Creed

Managing hype is an odd thing for me, as well as others, I'm sure. 

When I first heard about Creed I somewhat scoffed at the idea. One of Rocky Balboa's former opponents' son being trained and continuing the series? On paper you have to admit that idea sounds like a last ditch effort for one of Hollywood's oldest franchises. But then I started hearing who was involved: Michael B. Jordan, director Ryan Coogler (who also directed Jordan in a film I've regretfully missed, Fruitvale Station), and Stallone himself. 

The first trailer hit and I made of mental note of it. I'd be seeing it. 

Early reviews started to trickle in and they were outstanding. Now I really wanted to see it. 

Reviews continued to pour praise on the film. Some predicting it to get a Best Picture nomination. My hype remained, but I now believed it was too high and anticipated to be slightly disappointed. 

Then I saw the film late this afternoon. 

Not only was I not disappointed, my grown expectations were surpassed. I had just witnessed one of the best films of 2015. 

Run, Creed, run!

Training for Expendables 4:
The Wheelchair Assassinations

Creed is a generic boxing tale. There's really no way around saying that and, in my eyes, that's about the only thing against it. I'm a firm believer that generic does not equal boredom and this film will continue to be one of the first defenses I use in that argument. So how does a generic film work so well to completely revitalize a nearly-deceased franchise and get Oscar buzz at the same time? It's Coogler. As the director and screenplay writer, this is his brainchild and it's made with a masterful touch that elevates the material. This feels like a drama, but also a boxing film, while also being a spiritual sequel. It's expertly all woven together without even the blink of an eye and I think many will find the quality surprising. Personally I was blown away by it and it all comes together in an extremely emotional package. There aren't too many surprises to be had, but because the characters are so well created and the film so well crafted, I couldn't help but pretty much lose my s**t in the last fight. And by lose my s**t I mean cry. I wasn't sad....no. They were inspired tears. Tears that were rooting for someone. For something. For Creed. And for that to happen within the span of 133 minutes is both an achievement and an example of movie magic. 

Of course, this all wouldn't be possible without the two main stars. Stallone is the best he's been here in years, possibly his whole career. Despite what we may see in The Expendables films, he's an aged man here and finds his name and legacy slipping to the past. Something that he's comfortable with. But it's a sad thing to watch a hero grip with reality. And Michael B. Jordan continues to be one of the best young actors in Hollywood, capturing the pure spirit and drive and hardships of his character, Adonis Johnson Creed. Their interactions are natural, having a father/son type of feel but more importantly they live these characters and bring them into being. It's Creed and Balboa in the movie, not Jordan and Stallone. And when the film seeks your emotions, that counts for a lot. 

EXACTLY what I look like with my shirt off

Creed could have also simply been a film that had great drama and average, uninspiring boxing scenes. In fact, I think that's what I was most afraid of. Although I'm not an expert in the world of boxing cinema, I think it's safe to say that Creed has some of the best boxing sequences of all time. Throughout the film there are really two "main" ones and both are miraculous in their own right. One is completed in a single take (or at least it appears that way), which I'm not sure has ever been done before in a boxing film. The camera weaves around the ring, the fighters, and the corners, and I couldn't take my eyes off it, especially once I realized it was all seamless. I was blown away. The other fight doesn't use this technique, but is still incredibly well filmed and elicits so much emotion from the hits, the original score, and the script, that I sincerely had no idea why I was crying. This is a beautifully made film both inside and outside the ring. 

Creed is an absolute achievement in film. It sustains a franchise while moving it eons forward, it provides an exciting boxing film, and an emotionally captivating drama. Take it from someone who thought he was overly excited for it; I was blown away and it's a testament to the director's and cast's efforts to make this special. 

It isn't just special. 

It's one of the year's best. 

CONS:

• Generic plot and plot progression. This includes training montages and what not
• Rather unrealistic scenario that sets up the final fight

PROS:

• Fantastic script and screenplay from Coogler who also does an expert job with direction
• Michael B. Jordan has a complex character, one with real pain and challenges, and he gives an amazing performance
• Stallone brings us a different, aging Rocky and commands the screen when he's on it
• Great cinematography, especially in the ring. The single shot boxing match was incredible
• Awesome soundtrack
• Captivating and inspiring. It's original score is fantastic and the character work and camera work make for an emotional experience that I was not expecting
• Stands alone on its own and explains the past where necessary, but doesn't live in it
• Fantastic, classic boxing matches
• A few solid laughs
• Entertaining from start to finish

Rath's Review Score: 9.5/10

     

The Night Before

Rounding out one of those rare 3-movie weekends (seriously Hollywood, could we not have competed something against The 33 last weekend?) is the holiday comedy, The Night Before. 

I've really been enjoying the previews for this one, though they haven't changed much, and I'm usually willing to give a Seth Rogen stoner comedy a shot just on the off chance we get something like This is the End. I was also intrigued that the usual co-stars were no where to be seen. No James Franco. No Jonah Hill. No Danny McBride. They'd been replaced with Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Anthony Mackie, both of which I found to be interesting, but not wholly unreasonable choices. 

