Top 10 Films of 2015

It's that time of year again. 2015 is on the way out, 2016 is on the way in, and we film aficionados run our retrospectives of the year. But before we get to the list, I should repeat something. This list is based only on what I saw this year. If a particularly acclaimed film isn't on the list, there's a good chance I just didn't get a chance to see it. So with the preamble taken care of, here are my choices for...

Review of the Jedi: The Force Awakens

10 years have passed since Episode III and what was presumed to be the end of Star Wars on the big screen, and 2 years have passed since the announcement of Episode VII. But now it's finally arrived and that looming sword of Damocles has dropped. Would Star Wars return to the heights of its past glory? Would it recapture the magic that enthralled audiences and changed the world when it first appeared nearly 40 years ago? Or would it crash and burn, a failed attempt at revival and another sign of the franchise's fall from grace. Well, it makes me extremely happy to report that it it is indeed the former. Episode VII: The Force Awakens is true Star Wars through and through, and the beginning of a very bright future under Disney's wings.

In hindsight, It's somewhat amusing the question most were asking before release was where Luke Skywalker was. Because that's a question very much on the minds of the characters. The Jedi Master has gone missing after an unexplained tragedy and is now being sought by both the villainous First Order, a terrorist junta born from the ruins of the Empire, and his sister former Princess now General Leia Organa (Carrie Fisher, once again). Leia's trusted pilot Poe Dameron (Oscar Isaac) has tracked down the one map Luke left to his location, but must trust it to his droid BB-8 when he's captured by the First Order's lightsaber wielding enforcer Kylo Ren (Adam Driver). From there BB-8 is found by desert scavenger Rey (Daisy Ridley) and defecting Stormtrooper Finn (John Boyega), who after weathering a few First Order attacks take it upon themselves to return BB-8 to General Leia and her Resistance. Their journey won't be an easy one, with everything from pirates, their own secrets, and of course Ren and the First Order blocking their way at every turn. But maybe with a little help from Han Solo (Harrison Ford, once again), Chewbacca, and the Millennium Falcon, they might be able to find Luke before the First Order's deadly new weapon comes online.

Childhood's End: A Review

SPOILERS BELOW

Arthur C. Clarke's Childhood's End is a classic of Science Fiction literature that has been wildly influential. It's inspired everything from TV shows like V,  anime like Neon Genesis Evangelion, and even the cover of Led Zeppelin's Houses of the Holy (true story) with its images of massive spaceships floating over major cities and its ideas of benevolent alien invasion. All this despite the fact that the novel has never been adapted in the sixty years since its publication. Until now, as the Syfy Channel has chosen it as the basis for its annual year-end miniseries event. And fans of the novel can rest easy. There have been a few changes to the story to better fit a TV format, but Clarke's themes and ideas still ring out. Though maybe not in the way Clarke intended.

Last warning, I'm going to spoil the book and miniseries. Our story begins when a fleet of huge spaceships park themselves above Earth's major cities. The aliens, dubbed the Overlords, broadcast their intentions to Humanity. They aren't here to invade or conquer, they're here to help us finally overcome our problems and usher in a golden age. People are naturally skeptical of this, but as the advances and peace settle in the resistance fades. But at the same time, children born after the Overlords' appearance begin showing strange inhuman traits and evidence of psychic powers. Then it becomes clear. The Overlords didn't come to help humanity, they came to make sure the next generation could evolve into a higher form of consciousness. And as their mission comes to a close we have to wonder, was it worth it?

Spectre: A Review

SPOILERS BELOW

At this point, James Bond is about as unkillable as a cockroach. And I don't mean just in the movies themselves, but here in the real world as well. With every new movie since the end of the Cold War, there seem to be dozens of people ready to point out the super spy's irrelevance and oncoming demise. And yet, Bond keeps on chugging. But he has been adrift since the fall of the Soviet Union and each new film has tried to help the character find his place in the new political world, to varying degrees of success. The previous film, Skyfall, tackled this problem on headfirst and seemed to set up a new status quo for Bond in the new millennium. As such, Director Sam Mendes and Daniel Craig have returned to see Bond off and wrap up a few more loose ends.

