Snowden

So this is a difficult film to review because on one hand, there is the political remifications of the story of Edward Snowden. There is the political opinions that come with his story and the opinions of whether or not what he did was correct or not. I have figured out that that's not exactly what I want to put on this blog. If you follow me on Twitter you can probably get an understanding of where I stand politically and I'll leave my political standings to 140 character tweets that probably require more than that to interpret, but for the time being, I want to look at this movie objectively. I want to put aside as much of the politics as I can and talk about the subject matter that is Edward Snowden.

If you don't know the story of Edward Snowden he was a computer professional who worked for the NSA as a contractor during the 2000s. He is most known for leaking classified information to the media about America's cyber wire tapping program. He is currently being sought after by the United States for violating the Espionage Act of 1917 and theft of government property.

The movie follows his story. The movie bounces back and forth between the day after he steals this classified information and is about to give it all to the Guardian Newspaper, and when he first started his career with the government. Edward Snowden (played by Joseph Gordon Levitt) is portrayed as a man who always wanted to serve his country but when he broke his legs in the military he needed to find another way and that was with cyber warfare and computers in the CIA.

When the movie is in 2013, he is interacting with the reporters with the Guardian (played by Zachary Quinto and Tom Wilkinson) and a Documentary maker by the name of Laura Poitras (played by Melissa Leo). The main purpose of these flash forwards are to set up the timeline of Snowden's work with the government and his backstory. While I enjoyed a little bit of the paranoia that went into these scenes and everyone involved gave really good performances, the real meat of the movie is the story of the different jobs he had between the CIA, and the NSA.

The movie is pretty clever in how it builds the motivation for Snowden to go from an almost blind followers of the United States to someone willing to give away all these classified documents. Between his time with the CIA and his experience with the NSA, Snowden finds himself in a lot of situations where the lines of morality are very grey and he's unsure of whether or not he can really follow through with the things that he is doing.

At the beginning, he is prompted to assist in some field work with the CIA but he has some moral objections that really start him down the track of beginning to question his government and the activities that he is exposed to. And its an interesting progression.

At first you see the government cyber-snooping as just a matter of being able to fight the terrorists with every weapons possible. While its not exactly the most morally correct ways to fight terrorism, if you're like me and you like to find the arguments in both sides, you can make the argument that this is all for the sake of national security and a way to make America safe.

But then there's a progression of who exactly we're spying on. At first he thinks its just our enemies but then he realizes that we're spying on our allies to gain a political and economic advantage. And then slowly he realizes that the spying without a warrant expands to American citizens and that's when he starts to rethink his position and he begins to worry about those around him and whether or not he can stand for such activity going on without the American public knowing.

Now I will get to the leanings this movie obviously has, but I thought for the majority of the movie, they were showing both sides of the argument pretty well. Snowden has a mentor by the name of

Corbin O'Brian (played by Rhys Ifans) and he brings up a lot of the points that are counter to the thought that Snowden was right to bring this information forward. And whether Oliver Stone the director wanted to or not, the other side makes some pretty good points.

The debate between Liberty and Security is actually a topic that I've been interested in since college, especially since I've lived through the explosion of the internet and the reality that we expose our lives more than we ever have with Facebook, Google, etc, and there are points in this movie where that debate is pretty level sided and it allows the audience to question the side that they're on and come to their own conclusions.

However, at a certain point in the movie, you can definitely tell where Oliver Stone stands and where he brings this movie. On top of that, there are a couple of moments that are created for dramatic effect and I'm almost certain did not happen, but were in the movie to persuade the audience to root for Edward Snowden and see him as a hero. Does that bother me? Well yes it does. I would rather this movie had ended on a more devise note making you question whether or not Snowden did the right thing or not, rather than putting Snowden on this pedestal. I understand that Stone has to make movies and its probably more profitable for him to create a hero than start a debate, but it is really obvious that Stone thinks Edward Snowden is this hero so much that in the end credits there's a weird Peter Gabriel song that makes it sound like Snowden died on a cross for our sins.

So it should be known with this that there is a pretty clear agenda that is being pushed in the movie Snowden. I'm not a great fact checker so I don't know all what was true and what wasn't true but I'm going to imagine that a good portion of the movie was fabricated a little bit to make the movie more of a espionage thriller.

And I'll give them credit, if you look past the fact that its exaggerated, this is actually a pretty good espionage thriller. Snowden is an interesting character that you do relate to. You see his point of view, you want him to succeed because he's a character in this movie. He's navigating his way through this world of espionage and again, if you put aside the political questions in it, its actually a really interesting story.

I do have to talk about Joseph Gordon Levitt in this movie because this movie has made me actually think that Levitt has really become on of my favorite actors. Edward Snowden is actually a little bit of a weird kid. He has this defined way of talking and even when he's talking to a crowd or in an interview, you can tell he's a little bit awkward and Levitt absolutely nails it.

Knowing the different roles that Levitt has played, I really enjoyed how different his portrayal of Snowden was from anything else he's done and its a really good performance.

Levitt is able to humanize Snowden in a way that I thought was possible but I didn't really realize it until I saw this movie. I didn't see Levitt, I saw Edward Snowden. I think if the movie was just going for the point of humanizing a person and putting the audience in the shoes of a man who is being hunted by the United States government, I think this just brings a powerful performance. I'm not totally sure if Levitt is going to get any Oscar Buzz around this role but honestly I kind of hope he does. Regardless of the problems with the rest of the movie, I think Levitt was shining part of it.

But that actually doesn't happen without Shailene Woodley as Lindsey Mills, Edward Snowden's girlfriend.

I don't know how much of the relationship between these two was dramatized and how much of it was real but Woodley and Levitt just have this phenomenal chemistry that I think might have been my favorite part of the film. I honestly loved every minute between these two and the question wasn't so much whether or not Snowden was right or wrong, it was whether or not these two were going to make it as a couple. This relationship just humanizes Snowden so much more than anything else and I really enjoyed it. Woodley gives a really good performance as a significant other that goes along with the life of someone who travels a lot for work. There's a small point where there's doubt going through Snowden's mind about her but for the majority of the movie, this relationship was probably what worked the best for this film.