The subject matter with The Night Before is a bit more grim than one might expect. Ethan (Gordon-Levitt) is an orphan when his parents were killed 14 years ago on Christmas Eve. Since then, Isaac (Rogen) and Chris (Mackie) have become his pseudo-family and spend time with him every holiday. The tradition, however, is coming to an end as Chris is now very famous for his football skills and Isaac is having a baby. Since this is their last year together, they decide to go big and make it a crazy night. 

As enjoyable and well meaning as the film is, it just never really comes together on several different levels. At times it feels like each character is in their own separate movie as they're all seeking different things on Christmas. This leads to a pretty evident lack of chemistry among the three leads, despite what their real-life chemistry might be, and a comedy where half the jokes hit and half fall flat. 

"White boy got some moves!...Not you, Seth."

Lizzy Caplan pretty much
makes any movie better.

The film markets Rogen as the titular character, but he's really not as Gordon-Levitt has the most to do here from a character development standpoint.  If we were to look at solely his scenes, it would be a slightly above average rom-com with Lizzy Caplan as his love interest. They have chemistry and the romance as a whole feels decently fleshed out for a film like this so I was going along with it. Rogen on the other hand has the film's hands down best scenes during his drug-fueled rager of a night. Unfortunately the previews ruined most of these great moments, but I was still laughing regardless. A scene where he is tripping in a church (as seen in the trailers) is absolutely hilarious, among a few others. Mackie gets the shortest end of the stick in pretty much every way. His character is an a**hole most of the time and his subplot is abysmal, lacking both laughs, heart, or really any solid purpose. Worst of all is it doesn't really amount to much in the end anyway so you really could have just had a Gordon-Levitt and Rogen film that would have saved about 20 minutes. None of this is Mackie's fault, and more the script/screenplay writers, but for an otherwise "good" comedy, Mackie's character arc drags it down. 

I'd be that excited too if
I just got Legos for Christmas...

What's all a little disappointing is just how hit or miss the comedy becomes. There are a good handful of hearty, belly laughs to be had here. Again, many of them were given away by trailers, but not all. When the jokes aren't hitting though, they are falling big time, which I feel like is a pretty odd sensation for a comedy; either full laughing out loud or not even eliciting a smirk. At times it feels like The Night Before is trying the tested, and often failed, quantity over quality method and it shows, especially with Mackie not exactly being the best in the realm of comedic timing. There are a few cameos throughout -- don't worry I won't spoil them -- which range from fantastic to funny but then derivative to awful. Luckily, with the grim premise mentioned above, the film is able to capture some of the heart and spirit of Christmas. Because Mackie and Gordon-Levitt are capable actors, some of the group's more tender moments are well thought out (again, for this type of film) and I think there was solid group development from start to finish. 

The Night Before ultimately winds up being a disappointment but really only because I fell for a comedy's trailers once again. My rule has always been that if a comedy's trailers don't change much from beginning to end, you've already seen all the funny scenes. You'd be amazed how often that proves itself true. That's virtually the case with this film, though I do admit I had fun watching it on a Sunday morning. 

It's nowhere near the best comedy of the year, or even the best holiday comedy. It's sub par Rogen fare that's a little (just a little) more mature than some of his other films because of the subject matter. Worth your time if you really enjoy stoner comedy as those are the highlights here, but there isn't too much else to offer that you can't find better somewhere else. 

CONS:

• A 50/50 joke hit rate (and I'd say that's being gracious) is not really acceptable
• Trailers give away best parts
• Couple of cameos fall flat, even one that starts off strong
• General lack of chemistry between three leads
• Anthony Mackie's character sucks. So does his entire sub plot

PROS:

• Decent romance between Gordon-Levitt and Kaplan
• Rogen's scenes are the highlights. The church was absolutely hilarious
• Some other jokes are great, including a reoccurring cameo
• Subject matter is a little darker, resulting in some heartfelt scenes that actually work
• Fun Christmas romp

Rath's Review Score: 6/10

    

Spotlight

Whether you're religious or not, the scandal that rocked the Catholic church (and still seems to from time to time) about child molestation was horrendous. 

To be honest, I'd never really thought about it deeply or attempted to grasp the gravity of the situation outside of the common knowledge that priests seemed to like to molest little boys within the church. I grew up Catholic, though I was never in attendance at a Catholic church with that type of setup (i.e. alter boys, very rigid structure, etc.). As I was young when all of this came about, it was yet another huge incident that I couldn't really understand. 

But because of Spotlight I really do grasp this insanely tragic situation now. It's hard to stomach really, because I felt so blind to it before, but knowing that there were victims out there that were introduced to sex because of these interactions with priests, victims who later turned to alcohol, drugs, or suicide to cope with the shame, and victims who lost their faith because of these incidents -- it's incredibly sad. Especially that last point. You don't have to be Catholic to recognize that someone's belief system being shattered by the selfish actions of an older man truly is a earth shattering event aimed at the core of what makes us human. Then you begin to realize, because of this story that the Boston Globe published, the scope and immensity of this and it becomes one of the single largest scandals in the last century. 

