Month: May 2016

In case you haven’t been keeping count, The Do-Over is movie #2 of the Sandler-Netflix collaboration. Netflix has said they don’t care about having the best movies, they just want a very diverse set of films, films that reach many different demographics and personality styles.

So they don’t always care about the critics. Which is why they offered Adam Sandler a four movie deal, because some people really like his brand of comedy, including the overseas market. Go figure.

Movie #1 was The Ridiculous 6, which I found very disappointing. The Do-Over seems to be going in a very different direction, both in terms of style, genre, and size of the cast. So there is a chance that this one ends up much better.

Holy crap, the promo images for this film are crap!

Charlie (David Spade) doesn’t like his life. And no, its not because the actor hasn’t had a hit in a long time. He is at his ten year high school reunion, watching his constantly cheating wife (Natasha Leggero) get down with the old high school prom king (Sean Astin). He is a bank manager, but the bank is inside of a grocery store. There are two step kids who treat him like shit. But then he sees Max (Adam Sandler).

Max has changed and seems really chill and cool now. And when his life goes on a vacation with him, Charlie decides to hang out with Max on a boat and have a great bro weekend. Then the boat explodes, Charlie is drugged, and Max takes him away.

Why? No, not to kill him. Max thinks that Charlie hates his life, so he decided to fake their deaths taking the identity of two people who recently died. They had a lot of money, a sweet vacation home, and they can just get away from it all and get a second chance at life. Or, you know, a do-over.

But there are problems with their plan, especially since the two men were murdered and those who are after them are going to come after them too. But that is a problem for later. Right now it is time to party party party.

Also starring Paula Patton, Kathryn Hahn, Nick Swardson, Catherine Bell, Michael Chiklis, Luis Guzman, and Torsten Voges.

Seriously, what do I do with any of these pictures? So generic.

The Do-Over just may very well be one of the okayiest movies I have ever seen this year. Almost on every front the film just feels average. The acting is as expected, the jokes are average, the twists are too many and the plot a little bit stupid. But some of the action scenes are entertaining, some of the jokes made me smile, and some of the twists were actually decent.

but taking it as a whole, there are a lot of stale moments. The intro goes on for too long. Too many fake identities for Sandler, and just too many twists overall.

It isn’t super strong on comedy or action, making the jokes and shots seem like after thoughts.

But when compared to the last 15 or so films, it is at least better than 12 of them. That is saying a lot about Sandler’s recent film career, but what it really says is that I loved You Don’t Mess With The Zohan and didn’t think Just Go With It, Pixels, or That’s My Boy were that bad. These comparisons still probably don’t sell the movie for you, and honestly, they really shouldn’t.

Would not super recommend.

The Lobster is weird. That is the only thing I knew about this film going into it. I only know that because that is what everyone says about the movie. And if everyone says something is weird, then it must be weird, and that excites me.

The Lobster also came out in Europe and everywhere else in the world like, last summer/fall. Seriously, everyone has seen this movie but US. It was already released on their DVDs I believe before it came over here to theaters.

That made it really tempting to just watch it online, but I am happy to say I held out and wanted to see this movie in theaters, knowing only it was weird and slightly foreign. Let’s do this!

“Only foreign people run through fields like this,” he said, maybe racist-ly.

The Lobster takes place in a near future setting, somewhere in the United Kingdom, and the world is different now. Or at least this unnamed city is different.

Basically, if you aren’t with your family as a child or currently in a relationship, then you are wasting space. The world doesn’t need loaners. It isn’t as safe with them. They aren’t being productive members of society. David (Colin Farrell) is now single after his wife left him for another man.

This means that David has to go to The Hotel. He has to leave all of his possessions behind, except for his dog. The Hotel stay is only temporary though. If he doesn’t find someone to love and marry in 45 days, someone who shares a trait with him and can live with him for a few weeks without major issues, then he can move back into the city.

