film

Review: ‘Room’ is as Captivating as it is Devastating

room review

This review contains mild spoilers that are also revealed by the trailer. If you haven’t seen the trailer and don’t want anything about Room to be spoiled for you, then you should click away now, 

Room was directed by Lenny Abrahamson and is based on the novel of the same name by Emma Donoghue. She also wrote the screenplay for this adaptation, which stars Brie Larson and Jacob Tremblay as a mother and son forced into captivity before the son’s birth.

The film begins by skipping its explanation for why this mother and son are trapped in what they call “Room.” Instead, we watch them live their daily routines within the harsh confines of a world that feels smaller with every scene.

For that reason, many will enjoy the first half of Room the most, because that sense of discovery and dread holds as you realize how tiny their living space is. Of course, it will also make you yearn for their escape, making Room a clenching thriller on par with the drug wars of Sicario.

room review

As the trailer reveals, “Ma” and “Jack” do manage to escape, and a second “movie” picks up as a pseudo sequel for they must adjust to life outside of Room. Strangely, this is where the film’s most devastating moments occur, mostly because Donoghue has chosen to present this as a fictional story.

She portrays the darkest aspects of Ma and Jack, raising questions we wouldn’t dare ask (out loud) if they were based on real people. This makes Room the boldest risk-taker I’ve seen all year, as it challenges how we perceive victims of major tragedies.

Room strikes a delicate balance between hope and despair that other well-intentioned movies tend to fall short of, as it can be difficult to keep any movie from overwhelming with too much of either extreme. That said, several moments drag on a bit, and some of the narrated exposition actually sheds light on how the second act is a little too slow compared to its superior beginning and end. But that might be Abrahamson’s intention, as it clearly illustrates what we’re supposed to glean from the new life of these characters.

What truly surprised me about Room, however, was its score. Do yourself a favor and look up “New End” by Stephen Rennicks, as well as the rest of this film’s soundtrack. It is my favorite of the year so far, surpassing both Inside Out and Paddington. It might even be my favorite score of the last two years.

I wasn’t surprised by Larson’s Oscar-worthy performance. Since Short Term 12, many like myself have been waiting for the actor to get the attention she deserves as a serious performer. And Room is easily her best movie yet. She conveys multiple, conflicting emotions throughout, allowing every decision she makes to feel earned and inevitable, but also sympathetic. I’m not sure I could picture any other actor disappearing into this role.

room review

And Jacob Tremblay is a revelation, surpassing the also-talented Abraham Attah from Beasts of No Nation as the most promising child actor of the year. It astounds me how well nine-year-old Tremblay can act at his age, portraying a young child who must adjust to a world where he is no longer the master of everything around him. It’s a subtle, heartbreaking, and even joyous performance.

Grade: A

While it suffers from seemingly intentional pacing issues, Room is one of the best movies of the year and a drama that deserves to be remembered for a long time.

Extra Credits

  • Seriously, it’s called “New End.” Look it up.
  • I should also mention that Room is an artful movie, and thankfully so. Some of its most pleasant moments come from the imagery that rhymes the first and third acts, including snowfall and simple moments in the backyard.
  • Abrahamson also directed Frank, the musical dramedy I fell in love with last year. Room is certainly proving that the Irish filmmaker is one of cinema’s best.
  • Keep an eye on the ending credit for Brie Larson. It’s a nice touch.
  • A24 Films is having an incredible 2015. They’ve released While We’re Young, Ex Machina, The End of the Tour, and Room, which are all among the top films of the year.

For a more in-depth look at Room, come back this Sunday for the Now Conspiring podcast, where we’ll discuss this and other new releases.

I’m Jon and thanks for reading this. You can subscribe to my posts by clicking “Follow” in the right sidebar. Or just say hey on Twitter! @JonNegroni

Now Conspiring: Paranormal Activity Review; What is Your Favorite Found Footage Movie?

paranormal activity

This week on the podcast, we celebrate Halloween a week early by reviewing Paranormal Activity: The Ghost Dimension and discussing our favorite found footage films.

