It’s the most wonderful time of the year! About 99 percent of people read that previous sentence through the lovely singing voice of Andy Williams, I can guarantee that much. That phrase is so synonymous with the holidays because it signifies the time of year when family and friends collectively come together to indulge in some yuletide cheer. Now having witnessed “Love the Coopers,” I’m fairly certain that director Jessie Nelson has never had a cheerful Christmas.

Prepare the dinner, wrap the presents, decorate the tree and light the fireplace because it’s Christmastime for the Cooper clan. For this special time of year, the Coopers are coming together for one night of togetherness. Leading up to this luscious dinner are multiple interweaving stories spread across one Christmas Eve. Come join the fun as you have the luxury to witness such holiday traditions as divorce talk, an undeveloped romance, a fake engagement, awkward teenage love, etc. Doesn’t this sound like the true reason for the season? Get ready for some Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho-kum with the Coopers! 

Love the Coopers

The alternative title should have been “Screw the Coopers” because if this movie’s ending was the Coopers roasting on an open fire, I would have been pleasantly satisfied. How do you manage to waste such names as Alan Arkin, John Goodman, Diane Keaton, Anthony Mackie and Marisa Tomei and make them as unpleasant as a lump of coal in a bad child’s stocking?

Despite the trailer’s inept ability to get a laugh out of me, I was expecting a cliched holiday movie at the very least. If the decorations weren’t in the background, I would have been confused as to why this is labeled as a Christmas movie. Even the worst holiday drecks manage to show a bit of Christmas cheer but I got nothing from this but a gift wrapped disappointment that does everything in its power to distance itself from the holiday itself.

It’s normal for families to bicker around the holidays, but not to this extent. Their first world dilemmas range from “go see a therapist” to “get over it.” Since these characters show few likable traits, how am I supposed to get invested in their stories? You can’t have Diane Keaton and John Goodman quarreling about their oncoming separation in the same movie where a dog farting at the dinner table is considered humorous. You can’t develop a romance between Olivia Wilde and Jake Lacy, the only likable character in the film, when I know that he would have been better off waiting in a desolate airport than with this sociopathic woman.

As bad as all of that was, nothing compares to what came next. You can’t develop a serious friendship between Alan Arkin and Amanda Seyfried and use the act of cutting as a cheap plot device. Nor can you have a conversation between Marisa Tomei and Anthony Mackie about being a closeted gay man when it’s never given the time or respect it needs to develop. For everything else that got an unintentional laugh out of me, this was an ugly and distasteful way to shine a light on these subjects.

On the lighter side of things, awkward sitcom-like humor and uncomfortable teenage makeout sessions gave me enough material to use against this movie. The director is so incompetent when it comes to shooting comedy or setting up a simple shot in general. He can’t seem to keep it still or even focus it on the actors’ faces correctly. No, I don’t care to see all of the wrinkles on Alan Arkin’s face!

And the Oscar for Best Original Screenplay goes to “Love the Coopers” for such memorable lines as “I’m going to make the dump salad” and “That’s the best meal I’ve ever had in my whole entire mouth.” Truly these quotes from Oscar-nominated actresses will live on throughout the ages.

“Love the Coopers” turned out to be an unexpected Christmas trainwreck that you acknowledge exists but leave to die in the corner for nobody to speak of ever again. The jokes made at the movie’s expense kept it from my lowest grade though. So, that said, if a family member tells you that it’s a good movie, they’re lying, but go watch it anyways. Just make sure that it’s either on the Lifetime or Hallmark channel and you’re trashed; you’ll thank me later.   

Rating: D-

Matt Bilodeau can be contacted at mbilodeau@kscequinox.com

We should count ourselves lucky that we live in an age where audiences can still go to the cinema and witness a brand new film from such veteran directors as Martin Scorsese and Steven Spielberg on the big screen. Once they’re gone, that’s it, no more. Their work will stand the test of time as we look back to see why we fell in love with them in the first place. Last weekend, I was so proud that I could still see another Spielberg drama in a multiplex and “Bridge of Spies” did not disappoint.

Tension between the United States and the Soviet Union ran high as the Cold War was in full effect with each side sending spies of their own to opposite ends of the world. Almost without warning, James Donovan [Tom Hanks], a New York insurance lawyer, is asked to defend Rudolf Abel [Mark Rylance], an alleged Soviet spy, in a court of law. Respecting his job, Donovan does his best to get Abel a fair trial amidst the anger of many American citizens. Everything changes in an instant when a U-2 spy plane is shot down over Soviet Russia and the American pilot [Austin Stowell] inside is captured. Based on true events, the US took this opportunity to get their man back alive and unharmed via trade with Donovan dropped right in the middle of the exchange.