Overall, I have to say I really enjoyed Snowden. Regardless of the leanings that Oliver Stone clearly has, he knows how to make good films. I didn't mention all the solid actors in this film from Nicolas Cage, to Timothy Olyphant, but the main stars are Levitt and Woodley. I can't say I absolutely loved this film because of the obvious bias it has, but I enjoyed it a lot more than I expected I would and like I've said countless times in this review, regardless of the political leanings, I enjoyed the story and the execution of it.

But what did you think of Snowden? Do you think it had political biases? 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. John Oliver did a great bit on Government Surveillance where he actually went to Russia to meet with Edward Snowden. I'm putting a link to that interview here because it is a 30 minute long interview. However, he's a funny bit from that. I suggest checking out the entire interview. Enjoy!

Back to the Future Part 3

So its time I finally finish a trilogy of movies in a timely manner. I've rewatched all the Back to the Future movies and its time to talk about the one that at one point when I was very young, was actually my favorite of the three. Here are my thoughts on Back to the Future Part 3.

Back to the Future Part 3 starts where Back to the Future Part 2 ended. This time though it is totally on purpose as Robert Zemeckis and Bob Gale filmed Part 2 and 3 back to back. In fact in many ways, you could probably see this movie as one full movie and it would probably work. But I'll talk more about that later.

At the end of Part 2, Marty (played by Michael J Fox) is stranded in 1955 when the Delorean with Doc (played by Christopher Lloyd) in it is zapped by lightning and sent back to 1885. The one person Marty can trust to help him get home is Doc Brown himself, but the Doc Brown from 1955. At the end of Part 2, Marty received a letter from Doc in 1885 with instructions to fix the Delorean that he had left in a cave throughout time so Marty could repair it and get back to 1985. I'm not gonna lie, when I was a kid this was a little too confusing for me, but watching it now, you gotta appreciate Robert Zemeckis and Bob Gale's utilization of the passage of time in their stories and the way they guide the characters through it to make a smooth story arc.

Everything is about to go according to plan but Marty and Doc from 1955 find a gravestone marked 7 days after Doc sent the letter to Marty saying the he had been murdered in 1955. So it becomes Marty's mission to go back in time and save Doc from being killed by the hands of Buford "Mad Dog" Tannen, the great great grandfather of Biff (played again by Thomas F Wilson).

So Marty and Doc are stuck in the Old West in 1885 and need to find a way to get themselves home before they are murdered by Old Western bandits.

Right off the bat, Part 3 is a much different movie than Part 1 and 2. Obviously because it is set in the Old West, its going to have a very different dynamic than the previous movies that were either set in the future or in 1955. You still have cars and its not drastically different than the neutral setting that is 1985. In the Old West, they have totally different costumes and interactions that make a totally different change of pace than the rest of the films in the trilogy.

On top of that, this movie is actually less about Marty and more about Doc. While Marty is still a main character and I think a lot of his character is flushed out better in this movie than in the previous one, especially the parts where people call him chicken, the real story rests with Doc Brown and his relationship with Clara Clayton (played by Mary Steenburgen).

The funny thing about the way this movie starts is that Doc is not initially trying to get back to 1985. He's pretty content living out his days in the Old West until he realizes that he's destined to die unless they do something about it.

But the more interesting part is that Doc is more of the center of this film because you've got his relationship with a woman who, if he hadn't been in the past, was originally going to die and have a ravine named after her, which I always thought was pretty funny.

Marty is still there and he's still fighting his way through to get back home while having his own development. I really like this movie because Marty continues to have that charm and likability that he had in the first two films but it fits the tone and environment this movie is set in. For example, he goes by the name Clint Eastwood instead of Marty Mcfly. That's just as perfect, if not even more perfect than his alias in the first movie, Calvin Kline.

This movie would not be complete without Marty and this movie wouldn't be complete without Christopher Lloyd as Doc Brown. He continues to be the wacky scientist but in a way, the tables turn a little bit and he has a personal stake in this adventure. He must choose between the life he's always known as a scientist, working with what's in his mind, versus a life with Clara where he's acting with what's in his heart. This is great development that was well needed. Its not that Doc was ever boring, but by the third movie if he had just done the same schtick it would have felt worn out, but the third movie took its own turn and it worked out really well.

And while it may seem odd, Mary Steenburgen creates a really great completion of a trio between the three of them and I really enjoyed her in the film.

Now, I won't say that this is Steenburgen's best performance ever. Even as a kid Clara kind of annoyed me on how wishy washy and melodramatic she was, but if anybody was going to be the woman for Doc Brown, I really can't imagine anyone else.

But the melodramatics are really what make this movie work at the end of the day and that over the top feeling could not be overstated when you're talking about Thomas F Wilson as Buford "Mad Dog" Tannen.

There's no doubt that the stakes were raised in Back to the Future 2 and 3. In the first film, the worst thing that could happen to these characters (putting aside the Libyan terrorists) was that they would fail their mission and disappear from existence if they didn't get Marty's parents back together. But in the second and third film they are at risk of getting murdered by Biff. Now Donald Trump alternate timeline Biff was good but a little bit too over the top and just a little too dark.

While Buford Tannen is dark and will straight up murder Doc and Marty if he gets the chance, there's still a goofiness about him that makes him a more entertaining character than evil alternate timeline Biff. That Biff was never fun and you never got the satisfaction that you get when Biff got his kumuppins in the first film and how Bufford got his in the third.

Buford was gross and a lot more dangerous than Biff from the first film, but at the same time I laughed at some of the jokes that Thomas F Wilson got to do with this role. I thought Buford was a fun villain, especially in this environment. I think Part 2 went a little bit too far to an extreme and Part 3 was able to hone their villain back to a point where the stakes were still raised, but at the same time you still get a lot of jokes from the character.

The last characters worth mentioning are the McFlys from 1885.

And don't get me wrong, I understand why these characters were in this movie. I know they had to have one more callback to the McFly family so Marty didn't feel like there was no personal connection to this 1885 world and I do think its funny that Michael J Fox once again plays one of his relatives, but the truth is, this couple would have been a lot funnier and meaningful if it had been Crispin Glover as Seamus McFly.

