The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1

The year 2012 was a surprisingly big year for movies. We've had the Avengers assemble for the first time, Ben Affleck gave us his Best Picture winning film “Argo,” Quentin Tarantino gave us a tribute to spaghetti westerns and black-sploitation films with “Django Unchained,” and Jennifer Lawrence rose to the top of the Hollywood ladder. Beforehand, Lawrence had only been best known for working on films like “Winter's bone,” but after “X-Men First Class,” she started to gain a bit more recognition. During that year, she starred in “Silver Lining's Playbook” which won her the Oscar for Best Actress, and she starred in the new young adult book adaptation, “The Hunger Games.”

The first film, written and directed by Gary Ross, was set in the post-apocalyptic world of “Panem,” each of the 13 districts must offer two tributes for the annual Hunger Games. When her sister is chosen to participate, Katniss Everdeen offers herself as tribute in order to save her sister. Now she, and her friend Peeta, must appeal to the crowds and survive the games as this year's champions. It has been said countless times that the film is just an American version of “Battle Royale,” which I can totally see why. And while I do think “Battle Royale” is a superior movie, I still like this film just the same, for it's protagonists and it's satire on reality T.V. and celebrity life. The shaky cam action scenes do get obnoxious though.

The sequel, “Catching Fire,” was a big step up from the previous film. The action scenes were done better, thanks to Frances Lawrence taking over as director, the stakes were higher, and the acting had gotten better. As the recent winners of the Hunger Games, Katniss and Peeta now had to appeal to the City Capitol and President Snow, if they wish to survive and gain the support they need for the 75^th annual games, where they compete against the survivors of the previous 25 years. Looking back at “Catching Fire,” I keep loving it more and more, seeing how much improvement could be done with a film such as this. It didn't quite fill up the void that “Harry Potter” left when the series was done, but I'm at least glad that it was able to wash away the memory of some of the crap that Stephanie Meyer has been putting out.

Now we move onto the first part of the final chapter of this series, “The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1.” After recovering from the trauma she endured from the last Hunger Games, Katniss has been chosen to represent the rebellion hiding in District 13. When she agrees to the terms, she requests that Peeta and the other victors that were left behind be saved and spared, during the mission to take out City Capitol and influencing the other districts to fight back with her.

One of the major key factors that I love about these films is its take on propaganda and the news. They play with the fact that not every person that appears on T.V. is who they really are, but just an act to appeal to whomever is watching, including the people behind the camera. Scenes like when they try to make Katniss seem like an epic war rebel in front of a green-screen is both clever and occasionally funny. The film also dives into the question of who is actually the right side here? Is the rebellion against the Capitol a good idea, or will it lead to a civil war that no one can recover from? Questions like that really do get a person invested in the story, and eager to find out what happens. Needless to say, I'm looking forward to Part 2.

Much like the previous installments, Jennifer Lawrence gives a great performance as Katniss. While there wasn't as much development with her, like in “Catching Fire,” she makes up for it with her inner struggles about the rebellion, and with Peeta being within the Capitol and saying all those things about them. She does have a breaking point, and you do see her care about those around her, even if it means disobeying orders. Lawrence is a fantastic actress, and after looking back at who they originally wanted for Katniss (Hailee Steinfeld, Chloe Moretz, Abigail Breslin, and Emma Roberts), you can't really picture anyone else for the role better than her at this point. Liam Hemsworth as Gale manages to get a bigger part in the series this time around, as one of the people who partake in the rebellion. While being part of the filming team, at first, he brings that sense of humanity and urgency to Katniss, as he and her family are all that she's got left to remember of her district.

Josh Hutcherson as Peeta, while he has a smaller role than before, still makes it as memorable as possible. The scenes where he's on the news and is spilling out all the talk about the rebellion to Katniss, is really effective. The look in his eyes obviously tells you that he doesn't want to say it, but has no choice if he wants to keep himself alive for both his and Katniss's sake. Hutcherson, too, has come a long way in his career, and I can only hope for the best with what comes for him. Other cast members such as Woody Harrelson as Haymitch, Donald Sutherland as President Snow, Elizabeth Banks as Trinket, and Phillip Seymour Hoffman (may he rest in peace) as Plutarch were all fantastic in their returning roles. I also got to give props to Julianne Moore, as the leader of District 13, Alma Coin. She has claimed to be a big fan of the books, so the fact that she was able to get invested in what her character does and what goes on around her makes it easy to work with.