Oh yeah, what happens if your time is up and you don’t find someone to love? You get turned into an animal of your choosing for a second chance of life. Yay!

Also featuring the Short Sighted Woman (Rachel Weisz), the Limping Man (Ben Whishaw), the Lisping Man (John C. Reilly), the Biscuit Woman (Ashley Jensen), a Heartless Woman (Angeliki Papoulia), the Nosebleed Woman (Jessica Barden) and her best friend (EmmaEdel O’Shea).

As for people not named after physical traits, we have a maid (Ariane Labed), hotel manager (Olivia Colman), her husband (Garry Mountaine), and the Loaner Leader (Léa Seydoux).

Bet you can’t figure out what David would want to become.

Hey! Did you read my intro? If not, The Lobster is a weird movie!

I haven’t seen any of the other films by Greek director Yorgos Lanthimos, but everyone is telling me I basically have to see Dogtooth if I liked the absurdness of this film. It is clearly done by a director who knew what he wanted for absolutely every moment of the film and put a lot of effort into the message.

The acting is a strange thing to talk about, because everyone on purpose tends to be emotionless and straight faced, as if they are walking talking dating profile pages. It took awhile to get comfortable with, but it produced some of the hardest laughs in the film. Sometimes I laughed due to pure jokes, sometimes due to the awkward moments, and sometimes to keep myself from crying at the darker parts of the movie.

The Lobster does seem to drag a bit though. Most notably when David leaves the Hotel. In the forest we meet interesting characters, but it just feels repetitive and, honestly, I don’t fully understand the reasoning behind all of the rules. The two hour film feels a half hour longer. The final scenes are interesting at least and say a lot about the world they are living in.

If you can make it through the forest, you can make it to the end of a pretty good and unique movie.

Let’s take a time machine back six years ago. The world was different, because not everything was in 3D. Only a few films tried out 3D, thanks to Avatar being the cash cow and visually stunning film that it was. This is when people still thought 3D was actually kind of cool if done right.

Then Alice in Wonderland came out, and it made a shit ton of money. Why did everyone rush to see it? Well, I guess Johnny Depp was a bigger deal six years ago, sure. But because it was released in 3D, so everyone went to see it thinking it would be as pretty as Avatar. It wasn’t.

And say what you will about the plot of Avatar, its story was miles better than the pile of refuse that they gave us with Alice in Wonderland. You would think making it into a bad story would be impossible, given the book. But no, instead they made a sequel to the original Alice in Wonderland, setting this one many years later, with Alice returning to Wonderland with a whole mess of new and awkwardly similar problems. It gave me problems, most of all calling the movie Alice in Wonderland, when it was a sequel to Alice in Wonderland. That is confusing.

But hey, Disney is on a live action kick. So they figured, let’s do a sequel. Alice Through The Looking Glass. This one will probably no be based on the book either, since it is a sequel to the surprise sequel. So who knows what they will fill it with hoping to be edgy. Let’s just say I am going in assuming the worst here, and that is based on a lot of precedent.

Clay? Rust? Red lava? Earthy minerals? Who cares, I am barely a geologist anyways.

The sequel takes place years after the original, Alice (Mia Wasikowska) is now a free girl, roaming the seas the captain of her own sailing vessel like her dad. She is exploring the new world and making trade agreements! It is actually quite fun. Unfortunately, when she gets back she is in a pickle. Hamish (Leo Bill), the man she turned down now runs the company. Her mom (Lindsay Duncan) has traded away the bill of her house for money, and the only way to get it back is for Alice to give up her boat and take a respectable job for a woman.

So, in the chaos, she runs through a mirror, following Absolem the butterfly (Alan Rickman) and returns to Wonderland! But things have changed. The entire gang is still friends, but the Mad Hatter (Johnny Depp) is now the Sad Hatter. He believes his family, killed by the Jabberwocky a long time ago. It is obvious what Alice must do. If you thought look for his family, you were wrong. No, she clearly should go back in time, save them from the Jabberwocky, and bring them to the present to make him feel better. Yeah. That.

