Reviews

The Signal, directed and co-written by William Eubank, is a sci-fi thriller centered around three friends from MIT- Nick (Thwaites), Haley (Cooke) and Jonah (Knapp)- who are on a road trip to California, when they discover the location of the hacker NOMAD, who almost had Jonah and Nick expelled from MIT. But, after coming into contact with an unseen force, Nick wakes up to find himself separated from Haley and Jonah, and being questioned by Dr. Damon (Fishburne), who says Nick encountered 'the signal,' and that there's something bigger at play. Now, Nick tries to figure out what happened to him and his friends before anything else happens to them.

The Signal is actually a fantastic film, with very impressive visual effects and beautiful camera work. But, what i don't understand, is how it's getting negative reviews because of non-linear story-telling and lack of development on certain plot-points. First off, the entire film is a giant enigma shaped as an impossible labyrinth of secrets. But what the film does right, is it sets it up so that many of the questions can be raised in a sequel (of which is well-deserved for such a high-caliber film). The acting was superb, especially supporting actors Fishburne and Knapp as Jonah, the geeky and slightly awkward 'third-wheel' to Nick's and Haley's relationship. But, because of his friendship with the two, he acts as a brother. And what was even better about the film, is that it didn't need character development for the supporting cast; how they were written, was as if we already knew who they were. There's an emotional moment between Nick and Jonah near the end of the film that had me in tears, just because you saw how close they were throughout the film, how they talked about each other. The visual effects were astounding, and it amazes me that this was just a $2 million movie, when it looked at least like a $30 million movie. The cinematography reminded me of Wally Pfister's work, in how it just shows off the beauty of pretty much everything, even something as bleak as a faded white hallway. The direction was fantastic, the music was ominous and fitting, and even the editing was marvelous; Michael Bay needs to see this movie to get a few tips on how to use slow-motion successfully.

Now, with the story-telling, i loved it. They way they threw flashbacks and elements of the characters' back-stories during pivotal moments of the film. Honestly, that's how it should have been done anyway, and how a lot of movies could have been done better. In some movies, we learn about characters and their motivations too soon or too late, or that it can be all over the place, but with The Signal, we get it all as the film goes on. We get a piece every now-and-then, until the full picture is revealed towards the end. I've never been so captivated and mind- blown by such a complex film before, or at least not since Inception.

The Signal is a must-see sci-fi thriller that deserves a bigger audience, and a sequel to further explain nagging questions about some very intriguing plot points. The film's style is like a homage to Stanley Kubrick, some of the themes dedicated to Chris Carter, and the story a tribute to Rod Sterling. It was everything i wanted it to be, and more. But, it's not for everyone, and in some ways, that's actually a good thing.

Edge of Tomorrow centers around Major William Cage (Cruise) who, after dying in battle fighting alien creatures called Mimics, begins to relive the same day over and over. But, when Rita Vrataski (Blunt) reveals one the battlefield to Cage that she knows more about what's happening to him than he does, they work together through the "resets" to try and stop the Mimics from wiping out humanity.

Edge of Tomorrow isn't a completely original story, but how it's crafted and written is very original, as is the take on the time-travel-like premise. Doug Liman's direction is easily his best by far, constantly changing the tone from light-hearted fun & action to deep, emotion- driven conflict. The very first battle sequence when the troops land on the beach is absolutely breath-taking, and mirrors that of Spielberg's 'Saving Private Ryan' with horrific accuracy. The performances by all the actors and actresses were amazing, but with our two leads obviously stealing the show whenever they're on screen. The chemistry between Cruise and Blunt is fantastic, and you feel attached to both characters within seconds of them meeting each other. The script was great, blending gritty, phenomenal action scenes with hart-felt emotion and laughs. That's right, genuine comedy is thrown into the mix of jaw- dropping action and visuals, of which deserve multiple awards. The creature design of the Mimics alone deserves multiple wins; they're honestly on my Top 3 most frightening alien creatures in film. The cinematography is wonderful, the musical score is fitting and worth a stand-alone listen, and the film overall is an epic feat of brilliant story-telling. I personally just wished the ending was a bit deeper and more emotionally satisfying, but since it was a definite ending, i still enjoyed it.

Edge of Tomorrow was not just an amazing movie, but honestly a kind of experience. I felt like i was with Cage the entire time, going through the same horrific day. I felt his pain and frustration during training, going from a coward to a battle-hardened warrior; Cruise proves once again he's one of the best actors of our time, and Emily Blunt one of the best actresses of our time. I really hope Cruise and Blunt work together again, because they were so brilliant together.

