The Justice League Trailer

Disclaimer: This post has spoilers of Batman v Superman. The short summary of my reaction to this trailer is that I enjoyed it and while I'm still skeptical of this film, there are a lot of good things I'm seeing.

So I'm not gonna lie. I have been pretty nervous about Justice League. The truth is, Batman v Superman hurt me. I used to get joy out of superhero films and the speculation of such films. Now I go into a film like Doctor Strange, a film I feel I would enjoy immensely if it had come out in 2015, but now I recognize the formulas and a part of my child like innocence has died.

But then the first actual trailer comes out for Justice League. And yes I consider this the first official trailer because the first thing that was released was more a special set of clips from comic-con and not so much a full on trailer. Don't get me wrong, I liked it, but as far as "trailers" go, it wasn't a very well put together trailer.

Now here's the thing. I am still very nervous for Justice League. I put a lot of trust into Zack Snyder to handle my two favorite superheroes of all time, and he mucked it up. Now I'm giving my trust to him once again to take on my favorite superhero team of all time and... honestly, I was scared for a little while...

Now, since I've seen the trailer, I am still skeptical... but... well let's talk about it.

The trailer picks up where we've seen Bruce Wayne (played by Ben Affleck) since the end of Batman v Superman, going around trying to find other meta-humans in order to establish a team that will fight the next fight against those who wish to do humanity harm since the death of Superman. (Sorry for the spoilers?). He explains again that he's gathering a team of people with special abilities in order to face a threat that is on the way. Of course that refers to Aquaman (played by Jason Momoa), The Flash (played by Ezra Miller), and Cyborg (played by Ray Fisher). But the threat seems to be growing larger in this film because Wonder Woman (played by Gal Gadot) states that the threat is not on the way anymore, it has arrived.

We see a lot of cool stuff in this trailer and we see a lot of action. We see the parademons from the dream Bruce Wayne has in Batman v Superman. We also see the Justice League in action as Batman, Flash, Aquaman, Wonder Woman, and Cyborg all start working together and fighting individually

and together. Now there is a pretty cool scene with Joe Morton as Dr. Silas Stone in possession of a motherbox and a parademon appears behind him. While it looked really cool, I am a little bit concerned about the use of the parademons for a couple of reasons. The first being that I just think it's too early for the Justice league in general, but also, they seem like they are just the faceless alien Army that we've seen in so many superhero films recently, that it already makes me pretty worried.

But I'm trying hard to look at the good things.

The action is pretty great. This is the first time we've really seen all these members of the Justice League really come together (see what I did there? Because they used that in the song!) and fight on the big screen. The other great thing I picked up from the trailer was that they didn't really give away a lot of the story. We still have the idea that there's going to be a dark force coming to Earth that the Justice League will have to fight and defeat.

Because I've already spoiled Batman v Superman, I do want to talk about the larger picture of this and how important a trailer like this is.

This is one of the first times we have seen all five of these characters together on screen and it's a pretty important moment. The thing that I really enjoyed about this trailer was just the aesthetic of the team and how epic these guys look.

I've always thought the method they should be utilizing when filming these characters is portraying them as modern greek gods and goddesses, and I'm not the only one. Think about it, DC superheroes really do have incredibly supreme powers over any of the heroes from the Marvel cinematic universe, and while that sometimes makes them less relatable, we want to see Aquaman utilize his powers of the sea, we see that in this trailer. We want to see Barry Allen attain the speed force, we kind of see that in this trailer. We want to see Cyborg... do Cyborg things. And he does!

Another issue with the trailer, and this is one I've heard from a couple of people is how Cyborg has a distinct CGI stink about him. I'm sure that the CGI for Cyborg is going to get better, I'm not incredibly worried right now, but I've heard a couple of critics make mention of this and ask, if this isn't the finished project, why would you show this?

I think the reason why is because Cyborg is kind of the member of the Justice League we've seen the least and this was the opportunity to show him off a little bit. Don't get me wrong, I'm excited for him, I just think they could have waited a little bit to show him off, especially since the movie doesn't come out until November.

Something that I noticed in this film was that each member of the team showcased someone from that particular heroes individual world.

You had Amber Heard appear as Mara. You had JK Simmons appear as Commissioner Gordon (even though that's supposed to be the only scene he's gonna be in apparently, JK Simmons is a boss). You had Billy Crudup show up as Dr. Allen, Barry's dad, something that I hope they capitalize on as well as they did on the TV show. And of course, you see Lois Lane... which I will talk about in a second...

It's obvious that each member is going to have their own little introduction scene where they are living in their own world and they need to be pulled into the format of the team.

I can only hope that we are familiarized with these characters enough so these new characters and familial characters actually mean something and aren't just used for fan service. I hate to bring in The Avengers, but when the first Avengers movie came out, there were a couple of small cameos from characters familiar to the Avengers. Gwenyth Paltrow made a cameo as Pepper Potts and that worked because we were already familiar with that relationship and it made sense for her to make a small appearance. In Age of Ultron (which was done a little sloppily but still works for the example) when Stellan Skarsgard's character appeared for a small cameo, it made sense because we remembered him.

Really the only character that is really familiar to us is Lois Lane and that's a supporting character for a character who doesn't even appear in this trailer, Superman.

I did not expect to see Superman in this trailer. I don't expect to see him until the last or second to last trailer for this movie, probably not until August or September. However, the question still is up in the air, how will Superman fit into this story. Is he going to be resurrected? Is he going to dawn the Black suit? Will he be evil? Is he going to have a mullet? We don't know.

If you read my spoilers review for Batman v Superman, or have picked up on any of my vibes about how I felt about Batman v Superman, you will know that I did not like the way they handled Superman in this film and I certainly thought that killing him was the wrong choice for multiple reasons but mainly because I thought it was a premature move and wasted the Death of Superman storyline.

Something that was pretty interesting from this trailer was how I really did feel like this is the team that would be built in a world that had a Superman and no longer had one... you know... instead of a different one...