"So you're saying after Bridman,
I can't be in the Marvel Universe?"

The film Spotlight is an excellent portrayal of the team at the Boston Globe who spent countless, tireless hours discovering this issue and really deep diving the victims and the scope. The team's name is, as you may have guessed, the "Spotlight" group and they were a group of four investigative journalists who worked high profile, often confidential cases for the Globe. In the film, this team is made up of Michael Keaton, Rachel McAdams, Mark Ruffalo, and Brian d'Arcy James. I imagine this film will have several Best Supporting Actor/Actress nominations for it come award season as all do a stellar job. I'd say the two highlights for me were a subtle, but effective, Liev Schreiber as the new head of the Globe, and Mark Ruffalo. Ruffalo's character has some ticks, quirks, and an interesting accent/speech. Whether the real life Mike Rezendes does as well, I have no idea, but Ruffalo makes his character stand out and he often has some of the best scenes. 

As a whole, the film is a consistent progression of the events that took place at the Globe. There are no misplaced flashbacks or multi-segment timelines here. It picks a date and drives forward. For some, it may be too slow, particularly at the beginning. During a pivotal scene where the number of potential guilty priests jumps exponentially is where the film really begins to shine and become more riveting. It paces itself really well after that and the editing is spot on. It length (128 minutes) is perfect for the amount of content that needs to be fit in and it feels fairly brisk. There is an intensity to some scenes simply because of the acting and the script on hand. Unfortunately, the original score, while decent, is dreadfully repetitive. During quiet scenes, if it was playing, it was nearly identical to the "intense" original score musical measures being used. And that was the same as time lapse scenes. I won't go into my usual original score spiel here, but it's unfortunate because this great film could have become a classic one with a little more thought in this area. 

"Yeah but what if he really, really wants to be in the Marvel Universe?"

"So Marvel is a no-go.
Can we get Keaton into the DC Universe?"
"Um...."

Spotlight is one of those very basic films that focuses on its story, characters, and script over being shiny. It's refreshing to see and the film plays as if the audience would be in the room as this was all happening. The cinematography is basic, and often rather stationary and there is a lot of emphasis put on the conversations that characters have as opposed to actions they take (though there's no shortage of important actions either). Luckily, the script is fantastic and the delivery of it even better. Sentences or important statements that the audience needs to know/remember are well written and designed to have emphasis, but still be realistic in terms of the conversations that these characters are having. I like to refer to it as "Appropriate Dramatic Effect". Spotlight excels at that in spades. 

This is one of those films that earns its merits and deserves the praise it gets. Honestly, I'm not sure I'd ever watch it again, nor do I believe that it will end up on my Top 10 list. But I know it will on a lot of other critics and that's perfectly fine. It's a well organized film that does a really solid job at not taking any political sides and laying out the story of the Catholic Church scandal. And because it's so grounded in reality and stating the facts, much like the journalists it portrays, that final list might just drop your jaw. 

Sorry for the cliffhanger ending ;-)

 CONS:

• Slow start
• I'm not sure the very first scene was necessary
• Repetitive, underwhelming original score

PROS:

• Great performances from all. Ruffalo's unique character and Schreiber's toned down one were my highlights
• Awesome script that lays out the facts logically and truthfully
• The film excels at "Appropriate Dramatic Effect". It likes to remain very realistic and the final part of the film is all the more effective because of it
• Excellent pacing and editing
• Technically well made. Features some great shots of Boston
• Doesn't take a political stance, but rather presents the story as it happened. Immensely interesting from start to finish and it does a great job showing how much effort the Spotlight journalists put into making sure this story was accurate, credible, and complete

Rath's Review Score: 8.5/10

    

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part II

It's always an odd thing when these book-turned-movie series come to an end. I remember being quite emotional when the final Harry Potter film released -- that was truly the end of an era for me, having started the books in elementary school and watching the final film as I was Studying Abroad in Sydney, Australia as a 21 year old. That's a long time for a pop culture item to be part of your life and that final film provided a lot of solid closure. 

The Hunger Games is no Harry Potter, both in social importance or the length of time that it was present in my life. But oddly enough, I started reading those books while I was in Sydney too, over four years ago now. 

As I'm sure I've mentioned in my other reviews (The Hunger Games, The Hunger Games: Catching Fire, and The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part I), the book series is one of my favorites. I know the YA genre gets a lot of flak, some of which is deserved, but these novels were truly a standout series from start to finish. Many "fans" really hate the third book, Mockingjay, but I sincerely think it's just as strong as the other two and quietly brilliant in and of itself. The final few pages of the ending are very sloppy, but other than that the book is a logical consequence to those actions in the books that preceded it and helped to elevate the series to represent more than just a meandering love story. The final book is a dark one, full of violence, death, and some really tough pills to swallow. 

This final movie is really no different. I liked Part I more than most (I might have overrated it a tad in hindsight), but I enjoyed the propaganda focus it had and having now seen Part II I think that splitting the films was a solid decision. Without the division I fear we would have gotten a 3+ hour film with a lot of key details cut out. 

