The Revenant

So in the circles of people that love movies, my friends, YouTube, etc, this was one of the most anticipated movies of 2015. Everybody suspected this would finally be Leonardo DiCaprio's year to get an Oscar for Best Actor. Even before this movie came out, people were overly praising it. And when it came out, I heard the same thing. People kept raving about it, saying this is Leo's best work.

I guess before I go real in depth with this review, I should talk about the sensation that is Leonardo DiCaprio. For one reason or another, DiCaprio is seen by many people as the next Marlon Brando, and by many is considered one of the best actors out there. But for the longest time, people were outraged that he never won an Oscar for his performances. I think it has a little bit to do with the fact that a lot of people in my generation grew up with Leo, watching his career progress from humble beginnings. And now that he's older, its about time he gets what is his.

Myself, I will not deny that the guy is a talented actor and there's nothing about him personally that I don't like about him, I would just say I think a lot of the hype about Leo comes from his performance in movies people grew up with and are nostalgic about (like Titanic, Romeo and Juliet, and What's Eating Gilbert Grape). Some actors go much longer than Leo did being denied an Oscar doing better performances than he gave leading up to The Revenant. And while his performances in the last 5 years that have sparked so much outrage (like Wolf of Wallstreet, Django Unchained, Etc) were good, I don't think Leo deserved the Oscars people claimed he deserved And on top of it all... I kind of thought it was funny how angry people got every year that Leo didn't get his Oscar that I almost was rooting for him not to win the Oscar for this film.

But did he deserve the Oscar he won and was The Revenant all it was hyped up to be?

The Revenant tells the true story of the frontiersman, Hugh Glass (played by DiCaprio) who in 1823 was part of a fur trapping group collecting pelts in what is now the upper midwest in the dead of winter. Glass travels with his half-Pawnee son Hawk (played by Forrest Goodluck) in the group led by Captain Andrew Henry (played by Domhnall) and including a brutal gruff trapper by the name of John Fitzgerald (played by Tom Hardy).

At the beginning, the group finds themselves ambushed by a war party of Ree Indians. Glass must lead the trapping group out of dangerous territory and back home. However, when Glass falls victim to just the most epic and brutal bear attacks in the wilderness, he sustains critical injuries and is eventually left, buried alive in the wilderness with barely a prayer to survive. However, fueled only with a burning desire for revenge and a particular set of survival skills, Glass manages to climb out of his shallow grave and begin a trial of survival in the harsh Dakota winter. No weapons, no food, barely any clothing, Glass must traverse through harsh weather conditions, roving packs of murderous natives, and critical injuries to make it home safely and enact his revenge.

The first thing I should say about The Revenant is the cinematography. Its a beautiful looking movie. You don't need to be a film buff to recognize the filming for this movie is just on point. Its pretty well documented that only natural light was used in the filming, which had to have been a pain in the ass, but on top of that, there's just some beautiful angles, tracking shots, and visuals throughout this film that its kind of a piece of art more than it is a movie.

That being said, while it is a pretty thing to look at, you can tell that a lot more emphasis was put on the visuals of the film than its pacing.

This is a SLOW movie.

Like... really... really slow. And its really not that the story isn't interesting. Its the pace and how much of this show is centered on showing the sky, and trees, and just scenery all around. And yeah, its pretty, and yeah it makes you want to go camping, but its a two and a half hour long movie and the plot takes a long time to really progress to Glass actually surviving in the wilderness.

Now, the caveat with that is while this movie is very slow and visually bogged down, I never had a moment where I felt the movie was bogged down by performances. The performances are just brought along with the same pace.

This of course is the movie that finally won Leonardo DiCaprio the Oscar he's been coveting for years. And its 100% deserved. Now, I haven't seen the other contenders in that Best Actor race. But based on the comparison of the hype each movie provided, I get the feeling that this is the obvious winner and while I'm sure the other contenders like Bryan Cranston or Michael Fassbender did a great job, it doesn't sound like the competition was that stiff. (I will try and review at least one or two of the other movies that gave a contender for Best Actor soon, suggestions?)

But the reason I am so confident in DiCaprio earning that Oscar is the fact that he not only gave a very convincing and strong performance, he also went through hell and back to prove he was convincing enough. He actually ate a buffalo liver, he filmed in the harsh winter. And while it wasn't confirmed, it really looks like Leo did eat a raw fish. It sounds and looks like this experience was one of the most challenging films he's ever done.

He really takes it to a whole other level and I think he's really getting to a point where, for me, he's finally shedding that boyish Titanic face that I've grown up knowing him as and really developing himself as a chameleon for any character he can portray. Hugh Glass is ten times different than Jordan Belfort and DiCaprio continues to distinguish himself as one of the best actors working today. Like I said before this movie is very focused on the visuals and imagery and on top of that, a lot of the film is Glass just surviving, not really speaking. Dicaprio does this very well, and while the movie goes at a very slow pace, I thought it was really interesting and a good performance from Leo.

But this movie would not be complete with the acting of Tom Hardy. Tom Hardy continues to be a powerhouse when it comes to his roles, and like Leo, he's able to morph into the character he's playing. This character is incredibly different than Max from Mad Max, or Bane from The Dark Knight Rises. The best part of this movie is the fact that John Fitzgerald is not pure evil. He is by no means good, and the things he does is inexcusable, but as you learn about the character, you understand his motives and rationale for doing such evil things. He's the kind of character you love to hate.

At the end of the day, DiCaprio and Hardy just compliment each other very well and are fantastic rivals. I wanted to see them face off, I wanted to see them fight (in what is probably the most gruesome one on one fight you'll see in a while).

