Epic
Rated: PG
Genre: Animation | Adventure | Family | Fantasy

For years M.K. Has heard about Forest Creatures from her Eccentric father. But when she finds herself transported to a deep forest setting where a battle between the forces of good and the forces of evil is taking place. She bands together with a rag-tag group characters in order to save their world — and ours.

The Hangover Part 3
Rated: R
Genre: Comedy

The epic conclusion to the trilogy of mayhem and bad decisions. In the aftermath of the death of Alan’s father, the wolfpack decide to take Alan to get treated for his mental issues. But things start to go wrong on the way to the hospital as the wolfpack is assaulted and Doug is kidnapped. Now they must find Mr. Chow in order to surrender him to the gangster who kidnapped Doug in order to save him.

Fast & Furious 6
Rated: PG-13
Genre: Action | Crime | Thriller

A lot has happened since Dom and Brian’s Rio heist toppled a kingpin’s empire and left their crew with $100 million. Scattered across the globe and living lives in luxury but incomplete; the team must reunite to track an organization of lethally skilled mercenary drivers to earn their full pardons so they can return home and make their families whole again.

Before Midnight
Rated: R
Genre: Drama

Before Midnight is a look at the love affair of Celine and Jesse after more than two decades passed since their first meeting on a train bound for Vienna.  After being apart for 9 years these lovers come in contact again and from then on it’s history.

We Steal Secrets: The Story of WikiLeaks
Rated: R
Genre: Documentary | Comedy

A documentary that details the creation of Julian Assange’s controversial website, which facilitated the largest security breach in U.S. history.

Take a listen, there are two chances to win REDBOX codes in the show, and, as a THIRD way to win, if you comment below, you might ALSO win a free redbox rental. I’ve got a ton of codes, so you have a REALLY good chance to win.

Enjoy the episode below, download directly here, subscribe in iTunes, and for you non-iTunes people, you can find the feed here!

The LonelyReviewer Show is produced in conjunction with Justin’s blog Another Empty Glass

Two men are looking to make some money.  The men, adorned in ski masks, have decided to steal some drugs.  Unfortunately for them, not everything goes to plan.  In the scuffle that sees the two make off with a big bag of cocaine, Vincent (Tomer Sisley) loses his mask, is seen and gets stabbed.  Word gets back to the bag’s rightful owner, drug kingpin and nightclub owner José Marciano (Serge Riaboukine).  José kidnaps Vincent’s son and refuses to free him until his bag is returned.  So begins a very long night for Vincent.

This film has entirely too much going on and I really don’t know why.  The plot is fairly boilerplate; man does something bad, man gets discovered, bad guy takes something man loves, man must go through trials to get something he loves back.  That’s it.  An idea that’s become familiar to audiences thanks to “Taken” and “24”.  But “Sleepless Night” refuses to be this easy.   Imagine driving down a road, it is a straight road and your destination is within your sights.  But wait, the road is blocked off and a detour sign leads you down a labyrinth of side roads.  As you arrive at your destination, beleaguered and annoyed, you look back to where you started only to witness that the construction that forced this adventure of detours isn’t even occurring.  That’s what it is to watch this film.  The premise is basic and the plot points are predictable but regardless of your knowledge of the occurrences, you are forced to endure a series of offshoots that add nothing of substance to the overall picture.  A plethora of characters are introduced only to be sidelined with nothing to do, making their existence all the more befuddling.  Unfortunately for the film, complexity does not equate to quality.

Frédéric Jardin’s direction is as perplexing as the film is complicated.  Shortly after the film begins we are treated to the first of many handheld shots.  The screen jolts and jostles as the viewer tries to focus.  Just when I worried that this was how the entire film was going to be presented, and quietly cursed “The Blair Witch
Project” for making this a thing, the camera leveled.  I breathed a sigh of a relief just in time to be slapped again with the shakes; and so the film would continue, varying between restless movement and steady shots, ad nauseum.  The choice of using handheld cameras has its place, and when done appropriately can bolster the uneasiness and quickness that a film requires.  It worked in “United 93” and the aforementioned “Blair Witch”, but it doesn’t here.  Its inclusion isn’t justified for the majority of its use.  As the film nears its end, there is a shot in which the handheld is used in a manner that proves its potential; however, this shot stands alone in a vast field of scatterbrained camerawork.

But here’s the thing, “Sleepless Night” is actually a pretty good action film.  When Jardin isn’t straining to film exposition or the next twist and instead focuses on an action piece, the man is gifted.  The fights have an authenticity that will make you ache with each punch.  Each set piece is completely comprehensible and exciting; a feat that is even more impressive given the irrational presentation that surrounds it.  Tomer Sisley is left to do a great deal of the heavy lifting for each scene and expends a fair amount of perspiration doing just that.  Despite the predictability of the action’s outcome, it is gripping and fully engrossing.  Much of the fights feature Sisley himself, rather than a stunt double, a choice that makes these moments all the more engaging.  As the night goes on, the exhaustion of the nightclub’s inhabitants is readily apparent and Vincent’s devotion to rescue his son becomes borderline heartbreaking.  Were it not for Sisley’s performance and the focus that Jardin puts into the action, this would not be possible.  When things are kept simple, this is a superb action film.

It can be difficult to watch great potential be squandered.  To know that there is so much promise hidden behind a façade of grandiose intricacies is wearisome.  “Sleepless Night” tries to do much more than it can manage.  The film utilizes a dizzying supply of unfocused camerawork.  The shots offer variation whose sum is less than its parts.  The story is full of expected surprises and underdeveloped side roads.  When the film stops to bring the action, it finally delivers.  Every fight is well choreographed and filmed clearly.  The action is absolutely fun to watch.  The actors’ performances are genuine and contribute a gravitas to the carnage.  There is a simple, exciting, action film buried underneath a dog-pile of complexities just fighting for your attention.  The short glimpses of greatness seen in “Sleepless Night” make watching the film a frustrating experience.

Looking to get more from Derek?  Follow him on Twitter @DerekDeskins.

On February 10, 2006, the world turned their eyes to Turin, Italy for the opening ceremonies of the XX Olympic Winter Games.  Meanwhile on Fox, “Arrested Development”, a show with perpetually low ratings aired its final four episodes back-to-back.  It was a less than dignified dumping of a show that had been previously hailed as “the best sitcom on TV”.  Thankfully, the show did not die, but merely lay dormant waiting to be reintroduced into the world by a devoted following.  Yeah, I heard it too, that sounds like the description of a horror movie…moving on.  During this period of hope that would ultimately result in the shows return via Netflix, Jeff Smith and Neil Lieberman took it upon themselves to delve deeper into the drama of the show.  Over a period of five years, they independently financed a documentary that examines the shows conception, execution and consumption.  I did it again, all horror-y…just ignore it.

The film has the best of intentions.  It clearly exists to celebrate everything that is “Arrested Development”, and who can blame them.  The show was and is fantastically hilarious.  Its re-watchability is through the roof.  The only negative thing that I have to say about the first three seasons of “Arrested Development” is that it led to the creation of a guy who wanders judgmentally murmuring, “How have you not seen Arrested Development”.  Smith and Lieberman have done an impressive job gaining access to the entire cast, with the exceptions of Michael Cera and Jessica Walter.  Unfortunately, the interviews are conducted clumsily.  The filmmakers’ desire for the audience to believe that they themselves are fans of the show is overbearing.  Imagining the two off camera giggling and pointing at the stars they share the room with is not difficult.  The same questions are asked over and over, with all answers being shown without regard for the boredom the repetition creates.  Inexplicable shots of hands being clapped to sync audio are included and precede a great many of the interviews.  I can only imagine that this was done to highlight the film’s low budget, but only shines a light on the amateur quality of the film.  These moments are often accompanied by ironic remarks of professionalism that makes the interviewees look uncomfortable and appear to be wondering what they have gotten themselves into.

This is a documentary about “Arrested Development” and as such its viewership is going to be inhabited mostly by fans of the show.  Smith and Lieberman have not come to this realization.  Time is wasted by trying to describe a show that many of the people admit to being indescribable.  It is unnecessary and ultimately pointless.  The most interesting input comes from Joel Hornstock, VP Production at Fox.  He represents the other side of the “AD” battle, being part of the team that cancelled the show.  He responds curtly to the questions and begins to offer an understanding of the show’s implied villain.  More time with Hornstock would be ideal, but instead that time is taken up by conversations with fans.  The less said of the fan interviews the better.  It was an unfortunate choice of the filmmakers to feature so many nameless people simply heaping praise on the show.  I do not disagree that the show was great, but the shear amount of hyperbole involved in the interviews, which is to be expected of any fandom, detracts from the film as a whole.  Many words are spoken, but very little is said.

