It seems like movies based on tragic, real life events are a dime a dozen nowadays. Take a real life tragedy, put in a couple of vaguely likeable but not overly defined characters, one asshole that may or may not have actually been relevant to the story and strap the ‘based on a true story’ title card on the front and you’ve got a drama/thriller sure to make audiences and critics shrug and say ‘I guess this could be made into a movie’. It seems like practically any real life story or tragedy that has even decent cinematic potential is being crafted into a film. And this can be fine, if the events that movies are being made out of have enough substance. Enter Deepwater Horizon, a film based on the biggest oil spill in the history of the world. Did this tragic real life story have enough weight to carry a full film? No, not really.
​
The movie follows the malfunction of the Deepwater Horizon, an oil rig owned by BP that exploded in April of 2010. Mike Williams (Mark Wahlberg) is a worker who leaves his wife (Kate Hudson) and daughter to help inspect the Deepwater Horizon. He is accompanied by Andrea Fleytas (Gina Rodriguez) and Jimmy Harrell (Kurt Russell), the installation manager on the rig. When Williams and the rest of the inspection crew arrive, they find out that some of the safety tests have not been conducted, and Harrell demands that the inspections be conducted before the rig operates. After the tests indicate a build-up of dangerous pressure may be happening within the rig, Donald Vidrine (John Malkovich), a well site leader from BP, claims that the problems are minor and demands the rig operate anyway. Unfortunately, a catastrophic failure causes an explosion that destroys the rig and forces everyone on board to fight for their lives.

While this description may make the movie seem like it has enough going on to be entertaining throughout, my main problem with the movie stems from the fact that the story doesn’t have enough substance to keep my attention for too long. When making a movie about a natural or man-made disaster, either the characters and their struggles have to be interesting enough to carry the film or conflict has to come from somewhere other than the disaster itself. The movie does not do a good job at addressing either of these possibilities. The characters (expect for one that I’ll get to in a second) are pretty bland, and do little more than make witty comments, use oil drilling jargon or scream over the sounds of the exploding rig. There is little in the way of character development, which is probably due to their being based on real people.

The exception to the overall boring characters is in the movie’s villain, Malkovich’s Vidrine, who is so over-the-top that it’s hard to imagine that this person actually exists. This somewhat addresses the issue of creating more conflict in the movie, but Malkovich feels so unrealistic in his portrayal of the character that it ends up funnier than it is sinister. And while the movie does manage to pick up in the second act, with some really good visuals and excellent sound work as the rig collapses and the crew struggles to get off, it is the lack of caring about the people who are in danger that makes the movie fall flat.

And that’s why it seems like this movie wasn’t really going to work regardless of who directed and starred in it. While the story had a lot of weight in the real world, that didn’t necessarily mean it would translate well to a movie. A movie can’t survive solely on its premise having been in the limelight in the real world. Without having the characters or cinematic twists and turns that help other movies thrive, Deepwater Horizon left me feeling as though a movie about the famous oil spill was completely unnecessary. It’s one of those instances where watching a documentary about the events would be far more interesting than watching the actual movie. While the final product isn’t bad, per se, it’s definitely nothing worth rushing to see.

Grade: C

Tim Burton is a filmmaker who, like Quentin Tarantino and Wes Anderson, has developed a very distinctive style over the years he has been active in Hollywood. The worlds he constructs arounds his movies possess both a childlike whimsy and a deeply macabre tone. This trademark stylization has produced a number of excellent films, such as Edward Scissorhands, Sweeney Todd, and the 1989 incarnation of Batman. However, it has also produced some notable flops, such as the lackluster Dark Shadows and the commercially-successfully but critically-underwhelming Alice in Wonderland. Burton’s latest film, Miss Peregrine’s Home for Peculiar Children, doesn’t quite reach the levels of Burton’s best films, but it is an enjoyable and decently-made movie. 