But time is a person (Sacha Baron Cohen). And grabbing the Chronosphere can cause a lot of issues. But she does it anyways, because friendship and sets off on a journey to the past to fuck shit up.

The Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter) and White Queen (Anne Hathaway) return, Leilah de Meza with and Amelia Crouch playing their past selves. Rhys Ifans plays the Mad Hatter’s dad and Ed Speleers are regular unimportant dude.

Also returning, the voices of Tweedledee / Tweedledum (Matt Lucas), Bayard (Timothy Spall), Thackery (Paul Whitehouse), Cheshire Cat (Stephen Fry), Mallymkun (Barbara Windsor), McTwisp (Michael Sheen), and introducing Wilkins (Matt Vogel), a robot.

Time is a lot of things, and you will hear every last time pun I do decree!

First of all, Eye in the Sky is Alan Rickman’s real last film. This one is just voice work, and I swear, he maybe had three lines and no close ups. This does not get to count as his final film, I won’t allow it.

As for the actual movie, if you missed it this one deals with TIME TRAVEL. Time Travel is a scary subject matter. It is powerful and can make or break a movie depending on how it is adapted. I am not going to argue one theory of time travel is better than any other, because that doesn’t matter. The only thing that matters is that a film is consistent with their version of time travel. Alice Through The Looking Glass cares not at all, changing the rules on a whim, and makes an incredible hard to follow film without a satisfying reason for making it overly complicated.

This line might be a slight spoiler, because I just want to explain their time travel. Alice finds out that no matter what she does, she can not change the past, the events still occur. That is the time travel they have set up. Until later on in the film, a character is totally able to change the past. Fuck.

Alice goes back in time to three different locations. Why? Because the oceans of time are chaotic and once she learns information, she tries to go to a different time line to change different things. The plot is moved forward by consistently bad decisions from Alice, whom is supposed to be a strong smart female lead. Not only that, because Alice seems to make the same bad decisions, her actions feel repetitive and the films seems to drag when there are easy solutions everywhere.

The ending is an incredible mess. Wonderland is falling apart because of two separate events that somehow produce the same results. But it doesn’t make sense for them to do the same thing. I will try and explain it out without spoilers.

I hope you passed algebra.

For most of the film, Problem A is happening thanks to Alice and the world is slowly falling apart. Much later in the film, Problem B, a completely different problem occurs and actually sets about the end of the world. Problem A is seemingly forgotten about. However, once Problem A is “solved”, thanks to our protagonist remembering it, it somehow undoes all of the damage of Problem B. The issue with that is there is no justification whatsoever that it should work like that. There are no mentions earlier on that if Problem B happens, it can be fixed by X. On top of that, there was no reason for Problem A to even continue late in the film, except for the fact that Alice becomes incompetent.

Finally, Alice is seen as a strong, independent woman, which is mostly true in the real world scenes where she is chased by pirates, but they reduce her to a bumbling fool in Wonderland. All of her positive traits seemingly vanish just to move the plot forward. On its own, I guess it is okay for a character to be stupid, sure.

The real issue here is that her character does stupid things, but she is still being lauded as a smart and capable heroine the entire film. To me, that seems almost more dangerous than just having a weak lead. What we need in films are actual strong female characters, not weak ones that they tell us are strong with us supposed to them at their word.

This is a bad movie and one I cannot believe was green-light by Disney. The 3D is pointless, the visuals are only great in a few places, the acting is so-so. The plot is a mess, breaks its rules (which breaks story telling rules and shouldn’t be seen as a compliment to the Madness of Wonderland), and most of the events happen thanks to stupidity and not for good plot reasons. The only thing I enjoyed was the excessive time puns and Cohen as Time.

It has been awhile since I have reviewed a food documentary. Honestly, after you have seen a few, they all start to blend together into the same knowledge pool. I can’t tell you the difference between so many of the ones I have reviewed anymore now.

