Hot Tub Time Machine 2: Oh, My Science! The Sequel To End All Sequels

It sucks.








A lot.

D-

Kingsman: The Secret Service: A Bloody Good Time

It's fair to say that James Bond is the staple of the secret agent spy genre.  It's a franchise that's been going for over fifty years.  Since then, there have been several different variations to the spy genre, several homages to the Bond/spy genre, and several parodies of the genre.  Somehow, Kingsman is a combination of all three.  It takes the already established spy genre (in an almost entirely meta fashion) and tweaked it to fit it's own story.  Then, while doing so, it is able to pay homage to the classic Bond films as well as parody all of them collectively.  The result ends up being a fast-paced, yet never unsophisticated, hilarious action romp that delivers on nearly every beat it serves.  It's fun and wildly entertaining... and that's all you can ask for when searching for a good secret agent spy film.

Based on a comic book, or graphic novel, I don't really remember or care because it's still infuriating that Hollywood is now essentially refusing to release original scripts anymore so everything has to be based on something else.  Whatever.  It's source material had pictures... I think.  Anyway, the Kingsmen are a secret spy organization based in the deepest catacombs of England.  They work on their own in the utmost secret having little to no government affliliation and are essentially modern day Knights of the round table.  Enter Galahad (Colin Firth) the top agent looking to recruit a new agent into the Kingsman to replace a fallen spy.  He chooses Eggsy (Taron Egerton), the son of a fallen spy who, 17 years prior, saved the life of Sir Galahad.  Eggsy is a troubled teen, always in trouble with the law, who still has a good heart and a likable persona.  Galahad sees potential in him and recommends him to the Kingsman society.  Most of the film is him training with other recruits in order to get the coveted position.  During the training, billionaire genius Valentine (Samuel L. Jackson) is up to something sinister, but not yet explained.  However, it's apparent that some wild shit is going to go down.  Now, without spoiling anything... yes, shit happens.  And yes... Eggsy and Galahad are involved.  But, why spoil all the fun here?  It's a blast to watch.

The best part about Kingsman is how balls out it goes.  Helmed by director Matthew Vaughn whose prior films include X-Men: First Class and Kick-Ass... this is not uncharted territory for him.  He has a style all his own and when he's free to let loose and spill as much blood as possible is when his films succeed.  Kick-Ass never would've worked as a PG-13 vehicle.  It was glorious watching a 12-year-old girl spurting heinous profanity and dismembering countless bad guys.  The same works here for Kingsman.  Yeah, it isn't nearly as graphic as Kick-Ass, but the two scenes where Vaughn channels his inner 16-year-old thirst for onscreen blood is where the movie hits its peak of fun.  It's bloody.  Oh, is it bloody.  And graphic.  And choreographed to perfection.  Those who are squeamish may want to get some more popcorn, but those who can take it are in for a treat.

Colin Firth, as always, is the most fun to watch.  He's able to bring a sophistication to the Kingsman that makes Bond even look like a hooligan.  Samuel L. Jackson is also quite good-- though the character is a little strange.  He's a madman... with a lisp (which, I'll admit, does nothing to the character, but if you can get past it, it's not so bad)... who is squeamish at the sight of blood and death.  But, it's Taron Egerton as Eggsy that really steals the show.  I'm unfamiliar with his prior work, but he's brings a troubled charm to the character that really allows the audience to sympathize with him instead become ambivalent.

There's always a red flag when a film which was supposed to come out in summer is pushed back to the next year's winter line up.  This is usually due to poor test screenings leading to substantial reshoots that do absolutely nothing to improve the quality of the overly shitty film (I'm looking right at you Seventh Son).  However, thankfully, this is not the case for Kingsman.  As far as I can tell it was pushed back to winter so that it wouldn't have to compete with the blockbuster movies of summer and have the ability to own the winter weekend when nothing but complete trash is posted on the marquee (this absolutely includes 50 Shades of Grey).  So, if you haven't been to the movies in awhile... which I'm sure is the case because there's nothing worth watching right now... this is the film to break that streak.  It's fun.  It's funny in a very tongue-in-cheek kind of way.  It's action-packed.  It's got great characters, a great story, and everything you could want to be entertained for a solid two hours.  I thoroughly enjoyed this film.

