Best & Worst of 2017 - Coming Soon...with a twist

Hello everyone,

Well, it's getting close to that time of the year again when we movie critics, and movie buffs, contemplate the movies we saw during the year and pick the ones we thought were the best and the worst. Now, most critics will put together a top 10 list of the best and worst, but those who have watched my YouTube videos, or read my older reviews on my Facebook page, will know that I don't usually do that. Instead, I pick the one film I found to be the absolute best, and the one I saw to be the absolute worst, so I can spend more time and energy discussing my reasoning for my choices.

However, because I like to encourage change and seek out variety in all forms, I have decided to do something different this year with my Best & Worst list.

This year, I will be judging a few films based on one particular category leading up the aboslute best and worst. Said groups are as follows:

Best & Worst Cinematography
Best & Worst Editing
Best & Worst Directing
Best & Worst Acting
Best & Worst Writing
Best & Worst Film of the year

Over the next few weeks, I will pick a category, choose my best & worst film of said category, and write up my essay/review. So be on the lookout for them soon. I hope you enjoy reading what I come up with.

Happy Holidays,
TheNorm

Last Flag Flying - A touching drama that needed to be shorter

Based on the book of the same title by Darryl Ponicsan, the story takes place during the early days of the "War on Terror" and follows a trio of former Marines from the Vietnam war reuniting for one particular mission. One member of the team named Larry 'Doc' Shepard (Steve Carell), has lost his son while on tour in Afganistan. Devastated by his loss, Larry tracks down his old buddies Sal Nealson (Bryan Cranston) and Reverand Richard Mueller (Lawrence Fishburne) to help him take his son home. Along the way, the three of them reminisce about their own past, in particular about a specific event that has haunted them, and eventually decide to use this trip as a means of seeking closure, and also, hopefully, redemption.  

For the most part, this film is well put together. It has good dialogue, sympathetic characters, a compelling human story, and excellent commentary on military life, war, and the general hardships of being a soldier. I dare say that it is actually a better film about life as a soldier than American Sniper could ever be. The cinematography should get a special mention. Not just because of its beautiful naturalistic style, but because of the brand of camera that was used. If I may don my "Camera Geek" hat for a moment, this film was shot on a Panasonic camera. Which I am a huge fan of as I shoot my own projects on a Panasonic camera as well. It is, in my opinion, the best brand of digital cinema cameras and I hope to see more feature films shot on them. Okay, taking off my "Camera Geek" hat now. 

However, the primary flaw with this film is that it feels too long. Part of it has to do with the runtime, and also due to some repetitive scenes that could either have been shortened or rewritten entirely. My general suspicion for this is that they were trying to fit the entire book into the film. While I cannot prove this as I have not read the book, considering that the author of the book also worked on the screenplay, it seems a likely possibility. 

On the plus side, the main cast has excellent chemistry and manage to carry some of the films slower moments, In particular, Bryan Cranston, who has been given the "funny guy" role. In fact, this movie was intended to be a balance of drama and comedy to showcase the power of laughter in dire situations. Unfortunately, it would seem that they didn't really balance that idea quite enough. 

Even so, Last Flag Flying is a well made, well acted, and a well-timed story of grief, friendship, soldiers, and the effects of war on people, as well as the best ways to overcome said hardships. 

Is this movie worth seeing? 

Yes. 

Is it worth seeing in theaters? 

No. 

Why? 

It's a good drama with not enough funny moments that is best viewed at home to take a breather once in a while. 

Ladies and gentlemen, I am TheNorm, thank you all for reading. 

Justice League - Not great but not awful

The DCEU (D.C. Extended Universe) movies have not been doing very well regarding execution and quality. Ever since the release of Batman V. Superman" Dawn of Justice (BVS), a depressing, morally repugnant and mean-spirited slog of a film, which I am now officially declaring the absolute worst movie of 2016 (this includes the ultimate cut), Warner Brothers has been struggling to survive their own train wreck. The only DCEU movie that is actually any good is Wonder Woman, as that film is actually a superhero movie about heroics, having the courage and desire to help people and the power of love. Which is what all superheroes are ultimately about in some shape or form. After all of that, I still had no faith in the Justice League movie.