As with most true stories that Tom Hanks stars in, even though history has spoiled the outcome of the story, I’m still on the edge of my seat, waiting to see what’s going to happen next. Only by bringing together such a presence as Hanks and Spielberg do you get a winning combination. Did I also forget to mention that this film was co-written by the Coen Brothers?

Tom Hanks has cemented his place among the A-list actors because of his ability to

George Amaru / Art Director

stand out in the crowded room known as Hollywood. It might just be me, but I couldn’t help but feel that Hanks emulated the spirit of Spencer Tracy for the role. The way he goes about himself and cares for his loved ones is touching, yet believable.

As the accused spy, Rudolf Abel is fascinating to watch. Mark Rylance is very subtle with his expressions. His calm demeanor during all of this chaos makes you wonder what’s behind the eyes of this fragile man. What has he done to get this stage in his life? You want to know more about him, but Spielberg gives you just enough so that you can put the pieces together for yourself.

“Bridge of Spies” is essentially a conversation piece, allowing the actors to spread their proverbial wings and grow into fleshed-out characters. The narrative plays out as if it were made during the Golden Age of Hollywood, an era that Spielberg lives and breaths. Spielberg always strives for greatness and even if it doesn’t work out, at least he tries. He can pick and choose any project he wants and, even though he’s returning to the sci-fi adventure genre in 2017 (“Ready Player One”), I’m glad he’s been developing this many historical dramas.

Only a director such as Spielberg can place you in the moment with such urgency. The grayish blue backdrop of the scenery lends itself to the period this film takes place in. Two sides of the world were once again at each other’s throats, all while the people back home tremble in fear by the threat of a nuclear bomb dropping on their hometown at any second. These were not pleasant times, so adding Hanks as this glimmer of hope instantly makes him a relatable human being.

This film is very grim and very real, which means that it’s not the ideal movie to put on again and again. I will give it another rewatch though, even if there are some pacing issues here and there. “Bridge of Spies” is yet another phenomenal effort from Steven Spielberg as a Cold War political thriller that thrusts you into the middle of this situation and lets you take everything in, whether you want to or not.

Rating: B+

Matt Bilodeau can be contacted at mbilodeau@kscequinox.com

After 14 years and six films, we arrive at this moment. “The Fast and the Furious” franchise has made it to number seven. I believe that it has lasted this long not only because of the stunts, but also because of the characters. Vin Diesel and Paul Walker have stuck with the series since the beginning.

As the films went on, it only strengthened their relationship both on and off screen. Their comradre made the news of Walker’s unfortunate demise all the harder to hear, knowing how close they were to each other. “Furious 7” may not be the best entry in the series, but it’s a heartfelt and touching send-off to Paul Walker.

In the last film, Dominic Toretto [Vin Diesel], Brian [Paul Walker] and crew [Michelle Rodriguez, Tyrese Gibson, Ludacris, Sung Kang and Dwayne Johnson] took down the criminal known as Owen Shaw [Luke Evans]. This invokes his highly lethal brother Deckard Shaw [Jason Statham] to declare revenge and take down the team one by one. Deckard’s acts of destruction set the team in motion to finish the job once and for all.

With this and “Captain America: The Winter Soldier,” I’m almost certain that the summer movie season has officially begun in April.

Scott McPhillips / Equinox Staff

Nevertheless, the beginning of this year was a bit of a rough start and I’m ready to see fast cars do impossible things. “Fast and Furious 6” left us with a cliffhanger that promised big things on the horizon with Jason Statham.

The revenge plot that we all thought we were going to see is there, but there’s also a side-plot going on at the same time involving the team taking down a mercenary [Djimon Hounsou]. Essentially, both plots converge and, because of this, the sequence of events can become a little convoluted.

Despite that, “Furious 7” has some of the most ridiculous and over-the-top stunts in the entire series.

In the first act alone, you have cars parachuting out of a plane. What more can you say about that? Only that this film is a giant middle finger to physics of any kind. It gets crazier from there and I enjoyed every second of it.

It’s not enough that the action sequences are completely out of control. What separates a film like this from something by Michael Bay is the characters.

