Passengers Review

No witty status this time, other than Passengers is one of the worst movies of the year.

X-Men: Days of Future Past - Review

I have kind of a love/hate relationship with the X-Men film series. On one hand, the films generally average out to be pretty good. You have your good ones (X-Men, X2, The Wolverine), your not-so-good ones (Last Stand, Origins: Wolverine), and your sole great one (First Class). So yeah, for the most part, good films. Even the bad ones aren't totally without any merit (Last Stand at least has some decent action). Yet, I can't help but feel like they've kind of been jogging in place since this series began. They've basically been telling slight re-iterations of the same story (protecting those who fear them). Don't get me wrong, that's generally been the basic premise for the comics as well, but the comics did manage to throw some curve-balls to the general formula once in a while. Still, I guess it's a reasonable concept on which to base a franchise, and at the very least, none of the films have been generic re-stagings, so that's got to count for something. The newest entry, X-Men: Days of Future Past, represents three things... a loose adaptation of one of the comic's most well-known story-lines, a coming together/reunion of First Class's characters/actors and the original cast, and finally to ret-con the faults and lame endings of The Last Stand and Origins. Plus, it features the return of X-Men and X2's original director, Bryan Singer. I'll admit that I had some reservations about this one, but I won't say that I couldn't help but buy into the hype. How did it turn out?

The year is 2023, and the world has become a complete apocalyptic wasteland. Those born with mutant abilities (as well as those who aid mutants) are being hunted down by advanced machines known as Sentinels, robotic weapons created in 1973 to destroy mutants after their existence became public knowledge and led to mass paranoia. With the existance of mutants (and humanity) on the line, Professor Charles Xavier aka Professor X (Patrick Stewart) and Erik Lehnsherr aka Magneto (Ian McKellen) have once again joined forces with a small group of remaining X-Men to fight the Sentinels. In a last ditch effort to prevent this dark future before it even starts, Kitty Pryde (Ellen Page) uses her abilities to send Wolverine's (Hugh Jackman) consciousness into his body from 1973, where he then will attempt to stop the chain of events that lead up to the dark future. To do so, he must not only stop Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence) from killing the Sentinel's creator, Bolivar Trask (Peter Dinklage) but also reunite the young Charles (James McAvoy) and Magneto (Michael Fassbender) when they couldn't be further apart. With time running out, Wolverine must act quick or the future of the mutant and human race could be wiped out forever.

So like I mentioned, I had some reservations going into this film, even though I generally thought it looked pretty good. It's just coming off the excellent X-Men: First Class, it was definitely a bummer when I heard that Matthew Vaughn had stepped down as director. When it was announced that Bryan Singer would return to the series, my thoughts were mixed. I still think the first two X-Men films hold up pretty well, especially X2. It's just that superhero films have improved significantly over the years, and I was concerned that Days of Future Past would repeat some of the more forgettable qualities of the first two films that were acceptable at the time, but harder to accept now. For instance, the black leather costumes of the first three X-Men films is boring and uninspired, some of the action doesn't really hold up in the first two, and with the exception of Wolverine, Magneto, Professor X, and Mystique, character development was pretty limited. Still, the cast was (generally) spot-on, some of the action was passable, and the scripts of the first two, for the most part, understood the source material... at least enough to make them passable movies. Though in case your wondering, here are my thoughts on all the films... X-Men (good), X2 (quite good), The Last Stand (some decent action, but overall not very good), X-Men Origins Wolverine (pretty bad), First Class (awesome), and The Wolverine (decent). So with all that said, where does Days of Future Past sit... we're right back where we started with just "good."

So yeah, the film is good. It's not great, it's not amazing, but it's not bad by any means. If all you want to know is whether the film is worth watching, I can confidently say that the movie is worth watching once in theaters. That said, it's by no means great and has some noticeable (and in some cases pretty massive) flaws. Script-wise is where the film really drops the ball. The basic premise is fine and leads to some very entertaining scenes, but by the time the film finished, it became clear that the time travel based storyline was chosen less to actually tell a story but rather as a means to ret-con and do-over the faults of the previous films and to set the stage for future sequels. Almost every one of the events from the previous films has been done over, namely the God-awful ending Last Stand. Now, I'll admit that's kind of a cheap way to undo the faults of it's predecessors, but since The Last Stand really bit the big one with such a shitty ending, I can let that slide. Though what's harder to let slide are some massive gaps in logic and storytelling. For instance, where the hell did Kitty Pryde get time travel powers??? Her basic power is to walk through walls, and there was never an instance where her new powers were hinted or explained in either this film or any previous films. Plus, like many time travel movies, the actual timeline of events is so convoluted and confusing that my brain hurts every time I try to understand it. Also was a little irritated with the way they just did away with many of the mutants from First Class (what the hell was up with that). With that all said, the basic premise is an interesting setup, there are some stand-out scenes, and the pacing couldn't have been better. Like any movie an ensemble cast, some of the supporting characters get the shaft, but the main figures get enough to do to make the film work. The script is flawed, no question about that, but works well enough to support such an ambitious premise.

Once again, like all of the (good) X-Men films, the movie finds it's true success based on the strength of it's cast. It's kind of annoying that all the X-Men films (minus First Class) are so Wolverine-centric, but there's no denying that Hugh Jackman is still so perfectly cast in the part, that I'm willing to overlook that. It was also nice to see Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen return for what's probably one more outing as Professor X and Magneto respectively. James McAvoy is the true stand-out as the young Charles Xavier, running away with nearly every one of his scenes in both dramatic, and at times, heartbreaking manner. Michael Fassbender continues to show off his natural acting skills as the young Magneto, which is no surprise because he's awesome. Jennifer Lawrence phones it in a little bit as Mystique, which is a bit disappointing after her great performance in First Class (as well as her very impressive filmography) but she's got enough natural talent to make the character passable. Peter Dinklage is solid as the villainous Trask, but the script barely gives him anything to do and as a result, he's little more than a one-note villain. This was probably the most disappointing part of the film, since a more well-rounded character would have given Dinklage a lot to work with and could have made the film truly special. One of the other newcomers is Evan Peters as Quicksilver, a mutant with super speed. I will that, while his character is kind of annoying, he gets a pretty cool action scene and only appears in the film briefly, so no huge complaints there. Everyone else is, overall, pretty solid. Whether they're a newcomer to the franchise or a returning character, I have no real complaints.

As for the visual/action elements... well, like pretty much everything else, I have some mixed feelings. Bryan Singer's trademark dark, gritty, and drab visual aesthetic returns to the series, and once again I'm somewhat let down. I can generally get behind it for the post-apocalyptic scenes, though even those could have been a bit better shot. Though what I really missed was the Fleming-inspired aesthetic from First Class. The classic 007 inspired cinematography and art design from First Class gave that film a really unique quality that found that middle ground between comic book visuals and a retro film vibe. For Days of Future Past... that's sorely missed. The futuristic scenes work, but they feel more like a generic run-of-the-mill post-apocalyptic world you see it many sci-fi films while the scenes in the 1970s are decent enough but could have been great with a bit more stylish flair. Fortunately, Bryan Singer has greatly improved in his ability to direct action since X2. Even though the opening scenes are terribly underlit, the action is fast-paced, well shot, and creatively realized. It's not the most original or unique, but I won't deny that most of the action scenes are usually pretty awesome. Whether it be a fight, a chase, or an all out attack, they work. Oh and a little fanboy aside... THE SENTINELS WERE AWESOME!!! I have been waiting for the Sentinels to show up in an X-Men film for ages (no that stupid Danger Room cameo in The Last Stand doesn't count) and just to see them on the big screen in live action was enough to make my inner fanboy giddy! If nothing else, the film works strictly as an action film, and for most people that'll probably be enough.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, X-Men: Days of Future Past is not a great movie, but it works. It's a thoroughly entertaining movie despite having some glaring script and tone issues. I'd say it's about on par with the first film, though not quite as good as X2, and certainly doesn't hold a candle to First Class. Though it's a huge improvement over The Last Stand and Origins, and an improvement over last year's Wolverine movie. If you're an X-Men fan, you'll probably leave satisfied. For everyone else... you'll get your money's worth.

My Score: 3.5 out of 5!

American Hustle - Review

Now that the 86th Academy Awards have come and gone, I realized that I never reviewed any of the Best Picture nominees. Don't really have any excuses this time, just kind of dropped the ball. Well, now that I know who won and lost, I don't have to make any pleas about who I hope will win, instead I get to complain about the films that took home awards they didn't deserve and the more deserving films that went home empty handed. So, first up is American Hustle, director David O. Russell's crime thriller/drama/comedy (it has bits and pieces from many genres) and what I consider the most overrated film of 2013. I already discussed this one a little bit in my Oscar predictions stating that despite receiving critical praise and ten Oscar nominations (though it didn't win any), I was somewhat befuddled by the film's immense acclaim. I know I'm in the minority here, but despite the efforts of a talented cast, a previously successful director, and worthy subject matter, there was just something missing from American Hustle and as a result, it failed to click. Maybe there's some irony in that title, because after watching it, I genuinely felt hustled by the filmmakers.

In a a loose dramatization of the real-life ABSCAM scandals, the year is 1978 and Irving Rosenfeld (Christian Bale), while nothing particularly impressive to look at, is one of the best con-artists in the game. With a number of seemingly legitimate businesses, Rosenfeld is an expert at the craft of scamming, whether through counterfeit art deals, illegal merchandise, shady loans, or many other means. While attending a friend's party, he meets the sultry Sydney Prosser (Amy Adams), a stripper/business clerk who takes an interest in Rosenfeld's business. The two form a partnership in Rosenfeld's con-games and start a casual relationship (despite Rosenfeld being married to a woman who, even though she hates him, refuses a divorce). When Rosenfeld and Sydney are caught by FBI agent Richie DaMaso (Bradley Cooper), he offers them a chance to avoid a prison sentence if the two cooperate with the FBI to help them track down and catch some other big-name criminals and con-artists. What follows is essentially a clusterfuck of mishaps involving cons, scams, swindling, friends becoming enemies, enemies becoming friends, the mafia, corrupt politicians, and shady FBI agents.

Now, American Hustle is not necessarily a "bad movie" but after watching it, I couldn't deny the fact that there was just something missing from it, and for a while, I couldn't put my finger on what that was. It certainly wasn't for lack of ambition, effort, talent, or decent subject matter. On the contrary, with a director like David O'Russell, subject matter as interesting as the ABSCAM scandles, and a cast consisting of immense talents like Christian Bale, Amy Adams, Jennifer Lawrence, Bradley Cooper, and Jeremy Renner selling the hell out of their roles, I had pretty high hopes for this flick. Maybe it was the raised expectations that killed this one's potential for me, but even after a second viewing, my thoughts hadn't changed. It's hard not to draw comparisons to Goodfellas while watching American Hustle, as it seemed like O'Russell was going for the style of "bleak/dark drama with comedic undertones" that Martin Scorsese has made a career out of. While there's nothing wrong with a filmmaker drawing inspiration from a near-perfect masterpiece like Goodfellas, American Hustle ultimately feels like an average imitation of a quality product, a thought only supported by the fact that there actually was a Scorsese film in 2013 with similar themes. It's like David O'Russell showed Martin Scorsese his film, and Marty responded by saying, "Nice try kid... but let me show you how the pros do it" and then proceeded to show him The Wolf of Wall Street.

With all that said, it's not fair to criticize a film for not being as incredible as Goodfellas (few are) or to throw David O'Russell under the bus for not being Scorsese (again... very few possess even a fraction of Scorsese's filmmaking talents). I will say this much, there are a few things about the movie that I like. With David O'Russell's sharp eye for visuals, the filmmakers did a commendable job recreating the 1970s. Everything from the outfits, the sets, the soundtrack, the makeup, and the hair (actually the hairstyles are probably the best part of the film) are accomplished with some stylish flair and a nice attention to detail. The actors are generally well-cast too, with the standouts being Amy Adams and Jennifer Lawrence (though both have done far better work in previous films). At the very least, you can't deny the absolute commitment each actor brought their respective role. The same could be said for director David O'Russell, who clearly put every once of his energy and talent into trying to deliver a quality product. Plus, the pacing is generally solid, the film finds a decent rhythm, and the script manages to throw in a chuckle-worthy scene once in a while. At the very least, the film isn't without any merit.

So like I mentioned before... I was originally quite perplexed as to why a film with so many positive elements could feel so unfulfilling. The cast, the direction, and the concept are, for the most part, generally solid. So what happened??? Well, despite the good individual parts, nothing really comes together all that well. It tries to be three things at once, a dramatic character study, a screwball comedy, and a heist/grifter film (with some socio-political undertones). Unfortunately, it doesn't really get any of those three parts right. The comedic elements are the only parts that come close to working, as I did get a few chuckles out a couple scenes, despite the humorous moments being very hit or miss. The characters, however, are probably the most disappointing part of the film, because they come close to working but not quite. They're mostly just comedic archetypes with little depth or personality that fail to rise above generic cliches. I won't dock the film points for it's characters not being likable or for being egotistic, narcissistic, or shallow (since that was clearly the point), but I will dock them for not being interesting. The basic set-up and heist story starts with promise but it culminates throughout a confusing and convoluted narrative yet still in ends with an outcome that I predicted five minutes into the damn film. Plus, the tone is all over the map and the style is never consistent. Because the film tackles so many ideas and stories, it continuously looses focus and by the time is over over... it just felt lifeless. A film with multiple plots and stories can work, but it takes one hell of a filmmaker to make it work... clearly David O'Russell was not up to it. The main problem, however, despite it's sheer energy, is that it lacks bite. It doesn't really much to say about the insanity of it's story aside from "we live in a messed up world", which is true but I was expecting more.

As I've mentioned, I know I'm in the minority here, but no matter how I look at American Hustle, it just doesn't do much for me. Maybe it's because I've seen so many films do exactly what American Hustle was trying to do, only so much better. If the movie sounds like it's up your alley you could check it out, or you could watch similar yet far more compelling films like Goodfellas, or more engaging movies like The Sting, or funnier flicks like A Fish Called Wanda... all of which are similar to American Hustle just better. If you're looking for a more recent film, then watch Scorsese's The Wolf of Wall Street. I wish I liked this movie, I WANT to like this movie, but no matter what American Hustle is nothing more than mediocre.

My Score: 2.5 out of 5!

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire - Review

Ugh! I really need to post these reviews sooner. This film has been in theaters for over a month now and I've waited too long for this post this thing... oh well. Now it's time for Part II of the super-popular Hunger Games series, based on the equally-popular young adult novels by author Suzanne Collins. Can't say I have personally bought into their hype... mainly because I was one of the few movie-goers who considered the first film an overrated letdown. Back in March of 2012, I wrote what was arguably my most controversial review, giving the first film only 2 out of 5 stars with a relatively scathing send-up. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate what this series is at least trying to do, the first film had some ambitious ideas (for a young adult series anyways), a strong female lead helming a generally solid cast, and one or two stand-out moments. Unfortunately it was let down by questionable direction, derivative story elements, hit-and-miss pacing, underdeveloped characters, terrible camerawork, sub-par special effects, and bland action. After two repeat viewings plus reading the first novel (which, by the way, is just okay) to see if there was something I missed, my opinion hasn't changed. I can't quite call the film terrible... but I was not impressed. I knew this would be a controversial opinion, as was soon proven by the abundance of hate mail I received, but I stand by it. So yeah, can't say I've been looking forward to it's sequel, Catching Fire, but I was willing to give it a shot, namely because of some new and more promising story elements plus a new director who actually knows how to direct action. Now after finally seeing the thing, here are my thoughts...

