More like 50 shades of nay (no): 50 Shades of Grey

You can watch my youtube review HERE!!!

I don't think 50 Shades of Grey needs much introduction but if you have been living in a hole for the past few years or actually living a fulfilling life I'll give you a quick briefing. 50 Shades of Grey started as Twilight fan fiction, then one day E.L. James transferred her fantasies into a book (with some name changes) and it exploded like an atomic bomb that attracts money and kills brain cells. The book now adapted for the screen under director Sam Taylor-Johnson with the lovely Dakota Johnson in the lead and Jamie Dornan as every woman's abusive fantasy.

The main draw of the novel of the was James' description which I can't say was well written, in fact I'd say is rather insane but for some reason the women of the world found to be exciting. But the thing is, when to take written text and transfer it to a visual medium you lose all that description that stimulated the imagination. So with that out of the film does it really hold up? 50 Shades as a film has always been rather gimmicky to begin with; you can basically call it the BDSM movie or Porn for people who don't know how to find their way around the internet. I'll comment on those scenes briefly but really I'm just going to talk about hos it actually works as a...movie.

Once you take away the sex scenes and the fact that the movie is called 50 Shades of Grey it's really just a very simple romance story; a rather unoriginal, dull and mediocre romance story but a romance story nonetheless. The film follows college senior Anastasia Steele (Johnson) as she meets and develops a relationship with young billionaire Christian Grey (Dornan) who has a dark past and even darker pleasures. There really isn't anything special about this story, it really could have been any romance script with just some added BDSM, the fact that it's called 50 Shades of Grey really just gets butts in the seats.

Now the film is actually well made, Sam Taylor-Johnson knows how to put things together with Seamus McGarvey who is a great cinematographer and Danny Elfman's score is quite fantastic while being very different from what he has done before. Dakota Johnson is actually quite good in her role even though the dialogue is quite terrible and cliché but Jamie Dornan on the other hand is as bland as a block of raw tofu. There has been much debate as the whether the film and book are misogynist; it's written by a woman, it's biggest fans are women but it features a rather abusive relationship. When you take the ending of the film into account I don't think it really is misogynist but the character of Christian Grey is still an abusive man...and that is apparently appealing to women.

I actually think if the film wasn't trying to be faithful to the source material and had a script that took the basic outline and actually explored the idea it could have been a decent film. Really it just needed to be fresher and have much better dialogue. I was expecting this to be absolutely terrible and was hoping for another Showgirls situation but I was surprised that I didn't hate it. I definitely don't think it's good in fact I was bored throughout the whole film save for some comedic moments  both intentional and unintentional. Really, having seen the film I just don't really get what the big deal is from either points of view; it's just a well made but boringly told film that really has nothing going for it especially when you can find much racier things in foreign films.

2 1/2 out of 5 stars.

Let me know your thoughts in the comments below.

Fantastic Mr: Foxcatcher

You can watch my youtube review HERE!!!

Sorry that there's been a bit of gap between my written reviews again, I've been a bit busy organising a video shoot which I just completed while also editing lots of videos for my youtube channel. If you do enjoy my reviews check out my youtube CHANNEL which is always up to date with reviews (unlike my written reviews) along with other videos I do.

Foxcatcher is the latest and third (fictional) film from American auteur Bennett Miller (Capote, Moneyball). The film is based of the harrowing true events between Mark and Dave Schultz and John Du Pont and stars Channing Tatum, Mark Ruffalo and Steve Carell with small roles from Sienna Miller, Anthony Michael Hall and Vanessa Redgrave. Now it has been about three or four weeks since I've seen the film so I hope I do it justice since it's not as fresh in my mind, that being said it has stayed with me for quite a bit of it.

Struggling financially, Olympic gold medallist Mark Schultz accepts an offer from John Du Pont to train at his estate to qualify for the next Olympic games; both men are trying to rise above the shadows of family members they find themselves under. Bennett Miller's film examines masculinity, the disillusionment of the American dream and the psychology of broken men, one who happens to be rather disturbing.

What stands out the most from Miller's film is the atmosphere; it's dark, cold, oppressive and unnerving. Bennett Miller directs the film with a gentle touch which makes every gut punch all the more powerful. With gorgeous cinematography from Australian cinematographer Greig Fraser who frames stunning compositions and a hauntingly atmospheric score from Rob Simonsen and West Dylan Thordson. But the power of this movie really comes from the actors and the three leads are absolutely fantastic though I'm still confused why Carell was nominated for best actor when he really is supporting and Tatum is the lead.