We also get some relationship advice from Maria, catch up on a celebrity birthday, recommend a new Netflix flick, and speed things up toward the end of the show for a scare. Plus, we read your feedback from last week’s show.

QUESTION OF THE WEEK: What is your favorite found footage movie?

Go on…Now Conspiring: Paranormal Activity Review; What is Your Favorite Found Footage Movie?

Review: ‘Paranormal Activity: The Ghost Dimension’ Is a Low Point For a Series That’s Hopefully Finished

paranormal activity review

Paranormal Activity: The Ghost Dimension is the sixth and reportedly final entry in the franchise that made Blumhouse the found-footage empire that it is today.

Like its predecessors, Ghost Dimension doesn’t stray from its strict checklist of tropes: its story ties into the first movie, it begins with a happy family, things slowly descend into chaos as the main character haphazardly films everything, and all hell breaks loose in the final ten minutes.

I’ve enjoyed watching each of the Paranormal Activity movies over the years, despite their flaws and dedication to its own established formula. In fact, the formula usually works because they introduce new techniques with the found-footage gimmick to scare inventively. They’re all C movies, but my goodwill for the first one has always kept me returning each year.

That said, The Ghost Dimension lacks any sort of invention that made the previous films interesting to sit through. To be fair, The Marked Ones also suffered from this problem, but the film at least had the audacity to dispatch a shootout to these mostly ethereal confrontations. But Ghost Dimension offers nothing new except for a plot device that undermines anything you found frightening about these movies in the first place (assuming you found them scary to begin with).

paranormal activity review

Early on in the film, the family’s patriarch (Chris J. Murray) comes across a video camera from the house’s previous owners, along with tapes that date back to 1988. We see that the tapes selectively show what happened to the young girls from Paranormal Activity 3 after their mother and her boyfriend are killed by illustrious demon, “Tobey,” and their grandmother.

The film tries throughout to answer some of the persistent questions we’ve had since Paranormal Activity 2, such as the explanation for what really happened to the girls’ mother, why the house didn’t burn down, what the coven truly wants, etc. But many obvious questions more central to the present plots involving Hunter Rey are ultimately ignored.

By the end of The Ghost Dimension, however, you’ll likely stop caring.

The bulking, era-defying aspect ration camera they find allows them to “see” the activity, and this gimmick serves as the film’s only new offering (in order to sell tickets for a 3D film, of course). A major problem, as you can surmise, is that seeing the frights come alive is much less frightening than what your imagination can come up with, and the hackneyed combinations of cameras that mix up when you can see and when you can’t do little to set up true scares.

paranormal activity review

For this reason, it’s typical Paranormal Activity fare that maintains all of the series’ problems without delivering anything good enough to distract you from the illogical sound effects and improbable plot structure surrounding a lore that’s become increasingly tiresome.

Grade: F

In the past, I’ve recommended even the worst of these films to dedicated fans, but this is the first activity you can surely skip. It merely exists to squeeze 3D ticket sales out of a small-budget movie with cheap effects that show off just how little the creators care about their flagship franchise at this point.

For a more in-depth look at The Ghost Dimension, check back in this Sunday for the Now Conspiring podcast, where we’ll discuss this and other new releases.

I’m Jon and thanks for reading this. You can subscribe to my posts by clicking “Follow” in the right sidebar. Or just say hey on Twitter! @JonNegroni

Now Conspiring: What is Your ‘Last Meal’ Movie?

now conspiring

This week on the podcast, we review Bridge of Spies, Goosebumps, Beasts of No Nation, and Steve Jobs. We’re also joined by Roommate Greyson (AKA #RoommateGreyson) for a quick update on closets.

As always, we begin the show with some quick movie news, including coverage from Pixar’s The Good Dinosaur event. Plus, we answer your questions and comments from last week’s show. And by popular demand, we’ve also brought back the Netflix Recommendation of the Week.

QUESTION OF THE WEEK: What is Your “Last Meal” Movie? In other words, what is the last movie you would like to see before you die?

Go on…Now Conspiring: What is Your ‘Last Meal’ Movie?