Yes I know that Crispin Glover had his legal disputes and wasn't in the later films but without him this couple just seems like they're banking on the funny McFly family scene from Part 2 and in the end, they really have very little to do with the plot besides being a funny jokes about Marty's Great Great grandfather, the first McFly born in America peeing on him.

Despite any problems with the movie, and like the second part there are issues, the movie still hits those notes that just make it a classic and the trilogy wouldn't feel complete without it. And I think I know what Back to the Future did to make itself such an iconic time travel film.

I've said in my previous reviews that these movies worked because they were personal stories whereas other time travel movies are huge world ending events. While Doc says the time space continuum could end, there's never a feeling like the world is going to end, we're more concerned with the survival of characters that we love and have seen grown in all three movies.

But something that Back to the Future does really well is not only the personal stories and the great characters, but also the environment. I think I've noticed that the Back to the Future movies that did well had Marty and Doc interacting and immersing themselves in the world that they are in. In the first film, Marty uses a highschool educations worth to finagle his way through 1955 and you see the differences in generations. In Part 3, they have to blend in and live in 1885 for a short time and that's actually pretty interesting.

I'm currently reading the book 11/22/63 by Stephen King and I plan on watching the Hulu series, but in that the main character has to blend in and become accustomed to a life in the 1950s and 60s when he lives in 2012.

I think that's what made Back to the Future so good is that it was able to have this fun but relatable story that utilized the time it was set in and time travel itself as a character instead of just a prop.

Is Back to the Future 3 still my favorite of the three? No. Especially looking at it with the lens I do now, I see the issues, I see the clunky acting of Mary Steenburgen and I see how the magic of the original can never truly be lived up to. However, I do still see the classic notes that the movie hits, the clever use of time, the callbacks to the other two films.

Something that can't be truly realized until you watch these movies a hundred times over is the callbacks they have to the previous movies and the foreshadowing set in the prior movies.

There are so many lines and references in the second movie that make it incredibly obvious that eventually these movies are headed to the Old West. The scene from the movie Biff is watching in the alternate timeline is recreated the third film. Doc at one point says that destroying the time machine will give him the opportunity to explore the other mystery of the universe... women, obviously foreshadowing a romantic relationship in the third outing.

And the callbacks to the previous films from the probably overused scene of Marty waking up thinking everything he's experienced has been a dream only to realize he's in a different time. There are so many callbacks and I think that's what makes these movies masterpieces. They play off of each other so well and there are so many hidden gems in them that you get something new out of it every time you watch it.

Part 3 might not be my favorite of the three, but it is a great way to finish off the trilogy and makes Back to the Future one of the best trilogies out there. While they had a couple of missteps with the sequels, its still very strong and classic from beginning to end.

But what do you think of Back to the Future Part 3? How does it compare to the previous films? Which do you think is better, 2 or 3? Let me know in the comments. You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @cmhaugen24 as well as send me your requests for films 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. Here's a couple of fun facts about the trilogy. You may or may not know these things already but I think its fun to have these little tid bits of trivia about the film because I'm the kind of person that likes behind the scenes knowledge about films I love. Enjoy!

Jaws

Its kind of amazing that Jaws came out in 1975, forty one years ago. Its also a little bit amazing that while I consider myself a fan of movies, I actually had not seen Jaws until I saw it on Netflix very recently. It always baffled me when I heard people say that this is one of, if not the best film Steven Spielberg has ever made and I wanted to take a look at it and figure out if there was any validity to that statement.

Jaws centers around a small town called Amity Island. The island is known for its beaches, especially

during the summer. People are just coming around for their vacations when accounts of people being
attacked by sharks starts to haunt the town. The Police Chief Martin Brody (played by Roy Schneider) is convinced that the beaches need to be shut down until the shark is caught but the arrogant mayor (played by Murray Hamilton) obviously does not believe him. The beginning of this movie is basically the build up to the second half of the movie where they actually go after the shark and that is when things get really good.

But until then, they bring in an Oceanographer named Matt Hooper (played by Richard Dreyfuss). And yeah, I think its fair to say that this movie jump started Dreyfuss's career and made him a household name from that point on and its for good reason. Hooper is an incredibly unique and yet incredibly likable character. He's quirky but he's right and actually brings a lot of fun to the movie. He'll start puking at the sight of guts and gore but he'll still do it and he brings a lot besides some comedic relief to a tension filled plot.

And the pairing of Dreyfuss with Schneider is one of the reasons this movie works out so well. Brody is quiet while Hooper is quirky and outspoken. Brody has this command presence while Hooper is your subject matter expert. These two just work well between the two of them. Like I said, the beginning is them investigating these attacks and figuring out the exact magnitude of this shark and what it can do. This is also supported by the suspense filled attacks that happen throughout the film.

And while Brody and Hooper provide a lot of the heart of this film, the cinematography is where the movie really shines. And yes, I'll do my obligatory disclaimer that I don't know much about cinematography but I'm realizing that Steven Spielberg made his career an incredible one by knowing the balance between the way the movie is shot, and the story the movie tells. And while some of the visuals and the practical effects perhaps don't hold up as much, the way this movie is shot is done incredibly well. There are moments where you know there is going to be a shark attack but you don't know when its going to happen and how. And when it does, its not like its a jump scare or a cheap thrill, it gives a very good pay off.

So obviously, at a certain point they realize that the shark needs to be stopped and they hire a local fisherman named Quint (played by Robert Shaw) to come and hunt the shark. Hooper and Brody go with him and here you get the main course and best parts of the movie. Their methods to track sharks are just fun and makes the movie a cat and mouse adventure. You spend the entire time wondering if everyone is going to make it out and how are they going to kill this shark? And throughout it all, you get a satisfying adventure, a tremendous score (of course by John Williams), and incredibly satisfying ending.

If the pairing of Brody and Hooper wasn't enough, then they bring in Quint. Robert Shaw plays a fisherman who has probably been on the ocean too long and just has this very dark past. You can tell he's a little bit nuts and it works absolutely perfect for these three to be the ones that go after the shark.

