That's right! You can now go a get pitch slapped by all your favorite Bellas, Becca, Fat Amy, and even this one... Anyone know her name?
See the trailer here:
I was a fan of the first film. Walking in to this one, I expected the same movie with all the trappings of a sequel, sacrificing originality for more elaborate sets, abusing its big budget. Pitch Perfect was a surprise hit, boasting enough toe-tapping tunes to cover its uninspired and predictable plot.
The music is still here and is as toe-tapping as ever. As I write this review, I am listening to the soundtrack of the movie... So that's a plus.
When it comes to the humor in the movie, it's largely hit or miss. When it's funny, its hilarious. Elizabeth Banks and John Micheal Higgins continue to mine deadpan comedy gold as the a capella commentators with their deliciously off-color commentary during the performances. The movie pushes the envelope in a lot of way, employing racism, misogyny, and lowbrow humor to shock. And for the most part, it works.
However, the self-aware commentary on privileged millennial culture that made the original so cutting now feels trite and doesn't work as well. It was a bold move to market a movie at teenage girls and then satirize their culture. This time around, it fails to earn laughs, instead eliciting nothing but eye rolls. When the hipster exclaims, "I can't run! I'm in skinny jeans," I feel nothing but embarrassment for the movie. When the movie falls flat, it falls flat on its face. Seriously the silence in the theater made me cringe. But worry not, the moments of uproarious laughter are present as well.
Also, the movie really needs to adding "aca" in front of words. It was a joke from the first movie that wasn't funny then and refuses to die. Let's face it, it's aca-annoying.
I was admittedly worried that the movie would go overboard with the sequel trappings. However, the movie addressed the sensory overload that often comes with sequels from a unique angle. The Bellas begin the movie with elaborate performances with props and lighting tricks. The movie goes on to stress the need to returns to basics, almost self-satirizing. It was well played.
In an attempt to up the ante from its predecessor, the movie is full of guest stars. Some of them are very funny, for example Barack Obama. To see my homie Barack in a movie and jamming out to the musical stylings of the Bellas tickled me. However, when the Green Packers show up as an a capella group without explanation and begin singing, I felt nothing but intense confusion. In that sense, the movie occasionally gets lost in itself, overdoing the absurdity.
The performances were passable and Elizabeth Banks proved herself as a competent director. Let's face it, none of us are expecting to be captivated by any performances in this movie. Everyone satisfies their one dimensional character's role with relative ease.
The story arc of the movie is a little flawed. Instead of building up to the finals with a series of performances, the movie seems to wander. In fact, I probably couldn't give you a summary of the movie, the plot drifts too much. Becca and Jesse's relationship is beyond boring. We spend the first movie rooting for them to get together, and they do... and then nothing happens between them. No drama. No intimacy. Aside from a few displays of PDA, it's kind of just assumed that they are together in this movie, their relationship serving absolutely no purpose.
There also seems to be an issue with sound mixing... which is a big, big problem. All the music was perfectly audible. Dialogue not so much. I missed a lot of lines because the sound was not properly balanced, a frustrating oversight.
While I moderately enjoyed this movie, I fear for the series' future. With a door wide open to sequels, we could be looking at a Bring It On franchise repeat with numerous straight-to-DVD sequels marring the original's good name. Let's all hope the Pitch Perfect series knows when to call it quits.
Overall, Pitch Perfect 2 uses a lot of the original's strengths to produce another teen smash hit. If you don't think you'll like this movie, you're probably right. This movie is for a specific audience and probably won't win many new converts.
Pitch Perfect 2 is rated PG-13 for for innuendo and language.
As if my addiction to Sex and the City weren’t enough, in my freshman year I sat down to read the 50 Shades trilogy, cementing the fact that I am, at heart, a housewife approaching menopause. And so I devoured the 1,500+ page series, rolling my eyes incessantly. Ana as a character was complete garbage. Her ongoing inner monologue with her dancing inner goddess and her snarky subconscious constantly fighting was painful and frankly may imply schizophrenia. What you hear is true; the books are so poorly written, it’s like an insult to writers everywhere. However, I knew what I was signing up for, poorly written mom porn, and I got it. I knew movies were the next step for the franchise… it would be a poor marketing decision to not. However, I had no idea what it would be like.
