Pitch Perfect 2: Review

The original Pitch Perfect was an all right film. It was tailored made for a specific audience, and it met the needs of that audience fairly well. However, the sequel, Pitch Perfect 2, fails to do that.

The film flounders from uninteresting subplot to uninteresting subplot. A few of examples of which are: Will Fat Amy get with the guy who was the villain in the last movie? Will Anna Kendrick's character get a job? Will the new girl fit in with the Bellas? Do any of us really care? No, not really. And that's sort of the whole problem with this movie. It's trying too hard to be a Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants type of chick flick, where the relationships of the characters are what the audience is there for, but in Pitch Perfect, that wasn't why the audience cared about the movie, they cared because of the music, which is far too sparse in this sequel.

So on top of those issues, we also have a terrible villain that comes in the form of a German acapella group. Thankfully the film is too caught up in all its subplots for these guys to appear in more than a few scenes, but the movie is just hard to watch every time they approach Anna Kendrick to lay some cheesy insults on here (this happens almost every time they're on screen).

There are some decent numbers (though they're all too short or are interrupted with dumb jokes made by characters watching the performance) and the actor's performances aren't bad, it's just the writing that is.

I was watching this flick with my wife and a friend, and I think my friend said it best when she stated: "[The movie] was okay. If I hadn't seen the first movie though it would have been horrible." That about sums it up. Pitch Perfect 2 has as much point of existing as an American Pie sequel, and works just about as well.

Ex Machina

Ex Machina is the latest take on the Frankenstein mythos. We've seen it countless times in films like Jurassic Park, and Terminator. But it's been quite awhile since we've seen it done so modestly, and that modesty is really where the charm of Ex Machina comes from.

The film has only five roles, four of which are in the film more than 10 minutes, and of those four only three of them have dialogue. That being said, the cast is pretty wonderful, and they play off one another very well. The scenes between Oscar Isaac's Nathan Bateman (the resident mad scientist) and Domhneall Gleeson's Caleb Smith (the man hired to test the machine) are especially fun to watch. Isaac plays the perfect modern Frankenstein, drowning himself in self indulgence. He comes off as a pretentious ivy league graduate, only this particular Harvard kid has built the world's most advanced A.I, and it just happens to be shaped like a beautiful woman.

But of course Alicia Vikander has the breakout performance in this film as Ava, the machine being tested for artificial intelligence. She plays the part of naive newborn and wise beyond her years machine flawlessly, sometimes balancing the task within the same scene.

Over all, Ex Machina is a nice throwback to the psychological sci-fi films that have come before it. Definitely worth seeing if you're looking for a quieter film with a speculative premise.

Avengers: Age of Ultron

Age of Ultron starts off immediately throwing the Avengers back into the action in a sequence that looks more like a video game than a movie. We get some one-liners from every character here (accept Hulk and Hawkeye) reintroducing them to the audience, and then we meet a villain who's not important beyond the setup, he matters very briefly simply because he's in possession of a magical scepter the Avengers want for some reason or another (it will later be used to create another hero).

The movie continues at a breakneck pace, giving us two new kind-of supervillains, along with the evil robot the film is named for, Ultron. Ultron was programmed by Robert Downey Jr. and Mark Ruffalo to protect the world, but in a matter of seconds he’s download the internet and decides he’d rather destroy it, but first he’s going to start with destroying the Avengers. And the rest of the movie is the usual stuff. Buildings get destroyed, The Hulk gets mad and the team has to stop them, ext.

Everyone is mostly good here. There’s nothing wrong with any given actor’s performance. Everyone’s pretty serviceable, and that’s about how the whole movie feels. There’s nothing wrong with any of it per se, but there’s nothing here that feels very special either.

Age of Adaline: Review

Age of Adaline is a pretty fun movie. There's no explosions, no aliens or cars defying the laws of physics, but despite those not-really-setbacks, it's a rather enjoyable experience at the movies.