The actors are the core of this film. Channing Tatum is fantastically subdued (like most of the film) as Mark Schultz and though he is incredibly subtle you're able to see everything that is going on in his head and what a broken person he is underneath all that muscle. Carrel's role is a lot more showy than Tatum's hence more recognition and though it still deserves the praise I don't think Tatum should be overlooked the way he has been. Ruffalo is also brilliant, being the heart of the film you feel his absence when his not on screen and I'm sure that reflects the feeling of the characters too.

Foxcatcher is a film that washes over you and stays with you for hours. Though you see a lot happen there's a lot more implication and mystery than what is shown on screen and you're left trying to piece together what people in real life weren't even able to do. This film is strangely unnerving and a puzzle you want to solve but will never be able to; it's something that can't be made up but you'd never think could happen but it did and that's what makes it all the more frightening and chilling. If you don't know what happened if real life I'd recommend going into the movie without knowing as it'll be even more effecting than it already is.

4 out of 5 stars.

Let me know your thoughts in the comments below.

I Will Walk 500 Miles And I Will Walk 500 More: Wild.

You can watch my youtube review HERE!!!

In 1995 a young woman decided to walk more than a thousand miles on the Pacific Crest Trail as a way of healing life's hurts. This young woman is Cheryl Strayed and she recounted that journey in her memoir which would become the basis of the film Wild. Wild is the latest film from Jean-Marc Vallee (Dallas Buyers Club) produced by and starring Reese Witherspoon with Laura Dern, Thomas Sadoski, Gaby Hoffmann and Keene McRae in supporting roles.

When we first meet Cheryl Strayed we find her at an unknown point in her journey; she takes out one of her toe nails and loses a shoe down a mountain, life hasn't exactly gone her way. We then flash back to the start of the journey where she was recently divorced and still hasn't gotten over the loss of her mother before that; life hasn't exactly gone her way. With Wild we explore someone who has been beaten down by life and herself with a lot of this is shown (quite well may I add) through flashbacks which inform greatly on our protagonist's current circumstance and the battles in her mind.

Reese Witherspoon gives an incredibly layered and broken performance aided by fantastic editing that brings Vallee's vision together perfectly. The cuts between the action and flashbacks work to make Witherspoon's performance even stronger basically putting the Kuleshov Effect to good use. There's a very interesting article on the film's editing on Film School Rejects so I'll attach the link HERE!  Laura Dern is also fantastic, filling her character with a warmth and sincerity that is incredibly infectious.

There's a great advantage to this film being set in the wild (pun slightly intended) and that is the gorgeous locations caught even more gorgeously by Yves Belanger. Belanger has stated that around 95%  was shot with natural lighting only really using film lighting for several interiors; this was a technique Belanger and Vallee used for Dallas Buyers Club though though more for economic reasons than the creative reasoning behind this film. But like I said it looks gorgeous with some of that praise going to the natural beauty of the locations.

As things go I have to say this was one of the most emotionally engaging films of 2014 with several moments of beautiful honesty, but with the lack of a narrative driving the story the pacing is rather slow. This does hinder the emotional experience at times and also the fact that our protagonist is an incredibly flawed character who kind of dug her own hole but in the end we're all flawed, some just more than others. As emotionally affecting as Wild is it didn't completely grab me and blow me away, I'd definitely call it a pretty great film but not an amazing one.

4 out of 5 stars.

Let me know your thoughts in the comments below.

Sniper No Sniping: American Sniper.

You can watch my youtube review HERE!!!

American Sniper is the latest film from Clint Eastwood, starring Bradley Cooper and Sienna Miller. The film is based on Chris Kyle's biography of the same name and explores his exploits as America's most lethal sniper with the most confirmed kills. We see Chris Kyle over several tours in Iraq along with his home life once those tours are over and the post traumatic stress disorder he begins to deal with.

Now American Sniper has been a polarising film both critically and politically (mostly politically). Since I am not American (or well educated in politics) I won't really dig into that aspect of it. Critically it has been met with mostly favourable reviews but there's a divide between those who think it's amazing and those who think it's rather standard fair...I am a member of the latter group. Don't get me wrong I think Clint Eastwood can be a brilliant filmmaker but his last great movie was Gran Torino...and that was in 2008.

