After the Dark

On a Scale of 1 to 10, with 10 Being the Best

7

Courtesy of sbnation.com

Plot: A philosophy class' final is to decide who will live and who will die in a three different hypothetical apocalypse situation. There is also a romance between two of the students who are the best in the class and the professor tries to pin them against each other. This movie is great for making you think but also has lovely humorous moments. I found this movie very entertaining and interesting and recommend it to others.

Characters/Actors:

Sophie Lowe playing Petra: The only issue I had with this movie is the acting; Ms. Lowe is the main character in this film and she is the main culprit. The way she portrayed her character was soft and submissive, something that makes her character suffer. Since she is the smartest in the class and ends up being the leader and I found her attitude annoying. She just wasn't assertive enough to be a real leader. She also has to face a tug-of-war scenario and she does not give a single care about it and I felt that she could have given some emotion there. 

James D'Arcy playing Mr. Zimit: Mr. D'Arcy plays his character well. Mr. Zimit is a jerk of a professor who loves to stir the pot and make a bad situation even worse. He's also got a secret which we find out at the end between him and Petra. I thought his performance was well done.

Bonnie Wright playing Georgina: Ms. Wright's character is not a pivotal person in the film but loved her character. Georgina has the most leadership out of all the students and is very smart. Ms. Wright also has a soft voice but is assertive enough to tell off Mr. Zimit. I wish that Ms. Wright played Petra instead.

Music: The movie uses lots of brass. It was used well and I enjoyed it.

Cinematography/Camera Work: The movie appeared to be in high definition. The colors and lines were sharp. They also used slow motion often in the film but I thought it was used well. Good work here.

RECAP:

The movie is entertaining and it looks nice. I felt that Ms. Lowe was not assertive enough but the other actors do a fairly good job. The reason I did not rate it higher is because I would laugh at how ridiculous some of it was or how awkward. There is a scene where they have to decide who will repopulate the human race, and it is a serious discussion, but I couldn't stop laughing. I would recommend watching it and hope you enjoy this film.

Courtesy of Pinterest

Want me to critique a movie? Comment below!

Mommie Dearest

On a Scale of 1 to 10, with 10 Being the Best

4.5

Courtesy of Buzzfeed

Plot: This is the story of Joan Crawford and her abusive relationship with her daughter Christina Crawford. It starts when Joan Crawford adopted Christina up until Joan dies. I was told that this movie is pretty traumatic but I was surprised. There was a lot of mental abuse but the way it was described to me was that Joan Crawford beat her kids often, but there was only one case of that in the film. It is hard to watch but most of the time it was infuriating. I also found that it lacked the brother's side of the story. He also lived with Joan Crawford but his abuse was not documented in the film. Many people have watched this film and I have even heard the term, "Her mom as a real 'Mommie Dearest'." It does have relevance in our culture. It is based off the novel with the same title.

Characters/Actors: 

Faye Dunaway as Joan Crawford: I thought that Ms. Dunaway was overacting. She characterized Joan Crawford in a way that seemed so fake. It almost felt that she was trying to be one of those bad 1950 actors. It was uncomfortable watching her because she was so borderline cheesy the entire time. Whenever she delivered a cruel line, I never thought that she delivered it well but thought about how Joan Crawford really said these things. I felt that Ms. Dunaway was more of a middle person. She told the story of Joan but did not embody Joan. 

Diana Scarwid as Christina Crawford: Ms. Scarwid did a pretty average job. I liked her acting performance more than Ms. Dunaway's as she seemed to try to really imagine how it was. I could sense her trying, though. It wasn't completely believable but wasn't awful. 

Mara Hobel as Young Christina Crawford: Ms. Hobel was by far the best actress in the film. Her grasp on the emotion of the film was much better than the other's. I could have been because her real innocence as a child could be seen in her portrayal of Christina. I was impressed with how intelligent Christina was and how she understood fairness, even if the adults around her did not. Spot on performance here.

Music: The music used many violins and brass which added to the drama. It's not iconic in anyway but does it's part well.

Cinematography/Camera Work: There were several errors I noticed in the movie that just made it seem sloppy. It's ironic because Joan Crawford was such a neat freak (emphasis on freak). I remember specifically in one scene where a waiter hit a glass of pop and it almost fell off the table. The fight scene was also done poorly. Everything seemed so fake as well. When I saw the house in the movie my first thought was, "That's a nice set." I did not think, "This is a nice house." I also hated the make-up on Ms. Dunaway, mostly for her lips. Joan Crawford had these strange thick lips but to hide that Ms. Dunaway didn't have the same lips, just added more lipstick. Not convincing. The camera work was fine. It had good angles, close-ups, and distance shots that worked nicely.

RECAP:

Camera work was done well but everything was pretty bad. The only good acting came from the young Christina and the music did it's part. I think this movie is good to watch to understand that even picturesque family's have dark stains and how abuse works in a family. 