Domhnall Gleeson is an actor who has been in a lot of projects as of late. He was in The Force Awakens, and he has been in a lot of high profile projects. He's becoming quite the up and comer and this is no different. Domhnall Gleeson kills it in this film. While the film is not really focused on him, I definitely enjoy every scene with him and like the other two, he can go from a role in The Force Awakens like Admiral Hux to a role like this and do a really, really good job. It would have been a really interesting comparison if I had watched this when it first came out because it came out about the same time as The Force Awakens and it would have been a good comparison.

Like I said before, this movie has a lot of great performances and its definitely a pretty looking movie. But that doesn't really pull away from the fact that this is a lot more focused on the art rather than the story. Its an interesting story but its so dragged out and so focused on how brutal but beautiful the wilderness can be that I had several points in the movie, even in the beginning, looking at how much time was left in the film.

The other aspect of this movie I found interesting was the portrayal and message it had on Native Americans. Portrayal of Natives, especially in the time this movie takes place in, is a sensitive topic. On one hand, these are still people today who are apart of the Arikara (or Ree) tribe and you have to portray them in a sensitive manner that isn't based on stereotypes or racist imagery. But at the same time, they portray a very accurate threat to traders and pioneers of the Dakota area at the time. Scalping was very much a thing and to leave that out to be "politically correct" wouldn't be true to the historical reality of this tribe.

Obviously the movie has a little bit of a message to say about the way Native Americans have been treated and I think they do a good job at accurately portraying natives while trying to remain politically correct. It rides that line pretty well. Its not an absolutely huge part of the movie, but it does come up enough that it is worth talking about. That's just something to epect when you're going into the Revenant.

The story surrounding that Ree war tribe is interesting, though not the strongest part of the movie. They are just kind of an obstacle throughout the film and their story doesn't exactly tie in perfectly into the movie I think it could have. Definitely not a bad performance, I just think they could have done more with them or diminish their part more than it was.

The last thing I'll say is... That was a bad ass Bear attack!

But overall, I liked The Revenant. I'm glad I watched it. I just don't know if I'll ever need to watch it again. Its an experience no doubt, but not one you really need to relive. Once you've watched it, you've pretty much watched all you need to. Its a beautifully shot film that is more of a piece of Art more than a film. The story is good and interesting but not enough to keep me from checking my watch every so often to see how long of the movie I have left. The performances were great but they were dragged out with the movie.

But what are your thoughts? Did you like The Revenant? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @cmhaugen24 as well as send me requests for movies I should review in the future. If you follow me on Twitter you can also get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog.

I'll leave you with this. Here's an honest trailer talking about the movie nominated for Best Picture during the Oscars last year. Its a pretty funny run through of a lot of really good movies. Enjoy!

Point Break

I'll just say it out right, I have never seen the original Point Break. I have tried my best to discover all the classic action movies we've heard legends about in the halls of movies, but alas, I never got around to seeing the Keanu Reeves and Patrick Swayze reach their breaking point.

So when a remake of the movie came out in 2015, I really didn't have any strong feelings about it. All I knew was the name, the fact that these two were not Keanu Reeves and Patrick Swayze, and the trailer.

So with a clear head and no alliance to the original 1991 film, what did I think of 2015's Point Break?

Well... it wasn't the worst movie I've ever seen?

Point Break follows the story of Johnny Utah (played by Luke Bracey). He is a former extreme athlete who, after an accident, leaves the world of extreme sports and wants to become an FBI agent. Before he officially becomes an agent, he needs to prove himself and he is brought in as a subject

matter expert to investigate a series of crimes being committed by a group of criminals that seem to be extreme athletes themselves.

Johnny finds himself embedded with this group led by their leader Bohdi (played by Edgar Ramirez). This group is trying to complete a series of extreme stunts involving the elements of the Earth. Its a little hard to explain, but basically this group has a series of events they need to complete and while doing it they are basically committing robberies and high stakes crimes while doing it.

It becomes a classic case of the cop getting too far in with the criminals and eventually there's always a question of what side he's on, are the bad guys really bad, who is he actually going to side with in the end?

Now the funny part is, while I haven't seen the original Point Break, I do know that they really started that trend of an undercover cop getting in too deep with the criminals he is investigating and by this point, the 2015 Point Break is really not doing anything new with it.

I will admit that the stunts done in this movie are pretty entertaining. Its cool seeing people skydiving and rock climbing and even the surfing is done very very well. The filming is also done very well because you're able to see things from the perspective of say the surf board, or some other really cool perspective. The issue is, you can see that kind of stuff on YouTube. We live in a world where GoPros and just videos in general have the ability to capture really cool stunts.

Like watching that is very similar to the experience you will have watching some of the stunts in Point Break. They are impressive for sure, but they don't make for a good movie.

Usually that is done by the characters and the story... and... well... they're not good.

I may be overstating this, but I feel I must repeat, I have not seen the original Point Break so I am not comparing these characters to Keanu Reeves or Patrick Swayze. I am basing my judgment off their performances (or lack there of) alone.

Now usually when a movie comes out and I don't know almost anybody in it, that either means one of two things. These are up and coming actors who have a bright future... or they're terrible and they were the only actors the studios could afford.

Unfortunately, these actors are not very good. And I'll start with Luke Bracey.

I'm realizing the majority of times I don't like a performance, its because of two contributing factors, the acting and the writing.

