100 Film Reviews Special: Top 10 Best Movies I've Reviewed

Here we are. It's hard to believe that I've done one hundred movie reviews over the course of nine years. Casually reviewing movies has been a lot of fun and for those of you who have stuck around to read these things this is my thank you gesture: the top ten best films I've reviewed. (FYI: Each of these films' reviews can be found on this blog.)

10. Looper (2012)

Looper is a mostly forgotten sci-fi thriller movie that I think is criminally underrated. I wish I could go back in time and sing its praises even louder so that more people knew about it! If you've heard about Looper's plot then you'll probably just think it's Terminator set in the Midwest, but those who've seen it can tell you that it is so much more than that. It's a thought-provokingly original story that pits a hitman named Joe against his own future self. The tension comes from watching how far old Joe will go to fix his reality and how far young Joe will go to set things right in his own reality. Bruce Willis and Joseph Gordon-Levitt's dual performance as Joe is a joy to watch and the action is tense. If you like smart sci-fi action films then you've got to give this one a try.

9. The Disaster Artist (2017)

Is seems strangely appropriate that a movie famous for being terrible would spawn a “making of” comedy-drama that is famous for being outstanding. The Disaster Artist got me hyped up like few other films have and it did not disappoint. If you've seen The Room (2003) – which I recommend before watching this – or read Greg Sestero's book The Disaster Artist then you'd know that the story of The Room's production would have to be put to film one day. A tale with this much weirdness and hilarity, but also heartbreak and inspiration, demands it. And it's a tale that's handily brought to life by a magnificent performance from James Franco as the enigmatic Tommy Wiseau. Watching this outcast chase his dreams makes for some great entertainment and a fine addition to the feel-good genre of films.

8. Baby Driver (2017)

If this was a top 10 list of the funnest movies I've ever reviewed, then Baby Driver could very well be #1 on such a list. Few other films I've reviewed have such high-energy direction, cool characters, gripping action and tension, and a unique use of music. While I've never agreed with the notion that a film's music is itself a character I would say that the way songs play in Baby Driver set the tempo and mood for almost every scene. It's a different way to experience a film and I hope more action movies take note of this.

7. Gravity (2013)

Perhaps the best-looking movie I've reviewed, Gravity is a beauty to behold. Through the masterful cinematography, the viewer experiences how isolated, cramped, and fatigued the astronaut characters are at various points. Suspension is also sustained through the film's tense score and the special effects are so well done that it's easy to forget that more than 85% of what you're seeing was made in a computer. While there's not too much going on story-wise Gravity still manages to be an enthralling film, borrowing themes found in other shipwreck/survival movies and adapting them to the most extreme of settings, the final frontier. It's a true wonder of a movie, one you can easily lose yourself in.

6. Logan (2017)

While it isn't a perfect movie, I do believe that Logan is one of the best superhero movies of this decade and certainly the best I've written a review for. In his last performance as Wolverine, Hugh Jackman gets one hell of a sendoff with a brutal, heart-wrenching movie that will be remembered by X-Men fans for years to come. Finally we get to see a hard R-rated film about everyone's favourite Canadian mutant which tells the story of the end of his life. It's a great story in which an indifferent and cynical Logan realizes that there is still hope for people like him and he finds value in fighting for the next generation. I know I'm going to be watching Logan many more times in my future, because it's a powerful film and its main character is the best there is at what he does.

5. Skyfall (2012)

In 2012, the 007 series was in dire need of a good movie. 2006's Casino Royale was brilliant but its follow up, Quantum of Solace, was a shoddy disappointment. It would be an excruciating four years until Bond fans got their next 007 flick and if this one turned out to be a stinker then the Daniel Craig era of Bond would be dead before it had ever truly lived. Thank goodness Skyfall ended up being an action tour de force that easily ranks as one of the best James Bond movies ever made. With its masterful characterization, fun action scenes, dazzling direction, comfortable acting, cool musical score, and dry British humour Skyfall is a film for all action fans. Though I still think Casino Royale was better than Skyfall, I will say that the latter film is the more accessible and perhaps more exciting of the two. Sam Mendes, mission accomplished.