Courtesy of Etsy

Want me to critique a movie? Comment below!

Dear White People

On a Scale of 1 to 10, with 10 Being the Best

5

Image courtesy of http://cool-whipfree.blogspot.com/

Plot: The story takes place at a prestigious school and focuses on four African American students. The movie talks about the ways that black people are oppressed, how racism still exists, and how black people react to a dominant white culture. I was glad to watch this film as I wanted to learn this perspective. My wish for this film was that it would have been more hard hitting. I was under the impression that the movie was about Sam White's radio show but it ended up being about a racist party at the end of the film. The movie could have been more hard hitting if they could have focused more on day-to-day racist actions than the party at the end.

Characters/Actors of Note:

Tessa Thompson playing Sam White: I think Ms. Thompson did a wonderful job with the character Sam White and found it believable until later (which I will get to). This character was fire and brimstone about equal rights and I loved it. She was the character throughout the film explaining how black people are oppressed at her school (and our everyday lives) and how others reacted to it. Halfway through the film we find out her true nature and how she is so overbearing because she is covering up this truth. This disappointed me as she was such a powerful character at the start. The acting was good the writing was not. 

*Note there were many other characters in this film that were written to demonstrate a point. They seemed flat though and not note worthy.*

Music: The music was new and up-beat. Sometimes it seemed to go well and others I found that it stuck out to the point of distraction. It would make for great music on your own Itunes but perhaps not this film. There was one song that they play repeatedly and I hated that. So it had good music but not fitting.

Cinematography/Camera Work: The definition in the movie was nice and it looked crisp and clean. The problem was the choppiness. The movie would intermediately cut off to a bright colored background with black letters. It drove me NUTS. It took me forever that it is supposed to be chapters from Sam White's book, in fact someone had to explain it to me. These cards also cut-off the flow from the film. So the movie looked choppy and it was probably solely due to these cards.

RECAP: 

Music was excellent as a soundtrack but not fitting for the film. The look of this film was nice except that it was chopped up to bits by those cards. Ms. Thompson was by far the best actress and the others were flat. The biggest flaw was the writing. This film had the chance to hit everyone with the facts that African Americans are facing oppression in small ways almost everyday. That chance fell through when they focused on a racist party and let their leading lady become passive towards the end. I appreciate this movie nonetheless and thought it wasn't too bad. 

Image Courtesy of http://www.refinery29.com/

Want me to critique a movie? Comment below!

Imitation Game

On a Scale of 1 to 10 with 10 Being the Best

8

Courtesy of Pinterest

Plot: A meticulous intelligent man decides to work for the British Government during World War II. His goal is to break the best coding machine in the world owned by the Nazis called enigma. Alan Turing is a mathematician who has only loved his work and his childhood friend. He has to learn to work with others, how to build the world's first computer, and dealing with the British Government's laws on homosexuality. I thought it was a good film and then the water works came out of me during one of the closing scenes. This is based off of the sad true story of a great man who died far too soon.

Characters/Actors of Note:

Benedict Cumberbatch playing Alan Turing: I thought that Mr. Cumberbatch did such a great job with this movie. His mannerisms, speech, and attitude was so believable and touching. The scene that Mr. Cumberbatch cries, I too cried. Crying is not something I do often and tried to hold back. It was just not possible to hold back the feelings though. The amount of research he did and the emotion he could evoke from me was simply amazing. Superb job. 

Keira Knightley playing Joan Clarke: Ms. Knightley also did a superb job in this film. Her character not only had the stress of breaking enigma but had to deal with the sexism at the time. She was told not to do math as it was a male profession and when she got the job, she was told to quit to get married. There is a great scene with Ms. Knightley and Mr. Cumberbatch where he wants her to leave. She demands to stay saying, "This work is the most important thing I will ever do." She was such a powerful presence on the screen and her lines were just so beautifully delivered. Two thumbs up.

Music: The music was intriguing. They made the music sound like a computer working. I love the piano and the strings that they used. A lot of thought went into orchestrating the soundtrack, which is perfect for a movie about breaking codes. It is a bit slow in parts. Perhaps because computers were slow back then and they are trying to imitate that? (No pun intended.) The pace could have quickened.

Camera Work/Cinematography: This is where the movie suffered. There were many weird unnecessary cuts in the film. They included black and white film of prestigious leaders and how the war affected the English populace but then they included (or should I say tried to include) special effects. The special effects were just awful. They looked bulky and out of place especially when they had scenes with the black and white film with the special effects right after. It was cheesy looking to have both in the film. If those special effects and black and white film were cut, nothing would be lost to the audience. It would have been better without them. The majority of the film was done in a high definition way (much like Unbroken) with heavy tints of black and red. I would say that the film needed more brown and yellows. I would also say the filming should have been done more like Cinderella Man.