Now the writing this movie is by no means good. I never really felt like I got to know who Johnny Utah was because they were so focused on getting him undercover and because of that just made him the standard white heterosexual male protagonist. They try and play him off as this former extreme athlete but I never got the feeling that he was actually that kind of guy because he's a very white bread protagonist. And while a lot that that can be contributed to Bracey's wooden acting, at a certain point, the writers are to blame for not providing an interesting enough character.

But while the writing is not good, Bracey really doesn't do much to help the story along. He looks bored and not really invested in the story as much as he could be. I'm really not sure who is more to blame, the writers or Bracey in this circumstance. A part of me wants to say Bracey because I didn't hate the way this story unfolded, but at the same time, it wasn't good, plain and simple.

And then there's Bohdi.

Now I was going to say that both these gentlemen are good looking guys, they definitely probably have a background in modeling to explain their bad acting. But that's not true for either. Now for Bracey, he hasn't been in any good movies prior to this movie so that explains it for him, but Edgar Ramirez has been in some pretty big movies like The Bourne Ultimatum (small role), a highly praised miniseries called Carlos, and Zero Dark Thirty.

Now being in big movies doesn't necessarily mean you're a good actor, but it means you showed promise.

And if I had to choose between these two, I would say Edgar Ramirez is the better actor between the two. However, that doesn't really excuse the poor acting in this movie. However, in this case, I might blame this more on writing because this Bodhi is a major hippie douchebag.

This contributes to a lot of the problems I have with the story of this film, but Bodhi and his gang really aren't that interesting. Their end goal is to give back to the earth the way as a contribution to the gifts it gives them. They are a bunch of hippies that live in random cabins in the mountains and they're probably all vegans. And if you're a vegan, or a hippy, or someone that is saying, this sounds like a great way of living, I promise you, these guys make you guys look bad.

Now I get it, they're trying to make the motivations for this group a little deeper and a little bit more complex then just being guys who like money and rob banks, but for the majority of the movie, these guys really don't do anything wrong.

They're just out, doing extreme sports, being hippy fight club douchebags.

It would have been a lot more interesting if when Utah is hanging out with them, doing these extreme sports, they've been off committing crimes right under his nose, but that's not the case. Which once you're done being impressed by the stunts in this movie, it really becomes very slow. And this would be different if Bodhi and his team or even Johnny Utah were interesting characters, but they're not. They're all dark and bruting and there's not really any fun that you see in this movie.

And then there's this chick...

She literally shows up just to be the love interest for Johnny Utah. She's not a very good actress and she has very little consequence to the movie, I just wanted to mention her odd appearances throughout this movie that don't make much sense.

She shows up at the first party and she's just doing her own thing. There's nothing to say that she is connected with Bodhi or his gang. And then later she just shows up randomly and she's apparently with Bodhi and his group as their... groupy? And then her role expands and expands and it makes no sense whatsoever. This was a dumb character. Plain and simple.

Now, is this movie really as bad as I'm making it sound? No its not. Its a pretty sub-standard action crime flick and if you're just looking for something to turn your brain off and watch for the sake of watching, Point Break will not be a horrible experience. It sort of tried let's put it that way.

Like I said before, I haven't seen the original. I'm hoping that I will soon so I can do a full fledged review for it and then I can do the comparison. The point here is that that film, while it may or may not be good, it brought a certain entertainment and it seemed like people were just having fun with the 80's and 90's action tropes we've come to enjoy from films like this. That is a movie that you don't even have to see to know the tropes and quotes that come from it. I think its a feel that people have tried to recreate in recent years and it hasn't really worked as well. The point is, that movie will go down in history as one of the most entertaining action movies of the 90s. This movie tried to be incredibly serious and dark and will probably be forgotten by the end of this year.

But those are my thoughts on Point Break (2015). What did you think of it? Did it hold up to the original? Should I watch the original and give it a review? Comment and Discuss below. You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @cmhaugen24 as well as send me your requests for movies (like Point Break) I should review in the future. If you follow me on Twitter, you can also get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog.

I'll leave you with this. So follow this connection. The first time the song Sail by Awolnation was used, it was used on some extreme sports video like Basejumping... I think. Point Break is about extreme sports. This is a video of funny cats set to the song Sail by Awolnation. See the connection? Enjoy!

Cartel Land

If you’re a fan of this blog, you know that I don’t watch documentaries that often.  I don’t know why, I think I like movies with narrative, so I feel like even if I find a documentary I like, usually its because there’s a great story that I’m invested in and on top of it all, I learn a lot from the viewing. A good example of this is the Netflix series Making a Murderer which I recently finished watching all of and might do a full fledged review in the near future.

But Cartel Land was a movie that I had heard great things about and wanted to watch based on my interest in border relations between the US and Mexico as well as the fact that I had just watched, and loved Sicario, a movie on the very topic. I got the opportunity to watch the film when I was simultaneously doing work and honestly, this might not have been a great choice due to the fact that I was captivated by this film.

Cartel land is a film that seeks to investigate the different factions that exist on both sides of the US and Mexican border that are finished with sitting back and letting the government do all the work containing the drug and immigration problems and go out of their way to do it themselves.

On one end you have a vigilante group in Southern Arizona called Arizona Border Recon who defend the border without any government supervision. They are led by a gruff former military man named Tim "Nailer" Foley, who at first, you would assume is just a Mexican hating racist who wants to “keep America pure”. But once you watch the film and figure out who this very real person is, even if you don’t agree with his methods or his ideals, you understand why he does the things he does and you actually can sympathize with his motives. Now his compatriots are a different story, but the movie doesn’t really focus on them. The main focus of Tim's side of the story is how he sees the US border policies as inefficient at keeping the border safe and he takes it upon himself to go out and make a difference on his own, even if it means what he is doing is not totally legal. This isn't totally fleshed out because he's never really jailed or made to respond to his actions. He does his thing, and its interesting, but at the end of the day, his group is not the most interesting part about this movie. 

That would definitely be the Autodefensas and their battle against the Cartel. 

On the other side of the border you have the Autodefensas who are a vigilante militia in Mexico who go town to town, rooting out the Carelt members in each town and bringing security they believe the Mexican government is not providing. This group is led by a very real doctor in Mexico named Jose Mireles who has the charisma and the weapons to actually take out these Cartel members and even stand up against the Mexican military.

There’s a great scene where this group is going out and rooting out Cartel members in a Mexican city. The police get wind of this and they confront the group saying they need to disarm and go with them. But the vigilantes are actually able to garner the support of the local civilians on their side and coerce the police to let them go only on the populace pressure that come with gathering the entire village in support of them.

What I’m loving about the documentaries that Netflix chooses to put onto their streaming services is that they are able to either to show documentaries that really don't pull any punches.  Both Cartel Land and Making a Murderer have the mindset that they want to make this as real as they can possibly get and really make the audience ask questions about the situations we find ourselves in in our daily lives and around the world.

Cartel Land does a great job working within what is feasible in a documentary, and that really is the only thing holding them back. For the safety of the people making the documentary, they obviously couldn’t show people getting shot in gunfights between the vigilantes and the Cartel, but they can show the calamity of the cartel, like severed heads and victims of the Cartel being hung in the streets. Regardless, the action in this movie is intense and the story is very compelling.

Unfortunately, the issue I have with documentaries at times is that in order to court people like me who enjoy narratives and drama more than learning something, these documentaries will sacrifice an even and unbiased message in order to create dramatic intrigue and paint certain characters a certain way to fit a certain arc. And while I enjoy it, it just seems too dramatic for what real life actually is.

I'm sure the lives of these vigilante groups can be pretty exciting and full of drama, but the movie really cherry picks the moments with the most juice and doesn't exactly point out the hard facts. Instead, its more interested in painting a story line picture about these characters and while I can't criticize them for creating a good story, it kind of goes in the face of people who actually died and suffered at the hands of the cartel and we're watching a movie based on the hollywood drama about it.

Maybe that's a high horse approach but it was one thing I thought about when watching this.

Overall, Cartel Land was a documentary that I thoroughly enjoyed. Whether or not the drama was shot in a specific way to tailor to myself or regular movie going audiences, I really enjoyed it and also enjoyed the knowledge I picked up about the battle between everyday citizens and the Mexican Drug Cartels.

Let me know if you agree or disagree. The fact is, I really did enjoy Cartel Land, I just get skeptical when a movie says all this is true and fact based and yet it feels like I'm watching a movie. Comment and Discuss your thoughts on Cartel Land in the comments below. You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @cmhaugen24 as well as send me requests for movies I should review in the future. If you follow me on Twitter, you can also get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog.

I don't really have a good video to end this review with unless you want to see some really graphic cartel videos (which nobody wants to see) so I'll just say, another review is coming very soon so stay tuned for my review of 2015's Point Break.

The Taking of Pelham 123

2009 and 2010 were two years where John Travolta decided that he wanted to play really dangerous bald men and just got freaking nuts with his performances. Now I haven't been a huge Travolta fan in anything so I don't know if this is any different than anything I've seen him in before but this is what I do know. I hate Grease, and I think Pulp Fiction is overrated. Unfortunately for Travota, I alsodidn't like From Paris With Love, the sequel crazy performance that happened in 2010 to compliment this performance from 2009's The Taking of Pelham 123. 

This film is the second remake of a movie that was an adaptation of a novel back in the 70s. The funny thing is, I really don't think anybody in my generation saw any of the adaptations of this film and I can't say that a lot of people have said they have read the novel... so... this is just a movie and I have no thoughts on comparing this with anything. 

The Taking of Pelham 123 stars Denzel Washington as Walter Garber. He is working as a dispatch

officer for the New York Subway station and he's very good at his job. Garber is going about his day when suddenly a train stops mid tracks and it is soon revealed that the car has been taken hostage by a group of armed men.

These men are led by a man who only introduces himself as Ryder (played by John Travolta). He takes over the communication systems the conductor has to dispatch and he ends up having conversations with Walter Garber throughout the whole event.

Now you might say, how is this any different than Inside Man except instead Clive Owen talking to Denzel in a bank, John Travolta is talking to Denzel in a subway train car?

Well besides the fact that Inside Man was directed by Spike Lee and has his distinctive style, something you don't get in The Taking of Pelham 123, these characters and situations could not be any different. 

On one hand you have Walter Garber. Garber is not an FBI agent, he is just a regular guy who is down on his luck. He just happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time and he becomes the most important person in preventing the plans of Ryder and his crew. It of course is a testament to Washington's talent as he gained weight for the role and he by no means looks like an action star in this movie. What makes Garber an interesting character is how personable and nice of a guy he is in this film. Like I said, he's no hero, he's even pretty flawed. But he's able to communicate with someone as unhinged as Ryder throughout the film and he becomes a comparable rival to Ryder. 

And Ryder is obviously the best part of this movie. While I didn't like From Paris with Love, it is really fun to see John Travolta just go freaking nuts and do a performance that is just unhinged from anything you're used to. I mean if you're not familiar with all of Travolta's work, you probably only know him from Grease or the fact that he's into Scientology. So there's crazy and then there's Travolta crazy. And so this performance comes and it seems to be this weird crossover where he's flamboyant but crazy as hell and it's actually really entertaining to see him just go crazy. And throughout the movie, you spend it wondering what his plan is and how he plans to get out of this situation, something that doesn't become clear until the end of the film. 

The problem is, the whole reveal isn't necessarily a huge surprise because the movie is so simple. Its

a very straight forward crime thriller and you're not necessarily going to see yourself go into a lot of twists and turns in this story. Its more just a mind game between Garber and Ryder. And a story of that simplicity really does have a lot of value to it. However, you almost expect the movie to have larger implications and at the end of the day, it really doesn't. Again, I'm not necessarily saying that's a bad thing, but it's just an interesting change of form.

Speaking of change of form, the format of the film is not exactly your straight forward format either. I won't say its as wacky and inconsistent as Inside Man was directed by Spike Lee, but its not nearly as clean and well comprised in this film. On top of that, the film is done in real time, at a time when real time was very popular from shows like 24. This is something that does work for the film but it doesn't really feel like the film is actually in real time. Its never mentioned and its not very apparent to people watching the film. It took me a little bit to realize that it was in that format and if I'm like a normal person just watching this movie without reading anything, I may not pick up on that. It doesn't stick out.

But like I said, the story for The Taking of Pelham 123 is pretty darn simple. Bad guys show up, they've got their plot, its up to the good guys to stop it. The in between is Ryder just trying to get into the head of Garber and the FBI and trying to get away with a good load of money by holding up a subway train car hostage. 

Peppered in there is a weird promotional video for the city of New York which is oddly strange. Like everyone in this movie of course believes New York is the greatest city on Earth, and I'm sure if I

lived there I would think the same, but its a little bit over the top in this film, especially with a man man with a gun shooting up hostages. Let's tone down the pride until the end of the situation and then we can pump our chests.

Overall, The Taking of Pelham 123 is a fun movie to just enjoy at face value. Travolta is having a lot of fun with the role, even though its overly simplistic and not really a mind blowing plot. I'm convinced everything Denzel Washington touches turns to gold, and the action and the mind games between Garber and Ryder are fun enough to enjoy this movie enough. Its not gonna win any awards or even go down as a phenomenal film, but its a fun movie you can just sit back and enjoy. I recommend it for an easy watching and to just enjoy a cinematic adventure.

But those are my thoughts on The Taking of Pelham 123? Have you seen the original? How does it hold up? How does it hold up to the book? Let me know your thoughts on that and on the movie in general. Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @cmhaugen24 as well as send me your requests for movies I should review in the future. If you follow me on Twitter, you can get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog. 

I'll leave you with this. You can't watch a Travolta movie and not bring up his pronunciation of Idina Menzel's name. Enjoy!

Draft Day

I'm not really a huge NFL fanboy. I watch football games with family and friends and I enjoy it for sure, but I don't follow it religiously like other people do. So I obviously did not see Draft Day until 2 years after it was released. I did however get my hands on a copy of it and I wanted to at least check it out for two reasons. The first one is, I do like Kevin Costner, and the second one, I have seen a lot of sports movies but I've never seen one solely focused on the draft. Its like the General Manager setting on the Madden Games, its the element of the game that sounds interesting but you'd never really think you'd see a game (or a movie) based on that process. And that's a lot of what Draft Day is about. Its something you wouldn't expect, but its an interesting take.

Draft Day follows the General Manager of the Cleveland Browns 12 hours before the NFL draft. Sonny Weaver Jr. (played by Kevin Costner) is given the opportunity to make the number one draft pick for the Cleveland Browns who desperately need a win. Sonny's recently deceased father was a beloved coach, the team's quarterback (played by Tom Welling) ended the last season injured, there are just so many things putting pressure on Sonny and he has to decide who he is going to decide to pick for the first round pick he has given up a lot to acquire. And that's just the pressure put on Sonny by his job.

There are three players that Sonny must decide between to give his team the best chance to win. The first and seemingly obvious choice is Bo Callahan (played by Josh Pence). He is the number one draft pick having won the Heisman trophy and being named the best quarterback and the pick Weaver gives up a lot in the beginning to pick. Then there's Vontae Mack (played by Chadwick Boseman) a linebacker who is expected to be either a 6th or 7th round pick or a late teen pick, something he is concerned about from the beginning. Then there's a third guy who honestly is barely in the movie and is Terry Crew's son (in the movie).

While all this is going on, Sonny is dealing with personal problems ranging from his secret girlfriend (played by Jennifer Garner (Yeah its kind of weird with the age difference)), dealing with the recent death of his father, and his relationships with his coaching staff.

The entire movie is Sonny trying to make this decision while you can see the wheeling and dealing down even hours up until the picks made on Draft Day. Now I can't give a yes or no answer on how realistic any of this is and I get the feeling its not realistic at all, but again, as someone who doesn't pay real attention to football or know anything about the draft, I wouldn't know the wiser. And yeah, its a little entertaining, even if it is a hyperbole.

Here's the issue right off the bat. I know I said I liked the intrigue of the wheeling and dealing of the NFL draft, but that's not really a process that really needs good guys and bad guys. It doesn't really seem like a process that is as cutthroat as they make it seem, and even if it is, they don't do a great job at defining who the good guys are and who the bad guys are.

Obviously Kevin Costner is supposed to be the "good guy" in this situation because he's the underdog and the guy down on his luck who needs a win. However, Sonny does just as much wheeling and dealing as everyone else in this movie and what's more, he really doesn't consult anybody beyond his girlfriend. He's got this team of people who people who's jobs are to consult him on what the team needs, including Dennis Leary as the head coach. And Sonny kind of gives them the middle finger the entire movie. Furthermore, he kind of toys around with these potential draft picks the entire time, which I understand, the players don't necessarily know who is going to draft them until they get drafted, but there's the obvious choice statistics-wise and then there's the character argument made throughout the film. Like there are definite right choices and definite wrong choices if you're going by character.

But even then, they don't really paint these picks as horrible or great people. One isn't a complete asshole and one isn't a complete saint. That would be a good thing if the movie wasn't suggesting there were definite right choice and wrong choices if you're going by character. And even though that's the case, who cares?!?

Again, I don't know too much about football, but I'm pretty sure its pretty obvious, these choices aren't made by deciding who is the better person, and there's even a part where Dennis Leary makes a point about that, but its kind of swept under the rug by the emotional parts of the movie.

And speaking of Sonny acting emotional. The movie has all these moments of Sonny kind of acting like an asshole and chalking it up to, oh my dad died, or I'm going through a lot of shit right now.

So while the wheeling and dealing is fun, I'm not totally sure if its warranted all the time, and some characters that really don't show any sign of being a "bad guy" are treated like the bad guys.

All that said, the politics are kind of fun. Again, while it may not be accurate, I still had fun with Draft Day.

And despite the poor writing of the character and not really liking him at certain points, I did enjoy Costner's performance in this movie. He didn't look bored and while I wasn't wild about all the choices he was making, I'll chalk that up to bad writing instead of a bad performance. And that goes for everyone else in the movie. While I can't say all the characters were written that well. I thought there were a lot of good performances in this movie, and it made me interested in something I didn't know I could be interested in. I might just watch the NFL Draft next year just to see the comparisons. Isn't that a cool thing about movies? It keeps your interests in other things going and peaks interests in new things.

Overall, I won't say Draft Day is a great movie, but I was entertained by it. I thought the writing was a little shotty and some of it took away from the overall narrative. On top of it all, you do have to realize that not a lot happens in this movie. A lot of it is the personal narrative told by Kevin Costner, and while its a decent performance, its not going to blow your socks off if you're not into this kind of stuff. You might get bored. However, I found the movie entertaining enough and I enjoyed it enough.

Let me know your thoughts. This movie has been a little bit dividing from the people who I have heard from about it. Some people loved it, others didn't. Those are my thoughts on Draft Day. Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @cmhaugen24 as well as send me your requests for movies I should review in the future. If you follow me on Twitter, you can also get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog.

I'll leave you with this. I don't know if you're a Kevin Costner fan, or if you're a Whitney Houston fan but since they were in a movie together, Costner gave an emotional speech at her funeral. Might be worth checking out. Enjoy!

The Do-Over

Let's make one thing very, very clear.

The Do-Over is not a good movie. It is not the movie that is going to revitalize Adam Sandler's career, and it is not going to make me believe that Adam Sandler is funny again.

However... it is a pretty big improvement over this piece of garbage...

Like my god... The Ridiculous 6 was really just down right awful.

The Do-Over stars David Spade as Charles McMillan. Charlie is a loser. He lives in the past, in the same town where his same life is the same complete mess it was in high school. He drives the same car, has the same job, and is going after the same girl he had a crush on in high school and everything is going wrong.

But don't worry, we're not focusing on that at all as, and this is true, 8 minutes in, he meets Adam Sandler's character Max Kessler at a high school reunion and lets it slide that he wants to start over and have a new life after he sees how successful Max was after high school.

Soon after, the two are hanging out on Max's yacht and Max drugs Charlie and fakes their deaths. He explains that his life is crap as well and he gives Charlie the chance to have a Do-Over and start a new life as two dead guys whose identities Max stole. The two of them steal thousands of dollars and escape to a tropical paradise in Puerto Rico.

Of course Charlie is apprehensive to the idea at first but he begins to warm up to it. However, once he warms up to the idea of starting a new life, the two of them are hunted down by a group of assassins and of course, a case of mistaken identity happens as the two men whose identities they stole were in more trouble then they expected.

On the run, Charlie and Max go on a journey to discover the circumstances behind the murder of the two men whose identities they stole and discover why they are being hunted down by assassins. Of course it wouldn't be an Adam Sandler without a woman who is definitely out of the heroes league and that woman is Paula Patton, playing the widow of one of the men whose identity they stole.

Apparently, Adam Sandler is in a deal with Netflix to produce 4 movies on the streaming site and this is the second of that deal. Now you would think that this would be Sandler's golden opportunity to produce some really funny movies, and if they're not going to be funny, why not make some real quality movies?

The reason I ask this is because Adam Sandler looks really bored in this movie. Like really bored. Max Kessler is a guy who lives at the edge and is really a wild card. You never really know how he's going to act. And unfortunately, instead of expanding himself, Sandler decides to play it like he smoked a lot of weed before a take and is fighting to be even harder not to be engaged. Now to be fair, the times where Sandler is trying to be his most genuine is when he looks bored as hell. He did it in Funny People and it kind of worked. The problem is, this movie is so over the top that the straight man seriousness that Sandler pulls sometimes doesn't totally make sense at times. I'll talk more about the seriousness and the "heart" of this film later, but my point is, Sandler gives an okay performance but it doesn't exactly fit and he looks bored.

And then there's David Spade. Poor David Spade. The guy didn't have much of a career before Chris Farley died but at least he was the skinny smart ass to Farley's fat bozo routine. Since then he's been

wandering Hollywood trying to find a group he can fit in with and he fell into the wrong crowd when he joined Adam Sandler's circus, and of course he joined it when it was careening off a cliff. In fact, this movie is probably a good representation of what happens in this movie. The nerdy loser of high school (or in this case, probably the SNL reunion) meets the guy who seems like he is doing so much more with his life but in reality he isn't and they go on some wacky hijinx together... (or make the Grown Up films). The good thing is, David Spade is a decently funny guy and while he's still not a great part in the film, there were actually some moments I did enjoy from him in this film. Not a lot, but some.

And Paula Patton. I don't really understand some of the choices she makes. Paula Patton is a decent
actress and I have liked a lot of the movies that she has done. But at the same time, she has made some really weird choices. She hasn't had enough movies to really make her own choices yet, but I thought she was popular enough to not have to do movies like this where the only reason she is brought in is so she can wear a conveniently low cut shirt... the entire time. I mean yeah, there's a lot

to show Paula, but you're better than this. You can tell she's kind of phoning this performance in because let's be honest, who really cares about an Adam Sandler movie on Netflix?

The weird thing is, somebody must have. Unlike The Ridiculous 6, where the humor derived from poop jokes and really racist jokes, The Do-Over seemed to really try to derive the humor from Spade and Sandler themselves. Yeah, their humor does include a lot of dick and sex jokes, but at least they really lay off the racist jokes in this one. The weird thing is, it seems like someone was really trying to make a funny movie. That doesn't mean it was, but it seemed like someone was trying.

Furthermore, its not the worst written movie I've ever seen. Yes its predictable and yes it is simple, but as predictable as it is, there are a couple of twists and story changes that I did not expect. There is a turn near the end of the movie where things suddenly get really serious and it wasn't the worst twist I've ever seen. The problem is, this turn happens near the end of a movie that has been a black comedy with a bunch of dick and sex jokes leading up to this point. So when it suddenly gets serious, it just seems weird.

The other problems with the movie is it doesn't really stay consistent. I won't say all the character inconsistencies just because the twist at the end is somewhat clever. But I will say it doesn't totally make sense in the master plan that Max has from the beginning. Even the jokes don't fully come to fruition the way that you'd think they want them to. For example, Nick Swardson shows up a couple times. The role that he has is actually kind of funny the 2nd or third time he shows up. Unfortunately, it really doesn't go the full length and it doesn't stay consistent when he shows up. And on a side note, Nick Swardson is a funny guy, why wouldn't they utilize him more than just a role where he looks bored the entire time. And you would think that the jokes wouldn't be consistent, but the thing is they are, but not the way you'd want them to. Knowing that, the jokes just don't land the way they should, and therefore aren't funny.

I'm not totally sure how I want to phrase this movie. On one hand, some effort was put into this movie. There seemed to be someone who at the very least started a script, or gave a barebones script that had some heart into it while still having some dark humor inserted in. But I don't know if it was the writing or the actors just not really caring enough to give it the effort it needed, but it just falls flat. On one hand, it is a vast improvement over The Ridiculous 6... but that's not saying much.

I think the main takeaway from this film is that there were long moments in this movie where I sat in silence even though I knew they wanted me to laugh. I just didn't enjoy this movie the way I think I was meant to and it just wasn't that great. This movie is by no means a resurrection of Adam Sandler being funny, but it was a small step in the right direction... I think.

But those are my thoughts on The Do-Over. What did you think of it? Better? Worse? Or the same as The Ridiculous 6? Let me know, comment and discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @cmhaugen24 as well as send me your requests for movies I should review in the future. If you follow me on Twitter, you can get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog.

I'll leave you with this. Again... poor David Spade. He's never been able to carry his own film and always been on the coattails of someone else. Unfortunately that person is Adam Sandler... Sigh. Enjoy!

Sicario

I feel like I’m doing a little bit of clean up from the movies that I had interest in watching in 2015 but never got around to. It always happens but this particular film, after watching it, I am pretty disappointed that I didn’t see this movie when it first came out. I enjoy all the title actors in this like Emily Blunt, Benicio Del Toro, and Josh Brolin, I really cannot totally explain why I didn’t end up seeing this movie when it came out last year.

Emily Blunt plays Kate Macy, an FBI agent involved with several cases combating the activities of the Mexican Cartel on the border. After a huge event, Kate is recruited to a special taskforce targeting the leaders of the cartel with a more hands on, unorthodox approach. This task force is headed up by the mysterious Matt (played by Josh Brolin) and the “DOD advisor” Alejandro (played by Benicio Del Toro).

From the get go, Kate is suspicious of this taskforce but she goes along with it because she wants to do the right thing and bring the leaders of this cartel to justice. However, she realizes that not everyone she encounters on this team should be trusted and not everyone’s motives, or actions are totally clear and fall into a morally grey area.

I think one of the reasons I didn’t see Sicario was because I wasn’t sure exactly what kind of movie it was. I wasn’t sure if it was going to be more of an action thriller, or more of a dramatic thriller more focused on the characters and leaning more towards an Oscar contender. While neither option is better or worse, I don’t think I was in the mood for a movie trying to win an Oscar, I think I wanted a fun movie. Luckily, I think Sicario is a great combination of both a great character study, a great action thriller, and a movie really hell bent on creating great tension and suspense. There are a lot of scenes in this movie where you honestly are just waiting for the action to come and sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn’t, but the important part is the suspense is almost the element that is more fun. Sicario provided multiple moments where I was sitting on the edge of my seat unsure of what was going to happen next and where the plot would take me.