4. Dunkirk (2017)

I've already spoken at length about how much I've enjoyed this film. I've written about the captivating cinematography, the pulse-pounding score, the dazzling stunt work and practical effects, the exciting action, and the uplifting ending. Dunkirk is an excellent addition to the war film genre as it depicts a battle not often seen in major films and it also brings focus to the fact that not all combatants in war are indomitable heroes, sometimes they're simply trying to survive unwinnable situations. In this regard I guess Dunkirk is roughly comparable to Thin Red Line, albeit less wordy and less boring. If that won't want to make you watch Dunkirk then I don't know what will.

3. Blade Runner 2049 (2017)

Gosh darn, 2017 was a good year for movies! With the deluge of lazy cash-in sequels and remakes that Hollywood churns out nowadays it is very refreshing to see a sequel that is worthwhile and does its predecessor justice as Blade Runner 2049 does, and I'll admit that I was worried when I heard news of this film being made. I should've realized that those fears were unfounded once it was revealed that Denis Villeneuve directed it and Hampton Fancher (co-writer of Blade Runner) co-wrote it. Not only is it a spectacular film to watch but it is about as faithful to the original as one could expect, right down to the compositions, score, and dialogue. Probably the biggest difference between the two films is the ending; the original left audiences with an ambiguous ending whereas the sequel concludes on a hopeful note. Overall, it easily ranks as the best film I saw on 2017.

2. Interstellar (2014)

I've already mentioned this movie several times on Arnold's Benediction, probably because it's so amazing that I can't stop thinking about it. To me Interstellar embodies all the wondrous things that movies can be about, showcasing how imaginative and creative movies can be while also showing some heart with a moving story. And of course it's all pulled off with the highest professionalism and quality we expect of a Christopher Nolan film: great acting, effects, cinematography, and music. In short, Interstellar is out of this world! Heh heh.

1. The Revenant (2015)

If you've ever read my Top 20 Best Movies I've Ever Seen article (November 2016) you may be surprised that this film is ahead of Interstellar. I guess I've re-evaluated my opinion on the two films because I now find The Revenant the more interesting of the two. It is a movie that is violent and visceral, yet also hauntingly beautiful. Tom Hardy and Leonardo DiCaprio give some of the best performances of their careers and director Alejandro Iñárritu creates a mesmerizing tapestry of a film that includes numerous sustained shots and dazzling compositions. I'll admit that it's a challenging film that isn't for everybody but it is a rewarding one for those who pay close attention. Just let this film take you away to a different time and place. It'll make you want to not blink.

Movie Review -- Us

  Us. Yes, another movie with an incredibly short and non-descriptive title has been bequeathed unto the general public so that the good people can ask one another “which one is that?” whenever it is mentioned in conversation. So what is Us? Is it as good as the critics say it is? And is this really my 100^th movie review? Let's take a look.

  Written and directed by Jordan Peele, Us follows Adelaide Wilson, her husband, and her two children who vacation at their beach house in Santa Cruz where Adelaide once had a frightening experience as a child. Her fears come back to haunt her as the Wilsons are attacked by doppelgangers of themselves known as the Tethered. Think of it as The Purge meets a zombie apocalypse movie, and you've got a pretty clear idea of what Us is like. As far as home-invasion movies go, it's decent; it's only towards the end where Us starts to lose steam. Although some of the kills come a little too easily, the film has a good amount of tension and suspense, especially during its opening scene. It also has a commendable sense of humour, with quick little jokes poking fun at the situation the characters find themselves in, and yet these jokes avoid distracting or clashing with the scene's tone.

  However one moment that really didn't work was the pointless twist ending; not only does it add absolutely nothing to the story but it makes no sense whatsoever. Without spoiling too much, let's just say that this twist completely screws up some backstory.