Each one of them has something to prove when going on this adventure and they each have their own personalities that clash and meld together perfectly.

On of the best things to put on top of a pretty good movie is great stories about the production of that movie and why it came out the way it did. I've heard these stories and have been told that the original script showed the shark a lot more than what actually happened in the movie. The reason they didn't show as much was because the shark didn't look real enough and actually looked a little silly when its shown up close.

And the best part about that story is that that makes the movie even better.

The fact that the shark didn't look good forced Spielberg to shape his movie in a different way and forced him make that suspense in a different way and he absolutely nails it. The suspense comes from the moments that you don't actually see the shark and you only see shadows in the water or from the perspective of the shark.

This made the movie so much more memorable and made the fear or it even more palpable. So much that people were afraid to go to the beach after seeing this movie.

So do I love it as much as the rest of the world did?

Unfortunately, no.

I think Jaws was more a product of its time than an amazing movie. While it is definitely a good movie and I understand why it has that classic feeling to it, I can't help but feel that other have done the suspense action movie better since. I have to give Jaws the credit for being the pioneer, and I am by no means saying the movie is bad. In fact, just looking at the picture above makes me remember a lot of the iconic moments of the movie. But I don't put Jaws at the top of my list just because it didn't excite me as much as the other Steven Spielberg movies I've seen. At the end of the day, I'm glad I saw it, its a good movie, but I'm not going to say this is an absolute essential if you're interested in movies, at least not one to be put at the top of the list.

But am I totally off? I feel like I'm betraying some kind of movie code by not praising this movie more, what do you think? 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. One of the most iconic things about Jaws (and a lot of the early Spielberg films) is the music composed by John Williams. Here is those two talking about how the theme for Jaws came up and how it became so iconic. Enjoy!

ARQ

So Netflix recently announced that in the next year they'd like 50% of their content to be original. Now for shows like Stranger Things, this sounds amazing... but after watching ARQ, this announcement makes me very worried.

ARQ is a very small film that focuses on a scientist named Renton (played by Robbie Amell). Renton wakes up one morning to a home invasion. A group of masked assailants tie up Renton and his former girlfriend Hannah (played by Rachael Taylor) and want to rob him. Well something goes

wrong and Renton ends up being killed. However, moments after he is killed he wakes up when he did right before the assailants had come in. He soon realizes that he's doing a Groundhogs Day and its all because of the ARQ engine he has been working on.

What follows is a really confusing low budget Edge of Tomorrow. The movie is centered in an apocalyptic world where an evil corporation called Torus has taken over and the only rebellion against it is a group called the Bloc. Does any of that really matter for the story? Not really to be honest.

The main vehicle of this movie is the same plot device that you've seen in Edge of Tomorrow and before that Groundhogs Day. Now I'm not opposed to people utilizing time travel to relive events

from the past multiple times, in fact that's what made Edge of Tomorrow so good. It took a concept that was done in Groundhogs Day and did it well if not better. So ARQ took on a big chance to try and make this an interesting take on the time travel story and it fell really flat.

I guess I have to give the movie some credit in that it had a budget of about 2 million dollars and everything was probably filmed in someones basement, but because of that you don't really get the feeling of epicness, size, or story of Edge of Tomorrow or Groundhogs Day.

But comparisons aside, I was trying really hard to keep up with the story because its pretty convoluted. People are on one side but then they're not, people start remembering things from previous loops of time and this could have been an interesting game of cat and mouse between Renton and the home invaders but it just wasn't fun the way it should have been.

And that kind of goes into the performances. First starting off with Robbie Amell.

I will give the Amell family some credit, they are blessed with decent looks. Robbie and Stephen both are known for just being the good looking protagonist types but they're not really that great of

actors. Granted all the actors in this movie don't have a lot to go off of but at least Rachael Taylor, or as I know her Trish from Jessica Jones, gave a little better of a performance. There was nothing spectacular about any performance in this movie. Robbie Amell is a wood board of an actor and Rachael Taylor doesn't have much to work with. The other guys, the bad guys are honestly pretty replaceable and a little hard to distinguish except for physical features like a beard, but that's not a good indicator for a character in my book.

ARQ is a hard movie for me to review because its very short and its a very small budget movie. I have to give it credit for trying, it really is going for something larger with a smaller budget and really utilizing someones basement in order to film the entire thing. I just think this movie could have had a better script and a better cast in order to give us a Netflix quality movie.

And that's the biggest issue I have with this movie. By itself its pretty harmless, however what it represents is a trend that we could see in future Netflix original films. I'm planning on watching Beast of No Nations soon to give an example of the best Netflix can give because without a doubt, Netflix can give us really good things. (See: Stranger Things, House of Cards, and the Marvel shows like Daredevil and Jessica Jones). But they've also been known to dole out so not so great things. My worry is, especially with Netflix saying they're going to move to 50% original content and they know they're not going to have home runs every time worries me.

If you've been keeping up with the blog, you know that I just started watching Designated Survivor and its the first show on Primetime television that I've started watching because the majority of my television has come from Netflix, HBO, and Hulu. These streaming services have doled out really good things and if they suddenly decide to go mediocre, I'm not exactly okay with this.

Is everything going to be mediocre like ARQ? No. I just don't think this is a great start.

But what do you think? Have you checked out ARQ? Is it good? Is it bad? Are you worried about Netflix moving to 50% original content? 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. I haven't seen most of these films but here's a short list of Hidden Gems on Netflix right now. Check them out and give me your thoughts. Which one of these should I do a review for? Enjoy!

Back To The Future Part 2

Back to the Future Part 2 is really like its successor. I hold this movie in such high regard because it was such a quintessential part of my childhood that its hard for me to really be objective and say this movie is good or bad. I hold the Back to the Future trilogy up there with the Star Wars trilogy, or the Indiana Jones movies, I find them very hard to be objective.

However, I have read and seen enough reviews of this movie and watched it enough times with as an objective lens as I can to point out some of the pitfalls with this movie. Not necessarily bad things about it, just the pitfalls and the moments that maybe didn't work out as much as the first movie.