The Justice League is what you would need to fight the true evil that is headed towards Earth. And while it hasn't been confirmed yet, it would also be the team you would need in case a certain Super man came back to life and was instead against humanity for some reason instead of for us. You would need a Wonder Woman, a Poseidon, the fastest man alive, a Cyborg, and the Dark Knight.

Now I don't know that Superman is going to be evil, but I'm a little worried about this character because while I look at this team and as much as I love it, I feel like it's still a little bit incomplete without Superman, I don't really want Superman in this film.

I would rather have a film or two developing these characters as a team and doing their best to fight off the evil. However despite all their best efforts, they're still no match for the great evil, whether it's Steppenwolf, or Darkseid, or whatever. I feel like there needs to be a need for Superman and if he comes in as a good guy in the second half of this film, you're just adding you're heaviest hitter onto your already All-Star team.

I'm sure they have a plan for Superman, but I have reason to be skeptical based on what they've done with this character in the past.

I've talked about this in the past but I don't think Warner Brothers really understands how much they royally screwed the character of Superman. Remember, not only does Superman die in Batman v Superman, but so does Clark Kent. It would make sense for Superman to come back to life, but if both Superman and Clark Kent come back to life miraculously, people are going to start connecting the dots. You think Perry White isn't going to notice when his reporter comes back to life magically as the Man of Steel? Come on!

I think actually seeing these characters in action is better than seeing them lined up. I can't say there's anybody in this group that I'm not excited about. Jason Momoa looks great, Ray Fisher looks pretty good. I think that Ezra Miller is a good actor and with a dramatic character like Barry Allen, I'm sure he'll be a fun addition to the team.

And Gal Gadot looks absolutely stunning. I mentioned this on Twitter, but I'm convinced that regardless of how good Wonder Woman or this movie is, I'm not on the Gal Gadot as Wonder Woman band wagon. She looks fantastic and every trailer I see her in, she continues to be a grade A badass.

The one part of the trailer I am intrigued and yet a little worried by is the scene where there seems to be amazonian warriors fighting parademons.

I have no idea what this is all about and I'm uncertain about how its going to fit within the movie. I hope it's epic and I hope that the parademons serve as good cannon fodder but there is a great evil and a better story at the end of the day. 

Overall, I'm excited for Justice League. While my childlike wonder of Superhero films may have been stabbed by the DC cinematic universe, I still have faith that it can be brought back with the superhero films that are coming out in 2017. You have to give DC credit, while their movies have gotten progressively worse, their trailers continue to get better and better. I think that there are a lot of good things I'm seeing from this trailer and I'm sure there's a lot we're going to be seeing before November. 

Am I nervous still? Of course. 2016 was not the year that we all expected for superhero films and clearly not the year we expected for DC superhero films. But if anything can bring my spirits for DC films back, it's Wonder Woman and Justice League. 

But those are my thoughts on the Justice League trailer. What did you think? Are you excited for Justice League? Does this trailer look good? Is it going to be a repeat of 2016's trailers or is 2017 going to be different? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @cmhaugen24 as well as send me your requests for future reviews I should post in the future. If you follow me on Twitter, you can get updates on future movie news and reviews on this blog. 

I'll leave you with this. I didn't really get a reaction trailer out on the newest Wonder Woman trailer. I think this trailer is absolutely awesome! Enjoy!

Hacksaw Ridge

Aziz Ansari did a stand up bit on SNL a couple months back talking about how some people voted for Donald Trump the same way that they listen to Chris Brown music. How Make America Great Again is Donald Trump’s “These Hoes aint loyal”. I think in a way, the same can be said for Mel Gibson movies. There is a reason that when the first trailer for this movie hit, they never put Gibson’s name in the trailer and instead said, “From the director of Braveheart”.

Mel Gibson has clearly had a rocky career and if you’re out there thinking that you can’t support him as a director because of the things he has said, I wouldn’t blame you one bit. However, this is the last time in this review that I’m going to be talking about Mel Gibson as a person and I will instead discuss his work as a director and the merits of his newest film, Hacksaw Ridge.

Hacksaw Ridge takes place in the middle of World War 2. Everyone is enlisting and joining the Army to fight the Axis. Our story centers on a young man by the name of Desmond Doss (played by Andrew Garfield) who despite having a religious objection to killing and violence towards other people, joins the Army and aspires to become a combat medic. His philosophy is that while the rest of the world is going around tearing each other apart in war, he’s going to try and put things back together as a medic. So he joins the Army but refuses to kill anybody and refuses to even touch a weapon.

Now the movie is basically broken up into two segments. The first segment is a little slower and it centers on Doss joining the Army, refusing to pick up a weapon and the conflicts that come along with being in the Army, an organization that centers a lot on the act of killing other people. Now when I say slower, I don’t necessarily mean that in a bad way. The first half of the movie spends a lot of time getting to know the character of Desmond Dos and the people around him. Hugo Weaving plays his drunk abusive father, Rachel Griffiths plays his mother. The first section of the movie is focused on a love story between Doss and his girlfriend and later wife, Dorothy Schutte (played by Teresa Palmer).

And I will say, this is a really fun relationship. It’s definitely not the focus of the movie and besides a small moment where she questions why he can’t just pick up a weapon, show them he knows how to use it just to get them off his back, there’s not a lot of conflict between these two. The way they develop their relationship is very reminiscent of the way you’d expect your grandparents got together. It’s very innocent and it’s kind of like an American fairy tale where everything is so certain and so quick that it’s almost like it was meant to be.

And part of that only works when you take in the performance of Andrew Garfield as Desmond Doss.

Doss is this happy go lucky guy with not a care in the world. He’s so optimistic and so happy that you can’t help but like him. I would say it’s very similar to the almost dumb simple mindedness of Forrest Gump because he says things with such optimism and innocence that it actually doesn’t seem one hundred percent realistic. Luckily, Garfield does a great job in this because he keeps that optimism and that innocence throughout the film and he keeps it consistent.

It also works within the context of the film because this guy is tested on what he believes and how strong his resolution is towards those beliefs. Especially in the first act of the movie when he joins the Army and refuses to pick up a weapon.