When Jake Portman (Asa Butterfield; Hugo and Ender’s Game) was growing up, his grandfather (Terrence Stamp) used to tell him stories of a place he lived as a young man. On a small island off the coast of Wales there was a home full of “peculiar” children- a girl who was lighter than air, a boy with a hive of bees living inside him, and even a boy who was completely invisible. As he grew up, Jake eventually stopped believing in his grandfather’s stories, believing it was his way of dealing with life after being forced to flee the Nazis in World War II. But when Jake finds his grandfather dead, with his eyes removed from their sockets, he begins to wonder if the old stories were actually true. Convincing his father (Chris O’Dowd) to take him to the island, he discovers that not only are the children in the stories real but that they and their caretaker –Miss Peregrine (Eva Green)- need his help.
​
Now, the first thing to note about Miss Peregrine’s Home for Peculiar Children is that, unlike much of Burton’s previous work, it is aimed primarily at older children and young adults. Burton’s spooky style has always seemed liable to give young children nightmares, and this film is no exception. In fact, I’m quite surprised the MPAA granted it a PG-13 rating considering the amount of (fairly graphic) violence portrayed in the film. But beyond Burton’s ghoulish style, the film mostly adheres to the standard tropes of young-adult adventure movies.

Now, I know some of you groaned internally when I use that phrase (and not without good reason). However, MPHFPC is separated from the flood of bad to mediocre Hunger Games rip-offs by several important points. First and most importantly, the film has a very strong cast. Asa Butterfield ably plays the young lead, even if he has lost some of the childish charm he displayed in Scorsese’s Hugo. He is complemented by another young cast member, Ella Purnell, who is quite charming even if she didn’t blow me away like when I first saw her in Wildlike. Eva Green is a delight to watch as the motherly caretaker of the peculiar children, especially because she seems to get a lot of villainous roles. And finally, Samuel L. Jackson portrays the film’s antagonist, Mr. Barron. He, entertainingly enough, seems to have decided to play a villain I can only describe as “exasperated and annoyed” rather than a classically “evil” villain. 

In addition, the film’s visuals are a treat for the eyes. Burton’s attention to detail, color, lighting, and all the props on set is not surprisingly but always wonderful to see. Burton, in like all his other works, crafts a strange little world that we can visit for a couple of hours. But if the film has a weak point it would have to be the plot. The story draws inspiration from the likes of well-known fantasy works like Harry Potter and also bits which are reminiscent of the superhero genre here and there; in short, the story feels too derivative of other works. Plus, the film’s plot involves a certain amount of time travel, which is neither sufficiently explained nor allowed to be glossed over a la Looper, which left me struggling to make sense of certain plot points. Although whether these problems stem from Burton, Jane Goldman (the screenwriter) or the book the film is based on is unclear. 

Overall, while not quite up to the standards of Tim Burton’s masterpieces, Miss Peregrine’s Home for Peculiar Children is a pleasantly entertaining, charming, and at times very creepy fairytale. I don’t expect it will ever be looked upon in the same light as Edward Scissorhands or Sweeny Todd, but if you like fantasy and/or Burton’s signature macabre stylings you could certainly do a lot worse.

Grade: B-

The bad comedy is quite possibly the worst cinematic burden that any viewing audience might have the displeasure of bearing. Because comedies usually don’t have much in the way of interesting cinematography, visual spectacle or distracting action and special effects, they rely solely on the power of their humor to keep audiences hooked. Thus, bad comedies have no way of distracting you from the fact that the jokes aren’t landing, leaving the audience floundering for something to occupy themselves that isn’t the mess happening on screen in front of them. Masterminds is one of those movies, a film whose lack of understanding about what makes a movie funny left me wishing it had stayed in the development hell that it was trapped in for the past year.
​
Masterminds, which is apparently based on a true story, follows David (Zach Galifianakis), the driver of an armored vehicle in the late 1990’s. David, a gullible and quite stupid man, fantasizes about having more adventure in his life, which comes true for him when his old co-worker and love interest Kelly (Kristen Wiig) asks him to help her rob the company he works for. David agrees, but is eventually forced to flee to Mexico where he is hunted by an assassin (Jason Sudeikis) and struggles to get back home.

The movie is painfully unfunny, trying to succeed purely on gross, stupid humor. And not the good kind of stupid humor, like Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure or Wet Hot American Summer, which uses satire and extremely over-the-top humor to keep everything entertaining. This movie merely shoves unfunny crap at the screen and hopes it sticks, seeming like the majority of the jokes were things that would work much better on a playground than in a movie. There is a two or three second shot of David putting talcum powder on his taint. There is a scene where he gets Montezuma’s Revenge and has diarrhea in a pool. The movie is entirely these kind of jokes, with no support behind it to make it funny.