Picking up directly after Skyfall, Bond (Daniel Craig, once more) is officially on leave from his spy duties and is supposed to be staying out of trouble. Unofficially, he's been jetting across the world tracking a mysterious criminal organization whose reach could be incalculable. Bond's search brings into contact with Dr. Madeleine Swann (Lea Seydoux), the daughter of an old adversary who could lead him to the heart of the organization and finds himself stalked by an almost literal ghost from his past. But Bond's extracurricular activities are causing trouble back home, as M (Ralph Fiennes) finds himself and MI6 under fire from a new defense minister seeking to shut the spy program down. As the film goes on and Bond draws closer to the heart of the beast, these two things appear less disconnected than they did and an even grander scheme comes into focus...

Why The Martian worked where Interstellar didn't

I won't beat around the bush, Ridley Scott's The Martian is excellent. It's exhilarating, heartfelt, and surprisingly hilarious. But what really makes it stand out is that the film pulls off a feat I thought was almost impossible. It's a hard science fiction story that doesn't get bogged down in minutiae and over-explanation.

Hard science fiction is a term for sci-fi stories that stick as closely as possible to actual science. They're rather rare in terms of film, but we've seen a few more pop up in recent years. Notably fellow "I'm stuck in space, please help" story Gravity and the other subject of my article, Interstellar. Interstellar got a ton of hype before its release for its fidelity to science but its story flopped on its face. And it flopped for the exact opposite reason that The Martian succeeds, it failed to make the science matter in human terms.

Here's the thing, I know scientific accuracy sounds impressive for a science fiction story. It's a sign to the audience that the people telling and making the story care about what they're doing, and it buys into the fallacy that "realism" makes a story inherently superior. But how accurate the science is doesn't really matter unless it actually plays some part in the story, unless you make the science work in terms of the story. This is why Neil Degrasse Tyson or whoever don't care that the faster-than-light travel in Star Trek is physically impossible, because it has nothing to do with the story. But the adherence to real-world science works for The Martian, because book writer Andy Weir and screenwriter Drew Goddard use the actual problems a human would have surviving on Mars to create drama. They make the science work for the story, not the other way around.

Which brings me back to Interstellar. Christopher Nolan and co. were unable to put the science into their story in an organic way. They had clearly done a lot of research and Nolan's trademark commitment to cinematic realism realizes the astronomical phenomenon beautifully, but it doesn't work for the story they're telling. None of the weird space stuff McConaughey and his astronauts go through connects with the overall story of his relationship with his daughter. In fact, what drama the hard science creates in Interstellar is artificial. Propped up to keep the audience's attention.

It doesn't help that the stakes of the story in Interstellar are ridiculously big. Their quest to find a new planet gets bogged down in talk of wormholes, time dilation, and fifth-dimensional space. This is a huge mistake when it comes to hard sci-fi stories. Cosmos-esque physics and similar big ideas are challenging enough on their own to understand, so to make the stakes and consequences also so hugely abstract disconnects the audience. The story takes place on terms they can't relate to. This is the other smart thing The Martian does. The stakes of the story and the motivations are clear, simple, and relatable. Matt Damon is stuck on Mars and he needs to get home, which is really hard. So all the science and minutiae is framed in terms of how is Matt Damon going to stay alive and how is it going to get him off Mars. By keeping it grounded in the story like that, the audience stays connected and cares about how the science works because they understand what it means in human terms.

The point is, scientific accuracy doesn't make a story better. It's how you use that science to tell a story that matters.

Did My Little Pony just go Galt?

Fan art courtesy of gimpcowking on Deviantart.

So I admitted during a previous post that I was something of a soft brony, not obsessed with My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic but it was and is a show I watch and enjoy regularly. And though it's taken a slight decline in quality over the last few seasons, Friendship is Magic is comfortable among its contemporaries as excellent children's programming that treats kids maturely and is willing to address some more serious topics than usual for fare of its kind. It's not afraid to show that maintaining relationships between friends can be difficult and sometimes answers to problems aren't obvious and pat. That's something I've always appreciated about Friendship is Magic, that it could tell stories about adult responsibilities and problems but in a way that younger audiences could understand and they didn't sacrifice whimsy or humor to do so. It's one of the things that helped attract it's now massive fanbase.

But while watching the latest episode, Canterlot Boutique, I was struck by the thematic subtext of the plot. Yes, I know how silly I sound talking about the thematic subtext of an episode of My Little Pony but just go with me here. In particular, what stood out to me were the similarities between the conflict of the episode's main character Rarity and that of Howard Roark, the protagonist of Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead. It wasn't an explicit homage by any means but I noticed enough parallels between the narratives of the episode and the novel to wonder, did My Little Pony just craft a piece of Objectivist Propaganda?