Vince Vaughn plays Doss’s Sergeant and Sam Worthington plays his Company Commander. When they discover that Doss is a conscientious objector, they are baffled by the resolution of this guy and only want him out of the Unit. And to be one hundred percent honest, I don’t really blame them. Their mindset is that if he is unwilling to pick up a weapon and defend not only himself but the other members of his unit, what use is he on the battlefield.

Being familiar with the inner workings and the mindsets within the United States Army, I know that this is not an unwarranted concern and while I understand that the point of the movie is to point out how wrong they are, I was sitting there kind of wondering how he actually got through the whole legal process that works against Doss and tries to kick him out of the Army.

The members of his unit fall under the same belief that Doss is a coward and would not have their back in a fire fight. Luke Bracey plays one of the Soldiers in his unit and he’s one of the biggest critics of Doss in the beginning. I only have really seen Luke Bracey in that crappy Point Break remake and I honestly didn’t recognize him at all in this film, one because he didn’t have that stupid long haircut, but he also did a really good job in this film. He’s portrayed as the rival to Doss from the very beginning but you know that eventually they’re going to come together in the heat of battle and have each other’s back.

Again, while the first half of this movie is slower, I actually think I enjoy it more than the second half. It’s got a lot of character development, a lot of great acting, and a really interesting story about a pretty controversial topic, conscientious objectors on the battlefield. I don’t think the subject is as cut and dry as the movie makes it out to be, but it’s actually pretty interesting how they address it in the film.

The second half of this movie is after all the legal discussions and it finally gets Doss and his unit out onto the battlefield in Okinawa, and the notorious Hacksaw Ridge. What follows is an incredibly violent and incredibly heart breaking display of war that I really haven’t seen since Saving Private Ryan. Anybody who thought that the first half was Mel Gibson getting away from his extremely violent roots were reintroduced to the Mel Gibson we know from Braveheart, Apocalypto, and The Passion of the Christ because the second half of this movie is very bloody, very gory, and does not pull any punches. But the second half of the movie does not work without the character development of the first half. You care about the characters from Doss, to the members of his team, to his sergeant, to his commander, everyone means something to audience and you want them to be saved and survive the battle… and not everyone does.

If you have a weak stomach or you don’t really like war movies, you might think Hacksaw Ridge is not for you. But I would disagree. There is such an optimism and testament to the human spirit in this film that it’s definitely worth checking out. The performances of everyone from Andrew Garfield, to Vince Vaughn surprisingly is very good. Before I even saw this movie I knew that it wasn’t going to win a lot of awards, especially at the Oscars. As much as I want to say that the awards are given to the person who deserves it the most, I do understand that a lot of the process is political and it would look very bad if the Academy gave an Oscar to someone like Mel Gibson who has basically been Hollywood poison for the last decade. I do think that Andrew Garfield really shined in this movie and probably should have been considered a little more for Best Actor, however, I do recognize that it was a stacked year and it must have been a difficult choice for those picking who wins.

Regardless of what award it won and didn’t win, Hacksaw Ridge, in my opinion, is one of the best made films of 2016. I’ve spoken about this in previous reviews on Oscar nominated movies, but it is all about personal preference. Moonlight didn’t speak to me the same way it did for a lot of people. It didn’t speak to me the way La La Land did and La La Land didn’t speak to me the way Hacksaw Ridge did. The jury is still out on which of the Oscar nominated films were my favorite, but I still have to watch Arrival.

But overall, I really enjoyed Hacksaw Ridge. I definitely recommend this one and while I don’t condone the past behavior of a guy like Mel Gibson, I do have to take the man out of his work and the fact is, his work is really well done. I do hope that we see more of Gibson’s work in the future because Hacksaw Ridge is a really powerful film and definitely worth checking out.

Those are my thoughts on Hacksaw Ridge. What did you think? Did you enjoy that film? What is your favorite war film? Comment and Discuss below! 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. Stephen Colbert had Mel Gibson on his show when Hacksaw Ridge debuted and the exchanges in the interview with him are actually pretty well done. Enjoy!

Logan

I have never liked Wolverine movies. I love Hugh Jackman, I think the fact that he’s been playing Wolverine for about 15 years is incredible and I think he’s a staple to the industry that is comic book movies. But when looking at the Wolverine movies that have come out in the past, X-men origins, The Wolverine, I have not really enjoyed either of them as much as Ive enjoyed other superhero films. So when I heard a while ago that there was going to be one last Wolverine standalone film, I rolled my eyes a little bit because I didn’t think that it was going to be any good. Then the trailer dropped… and my tune changed quickly. This third Wolverine movie went from being a movie I thought was going to suck to being one of my most anticipated films of 2017.

Before I say anything about the movie itself, Fox did something absolutely brilliant with how this movie opened. I don’t want to give it away as this is a non-spoiler review, but if that is how any future installment of the Fox Superhero genre is going to open, I think we are in good hands going forward.

Logan takes place in an actually not so distant future where Mutants have virtually gone extinct. I actually found it interesting that the world wasn't very post apocalyptic, it was just devoid of mutants. The movie explains what happened to all the mutants and I have to give Fox credit, there is a good amount of time in between the other X-men movies that Logan that if Hugh Jackman, Patrick Stewart, and the rest of the cast of the original X-men trilogy ever said they wanted to come back, they definitely could and you could get some great X-men movies out of that time period.

The movie centers on Wolverine (played by Hugh Jackman) who just goes by Logan now. He’s living a low key life, especially as one of the last mutants on Earth, hiding away and taking care of a very old Charles Xavier (played by Patrick Stewart). Logan has gotten very old himself and his powers have begun to decay. He’s no longer healing and if he does it’s not anywhere near the pace he used to and needs to survive. He’s got a drinking problem, he’s in constant pain. And man does Hugh Jackman play this well. You watch Logan just go about his business and he looks like has gone through hell and he’s still going. He’s walking with a limp, his claws aren’t going out all the way, he just looks in pain the entire movie.