The life of a documentary is not easy.  Unfairly viewed as boring by a great deal of the public, it is exceedingly rare for a documentary to breakout into the mainstream.  Documentaries can offer the public a slice of the real world and in featuring actual people cause some to think that it may be the easiest type of film to make.  But here’s the thing, making a good documentary is hard.  “The Arrested Development Documentary Project” trips as it exits the gate.  Without a clear focus, audience awareness or understanding of why it has chosen to exist, the film meanders.  The interviews bring nearly nothing unique to the table.  It is frustrating to watch the great potential, the access that they gained is impressive, be squandered by unrepentant fanboy excitement.  The production is clumsy and a choice by the filmmakers to include a bevy of fan interviews is ill-advised and further illustrates its amateur quality.  “The Arrested Development Documentary Project” does not make you want to revisit the show out of a sense of nostalgia; it just makes you want to watch something else.

The Arrested Development Documentary Project is now available on iTunes, Amazon Instant Video and VOD.

I’m going to attempt to review “Star Trek: Into Darkness” without spoiling any integral parts of the story; however, it is impossible to discuss the film without giving away some light plot details – if the above paragraph intrigues you, please don’t read the rest of this – just go see the movie.

The entire cast of 2009’s “Star Trek” reboot is back for this installment, and we join the crew on a planet inhabited by a primitive race. A nearby volcano is about to erupt, and it will destroy the indigenous people when it does. In an attempt to stop this natural disaster, Spock (Zachary Quinto) is lowered into the volcano by Sulu (John Cho) and Uhura (Zoe Saldana), while Kirk and Bones (Chris Pine and Karl Urban) distract the natives. Remember the opening of 2009’s film? This opening brings you even closer to the edge of your seat.

This mission, well-intentioned but not authorized by Starfleet, lands Kirk in trouble, and he is relieved of his captaincy on the Enterprise. Meanwhile, rouge Starfleet agent John Harrison orchestrates an attack on a Starfleet facility. In the wake of more danger, destruction, and other spoilers, Kirk reclaims the Enterprise to hunt down Harrison.

The writing trio of Kurtzman, Orci, and Lindelof do a fantastic job spinning a story that carries the core themes of morality, humanity, and death through the film from start to finish. I applaud the filmmakers for taking some of the Star Trek cannon’s biggest stories and re-imagining them for a new universe. Restarting the universe in the way Abrams did in 2009 legitimizes the decisions they make: the characters are the same, but the challenges, enemies, and drama of the original Trek stories are taken apart and rebuilt into something new and exciting that still retains the heart of the original.

The visual effects in this film appear completely superior to most; the film relies heavily on CG for many effects but it fades into the background – nothing stands out as overly cheesy or poorly composited, a truly impressive feat. Composer Michael Giacchino once again assembles a fantastic score, expanding on the original theme to set a score that fits the new Trek.

I really enjoyed “Star Trek: Into Darkness,” and I think the film does the universe and its characters complete justice. While Abrams taking over Star Wars might put the third film in this new series in jeopardy, it doesn’t take away from how good “Into Darkness” is. Beam yourself over to your nearest IMAX cinema and strap in for a spectacular ride.

Okay guys; let’s get real for a second.  This film is not for the faint of heart.  Michael is a pedophile.  This is what the film is about.  If that’s a deal breaker for you, then by all means feel free to check out.  However, let us not forget that this is a film.  Occasionally, a film chooses to focus on a topic that is distasteful.  As a viewer, you have a choice.  Sometimes a challenge is necessary.

The term “horror” conjures images of masked killers wielding blades and worlds of the macabre supernatural.  These films often take our innate fears and anthropomorphize them, allowing us to remain detached while facing them down.  It is much more difficult to face our fears head on.  In description, “Michael” is not a horror film.  No blood splashes on the screen and the familiar piercing scream of terror is never heard.  The film moves at an often slow pace and does not boast great bursts of action.  Nevertheless, “Michael” is a horror film.  It is the simplicity and absence of the typical that makes the film so frightening.

Writer-director Markus Schleinzer is a daring man.  He chose to not only tell the story of a pedophile, more or less from the man’s point of view, but to do so in such a frank matter.  It would be very simple to make Michael’s every action despicable, to lace villainy throughout his entire being.  Schleinzer resists this and smartly communicates that Michael is a man.  His perversion is an active part of his life, but not the sum total of his existence.  The man has a family.  In his family’s eyes he is a brother and a son.  They are not aware of his darkness and love him for the man they know.  As a man, he is not extraordinary.  You come to understand that to all those in his life, Michael is mundane.  He is quiet, uninteresting and unspectacular.  Most importantly, he is such a collection of uns that he is able to walk through life without drawing concern.  Our knowledge of his sick ways makes his interactions with others difficult to watch.  You want to reach through the screen and enlighten everyone to this terrible being, if not only for the boy he terrorizes then from a desire for retribution.