So while they might not have individual lasting power, the information is something that usually you can keep inside. And despite knowing that, I still decided to watch and review Sugar Coated.

In terms of food and health documentaries, you can pretty much figure out what the main topic of discussion this one will be about. Unfortunately, another food documentary I saw at some point also was about how sugar was the real problem area, I just can’t tell you which one it was. Sorry. My bad.

And it turns out that the sugar industry is basically literally the worst thing ever, of course.

“Bitch, take all the sugar you want, we’re rich!”

I will be honest with you, it is really hard for me to talk about this documentary. Sugar, for actually a long time, has been considered toxic by some scientists. Not a lot of scientists, but some have talked about it. And it turns out that leading advocates of the sugar companies have tried to bury any scientific discovery about it.

Sure, okay makes sense. Then they are compared to the tobacco industry, making it seem like there is no consensus on the results of sugar and that more testing has to be done. And yeah, that is really shitty.

When it comes down to the analysis of this movie, I feel like I didn’t learn a whole lot of new information. In fact, the information about the history and the actual cover up, the only thing I have really retained, is all from the second half of the documentary. I wouldn’t call the first half filler, but it is full of information I have heard before and doesn’t fully grasp me.

At the same time, despite agreeing with the documentary and believing it to be correct, it presents information in a way that promotes flashiness over actual information. I always get weary over data presented in his format, and worry if what they are showing is correct or cherry picked information. Again, I don’t think the documentary is wrong, but its arguments are presented in lesser formats that lower the overall quality of the film.

Either way, this documentary isn’t going to end up on any best of the year lists, but can be interesting to someone if they are interested in a dietary change.

2015 (which feels like a long time ago), had a few horror comedies all released in the span. You know, October-ish.

There was Cooties, the only one I ended up watching, that didn’t blend its horror and comedy well enough to warrant a rewatch ever.

There was Scouts Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse, which I didn’t see, still haven’t seen, so I am not sure why I brought it up.

And Freaks of Nature, which didn’t even get a theatrical release as far as I can tell. And of course, I decided to watch it before Scouts Guide, because it has my second favorite character from Sky High.

This movie unfortunately doesn’t have Bruce Campbell.
I unfortunately say that about most movies I see.

The town of Dillford is a strange place. Here, and maybe elsewhere in the United States, humans, vampires, and zombies live in peaceful coexistence. Sure, there are things that bother people, and you have bigots, but for the most part they can live and not kill each other.

That is until the aliens come. Because a fourth entity can only mean trouble. Everyone begins to fear the other side, and soon, all out chaos erupts in the town, with friends fighting friends and no one knowing what the aliens are up to. It is up to three teenagers to save the day. Who I will talk about so I can tag a lot of actors.

Dag (Nicholas Braun) is our human hero, and a bit of a lame dude. He is super in to Lorelei (Vanessa Hudgens), but she just uses him to store weed in his house. His parents (Bob Odenkirk, Joan Cusack), think he smokes as well (like them!) but no, he doesn’t.

He used to be good friends with Ned (Josh Fadem), a smart guy. Ned is pissed off at his family (Ian Roberts, Rachael Harris, Chris Zylka), who are into sports and meat and hate smart kids. So eventually he decides to say fuck it, and let a zombie bite him. Less pressure that way.

And then there is Petra (Mackenzie Davis), a girl who was called a slut despite never really having sex. And she thinks she is about to have sex with a Edward Cullen looking dude (Ed Westwick), but he actually wants to make her a vampire. And well, screw it you know. He wants to be with her forever. Well, let’s just say he is a dick.

Also featuring Denis Leary, Mae Whitman, Keegan-Michael Key, Patton Oswalt, Pat Healy, and Werner Herzog.

Gotta get those website clicks somehow.

For a straight to DVD, probably low budget, comedy horror, I found myself laughing way more than I expected. It was never scary, because horror just means “has vampires and zombies in it” sometimes. And that is okay. Clearly this is a movie not meant to be taken seriously and provide a good time.