Tyrese Gibson at times feels like he stepped out of a Michael Bay film, but the other characters have shown development throughout each chapter in the franchise. Dom in “Furious 7” is not the same Dom from the first film, although the one thing about him that never changes is that he considers his team a family and it’s easy to see why.

Once again, Diesel and Walker work together as the best of friends. After Walker’s death during the middle of production, they brought in his brothers to use as doubles, then used CGI to finish the job. For what he had to work with, Director James Wan did a great job filling in his scenes without making it too distracting to the audience.

As for the rest of rest of the team, they do what they do best — crack jokes and drive fast. I know that I’m not the only one who was disappointed that Dwayne Johnson had a smaller role this time around. But don’t fret, you get seasoned action star Kurt Russell to fill in his spot. It was so nice to see Kurt return to the action genre with full force. If this film is any indication, then I can’t wait to see him show up again in “Fast and Furious 8.”

Since the last film, Jason Statham was being hyped up as the big bad for this installment. He’s not a very complex villain, but he gets the job done just fine. The big showdown between him and Diesel is well worth the wait.

All in all, “Furious 7” may not be the best sequel of the series, but it’s still loads of dumb fun and a good introduction to the 2015 summer movie season. As a tribute to the life of Paul Walker, the ending gives a respectable closure and a goodbye to his character that might leave you a little misty-eyed.

Rating: B

Matt Bilodeau can be contacted at mbilodeau@kscequinox.com

Nicholas Sparks, why do you do this to us time and time again? At this point, I firmly believe that most of your movies are all the same, with a different layer of skin added each time you need a paycheck.

It’s a shame that of the romance films that actually try get a bad reputation because of films like this.

It’s not enough that I had to sit through them, but did it have to clock in at over 139 minutes?

Sophia [Britt Robertson] is studying so that she can enter the New York art lifestyle. Luke [Scott Eastwood] plans to make a comeback in his bull-riding career.

By coincidence, they run into each other and instantly make a connection. Coming home from a date, they notice that an elderly man drove over a guardrail and off the road.

They bring the man known as Ira [Alan Alda] to the local hospital where he has Sophia read him some letters that he wrote to his long time love, Ruth [Oona Chaplain].

Soon, the stories from the past and the present come together as they begin to parallel each other.

I was in no way looking forward to this film, but I still went into the theater with an open mind. Not to my surprise, it turned out to be exactly what thought it was going to be.

All of the tropes in a typical Nicholas Sparks novel are here and shoved in your face. How can you forget romantic letters from the past, cheesy narration and the inevitable tragedy that brings the couple together?

Although, “The Longest Ride” does do something that a lot of his adaptations don’t do. The film as a whole is competently shot, which gives the illusion that it’s a good movie.

The only problem is that it uses the cinematography and the actors to mask up the smell of a stinker.

Britt Robertson and Scott Eastwood both have good careers ahead of them and this wasn’t a great way to start them.

Like most good actors in a poorly-written movie, they don’t have much to work with but schmaltzy dialogue. It’s the same “we come from different lifestyles but we’ll make it work” love story that once again, adds nothing new or interesting to the mix.

This felt less like a theatrical release and more like a Lifetime movie of the week. To offset the young romance is a side story involving a World War II love affair. It’s much more interesting, but instead of doing its own thing, it succumbs to the same standard tropes that we see time and time again.

Even as I’m writing this, I’m finding it incredibly difficult to find anything interesting to talk about. I feel like, after a while, I would keep repeating myself over and over again.

Overall, “The Longest Ride” isn’t the worst film I’ve seen this year, but it is one of the laziest. Most of the actors will go on to do great things, but this didn’t help them any. Because I know that they will make more films like this, I have one bit of advice: don’t make them over two hours and, if you do, make sure there’s a good reason!

Rating: D+       

Matt Bilodeau can be contacted at mbilodeau@kscequinox.com 

Most generations know the story of Cinderella. Whether it’s through the classic animated movie or any of the countless adaptations, the flow of events usually remains the same. Over the years, some people have labeled the lead character as damaging to young girls because the film sets up unrealistic expectations. That being said, Director Kenneth Branagh decided to take a shot with his interpretation of the classic fairy tale and he succeeded.

Once her mother [Hayley Atwell] passes away, Ella [Lily James] finds herself in a predicament. Ella’s father [Ben Chaplin] eventually remarries and then passes away while on a business trip.

