Rogue One: A Star Wars Story (2016)

*** out of ****

This feels like it's going to be one of the more tortured reviews I've ever written because of the terribly mixed emotions I have about the film. But I suppose my feelings could most easily be summed up with one statement: while “Rogue One” is a very good movie, it isn't a very good “Star Wars” movie.

In (very) short, the film tells the story leading up to the very first moment of the original “Star Wars” (1977), where Darth Vadar's star destroyer is chasing Princess Leia's small ship across the screen. The pursuit was due to the knowledge that the plans for the Death Star were somewhere on board. “Rogue One” tells the tale of how they came to be on board – specifically how a rebel detail led by Jyn Erso (Felicity Jones), who is the daughter of the Death Star's creator, stole the plans to deliver to the rebellion.

Sounded like a pretty interesting plot to me, and in many ways it is. It's action-packed, has some interesting characters and dialogue, and even a few chuckles. But there were a myriad of problems with it that made it, for me, a failure as a Star Wars story.

In the best of the Star Wars films (the original trilogy and “The Force Awakens”) the story and objectives are very clear, the lines between good and evil plainly defined, and we deal with a controlled set of characters who are very nicely developed. ALL of those things are missing in “Rogue One”. The first half of the movie is almost hopelessly convoluted, following several different story-lines that seem to go in countless directions. We're introduced to about fifteen key characters (instead of the 6 or 7 that were crucial to the plot of those better films), and often you can't even remember what their names are of what their supposed to be doing. One of these characters, Saw Gerrerra (Forrest Whitaker) is one of the worst “heroes” in the galaxy – he was apparently supposed to be heroic but I found him so awful that I was happy when (spoiler alert) he was blasted into oblivion by a giant shockwave.

Another thing that bothered me might be my own perceptions, as it seemed to me that a successful infiltration of the Empire's data store to steal the plans would have been far better served by a small force working under the radar – in “Rogue One” it's a battle as big as the Death Star engagement in “Return of the Jedi” (1983). There is just soooooo much going on all the time that it's hard to be really engaged by the story. And since so many of the characters are involved in the battle, you lose any tension that the small incursion would have delivered.  Why was it so tense when Luke, Han, Leia and Ben Kenobi were sneaking around the original Death Star?  Because we cared about all of them and they were being stealthy and trying not to be noticed.  "Rogue One"s infiltrators, with similar goals, attack the empire base like a pack of hungry wolves on an unsuspecting deer.

But even with all that, “Rogue One” is a great action movie. For a generation brought up on Halo and Call of Duty, it's probably cinematic ambrosia. But for those of us that were children when the original three films were on the big screen, where we found magic and fun and love and laughter and heroes that we pretended to be during play with our friends, this is really little more than a very good action movie. And it is simply greatly lacking in the tremendous fun that “Star Wars” is supposed to be.

Arrival (2016)

** ½ out of ****

I'd heard so much about “Arrival” before I went to see it that I knew I would have to be careful not to get my expectations too high. Everything I'd read suggested that this was a highly intelligent film that would challenge you and didn't make any attempt to be “Hollywood”. Now right off the top I can say that I understand why people are writing such things, but they've all left out that it's also very slow moving and offers a payoff that really isn't quite worth the wait.

Amy Adams is Dr. Louise Banks, a renowned and highly respected linguist with a history as a translator for the US Government. When 12 huge alien crafts, dubbed “shells” by the media due to their shape, arrive in varied locations all over the world the government contacts her to come try to communicate with the aliens. The shells are in many different countries, all of whom seem to be trying to do their own thing to communicate with them, so the government sees it as a race to be able to talk with the aliens.

Banks, along with theoretical physicist Ian Donnelly (Jeremy Renner), seems to be making slow but steady progress in her communications, no small feat considering the aliens communicate solely through visual images they secrete in smoke. The progress  she makes isn't enough for the military, who appear to feel that whichever country is able to talk to the aliens first will be rewarded with a weapon that would give them terrible power over the other nations of the world. The other teams communicating with the shells feel similarly, believing the aliens are trying to set the nations of the Earth against each other, and the film becomes a race to confirm or disprove this idea before the army tries to destroy the shell.

Where all of the standard critics are saying this is “thinking man's sci-fi” and that it expresses interesting ideas that will get people talking, I have to admit I just don't see it. The film poses the government and military in their familiar role of “shoot first ask questions later”, with the scientists as the heroes trying to save the day, both of which are pretty standard sci-fi themes. "Arrival"  gets into some semi-interesting time/space ideas at the end, but though they're delivered in a way we haven't seen before, I'm not sure that makes the whole thing unique or especially great.

I've given the movie two and a half stars, which may not be fair to it as it is overall a pretty enjoyable film, if the slow-moving parts don't leave you too cold. But they left me pretty cold, and since the marketing of the film has had a tremendous amount to do with its “Rotten Tomatoes” rating (currently around 94%) they're pretty much begging you to look at it as a critical wonderkind. And to be frank, I just don't think it is. It's a solid, not-particularly-exciting piece of work that, unlike the really great sci-fi films, didn't leave me with any feeling that I needed to see it a second time.