Regular readers of my blog will remember my essay on the production woes of Justice League, so rather than recap the issues here in this review, I will instead kindly direct you to the said article below for more details. The short version is that the Justice League underwent a truck ton of last minute changes, creative differences, and massive tonal shifts, that nothing about the film's creation made the movie itself sound even remotely promising. So, imagine my surprise when I went to the theater to see a late night showing of Justice League, and found myself...enjoying it. Really, no kidding, I watched the whole film, massive flaws and all, and I still found myself laughing, smiling, and having a pretty good time. Furthermore, I strongly suspect that the main reason for said enjoyment was the lack of Zach Snyder's ill-advised guidance. More on that in a moment.

The story takes place about a year or so after the events of BVS as the whole world mourns the loss of Superman, while Batman is preparing for an upcoming mighty threat foreshadowed in said previous movie, by building up a team of other superheroes to combat it. His journey leads him to recruit The Flash, Aquaman, and Cyborg, who all side with him and Wonder Woman to prepare for the arrival of Steppenwolf, an evil demi-god bent on destroying and conquering the Earth. This threat turns out to be so powerful that Batman decides the best way to tackle it, is to bring Superman back from the dead so he may once again become the worlds savior, and restore hope to all humanity.

The biggest problem with this film is also, incidentally, its greatest strength. As part of Warner Brothers and DC Comics attempt to salvage their own trainwreck, one of the creative decisions made in this film is to basically pretend that BVS never actually happened, and pretend that the events leading up to this movie were entirely different and not yet chronicled. On the down-side, this is yet another example of DC Comics lousy habit of ignoring the problems they created, rather than trying to actually fix them. As such, Justice League is filled with blatant continuity errors, plot holes and tonal shifts that would otherwise make the experience annoying to sit through. On the other hand, this makes Justice League a much better film. Because by ignoring the events of BVS, the movie takes it upon itself to become a better experience with likable characters, great action sequences, and a greater understanding and appreciation for heroics and saving lives.

As I stated before, I suspect the main reason Justice League is better than it could have been, is due in large part to the absence of Zach Snyder. When Mr. Snyder had to stand down from post-production due to an unfortunate family tragedy, the reins were picked up by Joss Whedon, who was initially brought on as a co-writer for the screenplay. He then proceeded to reshoot most of the film, change the intended tone, and drastically change the color pallete. As such, while it may be impossible to determine precisely how much of the film was indeed Whedon's or Snyder's, I am of the firm opinion that Justice League is, in reality, a Joss Whedon film, and they left Zach Snyder's name in the directors credit to be polite. Which, given the circumstances, I have no objections to.

Despite this film having dramatic changes in tone, glaring continuity errors, zero pay off to the events previously depicted in BVS, and a color palette that looks more aesthetically pleasing but not well suited to the production design, Justice League is a much better film than it has any right to be. It's a DC superhero movie that better reflects what superheroes are all about, and is an excellent step in the right direction for the future of DCEU movies.

Is this movie worth seeing?
Surprisingly...yes.

Is it worth seeing in theaters?
Maybe.

Why?
While it is an excellent attempt to salvage something better out of something that was still potentially horrible, it may not be entirely good enough to justify a theater ticket.

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm, thank you all for reading.

Justice League essay

Murder on the Orient Express (2017) - All aboard in every sense of the phrase

One of the unexpected benefits of the rise of popularity for the superhero genre is it has given some filmmakers the leverage to tell more classic stories with non-superpowered characters, who are still superheroes in their respective way. Before there were characters with capes and God-like powers, there were people with talents and skills far beyond what most other people could comprehend. These were characters like Sherlock Holmes with his uncanny abilities at deductive reasoning, and Paladin (Richard Boone) from Have Gun, Will Travel with his desire for justice, profound wisdom, and lightning fast quick draw. And of course, the reason we are here today, Hercule Poirot, one of the greatest detectives in mystery fiction, making a triumphant return to the big screen thanks to one of Hollywoods real superheroes, Kenneth Branagh.