This leaves her stuck with her wicked stepmother Tremaine [Cate Blanchett] and two step sisters [Sophie McShera and Holliday Grainger] who only treat her as dirt and a slave, giving her the demeaning name of Cinder-ella. While on a horse ride in the country, she runs into the Prince [Richard Madden] with whom she has a genuine moment. From there, you know the rest of the tale, including her transformation for the ball and beyond.

Philip Bergeron / Graphic Design Editor

Did this story need to be retold yet again? Not really. But, for what we got, it was a valiant effort. Aside from a few twists and turns in the story, it pretty much plays out like you think it would. The only difference is that there is more context to the relationships between the characters.

Ella feels the impact that her father’s death leaves on her and it doesn’t help when her only remaining family treats her like she’s nothing. You feel for her because Lily James is enchanting. From “Downton Abbey” to this, she embodies a sense of hope, wonder and innocence that makes her a marvel even before she dons the famous dress.

While she can be cartoony at times, Blanchett gives an interesting take on the stepmother character. You see early on that Ella’s father gives more attention to his daughter than Tremaine. Because of this, you see a sense of resentment brewing early on. Where is her happy ending? This is the question Tremaine asks herself when she looks at her stepdaughter.

All I have to say about the stepdaughters is that they are completely over-the-top and look like they stepped out of Tim Burton’s “Alice in Wonderland.”  The actresses are fine in other roles, but could have benefitted from some better direction here.

Besides Lily James, the other actor that I thought did a great job was Richard Madden. Instead of the vain Prince Charming that we’re used to seeing, he first introduces himself to Ella as an apprentice. He makes it clear that he wants someone to love him for who he is, not what his title is. The best part about all of this is that he’s very charismatic and you buy the romance. The prince in the animated film barely has a line and has next-to-no personality, something that was changed for the better in the reimagining.

Since this is a Kenneth Branagh film, expect it to look immaculate and Shakespearian. Watching “Cinderella” on an IMAX screen only enhanced the detail that he put into the production design. It’s almost worth the ticket price just to see the sets and the costumes.

Yes, “Cinderella” has its missteps but, for the most part, I found this to be a charming retelling of the classic fairy tale.

Rating: B

Matt Bilodeau can be contacted at mbilodeau@kscequinox.com

When “Divergent” came out, it got swept under the rug because it was mainly seen as the franchise’s way of leeching off the success of “The Hunger Games” series.  I went in with the lowest expectations possible and came out pleasantly surprised. Shailene Woodley was one of those actresses to watch out for at that time and for good reason; she can lead a film based on her charm and personality. “Divergent” had its fair share of problems but, overall, was a decent film. “Insurgent” on the other hand, was a big step down.

Three days after her escape from Erudite Leader Jeanine [Kate Winslet], Divergent Tris [Shailene Woodley] is still on the run with her boyfriend Four [Theo James]. In this world, Divergents are seen as threats to the entire faction system. These people really come into play when Jeanine discovers a box. This box contains a message from the ancestors outside the wall of Chicago and can only be opened when a Divergent passes all of its simulations. It’s then up to Tris to decide whether she should turn herself in or kill Jeanine to stop the bloodshed.

Philip Bergeron / Graphic Design Editor

“Insurgent” feels like a part two in every way. It takes place only moments after “Divergent” and feels like the second half of a film. Because of this, the film doesn’t have a three-act structure. The glue that held it together was Shailene Woodley once again.

She does the best she can with what she’s given and, in some moments, got really emotional. One of her best scenes is when she’s put on trial in the Condor faction. Otherwise, she plays the role just like last time, save some developments towards the end of the film.

The other stand-outs are Kate Winslet, Miles Teller and Jai Courtney. They are all clearly having a good time playing these villainous roles in different ways. Kate is more calm and collective, Miles says whatever is on his mind and Jai might as well be a bad guy in an 80s action movie.

Then actors like Theo James and Ansel Elgort take over, leaving dedicated actors like Octavia Spencer and Naomi Watts in the dust. Theo and Ansel don’t have much of a character because they didn’t matter one way or another. There’s a plot, kind of, but no story to back it up. The movie transitions from scene to scene with no real structure. The entire second half of “Insurgent” is Tris engaging through a bunch of tests in a dreamlike environment. It looks nice,  but that’s all there is to it.

Of course, the final book is being split into two movies and, because of this, the ending sets itself up where a sequel is inevitable. I’m interested to see where it goes next, but I’m not exactly looking forward to it.