But that only works if you have good relatable characters involved and Sicario does a great job with the performances and writing of the characters.

Emily Blunt gives a great performance. Kate Macy comes off as a very competent FBI agents and in most films, that’s usually enough. But then she’s thrown into a world that even she has difficulty really dealing with and at times she seems out of her depth. Blunt plays a perfect balance of a woman who is both a badass and able to handle herself as well as someone who is incredibly vulnerable and again, out of her depths.

Emily Blunt continues to show that she is an incredibly competent actor with an incredible range. On one hand she can pull off the action star role in movies like this and Edge of Tomorrow. But at the same time she can just nail it in movies like Into the Woods and be cast as Mary Poppins. Emily Blunt is one of my favorite actresses working today because of her incredible range and her ability to make me feel when I'm watching a movie like this. 

Josh Brolin is just a lot of fun in this movie, almost to the point where he’s almost playing a caricature instead of an actual character. He just seemed to be having fun with the role and he is very mysterious. You don’t really figure out his motivations until the end of the movie and its totally worth all the intrigue this character provides. There have been talks about a Sicario 2, and I would definitely want Matt to show up again.

Along with that, this movie really made me realize how good of an actor Josh Brolin really can be. Honestly I can't say I've seen him in a whole lot of movies and besides being in two scenes as Thanos in the Avengers movies and that's just not enough. I really enjoy Josh Brolin in this film. 

And then there is Benicio Del Toro. Unfortunately, there is only so much I can say about him, and Josh Brolin’s character because their characters are so shrouded in mystery and have such compelling stories surrounding them and their plot. From the first time you see him, Alejandro is an intriguing character and you spend the entire time trying to figure out what his story is.

Like Brolin, this movie just points out the fact that Benicio Del Toro is a criminally underrated actor. I'm realizing that both Del Toro and Brolin have had short stints in the Marvel Cinematic Universe and unfortunately, a lot of young people might only know them from those small parts as the Collector and Thanos. Watching this movie just makes me incredibly sad to think about that because these two are incredibly talents actors. 

There are a couple more good performances in the movie. Daniel Kaluuya plays Kate’s partner at the FBI. Victor Garber plays her boss. Even Shane from The Walking Dead (Jon Bernthal) has a small role that I thought he did a pretty good job at. The main performances though are those of Blunt, Brolin, and Del Toro, and they are really good.

One other thing worth mentioning that I really enjoyed in this movie was the cinematography. If you’re a continuous reader of this blog, you will know that I don’t usually write about cinematography because that’s really not my strong suite. I know when something looks pretty and I know when something is shot differently than any other movie out there. I can’t necessarily say whether or not its very good but I can usually say how I felt when I was watching it.

The only reason I bring up the cinematography in this movie is because the movie won an Oscar for Best Cinematography and thinking back, yeah I totally understand why. The movie overall is beautifully shot and really leans into the suspense But the reason this movie won Best Cinematography is due to one scene in the film where the majority of the scene is shot from the perspective of night vision. Speaking as someone who has used night vision, it is a pain in the ass. The first time I used them, it took me a long time to get used to them.

The point is, the scene brought me back to that feeling and I had to get used to that viewpoint through night vision goggles. It was an incredibly real experience. But at the same time, everything happening was clear and it made the scene even more intense. It was both incredibly real, and could bring people into the fold of utilizing night vision. A very, very cool scene.

There’s honestly not a lot in this movie I didn’t like. I guess if I was going to say something it would possibly be that the movie couldn’t really decide if it was a straight up shooter action movie or if it was a serious drama thriller making a point on the justice system and the state of the border between the United States and Mexico. The action and the suspense made it seem like it was going more for the former, but the characters, the drama, and the suspense are so good that it deserves more than to be called just a mindless action movie.

I guess the question that I still pose, having seen the movie now, is should there be a sequel to Sicario. I think I heard some news saying that they are working on a script or something, but I believe it made enough money to possibly warrant a sequel. My initial reaction would be, no, this movie doesn’t need a sequel, it’s a solid movie that can stand on its own and it doesn’t need to be turned into a franchise or go past the point where the studios aren’t quitting while they are ahead.

I could see a couple of strings in this movie, characters and elements that could carry over into a sequel and I liked the movie a lot and would probably be first in line to see a sequel. However, like I said, the movie doesn’t really decide if it’s an action thriller than could expand into a larger franchise, or if it just is a more personal story that, I suppose, could be expanded on in future movies, but is more likely to just be a great standalone film.

Studios can make good movies like Sicario. They can make stories about FBI agents and fighting the Mexican Cartel and it doesn’t need to be a sequel to Sicario. I guess the name recognition helps a lot. But overall, I really enjoyed Sicario as a standalone film. It had a lot of great suspense, action, and good characters to balance it all out.

I know this is a short review but a lot of this movie rides on just experiencing it and not knowing too much about it. I treated this movie the same way I did Looper in that I wanted to know as little about this movie as possible before I watched it because I had a good feeling about it from the get go. I am very glad that is the approach I took because Sicario is just a down right fantastic film.

But those are my thoughts on Sicario. Have you seen it? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @cmhaugen24 as well as send me requests for movies I should review in the future. If you follow me on Twitter you can get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog.

I’ll leave you with this. Because this movie won the Oscar for Best Cinematography, I thought I'd put a longer video of just the visual design of Sicario I found. If you're into cinematography, you might find this interesting. Enjoy!