure was greater than the overabundance of close-ups which I can only assume were an attempt at creating intimacy between the audience and the characters/dinosaurs, but instead left an audience reaching for an aspirin. Worse than the headaches, however, was the effect they had on the visual presentation of the movie, especially the dinosaurs. Part of what made the first movie great was the suspense that was built by NOT SEEING THE DINOSAURS. Most who have seen Jurassic Park probably don't realize that the actual screen time of the dinosaurs is limited to only 15 minutes. What Spielberg realized with the first film is that the moments of anticipation (the puddle of water rippling, the snapping of the wired fence, the turning of the door handle from the raptor's claw) are just as exciting as actually seeing the dinosaurs. While we saw some of the this in the new movie, such as the claw marks on the wall and the realization that the Indominus Rex was still in its cage, for the most part Jurassic World relied on close-ups visuals of dinosaurs and action scenes to entertain its audience, rather than suspense. Because the audience's attention was forcibly zoomed in on so many shots, it also meant that there was a lack of grandeur that only panoramic shots such as the first introduction of the Brachiosaurus in the first film can provide. Yes people want to see dinosaurs but part of the what makes the dinosaurs appealing isn't just their destructive capabilities but also the wonder that seeing such magnificent creatures creates. I would argue the first Brachiosaurus scene in the first film is every bit as powerful as the famed scene where the T-Rex attacks the Jeeps.

While a movie is the product of a team of people, it is the director who is ultimately responsible for the feel of the film and the techniques that are used to facilitate that director's style. This director seemed like he couldn't decided between whether he was making a suspense/action/thriller or a superhero movie.

Characters:

I was pleasantly surprised by how much I liked the main character in this film: Owen. I have not seen Guardians of the Galaxy and therefore Chris Pratt was new to me. He gave a balanced performance without being overly dramatic or cheesy. The same could be said for the boys who seemed natural in their roles and I give credit to Trevorrow here for not making them too helpless but also not exaggerating their realistically limited contributions in the face of the dinosaurs as was done with the girl in Lost World (gymnastics to take out a raptor?  Yeesh). Claire's character ironically became more whiny and forced as she progressed from a naive semi-antagonist to someone who appreciated and respected the dinosaurs. Overall the main characters were the most pleasant surprise of this film.

The secondary characters were, unfortunately, not nearly as strong as the main characters. While at times Ryan, aka New Girl's Jake Johnson, provided comic relief, the rest of the characters were not the least bit compelling. I find it hard to believe that anyone watching could really feel anger, disgust, or dislike towards Henry Wu or Hoskins. These recycled cliches of a doctor/military person who narrow-mindedly abuses research for the sake of power they don't appreciate or understand have been exhausted to the point of boredom. Wu's character was left unresolved (sequel anyone?) while Hoskins was killed the most boring and predictable way possible (at the hands of the same raptor that he didn't respect and thought from the beginning that he could control - who didn't see that coming?). Neither of these characters incited more than a yawn from me and I felt nothing at the death of Hoskins. Compare this with the characters like Dennis Nedry or Robert Muldoon from the first film, both of whose deaths were well done, clever, and left you feeling justice was done to Nedry and sad at the loss of Robert. Malcolm, Mr. Arnold, John Hammond, and even Genaro (man killed on toilet) all had distinct roles to play and this along with the interactions with other characters and the park made them an interesting vehicle for the story. You cared about them and when they died you were upset, unlike the multiple squads of park security in Jurassic World whose only seems to show us how effectively dinosaurs could kills. While I acknowledge there is great entertainment value in seeing dinosaurs eat people, the assistant's death being the best in this film IMO, those deaths are all the more compelling when you have a reason to be affected by their loss for good or bad, which was lacking in this film.

Special Effects:

Way too much CGI but surprisingly not as much as I anticipated. Too many close-ups meant we got to see every minute detail of CGI created dinosaurs, meaning that unlike the first film where the raptors were hidden in the shadows or used very sparingly to hide the fact that they look fake. In Jurassic World we see just how artificial looking they are as we are constantly bombarded by green-screen animation that at times looks more like a videogame than real life. I could go on about this forever, but for the most part I was begrudgingly content with how much CGI was used when I consider how this movie COULD have been (ex: Episodes 1-3 of Star Wars)

Storyline:

New dinosaur is created, it escapes and wreaks havoc, ultimately it is killed. Very predictable but still enjoyable plot. I recognize that these movies aren't meant to be riddled with plot twists and for the most part the audience should know how the movie will end before it begins. That being said there were still things i really loved about the film and others that had me cringing in my seat.

First ten minutes of the film: WAY TOO CHOPPY! Felt like I was back watching the new Superman movie where everything is going 100mph and you have no time to get a feel for the characters or to get attached to the story. Thankfully the film settled down once the boys arrived at the park but it was still a little fast paced for my liking.

Scene where they reintroduce the old park's main room: By far my favorite scene in the movie. The old banner, staircase, test tubes, jeeps, painting on the wall of the raptor, goggles, all gave me goosebumps and reminded me of how much i love the original movie. I really appreciated this scene and thought it was a great move for the makers of Jurassic World to pay tribute to the reason we are all in the audience. They tied these elements in and incorporated them into the plot seamlessly. 

Gyroball tour: Also a cool part of the movie and as a sucker for the herbivore scenes I thought this was an inventive and creative twist on the jeeps from the original movie. Jimmy Fallon's cameo was also entertaining and this scene was a good way to introduce the Indominous once it had escaped its paddock. Well done. 

Scene of Owen and Claire kissing: NO. No. NO!! When will Hollywood ever learn that NOT EVERY MOVIE NEEDS A LOVE STORY!!! I couldn't help but think of how disgusted I would be had the first film sank to the level of having Dr. Grant and Ellie kiss. To do it here was every bit as cheesy and corny as it would have been then. Mad Max recently got it right in showing that you can have a very successful action film without the woman having to fall in love with the guy. It also reduced Claire's role to the helpless female which is tiresome and annoying. Please, Hollywood, spare us next time.

End fight scene between Indominous v. T-Rex and Blue (also mosasaur.): This scene started out awesome. Raptors getting killed and so they call for the first film's most fearsome carnivore: the T-Rex. i saw this as an awesome nod to the first film and a creative battle between the dinosaurs. This scene quickly became cheesy and far less enjoyable, however, when Blue made his return from being smashed against a wall. Reality of a T-Rex being intelligent enough to side with a raptor aside, the addition of Blue was completely unnecessary and undermined a potentially original and unpredictable death for the Indominous without the aide of Blue by instead having it killed by the mosasaur as the T-Rex, forces it into the water. I enjoyed the scene as good but couldn't help feeling robbed of a potentially great scene.

Music

I was really hoping for a lot more of the original score but I guess I should at least be grateful they included it.

Conclusion:

Grade: WRAP: 67%

While I did my best not to judge the film with the expectation of it being like the first movie, respect and consideration for the first film is hard to separate and somewhat owed in evaluating any sequel. I thought it met my expectations and was somewhat disappointed it could not exceed them. Too much CGI, poor and inexperienced directing, and a weak secondary cast kept this movie from being great, but ultimately it was still very entertaining just being a Jurassic Park movie and I was pleasantly surprised by the main characters and some elements of the story.