Transcendence is Wally Pfister's directorial debut about Dr. Will Caster, who has his mind transferred into the largest supercomputer on the face of the planet after he is shot by an anti-AI activist at a conference. But, as Will begins to grow and expand, can his wife Evelyn and Will's friends stop him before the Will they knew is completely gone?

I find it truly pathetic how many people are hating on this movie, and for some of the wrong reasons. I did go into this movie with high expectations and was disappointed, but there was still a lot to salvage from that was good. But first thing's first: the bad. Transcendence has a fantastic story and great concepts, but the way it was delivered and structured was incredibly poor and muddled. If you split the film in half instead of thirds, the second half of the film is incredible and ends how it should, but the first half suffers from time gaps, some left out character development and poor pacing. But, this is really all that's bad.

The decent but disappointing aspects of the film are the ideas. The film pitches grand and epic thoughts that grow, but the ideas it preaches are never fully realized, at least the majority of them. Then, the script by Jack Paglen suffered from inconsistencies and random plot elements that did not really need to be there, or should have been examined further (like RIFT).

Now, the good and great. Wally's direction was superb; he really knew what he was doing after working with Christopher Nolan for so long. Pfister's style and unique eye helped save this movie from being a total disaster, especially when it came to the action, the way the camera moved with the scene and the characters or just the environment itself. The acting was great, too, especially Paul Bettany in the supporting role as Max, Will and Evelyn Caster's friend and fellow scientist. He brought heart and emotion from the other side of the spectrum, having an objective and subjective eye on the situation, with the other (completely subjective) side being from Evelyn's point of view. Rebecca Hall was great as Evelyn, a researcher clouded by her love for Will, and challenged in deciding whether or not the thing Will says he is, is actually Will or not. Johnny Depp was good, but it wasn't until the end of the film when the audience feels emotionally attached to him, as he's usually an emotionless AI, projected on screens and glass. The visual effects were top-notch and some of the best of the year hands-down, and the musical score by Mychael Danna was haunting, beautiful and intense when it needed to be.

Transcendence is an actually good movie that deserves more credit than the immense crap it's getting. And to those who keep comparing it to the B-movie "Lawnmower Man," it's different. Sure, there are brief similarities (melding man with machine), but that's it. It's an original take on the "technology-will-destroy-humanity" cautionary tale, and it's a disturbing one that does have some hopeful (and resonating) humanity after the mayhem and chaos has settled. I hope Wally Pfister gets to tackle another big sci-fi film, but one with a different, more experienced writer.

Pompeii is directed by Paul W.S. Anderson, and centers around the character of Milo, who is a man that stands against the Roman empire after he is put into slavery and becomes a gladiator in Pompeii. He befriends a fellow gladiator and slave Atticus, who helps him fight back against Rome and also ventures to save Cassia, who is to be married to Senator Corvis, a corrupt official.

The movie is actually not as bad as i thought it was going to be. Sure, it is still not an award-winning masterpiece like Gladiator, but for a CG-filled action-fest about Pompeii, it actually worked well. The visual effects were very good (the effects that were made for 3D weren't as much), the musical score by Clinton Shorter was great (echoing the greatness of Gladiator, Kingdom of Heaven and even Game of Thrones), and Anderson's directing, i personally would say is his best here. Now, the acting, i have mixed feelings for. Emily Browning was good as Cassia (nothing amazing), Kiefer Sutherland was great as an antagonist, and Kit Harrington was (sadly) not as good as he is in Game of Thrones, but still good. The show-stealer is Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje as Atticus, who is very similar to that of Djimon Hounsou in Gladiator, and for me, his performance brought tears.

Pompeii is not a classic in any sort of way, but is one i would definitely see again and own when it's released on disc. I never would have thought this movie would be actually good, but i hope they have an extended cut for a disc release because they could have made the movie longer.

Gamer, directed by Neveldine/Taylor is set in a dystopic future where the global prison system puts criminals, convicts and death row inmates in a game called Slayer, where a user takes control of the prisoner's body, and sends them into all-out war. Survive 30 rounds, and you're set free. The only problem is, no one has ever beat the game. When death row inmate Kable (Gerard Butler), the icon of Slayer, discovers he's a part of a conspiracy involving Slayer, Society (another game where people control people) and Ken Castle, the man who created both games. Will Kable survive long enough to expose the plot, or be another victim to the game.