Instead we get a finale that really offers the audience some of that similar closure for a film series that did so much right and surprised probably everyone (critics included) with how great these films actually turned out to be. 

The Capitol flushed their sewage. All they eat is Taco Bell...

#Squadgoals

Mockingjay Part II is the most serious Hunger Games yet. There isn't much "fun" to be had here. This wasn't ever a comedy series to begin with, but it did have moments of lightness and humor. The tone is noticeably darker this time, for good reason, and only gets darker as the films goes on. The focus on death and who should die and why is frequently discussed and an obviously heavy topic. The book was a similar fashion as the setting transitions away from the games and the districts and toward wartime. As I said only a couple paragraphs ago -- the third book is quietly brilliant (something I didn't really realize until my second time reading it). This film follows it very closely so I imagine those who still stand by their "I hate the third book" will not like this film as much as the first (the film series' weakest entry) or the second (strongest entry). Part II picks up just a day or two after the cliffhanger-esque ending of Part I and follows Katniss (Lawrence) as she battles the Capitol and President Snow once and for all. Much like the final scenes in other large scale final films (*cough Return of the King cough cough*), Part II's dismount is about as shaky as the novel's after that final twist/incident hits and what took 10+ minutes to do could have been condensed. Given that this is Part II of a slightly-over-300-page novel, I'm not sure it needed to be 137 minutes, but I'd be lying if I said I thought they went by slowly. 

Anchored by a great cast and a director that has stuck with his franchise ever since he adopted it, this feels like a Hunger Games film. The vision that started years ago, truly with Catching Fire, is on grand display here. This is a dystopian society that is both fantastical and realistic all at once and the aesthetics are breathtaking at times, often better than I was able to imagine it while reading. Lawrence once again owns the role of Katniss so well that I can't really picture anyone else as her. Sure it may be a blockbuster franchise, but at the end of her most likely illustrious career, Katniss Everdeen will be one of the very best roles she ever plays. Gale (Liam Hemsworth) gets more to say and do here, but is easily overshadowed by a fantastic, confused/conflicted performance from Josh Hutcherson as Peeta. He and Katniss' scenes in Part II are some of the first times I've truly bought into their romance and both are capable actors. Everyone else does well, though most are sideline players this time out.

"I've lost my dignity! Someone! Please help me find it!!"

There is some solid action throughout and most of it is a lot heavier to deal with this go round because we know/care about the characters involved. I found the special effects and choreography in these scenes to be great, though there was a particular action scene in the sewers that had some issues. As an action scene, it was great, but unfortunately the lighting, mixed with some watery camera effects, were making it really hard to tell what was going on. With these issues, it could have always been my theater, but I don't think it was in this case and some additional brightness in the background would have done wonders for my comprehension. 

Part II is well made too. I enjoyed the original score and I've really noticed over the course of the series that it has gotten better and better. Along with that, the sound editing is fantastic, especially during the hectic scenes. Lastly, the cinematography is far better than most blockbusters of this nature and there are several shots throughout that will be hard to forget because of the excellent framing.

Off to do bigger and better things...once she finishes X-Men of course

It wasn't really a surprise to me that Part II of this series ended up being one of its highlights. The team behind this series really care about the source material and the world that has been created over the course of four films is one that feels fleshed out. Between the phenomenal marketing for the films, the stars they were able to attract, and the quality of the overall products, it's refreshing to see a complete movie series so well completed as The Hunger Games does with Mockingjay - Part II. 

I'm a bit sad to see it all end, but (and I don't think I say this very often about Hollywood franchises) I'm really proud of what this group of films was able to accomplish. This was one of those rare cases where the movies were often just as good as the novels, if not better. And that's coming from a huge fan of the books.

CONS:

• Some of the more fantastical elements from the novel don't translate super well in the movie. They feel a bit out of place
• Overlong by about 10-15 minutes
• Much like the novel, it struggles with those very final "after the fact" scenes
• One superb action scene is hurt by low lighting
• A bit depressing

PROS:

• Jennifer Lawrence owns these films and Katniss will be one of the greatest roles of her career. She plays the part like she already knows that and has some truly talented scenes
• The rest of the cast (which is impressive) does well from the sidelines and Josh Hutcherson gets my 2nd Place vote as his portrayal of a troubled, hijacked Peeta is intense and haunting
• Great setpieces in this fully realized world that is very well designed. Francis Lawrence, the director, should be proud of what he's done with these books
• Gut-wrenching moments throughout. If you've read the books, you'll know what I'm talking about. This series has always had an issue with death, as it often seems way underplayed (see my original Hunger Games review for an example). This is the film that finally delivers the weight of some of these deaths and they're not easy to watch/handle. On a similar note, the film's theme of death, war, and sacrifice is well orchestrated and really reflects that "genius" of the third book that I think a lot of people miss out on 
• Great action sequences and game-like survival scenes. The special effects that accompany these are equally as impressive
• Continues the trend of having a great original score
• Some of the series' best cinematography
• A really solid ending to a franchise that was far better than many expected it would be. Kudos to all involved -- it was a job very well done