The film takes place one year after the events of it's predecessor. After winning the 74th annual Hunger Games, Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) and Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson) have been touring the twelve lower-class Districts in the upper class Capital's mandatory "Victor's Tour." Both Katniss and Peeta reluctantly continue to stage their "love story relationship" for the masses, despite Katniss having a real love, Peeta genuinely having feelings for Katniss, and that many District residents never bought into the charade in the first place. Fearing an uprising, President Snow (Donald Sutherland) threatens Katniss into continuing the act, meanwhile scheming against her to destroy her influence among the District residents. He plans to do so at the 75th Hunger Games, where instead of kids/teens fighting to the death, instead recruits previous Hunger Games victors and pits them in a sort of Tournament of Champions to the death... Katniss and Peeta included. Now, they all must re-train, make friends, make enemies, and fight for their lives.

So right up front, is the film good or is it another let down? Well, unlike the time I saw the first movie, in which I pretty much disliked from the get-go, I've been feeling more conflicted about Catching Fire. I'll admit that there are some parts of this film I genuinely liked, though there were more than a few bits that left me saying, "Really... that's it?" In the end, it ultimately culminates to be a generally decent film, but I'm still not quite sold on the series as a whole. I will say this much, I actually really liked the basic set-up. The first act gets you hooked, the stakes are higher, the satire is better developed, and the way in which the games were set up this time around had some real promise. Unfortunately, it all culminates to a disappointing finale plus some lingering problems from it's predecessor that still haven't been resolved. Ugh... I hate it when that happens. It's not like I went into this film with high expectations or anything like that, but I was genuinely surprised to see just how, despite an abundance of storytelling issues, I found myself invested in the premise... until we actually got to the games themselves. That almost makes me even more upset than I was about the first flick. Sure I didn't like the first one, but it never did much to get me interested in the first place, so I didn't feel that "let down" per se. Catching Fire actually got my hopes up for a bit and then just shot them down... damn!

Okay, so I mentioned that there were some lingering issues from the predecessor that still plagued this sequel. As I mentioned in my review of the original, I was never a fan of how it chose to frame the "good" and "evil" characters. By this I'm referring to the fact that the "good" characters are portrayed as these working class, traditional, or salt of the Earth-like normal folk while the "evil" Capitol citizens are all portrayed as goofy, campy, foppish, and dressed in these over-the-top outfits. Out of all the hate-mail I received, those bits of criticism were probably thrown back in my face the most. I've tried to wrap my around why this kind of storytelling might work, but I'm sorry, no matter how I look at it, I still think it's an incredibly cheap and lazy way to portray it's characters. Not only does it fail to bring any real depth to the characters, but it's just a cheap way to divide the line between good and evil. Plus, the way it portrays "normal" or "down to earth" characters as good while the those portrayed as flamboyant or goofy as evil (or at least misguided) has some really unfortunate implications on how we as people view society. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but it's there.

As I did mention before, there are some things in the flick that I really did enjoy. The whole setup and first act are good... damn good actually. Okay, well the political and social aspects of the flick still feel more than a bit flawed, but the way in which it continues the story and attempts to further explore it's themes and messages was commendable. The whole "Tournament of Champions" concept, unfortunately, did basically serve as a means to just re-tread the basic plot of it's predecessor, but Katniss competing with a bunch of seasoned veterans at least served as a logical means to raise the stakes. Plus... I really dug the tributes this time around, and how each of them had some unique personality trait or skill. One of my biggest complains with the previous film was how most of the tributes were basically just personality-deprived victim fodder for the games, with even less character than you're typical slasher flick line-up. Here, that's different... you have a tribute that files her teeth into sharp fangs to bite her target, there are two tech-wizards that kill people with science, there's a mute old lady who rides on the back of her younger male companion, and the list goes on. The film also scores hugely once again thanks to the efforts of it's stellar cast, namely Jennifer Lawrence. Lawrence was solid in the previous flick, don't get me wrong, but she totally hit it out of the park here, delivering an even more moving and intense performance as Katniss, capturing the trauma of someone who experienced great pain but with the strength to push through whatever challenges come before her. If nothing else, between a great cast and a stellar first act, I found myself hyped to see what would happen next. Unfortunately, what would come next was not nearly as awesome as I had hoped.

If there was one thing that actually did get me kind of excited about Catching Fire, it was Francis Lawrence directing. While Lawrence is by no means a great director, he's at least shown that he has a good eye for directing stylized action scenes, as evidence by two of his previous films, the underrated Constantine and the overrated I Am Legend (not a good film, but not without it's stylish moments). Once the film actually gets to the Games... I couldn't have felt more let down. Most of the said tributes bite it off screen, and don't really get to show off their special skills/traits. Plus, it ultimately culminates into a predictable pattern consisting of an obstacle followed by a chase. The obstacles range from a poison fog, killer baboons, crazy birds, and a few others, but generally come off as uninspired. I suppose these scenes are a step up from the first, namely how this time there's not as much shaky cam and they at they least came up with obstacles slightly more creative than the poorly rendered Zuul dogs from the first. At the very least, the film ended on a pretty exciting cliffhanger that I have no doubt will get all the fans stoked for the next one. Granted, there was one big character reveal/twist that was hardly a surprise, but that's a minor gripe I suppose. Still, with all the hype and great buildup in the first half, I expected way more than what we got in the finale.

So overall, how was the movie? As I mentioned before, it's a decent film.... not great but not bad. I'm not going to say that I've become a fan of this series, but I will give it credit for at least delivering some strong moments and ambitious satire even if the writing is still flawed and the third act was the very definition of anti-climactic. Still, I'll take what I can get, and what we got here was, at the very least, watchable. I'll take that over the mediocrity of it's predecessor any day.

My Score: 3 out of 5

Silver Linings Playbook - Review

Every so often, a decent or otherwise good film makes it's way into theaters, and for some reason, seems to take the world by storm. Silver Linings Playbook is one of those movies, a hit of the film festivals, showered with awards, praised by the critics, and embraced by audiences as a new classic... yeah, I'm wondering if I watched the same movie as everyone else. Wait wait wait! Don't freak out, let me make one thing clear... I liked Silver Linings Playbook, I just didn't quite love it. The film is good and has some really strong qualities, I'm not denying that, but the numerous flaws are what's keeping me from understanding just why it's being touted as some kind of new masterpiece. Is it because of the subject matter, or maybe that it features Bradley Cooper broadening his acting ability, or is it because Jennifer Lawrence is kind of a big deal right now? It's hard to say exactly where the hype lies, but either way Silver Linings Playbook has received quite the response. What works and what doesn't? Let's take a look...

Silver Linings Playbook opens with Pat Solitano (Bradley Cooper), being released from a mental institution after an 8 month stint. Pat was diagnosed with bi-polar disorder after witnessing his wife having an affair, an event which triggered a mental episode where he nearly beat his wife's lover to death. He is released into the care of his parents, Pat Sr (Robert De Niro) and Delores (Jacki Weaver), where he begins a long journey of piecing his life back together and hopefully reconciling with his wife (who, after the assault, placed a restraining order against Pat). Soon after arriving home, Pat is introduced to Tiffany Maxwell (Jennifer Lawrence), a recently widowed woman with issues of her own. Despite some initial hostility between the two, both Pat and Tiffany form a love/hate friendship as they help each other work through their issues, accomplish each other's respective goals, and find the silver lining in their unfortunate circumstances.

David O'Russell (the film's director) is a very talented filmmaker, let's get the out there right now. I've also heard he's kind of a maniac, but I'm not going to worry about that right now. Though he hasn't made a movie that I've quite fallen in love with yet, his work in films like Three Kings (quite good), I Heart Huckabees (took some time to appreciate this one, but I do admire it), and The Fighter (also quite good) has been impressive. Silver Linings Playbook actually reminded me a bit of The Fighter. Both films were family-based dramas that dealt with themes of bonding over sports (be it football or boxing) and health-related issues (drug addiction in the case of The Fighter and mental illness in the case of Silver Linings Playbook). It was through Russell's slick direction and the subtleties of the script that elevated The Fighter from being just another inner city boxer turned champion fighter flick (like all of the Rocky imitators). Silver Linings Playbook tries to recapture the success of that technique... albeit with mixed though still overall positive results. The cast is game, there are some truly compelling scenes, and the subject matter is worthy. That said, by the time the third act roles around, it looses a bit of it's edge and falls victim to one too many predictable and formulaic beats.