The basic premise of Adaline is that a woman in the early 1900's, Adaline Bowman, (played believably by Blake Lively) is struck by lightning while drowning in a river, and after this event she no longer ages. Yes the reasoning for the premise is cheesy, and the narration that explains the "science" for why this happened is worse, but the rest of the movie that follows is pretty good, so we can forgive the origin story (or just pretend it's a Marvel movie). We watch as Adaline moves through the decades, changing her identity and moving around the country. The real fun happens when Adaline reaches our time, falls in love with a man, and then meets his father, played by Harrison Ford. Ford turns out to be one of her lost lovers, a man who loved her deeply and never forgot her despite her disappearing decades ago. These are the scenes where the movie shines, and really make this premise worth all the rest.

Run All Night: Review

Run All Night is the latest Liam Neeson Taken-esque-action-movie. I'm a big fan of the late 80's and 90's action films, and I've really enjoyed watching Neeson go from drama leading man to realistic (usually...) action star. Or, if not realistic, at least one with some depth. Don't believe me? Check out 2011's The Grey or even last year's Non-Stop. In both of these films Neeson is top-notch, portraying a lonely alcoholic dealing with the situation that's been thrown at him (yes, he plays an alcoholic in both of these films, but for different reason). So, given that these films are very much in the vain of what Schwarzenegger and Stallone did in the 80's and 90's (playing the same type of character in different situations) I was expecting a somewhat meaningful and entertaining action movie, which I mostly got.

In Run All Night Liam Neeson is once again playing an alcoholic dealing with some inner-demons (he's an ex-mafia enforcer who's killed a lot guys, leaving him feeling hollowed out), but this time he has a son who becomes the catalyst of "the thing Liam Neeson has to deal with." That thing in this movie is his life-long best friend (who's a mafia king pin) hunting him and his son through the streets of New York City.

It's a story that's been told before, but there's enough twists at the beginning of the film (assuming you haven't already watched the trailer, that damn thing gives them all away) to keep it interesting and fast paced. The film hits all the right emotional beats that elevate it from being just another mindless action flick, but they almost come too little too late in the film. Neeson's character comes off unlikeable for the first 20-minutes of the film, and a chance encounter with a police officer who hates Neeson's guts, a scene that's supposed to give us insight into Neeson's character, feels forced and lazy. The film doesn't really pick up until about 30-minutes or so into the film when Neeson's son gets caught up into Neeson's old mafia business and is forced to run all night for his life.

Over all though, the film has enough positive qualities to make up for the few stilted scenes and the bad CGI camera pans (this is a weird stylistic choice the director makes at the beginning of the film, as if he's trying to recreate the camera-panning-through-the gun scene of Fight Club, but luckily it stops after the first 20 minutes or so). I give it 3 & 1/2 stars. It's not as good as The Grey or Non-Stop, but it's still worth seeing if you're a Neeson fan.

Cinderella: Review

Cinderella is both what you would probably expect from yet another adaptation of the Disney fairy-tale property and what you wouldn't. The film definitely sticks to the story beats and conventions we all know (the wicked step-mother and step-sisters, the handsome prince, the fairy godmother), but it also manages to come off as almost-fresh in some moments. These scenes are mostly ones that surprisingly involve prince charming, played here by Game of Thrones star Richard Maddening. His character manages to (for the most part) come off as a real person, who has real desires. The scenes between him and his father are especially good. There's also a rather clever origin for Cinderella's name in the film, that just adds a little layer of character and convinces us to route for this girl who we've already seen suffer so many times before.

The visuals are of course beautiful. Though it does feature some CGI mice and pumpkin and transformation sequences, these are not the things worth seeing—they're not only the things we've seen before, they're the things we see often—the beauty is in the costume design and the sets, both of which are gorgeous and compliment the (mostly) believable performances.

Overall Cinderella is a fun-enough distraction to warrant a visit to the theater, if you're dying to see a movie; or if you're just curious about how this adaption has turned out. For everyone else, you'd be better off waiting a month or so until the summer Disney tent-pole movies start popping up. (Avengers 2, anybody?)