For those of you who may not already know, Hercule Poirot is the creation of Agatha Christie. An accomplished British mystery writer who has had her works adapted to the big screen many times before. You know those murder mysteries where all the suspects are placed in one room in a large mansion as the detective breaks down the events of the puzzle leading up to who the killer was? It was the works of Agatha Christie which made that famous, both in practice and in parody. Her most famous novel, Murder on the Orient Express, was adapted to the silver screen before in 1974 by Sidney Lumet. As of this writing, I have not yet seen that version, but I plan to do so very soon. Once again, I must clarify that because I have not yet read this book, I cannot attest to the films accuracy or lack thereof. As always, this is a review of the film strictly as a film.

The story takes place in the 1930s. It follows the great detective Hercule Poirot (Kenneth Branagh), a talented and skilled detective burdened with a form of obsessive-compulsive disorder which causes him to see everything that is out of place always, along with a passionate disposition for right and wrong, and delivering justice. Seeking a much-desired vacation, he boards a luxury train called The Orient Express. Also aboard the train and some colorful characters all played by accomplished actors who all get their equal time in the spotlight (more on them in a minute). As the train runs through the snowy mountains, it is struck by an avalanche and is stuck on the tracks until the repair team frees the engine from the fallen snow. Right around the same time, one of the passengers is found murdered, and Poirot is the only one who can solve the mystery and set things right once again.

Short version:

This film is wonderful. The acting is superb, the directing is on point, the cinematography is gorgeous, the editing is fluid, and it has one of the best commentaries on the human condition I have seen this year. Without going into too much more detail, I would like to take this opportunity to recommend that you see this movie immediately. Now, if you're interested to read further as to why I love this film so much, then please, by all means, read on.

Long Version:

This film was directed by Kenneth Branagh, whom I previously referred to as one of Hollywood's real superheroes. Born in Belfast and classically trained in Shakespearian theater, he made his directorial debut with his film adaptation of Henry V, which earned him Oscar nominations for directing and acting. Since then he went on to direct and star in more Shakespeare adaptations, including his most famous take on Hamlet. An unabridged four hour long epic in every way. Branagh is also no stranger to murder mysteries. In 1991 he directed and starred in a great mystery thriller titled Dead Again. Which, if you have not yet seen, please do so.

What makes Kenneth Branagh such an incredible director is that he always seems to be having fun, and it shows. His energy as an actor showcases his unique talent to put every ounce of emotion into a line regardless of if it deserves it or not. Furthermore, as a director, he has a keen eye for composition and movement. He is very fond of the long take which he uses beautifully, as every long take is full of texture and fluid flow. Almost like riding a roller coaster. It is this very sense of dominant individual style that makes this old story feel fresh, and I am so happy to see him return to the director's chair. I have missed him a great deal.

The cinematography is stunning. The film was shot in a unique format called Glorious 65mm. Which, incidentally, was the same format that Branagh used to shoot his adaptation of Hamlet as mentioned earlier. Which was also, until recently, the last film to be shot on said format. One of the benefits from Glorious 65mm is that it is a large format of cinema. As such, it is capable of recreating detail, color, and sharpness to an almost supernatural level that standard film has yet to match. In other words, if a conventional film is equivalent to color pencils, Glorious 65mm is equal to oil paint. Even though you have to see this format on a larger screen to benefit from it, I found its standard presentation still glorious.

The acting is where this film gets to shine the most. The entire cast is committed to the characters they play and is apparently having the time of their lives. Speaking personally, the two actors who stand out the most are Daisy Ridley and Leslie Odor Jr. Without spoiling anything, the two of them have a few moments and lines of dialogue that I found to be the most clever and best delivered. Also, some of the more experienced cast grace the screen with colorful performances, especially one of my all-time favorites Michelle Pfeiffer. And, of course, where would an old-fashioned murder mystery be without the tremendous and powerful Dame Judy Dench commanding everyone's full attention without uttering a single word.

Rather you have read the book or not, have seen the original 1974 adaptation or not, or have any interest in seeing a good murder mystery on the big screen this year, this is the movie you owe it to yourself to see. It is the beginning of something more beautiful down the road that I hope to see more of in the future.

Is this movie worth seeing?
Yes.

Is it worth seeing in theaters?
Yes.

Why?
It is one of the best-crafted films of the year and one that must be seen on the big screen to be fully appreciated.

Ladies and gentlemen, I am TheNorm, thank you for reading.