  That's not the only plothole here; Us has loads of them! How did the Tethered know how to mimic their true counterparts? Are they psychic? What's up with their names? What is their goal? Why did some attack the Wilsons but not the others? There's also a Bible verse that's referenced several times throughout, but the film doesn't have the courtesy of actually letting the audience know what it is. It's something I had to look up myself and since doing so this verse's significance to Us is just as dubious as before. Perhaps Jordan Peele simply tried cramming too many ideas into one film.

  The acting is done rather well. Winston Duke gives a fun performance as the enthusiastic try-hard dad, Gabe. And of course Lupita Nyong'o is riveting in her dual role as Adelaide and her doppelganger, Red.

  All in all, Us is alright but it's not as glorious as the critics say it is. From the reviews I've glanced at it seems as if critics are projecting grander themes upon the film that aren't truly there (at least, not in any substantial or meaningful way). The only argument I got from Us is that we need to support the proliferation of firearms – seriously, there isn't a single gun in this whole movie! But no, Us is an adequately entertaining thriller with a good sense of humour, decent acting, and professional direction but also a script riddled with logical fallacies that would have benefited from another round of editing. I can see why it'd be easy to fall in love with it if you don't think too hard about it... but you know me by now. We've been over this one hundred times, you know.

Grade:

Movie Review Repost -- Avengers Age of Ultron (2015)

Avengers: Endgame isn't far away and so I think this might be a good time to take a look at my old review of the second film in the Avengers series: Age of Ultron, which according to the film's story turned out to be more of a Weekend of Ultron. Anyways, I still think the film is fine, maybe not 4.5/5 fine, but fine nonetheless. You can tell that this review was written just before I came down with a serious case of franchise fatigue with the MCU. Anyways, enjoy!

  Avengers assemble! And I mean really assembled; Age of Ultron's cast is huge, recalling all of The Avengers' cast as well as the addition of some new characters and even the supporting casts of other film series like Iron Man, Captain America, and Thor. It made me realize, this is now a huge cinematic universe.

  “But not big enough for the two of us!” exclaims the film's main villain Ultron, an artificial intelligence inadvertently created by Tony Stark that uses robots to further his goal of eradicating all human life from Earth. What I particularly like about Age of Ultron is that we get to see more of how the Avengers characters interact. And it's not just a bunch of arguing like in the last film, they're actually hanging out and having fun. There's no Loki in this film, but we do get a look into Hawkeye's personal life, giving his character some sorely-needed insight. There's also a rather interesting romance, though it does make me scratch my head; I guess Betty Ross no longer exists in this universe? The new characters are pretty cool and they make the cinematic Avengers roster more closely resemble that of its familiar comic book counterpart. Just keep in mind that this Quicksilver is definitely not the same one from the X-Men universe.

  All actors do a fantastic job here, especially James Spader who voices Ultron. His performance gives the character an intelligent Frankenstein sort of quality to it with a bit of humour, of course.

While the first Avengers movie was full of great jokes and one-liners, this one goes for a somewhat more serious approach. Though it still has some great jokes – even a few adult jokes – Age of Ultron is less flashy and peppy than its predecessor. People are actually seen dying this time around.

But there were a few moments that left me dumbfounded. Like why did the Hulk just leave? If SHIELD is disbanded then where did that helicarrier come from? And no, I have no freakin' clue what the point was of that scene of Thor in the cave. (Also, the 3D was OK, but not necessary.)

  Overall, Avengers: Age of Ultron is an excellent addition to the Marvel cinematic universe. While I still prefer the first one, this one was still a load of fun. And for those of you who wanted a large-scale superhero team film that feels less like a cartoon, this one may be for you.

Rating: four and a half stars out of five.

Movie Review -- Cold Pursuit

  Oh yeah, that's right: there was a Liam Neeson action movie this year about him killing people over problems with one of his children. Because we don't have enough of those, right? To be honest, I haven't seen any of the Taken films but I think I've got the gist of them: don't mess with Neeson's kids. Although Cold Pursuit isn't in that series, one can certainly be forgiven for believing it is after seeing this film's trailer. So does the latest entry in this particular set of genre films – films that have been produced over a very long career, films that are a nightmare for people who don't like action – have anything different to offer? Let's take a look.