Gamer is certainly a creative and entertaining movie, one that's not based on a video game, but a movie about video games. Neveldine/Taylor are strange and inventive directors, but not the best (Crank 2 and Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance are examples of their failures). Though, here, they are at their best. With gritty, "in your face" camera work and non-stop violence, Gamer certainly takes action to another level. Although, their writing is poor here. Almost all of the footage involving Society, a Sims-esque reality, is all about sexual drive. So, really, that's the biggest low-point of Gamer; where they show Society being all about sex. The high-point of Gamer, though, is the acting. Gerard Butler is better here than in 300, and Michael C. Hall as Ken Castle was just amazing. A scene towards the end where Kable and Ken come face-to-face, and with Castle's goons is just phenomenal (also, the best written scene). The visual effects are good for a lower-budgeted film, and the soundtrack is good and fitting. I just wish they got rid of a lot of the sexual content from the movie because, if they did, and focused more on the regular prison life outside Slayer (as well as life outside Society) the movie would have been truly great.

7/10 Stars

Red Lights is the second psychological thriller from the writer/director of Buried, Rodrigo Cortes. When physicist Tom Buckley and his boss Margaret Matheson (a university academic who engages in paranormal investigations) discover their department's funding is being funneled to the supernatural studies department, and not long after Simon Silver, a psychic who vanished 30 years prior, comes out of hiding to perform one last time. Tom begins investigating into Silver, against Matheson's wishes, and soon events spiral out of control, building to a conclusion that will shake reality.

Rodrigo Cortes is a truly skilled director who made a name of himself with the claustrophobic-hit film Buried (which also is Ryan Reynolds' best acting performance), but here, he doesn't necessarily solidify his position as a phenomenal director, but one who can offer a unique vision on recycled plot elements. The script was, I thought, fabulous. Sure, there was one twist you saw coming because of foreshadowing, but there were a couple that really just came out of nowhere. Even if you saw the one coming, it truly offered a very lonely and feeling of being an ant in a world where the greatest secrets are right in front of our eyes. The acting was superb as well, especially Cillian Murphy who really deserves more leading roles. His transformation from loyal assistant to obsessed investigator is great, as reality begins to break down in his eyes. Robert De Nero was great as Simon Silver, the blind magician who, seemingly, is very powerful. Sigourney Weaver was good as Matheson, offering a more emotional role than what she's normally done.

The musical score by Victor Reyes is haunting and very imaginative, offering a slight homage to Hans Zimmer's The Ring and David Julyan's Cabin in the Woods. The production design was very impressive too, and somewhat elaborate, given the dark, gloomy settings in which the intense activity takes place.

Overall, Red Lights is a very inventive and creepy thriller that's far above average. I've very disappointed with critics and viewers with this movie; why is there so much hatred surrounding it? Either way, a damn good thriller that's better than most in the recent years, although it isn't for everyone as it is a bit slow and more thought-provoking.

8.5/10 Stars

I can understand critics when it comes to certain movies (especially ones I love that get mixed responses), but this year, there have been two big blockbusters that have gotten some of the worst responses ever, and ones that are complete bull, one of them being the Lone Ranger.

From director Gore Verbinski and the writers of the Pirates saga, The Lone Ranger is a retelling of the character from the early 30s. Told from the narration of an elderly Tonto at a San Francisco fair in 1933, the story revolves around John Reid, a lawyer who was raised with his brother on the frontier and is now returning. When he, his brother Dan, and five other US Rangers are killed by outlaw Butch Cavendish, Tonto recovers John. When he comes back to life, Tonto sees that he is a "spirit walker" or one who has been to the other side and returned. Now, John cannot die in battle, & teams with onto to save Dan's family and stop Cavendish from ruining life in the West.

This movie is far from perfect, but it sure as hell is better than the latest Pirates film. The directing here is good, with some truly remarkable cinematography and great action sequences. The acting is good, with a lot of goofiness from John's character and Tonto, respectively. But Tonto is much different from Depp's Jack Sparrow, going from weird to very serious in a split-second. William Fichtner's Cavendish was just disturbing, being very violent and brutal for a PG-13 film, but adds to the atmosphere and danger greatly. The visuals were fantastic, but not the best of the year. The music was superb, with this being Hans Zimmer's fourth commitment to one of Gore's films, and the use of William Tell's Overture was just amazing.

Overall, The Lone Ranger was not an award-winning picture or great, but it was good, ridiculous fun that the fourth Pirates film should have been. I'm really ashamed at movie-goers for not seeing this. There could have easily been another sequel, but we won't get one.

7.5/10 Stars**