A- 

Big Peck's Cineflex Awards Edition III: Oscar Winner Predictions

So, last year I had much better luck on predicting the winners.  This is something that I'm not necessarily proud of because this means that the Academy has become that predictable.  I want to be surprised.  I want to expect the period piece drama to win and then the comedy or the horror or the low-budget, yet quirky indie movie to come out on top.  I hate the predictability that has become the Oscars.  However, this year... while the nominations were standard and not incredibly surprising... the winners of most of the categories are actually pretty hard to choose.  So, I'm going to do my best to pick what I think the old farts are going to pick for their favorites this year.

Best Picture:

American Sniper
Birdman
Boyhood
The Grand Budapest Hotel
The Imitation Game
Selma
The Theory of Everything
Whiplash

What's cool about this year is that nearly every movie nominated for Best Picture deserves to be up there.  Last year, there were some good ones and some very obvious ones, but nothing (other than Wolf of Wall Street) really stood out as a movie that would last for years to come.  This year is a different story.  There are so many good movies, so many underrated and under-seen films this year that it's honestly hard to tell what's going to win.  Seven of the eight movies could win and I wouldn't be upset with it at all.  The eighth, however,   The Theory of Everything, does NOT deserve to be among this list.  That spot should've been given to Nightcrawler.  I don't necessarily think it would've won, nor do I think Theory is going to win... but it was much more deserved than the film that took its spot.

What's Going To Win: Birdman...or...Boyhood...Um...yeah...Birdman
What Should Win: Birdman or Boyhood or Whiplash or Selma or Grand Budapest

This one is going to be tough.  It's about predicting what I think the old farts in the Academy building will select as Best Picture and not what I believe the Best Picture Winner should be.  However, hopefully that will be the same.  Birdman was my favorite film of the nominations followed very closely by Whiplash and Selma.  However, it's not a guarantee to win Best Picture.  Boyhood was gaining steam in the BP department and even won the Golden Globe.  But, Birdman has essentially won everything else.  In the past eleven years, whichever movie wins the Producer's Guild Awards for Best Picture is essentially a lock for BP.  Birdman has officially done that.  But, remember who the Academy are.  They are more likely to take a very small indie film that had a substantial story behind the movie-- the twelve years it took to film it-- and it looks like the more obvious choice.  I'm looking at history here, and of course, a little bias, but I'm going with Birdman this time around.

Best Actor:

Steve Carell (Foxcatcher)
Bradley Cooper (American Sniper)
Benedict Cumberbatch (The Imitation Game)
Michael Keaton (Birdman)
Eddie Redmayne (The Theory of Everything)

Again, any of these guys could win the Gold and I would be fine with it, but there's still someone missing.  Yeah, it's Jake Gyllenhaal.  Never did I think I'd be picketing for JG to get an Oscar.  It wasn't until Nightcrawler that I saw something truly remarkable from the kid.  I don't understand what the Academy's recent hard-on for Bradley Cooper is, but he was fine in American Sniper... but JG kicked his acting ass.  He should've been in there over Cooper.

Who's Going To Win: Michael Keaton
Who Should Win: Michael Keaton

This category is just as difficult to predict as Best Picture because it comes down to two guys, not just one.  You've got Keaton, a Hollywood staple that everyone loved, who dropped out of the limelight for years only to make a triumphant return in an amazing film while delivering a performance we haven't seen from him... maybe ever.  Then, there's the bio pic kid-- Eddie Redmayne.  I don't want to take anything away from Redmayne, he was beyond incredible in The Theory of Everything, and he's the reason that movie is even watchable.  The way he had to transform every piece of himself to become Stephen Hawking is jaw-dropping.  He could easily take the gold... and, again, these old geezers in Hollywood that vote for this category eat bio pics up.  But, they also love a good comeback.  I think Keaton's got the edge on this one.

Best Actress:

Marion Cotillard (Two Days One Night)
Felicity Jones (The Theory of Everything)
Julianne Moore (Still Alice)
Rosamund Pike (Gone Girl)
Reese Witherspoon (Wild)

It's nice to see Rosamund Pike get a nomination for Gone Girl even though it was my favorite movie of the year (which actually now might be second favorite to Whiplash... don't quote me on this shit... I'm a fickle critic).  But the rest... well, not to take anything away from these extraordinary actresses... but I'm not sure anyone actually cares who wins this one.