And then there’s Patrick Stewart as Charles Xavier. I have a bit of confession to make and it is that I never really connected to Patrick Stewart’s Charles Xavier like other people did. I came into the X-men movies pretty late and I only saw Last Stand for a while. After that I became more familiar with James McEvoy’s Xavier and by the time that I saw the old X-men movies, I just didn’t connect to Patrick Stewart’s Xavier like everyone else did. Like Wolverine, I appreciated the contribution and the impact he had on the genre but I never really loved him until I saw this movie. Charles suffers from either Alzheimer's or ALS in this movie and it’s absolutely fascinating to think about a character like that with such great powers of the brain, have a such debilitating brain disease. But Charles is the heart and soul of this movie. You can tell these two have gone through so much and he is the conscience for Logan when Logan just wants to hide away and leave the world to it’s own destruction.

Eventually, Logan and Charles come across a young girl who is being hunted by a shady organization led by a guy who I could have sworn was Draco Malfoy (actually played by Boyd Holbrook). It is obvious that this young girl, Laura (played by Dafne Keen) is a mutant and the premise is basically Logan reluctantly helping her escape from this organization.

The girl they got to play Laura is really good. It should be pretty obvious that she’s playing X23. If you don’t know who X23 is, I’ll let the movie explain that, and if you know who X23 is, it’s not that difficult to figure out that she is X23 from the trailers so I don’t think I’m spoiling anything that anybody who knows anything about X23 shouldn’t have known already. A lot of the movie she is mute and the way she communicates is in her looks and her actions. The relationship she has with Logan is really great and it actually gets pretty emotional at times. The only issue I think I had with her is that she is mute for a good portion of the movie and then she suddenly decides that she can talk all of a sudden. And the movie kind of addresses it as weird that she didn't talk before but suddenly she can. It’s not a huge deal but it was a little bit weird having this character who spends a good percentage of the movie mute and then suddenly she talks.

First off, this movie is a pretty hard R. There are some really graphic scenes of violence in this movie. Think about it, Wolverine has metal claws that come out of his knuckles. After watching this movie, I’m actually kind of amazed that Fox was able to dole out half a dozen movies with Wolverine and never show as much blood and full fledged slashing than they did in this film. This movie gives Hugh

Jackman the green light to go all the way with Wolverine and his abilities and they are definitely on full display. And because they went full R with the action, they also went full R with the language. It’s actually kind of amazing hearing Charles Xavier and Wolverine swear as much as they do in this movie and while it’s weird, it never felt forced or unnecessary. Logan takes the X-men franchise to a point of disparity that it’s never gone to and it makes perfect sense why they would be swearing as much as they do.

But the other part that is really amazing about this movie is that for as much as it is a hard R rated movie, this is the best acted superhero movie I have seen since The Dark Knight and it has the most emotion and heart to any superhero movie I’ve seen ever. In essence, this movie was a family movie centering on Logan, Charles, and Laura. The relationship between these three is so genuine that I almost feel like they didn’t even really need a villain. This movie could have just been these three just living in the world that they live in and I think I would have enjoyed it just as much. It’s a superhero film so I obviously expect there to be action and violence. As a whole, the movie utilizes these things very well, but it’s not the strongest part of the movie. The strongest part are the performances and the chemistry between these three characters as they go through conflict. This never really felt like an X-men movie, it felt like a drama with characters who just happened to have extraordinary abilities.

This movie in many ways reminded me of the Michael Shannon movie, Midnight Special. Where the story was more centered on the characters than the action and the abilities of the characters and this is how movies are done right. I love how a lot of my friends who watch X-men movies didn't know what Logan was because it just never gave off that superhero vibe.

I will make mention that beyond Hugh Jackman, Patrick Stewart, and the girl who played Laura, I thought everyone gave a really good performance in this movie. Stephen Merchant plays a mutant who is helping Wolverine take care of Charles Xavier in the beginning. Again, I thought Boyd Holbrook was a good villain and a good adversary. That guy from the Doctor Who snowman episode (Richard E Grant) plays a villain and he does a good job. I think overall, this movie was well casted and it for the most part, everyone felt like they belonged there and served the story rather than the story serving to show off the characters, something X-men movies have done in the past.

Now if there was anything that I could criticize the movie on, it would be the villains. Boyd Holbrook is a decent enough villain for the movie and I enjoyed him in the first half of the film. But then I feel like the studio execs said, there needs to be a bigger villain. I can’t really say who the villain or villains are in the later half, I will talk more about my issues with the villain in my spoilers review, but again, since the chemistry and relationships between Logan, Charles, and Laura are so great, I don’t really feel like there needed to be this over the top villain that they pulled out in the second half. Luckily, the villain element of the movie is not that huge and they do center on what’s important, but I feel like this movie could have taken more from Midnight Special and had a vague villain in the government or this shady organization and just leave it at that.

But I’ll be honest, that’s really the only complaint I have of the movie. I enjoyed this movie because it had a sense of finality to it. The X-men franchise is not over, they will continue to make X-men, Deadpool, and whatever moving forward, but this felt like a one off. It wasn’t building up to anything, it wasn’t vying for a sequel, it just was Logan. There’s not even an after credits scene. This story had a beginning, a middle, and an end and when the movie ended, it felt complete. I get that superhero films are based off comic books and comic books don’t have that sense of finality. Another issue can come out and characters are introduced, characters are killed off, characters are brought back to life, but Logan didn't feel that way. This didn’t just feel like a send off for Hugh Jackman as Wolverine, it felt like a complete story.

I definitely recommend going to see Logan. If you’re a comic book fan, you will like this movie. But if you are a movie lover, if you love good performances and good actin, you will like this movie. I can’t praise this movie enough. It’s still early, I need to have a re-watch, but this might go down as one of my favorite superhero movies of all time.

But those are my thoughts on Logan. Have you seen it yet? What did you think of it? Is this a good send off for Hugh Jackman as Wolverine? Comment and discuss below! 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. These guys give a really great rap recap that I'm also including but they do cool acapella remixes of songs and here's on from X-men. Enjoy!

Manchester By The Sea

So the only thing I heard about this movie prior to watching it was how sad it is. Don't get me wrong, this is a very sad movie. It talks a lot about loss and the emotions that go along with that loss... However I laughed a lot in this movie. There are a lot of great moments of laughter in this movie and it's a lot funnier than people give it credit for.