This time around, the script was written by Daniel Strong and Peter Craig. Craig is best known for co-writing “The Town,” and Strong is well known for writing for “Lee Daniel's The Butler,” as well as playing Jonathan on “Buffy the Vampire Slayer.” The two manage to make the script work well to its advantage, and Frances Lawrence still keeps it fresh and exciting. There isn't much in the way of action, aside from the district rebellions and a few intense scenes, but I can get past that. You want there to be a big build up, and this one has a lot.

Overall, “The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1” was a definite win/win for me. I saw the film opening day with my buddy Zack, and we enjoyed it a lot. With “Part 2” coming out next year, along with “Jurassic World,” “Tomorrowland,” and many others, I have a feeling it'll be a good year...ESPECIALLY with how annoying THIS year was.

Rating: 10/10

Dumb and Dumber To

The year 1994 was a big, BIG year for movies. Tom Hanks won his second Oscar for his performance in “Forest Gump,” Kevin Smith got recognition for “Clerks,” Keanu Reeves made himself an action star sensation with “Speed,” Disney gave us the triumphant epic that was “The Lion King,” and Quentin Tarantino delivered us “Pulp Fiction.” But there was one actor who managed to define 1994, by being one of the biggest stars to get so much recognition that year...and that actor is Jim Carrey.

While Carrey may have still been recognizable with “In Living Color” and a few films here and there, it wasn't until 1994 that his career really took off into stardom. “Ace Ventura: Pet Detective” was a goofy and likable comedy that had Carrey take things up to his highest level, “The Mask” had him blend both his craziness and dramatic sides together in one film, and then we have “Dumb and Dumber,” being the definition of stupid comedy.

To describe the plot of “Dumb and Dumber” would go like this: two idiots try to bring a woman back a suitcase that was supposed to go to mobsters. The result is shenanigans after shenanigans, with stupid moment after stupid moment...but that's pretty much the point of the film. Saying that film like this is stupid is pretty much giving it a compliment. It's a film that's about a couple of man-children, doing what you'd expect a couple of children to do, and there are some memorable lines and moments from it. Is it perfect? No, far from it. But for what it is, it's enjoyable.

Afterwards, the film was subjected to what I call, the “Carrey-wipe.” What's the “Carrey-wipe” you ask? Well, it's when a studio decides to make another film to a popular Jim Carrey movie, only without Jim Carrey involved with it. The reason for this was because after “Ace Ventura: When Nature Calls,” Jim wasn't too enthusiastic about doing the same character again and not trying something new. Because of this, we got shit like “Son of the Mask,” “Evan Almighty,” “Ace Ventura Jr,” and “Dumb and Dumberer: When Harry Met Lloyd.” They were all awful films, and they bombed HARD.

So the idea of Jim Carrey ever doing a sequel to one of his films ever again was just a dream. Then it was announced that the Farrelly Brothers were working on a TRUE sequel to “Dumb and Dumber,” and that it WOULD star Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels again. There has been a lot of word going around and about on it, like Carrey dropping out of it, Daniels saying that it wasn't true, and it wasn't until Carrey tweeted himself with his chipped tooth that it was completely confirmed.

In this new film, “Dumb and Dumber To,” Harry and Lloyd go back to their old life after Lloyd ends his twenty year prank, and it's revealed that Harry has a bad kidney. When they find a postcard from an old girlfriend who had a kid, they decide to go meet her to get a new kidney, all the while delivering a special item she's supposed to give to executives at a convention.

Did I like the film? Surprisingly enough, I did...sort of. Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels still have good chemistry together, and they manage to keep their material in the same spirit as the original. Kathleen Turner as Frida Feltcher, the woman that had the child, does a good enough job in the film. The only problem I had with her, was that she wasn't quite as funny as they could have made her. She is likable, don't get me wrong, but for a comedy like this I would have liked a bit more jokes with her.