Still Alice

If I were to only suggest one film for everyone to see this year, I would pick Still Alice. It's an incredible film, showing the mental degeneration of Alzheimer's with an unwavering hand. At a certain point as I was watching it I just stopped caring about wiping the tears from my eyes; the film was just too damn sad. But don't make the mistake of thinking that this is some depressing film you need to pass on because "it's too hard", that would be mistake. This film is sad, not because it feels hokey or sentimental, but because it feels real. From the people, to the situations, to their reactions, it all feels more than believable. It's a film about the reality of a disease that robs you of the one thing you should never have to live long enough to lose: yourself. 

Kingsman: Review

As I sat there in the theater, thinking this was the first movie I'd seen where I knew nothing about it since Saving Sarah Marshall, I asked my friend sitting next to me what the genre was. When she told me it was a "campy action movie" I suddenly remembered having seeing the trailer for Kingsman, and promptly told my friend's husband he was an asshole for tricking us into seeing such a terrible looking movie. Luckily, just like last years John Wick, Kingsman is much better than its trailers let on, in fact, its actually pretty good.

The basic mechanics of the Kingsman are that it is a spy thriller, James Bond-homage that functions like a ramped up Simon Pegg movie (Shaun of the Dead, At World's End, ext.); being equal parts comedy and well put together genre film, but with the balls turned up to 11. It's also British, which is a nice change of gears for the American movie goer (though it's obviously being marketed to the US, judging by the many American players and the over the top Hollywood action). The only issue is that it's not always as even as those Simon Pegg films are, sometimes it flounders, not sure what genre it is at that moment. But when the movie's more fun than anything that's played in the theater for months, you can get away with a lot, and this film sure does. We get Matrix style slow-mo fight scenes, smart ass British insults, a zainy lovable villain played by Samuel L. Jackson, as well as some other great performances. The jokes are weaved into this thing with a naturalism that is hardly seen in any American comedies.

This film won't be for everyone. There's lots of blood, and in one particular fight scene the violence is so explicit (this is where the balls are turned up to 11) that it actually feels like we've stepped into a horror movie, and that's a complement to the film, because the scene works. But for anyone who doesn't mind over the top violence (and a bit of narrative cliches) mixed in with their James Bond homage film, well, then this is the film for you.

Jupiter Ascending: Review

It's hard to pin point what the biggest problem with Jupiter Ascending is. It's plagued with just about every issue a film could have. Paper thin characters, convoluted plot, stilted dialogue, lack of grounding, and an aimless plot. There are many other issues, but those are the ones that stick out as being the biggest problems. But of course, when you throw all of these things together, what you get is a boring movie. In essence, that was the film's biggest problem. It wasn't even interesting enough to be a b-movie guilty pleasure. It's just too messy and uninteresting. It's the movie equivalent of a book "telling" rather than "showing." 

There's countless dialogue info-dumps where boring characters are telling an equally boring hero (Mila Kunis) what's really going on in the universe. These scenes play out like a more lifeless version of scenes from a Percy Jackson movie. And really, the first 30 minutes feel like a compilation of better movies whoring it out. We get an Indiana Jones like introduction to Channing Tatum, who bursts onto the screen in an action sequence to find a piece of paper he must sniff to know Mila Kunis location, and once he finds her—it's probably only 10 minutes later, but the fight scenes just keep going, so it feels like an eternity—he saves Jupiter (Mila Kunis) and I almost wish he'd say, "come with me if you want to live," because at least then he'd be saying something. At this point we're over half an hour into the movie and I still don't give a damn about anything anyone is doing on screen.

On the positive, the effects are mostly good (the CGI lizards I don't really buy, but they look as good as your average CGI character does when standing next to a real human), and the acting is surprisingly strong, the only problem is they're giving nothing to do with their skills. No character has a story worth telling. No one grows, and the plot is driving no where. Everyone is passive, the plot is moving around them, leaving the audience wondering who the hell they're supposed to root for.