Two Movies for Review

1. Victoria & Abdul

Queen Victoria (Dane Judy Dench) is spending her golden years as queen lonely and bored. That is until she strikes an unexpected and deep friendship with a Muslim servant from India named Abdul (Ali Fazal), who Victoria has deemed to be her Munshi or teacher. As the two enjoy each others company, Victoria learns about Indian culture, the Koran, and all sorts of fascinating things, all while the Royal Household grows more and more uneven and impatient with the Queen for being so...unorthadox.

This film is a character study that relies mainly on the ability of its actors to carry the progression and emotional weight of the film. Fortunately, this film delivers that in spades. Dane Judy Dench brings her usual professionalism with grace, which makes Ali Fazal's performance all the more joyful to behold.

For the most part, this is a pleasant story about the value of friendship and the power of kindness. Although, it is not completely pleasant. Like most historical stories, some parts are more tragic than we would like to believe otherwise. Even so, it is a remarkable story that is welcome to the screen.

Aside from the tremendous performances throughout the film from the whole cast, there is not much else to say about the film. The writing is solid, the direction is fluid, the cinematography is pretty, the editing is coherent, and production design is appropriate. It is a well-crafted film that is worth seeing but doesn't offer anything new or unique to this particular genre or style.

Is it worth seeing?
Yes.

Is it worth seeing in Theaters?
Maybe.

Why?
While the acting is solid and the story is relevant and mostly pleasant, it doesn't offer anything else that would make it worth the price of a Theater ticket. Would personally advice waiting for video-on-demand.

2. Loving Vincent

For those of you who may not have heard of Vincent Van Gogh, he was a Dutch-born painter from the 1800s. You may recognize him as the guy who made this painting.

Vincent became known as the father of post-impressionism. He also became the figurehead for the romantic and stereotypical description of the "Artist." A depressed creative genius who was never genuinely appreciated for his work until his death. Although, many people tend to forget that Vincent's depression was likely brought on by untreated mental illness. Something that many art historians argue that Vincent was trying combat with his art. If you would like to have a rough idea of what Vincent's mind was probably like, I would personally recommend listening to the song "Starry Night" by Don McLean. A kind song about a fine artist.

The film Loving Vincent is the story of a young man named Armand Roulin (Douglass Booth) who travels to a small village in France to deliver a lost letter to Vincent Van Gogh's brother. His journey takes him to meet many of the people who knew Vincent learning about his life, his work, and his death. Making the film a kind of detective mystery as to what may have been the actual circumstances of Vincent's untimely departure.

This film can best be described as a literal work of art. As it's main attraction is that it is, to the best of my knowledge, the world's first hand-painted feature-length film. Well over 64,000 painting had been created by over 100 different artists to bring this movie to life. You can find a link to a BBC video showcasing the making of the film at the bottom of this review.

Loving Vincent is a truly one of a kind film. Every frame is just an absolute wonder to behold. From the fluidity of the movement to the methods used to recreate artifacts like motion blur. It is a film that makes one contemplate the artistic nature of film itself.

It is enough of a wonder to behold as to make me forgive the films narrative structure. The vast majority of the film is people sitting at tables talking about Vincent. Usually, a film that consists of people sitting around talking tends to get boring. Even if what the characters are talking about is genuinely exciting. Fortunately, Loving Vincent has the good sense to compensate for that by going back and forth between the present and flashbacks to past events of Vincent's life. Using two different art styles and having each flashback focus on something different.

Loving Vincent is a film that only happens once in a blue moon. If you are an art historian or just a casual fan, or even the least bit curious, you owe it to yourself to see this film. So please do so immediately.

Is this movie worth seeing?
Yes.

Is it worth seeing in Theaters?
Hell yes!

Why?
It is a remarkable and rare work of art that respectfully demands your attendance.

The making of Loving Vincent:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CQKHWvK8Ro

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm, thank you for reading.