Rob Riggle plays one of the antagonists of the film, and he's definitely one of the best parts about the film. His character is like the type Mike Starr played in the first film, as a guy who's trying to kill our heroes, but something always gets in the way. He also plays his character's twin brother, but that's as far as I'll go with him. But with how good Riggle was in the film, it's the exact opposite with Laurie Holden as the main villain. She's...just not interesting in the slightest, and I felt like Holden didn't do much to make her that memorable. Sure, the villain from the first film was like that, but that's beside the point. I also didn't care that much for the daughter, played by Rachel Melvin. She tries her best, bless her heart, but she didn't seem to take it to her fullest advantage. Not that it was Melvin's fault, I mean she's a good actress, it's just that the character wasn't written as good.

Overall, is “Dumb and Dumber To” worth it? On a certain level, it is. While I do have problems with the villain, and a few jokes here and there being too juvenile, it's still a good time because of Daniels and Carrey's comedic timing together. If you're looking for a film that brings out some nostalgia in you, I'd recommend seeing it. It's stupid, but in an enjoyable way.

Rating: 6/10

Horrible Bosses 2

 Back in 2011, we were given the comedy, “Horrible Bosses,” starring Jason Bateman, Charlie Day, and Jason Sudeikis. It was about a trio of guys (Nick, Dale, and Kurt) who really don't like their bosses, whether they were a total fucking asshole, a dipshit cokehead, or an evil crazy bitch DDS, so they hire a guy to help them deal with the situation. The results? They try and kill each of their bosses, so there would be no trace behind them. It was a clever film that managed to keep itself fresh with each passing view of it, and was one of my favorite films of that year. And much like any successful comedy would, it spawned a sequel.

In this installment, the trio has started to build up their own product company, for their own line of showerheads. However, things turn sour when their client, Burt Hanson, cancels his offer to buy a hundred thousand units so he can buy their bankrupt company. So in an attempt to pay off their debt, they kidnap his son, Rex, who in a twist of events decides to be in on the kidnapping to get even more money.

First off, the chemistry between our three protagonists is golden. The timing for each joke between the three is just as funny as the first film, with a few added features to it. It makes it feel like this is an actual continuation of the first film. It even has Dale's wife from the first film return, even for a little bit. Every minute passing always has something new to share, and it keeps getting funnier and funnier.

The two of the former bosses, played by Jennifer Aniston and Kevin Spacey, return in smaller roles, but still manage to leave an impact on the film. We do see what has happened with them since the events of the first film, and the interactions between them and our protagonists make for some great moments. Jamie Foxx returns to reprise his role as Dean “Motherfucker” Jones, this time in a much more involved role than before, and needless to say, the ending with his bit is hilarious.

The new horrible boss, Burt Hanson, is delightfully enjoyable, and Christoph Waltz does a fantastic job at playing such a scumbag. I'm glad that this film, unlike “The Green Hornet,” was able to showcase what Waltz can do as a comedic villain. However, the one who steals the show is Rex Hanson, played by Chris Pine. To put it simply, Pine is a fucking maniacal genius in this film. Every scene with him has the film take a new turn with him, even when you least expect it. Just from the trailers alone, you can tell Pine is having so much fun with this character. I would have easily recommended this movie for him alone, showing you just how good he was in this film.

Overall, “Horrible Bosses 2” was a hilarious trip all the way through. When it comes out next week to theaters, I highly recommend checking it out. It's funny, it's timed well, and it's just as good, if not better than the first film.

Rating: 10/10

Big Hero 6

 In the past, I've brought up that we have entered into a new Renaissance Era for Disney. “Wreck-It Ralph” and “Frozen” were both films that I really did enjoy with every fiber of my being, despite my doubt and low expectations. And yet, both times Disney has proven me wrong, and the films were extremely good. Now that Disney owns a mass majority of Marvel, you think they would take advantage of that opportunity and make their own Marvel film with their name attached to it. Well, look no further, for we have “Big Hero 6.”