Rath's Review Score: 9/10

    

Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain

Don't worry, he won't fall out.
The huge ass missile launcher on
his back is balancing his weight

*Note: as of writing this review I have yet to finish the game. Further discussion on that later in the review, but I've played enough of it (~40 hours) to feel comfortable giving it a final score.*

I've never been the biggest Metal Gear Solid fan. I've played most of the first one, a little bit of the second, and the entirety of the third and fourth, as well as this fifth game's extended demo, Ground Zeroes. I've usually always enjoyed my time with them, but I often don't think they age well and I find them very difficult games to go back and play once I complete them. Snake Eater, the third entry in the series, is my personal high point and it stands quite a bit taller than the other games in the series. It had some of the most incredible boss battles I've ever played (The End is a highlight out of my entire gaming career), a really fun environment, and still remains one of the best and most touching stories I've played. 

Even though this isn't my favorite gaming series, I still find plenty to get excited about for each new game and the early reviews for this game were nearly perfect. 

"Nearly-perfect" Metal Gear Solid V: The Phantom Pain is not, which is quite disappointing. It does a lot VERY well, but it also suffers from the unforgivable gaming sin of tediousness and repetitiveness. There's enough to do that it doesn't sink in until about the 25 hour mark, but after that the game quickly loses steam, especially as we near one of the busiest gaming holiday seasons in recent memory.

One of my 2015 gaming highlights? This moment right here ^^

MGS V tries to change the formula by introducing an open world into the mix which, if you're familiar with this series' gameplay, is a pretty radical departure from the mostly-linear mission structure. Truth be told, the open world works better than I thought it would and we're given two different maps which could basically be described as "desert" and "jungle". They look gorgeous and each has its own distinct personality with sandstorms overtaking the desert and monsoon like rains coming in and out of the jungle. Both of these phenomenons obstruct enemy views and hearing, giving you brief windows to take out several enemies at once. Little details like this are something unique to the MGS series and they are one of the best aspects of this game. So many little things are hidden away in the game that it's a bit astonishing. Crazy example? Early in the game you can find a random recording of a soldier having some...."issues"...in the bathroom. If you take Snake, the game's protagonist, and hide him in a bathroom near another soldier and play the recording, the soldier will come to investigate if you're ok, giving you the chance to take him out. Completely unnecessary to "win" the game, but a fun quirk nonetheless. 

"I love you so much!"
"Snake you're hugging too hard!"

Unfortunately the open worlds themselves are barren for the most part. There are outposts and fortresses here and there, but no civilians and in between the enemy locations there is often very little other activity. A few years ago this open world would have been amazing, but in a post GTAV and Witcher 3 world, not to mention the fact that most players are on next-gen consoles now, it's a rather boring experience getting from place to place. Which leads me to another gripe; getting around the map is a sincere pain in the ass. Unless you have your horse equipped (who is the worst "buddy" option out of the four the game provides you), you have to run everywhere. 95% of the time when you would hope you can cut across some cliffs to make your trip from point A to B a linear one, you cannot. This is essentially the game forcing you to take the long way around to get places, and all on foot. There is no obvious fast travel system (though you can "ship" yourself from outpost to outpost) and any time your helicopter comes to pick you up, you must return to Aerial Command Center before picking another point. There was a huge opportunity missed with this decision as getting picked up in the helicopter and picking another drop point from there would have done wonders for the pace of the game. I mentioned earlier that I'm probably 40 hours into the game...I'd venture to say that at least 8 solid hours of those are running from place to place. Sure vehicles exist and I'd use them sometimes, but they're also loud and should an enemy come around the corner you're immediately in combat mode. 

This all leads me to my biggest issue with the game. As I mentioned, across each map there are enemy outposts and fortresses. Clearing these out during one mission does nothing for later missions as in, if I'm playing a mission, I clear an enemy outpost, complete the mission, go back to base, and deploy on another mission, that enemy outpost that I cleared last mission now has enemies back at it. In the year 2015 that is such an archaic videogame structure that I'm a bit shocked it's here. Taking an eagle eyed view of the game, I understand they had to do it...otherwise by mission 30 you'd have a completely empty map. But still, it gets so, so, SO old clearing out enemy outposts that you've already done several times before. Eventually I just began skipping clearing them out all together as the rewards for doing so are small. It's a repetitive feature that's unfortunately near the very core of what makes the game up and it leads to some really tedious hours of gameplay. 