Who's Going To Win: Julianne Moore
Who Should Win: Reese Witherspoon

This is also a little bit biased because I haven't actually seen Still Alice and I actually have zero desire to watch it.  Watching someone, a linguistics teacher no less, begin to start losing themselves slowly to Alzheimer's is not exactly my idea of a good time.  I've seen the trailer a few times and Moore looks pretty good in it, and I've read that she's actually marvelous, but I actually saw Wild and let me tell you Reese Witherspoon's performance is something to behold.  Moore probably deserves it, but from what I saw from RW... man, that would be cool if she got some recognition for it.

Best Supporting Actor:

Robert Duvall (The Judge)
Ethan Hawke (Boyhood)
Edward Norton (Birdman)
Mark Ruffalo (Foxcatcher)
J.K. Simmons (Whiplash)

Robert Duvall may be my favorite actor on that list and who knows how much time he's got left being one of the most underrated actors of many generations.  I love that man and I tip my hat to the Academy for recognizing him in a role he deserved to be recognized for.  Give that man all the awards to everything.  He's one of my favorites truly.  But......... yeah, he's not going to win.

Who's Going To Win: J.K. Simmons
Who Should Win: J.K. Simmons

Yeah, hands down, no question is J.K. Simmons going to win this year.  And good for him.  He's another under-appreciated actor in Hollywood who was relegated to character acting, quirky fathers, and insurance commercials.  Not until Whiplash did we get to see the reason J.K. Simmons is actually employed on a regular basis in Hollywood.  There's no one else on this list that even stands a chance.  And if you still haven't seen Whiplash then you don't know why I'm claiming this as a 100% lock to win, but those of you who have... you probably haven't even read this far because you're already in agreement with me... you don't even need an explanation.

Best Supporting Actress:

Patricia Arquette (Boyhood)
Laura Dern (Wild)
Kiera Knightley (The Imitation Game)
Emma Stone (Birdman)
Meryl Streep (Into The Woods)

Hey, look everyone, it's the annual obligatory Meryl Streep nomination.  Don't get me wrong here, I love everything about Meryl Streep, but Jesus, can we help anyone else out the way we help out Meryl???  To me, actually, the supporting actress category isn't all that hard to figure out and it isn't all that impressive, either.  I mean, Kiera Knightley?  Really?  She wasn't bad in her role, she just didn't... do... anything in the movie.  Laura Dern... yeah, she cries a little and dies a little... but anyone could've done it.  I'm actually pretty happy to see Emma Stone on the list.  She was a little spark plug in Birdman and it's about time she's getting noticed.

Who's Going To Win: Patricia Arquette
Who Should Win: Uh.... Patricia Arquette?

I mean, yeah, sure she was good and giving twelve years of your life to one project is a lot of effort most people wouldn't put into something, but she did.  It's just that while watching Boyhood I never stepped back and went, "damn! Patricia Arquette is killing it!"  She was good, but she's got that high pitched whiny voice like someone still hasn't told her that she's a legit actress people pay money to see.  So, I don't know...  I mean, she was good... I guess she should win... Not a real strong year for supporting actresses I suppose.  God, you guys think I'm a total douche misogynist don't you?  Get your own blog and bitch about it.

Best Director:

Wes Anderson (The Grand Budapest Hotel)
Alejandro G. Inarritu (Birdman)
Richard Linklater (Boyhood)
Bennett Miller (Foxcatcher)
Morten Tyldum (The Imitation Game)

Fuck you Academy.  Fuck you so hard for this.  This is some really messed up shit you pulled with the director category here.  You're going to purposefully and knowingly NOT nominate Ava DuVernay for Selma even though you have it nominated for Best Picture, but instead give it to Bennett freaking Miller whose movie ISN'T EVEN NOMINATED FOR BEST PICTURE!!!  That is some cold shit, Academy.  Like, unforgivable shit.

Who's Going To Win: Richard Linklater
Who Should Win: Richard Linklater

My instinct tells me that I should go with Inarritu because of the ambition he had when filming Birdman as one continuous shot... but Linklater saw that ambition and raised it eleven extra years.  What Linklater did was stunning.  He committed to a twelve year project, never letting it fade out and put together a comprehensive and amazing film.  He had to constantly re-write the script, be constantly updating the times of this boy to when he was filming.  The number of ways he should've failed is exponential, but instead he actually filmed a boy growing up and it had something to say.  Like Birdman, Boyhood was not a novelty of a film and either director could win it... Linklater should.