The Foreigner - A modern tragedy

The Foreigner, based on the book The Chinaman by Stephen Leather (not at all hard to understand the title change), is the story of a Chinese/British citizen with a dark past named Quan (Jackie Chan) living in London with his teenaged daughter. One day Quan's daughter is killed in a bomb attack and a supposed splinter group of the IRA has claimed responsibility. Seeking justice, Quan approaches Liam Hennessy (Pierce Brosnan), a former leader of the IRA now turned Irish government official attempting to heal the wounds from his past. Quan asks Liam for the names of the bombers who killed his daughter, but Liam insists that he does not know their identities and is working hard to find them and bring them to justice. However, Quan does not believe in him. Therefore, Quan takes it upon himself to "encourage" Liam into giving up the names of the bombers. What ensues is a game of cat-and-mouse as Liam does his best to beat Quan at his own game, all the while trying to weave his way through the many entanglements that unravel throughout the story.

Despite what the trailers would have you believe, this film is less of an action thriller, and more of a character-driven suspense thriller with well-crafted action scenes every once in a while. That's not to say that the film isn't exciting or thrilling, far from it. Instead to say that it's a story with a lot of texture that relies upon your full attention. Hints are dropped that could be missed, characters true motivations are slowly revealed over time, and the action scenes are cleverly used to shake things up and keep the audience on their toes. Also to show off how awesome Jackie Chan still is.

Speaking of Jackie Chan, while he still gets to show off his fighting ability and stunt work in this film, he also has the opportunity to showcase his ability as an actor. Jackie carries the emotional weight of the movie surprisingly well. Considering how most of his career has been spent on fun and occasionally silly action films, where he's mostly been a kind of competent yet goofy hero, he rarely has had the chance to try something more grounded and subdued. It's a great stretch for Jackie, who pulls it off very well. Especially when he's performing opposite Pierce Brosnan. The two of them have a natural and believable chemistry that adds an air of realism to the story. It's quite visceral.

The action scenes deserve a special mention as they are pleasantly adequately photographed. More often than not, action scenes in movies are treated to what I refer to as "The Red Bull Effect". Where the action scene is shot with the hyper active shaky cam, as part of an ill-guided attempt to make the action seem more real and intense. When used too often, as it usually is, it just doesn't work. As the constant motion, along with the lack of clarity, fails to provide sufficient information for your mind to retain. This is one of the reasons it is difficult to remember most of what happens in say the Transformers movies or anything directed by Paul Greengrass. However, the action scenes in The Foreigner are beautifully stable and well choreographed. Putting it on par with the likes of Ronin and even Skyfall.

While I do recommend you see this film, as it is a genuinely good one, I'm not sure if I can honestly recommend seeing it in theaters, mainly because of the story. While it is well written, it has a lot of twists and turns that could be confusing if you missed or had forgotten a detail or two. It's not really overly complicated, as it is full of texture. Therefore, depending upon your personal preference, you may benefit from watching this movie with the availability of a pause and/or rewind button. Also, you may just want to watch Jackie Chan kick some ass a couple more times before you actually finish the film. I know I did.

Is this movie worth seeing?
Yes.

Is it worth seeing in theaters?
Maybe.

Why?
It has a great story, good action, well placed commentary, and stunning performances, but it may be a little too textured for it's own good, and may require a remote control for a more satisfying experience.

Ladies and gentlemen, I am TheNorm, thank you for reading.

Blade Runner 2049 - An unexpected and pleasant surprise

Blade Runner is a masterpiece of science fiction cinema that did not, I repeat, did not need a sequel. Regardless of which ending from whichever cut you prefer (for the uninitiated there have been seven different cuts of this film), the story leaves no unanswered questions that would warrant a sequel. And yet, over thirty years later, Warner Brothers and Sony have taken it upon themselves to make said sequel. With the Hollywood system crumbling down into mediocrity with remakes, reboots, and sequels, it's easy to assume such a movie would have no soul and only exists to set up a new cinematic universe, ala Marvel Studios, or cash in on an existing and uninterested fan base, ala Netflix's Death Note. Yet, here I am, writing this review for Blade Runner 2049, a film which, to my surprise, has surpassed all of my expectations in how unbelievably beautiful it is.

For those of you who don't know or need a quick refresher, Blade Runner was a science fiction film from 1982 that starred Harrison Ford as a police detective named Deckard and Sean Young as his love interest named Rachel. It was set in the future where robots called "Replicants" served as mechanical slave labor utilized off Planet. Any Replicant that tried to sneak its way back to Earth was sought after and executed by detectives like Deckard, who were referred to as Blade Runners. Also, as the film states, "This wasn't murder, it was called retirement." Deckard is tasked with tracking down a group of rogue replicants, which leads him down a path of self-discovery and a deeper understanding of the nature of life and love. If you have not yet seen this film, I would highly recommend you do so. Especially if you plan on seeing the new sequel, which I also suggest you do.