Review: ‘Goosebumps’ Is a Harmless Homage to Lovable Source Material

goosebumps review

Goosebumps was directed by Rob Letterman and written by Darren Lemke, Scott Alexander, and Larry Karaszewski. It stars Jack Black, Dylan Minnette, and Odeya Rush. And it’s also based on the bestselling book series written by R.L. Stine.

The film fittingly begins exactly like a Goosebumps story with an unassuming protagonist in a small town who stumbles upon a creepy mystery when he moves to Madison, Delaware with his mother, played by Amy Ryan.

He later finds a bookshelf of Goosebumps manuscripts written by the actual R.L. Stine, who is played by Jack Black. We learn that when a book is opened, the monsters inside instantly turn to life, and the movie becomes a who’s who of Goosebumps favorites rampaging a cardboard cutout setting. Stine himself actually has a cameo toward the end of the film that’s mildly amusing, though pretty overt.

That’s definitely the best way to put Goosebumps, as it has less subtlety than even longtime fans would expect. It has plenty of clever moments sprinkled throughout a gracious script, but it executes all of them in predictable fashion. You can see the end of almost every scene coming, and the film certainly tries to make you laugh more often than it succeeds.

goosebumps review

As a children’s film, this isn’t a death sentence. Goosebumps is enough fun to keep kids of most ages entertained, and it’s even a good time for adults (more so if they’re already fans of the books). Nothing in the movie is truly terrible, though you may cringe once or twice as each character vies for your attention, with the slight (and I mean slight) exception of the film’s main villain, of whom I won’t spoil.

Grade: C+

It’s definitely a movie I wouldn’t mind seeing again on the small screen a few years down the road. And if I ever have kids who grow up with the books, this is a movie I’ll probably introduce to them, as well. By then, I suspect the CGI will be dated enough to warrant some unintentional laughs in hindsight.

If you’ve seen Goosebumps, let me know your thoughts in the comments. And be sure to check out our podcast review coming this Sunday, where we’ll talk about the film in more detail.

I’m Jon and thanks for reading this. You can subscribe to my posts by clicking “Follow” in the right sidebar. Or just say hey on Twitter! @JonNegroni

Review: ‘Bridge of Spies’

bridge of spies review

Bridge of Spies is a biographical Cold War drama directed by Steven Spielberg and written by Matt Charman, Ethan Coen, and Joel Coen. It stars Tom Hanks, Mark Rylance, Amy Ryan, and Alan Alda.

Based on true events, Tom Hanks is James B. Donovan, an insurance lawyer who is recruited by the CIA to represent and then help negotiate the terms of a Soviet spy (a surprisingly sharp performance from Rylance) who is in captivity. Meanwhile, a U.S. pilot has been captured by the Soviets after getting caught with spy equipment. It’s up to Donovan to make sure a peaceful resolution is reached, despite the overwhelming odds against his favor, especially when he’s forced to go on the other side of the Berlin Wall.

Though this is a beautifully shot film, you’ll notice that a bluish gray tone persists throughout every period setting you’re taken to. It’s unique at times, but it doesn’t quite measure up to the excellent performances and high quality writing (in no small thanks to the pen of the Coen brothers) that ultimately overshadows the decent visuals. Still, there’s much to be said about how well the environments are considered from Donovan’s home in America to the aforementioned scenes in Germany that provide some stunning commentary (mostly by train) about how the Cold War shaped prejudiced and fear mongering attitudes of that time period.

The movie is mostly theater that will set up Tom Hanks for a possible Oscar nomination. But apart from a few good speeches and another Oscar-Worthy performance by Rylance as a supporting actor, it’s not one of Spielberg’s best films. But for Spielberg, that’s still high praise, and Bridge of Spies is easily one of the most entertaining, and important, movies you’ll see this year.

bridge of spies review

Grade: A-

This film has its flaws, but it’s still excellence in genre filmmaking and a film I’d certainly watch again. If you love well-written and masterfully-directed movies, you shouldn’t miss it. But if it takes a lot to hold your attention for two hours, then you may want to wait and rent this one.

If you’ve seen Bridge of Spies, let me know your thoughts in the comments. And be sure to check out our podcast review coming this Sunday, where we’ll talk about the film in more detail.