What doesn’t help is that none of the actors in this movie have any chemistry or charisma, hindering the already terrible jokes to the point of being practically unbearable. I’m already not a fan of either Galifianakis or Wiig, but their chemistry is so bad that I doubt anyone who actually likes there work would enjoy the performances either. The rest of this film’s comedic talent, which includes Owen Wilson, Jason Sudeikis, Kate McKinnon and Leslie Jones, are given nothing to work with, falling as flat as the two leads. I chuckled once, at a joke Leslie Jones’s character makes, where she says David looks like a cross between Kenny Rogers and Kenny Loggins. Yes, that was the only joke that made me smile. I was desperate.

I went into this movie not having seen a single trailer for it, hoping that perhaps I would be surprised by a quality comedy or at least unfazed by a mediocre one. I walked out feeling like I’d just been robbed, not of my money but of my time. There is nothing of value here, just a series of crude and immature circumstances strung together in an effort to get a laugh. Don’t go see this movie. Sit at home and watch anything else.

Grade: F

​According to European folklore, the stork is responsible for bringing babies to new parents. The legend is very ancient, but was popularised by a 19th-century Hans Christian Andersen story called The Storks. German folklore held that storks found babies in caves or marshes and brought them to households in a basket on their backs or held in their beaks. The babies would then be given to the mother or dropped down the chimney. Households would notify when they wanted children by placing sweets for the stork on the window sill. From there the folklore has spread around the world.

Now isn't that a wonderful story. However, this isn’t what the storks do anymore. Or at least that is how the story of Storks starts. The storks have now moved on to the business of delivering packages (beware Amazon!) and they have a star employee, Junior (voiced by Andy Samberg). But things take a turn as one lonely kid’s wish leads to an unexpected delivery request : A baby. To maintain his reputation and smooth functioning of the business, Junior must deliver the child without anyone knowing.

​If I were to use one word to describe this movie and the audience's reaction to it, it would be “Awwww...” Yes, this movie is about (literally) delivering a baby and is overflowing with cuteness. It can definitely stand against those puppy videos that you love watching on YouTube and never get tired of. But I’m sure you wouldn’t want to pay hard-earned money to travel to a theatre and watch cute babies. Well, let me tell you that this movie is about a lot more. In fact, I was surprised to see how the movie squeezes family issues, abandonment, family bonding, emotional attachment and more into a fun-packed delivery mission. The movie is written and directed by Nicholas Stoller (Neighbors, Forgetting Sarah Marshall), who is known for work on comedies. Storks is his debut into the world on animation and surprisingly he nailed it.

Once in a while comes a movie that surpasses your imagination. A movie that delivers something that is unexpected by the audience, in a pleasing way. In a year full of sequels, Storks proves that it is originality and imaginativeness that make for a great movie going experience. It will melt your heart, make you laugh and remind you why you love your family. So don’t miss this animated adventure and spend some quality time with family at your nearest theatre.

Grade: B+/A-

I have been writing reviews for this blog for a pretty long time now, and by now I feel like I’ve seen a little bit of everything. I’ve reviewed everything from incredibly anticipated blockbusters to the most obscure of independent films. I’ve covered dramas, comedies, sci-fi films, horror flicks, superhero movies, and pretty much anything else I can think of. But one thing I haven’t done before is writing a review of a film based around a highly controversial political issue. Such is the case with Snowden, a dramatization of the events which lead to Edward Snowden releasing secret government information to the public. 

Now, most likely almost everyone in America has formed their opinion of Edward Snowden by now. If you see him as a hero and believe that his actions were just, then this movie will likely reinforce that opinion in your mind. If you think he is a traitor… well, than you probably won’t be going to this movie anyway. Snowden was created by Oliver Stone, a director known for his very vocal political beliefs. Although compared to some of Stone’s previous work his bias is comparatively subtle, at least until the last half an hour or so. 