Best Animated Feature:

Big Hero 6
The Boxtrolls
How To Train Your Dragon 2
Song of the Sea
The Tale of Princess Kaguya

You stabbed me in the back with the DuVernay snub, Academy, but you're twisting it so much by completely freaking ignoring The Lego Movie.  Are you serious??  I don't care what kind of weird japanese anime crap film you thought was bold and beautiful... there's no way either of the two last movies were as close to as funny or as poignant as The Lego Movie.  I'm starting to think you guys are just dicks.

What's Going To Win: How To Train Your Dragon 2
What Should Win: The Lego Movie

Who cares?  It's not The Lego Movie.

Other Predictions:

Best Original Screenplay:
What's Going To Win: The Grand Budapest Hotel
What Should Win: The Grand Budapest Hotel

Best Adapted Screenplay:
What's Going To Win: Whiplash
What Should Win: Whiplash

How Many Categories I'm Going To Pick Correctly:
I'm Going To Get: 3/9
How Many I Should Get: 9/9

Consesus:

While it didn't feel like an overly extraordinary year for film, the movies and performances recognized for the best in their field is certainly much better.  Save for neglecting Nightcrawler, The LEGO Movie, Gone Girl, and Ava DuVernay (you racist bastards!) it's a pretty exciting year for film awards.  At least, unlike the last few years, there aren't as many bland movies.  They're movies that folks actually want to talk about that actually mean something and have something to say.  The last few years have been a bunch of The Theory of Everything's and it's been kinda boring to watch the obvious choices to win.  I know the picks here are still a little obvious (I mean, clearly, Grand Budapest isn't going to just sneak by and win Best Picture), but at least there's still a little excitement when it comes to which two of the list are going to win the battle... or is it the war?  Eh... go watch The LEGO Movie... or Whiplash.    

Whiplash: Full Metal Drums

Whiplash is a phenomenal film.  That's it.  That's the review.  So, now, you can stop reading, find out if it's playing anywhere near you, get out to a theater and see this movie.  It's brilliant.  Convinced yet?  Go!  Get out.

Okay, now that we've gotten rid of the stragglers who are behind on seeing the movie, we can talk about it.  How great was Whiplash?  What an unexpected surprise being able to watch a movie in January or February that wasn't pure garbage.  It is a character driven movie, but it is so well directed that it comes as close to a perfect film as one could ask for, especially around awards season.  I especially loved Birdman and Selma, but if Whiplash somehow rose from the darkness to take the Best Picture gold, I would fine with that too.  I don't know how many of you felt this way before, but when I saw the trailer for Whiplash months ago, I though it looked like boring indie crap.  I really like JK Simmons, but I'm especially adverse to Miles Teller.  I've seen the dude in two movies (Project X and 21 and Over) and he seems like an Apatow-reject wannabe.  True, I haven't yet seen The Spectacular Now, but I have seen the preview for That Awkward Moment which only solidified my dislike for him as an actor.  However, now that I've seen Whiplash, I may have a newfound respect for the kid.  What I'm trying to say is that Whiplash is a powerhouse of a film that everyone and anyone should see.  It's that good.

Whiplash, for those who aren't privy yet, tells the story of Andrew (Teller) a first year music major at Shaffer Conservatory Music school, the top music school in the country.  Terence Fletcher (Simmons), the head of the studio band (the top tier class at the school) discovers Andrew and invites him to sit second chair in his band class, to which Andrew graciously accepts.  He's aware that if he succeeds in this class he will be what he aspires to be above anything else: the greatest drummer there ever was.  While in Fletcher's class, Andrew, as well as the rest of the students are physically and emotionally abused in order to be pushed beyond their limits as musicians.  He slings insults and profanity at the students quicker, wittier, and faster than the Drill Sargent in Full Metal Jacket.  He's a mean son-of-a-bitch that truly believes he can make someone the best if he forces them to reach far beyond their grasp... but it's not exactly effective.  The rest of the film plays out as a battle of student vs. teacher, good vs. evil... sort of.  I won't ruin it for those who have yet to see it, but the end is something magnificent that is truly groundbreaking in film.