I’m Jon and thanks for reading this. You can subscribe to my posts by clicking “Follow” in the right sidebar. Or just say hey on Twitter! @JonNegroni

Snarcasm: ‘Pan’ Was Good, No Matter How Much You Hated It

pan review

Snark + Sarcasm = what’s you’re about to read. This week: Why doesn’t anyone think of the children…when reviewing Pan so harshly? 

If you’ve been following the reviews coming out of Pan, the latest Peter Pan adaptation that focuses on the famous character’s origins, then you know that it’s been widely dismissed (no, I’m not using that pun. Or pan?)

I saw the film and reviewed it on the Now Conspiring podcast. In my opinion, it’s the worst adaptation of Peter Pan I’ve ever seen, including the plays. I love the story, especially the 2003 live-action take on it. Like most millennials, I love Hook. Heck, I even like the version we got with Once Upon a Time. 

So I hate to say that for me, Pan is a D minus.

And I’m not alone. The reviews at large have been downright scathing. They’re a fun read for anyone who gets their kicks from sassy critics. Even the positive reviews have been mostly unkind, giving the film only a little credit in spite of itself.

Then there’s Eddie from Nerd Reactor. Let’s talk about his Pan review, starting with the headline:

The only review of ‘Pan’ you’ll ever need to read!

That’s a pretty misleading headline, even by clickbait standards.

But like a good clickbait headline, bad information is there. The promise is that Eddie’s opinion of Pan is the most accurate out of countless critics. And anyone who reads this review, no matter their taste or background, will get the perfect insight into whether or not they should see Pan.

I’m going to guess that this review doesn’t accomplish any of that.

When you’re a child, you see the whole world around you in a new light.

New light? Or just new? You’re a kid, not a disenfranchised restaurant manager with an art degree who sees the Sistine Chapel for the first time.

From sights and sounds to tastes and smells, everything is brand new for you, and you can’t get enough of these new experiences. As you get older, those experiences lose their luster, and you tend to…well, grow up.

If only Pan had focused on even an inkling of this theme. But nope, it’s about a messiah who fulfills a prophecy because his mother’s name is Mary (subtle!)

But then something happens,

…Go on.

and you experience a movie that not only ignites the spark of imagination in your heart and in your spirit but also carries a great story that captivates the young at heart. 

Please be talking about Paddington. Please be talking about Paddington.

That’s what you get with the fantastical journey of pirates, Indians and flying in the movie called Pan.

You can’t tell, but I’m making a really grumpy face right now.

Also, they’re natives in this movie, not Indians. Get your lazy attempts to avoid racism by inexplicably whitewashing the characters straight .

Let’s get something straight,

Yes. This is a good idea…

this is a children’s film

Oh no, not this argument. Look, calling something a children’s film doesn’t excuse everything negative about it. We live in a post-Toy Story world, Eddie. Well, sort of (Toy Story 4 better be good).

And I wouldn’t argue with studio executives about who this movie is intended for. They want Pan to make as much money as possible, and parents don’t want to pay money to sit through a film with their kid that is widely panned (NO, I SAID IT).

This is a film that caters to the moviegoers who tentatively need a booster seat to see over the person in front of them.

Well, that’s just not true. The movie was certainly shooting for a preteen/young adult demographic, what with its special snowflake themes, bland protagonist, and mindless violence. Otherwise, it’s casually ripping off Harry Potter and other YA films by accident, and that’s certainly not the case.

Comparing these films to that of something like say X-Men: Days of Future Past, Hunger Games, or Scorch Trials is just ridiculous and naïve.

Was anyone expecting Pan to be like an X-Men movie? I mean, maybe X-Men Origins: Wolverine, but only in quality and due to the strange coincidence of Hugh Jackman being in another origin movie that probably shouldn’t exist.

How is it naïve to compare movies to other movies? Naiveté comes from a lack of experience, but if you’re comparing movies, then you’re showing that you understand the standard set by the genre. What’s actually naïve is claiming that Pan shouldn’t have to answer for its problems because it’s made for kids.

Sadly, many reviewers of the film are out there stating how it is “slapdash” and “ill-explained” and are forgetting that films like this aren’t made for everyone.

But your review is? That’s what the headline told me.

Look, I know what it’s like to enjoy a movie that other people hate. It happens. But assuming they’re the ones who are naïve is a bit…well, naïve. 

The target demographic is intended for children, which means that if you’re expecting something more mature, you’re not the target demographic.

No one was expecting a “mature” Peter Pan movie. That’s just silly. Plenty of people weren’t even expecting this movie to exist, and that’s certainly valid.

Personally, I was expecting a few things: good special effects (considering the talent involved), a decent story that set up Peter Pan as the character we know him (considering it’s an origin story for a well-known character), and music that matched the tone of the film.

We didn’t get any of those things. We got Nirvana and the Ramones. We also got some of the worst special effects and CGI of 2015 (especially for a blockbuster), and a movie that completely ignores what makes Peter Pan who he is as a character while playfully exploiting our nostalgia to artificially generate interest for its uninteresting characters.

to bash a film simply because you are not the targeted audience only shows how much of yourself you invested into the film. 

Nope! It just shows that the movie did a bad job at entertaining all audiences. That’s about it. And I don’t think it’s strange to be invested in a classic mythology that we all grew up with.

Ok. I’m done.

Yes. Finally.

Let’s get  to the review.

Grumpy face

Pan is a film that recounts the origin tale of J.M. Barrie’s classic storybook character, Peter Pan, and how he surpasses all obstacles including being an orphan, self-doubt, and the jaws of a massive crocodile, to finally realizing that it isn’t what other people say that makes you special, but what you believe about yourself.

Hmmm, I don’t recall that EVER being a theme in a Peter Pan story. In fact, he’s typically a villain. Wendy is the true protagonist in these stories, and she is typically the moral center who convinces the amoral Peter Pan to commit acts of heroism.

And sorry, but this “you’re special because you believe in yourself” drivel is way too played out to take seriously. It’s not compelling, it’s overdone. It’s not a good message because it reinforces the idea that what you decide to do is good because you decide it is, which is typically the precursor to a terrible decision you’re about to make.

You know what’s a good message for kids? It’s OK to be sad (Inside Out). Your family is what you make of it (Paddington). Don’t get eaten by dinosaurs (Jurassic World).

Pan chronicles the journey of Peter (Levi Miller) as an orphan, being left on the doorstep by a mysterious blonde who leaves a note,

Wait, so it’s worth noting that Peter is played by Levi Miller, a newcomer, but you won’t mention that his mother is played by Amanda Seyfried?

In the midst of war,

No need to be exact. It’s just the most significant war in recent memory, perhaps of all time.

Peter must realize his destiny and find that the true power of who he is.

…is? Does this sentence just end? Who is his power???

The film carries many great attributes

How do you carry an attribute?

starting with its ability to create a cast

How do you create a cast? Or read this? OK, I’m done with petty grammar stuff.

that builds a great story with their dialogue.

….alright, now I’m done.

Actor Levi Miller did an outstanding performance as Peter,

Really? Outstanding? You’re going to burst a vein, then, when you see Jacob Tremblay in The Room, or Abraham Attah in Beasts of No Nation.

His portrayal of a 12-13 year old boy is spot on, as most boys at this age aren’t sure of what they want, or which direction they’re going to go.

OK, I have to give Eddie credit for finding a way to explain why Levi Miller’s character is so bland in a way that sounds like a compliment. You’ll go far.

His acting ability surpasses many of other actors much older than him,

How? As in, “how did you arrive at this opinion?” Also, “how are we supposed to take this entire review seriously?”

as he is able to show the full spectrum of emotions while still being in control of the scene.

Anyone can show a full spectrum of emotions thanks to Sesame Street and puberty. What makes an actor great is when he can make those emotions come across as believable, like it’s really happening and you don’t have to think about it. Controlling a scene is a different job altogether because it’s about presence and timing.

Eddie goes on to compliment Hugh Jackman as Blackbeard, and I’ll give him a pass on all that. Jackman certainly isn’t the worst thing about this movie, and I can understand a fan being charmed by his character.