When the first trailer was released, I have to say, I was rather surprised. It seemed really well done. I thought that if they could get rid of the horrible dialogue, monologue, and overall writing, the movie could be passable. If it was visually well done and tastefully handled, we may have a good movie. And due to the fact Beyoncé was singing, we already knew the soundtrack was going be excellent. Here’s the trailer:
It certainly looked visually stunning, one shot is particular stuck out:
I was admittedly excited and visually, the movie delivered. It looked rich and decadent, Christian’s office and apartment looking sleek and powerful with a lot of black, gray, and white. The director also utilized scenery in a pretty effective way, the picture above being an example. The Seattle skyline provided a beautiful and elegant backdrop for a large portion of the movie and even the rare scenes in nature were accompanied by beautiful scenery.
One thing that definitely stood out throughout the movie was the lighting. This movie’s lighting is absolutely incredible. My eyes were seduced by a warm orange glow lighting the character’s skin during a sultry discussion over the contract of their relationship. The light in the “Red Room of Pain” made the dark red leather shine, making the experience of seeing the room for the first time intense and exciting.
To the director’s credit, the sex scenes were handled rather tastefully… well, as tastefully as they could. This is due in part to the absence of Ana’s inner monologue, sparing us the grimy details. Also, they canned some of the more cringe worthy encounters and I must say, I have never before been so glad that a movie was NOT loyal to the book. If I was forced to endure seeing some of the horrible things I read, this movie would’ve been straight up porn. Make no mistake, this movie is racy. However, it is in no way to be considered pornography. I really wasn’t shocked by anything in this film. That’s not to say you should watch it on family movie night. This movie is absolutely not for children or the faint of heart… but it isn’t as offensive as it could have been. They’ve toned it down for the mainstream audience but kept enough to satisfy fans of the book.
There is no question that the direction is beyond competent.
I was very worried about the writing in this film. Not including a voice over of Ana’s inner monologue was probably the film’s best decision. However, the dialogue was still at risk of being every bit as terrible as it was in the book… however, the movie handled it well. Contrary to what the trailer makes you believe, the movie never really takes itself too seriously. Unlike the book, the film acknowledges the ridiculous nature of their relationship, allowing the dialogue to be more tongue in cheek and the experience to be a whole lot more enjoyable. In fact, the scene where the two negotiate their relationship in the form of a contract, talking about what is considered a hard and soft limit, is absolutely hilarious. I’d say it competes with the first use of the Red Room, which was also pretty awesome (a sensual version of Crazy in Love by Beyoncé playing in the background, what’s not to love?!... oh yea… the whips and abuse), for the best scene. That’s not to say I didn’t wince at some of the stupid things these people say to each other. When the film takes itself serious, it is disastrous. But a little train wreck was to be expected due to its source material.
As far as acting, I was pleasantly surprised. Dakota Johnson, who plays Ana, did not make a good first impression on me in the trailer. I felt that the horrible and idiotic character from the book would be simply put on screen. Boy was I wrong. Dakota Johnson seems to do the impossible, make Anastasia Steele a tolerable character. In fact, I enjoyed her. She was actually quite funny and secretly amazingly beautiful. She may not ever outgrow this role, but she plays it pretty well and I’d love to see her in other films. Jamie Doran is not as good. His character is cold but he doesn’t convey any sort of warmth or really contribute much to the chemistry other than a body.
Now comes a rather odd suggestion on my part. I think this movie needs to be enjoyed in a group setting. If I were to have watched it alone, the dialogue may have felt more serious and the eye-rolling factor would have been greatly increased. I went with a group of friends who I am very comfortable with and we had a great time laughing together. Not to mention the guy behind us who, at the film’s climax, said, “This is some bulls**t!” We laughed for minutes. You need someone to reflect back the ridiculous nature of this film and I think, contrary to what many may feel, it is better enjoyed in a group.
Is it an excellent film? Not really. In fact, it is being called boring by many. But one cannot deny that it is infinitely better than the book. Is it for everyone? Absolutely not. But if you need to feed your inner goddess so she can do back flips and dance in circles, this is the film for you. Just leave your snarky subconscious at home.