It's not exactly a happy film either.  No one is happy in it.  Andrew strives so hard to be the best that he ostracizes everyone around him.  He has no friends, he's lost his girlfriend, and he practices so hard to impress his teacher that he drums his hands bloody every night.  His father, played by the very underrated Paul Reiser is a very simple character and works as a foil to Andrew's dream and eventual self-destruction.  His father is a simple man who enjoys being a high school teacher and going to the movies every week with his son.  He's the simplicity of America that Andrew strives to be above.  There's hardly any humanity in Fletcher whatsoever, and even when there are glimmers of humanity in him, you find yourself wondering if they're genuine or not.  The film is a discussion on what it takes to be the best at something.  Is being the best worth selling your soul to the Devil?  Andrew somewhat answers this question.

The true praise of the film goes absolutely to JK Simmons who delivers one of those performances that will stand the test of time.  It's a performance that will be remembered and compared to for years to come.  He's absolutely brilliant as the menacing Fletcher.  He's got a aura of grim reaper surrounding his appearance, the veins in his head burst out during his diatribes, and he could be considered as one of the most devilishly evil characters in film... like Nurse Ratchet evil... it's not as apparent as most movie villains... it's a subtle evil that takes time to flesh out.  Miles Teller shows that after a few terrible films, the kid actually has acting chops.  You root for him, but you're not entirely sure if you should.  You enjoy every scene of Simmons chewing out his students because you're waiting to see what crazy shit will come out of his mouth and at the same time you're terrified of him.  He's the perfect balance of subtle and crazy that makes him a very complex and brilliant character, as well as an actor.  If he doesn't win the Best Supporting Actor award (which he will) it will be a disservice to film and acting in general.

The movie will be out to rent or purchase in the next couple of weeks.  See it as soon as you can because this is one movie that is not to be missed.

A

A Most Violent Year: A Misleading Title, A Great Film

I would encourage anyone who hasn't heard of this film to NOT look up a trailer for the film and not pay too much attention to the title. What the trailer will lead you to think is that this is an indie-version of what a great Scorsese mob movie would be in the 90s.  It leads the viewer to believe that there is going to be a lot of violence, and backstabbing, and craziness... when this isn't the case at all.  I was one who thought this is what the movie was going to be.  A lot of times when I'm mislead by a trailer and a title, I walk away disappointed and underwhelmed.  Thankfully, once I figured out that what I was watching wasn't even close to what I was expecting... I was able to sit back and enjoy the ride and walk away with a different, yet positive feeling about the film.

Classified as a crime drama (and there's certainly more drama than crime), A Most Violent Year tells the story of Abel Morales (Oscar Isaac) an immigrant in America in 1981 trying to thrive in his heat oil business-- one of the most corrupt industries of the time.  Abel looks like your typical movie mobster, complete with trophy wife, Anna (Jessica Chastain). However, what separates Abel from the rest of the industry is that he prides himself in running an honest business.  Unfortunately for Abel, he owes a lot of money on the property and rival companies are hiring outsiders to hijack his trucks, beat his drivers, and steal his gas, which, in turn, ruins any chances at a profit.  To add insult to injury, the D.A. (Selma's David Oyelowo) is putting together a case to indict Abel on criminal corruption charges.  The movie follows Abel fighting for his business and his family.  He actively tries to save his business by finding out who is hijacking his trucks as well as figuring out how to make money in order to to not lose his plant.

We, as moviegoers, have been indoctrinated so far into the crime genre that we expect everything to go wrong for Abel (which it does) until he can no longer be the honest business man that he is and he resorts to violence. However, this is not the case.  While we wait for Abel's "true colors" to come out, he is legitimately an honest man getting screwed.  His wife, who threatens to get her father and brother involved (we can assume they are members of organized crime), is the scariest figure in the entire film.  She's nearly emotionless and way more frightening than Abel or anyone perpetrating the crimes against him.  I sat there waiting for her to exact her revenge to make it a most violent year, but it never happens.  She's able to brilliantly bring menace to the tone of the film, but never has to use any of it.  And, while it may sound like I'm painting the movie in an unflattering and uninteresting light, the film is far from that.  It's almost more interesting watching Abel trying to figure out how to get his life and family and business back on track without having to resort to violence.  It's a beautifully crafted, and wildly original film.

It's a damn shame that Jessica Chastain was overlooked for an Oscar for her role in the film because she is incredible.  The film itself will keep you just a little bit nervous at all times, any scenes she's present in that nervous feeling elevates.  She's not an intimidating looking woman, but she wears intimidation on her person with ease.  Oscar Isaac is slowly working his way into becoming a very popular actor.  We already know he's got immeasurable talent from performances in Drive and Inside Llewyn Davis, but I'm sure by the end of this year after this film and the new Star Wars film, he will be a recognized (and deserved) A-lister.  We can expect great things from him.