Manchester by the Seas is set in the Boston / Manchester area and centers around a young man by the name of Lee Chandler (played by Casey Affleck). Lee is a janitor at an apartment complex who keeps to himself. One day he gets a call saying that his brother Joe (played by Kyle Chandler) is sick and when Lee gets to the hospital, he finds that his brother has passed away.

The movie mainly takes place in the days and weeks after the death of his brother and centers on Lee trying to get his brother's affairs in order while taking care of his nephew Patrick (played by Lucas Hedges) as he is coming to terms with the death of his father.

Lee is named the legal guardian of Patrick and that is something he doesn't totally know how to deal with due to his history and the turmoil and tragedy that he has been through himself. I don't want to give anything away because it does feed into the drama and the emotion that goes into the story and the performances given by these actors and actresses involved in this movie.

First and foremost, this story centers on Lee and his nephew. They're both hard nosed Boston boys and they have that rough and tumble, stereotypical Boston street toughness that you see. This defines them as characters and it works really well as they interact with one another and try to get over their tragedy together and figure out how they're going to live in the future.

Now I have not seen the other performances given by the other actors up for Best Actor this year in the Oscars. But I think there is a reason why Casey Affleck got Best Actor because this is really a heart wrenching performance. Again, a lot of it is embedded within the screenplay and the tragedy that he faces prior to the events of this movie. But the other half is his interactions with Lucas Hedge's character and how those two get along.

And you may think that in a movie where two guys are getting over the losses of loved ones it would be a lot of sadness and just be dreary but in reality there is actually a lot of comedy within their tragedy. This could have easily been just Casey Affleck trying to crack the hard shell of his nephew while learning to love again, but instead there's this really awkward and hilarious back and forth between the two of them as Casey Affleck's character tries to be a pseudo father and Patrick trying to have a normal life and be strong and yet the two just don't know how to interact with one another. It's awkward, there's a lot of Fecks thrown around, and it works perfectly.

The movie is littered with flashbacks that help give context to the struggle Lee is going through throughout the film and that's where a lot of the drama and a lot of the emotions come from.

I'm a little bummed that Kyle Chandler didn't at least get a nod for Best Supporting Actor. I don't think the performance is anything worth him winning, especially with the acting of Mahershala Ali to compete with, but I definitely think that Kyle Chandler doesn't get enough credit as an actor and I think he's just now getting recognition.

He does a really good job in this film as Lee's brother Joe and tying it all together.

And then there's Michelle Williams.

Michelle Williams plays Lee's ex-wife and while she doesn't have a lot of screen time, she really does give a solid performance in this film. I haven't seen Fences yet, but this makes me want to see that movie and see exactly what Viola Davis has going on in that performance because this is a damn good one. I'm not sure if it absolutely should have won based on the performance alone, but it is a pretty strong performance. This of course is supplemented by how well the story is written but Michelle Williams absolutely kills it in this role as Randy.

But I think one of the big standouts in this movie is the story. In case you haven't picked up a pattern, it is an event when I decide to watch a movie like this. I don't really like to just watch dramas because I get a little bit bored if I watch too many of them. I like my action and I like high paced stuff to happen when I'm watching a film. I can definitely enjoy a good drama when it comes out and by god, Manchester by the Sea is one of those movies that I could watch again just because the story is so good.

This could have easily just been a tear jerker filled with emotional acting and sadness the entire time. That's really what I thought I was getting into.

Instead I got a really great story about a guy and his nephew going through loss and trying to find a way to make things work for them. There are a couple of moments where it's not even about loss and dealing with the death of Lee's brother. Lots of the time it's just two guys doing their thing trying to be cool with living with one another and because the script is so good and because the acting is so good, it is legitimately entertaining. I cared about these characters and I wanted to see what was going to happen.

Now this does bring up the two biggest issues I had with the film. The length and the ending.

As much as I enjoyed this film, it did kind of go on for a half an hour too long. There were a couple of scenes that probably could have been cut to make that 2 hour mark instead of 2 and a half hours. I'm not sure it needed to be that long.

And then there's the ending.

For some reason 2016 was the year where Best Picture nominees kept going until the director just said, "You know what, we're done. No we don't really need to close anything or get closure, we can just end the film".

And I've had people point out that life doesn't always end neatly and wrap up the way we expect them to in movies. But in both cases of Manchester by the Sea and Moonlight, I felt like there was no real climax and no real wrap up. They just kind of end whenever they feel like ending.

I think I understood Manchester by the Sea's ending more than I did the ending of Moonlight but it doesn't really make sense either way as both movies just stopped at pretty random times. Maybe there's a point I'm missing but I had an issue with it.

Overall though, Manchester by the Sea might be one of my favorite films of the Best Picture nominees I've seen. I still have to check out Hacksaw Ridge and Arrival, two movies that I have a feeling I'm going to really enjoy, but Manchester by the Sea, to me, was one of the more poignant and emotional movies I've seen. The movie was well made, well acted, and I enjoyed watching it. I was invested in the characters and I wanted to see them succeed. I definitely recommending checking this one out.

But those are my thoughts on Manchester by the Sea. Where does it rank within the Oscar Best Picture nominees? What did you think of it? Comment and Discuss below! 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. Matthew Broderick had a really obscure and random cameo in this film. All I could think of was this. Enjoy!

The Reluctant Fundamentalist

I decided to take a quick break from my Oscars marathon that I've sort of been on for the past few days and check out a movie that I had on my Netflix watch list. I do have some movies on there that I have created for my 2017 movie list and I don't want to put myself in the same situation I did last year where I was rushing to clear out that list... even though I probably will end up doing that near the end of the year.

I found The Reluctant Fundamentalist by looking up movies with Kiefer Sutherland. If you're not familiar with the blog, I am a fan of 24 and Kiefer Sutherland has been one of my favorite actors for a while since. While I had never heard of this movie, I wanted to check it out and see how it was. These were my thoughts.

The movie begins with the abduction of an American professor in Pakistan. The CIA is trying to find this professor and so is a journalist named Bobby Lincoln (played by Liev Schreiber).