  Cold Pursuit is centred around Nelson Coxman, a soft-spoken snowplow driver in a ski resort town in Colorado. After his son turns up dead from a suspiciously out-of-character drug overdose Nelson begins his vengeful campaign against local drug dealers. However this gets the attention of the guys at the top and things quickly spiral out of control. It reminds me a lot of Fargo, just swap out the kidnapping and ransom for good old-fashioned revenge. Not only does Cold Pursuit share that film's snow-covered rural setting but it also shares an interesting sense of dark humour. I like it; the black comedy is what keeps this film from being just another generic action movie. There's even hints of slapstick and self-aware humour as well. The only downside to this is that in the wake of the swift ending the viewer is left with a bunch of unanswered questions: was that one guy paragliding all night long?

  Cold Pursuit is populated by lots of relatable characters who seem normal at first, but each have their unusual quirks. Chief among the oddballs is the main villain Viking played by Tom Bateman. Bateman does a delightful job playing a psychopathic drug lord who's also an unusually uptight father. He steals whatever scene he's in. The other grand performance is of course Liam Neeson's as Nels Coxman. This character truly is an ordinary guy in every sense of the word; he's a small-town, middle-aged man who has no witty quips or noble speeches, is not a convincing liar, and is a stranger to brutal violence. Watching him go through his quest for vengeance and deal with its consequences – and oddities – makes for a fascinating trip.

  In terms of direction, Cold Pursuit is a good-looking movie with plenty of landscape shots, both beautiful and ominous. Editing is handled in a way that enhances the comedy, such as cutaways after certain characters deaths for example. (Revealing anything further would be spoiler territory.)

  In conclusion, I'd say that if you like Quentin Tarantino movies then you'll enjoy Cold Pursuit. It's got all the action-thriller fare of a usual Neeson-type flick but with some quirky gallows humour and sophisticated direction to elevate it into above-average territory.

Grade:

Movie Review Repost -- Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014)

Here's another old review that I'm surprised that I haven't shared on Arnold's Benediction yet: Amazing Spider-Man 2. It's been a long time since I last watched this hot mess, but my thoughts on it are basically unchanged. It's a mediocre movie that could have been good but tried to bite off way more than it could chew and got way too greedy in terms of sequel-baiting possibly due to studio meddling. It took this Marc Webb spidey series two films to run into the same dead end that the original Sam Raimi series achieved in three. Does that count as progress or degradation? You decide!

  Aaaaaaaargh! They f***ed it up! Being a big fan of Spider-Man, I really wanted this movie to be good. But alas, it isn't. Let's take a look at it. I'll try to avoid spoilers as much as I can.

  After a brief sequence showing how the Parkers died, Amazing Spider-Man 2 begins with Peter and Gwen's high school graduation as the two contemplate whether their relationship should continue. Meanwhile, Harry Osborn, Gwen's boss and a childhood friend of Peter's, learns that he's inherited a few things form his now dead father, both good and bad (mostly bad). Then in subplot number sixty-one, a timid Spidey-obsessed OsCorp employee named Max Dillon suffers a terrible accident that turns him into Electro. So yeah, there's quite a few plotlines in this film, but it doesn't really feel like too much until the film's second half when scenes start jumping around really quickly. It makes the story more meandering and difficult to get into. There's also one or two conversation scenes that go on for a bit too long, particularly the romance scenes between Peter and Gwen because you already know how that's going to turn out (though the two still have good chemistry). There's also a bunch of stuff that happens for no reason: Harry's recovery towards the end, Peter suddenly becoming obsessed with his parents, Peter being OK by the film's end, and the entire Rhino story, which is brief, unexplained, nonsensical, unresolved, and extremely disappointing. The twist explaining the Parkers' deaths is extremely predictable and overdone. You might already know what it is.