50 Shades of Grey is rated R for strong sexual content including dialouge, some unusual behavior and graphic nudity, and for language
Meta:(of a creative work) referring to itself or to the conventions of its genre; self-referential.
Recently, I have been rather intrigued with the horror genre. I hadn't paid much mind to it. After all, as I became old enough to really begin to delve into the genre, Saw movies were being made. I watched (without actually watching the movies) as blood flowed and reviews plummeted in a franchise that just wouldn't die. So I went through the years thinking that horror movies generally consisted of a lot of blood and very little character development. Somewhere around the age of 8, I managed to somehow become psychologically scarred by the image of The Ghostface Killer, the slasher of the Scream Franchise... how I managed to do this, I'm not quite sure considering I had never seen the movies... but he embodied the darkness and danger that seemed to lurk around every corner, just waiting to sink its knife into me.
All these years later, I thought it time to sink my teeth into the horror genre. We had never really gotten along but if I was to have a future in reviewing, I would have to at least be familiar with and respect the art form. I was able to see it as that, an art form, and slowly began to expose myself to some of the classic films about things that go bump in the night (the original Dracula, Nightmare on Elm Street, The Shining), generally avoiding the typical slasher films. While exploring the horror section on Netflix, I noticed the presence of the entire Scream Franchise and found myself oddly tempted. My mouse hovered over it several times, daring myself to press play. I watched the trailer again, trying to gauge if viewing the film would uncover some of the scars that may lie under the surface. I finally clicked play and began the movie that would help me further my understanding of the genre and what I find so off-putting about it. See the trailer here:
I was greeted by an opening sequence so effective and so chilling, I couldn't help but watch more. The killer's voice sent chills down my spine, the terror in the victim's screams, the brutality of the murder... it was all so shocking and yet deliciously dark and cool. So I continued and found that the movie was not a typical slasher but a sly, witty deconstruction of the genre I have hated and been oddly attracted to. The chase scenes are pulse pounding, the characters adequately developed, and the violence tolerable. The movie, and franchise, seem to benefit from the mystery aspect of the movies, the question of who is behind the mask. In some slashers, the identity of the killer doesn't really seem matter, the numerous victims do... which is kind of odd because lord knows the numerous victims aren't getting any development! Perhaps that is why the genre can often feel empty. What makes the movies so "meta" is the fact that the characters acknowledge the situation they are in and how it resembles many of the horror films that they love to watch. The rules are spelled out, broken, and the characters pay the price. One thing I did find so interesting was the fact that the killer was fallible. It seems that the victim is often at the mercy of the killer, running and screaming, never fighting back(am I wrong?). This is not the case in Scream. The killer trips, the kids fight back... it was all strangely empowering. All of these kids stood a chance, something I'm not sure many victims get. It is said that Scream helped redefine a genre and it's easy to see why. Scream is a funny, scary, and an all around cool movie with one hell of an ending.
I pressed on the second film with high hopes. And they were met. It was more of the same witty and clever violence... but was still a joy to watch. The rules for a sequel are a little different:
"1. The body count is always bigger.
2. The death scenes are always much more elaborate, with more blood and gore. "
The first scene of the sequel is arguably more meta than the entire first movie, a murder at the premiere of the movie Stab, a fictional movie based off the events in the first movie. Is that hard to understand? Basically, a survivor of the first movie takes what she experienced, writes a book... which is turned into a crappy horror movie, the very thing the original Scream was poking fun at. The first murder at the premiere seems to send a message about the effect of violence in movies... a message I am still a bit fuzzy on... While the movie contains all of what made the original great, it does manage to add some more, most notably character development. I remember a scene where I quite literally felt myself falling in love with the characters. They begin to form bonds with each other, bonds I feared would be severed by the swing of the killer's knife.