Lincoln gets the opportunity to meet with a Pakistani Professor by the name of Changez Khan (played by Riz Ahmed). He is unsure if Khan had anything to do with the kidnapping of the American professor and he wants to interview him to figure out if he did or not.

What follows is Khan telling his story from when he graduated from college, got a job with a top Wall Street firm, and his experiences, living in the United States right after the events of 9/11.

Prior to the attack Changez gets a job with a Wallstreet firm under the mentorship of Jim Cross (played by Kiefer Sutherland). He is incredibly successful and eventually even meets and falls in love with a photographer by the name of Erica (played by Kate Hudson).

The Reluctant Fundamentalist follows Changez as he watches the world change and the way people look at him differently. The movie does a good job at setting up his life and the way that it was prior to the events of 9/11 and then watching it all change as Changez not only falls victim to Islamaphobia and racial profiling, but in reaction, falls back on his roots and starts denying the American ideals that are expected of him.

The interesting part of the movie and the part that I appreciated was that the movie never felt like it was too over the top and hyperbolic like some movies about prejudices can be. After 9/11, while there are some pretty extreme things said about Middle Easterns basically right in front of Changez, it's not like he loses his job because he's Arab. While some of the moments where he is racially profiled are a bit extreme, it all fits within the context of what was going on in the aftermath of 9/11.

And then there's the relationship between him and Erica which starts off pretty strong because she really does stand with him even after all the Islamaphobia sets in. Now I do think that the relationship between Changez and Erica does end eventually for silly reasons that only happened because they were necessary to the plot, but since that wasn't really the main purpose of the film, it was minute enough that it didn't matter as much.

The strongest part of this movie is watching how much this character changes because of multiple factors. 9/11 is part of it, and his responses to prejudice also changes his outlook on the rest of the world. And then he starts to embrace his heritage and his culture begins to show. When this transformation becomes more and more apparent and when it gets juxtaposed with who the character is in the 2011 when he's having the conversation with the reporter in Pakistan, you really do spend a lot of the movie wondering if Changez has been radicalized or if he's just opposed to American intervention in the Middle East.

The movie has a pretty great message about the radicalization of men in the Middle East due to the actions of the United States in the War on Terror and it's an interesting and non-pandering outlook on that issue.

Riz Ahmed is a name I've heard more and more these days and I really am starting to like what I'm seeing from him. He had great parts in both Nightcrawler and Rogue One and now I see him in this. There are a couple of other things I want to check him out in but he has really impressed me with everything that I've seen him in.

I talked a little bit about the relationship he has with Kate Hudson's character and that does make it a little bit difficult to say that Hudson did a good job in this film. I think it's interesting seeing her in a serious movie like this and not in a romantic comedy, but I'm not totally sure that she was the right choice for the role. I think they could have used someone different. Maybe it's because her character is also written well but I wasn't incredibly wild about Hudson's role in this movie at all.

Some of the other performances worth mentioning are that of Liev Schreiber and Kiefer Sutherland.

Both of them fit really well with the rest of the cast and the story of the film. They fit the film both when it has a flavor of a thriller and when it is supposed to be a drama. I think it's a little bit more on the drama side most of the time and both Sutherland and Schreiber bring great performances that support the main story that centers on Changez.

There are definitely a lot of slow moments in this movie. But I think the cast and the story really pull it along to a point that make you care about them. You are interested in seeing the progression of Changez Khan's story and you want to answer the question on if he eventually is radicalized or if he's just a defiant man.

I would say the only thing to improve on with this movie would be the relationship with Changez and Erica. I'm not sure Hudson was the right choice for the part but I would have either preferred her to be a bigger part in the film or not have her in the film at all. Either way I think that would have had a stronger effect.

If you want to check out a film with a different outlook on the war on terror and isn't your regular run of the mill story about terrorism and how it forms, The Reluctant Fundamentalist might be a good one to check out. I think it's a little bit of a hidden gem in the middle of Netflix's expanding selection.

But what do you think? Have you seen The Reluctant Fundamentalist? Let me know what you think. Comment and Discuss below! 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. I'm jumping right back on the Oscar train. I'm going to be reviewing Manchester by the Sea next. Here's the trailer. Enjoy!

Hell or High Water

Now for something totally different than Moonlight...

Hell or High Water is a movie I don't think a lot of people saw in 2016. It's a totally original script in a world full of reboots and sequels and it manages to be both incredibly genuine with a good script as well as action filled and suspenseful. I've heard people respond to other people complaining about the lack of original movies these days and they always pointed to Hell or High Water in 2016. I really have to agree with them 100%.

Hell or High Water follows the story of two brothers in West Texas by the names of Toby and Tanner. They hatch a plan to rob a series of banks and build up a stable amount of money to keep the ranch formerly owned by their recently deceased mother. Their plan is to keep the money intake just low enough to keep the feds out of it and do it in a way that they cannot be traced.

Toby (played by Chris Pine) is the more straight laced one who doesn't has never really had much of a run in with the law and just wants to set his family up for financial security in the future. Whereas Tanner (played by Ben Foster) is more of a risk taker and is an ex con, more willing to use violence and get the job done one way or another.

The two of them are being hunted by a Texas Ranger by the name of Marcus Hamilton (played by Jeff Bridges). Hamilton is on the verge of retirement but wants one last hurrah before he turns in his gun and his badge. He is also incredibly racist for some reason.

He has a partner (played by Gil Birmingham) who is part Native American, part Mexican, and of course the entire time Marcus is just making all these really racially insensitive jokes the entire time.

There are other characters in the film but the movie mainly centers around both pairs as they travel throughout West Texas in this game of cat and mouse.

If I had to describe this movie in two word, it would just be, Straight forward. In the simplest of terms, it's Cops versus Robbers and its just a romp.

All the characters in the film are entertaining, they are compelling and they are well developed by the end of the movie. I would almost say they're almost too straight forward. Again I'm going to point to the Honest Trailer of the 2017 Oscars because they really don't have a lot to say about this film beyond it being just straight forward and having absolutely no chance of winning Best Picture.