RECAP:

This movie is educating, heart wrenching, and beautifully acted. It suffers in cinematography but the music is not too bad. The story was well written and true to form according to Alan Turing's family. A great World War II movie to watch with anybody, not just the hard-core war fans.

Courtesy of mrssmaug.tumblr.com

Want me to critique a movie? Comment below!

Nightcrawler

On a Scale of 1 to 10 with 10 Being the Best

7.5

Plot: Holy mother of plot twists was this movie a roller coaster! The movie is about a man who is barely above the poverty line and he often steals in order to live but wants better. One day he is driving back from selling his stolen goods when he sees a car accident with paramedics near by. He pulls over to watch, when a camera crew pulls up and films. The crew calls up a station when he overhears that they are going to be paid up to $300. That is when our character Louis Bloom buys a camera and starts his own filming. The movie shows the underbelly of how news crews get their film and how far some people will go to get paid.

Characters/Actors of Note:

Jake Gyllenhaal playing Louis Bloom: I sort of got the Donnie Darko vibe from Mr. Gyllenhaal except in this film he was even more of a sociopath. I loved the build that Mr. Gyllenhaal gave this character. It was creepy, it was exciting, and just floor-stomping terrifying. The movie starts with Louis cutting a fence to sell to a construction crew and has a confrontation with a guard, keep this scene in mind as it states who Louis really is. I was pleasantly shocked by how good the writing was for this film and how well it was portrayed. 

Rene Russo playing Nina Romina: Ms. Russo plays Louis' boss and loves his film. Her contract is almost up for the company and needs the ratings to be up. She is desperate to keep her job but still keeps the appearance of being the woman in charge. The last line she has left me gaping like a fish. I loved how she owned her character. The portrayal was so believable and her energy was nice. The bite that she gives to the film is as scary as it is necessary. Nicely done. 

Riz Ahmed playing Rick: Mr. Ahmed plays Louis' apprentice who has low-confidence. His low-confidence made him appear pathetic and small. Later, when he tries to be more confident, he still has some slight struggle. The handle of his character was well understood. There was a point where I wondered how he was going to handle the climatic scene and was left gasping. I wish that the movie could have shown more into his life and the struggle he dealt with on a daily basis with Louis. What Mr. Ahmed was given was done perfectly though.

Music: The music in the movie was glued together well. The times that I noticed it I thought were perfect and blended well with the film. I was glad that there wasn't a blaring of brass but instead violins, guitars, and chimes. They used silence in the movie to their advantage. I am often surprised when I watch an action scene and was so into it, that I didn't notice the music. In this movie, I was so into the scenes that I didn't notice the silence. This was done well. 

Camera Work/Cinematography: I will start with the negatives and go to the positives. I thought the darkness was overused and could have used another color undertone. Also, the cuts were pretty sharp and sometimes too fast. I think that the camera could have lingered longer on facial expressions and the surroundings. The part I did like was how they displayed the shots that Louis did. They did not show the audience anything until it reached the news room. This built suspense and also showed me one thing. Throughout the movie, I was shocked and disgusted at what these people did but when it came to Louis' shots, I wanted to know what was happening. The director, Dan Gilroy, stated that was his purpose actually. Not to show how bad news companies are but to question why people watch it.

RECAP:

The script was interesting and the way the suspense was built in the film was jaw-dropping. I thought the acting was well done. Music was not overbearing or too loud. The color of the film was pretty dark and the editing was done too fast. Great movie to watch if you are looking for a suspense-thriller. 

Courtesy of shortlist.com

Want me to critique a movie? Comment below!

Big Eyes

On a Scale of 1 to 10, with 10 Being the Best

6

Courtesy of javasbachelorpad.com
Painted by Margaret Keane

Plot: A woman leaves her husband to go to the West Coast to earn a living for her daughter. On the side, she tries to sell her paintings which are typically children and animals with large eyes. One day, at an art fair, she meets a smooth talking man and they fall in love. As the story progresses, her second husband tries to sell her art but with the idea that he painted them and not her as "people don't buy lady art." This is based off the true story of Margaret Keane and her relationship with her abusive husband Walter Keane. According to my research, the movie stays true to the story. It is interesting to watch but I found the story-line predictable. The script writing could have been improved.

Characters/Actors of Note:

Amy Adams playing Margaret Keane: Ms. Adams has stated that she enjoys playing "happy characters." Margaret Keane should not have been played as a happy character. Mrs. Keane has stated that she was afraid for her life when she was around her husband and I found that Ms. Adams did not portray that well. Instead, she tried to bring her quiet nature as sort of the "brightness" of Mrs. Keane's life. I believe that a hint of darkness could have been better incorporated by Ms. Adams because frankly, the situation was pretty dark. The acting was not terrible by any means but I think that the situation was not captured well. 