Blade Runner 2049 takes place thirty years after the events of the first film. It follows another Blade Runner named K (Ryan Gosling), who is sent out to investigate a mysterious body, which is somehow connected to Deckard, only to stumble upon an even stranger mystery that will change his life forever. And that is all I am prepared to tell you about the story of this film because you have to see this movie to believe it.

I have it on reliable authority that the director of Blade Runner 2049 Denis Villeneuve (more on him in a minute), specifically requested that critics not reveal story details that were not given away in the trailers. While I am not under any professional obligation to abide by this request, I do agree with Mr. Villeneuve's apparent belief that the less you know about a film before seeing it, the better of an experience it will be. Rest assured that the story of this film is one of intelligence, profound impact, and is ultimately human. So while I cannot say any more about the story, other than it is superbly written, please allow me to go in to further detail about some of the other aspects of this film that make it fantastic.

Director Denis Villeneuve, who previously directed Prisoners and Sicario, both equally well-made films, may have cemented himself as the next most celebrated filmmaker. He has an uncanny talent for telling dark and bleak stories in a way that never feels overly depressing, or difficult to swallow. He accomplishes this by offering three-dimensional characters with likable personalities and sympathetic human flaws, occasional moments of levity to raise the energy, and tends to conclude his stories in a manner that is not necessarily happy, but very satisfactory. Villeneuve's sense of pace and build up is also a great talent of his. As Blade Runner 2049, despite having a runtime of over two and a half hours, never feels slow at any point. I was so engaged with the film that when I finally looked at my watch during the end credits, I was shocked at how much time had actually passed. It was that engrossing.

The cinematography by Roger Deakins deserves a very special mention. Speaking as a cinematographer, and as a big fan of Mr. Deakins, I can comfortably say that this has to be some of his best work. The color style gives the film a sense of variety, thereby providing the film an air of visual evolution. No two scenes ever look exactly alike. The lighting style manages to capture the essence of the first film while still maintaining Deakin's signature style. The dark scenes are never too dark. No matter how little light may be at any given moment, you are never left wondering what you're looking at. Deakin's use of shadow and minimal lighting provides the film with an atmosphere of uncertainty which adds to the overall mystery. It is one of the most gorgeous looking movies I have seen all year.

The music is unusual yet appropriate. When I saw this film with my brother-in-law, we both agreed that the music was a little too aggressive and we didn't really like it. However, after some thought, we both came to the conclusion that it was intentionally uncomfortable, to enhance the mood of the film. Thankfully, I didn't find it so overwhelming as to become painful.

The acting is spot on. Everyone delivers there performances with grace and nuance. Harrison Ford reprising his role as Deckard is especially delightful. Ryan Gosling, who indeed carries the movie, is compelling and intriguing every step of the way. Furthermore, without spoiling anything, his character takes an ancient and tired cliche in storytelling and completely subverts it into something new and incredibly unexpected.

The most significant accomplishment this film bosts, however, is the fact that it is just a movie with a single story. It is not setting up a revitalization of an old franchise, it is not establishing a brand new cinematic universe for Warner Brothers and Sony to compete against Marvel with, and it is not dropping a ton of easter eggs that are building up to more movies in the future. This is arguably the best kind of sequel to Blade Runner that could have possibly been made. A new chapter that we didn't need, but can welcome with open arms. As its only goal is to tell a compelling story, and remind us all why we fell in love with movies in the first place.

I cannot recommend this movie enough. If you are a fan of the original Blade Runner, this new film will give you an experience that might surpass, if not equal, your experience prior. Just make sure to watch the "final cut" of the first movie before you go to the theater for this new sequel. Also, try not to drink too many liquids beforehand.

Is this movie worth seeing?
Yes.

Is it worth seeing in theaters?
Absolutely!

Why?
It has beautiful visuals, great characters, a compelling story, and is not afraid to take any risks.

Ladies and gentlemen, I am TheNorm, thank you for reading.