Michael Fuith’s performance sells the role of Michael.  The character is inhabited so fully that I imagine the actor must have experienced a degree of mental stress.  He is able to breathe life into this monster and develop him as fully human.  Besides his existence as a pedophile, there are moments that give glimpses of the torment within Michael’s head.  Each of these moments casually strolls across the screen, and it is Fuith’s delivery that can allow them to go unnoticed, much like the character in his world.

The film takes place over five months, but there is no way of knowing for how long Michael has had Wolfgang.  At one point a box of letters written by Wolfgang to his parents is shown, and it is full.  Interactions between the two appear to be routine.  Wolfgang is downtrodden and goes through the necessary motions, implying that he has been in captivity for a great while.  David Rauchenberger has little dialogue as Wolfgang, yet manages to perfectly convey the necessary emotions.  The character’s detachment is not overdone.  Rauchenberger captures the appropriate mix of adult frustration and childish release.  His performance is unfalteringly genuine.

Films offer us an escape.  Often we are taken to a world of wonderment, a life of adrenaline pumping excitement and places of passionate romance.  Some films refuse to allow this transport.  There is no egress in “Michael”.  This world is our lackluster world.  In its straightforward presentation, the existence of Michael makes your skin crawl.  The film does not revel in bombastic set pieces, allowing the horror to occur organically.  Schleinzer has a light directorial touch that tears you up from the inside out.  This is not a film to garnish repeat viewings.  “Michael” is uncomfortable and upsetting and it needs to be.  Jason Voorhes and Michael Myers draw upon a fear of the unknown with faces that constantly lurk behind masks.  This man wears no mask, but through Fuith’s honest performance and Schleinzer’s subtle direction, “Michael” shows us that the real monsters will not be so kind as to telegraph their existence.

Though, like most shows these days, the overall quality of the show started to dip as time went on. Efforts were made by the incredibly talented writing team and show runners to mix it up, introducing new characters, new story lines – but at times, things never felt as fresh as it did early on. However, regardless of that, I stuck through till the bitter end.

Last nights series finale was bittersweet, despite recognizing that is was time for the show to close, I felt the same way some of the characters did – that I’d miss my time with them week to week. The finale was classy, tied up any loose ends with the characters, and closed with a line that perfectly sums up the whole story – “There’s a lot of beauty in ordinary things. Isn’t that the point?” Well said Pam, well said.

There’s plenty new movies on Redbox, including the return of Star Trek (no doubt due to the sequel being released this week) - Other films new to Redbox are the Tom Cruise starred Jack Reacher, the remake of Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

Comment below and I’ll send some codes to the first few posters – codes must be redeemed on redbox.com for rental pickup.

While I’ve got your attention, be sure to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter for more contests and great new content. Speaking of new content, check out this Interview with film critic Monica Castillo, and listen to the LonelyReviewer Podcast here.

Derek:  How did BOFCA come about?

Monica Castillo: We kind of formed, in essence as a way to raise awareness of the film critic scene, the local Boston film scene in itself and also to protect ourselves.  A colleague of mine who had stopped writing for a bit after he finished his Master’s thesis, he was kind of just burnt out on writing.  He was more or less kicked out by the publicists and told like, since he’s no longer writing he no longer gets to cover film.  There was no mediary term, there wasn’t any talk to him about it, [no one] ask[ed] him “hey are you planning to go back into this, because otherwise we’re going to tell you to stop”.  They just kicked his ass out, chucked him out.  So finally after that, he was like, I’m done fighting with publicists.  We kind of all [the Boston online film critic community] had a wake up moment, where it was like, wow these people could actually have a say in where our career goes…that’s a huge thing.

D: Little bit.

MC: Then we started to form that in order to organize, if we did have a problem we could send in a mediary or whatnot in order to discuss it with them.   And then the other part of that was also to talk more about the things we like to see in the Boston film scene.   So IFFBoston is a big thing, everybody did some sort of form of coverage somewhere usually.  I like to talk a lot about rep[ertory] stuff, and I haven’t really had the chance too much, but through DigBoston, they restructured my column more or less, so it’s a lot more focused on local, local, local.  So now I get to talk about what’s going on in The Brattle Theater, what’s going on in The Coolidge; [the] Alloy Orchestra is in town over at the ICA [Institute of Contemporary Art], so that sort of thing where I get to direct people to this awesome silent movie or this great Tarantino retrospective that I’m really excited for, [it’s] what keeps me going to the movies, day-in, day-out, week-in, week-out.

D: That’s nice, a lot of times if you’re not following The Brattle, or don’t get their email, you won’t know what they’re doing.