  Look at the bright side, the acting is pretty good... for the most part. Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone both do their roles admirably. So does Sally Field as Aunt May. And while Electro's character has the most basic of motivations, at least he's acted well thanks to Jamie Foxx. Rhino is played by Paul Giamatti, who you can tell is having fun hamming it up. But then there's Dane DeHaan as Harry Osborn. At first he channels a young Leonardo DiCaprio, but then once (*ahem) something happens he starts channeling Frankie Muniz on crack. It looks really silly.

  In spite of Spider-Man's costume looking better, there are a bunch of dumb/cheesy production choices. A lot of fights seemed too short. Stan Lee's cameo was dull; he doesn't do or say anything. And the music cues are just weird and confusing. Apparently when electrical generators light up they sound off a musical note? There's also this weird tune that plays whenever we see Electro deep in thought and I'm not sure if the faint voices (that you can't quite make out anyways) are supposed to be in his head or if they're just song lyrics.

  Don't bother sitting through the end credits; there's nothing to see except an X-Men trailer that was so absurdly unexpected and out of place that I couldn't help but burst into laughter. What betrayal is this?!

  That kind of sums up Amazing Spider-man 2 in a nutshell. The plot is cluttered and overwhelming, as if they wrote two films into one. There is fun to be had here, but all the jumbled, confusing stuff makes it a hard movie to really get into.

Rating: two and a half stars out of five.

Movie Review -- Glass

   Did you know that Unbreakable (2000) was always meant to be a trilogy? Yup. That was how it was intended from day one. It definitely needed two sequels, right? Right? No, I'm being sarcastic! Unbreakable's first sequel – if you can even call it that – was Split (2016), a good movie, but it had nothing to do with the original. And the second sequel Glass – the subject of today's review – is an awkward marriage of the two. I'm going to have to look at Glass on its own since I haven't seen Unbreakable, so how does it fare in the eyes of this fractionally informed viewer? Let's find out.

   Glass is about the characters from both of the previous two films and despite having not seen Unbreakable I was able to pick up on and follow things alright. After a fight to free some hostages/keep some human sacrifices the Horde and the Overseer are imprisoned in a mental institution along with Mr. Glass. There they are treated by Dr. Ellie Staple who tries convincing them – and the world – that they don't really possess superpowers. It's a story that dissects and deconstructs how superhero movies and comic books work. It seems that every five minutes or so people talk about comic book tropes and cliches and what they think superheroes mean to people. These discussions can be interesting at first but I can't help but think they've overstayed their welcome by the time they keep showing up even during the final action scene. As for the tone, Glass is largely devoid of the tension and thrills that Split had. The plot moves along nonchalantly, trying to slowly build into action, which leads me to my biggest complaint about Glass: it's kind of boring. Pretty much the entire second act is people sitting around and talking; nothing happens! This isn't helped by the fact that probably 3/4 of this film takes place at one location, making it feel like a prison movie. And to add insult to injury, the second act teases us with a cool location that we don't even get to see! What a load.

   What doesn't suck is the acting; the three main characters are all very well portrayed. We've got Samuel L. Jackson as the enigmatic Mr. Glass, Bruce Willis as the in-over-his-head vigilante Overseer, and James McAvoy as the Horde, i.e. that guy with two dozen personalities. The problem comes from the fact that the story doesn't always know what to do with them. For example, Bruce Willis is gone for large portions of the film. Also, remember how terrifying it was seeing Kevin Wendell Crumb become the Beast in Split? Remember how it only happened twice in that film? Well, in this one it happens probably ten or eleven times and after a while it starts to look silly. And then there's Dr. Staple played by a rather one-note Sarah Paulson whose job it is to hold the same facial expression throughout the entire film. Also, why does the lady playing Mr. Glass's mother look like she's the same age as him?