And damn it, it does. While also giving me the necessary high school angst that is necessary for movies set in that age group. Sex scandals, bullies, sports, drugs, and teachers being dicks. We get all of that plus zombies and vampires! And sure, an alien or two.

There isn’t actually a whole lot to say about this film as a whole besides it being a good time. Our leads are okay, in particular I am becoming a decent fan with Mackenzie Davis. I’ve seen her now in two movies with a lead, the other being That Awkward Moment, and enjoyed the crap out of her characters. Her side characters have been fine too. Out of everyone in this cast, I hope she breaks out soon.

Braun, you are a funny dude too, but keep to the smaller movies. You thrive in them.

I want more silly movies like that. Let’s make a sequel folks. But you know, more horror tropes.

Fairy tales have been getting a bad rap for the last…I dunno, 60 years? Basically once Disney started to get their paws on them, everything became tamer and lamer. (Hey! That rhymes!)

But we all know that fairy tales used to have a darker past. Not everything was happily ever after. Fuck, some of the most famous ones were done by the Grimm brothers. It is in their name!

Now some of the darkness is coming back. We got the very strange Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters, and Into The Woods is now gaining national exposure with a (dumbed down) film version.

They are still dealing with fairy tales we have heard over and over again. What about the less famous ones? They have to be out there, and I want to be surprised. Tale of Tales is an Italian made film, but in English, that decides to showcase three stories you haven’t heard before.

And calling them dark doesn’t even begin to scratch the surface.

Three nearby kingdoms live in harmony, all with their own issues. But first, a queen (Salma Hayek) needs a son. Her King (John C. Reilly) cannot help her with her desires, but a necromancer (Franco Pistoni) knows what to do. A water dragon must be slayed, his heart prepared by a virgin, and once the queen eats it, she will instantly have a child.

Complications occur, sacrifices might be made, but damn it, she finally has a kid (Christian Lees). Except he has a virtual twin, as the virgin also finds herself pregnant with child (Jonah Lees), and the brotherly bonds end up being a bit greater than the mother son bonds.

Nearby, a king (Toby Jones) ends up becoming interested in a flea that he finds on his body. The flea becomes a pet to him, growing larger and larger, taking up more of his time. He has a wonderful daughter (Bebe Cave), but she is ignored for his other passions. And even though he tries to protect her from leaving the kingdom and getting married, his own distractions will lead to peril.

And finally, another king (Vincent Cassel) is unmarried and a sex fiend, bedding everyone in the kingdom. But there is one woman he is not able to see, just heard her voice. He must have her, not knowing it is an old lady (Hayley Carmichael), living with another old lady (Shirley Henderson), who decide to play with his emotions.

Dragon hearts?! I didn’t know Dennis Quaid was in this movie!

At first, Tale of Tales seemed to be a story that took a lot of work, but failed to maintain high levels of interest. That was only about 5-10 minutes of the film though. After that, I found it hard to look away. Despite its 130 minute run time, I almost wanted it to go on forever.

The director of this picture had an amazing level of detail. From costumes, to music, to lighting, to cinematography. The only celebrities in this picture play the Kings and Queens, but even Toby Jones is questionable in terms of his celebrity status. Despite being recognizable, they don’t distract from the wonderful story that is told.

And like fairy tales, they have their common themes, they have their morals, except the film doesn’t spell it out for you like you are a child. You are expected to pay attention, figure out who is wrong and if anyone is actually right in any of the stories. If there is one thing I was disappointed in with the film, it is that the three stories weren’t more connected to each other. The stories all play out slowly throughout the film, it isn’t one complete story then the next. But I was hoping characters in each would appear throughout, but they are only connected at the very beginning and end.

Tale of Tales is also brutal. I listed Horror as one of the tags, because of the sense of dread several pats of the story induce. People will die. Graphic things occur and there is nothing we can do to stop them.