The first being that Robert Zemeckis and Bob Gale never actually planned to make Part 2.

The ending was originally just supposed to be a funny ending to a pretty well rounded movie. But with the success of the first one, the two directors were really handcuffed into not only making a sequel but starting a sequel exactly where they left off. Zemeckis has even said if he had known they were doing a sequel he would have never put Jennifer (played this time by Elizabeth Shue) in the Delorean.

And when you look back at the film, Jennifer spends a lot of the movie passed out because the truth is the directors didn't really know what to do with her throughout the film. Overall, she's pretty pointless.

But I'm getting ahead of myself.

Back to the Future Part 2 starts exactly where Back to the Future 1 left off. Marty (played by Michael J Fox) and Jennifer are whisked away by Doc Brown (played by Christopher Lloyd) and they go into the future in 2015. But instead of the future being one where we don't have hover boards and Donald Trump is running for President, its a wacky really creative version of 2015 that, whether it was intentional or not, did predict a lot of funny stuff in our future.

Doc tasks Marty to change the actions of his son and change the course of their lives. The funny part is Marty's son is played by Michael J Fox and looks exactly like him. You may call it cheap but I think in the vein of this movie's humor, its pretty damn funny. The same goes for Biff (played by Thomas F Wilson) and his grandson Griff.

And then something kind of brilliant happens.

In a weird turn of events, they end up at the McFly house in 2015 and Michael J Fox plays... everyone. He plays his son, he plays his daughter, he plays him 30 years older. And its hilarious.

The whole time they're in 2015 is a lot of fun. It might have gone on a little bit longer than it needed to but I think, especially the first time you see it, its fun to see this wacky future and the things we thought were going to be reality in 2015.

But that's not even the main story. The main story is that old Biff figures out that Marty and Doc have a time machine and when Marty buys an Almanac to place bets in the past and make money, Biff steals it and the time machine, goes back to 1955 to give it to younger Biff and changes the timeline.

So when Doc and Marty go back to 1985, they find themselves in a Hill Valley that is run by Biff Tannen. And remember how I said Donald Trump wasn't running for President in 2015? Well in this alternate timeline Donald Trump runs Hill Valley and we get to see what the US will be like if we elect that man.

I'll cool it on the political talk but not before saying that the writers based this version of Biff off Donald Trump. Coincidence? I don't think so.

Anyways, Doc and Marty need to figure out when Old Biff gave Young Biff the Almanac and stop this horrible timeline from taking place.

This really gives way to one of the coolest explanations of alternate timelines and the consequences of time travel probably in a movie. When I'm done talking about the plot of this movie, I'll probably talk about some of the not so great things about this movie because there are some not so great things about this movie. However, I still look back to the explanation Doc gives to Marty in the garage of his laboratory and I really enjoy it.

Despite everything else, Back to the Future 2 was able to expand on the subject matter we had already become familiar with in the first movie, time travel, and make it even more interesting.

The movie was still able to make the subject matter interesting and keep me curious on the adventures that they could have moving forward. Well done Back to the Future, well done.

So they eventually figure out that Biff went back to 1955 when the lightning hit the clock tower and then Marty and Doc jump through time AGAIN, to get back to the events of the first movie but have their own adventures that they need to get through in tandem with the events of the first movie.

This was another thing that was done very well in this movie. It was fun to see Marty go on this adventure in tandem with the events of the first movie and doing all he can to reach his objective

while not trying to disturb all the progress already made. The movie was definitely a technological success because it was trying things with taking film and dubbing over it with new material as well as the idea of having one person play two people on the screen at the same time.

Regardless of any issues this movie has, you cannot deny this it was creative and really worked well with what it had. It may not be the best of the trilogy but it definitely earns points for creativity.

So let's talk about why this is probably the third best of the trilogy.

In case you didn't notice, the explanation of this plot is all over the place. First they're in 1985, then they go to 2015, then they go to 1985 but its an alternate timeline, so they have to go back to 1955 and kind of retread what they did before. While the scenes in 2015 and the alternate timeline were interesting, the scenes in 1955 are just okay and felt a little forced. I'm not sure where else they could have gone but it doesn't feel very new. After seeing this movie a couple hundred times I always fall asleep at the same point and its during the scenes in 1955. Like I said, I like the duality of those scenes but if you watch the Back to the Future trilogy like I do, back to back to back, you realize that you already watched this a couple hours ago.

Overall, the story is muddled. Its very fun, but its muddled.

I talked about the characters in my first review and not much changes to be honest. Michael J Fox and Christopher Lloyd still bring it. Lea Thompson is still very good. The only odd man out is Crispin Glover. I mentioned it a little bit in my first review but Glover had a salary dispute with the studios and did not appear in Part 2. But if you didn't know that, you would have no idea that wasn't him. That on top of the archived footage from the first movie really made the movie feel at least a little bit complete despite not having Glover in the film. Fun fact, Glover sued the producers of the film for using his likeness and won... worth it though.

The one big problem with any of the characters is with Marty and how he suddenly doesn't like being called chicken.

I think a lot of people will agree, the fact that Marty doesn't like being called chicken is a huge part of the film and it really comes out of no where. They needed to find some way to delve deeper into the character, and I think by the end of the trilogy it actually works, however, it just seemed random knowing what we know of Marty from the first film.

Like I said before, a lot of the issues of Back to the Future 2 stem from the fact that the directors were forced to create a movie from a gag ending. I don't think that means that they didn't put effort into this movie because you can tell, a lot of effort was put into it. The movie is still very funny and it still has a classic feeling about it. I think the fact that Back to the Future is a trilogy and it wouldn't feel complete without the second one helps give it that feeling. Are there issues with the movie? Of course there are. But its just another adventure with some really lovable characters.

Its totally reasonable to put this as the one that is your least favorite. I would also totally get it if you liked this one more than the 3rd one (I wouldn't understand if you thought this one was the best one but that's not the point.

Whether its the hover board sequence, or the multiple roles done by Michael J Fox, there is a lot to love about this movie. Especially in a time when we have a Back to the Future Day and had a huge celebration in 2015 for the day that Marty to the future, this movie was no doubt important to the pop culture world.