Hell or High Water I think was 2016's Sicario. I'm finding that every year seems to have at least one film that is a pretty great action flick but at the same time is a pretty great and well done film. In 2013 it was Captain Phillips, in 2014 it was American Sniper, in 2015 it was Sicario, and now in 2016 it was Hell or High Water.

Like I said in my review of Moonlight, a lot of it comes down to personal preference when it comes to top picks for Oscar season. Hell or High Water appeals to the action heads like myself. I enjoyed this movie immensely, probably more than Moonlight and La La Land because it had both great action and great performances from Jeff Bridges, Ben Foster, and Chris Pine. Just because it's got a lot of action doesn't mean that good performances don't come out of it and Hell or High Water is a great example of that.

Ben Foster and Chris Pine play off each other very well. Like I mentioned before, Chris Pine is your straight laced guy who has never been very violent or had any run ins with the law. He's also the straight man with the more compelling and relatable story in this pair. A lot of people could see themselves in Chris Pine's shoes. He's the voice of reason.

Chris Pine actually surprised me in this film because he's usually so well known for his big blockbuster films like Star Trek, Jack Ryan Shadow Recruit, and soon Wonder Woman. Hell or High Water showed that he could actually act and there's potential for more serious roles there.

Ben Foster, who has shown he can act really well in past films but was starting to disappoint me recently, especially in movies like Warcraft, plays a totally different character in this movie and plays off Chris Pine's straight man very well. Tanner is the loud, obnoxious, and devil may care attitude brother. He part of the reason this movie is so entertaining.

These two brothers in any other situation would be considered the bad guys but because they keep to a code and they are robbing banks for a reason, they play it like a Bonnie and Clyde hero complex where you almost want them to get away with this money.

A similar dynamic plays out between Jeff Bridges and Gil Birmingham. Birmingham's character is a little more reserved and the one you relate to more while Bridge's character is a little more of a wild card.

The two sparing against each other works really well, especially when people start dying because the movie allows you to get to know these character pretty well and the reactions when people start dying are really great and show off the acting range of all four actors.

There's not a lot to say about Hell or High Water besides it's pretty damn entertaining. I would say that if you're comparing it to the other Oscar films I've watched so far, Hell or High Water probably has the least amount of substance. There's a little bit of a message about banks, treatment of Native Americans, and some other stuff, but overall this is just a really well made and well acted action movie.

With a run time of about 102 minutes you will definitely not feel like this is a long movie at all. The acting, the action, and the story really carries the audience through it pretty quickly and you'll just enjoy yourself while watching it. It may not be the best movie out of the Oscar picks from 2016, but it might be the most entertaining out of the ones that I've watched... I have to watch La La Land again to make that argument. But when I say it's something totally different from Moonlight, I really do mean it.

This might be a short review but I'm finding it hard to find bad things about this film. I can just say you're in for a fun ride.

But those are my thoughts on Hell or High Water. What did you think? Did you enjoy this film? Where does it rank among the other Oscar films? I think by the end of this I'm going to make a list of all the Oscar films that were nominated for Best picture and rank them. I don't know when but I want to do that soon. Let me know your thoughts and put them in the comment section below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @cmhaugen24 as well as send me your requests for films that 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. Apparently Jeff Bridges can sing... who knew. Enjoy!

Moonlight

So I'm sure by this time, everyone has heard about the flub that happened during the Oscars and I'm sure everyone reading this has their opinions on not only who should have won the Oscars but how the flub was handled. I've read articles claiming that the whole thing was systemic racism at work, others have just an honest mistake.

Myself, I wanted to check this movie out before it became a controversy, now I wanted to hit the iron while it's hot and look at the movie outside flub of the Oscars and give my honest thoughts on the movie that won Best Picture, Moonlight.

Moonlight follows the story of a man by the name of Chiron over the course of his life, segmenting into 3 parts, when he is a child, when he's a teenager, and when he is an adult.

If you're reading that and think that this premise sounds a lot like the movie Boyhood except without the 13 year production timeline, you'd be partly right. In a way, Moonlight is the version of Boyhood except the character is black... and gay... and lives in Miami... and has a crack addict mother...

So yeah, really the only connection to Boyhood is that it follows this kid from childhood all the way to adulthood. It's not the best comparison but it's a good frame of reference.

The story of Chiron starts when he's a kid (played by Alex Hibbert). He is a strange kid that gets picked on for being different. He meets a drug dealer by the name of Juan (played by Mahershala Ali) and gets taken in by Juan and his girlfriend Teresa (played by Janelle Monae). The couple become second parents for Chiron as his mother (played by Naomie Harris) is a drug addict who is verbally abusive to Chiron.

I do want to talk about the performances in this first act because there are some really good ones. Mahershala Ali actually won the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor for his role as Juan. I am personally a big fan of Mahershala Ali. I thought he was tragically underutilized in Luke Cage, and I have to think that he was tragically underutilized in this film. I know the film is centered on Chiron and the character of Juan supports the story not the actor playing it, but I would have liked to see more of Juan in this movie.

Janelle Monae does a good job as well. I've only known her as the crazy moves singer but this past year she was in both this film and Hidden Figures, two Oscar nominated films. I get the feeling she is still at the start of her acting career but these are not bad movies to start on. I'm actually interested in seeing more of her in the future.

And then there is Naomie Harris.

This carries over to the rest of the movie and Naomie Harris's role throughout the film as Paula, Chiron's mother. But holy crap. I used to only know her as Money Penny in the new Bond films and as the voodoo witch who turns into a giant crab person in Pirates of the Carribean but then I started seeing her in more films like Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom and of course this. She's a solid actress. I want to see her in a lot more because it seems like she is just going to keep on doling out these good performances. The best part of the movie, in my opinion is when the relationship between her and Chiron comes to a climax and both Harris and the actor who plays Chiron as an adult knock it out of the park with that confrontation.

I think out of the three actors that play Chiron, Alex Hibbert might have the weakest performance of them. Now this isn't saying its a bad performance. The kid is pretty young in this movie and it's understandable since he's a kid actor that he wouldn't have as strong of a performance as the other two actors playing Chiron. I just thought that all young Chiron did was kind of stare and stay silent while things happened around him. Again, it's not bad and it does create a baseline for the other two actors who play him. But there is a reason the focus is more on the people around Chiron in the first act and there's a reason why the center of the first act is almost more on Juan than it is on Chiron.