It is also a film that is so wonderfully put together, I hope the director is later inspired to give me even more tales in the future. I would watch this movie again and again. But maybe not four times. That’d be too many.

As a big man, I would like to think I was an expert on big splashes. It kind of just comes with the territory. Now, my belly flopping days are definitely over, as any attack to my stomach has me keeling over, but there is still a lot of back and ass available to turn your regular pool into a tidal pool.

That being said, I had no fucking clue what A Bigger Splash movie was about going in.

From the cast, it looked weird. From the director, it looked foreign. From the quick synopsis it looked pretentious.

However, had they told me there would be dancing, I would have watched it even sooner!

In this world, you would have heard the name Marianne Lane (Tilda Swinton). She was a big time rock superstar and world famous. Man could she sing. You just won’t hear a lot of that in this film, because she had some vocal problems and had to have some surgery. So now she is staying in a nice villa in a small island village in Italy to rest and get away from it all. She is staying with her long time boyfriend, Paul De Smedt (Matthias Schoenaerts).

This vacation is perfect for gratuitous amounts of sex and just being naked. But then they get found out. An old friend, Harry (Ralph Fiennes) figured out where they were staying. Old friend meaning producer and former boyfriend of Marianne. Despite his outgoing personality and awkward party past, they invite him to stay in their house. He also brought his 22 year old daughter, Penelope (Dakota Johnson), whom Harry just found out even existed.

A troubled past, the vacation setting, and not really knowing everyone lead to some very awkward circumstances. Especially when characters feel the past has not yet been fully settled.

Also featuring Corrado Guzzanti as a police officer, who looks like an older Italian Michael Shannon.

Shit, even I’d be willing to eat outside if ti looked like that.

First thing I learned is that A Bigger Splash is not just some weirdly Italian original film, it is a remake of an actual Italian film from 1969, La Piscine. Typical Hollywood, always remaking shit. (This is a joke, because this is not a Hollywood movie and no one fucking knows about La Piscine.)

Secondly, look at all the naked people. There are four famous people in this movie, and you will see them all. Some more than others. I got to see Ralph Fiennes’ Lobby Boy, if you catch my drift. I feel like everything Dakota Johnson has been in lately involves her just being naked half the time. It is almost ridiculous. If you hate the site of a naked body, you will not want to see this film.

Thirdly, Fiennes danced incredibly and I wish it was more of the film.

Those are all the weird points I had to make. If I had to talk about the movie itself, I would probably mention that the cinematography is gorgeous. And by gorgeous, I of course mean the setting. But also the camera was just straight up weird and all over the place in the film, almost a fifth main character.

The acting is top notch. The situations are awkward. The soundtrack and sound effects were on top.

I think my biggest problem is that it just felt so incredibly long. It is a little over 2 hours and the last 20-30 minutes seem to drag. Based on this type of movie, after the climatic events, I expected almost every scene after it would be the last. But no, it kept going and it really brought down the film for me.

You would be hard pressed to find a weirder movie this year, that also takes place in a realistic setting with realistic circumstances.

Comedy sequels have gotten a bad rep lately. Like Zoolander 2 and Dumb and Dumber To. Okay, those had many years between sequels, but like…The Hangover Part III and Horrible Bosses 2.

So I went into Neighbors 2: Sorority Rising with a skeptical face. I enjoyed Neighbors and rewatched it the morning of the screening, still holds up decently.

But the problem with comedy sequels is the direction you take it. Do you give them more of the same? If so, then it isn’t original any more. If you give them something completely unrelated, then why even make it a sequel and not an original movie?

Neighbors 2 might just be Neighbors with more women.

But you know, regular, chill, want to kill you women.

After Neighbors, Mac (Seth Rogen) and Kelly (Rose Byrne) returned quiet to their neighborhood. But now, Kelly is pregnant again, so they want to move to a new house with more rooms and with less neighbors. They put an offer on a house and they were accepted! However, their current home isn’t sold yet. It is on escrow. So the buying couple has 30 days to check it out and do tests and can back out at any time.