The eponymous role is played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt (Inception, Looper), and I must admit it took a while for his interpretation of Snowden to grow on me. He altered his voice in order to sound more like Edward Snowden, which sounds very odd at the beginning of the movie, but I found that he grows into the role as the movie goes along and by the end he seems a perfect fit. Edward Snowden’s girlfriend Lindsey Mills is portrayed by Shailene Woodley, known for her roles in The Fault in Our Stars and the Divergent series. Although she plays the role well, I found that the movie actually gave her too much screentime, at times focusing on her and Snowden’s relationship at the expense of the actual political substance of the film. 

Separate from the fact that the film’s plot is derived from real events, it mostly operates as a more-or-less standard political thriller film. It has all the same tropes; a nice, relatable protagonist, ominous government programs, heroic underdogs, and so on and so on. This is why I actually prefer Laura Poitras’ documentary on Snowden- Citizenfour. Because the story of Edward Snowden is such a well-known and incredibly important story, I found the real-life Edward Snowden to be much more convincing than an actor playing him, even an actor as good as Gordon-Levitt. I suppose in my mind I was asking, as I watched the film: “Why do you need to make a dramatization of what happened to Snowden when the man himself can tell you in much more detail?”

So if you view Edward Snowden in a positive light than Snowden is an adequate political thriller which reinforce your existing views of him. If you view him in a negative light, than why are you still reading? But unless you feel the burning need to watch Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s take on being Edward Snowden (which I would certainly not hold against you), than I would recommend a viewing of Citizenfour instead. 

Grade: C-

​Seven years ago, on January 15 2009, a US Airways plane that had just lift off from LaGuardia airport faced multiple bird strikes and was forced to make a water landing on the Hudson river. If you remember this event, you probably remember the captain on the flight who was hailed as a national hero ... Captain Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger. Sully is the story of the events that revolved around this historic water landing.

​To clear the air, Sully is not a documentary about the water landing. Nor is this a biographical story about Captain Sully. This movie is an attempt to show the journey of Captain Sully through the landing, his trial by the safety board and the fame and attention that followed the landing. With Sully, director Clint Eastwood (Million Dollar Baby) tries to bring out the story through the eyes of Captain Sully himself and take us on a backdoor tour of what transpired in his head.

As a very embryonic decision, I told myself that I liked the movie. Tom Hanks, who plays the titular role, is as true to the character as one can be. Being a big fan of Hanks, I can hardly say otherwise. But with some research I set out to dig a little deeper with public appearances of real Sully; it wouldn’t be wrong to say that they were very much alike. Moving on, the other actor to get most screen time is Aaron Eckhart (Harvey Dent from The Dark Knight), who convincingly plays co-pilot Jeff Skiles, supporting captain Sully not only through the landing but also through the perils that follow. Surprisingly these two aren’t the only familiar names. You have Laura Linney (The Exorcism of Emily Rose) playing Sully's wife and Anna Gunn (Breaking Bad) as well. But it's really difficult to justify their presence on screen. The only other cast member that seemed noticeable was Mike O’Malley as one of the Safety Board members, as a sort-of antagonist, trying to grill Sully into accepting the water landing as a mistake.

With an interesting story and decent performances, you’d think this would be a winner. Well of course there is more to it. I try to recollect what made the movie memorable and all I can think of is a complete shot of the events taking place on the flight and the final hearing of Captain Sully. It is then that I realize that the non-sequential depiction of events, jumping between landing and post-landing events, is something that didn’t really work for the movie. It felt as if every time you managed to get engrossed into the movie, it would change course. And that is how I wound up losing interest every few minutes. What should have been a brisk 90 min movie felt like it ran forever. And not only because of the format, but also because the scenes were played repeatedly with slight or no difference each time.

Overall, Sully feels like a decent movie to kill time. I would not be upset if I spent an hour and half watching it. But it is definitely not something I’m going to take home with me, once I leave the theatre.

Grade: B

The day I’m writing this review is September 1, the day which I consider to be the first of autumn (even if sometimes early September can still be unbearably hot). We have now left the summer blockbuster season behind, and as schools starts again and the sun starts to lose some of its edge, we transition into a new movie season. Soon autumn will act as the herald for numerous films which are designed to win acclaim at next year’s Academy Awards (February 26- mark the date). This year’s “award movie season” is starting a bit earlier than normal with today’s release of Derek Cianfrance’s The Light Between Oceans. 