The third movie is generally regarded as the low point of the series, accidentally employing the very clichés that it once scoffed at. It takes place on the set on the newest movie in the fictional movie franchise based of the events of the first movie (I'm really not sure how to explain it in a clearer way).The issue lied with writing. The script had a change in writers, a change I noted rather quickly. The killer's dialogue was particularly satanic, opting to tell people they "are going to be skewered like a little piggy" rather than opting for the classic "you're going to die tonight." Such dialogue made me cringe a little more than I would have wanted. Essentially, the movie is a long, murderous episode of Scooby Doo played by the rules of the final installment of a trilogy:
1. "You've got a killer who’s gonna be superhuman. Stabbing him won’t work, shooting him won’t work. Basically in the third one, you gotta cryogenically freeze his head, decapitate him, or blow him up."
2. "Anyone, including the main character, can die."
3. "The past will come back to bite you in the ass. Whatever you think you know about the past, forget it. The past is not at rest! Any sins you think were committed in the past are about to break out and destroy you."
The chase scenes are still thrilling, the characters continue to develop, and the movie does have some genuine thrills. The final act does take place in a mansion with numerous secret passages, further amplifying the Scooby Doo feel. However, during this installment, as one of the supporting and infinitely disposable characters acts rather selfishly in the face of death, I realized why I am often so offended by horror movies. There is something about human being's natural instinct to save ourselves that I find particularly disgusting. People are selfish when faced with their own demise, often sacrificing others for their own escape. Perhaps it is the fact that this instinct lies in all of us that I find so threatening but something about it does not sit right with me. However, the recurring characters in these films do not fit this description. They never seem to think twice about running towards the killer in hopes of saving their friends. The recurring characters aren't victims, they're fighters. They aren't survivors, they're heroes. It's an aspect that seems to enhance the characters and really allow you to root for them. Is it great? No. But it's watchable! If you watched the first two, you probably will find something to like in the third one.
The fourth installment, being released 10 years later, deals with a reboot. Someone is once again slashing people and observing the rules of the reboot/remake. The movie seems to get away from itself at times, becoming possibly too meta (like mega-meta). The movie may simply think it is smarter than it is. For example, the scene in which they lay down the rules is thrown at you very quickly in an attempt to make the whole thing feel slick. I took the liberty of transcribing the rules:
"
The unexpected is the new cliché. Virgins can die now… and
the kill’s gotta be way more extreme. Modern audiences get savvy to the rules
of the originals so the reverse has become the new standard. In fact, the only
surefire way to survive a modern horror movie? …You pretty much have to be gay."
Anyone else get lost somewhere in there? It's still fun and by this point, I am so attached to the characters that I am screaming at my screen when they are in danger, squirming and squealing at the intensity... I may just be a freak, but I really attached to these characters and I really didn't want to see them get slashed. It should be noted that gore is rather amped up in this installment. The MPAA seems to have become more lax on the amount of violence that it allows in film because the blood really seems to flow. It isn't the strongest installment but it is still fun.
Scream is a series that I respect immensely for it's ability to poke fun at and properly deconstruct a genre that seems to often be looked down on. It arguably loses steam in its later chapters but in truth, they are all watchable and all enjoyable. Definitely worth checking out... if you have the guts. After you watched the franchise, I'd just be dying to know... What's your favorite scary movie?
Scream is rated R for strong graphic horror violence and gore, and for language.
Scream 2 is rated R for language and strong bloody violence.
Scream 3 is rated R for strong horror violence and language.
Scream 4 is rated R for strong bloody violence, language and some teen drinking.
I don't quite remember where I saw the trailer but I immediately knew I needed to see this movie. See the trailer for yourself right here:
In fact, my desire to see this movie drove me all the way to NYC to IFC Center where the popcorn was organic, nobody would give me grief about my age, and the movie was actually playing. It is a shame this movie has such a limited release but everyone seems to agree, Boyhood is something you should see.
In case you are a little confused, allow me to clarify. Boyhood is a fictional movie about a boy growing up. The boy was cast when he was 6 and the movie was filmed over the following 12 years using the same cast. It isn't a documentary but at times it seems like it could be. The dialogue feels natural and the moments so relatable they gave chills. Did you not grow up a boy? Not to worry! There is truly something here for everyone to relate to as the whole family, not just the little boy, goes through life and matures.