31 (or so) Days of Terror: Wes Craven's New Nightmare

It was sad news this week when it was announced that Wes Craven, one of the most famous horror directors of our time, passed away at the age of 79. Craven is just another in a long list of genre icons we've lost this year and while his oeuvre includes more than a few clunkers, there is no denying the impact he's made on the horror genre with films like The Last House on the Left, The Hills Have Eyes, and the original A Nightmare on Elm Street. To honor his passing, I'm going to take a look at one of Craven's best-regarded films and the one that at least in my opinion, best expresses his philosophy toward horror. It's also the film where he made his last statement on probably his most famous creation Freddy Krueger, Wes Craven's New Nightmare.

New Nightmare is actually something a strange movie because of its self-aware nature, but it is that very meta approach that informs its theme and makes it such a unique film. To wit, New Nightmare stars original Nightmare star Heather Langenkamp as... original Nightmare star Heather Langenkamp who has moved on from her scream queen days with her young son and FX artist husband. Her Hollywood life is being disrupted by some sinister phone calls from what she thinks is a Freddy-obsessed stalker, a string of earthquakes wrecking her house, and horrible nightmares. Heather would like nothing more than to forget Freddy Krueger and all the weird things happening to her until she learns that Wes Craven is working on the script for a new Nightmare movie that oddly resembles her own recent troubles. As things get increasingly worse, it becomes clearer that whatever is happening to her is far more supernatural and Freddy-looking than she thought but given her connection to the razor-fingered boogieman, everyone around her thinks she's just having a nervous breakdown. With her son and sanity in danger, Heather is forced to ask herself whether Freddy could be more than a character in a movie.

The Man from U.N.C.L.E.: A Review

2015 has been a good year for spy movies. Kingsman was a great reconstruction of old-school James Bond and Melissa Mccarthy's Spy got plenty of mileage out of parodying the genre, and there's still the stoner Jason Bourne flick American Ultra and a new James Bond adventure before the year is out. But of all the stylish cloak and dagger film of 2015, Guy Ritchie's The Man from U.N.C.L.E. is probably the straightest. A 21st century update of a well-remembered 60s TV show, it looked to make a splash and stick out by making a conventional Cold War adventure but with a stylistic flair and unique visual aesthetic that harkened back to the colorful spy craze of the 60s but without coming off like a spoof or lazy homage. On that note Ritchie's film succeeds but the story it's telling is very flawed, though not for a lack of trying.

The year is 1963. CIA agent Napoleon Solo (Henry Cavill) and KGB agent Illya Kuryakin (Armie Hammer) are both on the trail of East German auto mechanic Gabby Teller (Alicia Vikander). Teller's father is a former Nazi scientist who's gone missing along with his research, a method of enriching uranium so simple it could enable anyone with enough cash to make their own nuclear weapons, and she is both sides only lead. After butting heads while getting Gabby across the Berlin Wall, Solo & Kuryakin's superiors decide to pair the two agents up to track down the missing doctor. The two rival agents, along with Gabby, jet off to Italy to investigate a mysterious female shipping magnate with ties to ex-Nazis and who may be a member of a worldwide criminal organization that has kidnapped Gabby's father. From there, the three engage in a complex spy game to outwit the villain and get the research out of her hands. That's if Solo & Kuryakin can put aside their differences for long enough to work together.

So what was going on at the end of Ant-Man?

MAJOR SPOILERS FOR ANT-MAN

And here we are again.

Though for once, I'm almost as in the dark as everyone else. I have an idea about what's going and what it means, but the specific details are vague and the actual context is deliberately being kept from us. Still, there's enough here for me to make an educated guess. And if you're looking forward to Civil War, well then you may want to pay attention.

Terminator: Genisys: A Review

MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD

Since retiring as the Governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger has been trying to break back into the movie star game. His first couple movies since returning didn't do much in that regard, so returning to the role that made him famous in the first place seems like a good path. But Terminator: Genisys isn't only trying to reignite Arnold's star, but also breathe life back into the moribund Terminator franchise which flared out with Terminator: Salvation in 2009. To help, the filmmakers have brought in Game of Thrones' Emilia Clarke and other new talent to support Arnold and make Terminator feel fresh. Does it work?

Well, it's certainly an interesting attempt. The film opens during the last days of the future war against Skynet, the evil AI seemingly destined to destroy the world. Human resistance leader John Connor (Jason Clarke, no relation) prepares his final attack, sending Kyle Reese (Jai Courtney) back to 1984 to protect his mother Sarah (Emilia Clarke) from the Terminator sent to kill her. At this point, it seems like Genisys will just be a straight-up remake of the original Terminator film. But something strange happens when Reese arrives in 1984. He's rescued from a liquid metal T-1000 by Sarah Connor, much more prepared for Skynet than she should be and accompanied by an aging T-800 (Arnold). We learn that the timeline as we knew it has been changed and that events are happening out of order. Figuring Time is on their side for once, Sarah and Reese decide to press their advantage and strangle Skynet in the crib before it can harm anyone but find themselves blocked by an unlikely foe.

Jurassic World: A Review

All right, let's just acknowledge the obvious right off the bat. It's impossible to judge Jurassic World without in some way comparing it to it's predecessor, Stephen Spielberg's original Jurassic Park from 1993. 20 years on, it's clear that Spielberg's film is a classic that's earned its place in our collective culture with its groundbreaking special effects, memorable lines and performances, intelligent underlying themes, and some of composer John Williams' best music. Bringing up the original film would be necessary enough if Jurassic World were just another sequel, of which there are two already, but it's unavoidable when the film reaches back to that first one for many of its own thematic and story ideas. Because they basically just made Jurassic Park, but without any of the subtlety that made it a classic.

We'll get into how that works, but first here's our set-up. It's 20 years on since John Hammond's disastrous first attempt at a dinosaur theme park, but since his death his scientists and company have made good on his dream and built a functioning resort called Jurassic World. Attendance has been dropping below what the company wants, so park supervisor Claire Dearing (Bryce Dallas Howard) has proposed an unorthodox plan. Instead of just resurrecting old dinosaurs, they'll combine the DNA of several to create a brand-new hybrid dinosaur. And because the predators like the T. Rex and the raptors draw the biggest crowd, that's the DNA they'll use. Animal keeper Owen (Chris Pratt), who trains the raptors among other things, understandably thinks this a bad idea, especially when he sees that the conditions this new dino, named Indominus Rex, will be living in are completely wrong for an animal like the Indominus. He's immediately proven right as the Indominus escapes its corral and shows itself to be far more intelligent and far more dangerous than anyone predicted, going on a rampage that sends the entire park into chaos. So with control being lost all over, it's up to Claire, Owen, and his raptors to hunt down the Indominus before it can reach the area filled with guests and all the other dinosaurs can escape as well.

Mad Max: Fury Road: A Review

This movie is crazy.

I'm sorry, I know I usually start these reviews a bit more erudite, commenting on genre conventions and director's critical reputation, but I just keep coming back to this fact. Mad Max: Fury Road is crazy. It feels like being dropped into some bizarre alien environment after taking some drugs that both heighten your perception to the max and make you trip some serious balls. And even once the initial high wears off and some semblance of reality sets in, you notice everyone around is still completely out of their minds. But I think the guy behind the camera might be crazier than anyone in front of it.

But we'll get to that, first the story. It's after the apocalypse and the world is a wasteland of sand & ash. Here we meet "Mad" Max Rockatansky (Tom Hardy), a former police officer who's slowly gone insane after his family's death and the harsh reality of surviving in this new world. At the start of the film he's captured to be used as a human IV drip by the Warboys, members of a death-cult formed around the warlord Immortan Joe (Hugh Keas-Byrne). But his day gets worse when Joe's general Imperator Furiosa (Charlize Theron) betrays him by helping the warlord's harem of breeding slaves escape and Max finds himself strapped to the hood of a car in pursuit of them. After some shenanigans free him, Max reluctantly agrees to aid Furiosa in reaching a mythical promised land across the desert. So the chase is on down the fury road with Joe and his Warboys hot on their tail.

So what was that thing at the end of Age of Ultron?

MAJOR SPOILERS FOR AVENGERS: AGE OF ULTRON

Once more, I am here to elucidate the meaning of the post-credits scene of a Marvel Studios film and decipher its meaning for the non-comics literate. Though thankfully the studio's latest offering, which followed its most recent release Age of Ultron, was short and straight-forward. Hell, If you've seen Guardians of the Galaxy I probably don't even have to explain all that much. But nevertheless let's go through the teaser and see how Marvel is already putting us on the road to that big two-part Infinity War they're promising. Last chance to avoid spoilers and here we go!