Let's start where most of the film's shining attributes abide... the cast! Bradley Cooper has been mainly regarded, up until this point, as a comedic actor with well-received roles in films like The Hangover and Wedding Crashers. His non-comedic movies have been at best average (I'm being nice), though often not the fault of Cooper. His role as Pat finally gives him a chance to showcase his true skill, both through comedic and dramatic means. He gets a few hearty laughs over the course of the film and sells every one of his heavier scenes... that's talent right there. The most talked about performance, however, is probably Jennifer Lawrence as Tiffany. With her Oscar victory for this role, she has officially crossed the line of promising up-and-comer, to full blown superstar. Make no mistake, she is damn good in this role, taking what could have been a fairly one note character and making it into something very impressive. Most of the film's best moments come from Lawrence, and it's clear that she is one hell of an actress who deserves the success that has come to her. Both Cooper and Lawrence have a great chemistry, and ultimately contribute to most of the film's success.

The supporting cast has received some attention as well. Robert De Niro is always a welcome presence to any movie, whether it be a drama, comedy, action, or horror flick... he's just one of those actors who can play anything. While his part of Pat Sr isn't one of his most memorable roles (though that's hardly a criticism when your filmography consists of Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, Cape Fear, The Godfather Part II, etc.), De Niro does a good job playing the"bad ass with a heart of gold" kind of parts. He's funny, he's intense, he's dramatic, he's likable, he's De Niro... what more can I say? Australian actress Jacki Weaver is great as Pat's mom Delores, in a more understated but still impressive performance. She's quite convincing as the torn but loving mother caught in the middle of this madness and who wants nothing more than to see both her husband and son both be happy with their issues resolved. Her role in this isn't quite as impressive as her previously Oscar nominated performance in the underrated 2009 flick, Animal Kingdom, but it works. I also have to give a shout out to Chris Tucker, who up until now, has always been one of the most annoying comedic actors to walk the Earth, actually give a more grounded and surprisingly heartfelt performance as Danny, Pat's buddy from the mental hospital. Overall, this was a very well assembled cast, and without them, the movie wouldn't have been nearly as effective.

Now we come to the story... and this is where I'm most divided. The individual parts are all solid, and the seeds planted could have amounted into a new classic. The idea is good, the characters are mostly well developed, and family drama is genuine. The first two-thirds of the film are quite good, with little to no flaws. There are some very funny scenes that managed to get a few decent laughs out of me, and when it came to the heavier scenes, yeah I got legitimately invested in those too. The two tones were well-balanced, it was both funny and dramatic in equal parts with neither feeling forced. Once the final third rolled around... eesh, this is where I'm torn. I can't really discuss it without spoiling parts of the ending, so I'm going to put a spoiler warning up.

SPOILER WARNING!!! I AM REVEALING PARTS OF THE FILM'S ENDING!!! SKIP TO THE LAST PARAGRAPH IF YOU DON'T WANT ANYTHING REVEALED!!!

Okay, so film ends with some of the most cliched and predictable story elements I have ever seen.
Up until the third act, most of the movie avoided a lot of the typical romcom formula. Even though I had a hunch it might end copping out, I held out hope that it would not... I was wrong. It ends with Pat's consensual break up with his wife so that he and Tiffany could be together. After Pat Sr gives his son the obligatory "go get her" speech, Pat chases down Tiffany, they reveal their love for each other, the kiss, blah blah blah, happily ever after. It's not just the ending either, by the time the third act rolled around, it was completely obvious that the movie was going to resort to the typical Hollywood formula. This wouldn't bother me too much, except for the fact that the movie had so much going for it. Once again though, we get the typical Hollywood message that the cure for mental illness is to hook up with an equally messed up, though still conventionally attractive, partner. Kind of a letdown, not gonna lie.

SPOILERS END HERE!!!

And there is Silver Linings Playbook. Despite my gripes and complaints, I will say that the movie is worth seeing. Up until the end, most of it works quite well, and while I do think the movie, as a whole, is a bit overrated, it's definitely not bad. If you haven't seen it yet, check it out.

My Score: 3.5 out of 5!