Boyhood is such an amazing experience. I went with a group of girls and after the movie we discussed it on our train ride home. It quickly became apparent that I missed almost all of the little details in this movie. I was so overwhelmed and impressed (not to mention lost in my head contemplating my own experiences) that I missed the "finesse points" of the film. The movie is so amazingly well done that I am excited to sit for another 3 hours and watch it again! Yes, 3 hours of studying a boy and his life. And let me tell you, there is not one car chase or gunshot. Does 3 hours of sitting in a theater with no action sequences scare you? If so, please don't watch this movie. For the rest of you, I can assure you the 3 hour run time is not a problem. Never once does the movie feel like it's dragging. By the end, I had been on a rollercoaster of emotions and I felt like I could look back on this movie and reminisce as if it was my own childhood.
I can't really express how amazingly well done this movie is. It is so amazing to watch these characters evolve as they are shaped by the world around them. The movie is incredibly in tune with the times, integrating pop culture with ease. The movie is just awesome. Do yourself a favor and see it.
Boyhood is rated R for language including sexual references, and for teen drug and alcohol use.
I'll start by saying that my opinion will not be a popular one. Walter White has audiences and critics swooning. For the life of me, I cannot figure out why.
The show follows the life of Walter White, an underachieving chemist who is diagnosed with cancer and begins to cook meth with his former student, and drug addict, Jesse Pinkman. Turns out, their product is the purest ever and the two begin a dark journey to keep their business a secret and their loved ones safe.
Long ago I sat down to watch the first 2 episodes. I was not impressed. "Keep watching," they insisted. I was frequently told that it gets good later. It was actually quite comical, people even gave me the exact episode that changed their opinion. For example: "season 2, episode 8 is where it gets good." I can assure you the episode was nothing special.
The acting is inconsistent, ranging from riveting to barely passable (I think Aaron Paul was told to throw the words "b***h" and "yo" into his character's dialogue, a power he abuses.). Characters are also inconsistent, acting and behaving completely normal one episode and insane the next. I get that facing your own death and being in high pressure situations is stressful but it just gets exhausting. For example, Walt is fine and then the next episode he is completely insane, chasing a fly around his lab for the full 45 min (season 3, episode 10 aka one of the worst episodes of TV ever). Then the next episode, he is completely fine again!
Direction is adequate, occasionally pretentious. The whole black and white extended foreshadowing in season 2 was stupid, especially considering the event it leads up to which makes the whole thing feel like a waste of time. Breaking Bad is at its best when it remains modest.
Breaking Bad assumes that it is tense viewing. Many scenes have intense music and it assumes I am on the edge of my seat. It is wrong. I only felt any sort of tension thrice throughout the whole series (yes, I kept track). Perhaps, that was due to my lack of attachment to the characters but it didn't do much for me.
So what is it about Breaking Bad that makes it so widely loved? If I had to guess, I'd say it was the edge. This show is more edgy and gritty than some of the other shows on television (especially in its early seasons). However, it isn't too edgy in that most teens are able to tolerate it. Thus, it has become a rite of passage, of sorts.
It isn't bad, it just isn't that good. I know what you're thinking, who am I to disagree with all of your friends and every critic out there? I'm Skylar, and I write the purest reviews this side of the Mississippi. Remember my name.
22 Jump Street is very funny but occasionally overwhelms with idiocy.
7.75 out of 10
The sequel to the reboot of the television show (that you didn't even know existed) has hit theaters! Check out the trailer here:
Let's get it out of the way. Acting is fine. Direction is adequate. Who cares? The only thing that matters is the humor. Is it funny? Absolutely! The movie had me in stitches... at times. At other times, the jokes made me roll my eyes so hard I was unsure if they would ever return to their normal position... but in the best way possible. The movie blends three types of humor, all of which are featured in the trailer.
Type 1: Slapstick idiocy
This is a type of humor I have little respect for and causes the majority of my eye-rolling. This was expertly illustrated by the attack of the octopus and Jonah Hill screaming, "IT'S INKING IN MY MOUTH!" Can it illicit a chuckle? Perhaps, but it doesn't quite belong in this comic palace.
Type 2: Raunchy humor
It's not that raunchy humor is any more complicated than slapstick idiocy... I just think it is funnier. When the guy in prison starts screaming, "I'm Eric's b***h... THIS A*S IS YOURS!" it is kinda funny... but it doesn't compare to type 3.