Loosely based on the comic of the same name, “Big Hero 6” tells the story of Hiro Hamada, a teenage genius who lives in the futuristic city of San Fransokyo. When his brother, Tadashi, is killed in a fiery explosion, Hiro decides to team up with Tadashi's friends and his robot, Baymax, to apprehend the perpetrator and save the city.

It does sound like the typical superhero film, and in a way it is. But the way that its handled makes it a thrilling experience from start to finish. It's funny, it's dark, it's action packed, and it has so much life to it. Now, when I say this film is “loosely based,” I do mean that. A lot of people I follow say that this film took a lot of liberties with the comic, in order to make the film more relatable.

If you watch The Blockbuster Buster, then you'll know he said this film was like Disney's take on “The Iron Giant” and the “Teen Titans” tv show, and he is right in that regard. The characters are made of different races and nationalities, to make it seem more welcoming, and the main focus is the relationship between Hiro and Baymax. But from what I've heard from them, they say that the film is still really good, despite not being entirely accurate.

Like you'd expect, the animation is beyond phenomenal, and the action scenes are really damn good. I'd dare even say it's Disney's best animated action film since “The Incredibles.” Yeah, I know it's technically Pixar, but Disney owns them so it counts. Not only that but the 3D was done excellently, and with it being CGI, it really captures the atmosphere perfectly.

One of the major key factors that I love about the film is the brotherly bond between Hiro and Tadashi in the first act. You do feel the connection these two share, and it does get emotional when that bond is torn apart. However, it is still kept alive when Baymax starts to help out Hiro, as if Tadashi really is still there. Disney has a knack for making the goofy sidekick very lovable, and that's what Baymax is. He's funny, he's caring, and you do get teary eyed when he's reasoning with Hiro in his time of desperation and near the end. Like Genie, Olaf, and others like them, Baymax should feel welcome to the club.

As for the voice acting, it's actually pretty good. Ryan Potter as Hiro does add in the emotion, Scott Adsit was a perfect choice for Baymax, and the rest of the Big Hero 6 played by T.J. Miller, Jamie Chung, Genesis Rodriguez, and Damon Wayans Jr. are also really good. Stan Lee also manages to voice a cameo in the film, since it is a Marvel film and we should expect a cameo from him. Alan Tudyk also gets a role in the film, playing a business tycoon who's eager about the future. I think since this is the third Disney film in a row that Alan Tudyk has voiced for, we should just make him the new John Ratzenberger.

Overall, “Big Hero 6” was a fantastic film, and is definitely one of my favorite films of the year. It's action packed, it's beautifully colorful, its characters are likable, and it's rich with emotion. I'll be looking forward to the day it is released on Blu-Ray, because it is definitely worth the money.

Rating 10/10

Interstellar

 Christopher Nolan is regarded by many as one of the most acclaimed directors of our generation. Films like “Insomnia,” “The Prestige,” “Inception,” and “Memento” are all among my favorite films, because of the dark and eerie atmosphere that they give off. While I do like “The Dark Knight Trilogy,” they don't seem to have the same kind of kick that the other films have. Now with “The Dark Knight Trilogy” wrapped up, Nolan finally returns to doing newer work with his science fiction epic, “Interstellar.”

The film tells the story of Cooper, a farming engineer who wants to do whatever it takes to protect his family. When his daughter, Murphy, discovers the coordinates for NASA's surviving base, Cooper now has to lead a team of scientists through a wormhole, in order to find a better planet for the human race to live on. To be perfectly honest, this is Christopher Nolan's BEST film. His directing and writing skills are put to the test in this picture, and not for a moment do I feel like a scene or performance was done badly. And for a film that's almost three hours long, I was NOT bored by it.

Matthew McConaughey as Cooper is fantastic, and he really shows us that he can act, instead of being that charming southern guy from “How to Lose a Guy In 10 Days.” Even before he heads off into space, the interactions he has with everyone he shares the screen with are great, like he does know how to work through a situation. McConaughey is one of my favorite actors, and after winning the Oscar for “Dallas Buyers Club” and starring in “True Detective,” it's very likely he won't lose his mojo anytime soon. I also find it funny how this is the second character named “Cooper” he's played, with the previous one being in “Killer Joe.” Seriously guys, if you haven't seen “Killer Joe” yet, go check it out, it is awesome! You'll never think of chicken wings the same way.