MC: That’s the thing.  And if you live outside of Harvard Square, or even near Harvard Square, you may not know they exist.

D: I mean, I lived in Boston for four years before I even knew The Brattle existed.

MC: Oof, yeah, it’s not uncommon.

D: The repertory scene does offer us something that we can’t really get anywhere else.  There really is just something about seeing those old movies on the screen—

MC: And with an audience.  I just saw “Thief of Baghdad” at the Somerville Theater as part of their Silent Film Series that’s going to happen once a month for the next couple of months.  It has live accompaniment, which is the best way to see silent film, it’s all on the big screen and they’re all 35 mm, which is quickly dying in the city of Boston.  I went to this last midnight movie at the Coolidge Corner Theater, it was “Buffy the Vampire Slayer”, and Fox told them that they no longer have a print of “Buffy”.  It’s gone, only DCP [Digital Cinema Package].

D: That’s sad.

MC: It’s really sad.  But it’s flipping real quick, I think it was about, maybe a year and a half ago, maybe a little bit more than that, I wrote a piece that’s basically just saying how sad I was to see all this change because I’m so used to seeing, even as a little girl, I may have complained, “oh there’s dark spots on the screen, it’s scratchy, ew, why does it sound like that” and now I’m missing that because it’s all crisp it’s all clean.  It’s so digitalized that sometimes the color is off or sometimes you have that weird unnatural grain.

D: It loses some of its mystique.  I mean, there’s something kind of sexy about the big reel of film and everything.

MC: Yeah, and it’s different.  I’ve been in the movies where it messes up, where they accidentally lost track of the time and then they missed their cue or whatever, so you have that awkward little blank spot.  It was like something exciting.  Or worse, [there were] very beat up prints that got stuck to each other, this was recent, a couple months ago; the projectionist was like, “I’m going to die during this screening”, and sure enough not twenty-five minutes in, it jams and you see the film burn up on the screen.  So he had to go, turn the light off, cut it, splice it together, put it back in and rewind it just a bit to start it up again, and it played.

D: As terrible as that is, that’s pretty exciting.

MC: It’s super exciting.

D: You don’t see that anymore.  You only see it when Quentin Tarantino does a fake grindhouse movie.

MC: Yeah, it’s like, “oh, does that really happen in movies”.  No that’s real.  Santa Claus does exist.  Film reels are still out there, they are just getting very rare.

D: Do you see any pushback to preserve film from the newer more film fan centered theaters?  With Alamo Drafthouse expanding and the ArcLight on the west coast, they seem more film focused.

MC: They are more film focused but they still play mainstream films.  So that’s where their main money comes from.  I’ve been to The Drafthouse for repertory screenings in a half full theater.  But then you have something like the Sci-Fi Film Festival Marathon that happens over here in The Somerville and that gets pretty packed.  I haven’t seen it sold out but The Somerville also seats maybe 900, like upwards of 700; a ridiculous amount of people for your average screen.  But that’s like once a year.  The @fter Midnite series at the Coolidge is always hit and miss.  I’ve been in screenings where there is literally me, two other friends who are film critics who also like to go to the midnights a lot and then maybe a couple; all five people to go see “Flashdance”.  Not a big crowd for that.  That’s why I want people to go to these rep movies; I want people to support the programming that’s at these theaters.  Because it is an actual programmer that picks the types of movies that get played.  They have to book the prints, they have to ship the prints; this isn’t a little USB drive that’s sent in through UPS.

D: It’s the way they DID movies.

MC: It’s the way that it’s been done since forever ago.  It’s sad, but you got to keep it alive.  That’s part of why I love writing about it for DigBoston.

D: Boston has so much going on, but it seems that the majority of people don’t know that this stuff exists.

MC: That’s why film critics are important.  We do draw attention.  We are probably the only ones publicly stating “Oh my god, please check out this film, it is amazing, drop what you’re doing right now, go see it”.  There are so many films like that.  “Gimme the Loot” which played only one week here, did horribly, which was really unfortunate, but it’s in my opinion one of the best debuts by a new director I’ve seen in a long time.  It could’ve been a seasoned professional.  I was so stunned.  It’s such a great story.  Across the street right now, “Something in the Air” is playing, probably only until Thursday, one week.

D: Then wait for it to go on Netflix Instant.

MC: Basically.  Again, these small little films that otherwise people miss on their radar because it doesn’t have the multimillion dollar campaign behind it.  It’s not distributed by a big ass studio that’s going to push the trailer on every single film in the [AMC] Boston Common [Theater].  You’ll never know they exist.

You can find Monica Castillo on Twitter at @mcastimovies.