Avengers: Age of Ultron: A Review

Escalation has been the name of the game at Marvel since The Avengers burst onto screens back in 2012. Each subsequent movie set in their inter-connected cinematic universe has gotten bigger with higher stakes and cosmic repercussions. And with a civil war between heroes and an enormous radical sci-fi conflagration on the horizon, Age of Ultron has some pretty huge obligations to set the deck for that along with just measuring up to its instantly iconic predecessor. A daunting task for any sequel, about superheroes or no. So does it succeed? Yes, and beautifully so.

Let's catch up on where things are. While we were off on a fun space adventure with Star-Lord and crew, The Avengers have been busting up the resurgent Hydra organization (revealed to have survived WW2 in Winter Soldier) who have been meddling with Loki's Spear from the first film to grant people superpowers. Age of Ultron opens at the tail-end of the Avengers' work as they storm Hydra's last stronghold and seize the dangerous Asgardian weapon, but not before encountering the superpowered Maximoff twins (Aaron-Taylor Johnson & Elizabeth Olsen). Wanda Maximoff (Olsen) has the power of mental manipulation and surreptitiously brings Tony Stark/Iron Man's paranoia to the forefront. This is what inspires him to use Loki's staff to revive Project Ultron, an Artificial Intelligence defense program designed to replace the Avengers. But as often happens, Ultron (James Spader) is more than Iron Man bargained for and rebels against his creator, creating a powerful robot body for himself and attacking the Avengers. He has other ideas about how to defend the human race and so recruits the Maximoff twins to bring about his idea of peace not just without the Avengers, but by destroying the Avengers.

31 (or so) Days of Terror: It Follows

Horror, as a genre, as more than once been criticized as being somewhat conservative in its attitude towards sex. This is usually framed with that old slasher movie cliche of any character who has sex being axed off relatively quickly and the virgin being the only one to survive till the end. The implication of that cliche is that having sex (and worse, enjoying it) is morally wrong and the murders of those characters who do engage in sex are therefore justified, whereas the virgin who abstains from sex remains morally pure and earns their survival. Now of course not every film that uses that trope intends to give that message, just as I doubt that the filmmakers who employ it believe sex is inherently bad either, but it is a valid interpretation and something worth considering. Especially in light of It Follows, a critically acclaimed indie that makes the "have sex, get killed" trope the driving force of its story.

You know that girl you went to school with? The one all the parents and teachers loved, and seemed to excel at everything? But then maybe she got pregnant, or caught an STD, and she got pulled out of school? And her life was ruined even though she made a mistake any teenager could make? Well, It Follows is kind of a movie about her. The film follows 19-year-old Jay, a relative sexual innocent who's ready to go all the way with her new boyfriend. But their young lust has dire consequences when he chloroforms her, ties her to a wheelchair, and informs Jay he's passed a curse onto her. Because they slept together, Jay will now be followed by an implacable, shapeshifting thing that's invisible to everyone else. There's no way to outrun "It" and "It" won't stop until it catches and kills her. The only way to be safe is to pass the curse along to someone else, to get "It" to follow them instead. Now Jay must choose; either knowingly inflict this monster onto someone else or find some way to stop it before "It" finally catches up to her. And all the while that she's deciding, and trying to convince her friends about her situation, "It" is following her just out of frame.

Manhunter, Red Dragon, and what makes a movie good?

Feuds are nothing new among dedicated fans of anything. You'll hear arguments among comics fans about which was the best Batman that are no different from sports fans arguing about which lineup of a team was the best. Movies are no exception, and the "which is better" discussion comes up a lot when the same story is told by wildly different creative teams. Take for example the two movies above, Manhunter & Red Dragon. Both are adaptations of Thomas Harris' first Hannibal Lecter novel Red Dragon, a prequel to Silence of the Lambs about FBI profiler Will Graham coming out of retirement and working with the infamous cannibal to catch a brutal serial killer called the Tooth Fairy.

Having watched both for myself recently, the "which is better" question came to my mind. Initially I felt Red Dragon was the better movie, but that Manhunter was the better-made movie. That conclusion got me wondering though, if Manhunter was made better why did I think that Red Dragon was the superior film? After all, if Manhunter was better made shouldn't it also just be better? So I rolled the question and the two films around in my head for some time and came to what I thought was an interesting conclusion. Which movie was better depended on my own personal criteria for what made a good movie.