Mackenzie Foy plays Murphy, Cooper's daughter, and she manages to give a fantastic performance as well. It's really nice to see that after playing the bastard child of Edward and Bella in “Breaking Dawn,” she can finally show us that she can act. The scenes with her and McConaughey are probably my favorite part of the movie, because they have such good chemistry together. You do believe their relationship together as father and daughter, like any good actor or actress should. I also enjoyed Jessica Chastain's portrayal of the grown-up Murphy, which has just as much emotion as Foy does. And, much like any performance from Jessica Chastain, she a strong and determined protagonist, going with her instincts instead of what others suggest. Chastain has really started to become one of my favorite actresses, ever since her flawless Oscar nominated role in “The Help.” And to see her work with one of my favorite directors is a treat in itself.

Anne Hathaway returns from “The Dark Knight Rises” to play Amelia Brand, one of the fellow astronauts that Cooper has to travel with. At first, we don't know much about her character, aside from being the daughter of the head programmer, but we still get that emotional feel with her throughout the film, with every passing moment. It's good to see Hathaway go from being that chick from “The Princess Diaries,” to becoming an Oscar winning actress, and in one of the greatest science fiction epics in the longest time. Michael Caine, another Nolan collaborator, also gives a great performance as Amelia's father. I mean, it's Michael Caine, why wouldn't he?

Other supporting roles such as John Lithgow as Cooper's father, Topher Grace as Murphy's partner, Casey Affleck as Cooper's son, and even Wes Bently and David Gyasi as the other two astronauts give off very good performances. We even get a surprise cameo from Matt Damon and Ellen Burstyn, so that was pretty cool.

Now let me just talk about the effects, because...holy shit, this is a gorgeous looking movie. For a science fiction movie filmed and directed in such majesty and magnitude, I did not think this film was using CGI, much like “Gravity.” I felt like I was watching these people actually go up into space and go through a worm hole. There have been some people who complained about how the science was wrong in this film...but I don't really care. I only looked at this film thinking, “this is amazing,” and it was.

Overall, “Interstellar” is my new favorite film from Christopher Nolan, and is definitely a contender for my favorite movie of the year. If this film does get Oscar attention, they had better give Nolan a Best Director nomination. Hell, he deserves one after being snubbed for “Inception.” But then again, he was nominated for Best Picture and Best Screenplay, so I can't complain too much.

Rating: 10/10

Birdman or The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance

 If there is one thing that I will hold deeply to my grave, it's that Michael Keaton gave the best live action performance as Batman, better than everyone else. Christian Bale may have done his fair share, but it's still no where near as good as what Keaton gave back in the late 80's and early 90's. As someone who enjoys the original Burton Batman films, it would make sense that I would enjoy Michael Keaton's newest film, “Birdman or The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance.”

In this film, Michael Keaton plays Riggin Thompson, an actor who was best known for playing a big shot superhero, but is now trying to make a better name for himself, by directing and starring in a Broadway play. However, he comes across many complications that come with doing a stage show, as well as fighting a little voice in his head that's trying to pull him back into that shell of his former self.

Not only does this stand as one of the best films of this year, this is one of the greatest films I have ever seen in my life. The acting is phenomenal, especially on Michael Keaton's part. It's as if he's playing a fictionalized version of himself, and it does feel like that the whole way through. He has his inner struggles, but we also feel sympathy for him as a guy who just wants to be respected. Edward Norton, who plays his co-star in the play, is equally as good as Keaton in this film, playing a big shot who thinks he's better than everyone and trying to make the play his own, overshadowing Keaton. Norton's character is believable, because I have known PLENTY of people who are like that, when it comes to the stage. The chemistry that these two share and seeing them work off each other is just fascinating to watch, it was hard to pick who NOT to keep your eyes on. I mean, where else do you get a scene where Batman smacks the Incredible Hulk in his underwear, with a newspaper, then wrestle him? You just can't, and that's why it's awesome.