And at that moment is of course when some new people move in. Shelby (Chloë Grace Moretz), Beth (Kiersey Clemons), and Nora (Beanie Feldstein) want to start their own sorority, that can party and smoke weed and promote their own feminist values of sisterhood. They just have issues getting enough money to rent the place for their dreams to come true.

That is where Teddy (Zac Efron) comes in. He is feeling pretty pathetic, everyone in his life is becoming successful except for him. And Pete (Dave Franco) is now totally gay and about to get married to Darren (John Early), which means Teddy needs a place to stay. He decides to become a sort of sorority consultant to the girls in order to find value, and maybe screw over the people who gave him a criminal record and all.

Woo, prank wars!

Some smaller roles are played by Selena Gomez, Clara Mamet, and someone called Awkwafina. Also returning, albeit briefly include Hannibal Buress, Chistopher Mintz-Plasse, Jerrod Carmichael and the best friends Ike Barinholtz and Carla Gallo.

This is how I dress up when I want to look young.

Neighbors 2 actually does a good balance of keeping things original with appropriate call backs. The picture used right above ended up being one of the funniest scenes in the film and was entirely new and fresh material. My second and third favorite moments were both call backs to airbags. There are several great humorous scenes that really carry the film and overall make this film a good time while watching it.

But when comparing it to its predecessor, it doesn’t hold up as well. My main faults lie with the chemistry between Moretz, Clemons, and Feldstein, the leaders of the new sorority. It is practically non-existence. Yes, before the events of the film, they didn’t know each other, but most of their comedic scenes together never really feel too funny. Their logic and reasoning for wanting to create their own sorority is actually a good one. The film delivers a real message about sorority culture and the need for change. They just failed to make it funny.

Most of our humor is reserved for our old people roles and Efron, while the sorority side remains mostly serious in their own goals. It is a strange dichotomy in this movie.

And honestly, the ending tried to tie everything in a nice bow, but the solutions that were found don’t make a lot of sense when you examine it for just a few seconds.

Again, some great funny scenes in this movie, and strangely enough, some character growth, but they are unable to deliver their message while maintaining the funny throughout.

One of the main reasons to become a film reviewer is the search for the perfect film. Sure, many contenders exist, but for every person it is their own unique quest.

I for one think that the perfect film already exists, and it is called O Brother, Where Art Thou?, so the perfect film is no longer my goal. I have to get more specific now. The perfect musical. The perfect super hero film. And of course, the perfect film for the geologist in your life.

Geologists in films are all over the place. Usually they are buffoons but sometimes they can be bad asses. My two most recent good Geologist performances have to go to Adam Scott in Piranha and Paul Giamatti in San Andreas, but both arguably bad films.

So why don’t we have a well acted geologist in a well acted film? I don’t know. America has failed. We have to turn to Norway. We have to turn to The Wave (or Bølgen) to see if they can do better.

Yep, this is 100% scientifically accurate. I can confirm that this is a wave.

Geiranger is a small Finnish village right in a fjord. It is a mountain village with beautiful scenery and a giant coast. And of course, it is a dangerous place to live. No real crime of course. This is a happy place, no one is mean in Norway. But should the plates shift too much and a landslide occur, then it will cause an enormous tsunami that would wipe out most of the village in mere minutes.

That is why it is important for them to have people watching out for them. People like Kristian (Kristoffer Joner). He is good at his job, monitoring squiggles and minor movements. He is so good at his job, that he has been offered a better job in a bigger city working for an oil company. Heck yeah!

And so he is about to move out of Geiranger, his home for many years. He has raised a family here. His wife, Idun (Ane Dahl Torp) works at the hotel. He has an older boy Sondre (Jonas Hoff Oftebro) and a little girl Julia (Edith Haagenrud-Sande). But they are ready to get out and move. Until some movements start to worry Kristian. He doesn’t want to jump the gun, but with the water table dropping, he has to do more research. He was supposed to take his kids on the ferry out, but he made them stay just to get more research.