This is easily the worst movie I've seen this year. I hope it stays that way, because I don't think I could handle it if I have to watch a movie ascend to Jupiter's depths. 

American Sniper: Review

American Sniper tells the (once again) true story of Chris Kyle, who's played here by Bradley Cooper in a performance that's earned him a best actor nomination. 

Eastwood's direction is strong. The scenes are tense and realistic and never fall back on the shaky cam technique that so many other action and war films have in recent years. The images are brutal, they're quick, and they're disturbing, simply because the events being displayed are ones that everyone watching has lived through.

The theme of American Sniper is the toll that war takes, the humanity that is lost. It's a story worth telling, and thanks to Eastwood and Cooper, it's also one worth watching.

Foxcatcher: Review

Foxcather is a slow burn character piece, that boasts beautiful set pieces as well as three oscar worthy performances in the leads. Foxcatcher is a true story of the bizarre relationship between the multimillionaire, middle-aged heir, John E. du Pont, and the olympic wrestler Mark Schultz. 

The film chronicles the two's relationship from its seemingly innocent beginning to its tragic end. The film is all about mood, and forcing the audience to infer what the characters are thinking. Channing Tatum, Mark Ruffalo and Steve Carrell all do a great job of creating these believable, and often tortured characters. Tatum especially does well here, easily giving the best performance of his career to date.

Over all I give Foxcather 3-1/2 stars. It's definitely worth the watch if you like your movies dark and atmospheric. 

Selma: Review

I'm not going to pretend I knew a whole lot about Martin Luther King going into this movie, because I did not. What I did (and still do) know is how he is thought of by the general public in my part of the country (that country being the United States), which is to say not as a real man. He is either considered a somewhat contemporary American hero, along the lines of Thomas Jefferson and Abe Lincoln, or he's considered a troublemaking nuisance who was given his own holiday to calm black American unrest, which says quite a bit about the culture of this country, which ever way you look at him (the second interpretation of King is especially telling). So, as you can see, I didn't have much to go on King going into this movie, the Civil Rights movement was only brushed over in my school system (both in elementary and high school) and I did not take a Civil Rights class in college, though I wish I had. Knowing our recent past gives us a good idea of how we got where we are, and why things have or have not changed. Well, that's enough background information about the base knowledge I had going into Selma, here is my review.

Selma tells the story of the 1965 voting rights marches that took place from Selma to Montgomery Alabama. The violence and brutality in this movie, while not graphic on the level of a gory horror movie, is none the less disturbing because of its utter realism. Every scene we see on screen we know is something that happened in our country. We see white policemen riding on horseback whipping men, women and children as they attempt to cross a bridge toward the capital to demand their legal right to vote, which was being denied illegally by the state of Alabama. We watch as black men and women are beat with billy clubs for peacefully (and silently) protesting for their right to vote in front of the Selma courthouse. 

The film not only does a great job of tastefully (and unapologetically) depicting the violence of the Selma marches, but it also shows the man King was. An intelligent man, who knew the only way to push back against the illegal denial of black civil rights was by showing the white American world just what that denial looked like (black people were being killed in masses before King marched through the streets of Selma, there just weren't any cameras rolling). It shows his moments of doubts, the heavy weight the deaths of those who followed had on his spirits, and it lets us glimpse the strain his activism had on his marriage. Most of all it shows that this movement was something King was himself prepared to die for, which as we all know he eventually did, in 1968, at the age of 39.

Selma is a great biopic, and a great film. I give it 4 1/2 stars.

Tweet

Wild: Review

Wild benefits strongly from it's directing and editing. I don't know if this movie would work at all if the story was told in order, but thankfully the director and screen writer chose to frame the movie as a sort of mystery. Having the motive behind Cheryl Strayed's decision to hike the 1,000 mile journey across the Pacific Crest Trail unfold to us piece by piece through flashbacks.