Christoph Waltz playing Walter Keane: As usual, Mr. Waltz plays a villain that is smooth as he is terrifying. Right off the bat, I knew that Mr. Waltz was going to snap just because he was cast in the film. I wish that they would have shown more of his infidelity side. He was often seen with women but I could have used a scene to actually understand his sleezy nature. They portrayed his business persona well though. To state again, the acting was not bad at all, but there was tweaking to be done.

Music: I did not notice the orchestral music much in this film to be honest. Though the songs that were included, I did enjoy. The one song I liked the best was by Lana Del Rey written specifically for the film. I think that this aspect was pretty well done. No complaints here. 

Camera Work/Cinematography: The aging and cutting in the movie was not done very well. I felt there could have been a better flow between shots and the time laps were confusing. Granted, there were years that would pop-up at the bottom of the screen but it did not feel like 10 years had passed in the movie. The look of the movie was brightly colored and withheld its sharpness. There were digitally added "big eyes" in the film at times which I felt were not done well. They looked blurry and sometimes off center. The concept was nice but the execution fell through. The editing was just done poorly.

RECAP:

I think that the story itself is interesting but the way it was written made it easily predictable. The editing was not done well. The acting was not bad but there could have been better character development. Music was pretty good. You may not be blown away by this movie but I would say watch it for the interesting true-life story-line. 

Courtesy of Time.com

Want me to critique a movie? Comment below!

Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)

On a Scale of 1 to 10, with 10 Being the Best

9

Courtesy of Domenic Bahmann 

Plot: An aging actor, Riggan, decides to try a risky project. He will direct, write, and act in a production based off of a book but everything does not go the way he wants. Riggan also deals with his drug-addicted daughter.Throughout the movie he is badgered by a voice in his head to go back to his easy money making project of Birdman, a superhero franchise that he did several movies for. The movie is about what "real" acting is compared to Hollywood acting and what it takes to make art.

Characters/Actors of Note:

Michael Keaton playing Riggan: What can I say about Mr. Keaton? I guess I can start with that I am glad he agreed to do this film! When I watched this with my roommate, she stated that he probably saw Batman within this movie. In an interview with NPR, he even stated that he did. The acting job in this movie was incredibly hard as he had to be Riggan, then the "Actor Riggan," then the "Birdman Riggan." He also had to deal with telekinetic powers, being powerless, and being selfish. Not to mention the way the movie is filmed is unusual. They would film for 40 minutes straight and if someone messed up, they had to start the entire scene over. Talk about tough. I thought the performance was incredible and definitely Oscar worthy.

Emma Stone playing Sam: I didn't know that Ms. Stone was in this film until she appeared on screen. She gave an interesting perspective to the movie. She is able to connect the ideas of the Hollywood ideal to the real acting ideal. Her character also reminds the audience what is valuable and, to the other characters, she shows what is actually seen by the general public. She comes off so cool and she has this persona that was very different for her. I was so glad she was in this film.

Edward Norton playing Mike: This character was goofy and shocking and just what was needed. Mr. Norton's character often stated that the truth was the most exciting thing in the world. Like Ms. Stone's character, he brought up what was really seen but only according to the "real theatre people." His character was not in the movie often but when he was there he was surprising. I thought this character was well-used and well-done.

Music: Generally, I do not like the sound of the drum. I find the drum to be loud and abrasive but in this movie it was incredibly perfect. I thought it was creative and, in some scenes, surprisingly fun! Listening to the soundtrack, it does not sound like much but the music was used just so darn well. It was well tailored to the film. I was just so impressed with how innovative they were with the use of drums.

Camera Work/Cinematography: The. Directing. Style. Was. Awesome. As mentioned earlier, they would film a scene without any cuts. They would film 40 minutes at a time, which was apparently pretty hard during the improvised scenes. It appeared as if everything was happening in real time even though days would go by in the movie. They would position the camera at lights for transitions. The way the did the telekinetic powers and the Birdman paranoia parts were SO INNOVATIVE. I can't stress how great this movie looked. The director, Alejandro González Iñárritu, showed us a new artistic look without being over-top or too "artistic for regular people." Much appreciation.

RECAP:

This movie is the epitome of artistic movies that I can actually watch and enjoy. The use of music, camera angles, and cinematography is above and beyond what I expected. The script was truly interesting not to mention that the acting comes from the acting giants (in my opinion). If you are tired of the hum-drum garbage of the movie industry of today and want a breath of fresh air, please take in this incredible movie. I love it for its artistic value and how they portray the theatrical arts. I would rate it higher but it did not speak on an emotional level for me; that is the only thing they left out. Birdman is entertaining though and important to cinema. 

Courtesy of io9.com

Want me to critique a movie? Comment below!