Since the Back to the Future movies are leaving Netflix, I'll be watching and reviewing Back to the Future Part 3 very soon. I will talk about a lot of the call backs and the fun stuff to wrap up the trilogy. Believe it or not this might be the first time I set off to watch a full trilogy or franchise and actually finish it.

But for now, Back to the Future is definitely a movie worth watching. Its a little bit of a quickly crafted sequel with the materials that the first movie gave it so its not as polished and perfect as the first movie, however its still a classic and definitely not a movie to skip, especially if you're binge watching the trilogy.

But what do you think of Back to the Future Part 2. Where does it fall in the ranking of the trilogy? 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. I've been dropping a lot of Kimmel clips, maybe he'd like to hire me, ;) Here's a bit they did with the original cast on Back to the Future Day. Enjoy!

Sully

When I heard they were going to be making a movie about Sully Sullenberger and the "Miracle on the Hudson" I honestly was a little bit puzzled. For those who do not know, Sully was the pilot for a commercial plane that had both engines fail from a bird strike and had to land the plane on the Hudson River. While watching the movie does point out how this is actually a pretty impressive feat, it still doesn't exactly explain how you make a feature length movie about it. They even say in the movie, the entire event took 208 seconds. How can you make a feature length movie on that?

Sully centers on the title character Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger (played by Tom Hanks) a day after the incident. Sully and his co-pilot, Jeff Skiles (played by Aaron Eckhart) are still reeling from the events of the previous day and then they have to go in for an initial investigation. The US is already praising Sully as a hero but this initial investigation starts to shed some doubt on whether or not Sully could have made it back to the airport and question whether or not he had to land the plane in the Hudson.

The thing I really appreciate about this movie is that it mainly takes place in, at most, the course of a week as the initial investigation looks into the crash and tries to figure out what exactly happened. Sully and Skiles are certain they did nothing wrong and landing it in the Hudson was their only option to save the lives of the 155 people aboard the plane.

What's even better is that while the entire country sees Sully as a hero, he just wants to get back to flying and have this entire ordeal behind him. I remember this from when the incident happened. I remember him being very calm and very humble the entire time. And that's what he is in the movie. He doesn't see himself as the hero, he just wants to go back to the way things were. And while he's confident he did the right thing, he starts having self doubt about his actions.

And this is where some of the flashbacks come in. I will say that some of the flashbacks about when he first started flying or when he flew for the Air Force felt a little bit shoehorned in there and not exactly relevant, but the really interesting flashbacks were back to the faithful day on January 15th 2009 when you actually see what happened and the bravery of not only Sully, but his crew, the flight attendants, as well as the responders. At the end of the movie they mention that there were so many responders on sight willing to help without question that the entire rescue took about 24 minutes.

These flashbacks are really what make the movie good. And yeah they feel a little bit repetitive at times but it works because Sully is replaying this moment in his head over and over again trying to be certain that he did the right thing and it plays really well.

I have no idea why I would doubt anything starring Tom Hanks wouldn't fly (no pun intended). The guy is just a master at becoming a character and making you feel for that character throughout. You feel the turmoil he's in as he questions himself. You see the calm but precise reaction to the incident and how his brain doesn't really turn off until he knows everyone on his plane is safe. The best parts of the movie is how everyone from the crew, to the passengers, to the air traffic controller who talked to him until the plane went down all mention how he was incredibly calm and had everything under control. Tom Hanks just nails it. He nails all the scenes where he's being cross examined by the airlines and insurance companies as well as the personal scenes between him and his wife (played by Laura Linney) who also nails her part. I don't think I've ever seen a bad Tom Hanks movie and Sully is definitely a good one.

And at the end of the day, Sully is just a likable guy. Whether its Tom Hanks or the real Sully, you can't help but look up to the guy given the entire circumstance. He's not show boating, he doesn't gloat, he's just proud of what he did and wants to go about his business. My dad looked up to Sully a lot because he was just a Hero.

And that's something really cool that I definitely think prompted this movie to be made.

There's a line in the film where a guy says that 2009 was already off to a horrible start and then you think this incident was going to be another horrible event. But because of Sully, it became a moment of pride. One of my favorite moments in the movie is the people of New York looking out their windows in terror as a plane plummets to the ground. You can see the flashbacks of 9/11 in people's eyes and they're scared. And then everything turns out alright. But its not by accident. My other favorite part was watching everybody respond so quickly. No questions, no delay, everybody just runs to help these freezing people on the wing of a plane. The movie underlines the fact that no plane has ever had a water landing and had no casualties. But at the end of the day, 155 people were on that plane and 155 people survived. Everybody lives.

Sully isn't a long movie, in fact I was really surprised on how short it was. Its not drawn out and its not trying to be more than it is. While this movie might come up in some Oscar discussion probably, I doubt its going to win anything. But what this movie really is is just a movie that makes you feel good. It makes you feel like we got a win back in 2009 and it was a win we all needed. Its simple and to the point and its done very well along the way.

I really liked all the performances from Hanks, to Eckhart, to Linney, hell even Skyler from Breaking Bad is in this movie. I think the direction of the film from Clint Eastwood and I'm really glad I saw it. Is the movie perfect? No, not really. Like I said, there are a some choppy flashbacks, and despite everything, it is a movie about 208 seconds on a plane. It is really milking a lot out of very little. However, I must restate, I really liked this movie. It made me feel good and I thought it was well crafted. If you haven't seen Sully yet, I suggest going to see it.

What did you think? What do you remember about January 15th 2009? Do you think Clint Eastwood should have made a movie about Sully Sullenberger? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @cmhaugen24 as well as 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. This was a funny bit. They had Tom Hanks on Jimmy Kimmel and brought on Sully as a surprise. Sully then did a trailer for the parody Tom Hanks biopic, Hanks. Enjoy!

Designated Survivor Pilot

So its been a while since I've done TV reviews in this format. I used to watch the pilot for a show, make a judgement on whether or not I was gonna keep on watching, and then do a full season review when I had completed the season. I'm bringing it back because Designated Survivor is the first show in a long time that I will be watching week to week and it will be a couple months before I give my full series review (if I do at all... that's a long term commitment and if you're a fan of this blog, you know I'm not good with long term committments. I.E. my review of all the Batman movies). But I have a good feeling about Designated Survivor. 

I heard about Designated Survivor a while back (it might have been at the super bowl) and I immediately was interested. By far the biggest reason was because the show is starring Kiefer Sutherland. Sutherland has gone down as one of my favorite actors because of his work in the show 24. I will watch almost anything with Sutherland in it and this alone was a good reason to watch Designated Survivor. 

But what got me intrigued as well was the story. 

Designated Survivor follows the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Thomas Kirkman

(played by Sutherland). From the beginning of the episode, it is laid down that Kirkman is a straight shooter and doesn't really know how to play the games of Washington DC. He's portrayed as a good guy at the bottom of the totem pole. He has a spot in the cabinet but its the most inconsequential position one could have. (Sorry current Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Julian Castro, your job isn't given much credit in this show). Furthermore, Kirkman is being replaced in his position so he's basically fired at the beginning of the show.

The first episode takes place the night of the State of the Union where every member of Congress and the cabinet are present to hear the President speak. Kirkman is chosen as the designated survivor, the one member of the cabinet who does not attend the State of the Union in case of a catastrophic attack. And because this is a television show, that catastrophic event happens. 

Tom and his wife Alex (played by Natascha McElhone) are rushed to the White House and Kirkman is sworn in as the President of the United States. The rest of the pilot is Tom reeling from the events, trying to stay afloat while the United States is in absolute chaos. He has trigger happy generals (one played by Kevin McNally) who want to start World War 3, he has staff and speech writer (one of them played by Kal Penn who actually was part of the White House staff for President Obama's first term) who don't believe he's the right man for the job. And you have his family who he needs to make sure are alright despite the shock of an unthinkable event. 

On the other side of things, Maggie Q plays an FBI agent who is quickly brought into the investigation of the explosion at the Capital and she does some kind of cool FBI stuff... I feel like she might have a bigger part later in the series, but for now she was just there to kind of introduce the audience to her. 

Despite the fact that Maggie Q probably didn't need to be in this pilot episode, For a pilot, Designated Survivor starts off very strong. 

The show plays off both like an episode of 24 and an episode of the West Wing with a weird feeling of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington thrown in there for good measure. Like I said, Maggie Q's role is pretty limited in the first episode because the main focus is and should be on Tom Kirkman. The show is called Designated Survivor because this is a situation we've prepared for but we've never been in. Tom Kirkman is the last person you would expect to take up the seat of the President of the United States in a time of crisis like this and yet we find ourselves in this situation. 

Now I must make mention of the fact that it is Kiefer Sutherland. As normal of a guy they dress him

up to be, and to be fair he does a decent job at it, its going to take a couple of episodes for me not to think that Jack Bauer has taken up the seat of President after 9 seasons of being at the disposal of the President. I have faith that Kiefer Sutherland will be able to create a different character and he has, I mean Tom Kirkman is just a much happier guy than Jack Bauer ever was. But again, I'll need an episode or two.

The thing that I really liked about Kirkman was the uncertainty and the fear. You see it as he is quickly inaugurated as the President and quickly rushed to a situation room he has no idea how to run. While I still see Jack Bauer, I get the feeling Tom Kirkman is going to be a really interesting character and one that I want to see more of. 

But the part that really excites me about this pilot is that it sets up for a season of TV that I really have no idea where it could go. 

If you've seen the trailer for the show you basically know what happens in the pilot episode. There's a couple of thing that hint towards the future of the season but the pilot in essence is the chaos of rushing the Designated Survivor through the process of becoming the President and some preliminary things he needs to do. The real test will be future episodes. 

Like I said before, this is really a situation we as Americans have never experienced and it could be

hard to comprehend. It could be as simple as a political episode of the West Wing where Tom Kirkman needs to fill his cabinet and guide the country in our darkest hour. But at the same time you have a conspiracy of terrorists who we have established may not be done attacking our soil. We have Kevin McNally slightly proposing treason, a lot can happen in this show and I really have no idea where it could go... And I love it.

Could this all go awry and could it be disappointing? Of course. And the fact its on a standard network like ABC does worry me a little bit. But if the rest of the show is like the pilot, I'm actually really interested in Designated Survivor.

In an age where even if I think a show is good, I usually wait until its all on Netflix or some streaming system to binge watch it, Designated Survivor really brings out the old way of watching TV in me and I want to watch this show week to week. 

Of course this is all based off a pilot with a pretty good cast and a subject matter I'm pretty interested in. Things like this have gone wrong before. What do you think? Have you checked out the pilot of Designated Survivor? Is it a show you'll watch week to week or are you gonna wait till its on Netflix to binge watch it? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @cmhaugen24 as well as send me your request for future movies and TV shows I should review on this blog. 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. So this is only barely related by Jimmy Kimmel did a new edition of Mean Tweets last night and Kiefer Sutherland is in it... so there's your connection. Enjoy!

E.T. The Extra Terrestrial

So full disclosure, I have seen this movie once before. I was quite young and I'm not gonna lie, this movie scared the living crap out of me. Despite being a movie directed by Steven Spielberg, the king of whimsy and family films, this movie just terrified me that I wasn't able to watch it for close to 20 years after (I don't really remember if I was four but it makes this sound better). I remember having the worst nightmares from ET and I really don't think I was the only person who did.

But now that I'm in my twenties and I realize that ET was not supposed to be a scary film, I figured, this is considered one of Spielberg's greatest work, I might as well check it out. What was the result? Well ET still kind of freaks me out and yeah I may have had some weird dreams the night after I watched it, but what did I think of the movie?

E.T. The Extra Terrestrial follows the story of a young boy named Elliot (played by Henry Thomas)

who encounters a strange alien who was stranded on Earth and left by the rest of his kind when they were exploring our world. While Elliot is at first scared of the alien (And he should be), he soon befriends the alien and names him ET. Along the way you've got Elliot's brother Michael (played by Robert MacNaughton) and his little sister (played by a very young Drew Barrymore) helping him communicate with ET. Feeding him and eventually helping him create a machine that will help him communicated with his family out in space so he can "Phone Home".