Little known fact: Snake was secretly in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.
This is proof ^^

Luckily though, the gameplay itself is absolutely incredible and the saving grace of the game. MGS games have always had some awkward controls in my opinion. They often take several hours of gameplay to get warmed up to and even still there would be times in the third and fourth game that I'd be tripping over the controls during some of the more hectic moments. Not so with The Phantom Pain. I found that initial learning curve to be minimal and as you play more and more, you'll find that you become really good at what you're doing. I was very stealth oriented so I could often take outposts with minimal interaction, but when firefights would occur, I was pretty weak because that wasn't necessarily my play style. One of the buddies you get, a nearly-nude female sniper named Quiet, is an amazing asset once your "bond" level with her is maxed out and I loved using her commands and my own actions to take enemies completely by surprise. It's astonishing how well it works when you consider just how many things Snake can do and how many weapons/items/tools he can use. The button mapping is jam packed, but quickly becomes second nature to the player. Handling weapons feels great and I was able to switch between first and third person views effortlessly for the times I needed that extra little bit of aiming. 

In addition to the solid gameplay there is also a decent amount of management the game requires you to perform surrounding your headquarters, Mother Base. A lot of it delves into tediousness and superfluous fluff, but certain aspects of it are phenomenal. One of my flat-out favorite features of the game is staffing Mother Base. It sounds incredibly boring, but you soon become addicted to collecting highly-talented soldiers in the field because of their skills (as displayed through your binoculars). Gaining more skill into a certain branch (i.e. R&D or Intel for example) unlocks new weapons, abilities, etc. of which there are an insane amount. It's here where the game encourages stealth in order to tranquilize your enemies, and extract them via a rather humorous helium balloon mechanism called a Fulton. It adds another level of research that you do when out in the field; seeing which guards you should take alive and which ones you should leave/kill. Finding a soldier with an A++ or even an S rating gets your blood pumping and you begin to plan your entire infiltration around gathering that solider. Most of the other Mother Base activities dont work nearly as well as they think they do (FOB missions get boring really quickly), but gathering and assigning staff is a highly unique and addicting aspect to the game. 

Sandstorms for the fast-sneaking-around win!

Unfortunately, the story is not up to par with other Metal Gear Solid titles either. It's entertaining, yes, and features probably some of the coolest and best looking cut scenes you'll ever see in a game. Those don't necessarily add up to a cohesive story though and it has its peaks and valleys of being either compelling or just downright confusing. The bird's eye view plot points are easy enough to describe; Snake is trying to stop an evil organization from releasing a highly unique (and completely unrealistic) virus into the world. MGS has always been "unrealistic" so it's not a complaint -- it comes with the territory at this point in the game when you have characters that can evaporate from place to place and others that breath and drink through their skin. The Phantom Pain is weird, just like most MGS games, but that's part of its charm. Luckily it also has a stellar cast of characters. Kiefer Sutherland takes over voicing duties for Snake and does a great job and almost all of the other voice work is great too. I absolutely loved Quiet, not just because she's a nearly nude female, but because her character is interesting from the second she's introduced. All of this adds up to a story that's mature, shockingly so at times when children become involved, but one that tries to extend itself too far past what it needs to. After beating Mission 30 (or somewhere around there) I defeated what I believed was the game's final boss (another area where this game suffers greatly, especially when held up against MGS3). Credits rolled. I thought I was done. And then the game tells me that Chapter 2 is starting. I'm not one to complain about the length of a game -- it means I'm getting my money's worth. But MGSV feels so unusually long and unnecessarily split up that, when combined with some of the poorer game choices listed above, it begins to feel like a chore. Perhaps I played far too many side missions in between the main ones? 

Well isn't this romantic?

I'll admit, I've been harsh on Metal Gear Solid V throughout this review. I don't think it was unfairly so though and I really really question some of the establishments that gave this game perfect scores. It shouldn't receive a pass just because it's a MGS game as it has a lot of glaring issues among some of its soaring accomplishments. It's ambitious as hell and I applaud Hideo Kojima and the creators for doing their damndest to keep this multiple-decades-old series relevant. I personally really enjoyed my time with it and there are certain "classic" gaming moments throughout (I'll probably never forget that boss battle with Quiet). Despite that however, I couldn't help being frustrated by so many little things that eventually add up to an uneven experience in a series that strives for perfection. The Phantom Pain is not perfection, but rather a very fun, but fairly flawed entry in this series. 

CONS:

• Lackluster story (thus far) compared to other MGS titles
• Overlong and unnecessarily split
• Aside from one or two boss battles, there are far fewer in this one and they're not very memorable
• Ok Hideo, we get it. You're the one who created this game. We don't need a pre AND post credits for every side mission, main mission, and chapter. So ridiculous
• There's a lot of room for improvement in the barren maps. First and foremost would be more traversable terrain so I could get from A to B faster
• Minimal/useless fast travel ability that could have been easily implemented
• Outposts/fortresses not clearing leads to a lot of repetitiveness by doing the same thing over and over in the exact same locales
• Lots of micromanaging and unnecessary aspects with Mother Base

PROS:

• Great voice work and cutscenes
• Moments in the story are highly captivating
• Quiet is an awesome character from a story, boss battle, and gameplay buddy perspective
• Stellar gameplay that represents the most easy-to-use and finely tuned the series has ever seen
• Large amount of freedom to approach objectives as you see fit
• Ambitious -- doesn't conform to the status quo
• Staffing Mother Base became highly addicting
• Tons of unlocks available
• Fun, quirky, but impeccable attention to little details
• Fun to play, despite its issues and one that, once you get really good, makes you feel like a stealth God

Rath's Review Score: 7.5/10     

Anomalisa

Recently, I was lucky enough to apply and receive press accreditation for the 38th Denver Film Festival. 