Denial (2016)

*** out of ****

Like most young men, when I was growing up I was fascinated by WW2, especially the events of the Holocaust. It seemed almost spectacularly evil – that the entire political and military arms of the powerful nation of Germany could be fully engaged and totally unified in such horrific crimes. As I got older I learned more and more about it until I felt I understood what happened and why.

But I was only connecting with it on a historical, academic level. Perhaps the events of the Holocaust were so awful that I unconsciously decided to view them from that angle only, instead of from a personal level. That all changed a few years ago when I got my hands on a copy of “Shoah” (1985), a ten-hour documentary about Auschwitz, Chełmno, Treblinka and the Warsaw Ghetto. I've heard people call movies “important” before, but this is the only one that I feel truly is. “Shoah" used no historical footage or photos, rather was a long testimonial – people who were actually there talking about what happened there, and how it affected them. It was the first time I really connected with the Holocaust on a completely personal level, and watching many of the people in it tell their stories frequently brought tears to my eyes.

Unfortunately, for decades there have been people in the world who deny the Holocaust ever happened. These individuals make me sick, trying to clear the name of Adolph Hitler and his Nazis by suggesting that what happened didn't really happen. I have been unlucky enough to have had conversations with more than one of these people, and their Neo-Nazi agendas, whether disguised or blatant, are absolutely repellent. Even terrifying on certain levels. The new film “Denial” is about such people.

Rachel Weisz plays real-life author Deborah Lipstadt, who in 1993 wrote a book called “Denying the Holocaust” about this movement, its arguments and the motivation of its proponents. In her book she characterized one Holocaust denier, British historian David Irving (played here by Timothy Spall), as bending historical evidence until it conforms with his ideological leanings and political agenda, accused him of falsely shaping accurate information to suit his conclusions, and concluding that his work was “dangerous”. Irving apparently decided this would be an ideal opportunity to get his point of view on the front page and sued her for libel saying her description of him as having falsified evidence, or deliberately misrepresented it, had ruined his reputation as a historian.

In America when someone is accused of libel the courts require the accuser to prove the alleged libelous statements are untrue, but in England (where the case was argued) the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove that they are true. This becomes the crux of the movie as Lipstadt decides to go to court rather than settle the case, knowing full well the problems that will go with it. In order to win the case, she would not only have to prove Irving lied, but prove that the Holocaust actually happened in the first place, that Irving had evidence of it, and that his interpretation of that evidence was demonstrably and deliberately wrong. And it placed a social burden on her of “you'd better win, or all the deniers will finally have a leg to stand on.”

The Nazis went to great lengths to make sure that there was little or no paper trail leading to their extermination of the Jews and others they considered undesirable, and when the war was lost they went to great lengths to try to cover all trace that it had happened. So how could one prove in court something where the perpetrators had gone to such lengths to eliminate all evidence of its existence? This is the challenge facing Lipstadt and her team in “Denial”.

Rachel Weisz is fantastic in the lead role, always leaving us with no doubt about her passions and her loathing of Irving and his ilk. Spall is equally terrific as Irving, and I defy any watcher of this film not to want to knock his teeth out. Tom Wilkenson is Richard, Lipstadt's lead attorney, and the second half of the film becomes a full blown courtroom drama. I loved that the script didn't go for any overly dramatic “A-HA!” moments like so many courtroom films do, rather let it unfold as earnestly as possible. It might have been more of a box office lure to go that route, but I was delighted with the movie's lack of Hollywood influence.

“Denial” already looks like it's going to be a box office failure, probably for some of the reasons that make it so effective. But it tells the story of an important event, and of people who were motivated to try to do something important. Specifically ensure that the most horrible event of the 20th century would be recognized for what it was, and expose its deniers as the agenda-oriented monsters that they are.

Well worth seeing.

Don't Breathe (2016)

*** out of ****

After a great deal of time off while dealing with some personal business, Great Big C's movie blog is back. And starting back up with a very nice piece of business in its own right.

“Don't Breathe” is another one of those happy surprises – it looks going in like it's going to be another run-of-the-mill scare-fest like so many being churned out these days, and it turns out to be a taut, suspenseful little gem with many twists and turns that keep you deeply involved and on the edge of your seat. Jane Levy is Rocky, a girl from the wrong side of the tracks who makes money by robbing houses with her boyfriend Money (Daniel Zovato) and their friend Alex (Dylan Monette). Alex's father works for a security company, and Alex uses Dad's computer data to select houses and bypass their security systems. Money is clearly a jackass, and Alex has a crush on Rocky, and it seemed these things would become a vital part of the plot. Luckily the film stays away from these generic storylines and they play a very small part in it.