The interesting part about this film, at least for the first two acts, the only adult whose face you see is Elliot's mom (played by Dee Wallace). At first I was kind of confused by this choice but just as I was beginning to like it, they really kind of throw that choice away. I mean I know its hard to hide the faces of a bunch of adults, especially near the end. But I was actually really enjoying that choice, I'm not totally sure why Spielberg decided to scrap it.

That's the interesting thing about ET. It seems very much like a cerebral art film than it does the stereotypical blockbuster that I have come to expect from Steven Spielberg. A big part in the movie is dependent on the music and the moments in the film. I can imagine why this movie wasn't really that relatable as a kid because I see this as one of Spielberg's more artsy film and as a kid who was just getting into blockbuster movies (again, I kind of doubt this was when I was four) I had a baseline that ET kind of messed with.

On top of it all, can you look at this thing?

You have to give Spielberg credit, you can definitely tell that this guy was not CGI and they were basically having a little robot or prop walking around. And that robot or prop, however unrealistic you may think it looks, actually did become a character. In fact he's one of the most recognizable characters of all time. But that doesn't really negate the fact that this guy was freaky to me as a kid.

I'm pretty sure it was the fingers and his voice. At the beginning of the movie, they really take their time hiding ET in the shadows and only showing a little bit of him before the big reveal. And what do they decide to do to tease him? Show his long freaky fingers curling around door frames like a straight up killer.

I get that ET was just as afraid of Elliot as Elliot was afraid of him, but even after they become friends, ET has some kind of freaky moments, especially when you realize that he's telepathically linked to Elliot.

If you watched this movie through the lens of this is an alien brainwashing or attaching himself onto Elliot like a parasite would attach itself onto a host, that's kind of terrifying. Sure give me all the emotional moments of "I'll be Right here you want", it still comes off as a little creepy when this weird animatronic robot gets Elliot drunk and controls him from miles away. No thank you!

I think the thing that I realized when watching this is that while this movie isn't exactly trying to be scary, it has a lot of imagery that could be pretty intense for kids. I sometimes think that I was just a kid who was scared of a lot of things growing up, but I can't help but think I'm not alone here.

But the thing that really helps this movie are the human characters, especially Henry Thomas as Elliot.

Essentially ET is the story of a boy and his alien. Even if he is being mind controlled by a freaky looking brown dude, Elliot is a great example of the few times child actors work really, really well. When you watch movies or TV, whenever there are kids, its too often that you just want them to go away and stop annoying the action that you really care about. But with Elliot, you feel like this is exactly what a kid his age would do if he found an alien. And on top of that, Elliot, Drew Barrymore and Michael are all pretty smart. But not unrealistically smart. They devise this plan to bring ET out to the woods to communicate with his family out in space. But they execute the plan the way kids would. Its creative and fun, but not over the top and they rely on ET the most for that plan to succeed.

On top of all of that, Elliot is just likable. Its kind of hard to explain but despite the freaky mind controlling brown guy, you want all of this to succeed because you like Elliot. There's only been a couple of kids in cinema that have fallen into this category where not only are they likeable, they're iconic. Haley Joel Osment from The Sixth Sense, and Mcauley Caulkin from Home Alone are the big ones I can think of, and Elliot from ET is another. His lines are delivered really well and they're the kind of lines that are iconic. When this kid is happy, you can tell he's really happy. When this kid gets

sick, you can tell its from the relationship he has with ET. When he's scared and concerned you can really tell he's scared and concerned. Its just a very good performance from Henry Thomas.

Michael and Gertie (Drew Barrymore) do a good job throughout the film to and really do a good job supporting Henry Thomas.

I guess I thought Dee Wallace was going to have a bigger part in the film but the fact of the matter is, for the majority of this movie, this is about the kids. While Wallace does a good job in the film, the focus of this movie is on Elliot, Michael, Gertie, and ET, and these guys are a perfect team.

At the end of the day, once you put aside the fact that ET is one of the freakiest things I have ever seen on cinema, this movie really is a classic for a reason. Yeah the animatronic ET doesn't exactly hold up as far as realism, but this movie is just full of whimsical moments and actually a lot of fun. Culminated with great performances from child actors, a certain style that I think is actually very different from the normal Spielberg we've come to expect, and phenomenal music by John Williams, ET is definitely a movie worth checking out. Its just good film making and just good story telling.

I think I kind of mentioned it in my Back to the Future review but these classic movies from the 80's

managed to take a subject matter like Time Travel or our first encounter with aliens and take it down to a level that nobody is willing to take it anymore. These movies weren't classics because they made a huge spectacle and made these subjects the biggest thing in the world, its because they were personal, heart felt, and even comedic situations. Yeah maybe Marty Mcfly getting his parents to fall in love or Elliot feeding ET Reese's Pieces isn't what we expected to see when we heard we were watching a movie about Time Travel or First Encounters, but they play because they're human interactions. They're relatable and genuine.

The last thing I'll talk about is how much of this movie was paid tribute to in Stranger Things. I knew that the Duffer Brothers were drawing influence from Spielberg movies like ET, but I never realized how much they were borrowing for that film. If you follow me on Twitter, I spent all of last night pointing out as many of the parts that the Duffer Brothers "borrowed" from ET. From the fact that the beginning starts with the kids playing Dungeons and Dragons, to the fact that Eleven is basically ET, the list goes on. But it goes into my previous point and why harkening back to ET made Stranger Things so good. It was genuine, it was human, it was relatable. And so is ET.

But what do you think of the movie ET? Did it scare you as a kid? Was I just a pansy? I can't be alone in the fact that I was scared shitless as a kid from this movie. Let me know in the comments. 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. So this video might be delving into spoiler territory if you haven't seen all of Stranger Things. But you can tell how great the comparisons are when you take the bicycle scene from the end of the series and mix it with the soundtrack from ET. Its done really well. Enjoy!