Unfortunately life (mainly work life) decided to get a little hectic during the weeks of the festival so I fear I may not be able to attend the couple films that I was looking forward to seeing. 

But (!) I was able to attend the premiere night which featured a red carpet screening of the mysterious Anomalisa. 

This was one of those very rare times that I went into a movie nearly completely blind. The only still I'd seen of the film is identical to the one you see on the poster to the right, I knew it was animated, and I knew it was directed by Charlie Kaufman. I hadn't even seen a trailer or read any reviews for it which is pretty unique for me. 

I actually really prefer to go into films blind because it allows you to manage expectations, but with social media and my complete lack of ability to combat hype (what...am I not supposed to watch that Star Wars trailer?) it's really hard for me to do. I'd encourage my readers to go into Anomolisa as blind as possible because it sincerely is one of the more memorable films you're likely to see in the near future. Weird, trippy, funny, awkward, and depressing too, but memorable nonetheless. 

Some crazy combination of computer generated, stop motion "almost" claymation.

A blooper reel for this film would have been
hilarious (though a lot of extra work)

Anomalisa is one of those films where I feel like my critiques are my own and that the film will represent different things to different viewers. Currently, it's one of the highest rated films of the year with many mainstream critics calling it "perfect". While I won't be giving it a perfect score, I don't disagree with those critics in the slightest. Anomalisa is a highly personal film; one that takes a hard and strange look on life that is both hilarious and incredibly sad. This review will most likely be a short one because I don't think any of the plot should be revealed. It sounds too boring and weird on paper that it might scare away viewers and if I were to delve into any details it would ruin the effects of the film. I really wish I could because there is so much room for rich discussion because of the trippy tricks the film plays on its viewers, some of which I didn't even realize were happening until more than halfway through the film. I wasn't a fan of the ending because it felt like it lacked a solid conclusive statement and there were times where it felt almost too mundane. Overall though, this is a film that you'll most likely exit asking, "Well that was really weird. I'm not quite sure how I feel about it." but days later it will star to grow on you. It's a film that you'll think about long after the credits roll. 

Aside from it's interesting and provocative statement, Anomalisa is one hell of a well crafted film. The animation is an odd combo of computer generated stop motion effects with what look like felt puppets. There are moments where the animation is obvious and others (often the quieter ones) where it's eerily realistic to the point where you question if this is still an animated film. I asked myself throughout the film why it was animated, but for the life of me, I can't imagine this being nearly as impressive a film in live-action. It's all supplemented by some solid cinematography and a light original score that fit the film well. There's also a lot to appreciate in the voice work because of how well it's done but also because of how pivotal it is to the story of the film. 

Bow chicka wow oww

I wish to wrap this review up and let anyone who might see the film in a couple months experience it for themselves. I'd encourage many viewers to not let their initial reactions shape their opinions of the film, but instead let it grow on you before making your final call. I know that my outlook on the film as a whole has greatly improved in the near-week since I've seen it and it's a bit haunting just how many times I've thought about it in the last few days. 

Make no doubt about it, Anomalisa is like nothing you've seen in theaters before. 

CONS:

• Some scenes were just a little too awkward/weird for me
• A bit mundane overall
• Lacks a proper ending

PROS:

• The film's premise is trippy as hell and it has several tricks up its sleeve that it hides pretty well
• Solid voice work
• Bitingly funny but also depressing. This film's outlook on life is a tragic one and it's views will have you thinking about it days and weeks after you see it
• Impressive animation that adds to the film (there's a reason it's animated). It adds a certain physical comedy to the overall picture but is very realistic at times
• Great camera work and a fitting original score
• Unique and memorable. Try to go in blind

Rath's Review Score: 9/10

     

SPECTRE

It should really be no surprise that Spectre is a disappointment. 

A bold statement to open a review with, but those who were expecting another Casino Royale or Skyfall (and this 110% includes myself) should realize just how incredibly special both of those films were. I'd compare them to lightning striking as one resulted in an Oscar-nominated Bond film and the other resulted in, what's in my opinion, one of the Top 10 best films of the last decade. 

Spectre had incredibly large shoes to fill and because almost everyone from Skyfall decided to be a part of this one, the expectations for something memorable were there from the beginning. Add on the fact that 2015 is the year of the spy and despite such titles like Kingsman (still my personal favorite film of the year), Spy (one of the year's better comedies), The Man from U.N.C.L.E. (underrated and tons of 60s fun), and Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation (continues the insane trend of greatness with the series) -- good ol' James Bond himself still remained the "top dog" and one of the most anticipated films of the year. 

The cards were stacked against him from a hype standpoint and despite any disappointment that people feel, I don't want to mask the fact that Spectre is in fact a very fun, but overlong, adventure for James Bond. If this is truly Craig's final bow, he's not going out on top, but he's not going out in shame either. 