The supporting cast featuring Emma Stone, Zach Galifinakis, Andrea Riseborough, and Naomi Watts, are also entertaining to watch as well. Stone plays Riggin's pot addict daughter, and she plays it off so well. She tries to remind him that he's in a fantasy and that all he thinks about is himself being successful with the play, instead of her. Galifinakis plays the stage manager, and he also has some great lines and chemistry with Keaton, as someone who wants everything to go right and have no screw ups. Interesting enough, Galifinakis actually asked Edward Norton if this is what it's like to be in a good movie, because he hadn't really done a film quite like this before. I would have to say yes to that, Mr. G. Watts and Riseborough, as the two main actresses of the play, give excellent performances as well, especially Watts. If you've seen the movie, you'll know what I mean.

Aside from the acting, there are two main elements that are what keep this film going strong. One is obviously the direction, which is helped by the cinematography and editing. Throughout the entire film, you feel as if it's all one continuous shot the whole way through, with some very clever editing effects. There are moments where you can tell when they did cut, but like I said, the editing is so good that it doesn't even phase me. Not only that, but the film adds in the potential hazards that could go wrong with a play, that only stage actors could know how bad it is. Getting locked out and having to go around, improvising without the needed prop, adding in moments that aren't in the script, and other stuff like that.

The other element is the dialogue, which is really clever and neatly written, as the entire script pokes fun at the superheroes of today, and how they all feel like a trend that's way past its due. The film even pokes fun at most critic's thinking process, when Riggen gives this huge monologue towards the theatre critic, played by Lindsay Duncan. Every single word of dialogue that is said out of Keaton's mouth about critics is ENTIRELY true. I've known and even LIVED with people who are those cynical assholes who will go and see something, and say it sucks without giving it a chance in the slightest, whether it'd be just for one person or maybe even reminding them of something else. Yeah, I have had moments like that in the past beforehand, but I've learned to grow past that long ago. I may go into films some films with low expectations, but that doesn't automatically mean I will hate it. Films like “Snow White & The Huntsman,” “Magic Mike,” “The Help,” “Wreck-It Ralph,” and even “The Amazing Spiderman 1&2” are films I had low hopes for, but ended up loving them. I'm an example of someone who has a little thing called “an open mind.”

Overall, “Birdman” is a film that defines amazement. This film has been getting a lot of Oscar buzz, mostly on Michael Keaton for “Best Actor.” If that happens, I hope the Academy will be smart and at least nominate him. And if he's the one I love over the other nods, then he might as well be given the trophy right then and there.

Rating: 10/10

Nightcrawler

 Jake Gyllenhaal is one of the finest actors of our generation. After his debut work on “City Slickers,” he has since then worked on other acclaimed projects such as “Donnie Darko,” “October Sky,” “Brokeback Mountain,” “Zodiac,” and “Prisoners.” He knows how to give his all, and films like these have proven that greatly. Now we take a look at a film that might be his next chance at an Oscar nod, “Nightcrawler.”

The film is about an unemployed perfectionist, Louis Bloom, desperate for work and money. After passing a crime scene and seeing a camera crew record the event for their news station, he decides to film local crime scenes independently. He's able to get some good detail both on and off screen, but soon becomes overly obsessed with the job to disturbing lengths.

Right off the bat, this is Gyllenhaal's best performance without a doubt. Hell, it's not even Gyllenhaal in this film, all I saw was Louis Bloom. As the film goes on, we learn this guy is not a society man, and seeing those buggy eyes during some scenes make you wonder what's going on in that head of his. We want to root for this guy, but at the same time you feel like we shouldn't because he's doing things that no one would EVER do. Not only that, but the scenes where he fails and loses his shit, sent chills down my spine, like he was about to murder a person. I'm guaranteeing Gyllenhaal will get an Oscar nod for this film, because he deserves it after he and Hugh Jackman got snubbed for “Prisoners.”

Rene Russo plays the head of the news station that Louis goes to, and she does a great job too. She has that presence that she's someone in power, and the scenes that she has with Gyllenhaal are fantastic. I love seeing these two work off each other, and how she's trying to let him down easy, but he's just got her wrapped around his finger with a quick response on how to turn things around. Riz Ahmed plays Rick, Bloom's intern, and the scenes with him are also investing. As time goes on, we see this character go from being someone trying to get used to the job, to a guy who is learning fast and adapting to Bloom's style of thinking. I love characters who can use another's techniques against them, making conflicts really investing.