The film's title refers to the year 1981 which was factually one of the most violent years in New York City's history.  And while the film only shows a tiny aspect of that... don't expect the kind of Goodfellas, Casino, The Departed kind of violence you may be used to.  It's still a nerve-wrecking ride that's just as fun as the aforementioned films.  By the end, while you may have wanted a scene where all the men screwing Abel and his family gunned down by suited-up mobster thugs, you'll realize that A Most Violent Year doesn't suffer from its lack of violence, but inherently succeeds because of it.

A

Inherent Vice: A Quirky, Strange, Funny, Esoteric Ride

Inherent Vice will not be for everyone.  In fact, the film will only appeal to the select few outside arthouse snobs, indie-pioneers, and Paul Thomas Anderson devotees.  It's a journey an audience must have a lot of patience for.  A lot of patience.  Fiddle with your phone or whisper to your neighbor for even a second and you will become lost in the intricacies of the plot-- one that on the surface doesn't seem very difficult to follow at first, and then finally becomes a web so delicately strung and interwoven that all hope of following everything that happens perfectly to the end becomes impossible.  I knew going into it that I was going to have to pay close attention.  I knew this because I am familiar with every piece of work that Paul Thomas Anderson has released and I'm familiar with the complex writing of Thomas Pynchon.  In fact, I was following the story very close up until just before the two hour mark of the movie when all Hell broke loose and I couldn't tell you what in the hell happened in the last half hour.

A plot description may be a little difficult to explain and to those already planning to see the film, a bit unnecessary, but here's the sparknotes of the sparknotes version.  Joaquin Phoenix plays Doc, a quirky private investigator who, in the first fifteen minutes of the film, is roped into several cases at once by many different characters.  First, there's his ex-girlfriend who shows up at his house asking him to help stop a plot by her boyfriend's wife--and her boyfriend-- of putting Doc's ex-girlfriend's current millionaire, land-developer boyfriend away into a nuthouse and subsequently give all of his millions away.  Confused yet?  Then, there's Michael K. Williams showing up and asking Doc to help him track down a white supremacist he knew in jail that still owed him money.  And finally Jenna Malone asks Doc to find her dead husband (Owen Wilson) who is sorta confirmed dead, but she knows really isn't.  All of these cases coincide with Doc's original "find the millionaire" case.  Then, to add a cherry on top, Doc is constantly harassed by local police officer 'Bigfoot' (Josh Brolin) in helping to solve and even question his involvement with the cases.  Still confused?

The set up for these cases happen pretty organically and are explained fully.  But the further and further Doc gets into the cases the more weird shit happens, the more characters pop up that were barely introduced, if at all.  The original cases are put aside and more and more weird shit behind the case and different from the case emerge and suddenly you find yourself lost wondering what the point of the entire film even was.  Now, this might just be me.  My attention span may have gotten the better of me and someone with more brain capacity than I may be able to follow the story easily, but for the average movie goer, the journey will be frustrating one.

However, no matter how lost I got in the plot and the characters, I still found myself enjoying the film immensely.  It's a very funny film.  Joaquin Phoenix, for all his strangeness and irregularities as an actor, can play quirky quite well.  His comedic chops were briefly shown to us in Signs as he played the quirky brother and comic relief.  Since then, his roles have become wrapped in quirk, and it's something that he's mastered.  He's a great actor... and a great actor with a sense of humor is hard to find.  Most of the other minor characters show up only once, maybe twice but lend their own brand of humor and weirdness to an already strange script.  Each character's nuance only strengthens the story and pleasure most fans will have watching the film.  Josh Brolin, once again, steals every scene he is in.  He's a tough cop, with a hard exterior, who wants to be an actor, and is constantly emasculated by his wife.  He's a complex character with very humorous results.  But, Doc is the one that the audience will fall in love with.  It's the drug-fueled 70s and Doc is rarely seen without a joint in his mouth.  He's bizarre and a bit dim-witted, but he's not dumb, and he knows how to research and solve a case.