As things go, Chris Kyle himself was a rather controversial figure. He was what you would call a hardcore patriot; someone who would give their left nut and life for their country and would see the enemy as alien and not one bit human. Because this film is portraying Chris Kyle as who he was it may seem like the film is saying it agrees with his beliefs; the truth is it doesn't. Clint Eastwood approaches his subject with a very clinical and procedural approach that I wouldn't really call inspired but it in no way glorifies the subject's stand beyond portraying how he viewed the world.

With politics out of the way let's get into the actual film. Like I stated earlier I fall into the group that sees this film as a solid one but in no way deserving all the buzz it currently has. With all the praise it had going into the cinema I was expecting a deep look into the psychology of a man and the toll war took on him (a la the Hurt Locker) but instead I found it to be only skin deep; interested in only presenting the man an not really exploring him. To compare it to another recent film I would have preferred if Eastwood handled the film with the same touch Bennett Miller used for Foxcatcher (review will be up soon) because he knew how to really dig beneath the skin and into the minds of his characters.

Bradley Cooper is the MVP of this film, delivering a fantastic performance that makes this decent yet uninspired film worth the ticket price. He is able to bring out in his performance what Eastwood's filmmaking is unable to do though if they were both at the top of their game it could have been even better. The film is well shot with good cinematography and even better editing which keeps the pacing moving; even though the film is over two hours I didn't think it felt long all. The script was well written but like Eastwood's direction I felt that there was a lot more it could have explored and said that it didn't end up doing. Also the rather contrived and not entirely true rivalry with an Iraqi sniper didn't really work for me.

For me I don't think this is a bad film at all, I liked it and think it's a step towards a return to form for Eastwood (depending on how many years he has left). I think with all the fuss being made about the film it should have been something a lot more substantial; when I get into a conversation about it with a friend there really isn't that much to talk about, all I say is that it was good...but not great.

3 1/2 out 5 stars.

Let me know your thoughts in the comments below.

Can I take back these two hours of my life? Taken 3.

You can watch my youtube review HERE!!!

The first Taken was a small film that became a big hit. At the time it was considered fresh, especially when you consider that Liam Neeson was known for being a dramatic actor and not an action hero at the time. The film also played with one of societies biggest fears considering the state of the world for the past decade. Now this may make it sound like the first Taken was an important film...it is not. Unlike many people I know I didn't find the film be to that great. It was entertaining to an extent but rather mindless though it's far from the brainless films we tend to get in our blockbusters lately. But considering the small size of the budget, how popular it became and how much it influenced the current trend of action films today it of course got two sequels.

Tak3en...or Taken 3 is second sequel to the rather unexpected franchise and is directed by Taken 2 helmer Olivier Megaton (yes, that is his real last name). Liam Neeson returns as Bryan Mills along with Maggie Grace and Famke Janssen; new additions include Forest Whitaker and Dougray Scott. Now I actually never watched the second Taken film all the way through, I found it to be rather bad and was reviewing at the time so I felt no need to finish it. The good thing is you don't need to see the second film in order to watch the third instalment though I wouldn't recommend watching this film either anyway.

The latest Taken film follow Brian Mills (Neeson) on the run after being  framed for the murder of his ex-wife (think The Fugitive but if it wasn't any good). Whitaker play the detective on his tale while they both have to deal with the Russian Mafia as well. While the first film wasn't smart it wasn't completely brainless. This film however is completely mindless; full of constant stupidity and an incredibly generic script. The film is so derivative of the films that have come before that even with its constant need to add plot twist after plot twist fails to surprise. But, considering several if the films I had to endure last year this films wasn't as painful as it could have been.

What is painful though is Olivier Magaton's direction; specifically his visual style. It is as if he got every possible coverage in the world and decided to use it all. The film is so edited to the extreme that there is rarely a shot that lasts a second, even in scenes where characters are just sitting down and talking. This makes for some of the most incoherent and overproduced visual storytelling I have seen in a long time...and I had to sit through Michael Bay's latest Transformers film. Fortunately Taken 3 isn't too long though it still could have been a bit shorter.

As far as the acting goes the cast does the best they can do with a hackneyed script like this and manage to bring enough credibility their characters. As generic and bad as the films is it is far from absolutely terrible though I will definitely say that it is in no way good. Taken really should have just been one solid film and not a franchise that has gone severely down hill. Like I said there's much better films of the same type out there (The Fugitive) and this one is not really worth your time.

2 out of 5 stars.

Let me know your thoughts in the comments below.

A Rather Grimm Fairytale:Into the Woods.

You can watch my youtube review HERE!!!

Disney of course has been adapting fairy tales to the big screen since its inception so of course they would end up adapting a musical that threads several of them together. Into the Woods is based on the very famous Broadway musical of the same name from Stephen Sondheim and James Lapine. With it being a musical who better than Rob Marshall (Chicago) to direct it with a cast the includes Anna Kendrick, Emily Blunt, Meryl Streep, James Corden, Chris Pine and a very small role from Johnny Depp.

The film follows various characters who must travel through the forest to achieve various goals. There's Jack and the beanstalk, Cinderella, Little Red Riding Hood, Rapunzel and a Baker and his Wife who want to have a child (that's a fairytale right?). Being a Disney production the film was of course made to appeal to families and because of that the adaptation has lightened some of the darker and more adult aspects of the film (there's less death and infidelity) but both Sondheim and Lapine have been involved in the changes.

Unfortunately I feel these changes hinder the film. By toning the film down to be more family friendly the film loses a fair bit of its emotional impact. All deaths happen off screen, themes are touched on but rarely fully delved into and the tone becomes very inconsistent when you go from fun adventure to near apocalypse. This also affects the pacing which was already troubling given the films length and rather jumbled plot. Threading all these fairy tales together does make the story a bit of a mess but that in no way hinders how enjoyable it can be.

Lets get to what I'm sure you want to hear; the music is fantastic. The whole cast knock the songs out of the park and it makes for a very entertaining watch (especially the song Agony). Kendrick is starting to create a niche of singing movies for herself as she has another musical coming out this year. Blunt and Corden have great chemistry as the baker and his wife which helps create comedic banter between the pair. Meryl Streep has been in talks for awards but as good as she is I don't really see it; she's just as good as the rest of the cast so I don't really see why she's being singled out as the best. Lastly Johnny Depp is really only in two scenes of the film but his performance is solid for his lack of screen time.

Dion Beebe shot the film and it is quite beautiful to look at with nice lighting, a contrast of muted and bright colours, great use of fog and dynamic camera movement. When you consider the budget of the film the production value is quite fantastic considering the size of the film. It looks just as big and expansive as your Hollywood blockbuster but for half the cost or less. The art direction and visual effects blend really well and create a fully realised world. Overall it is a really well made piece of entertaining spectacle with cautionary morals and if you're a fan of musicals you're going to have a whole lot of fun!

3 1/2 out of 5 stars.

Let me know your thoughts in the comments below.

Eternal Sunshine of an Australian Mind: The Infinite Man.

Check out my youtube review HERE!!!

I saw The Infinite Man at a festival in early December  but have only now found time to review it. It also happens that it is out on DVD in Australia today so it seems like pretty good timing.

The Romantic Comedy genre is a a dying breed but Australian writer director Hugh Sullivan breathes life into the genre by adding a science fiction element. With only three cast members in Josh McConville, Hannah Marshall and Alex Dimitriades and two locations this film takes the little that it has and does so much more with it. The film follows Dean (McConville) as he tries to create the perfect weekend with his girlfriend Lana (Marshall)...over and over again, failing each time. This film is one part Primer, one part Eternal Sunshine of a Spotless Mind and another part 500 Days of Summer.

First things first, this lives and dies with its script and boy is it an absolutely fantastic one. Hugh Sullivan fills his script with smarts, heart, humour and total honesty; crystal clear observation with plenty of laughs but also poignancy and the flow between the different tones is so smooth. Being a time travel film it definitely has a complicated plot which is bound to have some logical plot holes but it is in no way convoluted and in no way brings any attention to its flaws. The film is one of the funniest, most honest, sweetest and poignant films on relationships that I've seen though it just misses out on being as good as Her or Eternal Sunshine.

Now the cast had a tough job to pull off, having to play multiple versions of themselves with complication camera work but they not only pull off the technical aspects of their job but also create relatable and dimensional character that create both humour and hard truths. McConville's pedantic character could have come off as frustrating and annoying in the wrong hands (think Sheldon Cooper) but he plays it just right with Marshall as great support. Dimitriades has a rather one dimensional character but the way he plays it is so fun it isn't that much of an issue, especially since it isn't really about him anyway.

Considering how small the production was the production value is fantastic. With energetic and very precise cinematography along with flawless effects to get multiple version of a character into the same shot. The production design for the time travel device is great along with the very simple costumes. The music is both whimsical and tragically effecting adding to an already great film. Most of all this film is just a whole lot of fun and one of the most enjoyable films I saw in 2014. Though it may not always be as perceptive as it thinks it is it is still just a whole lot of whimsical fun.

4 1/2 out of 5 stars.

Let me know your thoughts in the comments below.

Run Forrest, Run: '71.

You can watch my youtube review HERE!!!

I've been meaning to find the time to write this review for some time but have been rather busy. I saw this film in November but since the film doesn't have a theatrical release date until some time in 2015 it wasn't a priority but I've finally found the time to write it.

'71 is the directorial debut from Yann Demange, written by Scottish playwright Gregory Burke and boy is it a knock-out. It has screened at many festivals and has been added to Sundance's line up for this year. It stars up and comer Jack O'Connell who had one heck of a year in 2014 with Starred Up and Unbroken as well. Set in Northern Ireland during 'The Troubles' '71 follows a young British soldier who is separated from his troop and must survive the night while being hunted by the Provisional IRA.

Now the conflict between the Irish and British has always been something that has intrigued me but also constantly confused me. I'd try and research the subject but there was just so much that happened that I can barely ever scratch the surface. With that being said this film doesn't take any sides and instead gives us a very objective look at the situation as the soldier we follow has no political motivations or ties. The troop is a group of young soldiers who thought they would be fighting faraway overseas but were instead sent to Ireland to help keep things under control.

This film is mainly just a survival thriller about one man who must to do all he can to survive the night though the film is definitely filled with a lot of subtext regarding 'the troubles' but it is mostly under the surface. As a survival chase thriller it is superb; full of nail-biting tension, a fantastic performance from O'Connell, great handheld 16mm cinematography with great editing and it all comes together brilliantly.The film really embodies the hate and confusion of the environment at the time and it does it really well without being heavy-handed.

If there is anything negative I can say is that I don't really connect with it on an emotional level; it's a rather cold film and our lead rarely utters a word so you don't really know that much about him. There is a relationship with his son which is enough to root for his survival almost like the first Raid film. But in the end it is a really well made film that is fantastically thrilling and contains some of the best handheld action I've ever seen; it has a realistic energy and urgency that you don't see authentically enough.

4 1/2 out of 5 stars.

Let me know your thoughts in the comments below.

An Actor's Movie About Acting: Birdman.

You can watch youtube review HERE!!! Ps - I filmed it as a one take.

Unfortunately for the past few weeks I haven't had enough time to do written reviews as I've been busy with editing several videos on top of my usual video reviews and also family due to the holiday season. I do plan to catch up with several reviews but will either skip or write less for films I don't really feel the need to talk about. But I thought I'd start the year with the film I saw on New Year's Eve...Birdman.

Birdman is the latest film from Mexican Auteur Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu who previously made the dramatic downers Amores Perros, 21 Grams, Babel and Biutiful. This time around he brings a dramatic comedy set in the world of Theatre vs Hollywood and the pursuit of art. The film sports a fantastic cast with Michael Keaton, Edward Norton, Emma Stone, Naomi Watts, Zach Galifianakis, Amy Ryan and the very underrated Andrea Riseborough. From a fantastically meta screenplay that is laugh out loud but also filled with soul and depth.

Keaton's Riggan is washed up ageing actor who played the titular superhero Birdman in several films twenty years ago (exactly how long ago Keaton played Batman). Riggan is now directing and starring in a play he adapted from a Raymond Carver short story on Broadway and the film takes place over three previews and the first performance where it will be reviewed by the incredibly spiteful critic Tabitha Dickinson. Riggan is doing all of this so he can leave behind a legacy that can be respected rather than tight bird-shaped latex.