Tom Sherbourne (Michael Fassbender) has just returned home to Western Australia following the cessation of hostilities in 1918. Fighting on the Western Front in the Great War has scarred Tom, and he decides to apply for a job which requires no human interaction- a lighthouse keeper. He becomes the caretaker for the lighthouse on Janus Island, a hundred miles from the nearest town. But on his first trip to his new post he meets a woman named Isabel (Alicia Vikander), and as he exchanges letters with her they fall in love, and are eventually married. Isabel joins Tom at the lighthouse with plans to start a family, but after two miscarriages she is about to give into despair. That is, until she hears a cry on the wind, and spots a small boat washed up on the island. When she investigates, she discovers a (dead) man and a (live) infant. Despite Tom’s misgivings, the couple keeps the child and raises her as their own, but years later they discover that the girl’s birth mother (Rachel Weisz) is still alive, and wants her daughter back.

I will admit, The Light Between Oceans is probably not a movie I would watch on my own if I wasn’t reviewing it- I’m certainly not a part of the film’s target demographic. However, the film is a well-made drama and period piece. Director Derek Cianfrance, who previously directed Blue Valentine and The Place Beyond the Pines, clearly has a strong grasp of the art of making a good drama film. The dialogue (Cianfrance penned the screenplay) is occasionally a bit schmaltzy but never overbearing, and is more sparse than a typical drama due to small number of important characters and to Tom and Isabel’s isolation. Fassbender, Vikander, and Weisz all give solid performances, if not the best I’ve seen from them (which, if you were wondering, I would say are from 12 Years a Slave, Ex Machina, and The Fountain respectively). 
​
Probably my favorite thing about the movie is the gorgeous cinematography. Adam Arkapaw (who previously worked on last year’s Macbeth and HBO’s True Detective) takes full advantage of the beautiful scenery of the Australian and New Zealander filming locations- the movie has numerous beautiful shots of oceans and islands. The interior shots are no slouch either, as Arkapaw demonstrates clever use of lighting to match the look of the surrounding landscape, giving the film a defined look and feel. 

My only real complaint with the movie is that the plot is a bit predictable and schmaltzy, which is par for the course for Oscar bait. Personally, I would put odds on this getting a nomination for Best Adapted Screenplay, as well as possibly Best Cinematography. But then, it’s quite apparent even from just watching a trailer that this is Oscar bait, and this is the season for it. Although not an amazing film, The Light Between Oceans is a solid drama film, particularly if you’re in the mood for award bait.
​
Grade: B

​This coming Monday is Labor Day, which I call the Dumping Ground of movie land. Labor Day is historically one of the lowest-grossing weeks of the year for ticket sales, and as such has earned a reputation as the week that studies use to discard movies they are sure will fail. Of course, they are not always correct- last year’s Predestination (released in early January, another Hollywood dumping ground) is criminally under-appreciated. Because of its awful release date and virtually non-existent marketing campaign (again, because the studio was sure it would flop, which became a self-fulfilling prophecy) hardly anyone has seen that film despite being one of the best time-travel movies in recent memory. I am afraid the same thing will happen with Alexandre Aja’s The 9th Life of Louis Drax, an odd but charming mystery film.
​
The main character of our story is the eponymous Louis Drax (Aiden Longsworth), who is described as ‘accident prone’. Through his nine years of childhood, he has endured broken bones, animal attacks, numerous diseases, furniture fallen on him, electrocutions, and all manner of injuries minor and severe. On his ninth birthday, he suffers his worst accident of all- a tumble over a sea cliff which leaves him clinically dead for two hours before a (possibly miraculous) resuscitation. Afterwards, he’s left in a coma which he may never awake from, leaving his mother Natalie (Sarah Gadon) despondent. His father (Aaron Paul) disappeared after the accident, causing the police to treat it as a potential murder. Louis is moved into the care of coma specialist Dr. Allan Pascal (Jamie Dornan), who is known for rather unconventional treatment methods. And all the while, Louis watches it all unfold from some sort of watery dream world which he shares with a seaweed and barnacle-encrusted monster.