Paul Thomas Anderson treats Inherent Vice like a cross between Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and The Big Lebowski in the sense that the more drugs Doc is on the stranger and more hard to follow the story becomes.  And much like Lebowski, Doc is in every single scene of the film.  PTA has never been known as a conventional director.  This is evident in his past work (Magnolia, There Will Be Blood, The Master, Punch-Drunk Love, etc.).  And there is nothing un-PTA about Inherent Vice, but like I said, it is going to frustrate most viewers to the point of giving up all hope in figuring out what happened in the last half hour.  The best part about PTA, though, is that you don't have to understand everything that's going on to enjoy the film and that's how I felt about this film.  By the end I was piecing together everything in order to try to make a coherent picture and I just couldn't, but I still really enjoyed the film.

B

Taken 3: The De-Evolution Of A Badass Character

The first review I ever did that was published in any sort of public medium was for the newspaper when I was at UCR.  It was of the first Taken film.  I was overly harsh on the film because I didn't know how beautiful it was at the time.  It was a little hokey with good action, but no central villain.  So, I gave it a C.  Now, however, I wish I could go back and praise the hell out of it.  Having seen its two sequels, I now understand how wrong I was and how much of a gem the first Taken was.  This new installment shouldn't even be a Taken sequel.  Sure, let Liam Neeson run from the cops for awhile and avenge his wife's death towards the end.  That's cool.  But, it's not a Taken movie.  It's a different movie.  A Taken movie has a very different formula, one that isn't Taken 3.

Let me just put this out there right now-- remember the first movie?  Do you remember why it was so awesome?  Because Liam Neeson kills EVERYONE.  He'd go into a room with some guys and by the time he left the room, everyone who was in that room is dead.  Then he'd go to another room and by the time he left that room everyone would be dead.  The first Taken is just Liam Neeson going from a series of room to room killing everyone around him, in very brutal ways.  The second and third movies decided against doing that.  That's why we all loved the first movie so much because Neeson just killed people.  Hell, he even shoots an innocent woman in the arm to get her husband to give up information.  He was a bonafide badass.  Where is that Bryan Mills?  What happened to him?  I mean, in Taken 3 he probably kills MAYBE nine people.  That's it.  Nine. Bryan Mills doesn't kill nine people.  Bryan Mills kills EVERYONE.  If you are in a Taken movie and you're not his wife and kid... you die.  That's it.  Plain and simple.  Don't mess with the formula!

So, Bryan Mills' wife is killed.  He's framed for it.  He needs to escape the police, save his daughter, and figure out who killed his wife to clear his name and kill them a lot.  While the police chasing Bryan may be a cool adventure/action flick for a different franchise, it kinda blows here.  Not because it's not fun watching Neeson outsmart Forest Whitaker, but because Mills is also a good guy so he can't kill other good guys.  We know he won't kill cops, so the first hour is just a lot of him running, them chasing, and us waiting for him to kill someone. Neeson doesn't kill anyone for the first hour... the first HOUR of a Taken film.  What the hell's the matter with you?

The other part that sucks is that the film is incredibly PG-13.  Somehow the first Taken was able to transcend the PG-13 rating and be one of the most violent movies I've ever seen without showing a single drop of blood.  It wasn't bloody, it was just brutal.  But the two since then have been so PG-13 they border on boring... this one especially.  The deaths are all offscreen and none of them are even close to as brutal the deaths of the first film.  I thought each sequel was supposed to up the ante even further?  Instead, they've gotten more and more wimpy as the series goes on.  (NINE PEOPLE!).  I mean, my God, the wife has her throat slit and when we see her body, there's no cut or blood or anything.  She just looks like she's sleeping.  It's lame.  I can't even remember a satisfying death in the film that stuck out to me like so many do from the first film.

Taken got a bad rap from me the first time around because I don't think I was quite ready to believe Liam Neeson as an action star at that point.  It was one of his first, if not his first action movie.  It was good, not great.  But, as the sequels come out the more I appreciate everything the first Taken was.  This new one was just bad.  That isn't to say it's not fun watching Liam Neeson do ANYTHING, it's just not a Taken movie.  It's not.  It's the wimpy third cousin.  Neeson is watchable through anything, but he's just not as badass in this.  The writing and directing quality has gone severely down.  Neeson should be given higher quality revenge films, movies like The Equalizer or John Wick.  Both of which are great films that Neeson could've starred in and they would've been just as good.  Taken 3 is nothing you need to see right away, or at all.  There's nothing new to the franchise and he only kills nine people.  Watch the first twelve minutes of Taken one where he kills double that and you'll be more satisfied.

C-