Which is bad, because shit is about to go down. Large mass is about to go down. Down into the fjord. A tsunami. And once it starts they will only have about 10 minutes to get everyone up the mountain and in shelter.

Laila Goody, Arthur Berning, and Herman Bernhoft also play geologists and Thomas Bo Larsen and Mette Agnete Horn as a couple of hotel guests. Of course, also, Fridtjov Såheim as Arvid the Geology Boss.

Fuck your hotel. This wave isn’t some bitch ass tourist. It is here to stay!

Yay Kristoffer Joner! The man who can play a geologist and seem like a normal person, like a hero. So the criteria for a bad ass geologist was definitely met, as it was just a guy who wanted to protect his friends and family.

But how about the science? For the most part, the science was also accurate and not exaggerated. A nice plus that they could keep the thrills and excitement up without going “Hollywood” with it.

But the crew themselves were a bit disappointing. They shouldn’t have had to wait til the last moment to issue the siren to warn the town. Ineptitude for the sake of moving the story along. Not that they don’t seem like competent workers, it is just that if they have one job, they should know what their numbers mean.

The movie is well shot with good practical effects. The story itself isn’t new at all either. It doesn’t mean the movie isn’t good, just not entirely groundbreaking material. Heh heh heh.

Also, I thought Ane Dahl Torp did a fantastic job.

High-Rise is another movie based on a famous book that I have never heard about before. Shit, this book came out in the 1970’s. It took forty years before a movie was made about it, despite having general praise. And it wasn’t even done by America, but the UK got involved to make this bad boy.

And that is all I knew going into it, outside of the setting. That being a single apartment tower.

That might be all I need to know too. Single apartment tower films have tended to be good lately. The Raid: Redemption and Dredd. If it is anywhere close to their level of quality, we got a trifecta here. (I’m ignoring Everly, but that is a guilty pleasure film of mine).

I named this picture “Hiddledick” and felt very proud of that fact.

High-Rise takes place in a sleek and modern UK. In fact, it takes place in a new apartment tower that has all the commodities. There is a school, a supermarket, a pool and a gym, a spa. On the top levels, there are nice apartments and on the bottom, well, they are more modest and common I guess.

And the film begins with Dr. Robert Laing (Tom Hiddleston) walking around in this tower, all decrepit, falling apart, full of dead bodies. Just a sneak peak. The film then goes back three months to when we moves in and life is perfect.

The tower is designed by Anthony Royal (Jeremy Irons), a great architect and meant to be the future. Laing moved there after the death of his sister, starts a relationship with a single mom (Sienna Miller) and becomes an almost father to her son (Louis Suc). Laing also befriends a low level guy with a lot of energy (Luke Evans) and his pregnant wife (Elisabeth Moss), despite the class difference.

Eventually, when residents find out that the police seem to be avoiding the tower, then changes start to occur. And you know. Laing all alone with a lot of dead bodies.

Also starring James Purefoy, Keeley Hawes, Peter Ferdinando, and Augustus Prew.

No, no, no, this shade is just all wrong.

What the hell did I just watch? I really had a hard time grasping it. I read the very detailed wikipedia outline after the fact, and it cleared up some issues, but it didn’t answer a lot of things. Was the book this vague and…weird? Probably weird at least. I just didn’t get it at all. This whole thing was probably a metaphor for something, but the film is so hard to follow that I can’t really figure it out.

Honestly, if they could have just answered the why things fell the way they did, I would have been a happy camper. But the film leaves to much up to the viewers imagination.

The film itself is shot wonderfully though. The camera use was well done and the music did a great job of guiding my feelings. The acting seemed fine for the most part, in particular I was driven towards Evans’ character the most.

High-Rise is chaotic yet slow, and a film that might require a reading of the book.