Jupiter Ascending: A Review

The Wachowski Siblings are unique among blockbuster filmmakers in that they have a wonderful sense of visual design and a great knack for creating crowd-pleasing popcorn movies that nobody actually goes to see. Seriously, after The Matrix kind of flared out the Wachowskis have tried again and again to replicate that early success with no luck. And they've tried it the smart way too, not just remaking The Matrix but by making new and different things like Speed Racer or Cloud Atlas, at least trying to show they weren't one trick ponies and earning critical acclaim along the way. And their latest effort, a high-concept space opera in the vein of Dune called Jupiter Ascending, already looks like it will suffer the same fate

Right off the back I want to give the Wachowskis credit for coming up with an original property and story. Jupiter Ascending is the tale of Jupiter Jones (Mila Kunis), a Russian immigrant working as a janitor in Chicago. Her humdrum life is suddenly upended though when she's molested by aliens, rescued by the wolfman Caine (Channing Tatum), and learns she's the genetic reincarnation of what is effectively the Queen of the Universe. And as such, Jupiter is entitled to claim the former queen's position and property for herself. This information doesn't sit well with the former queen's children though, wary of any threat to their inheritance and wealth. Jupiter becomes caught in their power struggle, being manipulated and sometimes outright threatened into siding with one of them over the others. Things come to head when Balim (Eddie Redmayne), the crown prince, kidnaps Jupiter's family from Earth to force her into abdicating her position to him. And so the race is on to see who will control the universe and along the way Jupiter and Caine fall in love.

Into the Woods: A Review

I'm not entirely sure why Fairy Tales have become such big business in recent years. It seems like every other weekend there's some new movie or TV show offering a twist or reinterpretation on the stalwart stories of the Brothers Grimm. Maybe it has something to do with a mass psychological need for stories of simple morality, where good deeds are rewarded and wickedness punished, in light of the current morally gray and complex culture we find ourselves in at the moment. Who knows, I'm a film critic not an anthropologist. But it's not surprising that with the renewed interest that we'd eventually get a film version of the original subversive take on classic Fairy Tales, Stephen Sondheim's musical Into the Woods. Presented with all the pomp and star power Disney can provide, the new adaptation is an uneven but nonetheless enjoyable outing at the movies.

And just to be upfront, this review is based on only the new film. I haven't seen the original stage production so how good of an adaptation it actually is, I have no idea. That established, our story primarily follows a Baker (James Corden) and his wife (Emily Blunt) in a standard fairy tale setting whose greatest wish is to have a child. A Witch (Meryl Streep) has cursed the Baker's family though, because his father stole from her garden years ago. But the Witch informs the couple that she will lift the curse if they can bring her four specific items before the blue moon in three days time. So the pair head off, um, into the woods to collect them, crossing paths with Cinderella, Little Red Riding Hood, Jack (of beanstalk fame), and Rapunzel whom are all chasing after their own wishes. As all these characters help & hinder one another, everyone eventually reaches their happily ever after. But as the consequences of their time in the woods come home they all begin to wonder, just how happy are they?

The Interview: A Review

It's not every movie that causes an international incident. By now, it's safe to assume that most people have heard of The Interview, a comedy starring James Franco and Seth Rogen as journalists attempting to assassinate North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Un during a live TV interview, and the bizarre circumstances of its release. After a predictable outcry from the North Korean propaganda machine, the film's studio Sony had its computers hacked and terrorist threats were issued against any theater that dared to show the movie. That caused Sony to pull The Interview just weeks before its planned Christmas release and cancel any plans to release it at all. Only for that to cause a backlash here in the States, calling Sony out for their cowardice and independent screenings planned in protest. Ultimately Sony relented, giving The Interview a limited theatrical release and making it available to view online for a nominal fee. Just for the record, I saw the film in a theater and was attacked by exactly zero North Koreans. I tell you all this because the controversy surrounding this film is actually more interesting than the film itself.

Not that it's a bad movie but for all the hullabaloo and saber-rattling from that wacked Orwellian slice of Asia that the end result is so average can't help but feel disappointing. I'll get to why, but first a little expansion on the premise. Franco is Dave Skylark, host of a popular but brainless celebrity interview tabloid who with the help of Rogen as his producer Aaron Rappaport is able to coax shocking secrets and revelations out of even the most guarded of guests. Despite their popularity, the two are aiming to enhance their credibility in the TV news world and think they've found their chance when they learn that Kim Jong-Un is a huge fan of Skylark's. They set up an interview with the reclusive dictator in North Korea but are forcibly recruited by the CIA to kill Kim while on air to destabilize his regime. Being idiots though, Skylark and Rappaport screw things up as soon they arrive in the Hermit Kingdom. Skylark finds himself being charmed by Kim and begins having second thoughts about the assassination while Rappaport comes under suspicion from a particularly patriotic North Korean official.