Type 3: Self-satire
The movie is at its best when it laughs at itself. I absolutely love it! "Ladies, nobody cared about the Jump Street reboot... but you got lucky. So now this department has invested A LOT of money to make sure Jump Street keeps going." The movie is filled with clever jokes, poking fun at the shortcomings of sequels and then succeeding wildly.
With enough comedy and action to satisfy most audience members, 22 Jump Street is a satisfying sequel and is worth the price of admission.
22 Jump Street is rated R for language throughout, sexual content, drug material, brief nudity and some violence.
The Fault in Our Stars is well-made but struck a nerve with me.
5.5 out of 10
In his review of the film, Bill Goodykoontz of the Arizona Republic said, "If you don't cry or snort or at least tear up a little at some point during Josh Boone's film version of the popular young-adult novel by John Green, you're a pretty cold fish."
Well Mr. Goodykoontz, I suppose I am the coldest of fish.
Check out the trailer here:
And as I re-watch the trailer, I want to love this movie... but I simply do not. Believe me, there is nothing I love more than being emotionally destroyed by a movie but this one came nowhere close.
As far as movies go, this one is well made. The director clearly knew what he was doing and the way text messages and emails are incorporated into the movie is very cute. Acting wise, I have no major complaints. Both leads were great and did a solid job bringing the characters to life.
I did read the book. In fact, I binge read it in a 24 hour, insomnia ridden period. I walked into school the following day and voiced my discontent with the book. I had found myself getting very annoyed with the characters, but attributed that to my lack of sleep. But, by the end of the book, I felt nothing and I frankly felt like a jerk. I still had every intention of seeing the movie and hoped that actually seeing the story unfold would help bring the emotion to life. It did, in a very miniscule way. However, as soon as I walked out of the theater, I made eye contact with one of my friends, smiled, and said, "I hated it." She did too. I find something about this movie very off-putting, so much so that I considered getting up and walking out thrice.
Rotten Tomatoes, my movie review bible, gives this movie an 82% and calls it, "Wise, funny, and heartbreaking."
Let's start there!
Is it funny? Not really. It tries to lighten the mood but I didn't really laugh once. I was further frustrated when the theater was filled with giggles when characters stared at each other. I kid you not, every time the characters stared at each other for more than 2 seconds, the audience would giggle! Because I find the characters so unfunny, every joke they make seemed distasteful, which made me think the characters were mean, even though they clearly weren't trying to be. To the movie's credit, making jokes about dying of cancer as a teen is a difficult job. However, "cancer perks", certain perks kids with cancer receive, are not funny.
If its goal was to make teenage girls cry, it succeeded. The last half hour of the movie could barely be heard over the sea of sniffles and sobs that surrounded me. However, I wasn't heartbroken. I mean, I saw the tragedy coming a mile away. We all did! When it finally comes, it's "whatever". One of my friends expertly stated something along the lines of, "The tragedy isn't in their love but rather the fact they are dying at such a young age." In that case, I suppose I understand a little more.
As for wisdom, it has more than most of the movies marketed at teenagers. The part I found most intriguing about this movie was the idea of family life continuing after losing a child to cancer. The idea of death is a heavy one to handle and this movie does a pretty good job with it. It doesn't really discuss anything particularly insightful but was thought-provoking, in that I caught myself starting off into space and thinking more than once. So while the movie doesn't really provide any great wisdom, it may make you think a little more than most movies.
One of my biggest problems was with the "ultra-dreamy" Augustus Waters, the leading man. One of my friends described him as "too perfect." Indeed. He walks around annoyingly and impossibly happy. He says ridiculous things like, "It would be a pleasure to have my heart broken by you, Hazel Grace." And don't even get me started on his cigarette metaphor. The one thing I like about him is his obsession with leaving his mark on the world. A concept that was glossed over, much to my despair.
Is it terrible? Absolutely not. Is it overhyped? Absolutely. If you think you'll enjoy it, I recommend you see it. You'll probably enjoy it! I just had some issues with the material itself. Don't judge me for that! Okay?
Okay.
The Fault in Our Stars is rated PG-13 for thematic elements, some sexuality and brief strong language.