The film was directed and written by Rene Russo's husband, Dan Gilroy, who is best known for screenplays for “Real Steel,” “Chasers,” “Freejack,” and “The Bourne Legacy.” For his directing debut, it's an impressive feat. If I didn't know who was directing this film, I honestly would have sworn it was a David Fincher or early Christopher Nolan film. I have a feeling he'll be up there for Best Screenplay and Best Director, because this was an amazing film to look at. The shots of L.A. are glorious to watch, and the crime scenes filmed are pretty brutal...but in a good way.

Overall, “Nightcrawler” is one I highly recommend. Dark, slick, thrilling, and all around exciting, it's one of the best of the year.

Rating: 10/10

Gone Girl

 David Fincher is regarded as one of the finest directors since the mid-90's. After his debut disaster that was “Alien 3,” he's delivered some of the finest works that have come out of Hollywood: “Zodiac,” “Fight Club,” “The Game,” “Seven,” and “The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo” are all examples of his capabilities. Hell, within the past couple of years, I've started to appreciate “The Social Network” a bit more. Fincher is an excellent director, as he and Tarantino have both proved to make actors that I dislike into giving out great performances. Which brings us to his newest film, starring Ben Affleck and Rosamund Pike, “Gone Girl.”

Based on the novel by Gillian Flynn, “Gone Girl” tells of Nick Dunne, a college professor whose wife, Amy, goes missing. After witnessing a bizarre crime scene, he tries to search for her, with the town thinking that maybe he killed her, leaving us to something we don't know about Nick.

The film is a mystery thriller, and it never lets up on that. The marketing team that advertised this film did a fantastic job of how set the tone for what this movie would be. One minute you think it'll go this direction, only to pull you into another direction you didn't think about. Kudos to the people who made these trailers, because I really liked the surprises that happened in this film. Gillian Flynn admitted that the film would differ from the book, which would piss people off, if not for the fact that Flynn wrote the screenplay herself. While the film does go on longer than it felt like it should, it still manages to keep you interested in what's going on, and the people who rushed to the bathroom after the film would agree as well.

Ben Affleck delivers the performance of his career. You might think that the guy was playing just a smug douche, but as it goes on it all comes together. Nick Dunne is not as good a person as you would expect, and there are things that would make you hate this guy. It's almost as if Affleck is playing a parody of himself from 10 years ago, and he does it great. Affleck still remains one of the most talented people in Hollywood, and it really bugs me that people are giving this guy shit, even after he gave us three great films as a director. People, he was one of the three people to help give Robin Williams an Oscar, SHOW SOME RESPECT! Plus, he, Henry Cavill, and Chris Terrio's script are the only things that I'm looking forward to in “The World's Finest” (I know, it's called “Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice,” but that's a stupid fucking title). Rosamund Pike as Amy Elliot Dunne steals the show, however, because of the secrets that we learn throughout the film. No spoilers on this one, because I want you to see the movie. After this film, I guaranteeing the Academy will nominate these two for Best Actor and Actress, and that's totally fine with me.

The supporting cast also manages to do excellent as well, but there are two actors that managed to surprise me greatly. One was Neil Patrick Harris, who plays an supposed stalker of Rosamund Pike, but does it in a way you wouldn't expect of him. His character goes into different patterns you think about, which does come to a point when you fully watch the film. The other was Tyler Perry, who not only manages to give off the best performance of his career, but one of the best performances of the year, and that's saying a lot. I never really liked most of Perry's films. This really shows that he can act, so much that I wouldn't actually mind if he was nominated for Best Supporting Actor. Granted, I would much prefer NPH, our next Oscar host, to get nominated, but if both do, I'm okay with that.

Overall, “Gone Girl” is a big contender into Oscar season people. The script is investing and has good twists, the acting is solid, and the direction is flawless. David Fincher has delivered another fantastic film, and I hope it gets at least nominated for the Big Five.

Rating: 10/10