"La da daaaa! Just going to shoot this guyyyy! No one mind meee!"

He likes to communicate with his eyes...

There is a lot to praise in Spectre, but I'll begin with my criticisms. First of all, it's 148 minutes long and it doesn't need to be. I think a solid 120 - 130 minute outing would have helped tremendously and there are parts that could have been edited down. Length aside, the film also tries to focus on the "love" between Bond (Craig) and Madeleine (Lea Seydoux) and as a narrative force in the plot it fails. Keep in mind this is the same Bond era that gave us Bond's maternal relationship with M as well as his deep love with Vesper. Vesper was the Bond girl and Casino Royale did a fabulous job at letting us know that her relationship with James was far different from the rest (that iconic post-violence shower scene comes to mind). So when Spectre throws in Madeleine and tries to make her anything other than just another gorgeous Bond girl, it felt very off to me. Her and James exchange a few sultry glances, live through one or two short life-or-death experiences and are all the sudden madly in love. This is how other Bond films have usually worked, but in the Craig-era it felt mightily out of place and unlike the character we've seen previously. 

The film also suffers for being too stuck in the past. It's a nostalgia filled trip, but at times it feels like it had a list of boxes it needed to check off. Casino Royale and Skyfall, and arguably the over-hated Quantum of Solace all felt rather fresh, especially the former two. They were Bond like we've never seen him before and it was exciting. I think going the traditional Bond route was an obvious choice for returning director Sam Mendes, but just because you're following the standard plotline doesn't mean you cant distinguish yourself from the rest of the pack. Spectre is a lesson in too much past reliance. Where Ethan Hunt continues to be fresh and exciting despite similar plot lines, Spectre is the opposite; suffering from trying to recapture greatness that already happened with the Bond films of old instead of being unique in its own right. That doesn't equate to the film being bad. It's not at all. But it does result in a 007 venture that lacks the "magic" we saw in Craig's best outings. Lastly, while the cinematography in Spectre is solid, it's nowhere near as gorgeous as Skyfall (which won that Rath Award that year) because Roger Deakins didn't return -- probably because he was doing a hell of a job in Sicario. I sorely missed his gorgeous cinematic eye in this one.

"Hey I just met you, and this is crazy..."
"OMFG I love you now and forever!"

The film has some other issues, the most tragic of which is the underwhelming villain from Christoph Waltz, but I don't think they are issues that are necessarily unique to the film alone but more so unique to the spy genre as a whole. Which leads me to what I did like about the film. Despite being overlong, the film actually moves at a brisk pace -- hopping from locale to locale and set-piece to set-piece fairly fluently. The opening sequence is a decently long tracking shot and is a strong start. Most of the action scenes are exciting and well organized with a car chase through Rome being my personal favorite. I was never really bored with Spectre and the varied locales and pacing lent itself to a very pretty picture overall; one that's even further complimented in IMAX. The sound editing is superb as the punches hit hard and there was one explosion in particular that completely shook the seats in the theater. 

I also enjoyed the "surprise" even though I think a lot of fans knew it was coming. For all the nostalgia that Spectre plays with, a lot of it does in fact work and if you're looking at the Craig-era as a standalone one, it plays well into the other films and gives the whole series a sense of loose continuity. The original score is also superb and actually probably on par with the rest of Craig's films. Other than the lackluster opening song (sorry Sam Smith, but I wish that Ellie Goulding rumor had been true) the score is a driving, constantly present force that adds a lot of tension throughout.

Out of all of Craig's films, this might be the best car chase

You may have heard that Spectre is "bad" from some people. It's not. That's their disappointment talking in unison with a lack of a reality check. Spectre is underwhelming and yes, even disappointing, but considering what films its being held up against, that still leaves the audience with a pretty damn satisfying Bond adventure. Was it my favorite spy flick of the year like I was anticipating since the first trailer dropped? No. That should also be a testament to just how superb of a year it was for the spy genre though.

Despite my wishes for another Skyfall or Casino Royale, Spectre still does enough to entertain, and you cant deny that certain things throughout the film just put a damn smile on your face no matter what. Even something as simple as, 

"Bond. James Bond."

CONS:

• Useless romance that the film tries to make more than it should be. Madeleine is no match for Vesper and the relationship is rushed and feels hollow
• Theme song is weak
• Overlong by about 20 minutes
• Underwhelming villain who doesn't even get that much screen time
• A few action scenes weren't all that compelling
• Roger Deakins is sorely missed with his amazing cinematography
• Too much focus on nostalgia

PROS:

• Craig is still one of the best, if not the absolute best, Bond. He's got swagger, charm, boldness -- it's another impressive turn from him in what may be his final film
• Solid action scenes throughout. The car chase was my favorite
• Superb original score
• Great locales make for a very pretty film
• Plot wise it's entertaining and the pacing is well monitored
• Awesome sound editing
• A solid end cap to Craig's era, should this be it
• Some of the nostalgia works, including the "surprise"

Rath's Review Score: 7.5/10