What strikes me most about the movie is how it plays with several genres but doesn’t quite fit into any of them. At its core The 9th Life of Louis Drax is a mystery film, but it also contains significant aspects of the thriller genre, specifically reminding me a bit of David Fincher’s Gone Girl. Then on top of that the film adds some supernatural elements which wouldn’t feel out-of-place in an episode of The X-Files. The end result is an eccentric, quirky, but intriguing ‘who-dun-it’ that doesn’t neatly fit into a traditional category. Of course, this is not incredibly surprising since Aja’s last project, Horns, is a fantasy/comedy ‘who-dun-it’ not too unlike this most recent film.

The movie’s quirkiness extends to other areas as well, particularly the acting of Aiden Longsworth. Very fortunately, Aja cast a good child actor, and Longsworth is very adept at playing the cute, but definitely troubled, Louis. He nails a very particular style of speaking that stays consistent through the film, and which even becomes an important plot point. The acting from the adult cast members is good but not incredibly notable, though it is interesting to see Aaron Paul play a father figure (which I don’t think he’s done before). The film’s visual style is an interesting blend between realism and surrealism, with the normality of Louis’ home-town of San Francisco vividly contrasted by his fanciful (yet never over-the-top) dream world.

The 9th Life of Louis Drax is a very solid mystery film, which sadly seems to have been abandoned by its US distributer Summit Entertainment. Between the lackluster release date and the very small number of theatres actually showing the film, it very well may bomb at the box-office. My hope is that, like Horns, it will develop a cult following over time, but if you can I recommend seeing it in theatres. Just like its main character, it’s eccentric, but that doesn’t mean it’s not worth your time.

Grade: B+

​Luke Scott’s directorial debut is a movie that is behind the times. The ramifications of creating artificial intelligence is something audiences have seen on the big screen since the ‘70s. Last year’s Ex Machina is a remarkable film that adds to the conversation instead of retreading familiar ground. Unfortunately, Morgan’s generic plot disappoints despite some very promising moments and is ultimately a letdown. Corporate troubleshooter, Lee Weathers (Kate Mara) is called in to a remote facility to assess a project kept under wraps. A group of scientists have constructed a synthetic being known as Morgan (Anya Taylor-Joy) who is capable of tremendous feats. The bioengineered child’s cognitive abilities are beyond its creators’ wildest expectations and prove to be unpredictable. After an “incident”, Lee must determine whether or not to terminate Morgan before she can inflict harm to the outside world. 

This movie could do with a bit more subtlety. It makes a point of hammering home the idea that the scientists are blinded by their love of Morgan. Video diaries and flashback sequences are supposedly used to help us sympathize with their particular worldview. The problem is that the reality of the situation says otherwise. The brutality of the opening scene formed my lasting impression of Morgan. I found it hard not to regard the scientists as anything but complete idiots. They were like dumbed-down characters in a slasher movie. I understood their motivations but I couldn’t comprehend how technically competent experts could lack basic emotional intelligence. They seemed incapable of holding Morgan accountable for her actions. On a more positive note, I thought Morgan and Lee were relatable characters who complemented each other nicely. Their sense of urgency propels the action that takes place in the third act. Anya Taylor-Joy’s portrayal of Morgan is admirable because she manages to be both terrifying and vulnerable when the moment calls for it. I was also pleasantly surprised by the intriguing layers beneath Lee that rise to the surface as the movie progresses. 

Nature vs nurture is Morgan’s central theme and is at the heart of my favorite scene. Paul Giamatti has a small albeit important role in the movie as a psychiatrist who has a one-on-one with Morgan. His purpose is to fuel the film’s debate on this subject and he pulls it off magnificently. There is a question he poses to one of the scientists right before conducting the interview that is quite insightful. He relentlessly goads Morgan which leads to disastrous results. The intensity of this scene doesn’t come from the anticipation of predicting what will happen but rather when it will happen. What follows is the aforementioned moronic behavior of the scientists. Furthermore, I was put off by certain liberties taken by the story. A lot of events seemed to transpire for the sake of convenience and felt contrived instead of earned. 

If you do plan on seeing the movie, you might want to tune out right here.