The acting here is top notch from both the big names (Luara Dern and Reese Witherspoon are especially great) and the supporting cast alike. The scenery is beautiful and is complimented well by the often handheld camera work. 

The one minor complaint I had with this film was the ending. The dialogue that tells us everything's going to be all right for Cheryl seemed too easy, I would have preferred something a little more subtle. After watching her struggle through the entire film I do believe we've earned the right to see her succeed, but this movie takes pride in it's realism, and I think a more subtle ending would suit its narrative style. The existing ending does wrap it up, and when the trek's over, that's all we really want anyway.

Into The Woods: Review

I really didn't have great expectations for this film. I went into it just wanting a little distraction from the laundry I needed to be doing at home. I was pleasantly surprised with the first two thirds of the movie. It proved to be both smart, and funny without trying to portray its self as something more than just a collection of children's stories. 

Woods is a musical, so if that bothers you, than you shouldn't see this movie. Almost all dialogue is done through song, and it's generally rather endearing, and sometimes funny, as when the two Prince Charming's are arguing (while dancing and singing) over whose agony is more agonizing: the guy who can't get Cinderella, or the guy who can't get Rapunzel. It's the best number in the film. 

Throughout the movie there are references to the grim beginnings of what now are considered to be "Disney stories" (most of them started off as folk stories told by the Brothers Grimm). These references provide a nice bit of adult humor, and keeps it from being a dull affair. Really, these types of jokes are told pretty often, and raise this film from simply a kid movie to border line adult satire. It doesn't completely make it up there with the Mel Brooks comedies, but it's the closest thing that has in years, and coming from a Disney film, that's quite surprising. 

My only real complaint is that the film is simply too long. In the beginning it moves at a breakneck pace. The story is developed and presented to the audience very much like a play would be (which works well here), but then it almost screeches to a halt when a second villain shows up at the end of the film. Here Woods decides it has some moral lessons to teach us, which feel completely out of sync with what the rest of the film had been doing, which was providing the audience with a little care free fun and a bit of smart satire that poked at the Disney brand. The final act wants to be more like Les Mis than Robin Hood: Men In Tights, which is a shame, because I think the first half of this movie is something Mel Brooks could get behind. It's too bad the writers couldn't stick with their guns all the way through. I'd say it's still worth seeing if you're looking for something more grown up than Hunger Games but not as serious or dramatic as the grown up movies playing in the theater right now. If you're just looking for a light, mostly fun affair, than this is a pretty safe bet.

The Imitation Game: Review

I have mixed feelings about The Imitation Game, and that's due to the fact that the film is a mixed bag. On the plus side we have Benedict Cumberbatch in a role he's very comfortable in, the outsider genius who feels disconnected from society, only unlike in the BBC's Sherlock, there's no one to play off this aloofness for laughs, instead we're left feeling a little cold through most of the film. The rest of the cast is also mostly good, despite the occasional cheesy or overly emotional dialogue. The sets are also mostly good, if we don't count the poor CGI found in the unnecessary war scenes—they're there to remind us what's at stake if the decoders don't crack Enigma. The scenes of London in rubble work much better for this.

Now to the bad. The film doesn't really know what it wants to be. It's pushing in too many directions. Is it an awkward romantic comedy? A serious WWII drama? Or a feel good Christmas movie? By trying to be all of these things, it really comes out as none of them. And the ending message that is displayed in text after the film—though admittedly powerful—narratively comes out of no where. That is to say, it doesn't mesh with the rest of the film. It leaves you feeling grim, and wishing for more information about the man, Alan Turing. If only the film could have provided it. 

Exodus: Review

I honestly didn't have high hopes for Exodus. I was disappointed with Noah, the other biblical Hollywood blockbuster that came out earlier this year, and I didn't see anything in the trailer that made me think this film would be anything different. It looked just like another beautiful mess. Which is why I was so happy to see Exodus doing more than just showing up and looking pretty.