Then the movie fast forwards to Chiron while he's in high school and he starts to come to terms with his sexuality and figuring out who he is as a person.

He still is being bullied for just being who he is but it starts to escalate. Ashton Sanders plays Chiron in his teen years and this kid is really the star of the entire film. A lot of the film is centered on his teen experiences and Sanders has the opportunity to develop the character the best out of all three people playing Chiron.

I won't say too much because I don't want to give away what happens as it is the events in the movie that really make it powerful, especially those that happen in his teen years. But Ashton Sanders gives a pretty good performance.

And then there's the third act where Chiron is an adult and the story finally comes to a close.

Trevante Rhoades plays Chiron when he reaches adulthood and I actually was really drawn in by his character as an adult. An essential part of the story is Chiron's relationship to his friend Kevin (played by Jaden Piner, Jharrel Jerome, and Andre Holland over the course of the three acts). I thought it was fascinating that at the beginning of the third act, Chiron puts on a bit of a front and he doesn't seem like the same character but then when he reconnects with Kevin you can see that baseline that Alex Hibbert created in the first act come back and this hard adult sudden reverts back to the child we saw in the first act. There is so much about all three performances that blend so well together that again I have to say, it's Boyhood done better.

But again, because the character is very introverted and quiet, a lot of the film is him just staring and not saying anything. There's a lot of character that can be discovered by looks and non verbal acting but I felt like I needed some dialogue from this character and it was actually really weird seeing him talk, especially when he spends most of the movie not really saying anything.

It reminds me of Drive.

Remember that art house film where Ryan Gosling just stood around and stared with that "Hey Gurl" look the entire time? The main problem I had with that was that without at least some dialogue, it was very hard to discover a character when all he was doing was staring into the camera. The same can be said about Chiron in Moonlight.

The other thing about Moonlight was how it couldn't really decide on whether or not it was an arthouse film or not. There are a couple of moments that the frame goes into this really artistic mode and it did remind me of Drive a little bit, especially when they start playing classical music over really dramatic moments, it felt a little pretentious at times for me.

The difference, and the reason I like Moonlight more than I like Drive is that it does jump back into a cohesive narrative that makes sense and doesn't rely on that arthouse feel that Drive did.

And even the moments where it's quiet and it's just met with stares, I think Moonlight does a really good job at sending it's message across to it's viewers. Just make sure that you are totally awake during this movie because I could imagine falling asleep during this movie.

Last critique I'll put on the movie is that I felt like it just kind of ended. I didn't feel like there was much of a climax or a big emotional moment, the movie just kind of stops. Going back to the arthouse feel of the film, I felt it was more of an artistic ending than an actual ending and I wasn't the biggest fan of it.

I think the main appeal of the movie is it's message and the story that it's telling. Moonlight is the first movie to win an Oscar for Best Picture that is centered on the issues of the LGBT community. It does have a poignant message and I understand why people are drawn to it, especially if it speaks to them personally. I think for me personally, the movie doesn't speak to me the way it does for others for multiple reasons. I don't connect to this story personally because I'm a straight white guy. That doesn't mean I don't see the importance and the significance of the story and there's absolutely nothing to relate to, I just didn't have a personal connection to this story the way I think other people did. On top of that, I've mentioned the arthouse feel to it and how I saw it as a little bit pretentious at times.

Screen Junkies did an honest trailer for the Oscars and mentioned how Moonlight hits all the Oscar bait expectations checklist and the joke title for the movie was "All the Oscar Things". I can't help but agree that this movie has all the flags needed for an Oscar film and to me it comes off as a little bit pretentious at times. Now I think that the movie is more focused on telling the story than it is on winning awards, but there is that Oscar Bait feel to it that makes me shy away from really connecting to the film.

Moonlight is without a doubt a good movie. It is without a doubt well made and it is for sure a milestone, especially when it comes to the subject matter and the historical context it comes out in.

I can only compare it to La La Land because that's the only other Best Picture nominee that I've seen and if I'm comparing the two it's very difficult. On one hand, Moonlight definitely takes on a more poignant and powerful message whereas La La Land is more light hearted and just more fun and care free but overall trite.

Moonlight has more moments that feel like actors are acting and emoting whereas La La Land, while it may not have as memorable performances, again just feels fun.

I think it's pretty obvious that I enjoyed La La Land more than Moonlight and the truth is, La La Land just has that re-watchability factor to it.  I'm going to buy La La Land on Itunes and re-watch it because I had more fun with that film than I did with Moonlight. Moonlight isn't to the level 12 Years a Slave was in that you watch it once and that's really all you need to get the experience, but I don't see myself bored and wanting to pop in a story about a kid getting bullied because he's gay.

Overall, it really depends on what you prefer and what your qualifications are for what should be considered Best Picture. Should Best Picture be about most powerful message the movie is trying to put across or should it be about technique and how well done the movie is. Performances come into play two which I would unequivocally give to Moonlight so maybe that's the deciding factor.

I think the important part I would want to suggest to people is not to pit these two movies against one another like one is the right choice and one is the bad guy. You can like both these films. If you enjoy La La Land more than Moonlight that doesn't make you a racist and if you like Moonlight more than La La Land that doesn't make you a buzz kill. They're two very different films and since film is subjective, you can enjoy one and not like the other for whatever reason.

Overall, I recognize the accomplishment that Moonlight is. It's a well done movie with a powerful message. It is not a movie I am probably ever going to watch again. Do I think it deserved to win Best Picture? Well, I am going to be trying to knock out as many Oscar nominated films in the next few days in order to see what it compared to but based on other Best Picture winners, I don't think it's as strong of a winner as we've had in the past. That doesn't negate the message or the merits the film does have, I just don't think it's the strongest Best Picture Winner out there.

But what did you think? Was Moonlight actually the Best Picture of 2016? What was your favorite movie of 2016? Comment and Discuss below! 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 your updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog.