Furious Seven

http://blogs-images.forbes.com/insertcoin/files/2015/04/furious-7.jpg

Never in a million years would I expect to see myself calling a Fast and Furious movie the best of its year so far. Yet, here we are. You could attribute this to the lack of good movies that have come out in these past three months, or you could attribute it to its unmatchable sense of fun. I choose both. For the record, this is my first Fast and Furious movie, and to be honest, it’s made me want to go out of my way to see more movies in the franchise.

Furious 7 pits a ruthless British criminal, Deckard Shaw (Jason Statham), against a team of professional street racers with experience forking for the government. The group consists of Dom (Vin Diesel), Brian (Paul Walker), Letty (Michelle Rodriguez), Roman (Tyrese Gibson), Tej (Ludacris), and Agent Hobbs (The Rock). Deckard wants to avenge the death of his brother following the events of the previous film, and teams up with Mose (Djimon Hounsou) to steal an incredibly powerful tracking program from a hacker (Nathalie Emmanuel). The good guys team up for one last ride to save their lives, their families, and put a stop to Shaw.

The movie knows how to let its viewers have fun in the theater, even though it sometimes crosses the fine line of ridiculous fun and unbelievably absurd impossibility. If you thought dropping a half dozen cars out of an airplane onto a windy mountain road in another continent, landing them, and then driving them along said mountain in an insane chase scene to the point where Paul Walker ends up climbing out of a bus as it is falling off a cliff, then running up that bus to grab onto Michelle Rodriguez’s bumper as she drifts along the edge of the cliff couldn’t be made into a prolonged, irrevocably entertaining, 20-minute action scene, the you’d be completely wrong.

Yet sometimes, these scenes aren’t as fun, entertaining, or feasible. Specifically, when Vin Diesel survives falling off both a cliff and a dilapidated parking garage through the power of love, when The Rock is blown out of a glass window by a grenade, falls four stories, and concaves a car unscathed, or when Jason Statham is slammed in the face by The Rock’s Texas-sized elbow and shakes it off like it was a tree branch, I found it a chore not to mutter “bull$#!t” under my breath.

Yet despite these moments of absurdity and a final chase scene that seemed to lose itself towards the end, Furious 7 is 2015’s best movie so far, and among the most fun movies I’ve seen in theaters in a long time. It’s emotional, action-packed, and contains enough context so that Fast and Furious first timers can enjoy themselves as well.

While Vin Diesel’s prediction that Furious 7 will win Best Picture at the Oscars is a bit bold, it doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t be supporting these kinds of movies. It’d be stupid to say there aren’t better action movies as this, because there definitely are, but when action movies work as well or better than Furious 7, they’re the shining examples of why we go to the movies in the first place. It has its imperfections, but Furious 7’s full-throttle levels of testosterone that seem to exude from the screen to the audience are enough reasons to go see the movie. The substance is what’s worth staying for.

Rating: 3.5/5

A quick side note: My radio show co-hosts both gave this a 4.5/5, and they’re fans of the series. So there’s a good chance that if you liked the previous Fast and Furious movies, you’ll love this

Unfriended

http://www.unfriendedmovie.com/img/gallery/01.jpg

Unfriended is the kind of horror film that gets your wondering if its absurdity is intentional or not. My question – does it matter? The movie is entertaining. Some will say it is ridiculous and stupid, others will say it has legitimately terrifying scenes. I saw a bit of both, and found myself at the edge of my seat with intense anticipation, as well as drawing attention of every moviegoer in the theater as I laughed along to some of the death scenes. Add that up, I’d be lying if I didn’t say I would recommend this movie to people.

In a highly original approach, Unfriended takes place almost entirely on the computer screen of high school student Blaire. On the anniversary of her classmate Laura’s suicide, she Skypes with her boyfriend Mitch and their four friends. The friends recount the events that caused Laura to take her own life, which all trace back to the backlash and bullying that resulted following an embarrassing video that went viral.

Blaire and her friends notice an unknown member in their group chat who they aren’t able to remove, report, or block. Soon, the glitch reveals itself to be the ghost of Laura, which no one seems to care about at first except for Blaire (who obnoxiously and incessantly texts her boyfriend out of fear). Laura’s spirit controls everyone’s computers, contacting the group through Skype, FaceBook, Google, and even their printers. Slowly, Laura taunts all the friends with threats to kill they if they sign off, and possesses their bodies and forces them to commit suicide as their friends watch helplessly from home. As the fear heightens, the strength of their friendship is tested as secrets of their relationship with Laura and the role they played in her death comes to be known.

Unfriended has scenes of genuine tension, with one shining examples being one where two of the friends receive threatening notes through their printers which leads up to the most shocking death in the film. However, some moments are, for a lack of a better work, stupid. One scene shows Blaire and her friends facing an immediate threat, to which Blaire responds by taking a five minute diversion from the horror to bring us a head-scratching Chatroulette scene. And then we have some funny scenes, which include Laura’s spirit posting a meme after killing one of the teens.

But let’s backtrack for a second. The whole concept of Unfriended is completely absurd. The idea of conveying an anti-cyberbullying message to a teen audience through a film that takes place entirely on a computer screen is great. That had me intrigued. But the ghost in the film is of a bullied girl who committed suicide. Why did she kill herself? A video emerged after she pooped her pants. Yes, a girl committed suicide because everyone laughed at her after she pooped herself. I just laughed to myself at this idea – not at the idea of a teenager being humiliated to the point of killing herself, but at the idea of a girl feeling like there was no other way…because she pooped her pants. These days, people kill themselves for being called slut, gay, or whore, and if people committed suicide for pooping their pants, no one would make it to the first grade alive. Having said that, this definitely added to the overall feel of the film, which was, again, absolutely ridiculous.

So while Unfriended isn’t the highest quality horror film, I did enjoy it for the most part. I basked in the stupidity and actually enjoyed and commend some of the more intense scenes, and I laughed more times than I ever have in a “horror” movie. So if you go in with this mindset, Unfriended is an achievement. But if you want to be genuinely scared, watch something else.

Rating: 3/5

Insurgent

http://s3.amazonaws.com/bo-assets/production/tiny_mce_photos/26398/original/insurgent.png

I feel like I owe the filmmakers of the Divergent series an apology, because walking in to both of their installments, I had my expectations admittedly low. Last year's Divergent surprised me with its brutal action, entertaining atmosphere, and unexpectedly high quality. So, in terms of Divergent's follow up, was it really fair to me to judge it so harshly beforehand? Let's just tack that one to the societal disdain for young adult novel adaptations. But what movies like Harry Potter, The Hunger Games, and now Insurgent prove is that there's sometimes so much more to this genre than it's given credit for. 

Insurgent picks up with Tris Prior (Shailene Woodley), boyfriend Four (Theo James), brother Caleb (Ansel Elgort), and ally Peter (Miles Teller) hiding from the government following the deadly societal fallout at the end of Divergent. Together, this cast of characters (portrayed arguably by perhaps four of Holywood's most talented and promising young actors) work to evade the autocratic Jeanine Matthews (Kate Winslet) and recover from the loss of their friends and family. Meanwhile, Jeanine recruits those who have betrayed Tris and her fellow divergents to discover the hidden secrets within an coveted artifact that could change dystopian Chicago forever. 

Like Divergent, Insurgent has the potential to surprise you, especially if you continue to hold low expectations for films within this genre. Insurgent is action packed, with sequences that assist the film in boldly emerging from its category. I've only seen 3 other films this year, but the scene where Tris and her friends escape from their enemies with the help of a train is far and above the most intense scene of 2015 (that'll undoubtedly change once we start seeing some summer blockbusters, though). It then goes on to keep the pace it set with gripping moments of Tris in a simulator and continuous twists of character allegiances.

Coming off of more dramatic films like The Fault in Our Stars, Shailene Woodley proves to be quite a badass. Her character's skillset - both physical and intellectual - never fails to captivate or entertain. Tris is relentless, mature, compassionate, and strong. If I had a daughter, I'd much rather see her grow up to be like Tris than Lily James' Cinderella.

Now, it wouldn't be right to say that either Divergent or Insurgent is better than Harry Potter or The Hunger Games when they're all at their best, but Insurgent proves that even when films in this genre aren't perfect, they can still be pretty good. The score is fitting, the visuals are spectacular, the acting is first-rate, and its scope is surprisingly mature. In fact, Insurgent is an improvement on Divergent in many aspects, and so if you weren't expecting much following the 2014 film, you might have your mind changed after this movie. 

To be honest, I am a bit skeptical on how Allegiant will be able to tell an additional story (in two movies :/ ) since Insurgent ended so well. However, if these past these two films have taught me anything, it's not to underestimate the series' production staff. If the filmmakers can match and/or exceed the quality of what they've done so far, we could be in for quite a ride when it comes to the Divergent series' two-part finale. But let's see what happens.

Rating: 3.5/5

Cinderella

http://cdni.condenast.co.uk/810x540/a_c/cinderella_glamour_19nov15_pr_b_810x540.jpg

It's 2015. We don't need a new Cinderella movie. However, if Disney feels so inclined to give us one, I don't think it's too much to ask that we get a new Cinderella movie. But is this what we're given? Nope. The film, its characters, and its messages are just as animated as if they were taken straight out of a classic hand-drawn movie. And when I say animated here, I don't mean "lively" or "spirited," I mean "fake" and "cartoonish."

So why do I hate this movie so much? Well, I wouldn't say I hate it, per se. In terms of the film as a whole, it wasn't terrible - it just wasn't very good. But to make matters worse, there was plenty in this movie to not only dislike, but to loathe. Keeping in mind, once again, that it is the year 2015, the portrayal of Cinderella as a weak-willed and pathetic damsel is anti-feminist, extremely offensive, and possibly quite damaging to the young viewers in the audience. But hey, at least they got to enjoy Frozen Fever beforehand if they weren't standing in the popcorn line for too long.

In this movie, Disney had the chance to improve on the so-so reputation it has in regards to its messages towards young girls. In the past, it's been slammed for painting Belle as a victim of domestic abuse and Snow White and Sleeping Beauty as helpless women in comas who can only be awoken by the kiss of a man they barely know. A retelling of Cinderella was Disney's opportunity to follow the suit of strong females seen in Frozen and Tangled. Instead, they keep the orphaned girl exactly as she's always been, negatively socializing girls into believing the only time they should stand up to someone is when that person is threatening the impressive status of the man they have a crush on. Because, you know, be kind and have courage, and all that good stuff.

But let's take a step back from the harmful approach this movie has, and look at its general storytelling capabilities. Here, too, it's unsuccessful. It takes far too long to get into the grown Cinerella's storyline, and when she's an adult, she's surrounded by a ridiculous group of terribly directed actors. Say what you will of her character, but as Cinderella, Lily James is able to bring her dimension when the writing gives her none. Unfortunately, I can't say this for anyone else. Even two-time Oscar-winner Cate Blanchett, who plays the stepmother, doesn't add much to the movie, especially in the unnecessary and often torturous scenes with her wicked daughters. As the prince, Richard Madden disappoints, especially when compared to his previous fantasy period-piece work in "Game of Thrones."

But what about the artistic aspects, where the movie probably shined brightest? Again, you'd be wrong (unless you're talking about the film's score, which is completely magnificent). While some costumes and set pieces dazzle, others are so clunky they have the appearance of being designed by a high school prom committee. On top of that, the visual effects were laughable, given that it is, once again, 2015.

So in Cinderella, we're force-fed these dated and damaging messages for nearly two hours, whether it be through Cinderella's indifference towards her abuse or through the sight of her waistline shrinking as the Fairy Godmother prepares her for the ball. But even worse is the fact that the film seems to make zero attempts to be original, or that fact that Helena Bonham Carter's Godmother is essentially a cameo. Rats don't live for 18 years, smashing a human-sized pumpkin against a stump while you're inside leads to death, and no one looks under secret floorboards unless they're lead to believe there's something there. Cinderella may look good at times, and might not bore your brains out, but it's offensive, uneventful, and potentially detrimental to the future of some of its young viewers.

Rating: 2/5

2015 Oscar Predictions

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/934921/thumbs/o-OSCARS-2013-facebook.jpg

Another cinematic year has passed, and on Sunday, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences will be handing out their coveted Oscars for achievements in producing, directing, writing, technical construction, music, and more. While the Academy is expected to follow the previous awards circuits, there are always a few unexpected winners on Oscar night. So I'll be taking a crack at who I think the winners will be in each of the major categories, who I think should win, and who was somehow ignored for their efforts.

Best Picture

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/sites/default/files/2014/01/boyhood_still.jpg

Predicted Winner: Boyhood

Birdman's Best Picture momentum has picked up recently following wins at the Director's, Producer's, and Screen Actors Guild Awards. Since the Academy consists of industry professionals, and not critics, there's a possibility Birdman could edge out over Boyhood. Yet I think this is unlikely - Boyhood will be remembered and admired for far longer than Birdman. While Birdman was inventive and fun, Boyhood was even more inventive and offered a mesmerizing blend of narrative and realism. Birdman is an achievement, but Boyhood should ultimately prove victorious on Oscar night. As for the other nominees, Selma and Whiplash will probably be discounted, but shouldn't be in my eyes. American Sniper could make a surprise showing, but given its lack of a Best Director nomination, it's not too likely. Grand Budapest could be a potential spoiler, but you should probably just expect it to pick up wins in the artistic categories.

AJ's Rankings

1. Boyhood
2. Selma
3. Whiplash
4. The Theory of Everything
5. Birdman
6. American Sniper
7. The Imitation Game
8. The Grand Budapest Hotel

Should have been nominated: Into the Woods, Noah, The Fault in Our Stars, The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies

Fun Fact: This is the first year since I've started blogging that I've given all the best picture nominees positive ratings, and if any of my top 5 on that list won, I wouldn't be too mad.

Best Director

http://www.cinesnob.net/wp-content/uploads/linklatercoltranepic.jpg

Predicted Winner: Richard Linklater, Boyhood

Another toss-up between Boyhood's Linklater and Birdman's Iñárritu. Both were risk-takers and brilliantly realized the strong visions for their films. Again, I'd give the edge to Boyhood here. Linklater effortlessly captured the trials of growing up, and gave an unfathomable amount of dedication to this film's success. It paid off, and I think the Academy will reward him for his work.

AJ's Rankings

1. Linklater, Boyhood
2. Iñárritu, Birdman
3. Miller, Foxcatcher
4. Anderson, The Grand Budapest Hotel
5. Tyldum, The Imitation Game

Should have been nominated: Ava DuVernay, Selma; James Marsh, The Theory of Everything; Rob Marshall, Into the Woods; Damien Chazelle, Whiplash; Peter Jackson, The Hobbit; Dave Green, Earth to Echo

Best Actor

http://www.wxou.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/2_img_inset.jpg

Predicted Winner: Michael Keaton, Birdman

The biggest race of the night will be between Birdman's Keaton and The Theory of Everything's Eddie Redmayne. It's a showdown of comedy and drama, of a fresh face and a classic Hollywood comeback. Both gave equally impressive performances, and personally, I'm still trying to decide who I think is the better choice to win. Redmayne gave a painstaking performance as the renowned physicist, while Keaton immersed himself into becoming Riggan. It's not an easy call, but I think the Academy will veer more towards the traditional and conservative choice by giving Keaton the gold. But with SAG and BAFTA wins under his belt, Redmayne may be walking on that stage on Sunday. It's anybody's guess. Potential spoilers could be Cumberbatch and Cooper, especially if the votes between Redmayne and Keaton draw to a deadlock.

AJ's Rankings

1. Michael Keaton, Birdman
2. Eddie Redmayne, The Theory of Everything
3. Benedict Cumberbatch, The Imitation Game
4. Bradley Cooper, American Sniper
5. Steve Carell, Foxcatcher

Should have been nominated: Ansel Elgort, The Fault in Our Stars; Ben Affleck, Gone Girl

Best Actress

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com

Predicted Winner: Julianne Moore, Still Alice

Well, this is embarrassing. Since Still Alice and Two Days, One Night haven't been given a wide release yet and I have not seen Wild, I can only offer commentary on two of the nominees. Felicity Jones seems a bit out of place here for The Theory of Everything, so I'd give my vote to Rosamund for Gone Girl. However, know that Moore is a lock to win this Oscar, and in my opinion, a win for her is long overdue.

Should have been nominated: Shailene Woodley, The Fault in Our Stars

Best Supporting Actor

http://cdn.indiewire.com/

Predicted Winner: J.K. Simmons, Whiplash

Okay, time for a tiny rant. Simmons was scarily good in Whiplash, yet I think the reason he's winning so many awards as opposed to just being nominated is because no one expected he could pull off such a performance. As the treacherous Terrence Fletcher, Simmons gave one of the best performances of the year, but in my eyes, he didn't upstage Edward Norton in Birdman. And think of it this way, when we look back twenty years from now, and for some reason Edward Norton - who gave us truly impeccable performances in movies like Primal Fear and American History X - still doesn't have an Oscar, won't we regret this time when we had a chance to give him one when he really deserves it? On another note, if neither Simmons or Norton were nominated this year, I'd be pulling for Ethan Hawke for bringing such an intriguing character transition to the screen so well as Mason Sr. in Boyhood.

AJ's Rankings

1. Edward Norton, Birdman
2. J.K. Simmons, Whiplash
3. Ethan Hawke, Boyhood
4. Mark Ruffalo, Foxcatcher
Also nominated: Robert Duvall, The Judge

Should have been nominated: Marton Csokas, The Equalizer; Neil Patrick Harris, Gone Girl

Best Supporting Actress 

http://markcz.com

Predicted Winner: Patricia Arquette, Boyhood

I swear to God, if Arquette opens up a packet of three or four pages of 8 1/2 x 11 paper and asks the presenter to hold onto her Oscar while she unpreparedly reads from them, I may just fly to L.A. and take the trophy from her. Incidentals aside, Arquette played the role of Olivia reasonably well, though I'm thoroughly befuddled as to why she's winning every supporting actress award under the sun this year. Tilda Swinton should have been in the category, and frankly, should have won it. Otherwise, this year's supporting actress field is incredibly weak.

AJ's Rankings

1. Patricia Arquette, Boyhood
2. Meryl Streep, Into the Woods
3. Emma Stone, Birdman
4. Keira Knightly, The Imitation Game
Also nominated: Laura Dern, Wild

Should have been nominated: Tilda Swinton, Snowpiercer; Sienna Miller, American Sniper

Best Original Screenplay

Predicted Winner: Iñárritu & Co., Birdman

Birdman's originality should win it at least one Oscar, and that'll likely be for this category. The biggest snub here is for Paul Webb's screenplay for Selma. This could, however, be the Academy's chance to give Anderson's Grand Budapest an Oscar for a major category.

AJ's Rankings

1. Richard Linklater, Boyhood
2. Iñárritu & Co., Birdman
3. Wes Anderson, The Grand Budapest Hotel
4. E. Max Frye & Dan Futterman, Foxcatcher
Also nominated: Dan Gilroy, Nightcrawler

Should have been nominated: Paul Webb, Selma

Best Adapted Screenplay

Predicted Winner: Anthony McCarten, The Theory of Everything

This is a tough one, as no real frontrunner has been named in this category. Because of that, I'll follow suit with the BAFTAs and predict The Theory of Everything, which also happens to be my choice for the win. Count no one out in this category: The Imitation Game fared much better over here than it did in its home nation of England, Whiplash could win to incentivize young filmmakers, and no one's quite sure what to expect from American Sniper.

AJ's Rankings

1. Anthony McCarten, The Theory of Everything
2. Damien Chazelle, Whiplash (even though it's an original screenplay)
3. Jason Hall, American Sniper
4. Graham Moore, The Imitation Game
Also nominated Paul Thomas Anderson, Inherent Vice

Should have been nominated: Gillian Flynn, Gone Girl; Scott Neustadter & Michael H. Weber, The Fault in our Stars; Darren Aronofsky & Ari Handel, Noah
_________________________________________________

And here are the rest of your 2015 Oscar winners, followed by AJ's Pick (AP) in parentheses:

Best Visual Effects: Interstellar (AP: Interstellar)
Best Film Editing: Boyhood (AP: Boyhood)
Best Costume Design: The Grand Budapest Hotel (AP: Into the Woods)
Best Makeup & Hairstyling: Guardians of the Galaxy (AP: Guardians of the Galaxy)
Best Sound Mixing: Whiplash (AP: Whiplash)
Best Sound Editing: American Sniper (AP: The Hobbit)
Best Cinematography: Birdman (AP: Birdman)
Best Production Design: The Grand Budapest Hotel (AP: The Grand Budapest Hotel)
Best Original Score: The Theory of Everything (AP: Interstellar)
Best Original Song: "Glory," from Selma (AP: "Glory")

Tallied Predictions:

Boyhood: 4
Birdman: 3
The Grand Budapest Hotel: 2
Whiplash: 2
The Theory of Everything: 2
American Sniper: 1
Interstellar: 1
Still Alice: 1
Selma: 1
Guardians of the Galaxy: 1

See also: 2015 Oscars - Snubs and Surprises, AJ's Top 10 of 2014

Fifty Shades of Grey

Today

Alright, let's get this over with.

I'd just like to start by saying that Fifty Shades of Grey is exactly what you are expecting it to be. If you think you'll love it, you will. If you think it's going to be ridiculously awful, it will be. If you think it portrays BDSM in an abusive light, that's probably the way you'll see Anastasia and Christian's actions. So if that's sufficient enough for you, no need to read on. I know I'm not going to sway those with strong predetermined opinions one way or the other.

But for those of you curious about the film, allow me to enlighten you. To all who think that Fifty Shades of Grey is just the adaptation of that "classy porn" novel, there's actually a plot. Washington State senior Anastasia "Ana" Steele is asked by her roommate, fellow senior and Journalism major Kate, to interview the man giving their school's commencement address. The man, as you probably guessed, is Christian Grey - 27-year-old self-made millionaire. He prides himself on being a people person, ironically.

After developing a mutual attraction, the two enter into a partnership (not a relationship), complete with a contract, terms, and everything. Christian promises to devote himself completely to Anastasia if she willingly surrenders herself to him as his submissive. With some reservation, Ana agrees to be Christian's new plaything, but gets increasingly frustrated when his attention and affection to her outside the bedroom becomes episodic.

In the lead roles are Dakota Johnson as Ana and Jamie Dornan as Christian. As Christian, Dornan is just what the character demands of him. The character of Christian Grey is a walking penis, and all attempts to develop him beyond that role are thwarted by the laughable dialogue given to Dornan, who makes no effort to make the part believable. Twice, Ana asks Christian what his reasoning is behind his sadistic behavior. Both times, his response is "because that's who I am."

Ana, on the other hand, is a rather interesting character. She's stronger and smarter than you may think, and Johnson brings about a clever performance that is able to convey Ana as awkward, headstrong, and complex. In one of the movie's better scenes, she calls a formal business meeting with Christian to discuss the terms of their arrangement, turning the tables by controlling him in his professional setting. She's aware of the power she has over Christian, even though in his eyes, she's his object. She knows when to speak up, when to say when, but doesn't realize why Christian has had 15 other girls in her role until the end of the film, which comes about and concludes in the most frustrating of ways.

Again, my rating is probably of no use to those of you who already have your mind made up about the film. There's a good chance you already know if you're going to see Fifty Shades or not (if you haven't already), so at this point, I'm just trying to make sense of this to myself. Because even though the film is ridiculously scripted, runs too long, and contains a score that was probably ripped off from a 1970s X-rated videotape (save for the lead up to a remix of Beyoncé's "Crazy in Love"), there's a consistent pace and signs of good direction. The first half hour of the film, completely devoid of sex, had me raising my expectations. Though as it went on, those expectations were not met. For me, at least, Fifty Shades of Grey wasn't the train wreck I was expecting, but it wasn't that good either. When it comes to iffy romance movies, I've had better.

Rating: 2/5

Kingsman: The Secret Service

Indiewire

Kingsman was supposed to be a fun movie. Don't get me wrong, parts of it were fun, but based on the trailers and on Matthew Vaughn's previous film Kick-Ass, I expected it to be consistently and ridiculously fun throughout while still maintaining a certain level of quality. With Vaughn serving as director/writer/producer, a score conducted by Henry Jackman, and top-billed actors like Colin Firth, Michael Caine, and Samuel L. Jackson, I don't think this expectation was entirely unjustified.

Yet despite its more enjoyable moments, the charm of its main character, and sleek camerawork, Kingsman: The Secret Service wasn't always as fun as the filmmakers had intended. Parts of it were rather negative, actually. In one scene, a hypnotized crowd in a church assembly begin slaughtering one another. Sure, the expert cinematography follows Colin Firth's character quite impressively, but they follow him massacring dozens of innocent people by means of gun, fist, knife, and various pieces of the building - and it's not until after he kills all these people that we realize he wasn't doing these acts intentionally. Yet another scene follows the villain's henchmen and a slew of world leaders having their heads blown off in a flashy, fireworks-esque display as glorious music plays. Never mind the fact that all the deceased probably had jobs, families, and loved ones - just as long as the scene looks cool. Maybe we didn't care as much because the churchgoers played a strong resemblance to Westboro Baptist Church, so I guess that makes it okay.

Kingsman is the story of a twenty-something Londoner named Eggsy (Yes, Eggsy). After his father's death in the line of undercover duty, Eggsy grows up with a distant mother and abusive step-father to become a delinquent. He's contacted by Harry Hart (Colin Firth), his late father's former colleague, and is told he would make a good addition to the team of the Kingsman - a group of British spies with a wide array of physical skill and intellect. As Eggsy trains for the job, the movie's villain Valentine (Samuel L. Jackson) sets up an operation to basically press the restart button for Earth's population. 

Which brings me to a vital question I have for the filmmakers - what in the world were they thinking with their execution of Jackson's character? Talk about a bad performance. In a feeble attempt to add more humor to the film, Valentine's character says all his words with a terribly-employed lisp, which proved to be more of a distraction than a riot. What's so frustrating is that we all know Jackson can do better (Pulp Fiction? A Time to Kill? Django Unchained? The man's a legend.). We also see another serious sin here - the inclusion of Michael Caine. In a clear move to add credibility to the film, Caine's inclusion was a poorly-concieved way to add a familiar face for however brief a time.

What was even more disappointing is that in the film's final act, it really started to sway me toward a recommendation. I started feeling a similar level of amusement that I felt watching Kick-Ass. Unfortunately, it was never to the point where I would say that Kingsman a must see. The film suffers from an overlong start and training period which are only kept afloat by sporadic action sequences, the confident, star-making presence of Taron Egerton in the role of Eggsy, and the expected benefits of having Colin Firth involved. Towards the end, the movie had those fun moments I was hoping for, but I wouldn't say that it's a fully "fun" movie - even though that's what it wanted to be.

Rating: 2.5/5