One interesting aspect of the film is that Exodus isn't afraid of offending it's audience, at least not the way that Noah was. Noah took the story of the Jewish Patriarch (also a Christian Patriarch and an Islamic Patriarch) and paints it with so many colors that it's at times, unrecognizable as the story we've all come to know. This makes it easy to ignore, to think of it as "just a movie." Not that that was the intention, Darren Aronofsky has argued that he was following the story as closely as he could, but it being a two page story with no dialogue, there was a lot of room for interpretation. Exodus on the other hand sticks closer to the text. The God of Exodus isn't the rosy caregiver seen in later parts of the Christian bible, this is the Old Testament God, the God of the Torah. He's here to prove the Egyptians are just men, and to show them who truly has the power. The characters provide a dialogue for this in the film, questioning God's actions with lines like these: "What kind of God would do this?" in reference to all the Egyptian first born sons dying in their sleep. Moses responds with, "No Hebrew children died last night." Leaving the audience to take away what they will.

Overall, the film was an enjoyable biblical adaptation that was the closest thing to telling the story straight up the middle (meaning the film is not completely historical and not completely biblical) that I've ever seen, and it did that while still being an entertaining film. That's a huge win for Hollywood, and it's a win for movie goers. It's definitely worth the ticket price. Check it out if you're feeling a little cabin fever setting in this weekend.

Whiplash: Review

Whiplash is easliy the best movie of 2014. A statement that I don't think would change if the date were January 2015, rather than December 2014. This movie is phenomenal. The cinematography, the performances, the story telling, the soundtrack, are all done perfectly. Everything is in synch here, running like a well oiled machine.

For those of you unfamiliar with the Premise, Whiplash is the story of a young man, played by Miles Teller, who is enrolled in school at Shaffer Conservatory, the best music performing college in the United States. He quickly finds himself being the alternative drummer for the Shaffer jazz band, where the director, played by J.K Simmons, is the mentor from hell. His insults and degradation are in a league few antagonists have ever achieved on screen. This is Simmons best performance, and I would be shocked if he were not nominated for an Oscar.

The performances are not the only thing in this film worth drooling over. Director Damien Chazelle is also fantastic, and he knows how to make a small idea feel big. Some of the most exciting shots are of the band members setting up their equipment or emptying their spit catchers. That's not because the other scenes are boring—there aren't any boring scenes in this movie—it's because Chazelle knows how to capture interest with quick cuts, and he knows when to hold a shot and when to do a slow pan.

If you have a theater in your town that's playing Whiplash, you are doing yourself a diservice if you're not seeing it. The movie is funny, it's moving, and it's ultimately inspiring. It's the best movie of 2014. Do not miss it.

Big Hero 6: Review

A children's film about a boy and his robot. What's not to like, right? Those were the thoughts going through my head pre-credits, and they slowly drifted away during the first 10 minutes of the movie. Those 10 minutes are heavy handed, poorly acted, and exposition crammed. I've seen worse, as I'm sure most movie goers have, but it was a disappointing start, especially for a movie that had received such rave reviews from the critics, and  and from Matt Jones, Kansas Universities finest paleontologist master student, and a fellow Walking Critic . The guy loves comic book movies, and Big Hero Six is a Marvel property, so you can see why I was starting to question his opinion. 

I was afraid I was going to have to write my first negative review since Patch Adams. It was looking bleak. But then, something happened. A character died in an unexpected explosion (cue super hero beginning story line here), and from there the movie went up. This change in the films course can all be credited to the appearance of Baymax,  the walking, talking marshmallow robot, who's only goal is to insure the physical and mental health of his human patients. This of course provides much of the comedy of the film, and not surprisingly, this is also where all of the genuine moments of the film are found. Baymax is the heart of Big Hero 6, not the human characters. They're mostly stiff, and uninteresting, and those that aren't are too cartoony to be believable. We can believe Baymax is what he is, a Health Care Companion bot who only want's to help others, but not at the expense of the greater good of humanity. He's the perfect hero for the story, despite his owner's name arguing to the contrary (The robot's owner's name is Hiro: pronounced, "Hero").