I was hoping that this could have been the “Catching Fire” of this series. But instead it felt more like a prolonged set-up than a stand alone film. Despite some good action sequences and a few decent performances, “Insurgent” doesn’t live up to its predecessor.

Rating: C

Matt Bilodeau can be contacted at mbilodeau@kscequinox.com

Not only is Clint Eastwood a tremendous actor, but a great director as well. The best part about him is that he has a variety of genres to work with.

While he’s most known for westerns, it’s refreshing when he tries something different. Since “Gran Torino,” he hasn’t made a film that is worth remembering.

While it isn’t a masterpiece by any stretch of the imagination, “American Sniper” proves that Clint Eastwood knows how to reach out to an audience and tug at the heartstrings.

Looking for a way to serve his country, Chris Kyle [Bradley Cooper] enlists in the U.S. Military. Through training and hard work, Chris is accepted as a sniper for the Navy SEALS.

It isn’t until he takes out his first target that he realizes what he’s in for.

Waiting for him back home is his wife Taya [Sienna Miller] and his two young children. Throughout his career, the Department of Defense has authenticated about 160 of Chris’s kills, making him the deadliest sniper in U.S. history.

Every year, there seems to be at least one controversial film that’s nominated for an Oscar. This year, that honor has been bestowed upon “American Sniper.” Does it deserve it? No, but I don’t think that it belongs in the Best Picture category either.

Right off the bat, I believe that this is a good film. But it is nowhere near the greatness that was “Gone Girl,” which should have taken Sniper’s place in the Best Picture nominations. Cast that aside, I’m going to talk about the film based on it’s own merits.

Hands down, the best aspect of this film is Bradley Cooper. Having seen some interviews with the real Chris Kyle beforehand, I can say Cooper looks, sounds and acts just him.

Some people have viewed this film as propaganda but, because of the performance, I completely disagree. Chris is seen as a soldier as well as a human being, sometimes suffering from PTSD.

Through Cooper, we see how war has affected this man’s head and how it’s tearing him apart internally. A propaganda film would only detail the positive effects of war.

Philip Bergeron / Graphic Design Editor

The sequences with a target known as “The Butcher” were the hardest to sit through. Through Kyle’s eyes and ears, we see and hear a drill being inserted in the leg of an innocent young child. Watch it through his mind.

Do I let him continue to harm others or do everything I can to prevent this from happening again? I believe this film gave us a good reminder that we should be showing more support to our veterans. They experience things that most people will never have to go through.

When you’re in Iraq, you feel the dirt and sand thanks to Clint Eastwood’s direction. While the environment feels alive and dangerous, there were a few things that I felt could have been handled better.

First off, I have to address the fake baby. This film cost about 58 million dollars to make, yet they couldn’t get a real baby on set? That is unacceptable.

Second, every genre has it own cliches and war movies are no exception. Specific characters have certain lines where they might as well have been wearing a target on their chest. If I was in a war film, I wouldn’t talk about how I’m engaged or starting a family because I know those words, in a film like this, equal death.

The one complaint that I saw from some people was that it didn’t have the emotional impact they were expecting. I both agree and disagree with this.

Most of the film is spending time with Chris during his four tours of duty. I would have liked it if more was shown of Chris as a person, rather than a soldier. Because of this, the big emotional payoffs don’t work as well as they could have.

Don’t get me wrong, other than this, “American Sniper” is a good film. For me, it was too straight-forward with it’s storytelling that it didn’t grab me as much as I wanted it to.

I say see the film, based on Cooper’s performance alone. It doesn’t deserve to be nominated for Best Picture, but it’s worth checking out for curiosity’s sake.

Rating: B-

Matt Bilodeau can be contacted at mbilodeau@keene-equinox.com

Some minds are meant to leave an impact, such as the brilliant Dr. Stephen Hawking. Instead of letting his disability get the better of him, he became the smartest man on the planet.

Thanks to him, there are people today who point to Hawking as their inspiration for becoming theoretical physicists, which was why a biopic would prove to be an even greater insight into his mind.

I’m sure that Dr. Hawking is proud as Eddie Redmayne delivers an Oscar-worthy performance in “The Theory of Everything.”

While studying at Cambridge University in the early 1960s, Stephen Hawking [Eddie Redmayne] found the time to discover and fall in love with Jane Wilde [Felicity Jones]. The two meet very awkwardly at a party and hit it off from there.