I’m very conflicted about the big twist/reveal at the end. I applaud the filmmakers for doing something that has the potential of surprising audiences but the execution could have been handled better. However, it did negate some of my problems with the story’s shortcuts. Personally, I did not see it coming though I spoke to others who telegraphed it from a mile away. In hindsight, I was shocked that I didn’t have the slightest inclination. I am curious as to whether the initial idea for this movie came out of this reveal as opposed to it being something that naturally developed from writing the script. In a way, Morgan’s entire meaning is turned on its head when you really think about it. Most people feel that a bad ending can ruin a great movie. I felt that the movie’s intriguing reveal redeems the somewhat mediocre storytelling. One small instance should not make up for a lackluster movie but I felt satisfied in the moment.

*Spoilers end here*

Morgan is inherently flawed and gets more wrong than it does right. There are some fine performances but equally infuriating characters. If you are willingly to sit through a couple of empty-headed scenes, there might be a big surprise waiting for you at the end that could make the experience worthwhile. 

Grade: C+

​This seemingly neverending summer of mediocre movies now brings us The Hollars, John Krasinski’s second directorial venture. The film tracks John Hollar (Krasinski, 13 Hours), a floundering graphic novelist living in New York City and preparing for the birth of his first child with girlfriend Rebecca (Anna Kendrick, Up in the Air). John returns to his small hometown when his mother Sally (Margo Martindale, August: Osage County) is diagnosed with a brain tumor. Add Richard Jenkins in the role of husband and father, Sharlto Copley as the screw up brother, Mary Elizabeth Winstead as a former high school sweetheart, and Charlie Day as an odd male nurse, and we have a good cast doing their best with what they were given. 

The film’s greatest strength, by far, was its cast. Each performance was compelling in its own way, whether it evoked strong emotion from the viewer or provided periodical comedic relief. In their supporting roles, Day and Winstead contribute little to the emotional effectiveness of the film, but serve their purpose as a bit of a distraction from the main plot points. The principle characters were all played simply and with no frills. Krasinski played his usual incredibly likeable role, as an unconventionally handsome and subtly charming boyfriend. Though he rarely steps out of that box, and could be considered a sort of one-trick pony in that regard, he plays that type of character well so I understand why he gravitates toward roles such as this. Copley, who I hadn’t seen in anything prior to this movie, fulfilled his role as struggling divorcee and father, but not in any noteworthy way. Jenkins and Martindale gave solid performances as a married couple, but ultimately shined brightest apart. And finally, Kendrick is really lovely in anything she does, so she was a valuable addition to the decently well rounded cast. 

My love for much of the cast aside, The Hollars was a bit of a letdown. The film was extremely simple, but tried too hard to be complicated. SO much happens (in order to truly emphasize how complicated it is to be a human and a member of a family) that it feels like it spanned over a year, when in reality I think it was supposed to take place within a week or so. The plot itself wasn’t hard to follow, despite how intricate it was trying to be, because of how predictable it was. Any seasoned moviegoer could take an educated guess about how the story progresses and would most likely be right. It was a very stereotypical indie family dramedy, down to the acoustic indie tunes that were seemingly omnipresent throughout the entire film. In strictly abiding by the guidelines that have been laid for such a specific genre, Krasinski, as director, was successful. He did not, however, bring anything new (or interesting, for that matter) to the table.

On its surface, The Hollars is a dramedy about the complicated nature of families, relationships, and life overall. Beyond that, there isn’t really much. That’s not to say that the film doesn’t have a message; it’s just that it is literally spelled out for you on multiple occasions. In the midst of an impending-fatherhood-induced panic, John receives a pivotal piece of advice from his mother (the overall theme of the movie, which is repeated verbatim a few more times): “You won’t know until you get there that you’re okay.” So basically, “don’t worry because everything will end up fine, and you can handle anything with a little positivity,” as is exemplified by the Hollar family several times over. I am by no means discrediting this mantra, as it is a valuable train of thought to follow. But I do wish that I as the viewer was led to this conclusion, rather than having it shoved down my throat. Clearly the “laugh through the tears” theme was effectively communicated, because I was doing exactly that throughout much of the film. It was, however, far too spoon-fed for my taste. All that said, I did enjoy this movie for what it was: a movie that evoked a lot of emotion, but not a lot of thought.         

Grade: B-