Though the film is a children's movie, one with no inappropriate, or intelligent insulting jokes, it is one that can be enjoyed by all ages, especially if you're a robot lover at heart.  

Birdman: Review

Like most people I know, my interest in Birdman came from the obvious parallels between Michael Keaton's real career and that of the character he is playing. In Birdman Keaton plays Riggan Thomson. A Hollywood actor who's last great role was in the 1990's when he stared as the title character in Birdman 3. Keaton of course will always be most well known for playing Batman in the first two (serious) Batman films. But that's where the comparisons between Keaton and Riggan Thomson stop. Keaton's real life persona, and Riggan Thomson's couldn't be any further from each other, and the plot of the film is definitely nothing like what you would see in a summer superhero block buster. All of which is good news for the audience.

The film is mostly about the fate of a play Riggan has adapted, is directing, and starring in—this of course rubs some Broadway diehards the wrong way, such as Edward Norton's character, a beloved Broadway actor named Mike Shiner, and a New York Times critic played by Lindsay Duncan—but it's also about the insatiable attention artists crave, and what lengths they're willing to go to get it; to stay relevant in today's lightning speed culture. The film hits all the right beats, but it delivers them in that strange way that only an independent film can dare to do. Now don't let that last statement turn you off, this isn't a head scratching movie (well, except for maybe the ending), it is grounded in a realism that's sorely missing from the majority of todays films, and is a welcome addition to Keaton's filmography. 

Interstellar: Review

I have to say, I had pretty heightened hopes going into seeing this film. Those hopes were there for many reasons. Here are a few:

• It's the first big sci-fi film to hit theaters since Elysium, and that was several years ago.
• It's a Christopher Nolan film.
• It's the next film in the Matthew McConaughey McConaissance, following Mud, Dallas Buyers Club, True Detective and The Wolf of Wall Street. All of which were great, and you should check them out if you haven't had a chance to yet.
• The cast in general. Not only do you have McConaughey, but there's also Anne Hathaway, Jessica Chastain, Michael Caine, and the creepy guy from American Beauty (the boyfriend who video taped the plastic bag blowing in the wind).

So, as you can see, I had pretty high expectations going in. This film was going to change sci-fi cinema for me. Well, the question you're probably asking yourself right now is: "Did it?" And the answer to that is: "Well, yeah. I think it did."

Now before you go saying that I said Interstellar is the best movie ever, let me go a little more into detail in what I mean when I say "I think it kinda changed sci-fi cinema," what I'm really saying is, "it might change sci-fi cinema." Or more accurately, it might renew an appreciation for a long lost genre. Because when viewed by anyone who's seen 2001: A Space Odyssey, or Sphere, or Sunshine, or The Thirteenth Floor or Dark City, it becomes clear that this film is following the classic conventions of sci-fi, and it's doing a great job. There's scientist on a mission to save a dying planet, there's robots with personalities, there's dangerous foreign environments, there's science talk of black holes and relativity--which Neil deGrasse Tyson has said the film "Let's you experience [it] like no film has before." (in the movie relativity works as a  sort of unwanted time travel, people on Earth age faster than the people on the ship when they embark on certain planets in another galaxy). So all the things we want in an epic sci-fi film are here, and the best part is, Nolan makes it feel believable. He grounds the film in the father-daughter relationship, it's what becomes the heart of this movie.

My hope is that Interstellar will inspire other writers and directors to tackle the sci-fi genre with more vigor than just another post apocalyptic film starring 20 somethings as 17 somethings. After all, the working world is populated by adults, we deserve some adult movies, and this my friends, I am happy to report, is an adult movie. It's a must see. Get out there and get your ticket. But stay home if you hate robots and space ships. You'll find Katniss next door.