Rooney Mara and Garrett Hedlund both are a great support for the main character for this film

Yeah, since Mara doesn’t show up until the second act and Hedlund spends most of his time acting like Han Solo, looking like Indiana Jones, and talking like Nicholas Cage on an “All That” sketch — while sort of following Peter around. The support is real.

There was much debate as to the casting of Mara in the role as Tiger Lily.

Please…let’s not go there. Eddie, I’m begging you.

The one thing that many people overlooked was what type of tribe was Tiger Lily from?

Uh. I mean, uh?

what if the tribe wasn’t a specific type of ethnicity, but a tribe of many ethnicities? The tribe that Tiger Lily belonged to in the film was filled with individuals from China, India, Europe, Africa, and etc!

Right! With a European-looking woman as their leader! Surely that won’t offend anyone.

To be honest, I don’t think this is a big deal. I went into Pan knowing that this would be odd, and it didn’t bother me as much as I thought I would. But that’s probably because everything about this movie is so bad, whitewashing ends up being one of the least of its problems.

The visuals in the film were very captivating.

Yeah, in a way. In the, “how does Scooby Doo: Monsters Unleashed look better than this?” way.

The visual effects team spared no expense

That’s part of the whole “flop” problem.

and took the time to creating breathtaking mermaids who assist in getting Peter and his team to the other side of the river.

Took their time? Cara Delevingne plays all four mermaids. And they’re only onscreen for about two minutes. And they don’t say anything. And they look fake. And they only help Peter while Hook and Tiger Lily watch…

Overall, the film was exactly what it set out to be: a great children’s film, retelling the courageous tale of the boy who never grew up.

…in a version of Neverland where everyone grows up (the main plot is that Blackbeard is aging and wants to keep himself young, which shouldn’t even be a problem in a place like Neverland).

And understand one thing: I’m not saying that other websites and reviewers are wrong,

But you are.

I’m only saying that some are forgetting the one key thing about this film: it was made for children.

So it’s telling that they don’t even want to subject their kids to this.

I’ll just say this one more time for emphasis: a movie made for children doesn’t have to be bad. Even if kids like it, that doesn’t make it good. It just makes Pan an expensive babysitter.

going in to see the film, I recognized right away where all the children were sitting, so that I could get a chance to see their faces when they saw incredible things in the theater.

I don’t think I’m qualified to comment on this.

I spent about as much time watching the film as I did seeing the reactions, and it was not without reward.

So you admit you only saw half of the movie?

The look of sheer excitement as the ships were fighting in mid-air, the shining ear-to-ear smiles from seeing fairies,

They were impressed by those floating CGI lens flares without any sort of physical form? I mean, I was sort of impressed when Peter used them as a Kamehameha, but only because it’s incredible how much source material they managed to rip off in under two hours.

I sat next to a small girl named Layla, and she was so excited after the film, that she got up, turned to her mom after the movie, and with a big smile on her face, asked, “Was this a story, mom? Can we go find it?” Many kids arose from their seats, jittering with elation, unaware of the world outside the theater, and the homes they will be going back to. This film gave them a piece of hope, even if it was just for about two hours. That’s why Pan was made. Giving bravery and courage back to our children, and seeing that even though the world is big and sometimes scary, we each hold the power to be greater than it, and in the end, overcome it.

Seriously, guy, this isn’t Shawshank Redemption. Are we really supposed to take this anecdote about how strangely attentive Eddie is to other people’s children as verification that a bad movie can be good because Layla wants to know if it’s a story?

Pan is a terrible movie. It just is. But like most terrible movies, it will find its audience, no matter how small. So if you love Pan, that’s totally fine and I’m glad that you left the theater feeling like you got your money’s worth.

But don’t try to tell everyone else in the most condescending way possible that they did get their money’s worth because it lightly entertained a bunch of kids that you were paying (probably) too much attention. Our standard for all films, no matter the genre, needs to be much higher than that.

I’m Jon and thanks for reading this. You can subscribe to my posts by clicking “Follow” in the right sidebar. Or just say hey on Twitter! @JonNegroni