   Lastly, I have to discuss the direction by M. Night Shyamalan. I've already mentioned how he handled Glass' tone and as for the cinematography it's pretty much what you'd expect of the man. If you like extreme closeups then you'll freakin' love Glass. There's also plenty of subjective camera angles as well as some dynamic shots centred on the characters which looks cool at first but also makes the action scenes hard to watch. Shyamalan also makes his customary cameo. So yeah, there's that.

   And that's Glass, a thoroughly “meh” superhero film that tries to be really different and smart but with mixed success which could've been so much more. One could say that it's a return-to-mediocre-form for M. Night Shyamalan. But if you ask me there's two words that perfectly sum up Glass: half empty.

Grade:

Movie Review Repost -- Interstellar (2014)

Hey, folks. It's been a while since I've done a repost of a previously reviewed film (sorry, 'bout dat. I've been busy lately.) and today I'm highlighting a film I can't believe I haven't shared with you yet. This is Interstellar, one of the best movies I've ever reviewed. Has it really been four and a half years already? I remember this film being fascinating when I first saw it and upon repeat viewings it has lost its lustre at all. I have briefly mentioned Interstellar in other articles such as my 2018 Year in Review (just last month) and the Top 20 Best Films I've Ever Seen (November 2016) but now I'm finally uploading my original review from 2014 for your enjoyment. Thanks for reading.

  To infinity... and even further!! It seems fitting that this film would be playing at the Galaxy theatre! Hahaha... sorry. Let's just review this thing.

  Interstellar displays all the trademarks of a typical Christopher Nolan film: familiar cast/collaborators, a long run time, a huge budget, and a plot that is heavily based in both philosophy and metaphysical puzzles. A science fiction film that takes place in the near future (presumably, no dates are ever given), Interstellar is set in a world of privatized education, a drastically reduced government, and virtually no militaries. Sounds like paradise, right? Nope, because the now-largely-agrarian world is ravaged by a huge blight causing dust storms everywhere. A former NASA pilot, Cooper (McConaughey) is recruited to lead a mission to make contact with expeditions that have already landed on far away planets in order to gauge their habitability so that humanity can leave Earth. I'll try not to spoil the rest for you; it's a real melon-scratcher of a plot. And don't even think about asking me about the validity of the sciency stuff in this; I'm sure that Stephen Hawking fella can enlighten you. But while I'm pretty sure that artistic licence overtakes accuracy in the film's last twenty minutes, it doesn't diminish the film's enjoyability and I think it makes for a very strong ending. Even though the film is nearly three hours long, it certainly doesn't feel too long; I guess you could say that viewers will experience time dilation of their own! This is helped by the fact that Interstellar jettisons the unnecessary debates that plagued some other Nolan films (Dark Knight trilogy, anyone?). The story handily manages to be both thought-provoking and tear-jerking at times.

  Interstellar's acting is out of this world. The whole cast – especially McConaughey and Jessica Chastain – does a phenomenal job with only a few exceptions: Michael Caine's occasional unintelligible mumbling and Matt Damon's sometimes stiff dialogue.

  As for the production, it's the same high standards that you'd expect from a Christopher Nolan movie. The special effects – both practical and CG – are spot-on. Interstellar also has a powerful soundtrack that will seldom leave you wanting – although there's one scene in particular that might have benefited from the silly Star Trek fight music. Seriously though, it's one of the best soundtracks I've heard in a while.

  But as with all movies, Interstellar has a few puzzling oversights. We're not given very many details about what Earth is like in the future. The same can be said of the other planets that are explored in this film; they're about as creative as Star Wars planets (spoiler alert: Kamino, Tatooine, and Hoth appear in this movie). Also NASA comes off as a rather shady organization here with all the lying and double-crossing going on. And yet for such an important top-secret institution they sure do have lousy security.

  No matter. Interstellar is still a fantastic adventure from start to finish. It's a splendid-looking and -sounding spectacle that has decent drama and yet doesn't bore you with the interminable discussions that people often criticize Nolan films for. Offering lots in the way of science, fantasy, and surrealism, Interstellar is a very worthwhile experience.

Rating: four and a half stars out of five.