Alex finds in Dad's database a house in urban Detroit, in an nearly abandoned neighbourhood, whose owner has received a seven figure settlement in a wrongful-death suit involving his deceased daughter. Since then he has added an expensive security system, and the three reason that he keeps a lot of that money at the house.  While casing the place, they also find that he is a war veteran who has been blinded in the line of duty. What robbery could be any easier?

Upon breaking in and attempting to anesthetize the blind owner, they get on with the robbery. Unfortunately for them, he is aroused by their noise and catches them in the act. The owner decides to fight back rather than allow himself to be robbed, and the movie takes off from there like a runaway train. The tension is absolutely wonderful.

Whereas you start out with a great deal of sympathy for the blind man, the twist and turns of the plot end up showing that he's not a very nice guy, and all you want is for the robbers to escape with their lives. Most of the time this seems an impossibility. Director Fede Alvarez, whose only previous feature film was the absolutely horrible and trashy remake of “The Evil Dead” (2013) has made a quantum leap forward with this film. Whereas his earlier effort was only meant to shock and disgust, this film build real suspense, and despite not being a horror film, achieves horror-film levels of fright. I'm a pretty seasoned watcher of scary movies, and this one had me far more ready to bounce off the walls than anything I've seen since “It Follows” (2014). And like that film, this one needed no CGI, special effects or massive production – it is a simple story, told effectively and pretty much over-achieves on all it's objectives.

It's not going to win any awards, but it's a tremendously enjoyable, tense movie that will press any movie-goer's anxiety levels through the roof. Very highly recommended

11.22.63 (2016)

*** out of ****

Back when Stephen King released his novel “11/22/63” back in 2011, I couldn't wait to get my hands on it. King has long been my favorite author, ever since first reading “Christine” in 1983. And the Kennedy assassination has long been one of my favorite subjects, and I've read dozens of books about it from the most well reasoned (“Reclaiming History”) to the nuttiest (“Best Evidence” and “Rush to Judgment”). Favorite author, favorite subject.... and what turned out to be a great, engrossing novel. Despite a few minor changes in the storyline, I am very happy to say that Hulu's limited miniseries “11.22.63” does that wonderful book justice.

James Franco is Jake Epping, a recently divorced high school teacher living in a small town in Maine. One of his closest friends is Al Templeton, the proprietor of a local diner. One day Jake finds Al looking deathly ill and much older – and Al's excuse is that he has found a time portal and has been living in the past for the past several years. Al's appearance is due to the time he spent there and the fact that he is dying of cancer and doesn't have much time left. He shows a dubious Jake the portal, which transports him back to October 1960, much to Jake's astonishment. 

After Jake returns to 2016, Al tells him about his plans to change the past. He believes that the world would be a far better place if JFK had not been assassinated in 1963, and he'd hoped to stay there long enough to prevent it. He believes this would prevent the Vietnam War, among other things. But now he will be dead before having his chance and he wants to recruit Jake to take over the mission for him. Jake initially resists, but when Al dies in the night Jake decides to go ahead with the plan before Al's body is found and Jake's access to the time portal is removed.

The portal only transports you back to the very same time in October 1960, so Jake will have to live in the past for over three years before the day of the assassination. He needs to blend in with the times (which means a shave and a haircut before anything else), and find a way to make money. He does most of this through sports betting but he also moves to Texas and takes a job as a schoolteacher. There he awaits Lee Harvey Oswald, who at the time had been living in Russia but would soon return to America.

Watching Jake live in the early 60s is fantastic, and Hulu did a very nice job of always looking authentically like the past. The cars and costumes, the styles and mannerisms, all come off very well. While Jake is dedicated to his mission he is also human and finds friends and even a love interest, which all make his mission more difficult. He shadows Oswald when he returns trying to determine whether there was a conspiracy or not, and tries to do whatever possible to determine how to best save JFK.

Some have complained that Franco wasn't very good in this 7 hour long epic, but I thought he was great. I found he was almost exactly the Jake from King's novel. Sarah Gadon as Jake's love interest Sadie was the weak link in the casting, as she seemed far too young both for the part and to be romantically involved with Franco's character. But overall the casting was fine, and even the minor changes (such as a much expanded part for the character Bill Turcotte) all worked for me. I was even tickled to death that they didn't change the ending, which while not particularly feel-good was pretty much what King wrote.

If you have the time, this is an 8 part miniseries that invites a bingewatch, because it's really just a 7 hour long movie. It's extremely well done and I hope other filmmakers see what an achievement it is and try to develop more epic novels this way, rather than the hack and slash jobs they often have to do in order to fit them into a 2 hour big screen script.

If you have access to “11.22.63”, and any interest in unique sci-fi time travel stories, you won't be disappointed.

The Jungle Book (2016

*** out of ****

I think most everyone knows the story of “The Jungle Book”. A man from a local village was out in the jungle with his toddler son Mowgli, when he was attacked and killed by a vicious tiger known as Shere Khan. In the fight though he burned the tiger's face with fire, causing it to run off. The boy was found by a panther called Bagera, who brought him to a pack of wolves to be raised.

Now the boy is an adolescent, and Shere Khan has learned he lives in the jungle. The tiger will do anything to kill the boy in vengeance for his being burned, and Mowgli must escape to the “man village”. Along the way he encounters all manner of danger, including an hypnotic python and a pack of greedy orangutans, but also makes a good friend in a bear named Baloo. But when Mowgli finds that Shere Khan is destroying his wolf pack to force Mowgli to return, he decides to fight the tiger instead of run away, leading to a climactic battle.

The story has been done before in the movies, and has even been done well. Never as well as this version though, in my opinion. It's hard to believe but there are actually no real animals in the film, as all the wildlife is completely computer generated. There are a couple of scenes where the animation is a bit off (enough so you can tell it's CGI) but for the most part is flawless. There are a couple of nods to the 1967 animated version in the forms of a couple of songs, but they are fit into the story in such a way that they aren't true “musical numbers”. Having watched the older version multiple times as a kid, these little tributes were the biggest smile-inducers in the movie.

But this is by no means a light-hearted adventure. In fact, at times it's downright terrifying, as can even be seen in the trailers. Kids who scare easily will have extended periods where they are scared witless by this thing, as it maintains a real sense of danger and foreboding through most of the film. And when the danger comes front and center, there were plenty of kids in the theater hiding their faces.

The visuals are excellent and the story riveting – this really is a terrific achievement in filmmaking.  It's enough of a kid movie that I wouldn't expect many adults to venture to the theater to see it without the kids, but it has enough plot and action to keep the grown ups interested.  Well worth seeing.

10 Cloverfield Lane (2016)

*** ½ out of ****

I remember going to see “Cloverfield” (2008) when it came out and honestly, it made zero impression on me. I vaguely recall some kind of house party, a Godzilla-like creature and something about an alien twist, but that's about it. So when “10 Cloverfield Lane” was released I was in no hurry to see it, assuming more fo the same. But when I saw it was getting a score in the 90s at Rotten Tomatoes I figured I ought to at least give it a chance. And I'm very glad I did.

Before getting into the story I have to mention how much I admire John Goodman as an actor. Given his massive girth and moon face you would think he would be pigeonholed into a very specific type of role, but instead he is one of Hollywood's most versatile performers. He can play the big, cuddly teddy bear type, the hilarious manic characters, the straight villain and the stone-cold lunatic, all with equal aplomb. In this film he gives a tremendous performance as the latter – and it's one that will chill you to the bone.

Michelle (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) just broke up with her boyfriend and she has hightailed it out of town looking to start anew. But as she drives a lonesome highway in the middle of the night her car is smashed off the road, flips over and over, and leaves her unconscious. When she wakes up she finds herself in a type of cinderblock cell, cuffed to the wall with an IV in her arm. After first believing she has been abducted by a predator, she is told by her “captor” Howard (John Goodman) that he saved her from the wreckage just as Armageddon came down. There has been some kind of attack, possibly nuclear and possibly chemical, that has made the world at large a poisonous deathtrap. They are in an underground fallout shelter he has built, and if they try to leave they will all surely die.

And they're not alone. Emmett (John Gallagher Jr.) is also there with them, and he corroborates Howard's story. He helped build the bunker, and when he saw the bombs raining down he made haste to get there and had to fight his way in. So now the three of them have to wait out the poison in the atmosphere, possibly for one year, possibly for two. Without spoiling any of the details, at first Michelle is doubtful of the story she hears, but through a series of events comes to believe that, though she isn't sure of exactly what happened to the world, there is no doubt that something surely has.

Now don't think that makes her comforatble about being there. Howard, while maintaining an outward facade of level-headedness, clearly has something wrong with him. He's just a bit too quick to anger and a bit too nutty when his anger hits. Michelle eventually determines that she needs to find a way to safely have a look outside, and she needs to keep it completely on the downlow, fearing reprisals from Howard.

"10 Cloverfield Lane" is exceptionally tense. Throughout you have no real idea of what has happened to the world, and even wonder if anything truly has. But the fear of the outside unknown, paired with the crushing pressure of living under Howard's rule, leaves the anxiety level at the breaking point for almost the entire film. This is a much more challenging role for Winstead than anything I have ever seen her in before, and she delivers. Her “Michelle” has just the right mix of fear, vulnerability and courage to make you really care about her fate and root for her to escape Howard's rule. And Goodman is absolutely chilling – cold, ruthless, calculating, and crazily paranoid. I actually wouldn't be surprised to see Goodman get a Supporting Oscar nomination next winter for this performance.

The tension remains throughout the film, though for the last 10 or 15 minutes it changes into something completely different. I imagine that there will be many moviegoers that won't like the twist of the last reel to tie it into the original “Cloverfield” but I thought it was fantastic. It's risky and unique, and I loved every second. You don't have to have seen the original to enjoy this movie, as it is singular enough to stand alone without its precursor, and while I can barely remember "Cloverfield", this film will instead stay with me for a long time.

If you enjoy a terrific psychological thriller, I highly recommend "10 Cloverfield Lane". Crazily suspenseful but still with a sense of fun and wit, it is simply a great ride from the first frame to the last.

Daddy's Home (2015)

* ½ out of ****

I don't know if there has ever been a movie star that I've hated to love and loved to hate more than Will Ferrell. Most of his movies are so stupidly asinine that I would rather gouge out my own eyes with a barbeque fork than watch them a second time, but occasionally he does a movie that is so funny it hurts. “Elf”(2003), “Anchorman”(2004), “Stranger Than Fiction” (2006) and “Step Brothers” (2008) are all brilliantly funny.... but as far as I'm concerned you can take all of his other star vehicles and burn them for the benefit of humanity.

“Daddy's Home” isn't quite the offense to the senses that most Ferrell vehicles are, but it isn't anything worth remembering either. Ferrell is Brad Whitaker, a wet-rag type who appears to have learned everything he knows from self help books. He's married to divorcee Sarah (Linda Cardellini) and he loves her and her two kids. The kids at first resist him but eventually come to love him thanks to his constant involvement and endless patience. Brad can't have kids of his own, and as he is one of those guys for whom being a Dad is all that matters, the evolution of his family has his life exactly where he wants it.

That is until the kids' real father Dusty (Mark Wahlberg) shows up. Dusty is a “bad boy” type, and when he hears that his kids have a new father figure he rushes back planning to sabotage the family and insert himself back in. He and Brad do everything possible to undermine each other, and Dusty always seems to be one step ahead.  This convinces Brad that he's in a fight to maintain his relationships with Sarah and the kids, as he doesn't realize is that it's his responses to Dusty's behavior that is causing rifts, not Dusty's behavior itself.  To save the family he just needs to find himself again and stop trying to be "better than Dusty".

How warm and fuzzy.

While all the shenanigans are going on, I found this movie extremely tedious. There are a few laughs but the characters behave at all times like half wits, so even when something funny befalls them it is more stupid than comic. It's enough to pass the time but little more. This changes somewhat in the last reel, once Brad believes he has lost the love of his wife and kids – there is some real feeling and some nice moments in those last 20 minutes. But you do have to sit through 75 minutes of pretty ridiculous crap to get to it.

Overall it's one of Ferrell's better “bad” efforts, but nowhere near being good enough to be one of his good ones.

Forsaken (2015)

** ½ out of ****

“Forsaken” is a mostly forgettable western with one fairly unforgettable thing in it. Which absolutely makes it worth seeing......

Kiefer Sutherland plays John Henry Clayton, a Civil War veteran who became a gunman and assassin after finishing his military service. He hasn't been back to his hometown in many years, and as the film begins he feels the need to return. There he finds his father William (Donald Sutherland), the town Reverend, who is none too welcoming because of John Henry's past. He also finds the girl he left behind (Demi Moore) and the rest of the hometown contingent, some of whom are welcoming and some who would have preferred he stay away. John Henry wants to hang up his guns and live a simpler life..... but of course the town is being taken over by roughnecks working for a land baron intent on buying up all the local farms.

Sound familiar? It should – we've seen it a million times.

But it plays out pretty nicely, despite the familiarity of the story. It's also really great to see Kiefer and Donald playing father and son, as I don't ever recall them sharing the screen before. The story they give us is all very predictable and melodramatic, despite everyone doing everything they can in a script with no surprises in it.....

….but then something surprising happens.....

I have always enjoyed Kiefer's acting, though I have never thought him a particularly gifted thespian. He's been solid if unspectacular, and very occasionally does something really poorly (like his southern accent in “A Few Good Men”). But he plays a scene late in the movie that actually floored me. In it, he and his Reverend father sit in the church as John Henry describes the events that have driven him to want to change his life. Kiefer is really, really fantastic in this scene. The pain and self hatred he portrays – I really felt it. In my opinion, that one scene may very well be the apex of his career. I hope history doesn't completely lose it buried in this otherwise unmemorable film.

If you enjoy a decent western where you aren't going to be challenged to think much, this is a perfect film for you. That isn't meant to be an insult, as I genuinely love some similar movies (“Shane” for instance, or “Pale Rider”). Rather it's one where you can turn off your brain, hate the bad guys and wait for them to get their come-uppance, which everyone knows they eventually will.  I think there will always be a place in cinema for that.

The Abyss (1989)

*** out of ****

James Cameron clearly isn't afraid of the water. Historically some of cinema's biggest losses have been with films based on or under water, but time and again Cameron finds a way to make it work. “The Abyss” was his first of many forays into filming at sea, and it's a magical adventure story that is totally engrossing despite a slightly preachy message.

A US naval submarine loaded with nuclear weapons has sunk in international waters after an encounter with an unexplained underwater phenomenon. The navy hires an undersea oil rig to quickly travel to the site of the wreck to look for any survivors trapped inside. They send down to the rig the chief mechanical engineer (Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio) and a handful of Navy Seals (led by Michael Beihn) and it crawls the sea bottom to the wreck site. Among the crew are captain Virgil "Bud" Brigman (Ed Harris) and a paranoid techie, Hippy (Todd Graff). Together the group begin to search the wreck for survivors.

But it turns out that the Navy Seals have an ulterior motive. They're under orders that if they suspect that the Russian Navy is in the area, they are to scuttle the wreck to ensure that the nukes don't fall into enemy hands. Confusing the situation though, strange things begin to happen which eventually prove to be the result of some alien intelligence at the sea bottom. The military, in typical movie fashion, assumes that these aliens are actually Russian bogies and the civilian crew and the Seals begin to clash.

Add to all this the fact that due to a hurricane at the surface, the folks on the rig are completely isolated and forced to work without any input from above. Eventually it becomes a fight to save themselves and possibly also the alien enclave living at the sea bottom.

“The Abyss” was a movie I went to see at the theatre way back in the day with an old friend, and I had no idea going in what the plot of this film was. I was lucky enough to have it all unfold wondrously for me and almost from the very beginning it had me completely captivated. The characters, in particular Ed Harris's “Bud Brigman”, are all so likeable, the story so riveting and the special effects so magical, that I almost didn't want it to end. Beihn is wonderfully villainous in his role, and the interaction between the leads is all just terrific. As the story unfolds and the danger becomes more real, and the aliens become more active, it becomes a real thrill ride. Cameron's storytelling is (as always) so excellent that you are able to lose yourself completely in the story.

The only complaint I have about “The Abyss” is that the ending is a bit disjointed. I get the idea that they weren't exactly sure how to wrap the story up, trying to give a big "message" and also conclude the drama. So the last 10 minutes lose a little of the locomotive-like steam the film had up to that point, but it isn't enough to derail the whole ride. A really remarkable and fascinating saga, and one that I have revisited many times since I first saw it decades ago. Very highly recommended.

The Divergent Series: Allegiant (2015)

* ½ out of ****

I hate to admit it, but I kind of enjoyed the first two movies in the “Divergent” series. I can't really explain why – they were pretty nonsensical and hinged entirely on completely unexplained mental/emotional phenomena, but I was interested enough in how everything played out that I was curious to see if they could do it again.

Unfortunately, they couldn't.

“Allegiant” is what the first two movies should have been – so buried in its own completely foreign mythology that it is impossible to care about what is unfolding on the screen. We find Tris and company now having to escape Chicago because the formerly powerless “factionless” have nailed the city down, taking over as a new totalitarian force since the old one has now been defeated. Tris and Four, along with a couple of others, escape to the wasteland where they are eventually taken to the outer realm's leaders. Here they are told that the factions and locked down city were an experiment meant to find genetically “pure” individuals, of which Tris is the first. Finding her is somehow the route to remove all the genetic “damage” of pretty much everyone else.

Make sense? Of course not. It makes no sense at all. It's such a terrible explanation for the previous two movies that it's just plain silly. Tris even comes to be so devoted to this oddball cause that she follows it instead of her true love, Four, who goes off in hopes of preventing war back in Chicago.

This movie was painful to sit through. It was visually appealing and had plenty of action, but the plot was too ridiculous for any of that to matter. I have thoroughly enjoyed Shailene Woodley in every film I've seen her in up to this point, but even her talent couldn't rescue this turkey from the roasting pan. That they are continuing to plan one more movie to finish the series mystifies me.... where the hell can they possibly go with this, other than to pull a “Newhart” and make the whole damn thing a bad dream?

The inexplicable magic that made the first two movies interesting is gone. Avoid this film – it stinks.

Sisters (2015)

** out of ****

Amy Poehler and Tina Fey are clearly the female version of Ackroyd and Belushi, working off each other often to hysterical effect. Unfortunately they also fall into the same trap of thinking that everything they do is funny, resulting in uneven outcomes.

But the films certainly starts out funny. Sisters Maura and Kate (Poehler and Fey) are told by their parents (Dianne Wiest and James Brolin) that they're selling the house the girls grew up in. Maura is a perpetual do-gooder who is too concerned with the happiness of others to have found any for herself, and Kate is a lifelong party girl who has never accomplished anything. Both long for the “good old days” of growing up in that house, and try to discourage their parents from selling. When they are unsuccessful they decide instead to have the ultimate blowout, recreating high school parties of the 80s/90s for one last night of immature fun.

There are a lot of things in “Sisters” that are funny, including some hilarious exchanges of dialogue and some crude humour reminiscent of “The Hangover”. Unfortunately it can't maintain the momentum throughout and by the end has lost any real semblance of being funny. Falling into the more traditional “chick flick” style, the ending becomes more about the girls finding happiness – Kate with her daughter and Maura with a boyfriend. Yawn.

It all starts to come apart when the party picks up steam. Up until then it is really funny and has some moments of cringing embarrassment. But as soon as it starts to feel like “Weird Science”, it lost me altogether and by the end I didn't care about these characters at all. Devolved into stupidity, really.

The two star rating has more to do with how much I enjoyed the first half of the movie, but it just isn't a very good film in the final analysis. Fey and Poehler are enjoyable, and Weist and Brolin are often really funny, but when it's all said and done it's just another forgettable chickflick with some quotable moments.

Concussion (2015)

** ½ out of ****

Sometimes the obvious is so obvious that it escapes the attention of just about everyone, sort of like “only a crazy person would vote for Donald Trump”. Such was the case at the turn of the century with how many NFL players were dying young with serious issues in the mental stability. It took the autopsy of Pittsburg Steeler Mike Webster by a forensic pathologist before someone recognized that dead footballers often had brains that were smashed almost to pudding.

The forensic pathologist was Ben Omalu (Will Smith), an immigrant from Nigeria with no ties to professional sports. But he started an investigation that led to his discovery of CTE, a brain injury caused by repeated minor concussion sustained over a long period of time. When his findings were published, the NFL went far out of it's way to try to discredit both Imalu and his findings, because if it were true could eventually cause the downfall of the entire professional football system.

Coming to Imalu's defense is former Steelers doctor Julian Bailes (Alec Baldwin), and Imalu's boss Cyril Wecht (Albert Brooks). But their small team seem no match for the multi-billion dollar NFL, especially when considering the NFL had unlimited screentime and are America's favorite sport. But Imalu's refusal to back down, and his personal conviction that it was important to get his work recognized for the protection of the players, eventual leads to people starting to listen.

Will Smith is actually extremely good in this role, affecting a Nigerian accent almost flawlessly and really committing to the doctor's cam passion. Baldwin is also surprisingly poignant as the NFL “defector”, a man more concerned with protecting people than his career or reputation. You spend much of the film shaking your head over the actions of the NFL in trying to suppress Imalu's findings, but the passion of the film is pretty toned down.

It isn't riveting viewing but it's a story well worth watching, with some strong performances that make it all worthwhile. Will Smith continues to pick smaller profile films than he used to, but often (as here) it results in more interesting films.

Trumbo (2015)

*** out of ****

When “Breaking Bad” was in its third season, some friends were telling me that I should watch the show because I'd love it. I was in no hurry though, because I had a hard time believing that the Dad from “Malcolm in the Middle” could be very convincing as a ruthless drug lord. Little did I know it would soon become one of my favorite shows of all time, and that Bryan Cranston would be such a versatile talent.

Here he plays Dalton Trumbo, one of dozens (or even hundreds) of Hollywood figures that were blacklisted in the 1950s for “anti-American activities”. In Trumbo's case, he was a member of the US Communist Party. Thanks to the Senate's “House Committee on Un-American Activities”, these individuals were condemned to be deprived of their ability to work for not cooperating with the committee. In order to cooperate, they would have to admit to have been holding Anti-American views but now have changed their ways, and name the names of anyone else they knew who held similar ideals. Trumbo and nine other Hollywood writers basically told the committee to shove it, and as a result most spent time in prison for “contempt of Senate”. Trumbo himself did 11 months.

But that wasn't where it ended, because when they were freed they still found themselves blacklisted in Hollywood, unable to work. Any moviemaker who employed them would be attacked by the committee and risk blacklisting themselves. As a result, Trumbo, who had previously been one of Hollywood's most respected and successful writers, now had no way to work. Highly secret ghost writing became his only source of income, and the high volume and stress threatened to tear his family apart.

Cranston is forced to walk a fine line in this role, affecting a regional accent and a physicality clearly lesser than his actual one, but he carries the role well without excessive overacting. Diane Lane is also excellent as his long-suffering wife, and a surprising Louis CK as a fellow blacklisted writer does much better than anyone could have expected. But it is the story that is the star here, as we see the travails Trumbo and his fellows were forced to endure for more than a decade. Like many true stories where injustices occur, it's hard to watch without becoming highly annoyed that such things were allowed to happen. But thanks to modern day travesties like the Patriot Act, the same thing goes on today, only with much less fanfare.

Cranston received an Oscar nomination for his portrayal of Trumbo, and I feel it was well deserved. Sad that such a story exists to be told, but it's a well crafted film meant to make a point. And since you surely can't miss that point, it can't be considered anything but a success.

My Top Ten Films of 2015

Now that the Oscars are over and the winners selected, I can say that for the most part I was pretty much OK with the picks. I was terribly disappointed that Stallone didn't win Best Supporting Actor, just for the fact that I thought his was the best performance of the bunch and that he will never, ever have another chance. I also disagreed with the “Best Picture” winner, but not by a lot – I didn't think “Spotlight” was the best picture of the year..... though it was the most important.