This film is about art, particularly acting and the actors are absolutely fantastic. Michael Keaton gives his best performance with Norton being a great foil/partner in crime playing a similar character to himself. The rest of the cast is strong and I really hope we get more Andrea Riseborough in our films. Now their performances are both loud and subtle, fusing stage and film acting into a very balanced combination. These performances all derived from a brilliantly meta, hilarious and poignant script and aided by Emmanuel Lubezki's gorgeous cinematography which I shall now discuss.

Lubezki is a master of movement, lighting and composition. He's a frequent collaborator of Inarritu's Mexican brother-in-film Alfonso Cuaron who he'd work with to create long unbroken takes or at least the illusion of them and Terrence Malick who he'd create beautifully spiritually images with. Birdman is an extension of the former with touches of the latter; made to look as if the film was shot in one long take (with the exception of cuts at the start and end). This adds an infectious energy to the film while also aiding the performances with their theatre influence and adding a spot of fun if you're film fan as you'll be looking for where it most likely cut (not at all taking away from the experience of the film).

This film is an absolutely blast while also being artistically genius and the best superhero movie of 2014 (I really want a real Birdman movie). The score is also quite fantastic being mostly comprised of just improvised drumming. What makes this film even more special is that it's a unique and original work that actually got green-lit in a world seemingly only hungry for comic book and franchise films. The fact that it looks like is cost four times more than its budget is just a testament to the craft of all the people involved. This is a film that makes me just want to go out and make a film and that is one of the best compliments I can give.

5 out of 5 stars.

Let me know your thoughts in the comments below.

Action Moses; Exodus: Gods and Kings.

You can watch my youtube review HERE!!!

The story of Moses is a well known story and has been told many times in many different ways, including animation; Cedil B. Demille himself adapted the story twice. The latest interpretation of the story comes from master filmmaker Ridley Scott and stars Christian Bale, Joel Edgerton, Ben Kingsley, John Turturro, Sigourney Weaver, Aaron Paul and Ben Mendelsohn. Now this is a story that most people know so I won't give a synopsis and will get right into my review.

Exodus: Gods and Kings attempts to tell the story of two brothers; raised together but ultimately drawn apart by lineage and by faith. Ridley Scott is no stranger to sword and sandal epics with Gladiator and Kingdom of Heaven (the director's cuts is a masterpiece) under his belt so a story like Moses' felt like a no-brainer. A even though Ridley Scott tackles the film with as much visual grandeur as expected Exodus plays it rather safe by being very by the numbers though it does bring up some rather interesting ideas that could have been explored further.

With a strong cast and technical expertise the film lives and dies with its screenplay and that is where we find its problems. No matter how grand a scope Ridley Scott paints the film with it all doesn't matter if the film doesn't have compelling characters or a compelling story. The script barely gives any depth to the characters and is more focused on getting from A to B without really getting into why. We don't really get to know the Israelites or their plight and though Moses is a reluctant leader he isn't are fully formed as the Moses from the bible. If anything we get to know more about Rhamses mindset though he is still written rather thinly.

With all book adaptations we must talk about the faithfulness to the source material; Exodus in no way deviates from the source to the extent that Darren Aronofsky's Noah did but that are several major changes that actually weaken the film. In the source we get to know the various Israelite characters with much more depth though Rhamses is even more thinly written; this weakens the the stakes of film and why we should be invested. Of course not all of these changes are negatives; the drama between Moses and Rhames is rather interesting but not nearly explored deep enough and Ridley Scott's depiction of the plagues via natural causes was also very interesting and you felt every fly, every frog and boil.

Unfortunately it is a rather dull affair for a epic film and contains rather disjointed pacing. But it does contain striking cinematography, a lovely score and strong performances from a cast who do their best with the little they are given. Ridley Scott handles the action well though the reasoning behind some of it is rather contrived but the film manages to be rather decent even with its thin script and tonal inconsistencies. A very well made film but an averagely thrilling experience that lacks the ambition that would have made it more worthwhile.

3 out of 5 stars.

Let me know your thoughts in the comments below.

Why Can't People Just Talk? Men, Women & Children.

Watch my youtube review HERE!!!

No matter what, no matter when, no matter who there has always been a lack of clear communication between people; whether married, family, dating or just friends. Based on the Chad Kultgen of the same name, Jason Reitman's latest film examines the secret pains and desires of a group of people in a wholesome American town and how even though the world is more connected through technology everyone is still as lonely as before. The film stars an all star ensemble which includes Jennifer Garner, Adam Sandler, Judy Greer, Dean Norris, Rosemarie DeWitt Ansel Elgort, Kaitlyn Dever, J.K. Simmons, Olivia Crocicchia, Travis Tope and the voice of Emma Thompson.

Now Jason Reitman is well known for his witty yet honest view of the world but since Labor Day his wit has changed to earnestness and most critics have seen this as a misstep. I on the other hand enjoyed Labor Day immensely even with all its flaws and though Men, Women & Children finds itself being just as earnest I found myself connecting with it too. Most critics have viewed this film as an attack on technology but I think that is the completely wrong way to view this film; its really about the emotional struggle of many people, struggles we can all relate to on some kind of level.

This is helped by an absolutely fantastic cast and though the film is an ensemble piece Ansel Elgort and Kaitlyn Dever are the stand outs of the film. Adam Sandler also gives his first real performance since Funny People (or Hotel Transylvania if you count animation). With Reitman's strong gift for working with actors he's able create incredibly strong and honest emotions which ring true no matter how earnest or how contrived the situations are. The film is beautifully shot and has a great score/soundtrack but that's a given with Reitman's eye for compositions and ear for music.

Where the film does falter is in its script co-written by Reitman and Erin Cressida Wilson. Though Reitman is able to create honest emotions through his actors the situations to create these moments are taken to the extreme in order to prove the point of the film but it often comes off as contrived  especially because they have to connect the large cast of characters (though not to the extent of Babel or 21 Grams). These contrivances will definitely rub people the wrong way and if you look at the critical response it already has.

But in the end I still really liked Men, Women & Children; though it definitely has its flaws to me an strong emotional experience is more important than flawless film (mostly because I don't believe there's such a thing). Jason Reitman's latest my be overly earnest and rather contrived but there's a real honesty to the emotions it displays and the performances the actors give. Add to that Reitman's strong handle of visuals and music and you have a film that is very emotionally affecting even though it is rather flawed.

4 out of 5 stars.

Let me know your thoughts in the comments below.

Jake Gyllenhaal Doesn't Teleport: Nightcrawler.

Watch my youtube review HERE!!!

The world is full of sociopaths; some go unnoticed, other repress their tendencies and a handful fulfil their urges. Jake Gyllenhaal plays Lou Bloom, one of these sociopaths and has his mind set on fulfilling his hearts desires. Nightcrawler is the directorial début of Dan Gilroy brother of Tony Gilroy (Michael Clayton), Dan Gilroy also wrote the screnplay while his brother co-produced. The cast includes Jake Gyllenhaal, Rene Russo (Dan Gilroy's wife), Riz Ahmed and Bill Paxton.

The film follows Lou Bloom (Gyllenhaal) an unemployed petty thief who discovers the darker side of  TV News; Lou Bloom decides to join the business by filming crash and crime footage and does whatever it takes not matter how unethical it may be. Jake Gyllenhaal delivers a powerhouse performance and goes to great lengths just like his character. Apparently Gyllenhaal also learnt the entire script off by heart in order to deal with the responsibility of co-producing the film as well.
Rene Russo and Riz Ahmed (who is British believe it or not) also give strong performances.

What really makes the film is Gilroy's fantastic script which is full of brains, thrills, black comedy and underlying terror. Gilroy's script crafts a fascinating character and story rich in ideas and compelling drama while also managing to get under your skin to the point of creeping you the hell out. It's also a great look at tabloid journalism (the TV version of it) and how it really is there to either fill us the viewer with fear or feed our repressed sociopathic tendencies. The film touches at satire but never goes all the way with it which I think is a bit of a missed opportunity but doesn't weaken the film at all.

Gilroy directs well for his first feature and keeps the film escalating until the end but I feel that his lack of experience stops the film from fully reaching its potential. There's a disconnect between the film and the audience that stopped me from being fully immersed in the film and it's not just because of the sociopathic character at its core. I believe that if the film was more stylised it could have gotten around that and drawn the audience in even more.

The film still is very strong but I felt it could pushed things further and a more seasoned director would have had the courage to do that. Robert Elswit's fantastic cinematography helps a little but the score counters that by feeling rather out of place though I feel that may have been the point. But in the end this is really just nitpicking in an otherwise great film that is bound to start conversations and create the need to shower after spending two hours with such a shady character.

4 1/2 out of 5 stars.

Let me know your thoughts in the comments below.