I tend to judge a movie by rather atypical standards. The Hollywood critics spend a lot of time examining the cinematography, set and costumes, the technical details. I focus SOLELY on “how much did I like the movie”. A couple of years ago I thought that a little $400,000 Indy movie was easily the best film of the year (“Blue Ruin”) even though it had such “issues” as being able to see the cameraman's reflection in the windshield of the semi truck it was riding in while following a car. Yes it was there, but it didn't take away from what an absorbing film experience it was.

That being said, below are MY picks for the best films of 2015. That is, these are the movies that I enjoyed the most thoroughly, in order.

1. Room. A nearly perfect film with two flawless lead performances. It made me laugh and cry and squirm and cheer. In my opinion, this year there was “Room” and then there was everything else.
2. Brooklyn. A movie that was just about a girl and her rather unremarkable life. But somehow made remarkable by how much you cared about the lead character and her hope for a better life.
3. The Revenant. Oh all the pissing and moaning that it was dull and dreary and DiCaprio spent half the movie only groaning. But I love a western (even a frontier one), and I love a revenge picture, and I love seeing a truly great villain. So there was nothing in this for me NOT to love.
4. Ex Machina. I was sooooo happy it won the Oscar for Best Visual Effects, just because it deserved to win SOMETHING. Three impeccable performances, a really riveting story that combined Frankenstein, Terminator and Body Heat. Absolutely great film.
5. The Martian. Robinson Crusoe in space. A great turn from Damon and while I found it a bit of a letdown after reading the book, I can't deny just how enjoyable a movie this is.
6. Spotlight. It's a movie that made me more angry than happy, but no denying it was a terrific film.
7. The Hateful Eight. Honestly, if you remove a 3 minute scene just past the halfway mark (the one where Samuel L. Jackson describes his murder of the the General's son) this might have been number two on my list. That scene nearly ruined an otherwise fantastic movie.
8. It Follows. A low budget classic. Seems to me that it is meant to be an allegory for AIDS, but spooky and creepy and wonderful.
9. Star Wars: The Force Awakens. I wasn't quite as enamoured by the new Star Wars as many were, but it was undeniably a great achievement in movie-making, and thoroughly enjoyable.
10. Creed. Personal bias here – I love “Rocky”, not just the movie franchise but the character. In a performance that was every bit as good as his original portrayal of the character 39 years ago, Stallone chewed the scenery and we had a new character that was nearly as likeable to root for.

Near misses: “Mad Max Fury Road”, “The Big Short”, “Sicario”, “The Walk”, “Black or White”, "Love & Mercy", "Jurassic World" and “Cake”.

The Danish Girl (2015)

** out of ****

Who would have thought that a movie that had the stunning Alicia Vikkander stark naked would be a film that I really don't much care to ever see again....

Vikkander is Gerda Wegener, a promising Danish artist who has never realized her potential. She is married to Einar (Eddie Redmayne), a moderately successful painter himself, and they are passionately in love. But then one day Gerda asks Einar to wear womens stockings and shoes to help her finish a portrait and things change. Einar is clearly excited and fascinated by seeing himself in the clothes, and when Gerda realizes this, she encourages him to explore it. Clearly, she thinks this will be a fun role-playing game that will enhance their already active sex life.

But for Einar it is something more. The era is the late 1920s and “transgender” wasn't even in the national vocabulary. His behavior is seen as a sickness and several doctors try to “cure” him through such progressive ideas as radiation treatment. But Einar is losing his old identity to his new one (a female persona he calls “Lily”) but he is sure it is not schizophrenia, rather a realization of his true self.

Meanwhile, Gerda is becoming more and more successful for her emotional portraits of "Lily" leading her to great confusion about the benefits and drawbacks of Einar's confusion.

The movie explores the evolution of Einar's transsexuality and his relationship with his wife. Eddie Redmayne is fully committed to the part, being completely authentic in a challenging role. Vikkander is every bit as good in a different type of role, as a more traditionally tormented woman. But despite the quality of their performances, I simply didn't like much of the way the film portrayed their stories.

Obviously, this isn't subject matter that most people are comfortable with in real life. Personally I consider myself extremely liberal in each individual's right to self actualization and rights to equal treatment..... but that doesn't mean I really want to see everything about it. Redmayne staring at his naked body in a mirror and tucking his genitals between his legs to appear female is just not something I have any need to see. It just felt it wasn't essential to the story. Conversely, when Ted Levine did exactly the same thing in “The Silence of the Lambs” (1990) it WAS essential to the story and therefore less disquieting. Here, I simply found it exploitative.

As Lily explores her new persona it leads to some other awkward scenes that I just didn't find to be treated particularly tastefully. There are some beautiful scenes and interactions in the movie, and I thought it was a story worth telling, but the filmmaker's treatment of the subject matter I found often to be told poorly and in a manner meant more to shock or titillate that simply tell the tale.

Redmayne and Vikkander are excellent in the film, doing better than just about anyone else could have with challenging material. However, I didn't like much about the presentation and seriously doubt I will ever be compelled to revisit it.