Jane finds Stephen’s work fascinating, which attracts her to him even more. But right when he’s at his peak, Stephen is diagnosed with Lou Gehrig’s Disease.

Yet, Jane stands her ground and stays by his side, even when he starts to lose common motor functions such as walking and talking.

Adapting the story of Dr. Stephen Hawking could have turned out to be a  film that was only made to get an Oscar. But the moment I saw Eddie Redmayne in this role, my doubts were cast aside. He not only captures who Stephen Hawking was, but also becomes Hawking himself. Give Eddie about five minutes and you won’t see an actor playing a role, but a brilliant man.

Unlike most biopics, the film starts his story when he’s already studying in college and doesn’t even end in present day. Instead, it revolves around his relationship with Jane. In that case, this could have been a very melodramatic love story. But because the two actors have great chemistry, it works.

Philip Bergeron / Graphic Design Editor

Eddie had to be great in order to pay the real-life Dr. Hawking justice, as well as Felicity Jones. I had to believe that someone could truly love him while a horrific disease was tearing him apart.

Within fifteen minutes, I completely bought that these two truly loved each other. Even at Stephen’s lowest low, she’s right by his side to comfort him.

But what I really enjoyed, is that it shows that they are both flawed in their own ways.

When Jane sees an opportunity right in front of her, she reluctantly shies away from it, just to stay faithful to the man she loves. The same type of dilemma also occurs with Stephen and it’s handled in the most human way possible.

If I have one criticism, it’s this. For a film that claims to be about Dr. Stephen Hawking, I expected more time devoted to his theoretical process.

Some of it is touched upon, but for the most part, the movie glazes over it and is more dedicated to the story of Stephen and Jane, which isn’t bad. I just wanted to dive deeper into his mind and explore his ideas.

As for storytelling, the narrative is well-done. The layout of events is nothing new, but it’s handled in such a way that it never becomes too noticeable, mainly due to the direction by James Marsh. Marsh creates a real, yet dream-like atmosphere where anything is possible in Stephen’s mind.

The moment where Stephen and Jane danced on the bridge under a string of lights, is still stuck in my mind because it was incredibly gorgeous to look at and cemented their relationship.

For anybody who ever wanted to know who Dr. Stephen Hawking really is, this film is a good stepping-stone as it makes you want to learn more. That’s what it did for me.

Eddie Redmayne and Felicity Jones deserve their Oscar nominations, as they both did a great job of portraying the smartest man in the world and the woman who stuck by his side through thick and thin.

Rating: B+

Matt Bilodeau can be contacted at mbilodeau@keene-equinox.com

Sarah Morrison / Equinox Staff

Where would we be without music? Music fills a special hole in your heart, whether you know it or not. Thanks to various bands and composers, we have a whole array of genres to choose from and enjoy. Certain people have certain preferences — that’s how the world works. 

In the sixties, records were flying off the shelves like crazy with the next big hit. During this time, a young musician by the name of Bob Dylan came onto the scene and brought life to folk music.

“I’m Not There” takes on a different approach to the standard biopic. Instead of focusing on Bob Dylan as one person, this film tries something different. Multiple actors including Christian Bale, Cate Blanchett, Marcus Carl Franklin, Richard Gere, Heath Ledger and Ben Wishaw all take a turn, playing a certain persona of the man himself.

What an odd concept. Before I go into details, I want to say that while I didn’t think it worked out, I applaud the director for trying something different and unique. I have to give credit where credit is due. Having said that, the execution of this narrative made this film a chore to sit through.

Besides the avid Bob Dylan fan, nobody knows his life story. A biopic about him and his efforts could prove to be insightful about his career as a whole.

At first, I welcomed the idea of multiple actors playing Dylan at multiple points in his life. But believe me when I say that it is way more complicated than I expected.

This is a fair warning right now — for anybody who has never heard of or knows the story of Bob Dylan, you will be lost. It wasn’t until I got home that I found out what the different segments meant. For a regular audience, it will be confusing. Each celebrity uses a different name for the character as well. That’s right — never once is the name Bob Dylan used, except for the credits. Each name is used from something important in his life, but if you don’t know his history, you would have never known that.

Aside from that, how is the acting? While I didn’t think that anyone was bad, I wasn’t all that impressed either. Christian Bale and Ben Wishaw probably have the least amount of screen time out of everybody. Next up is Marcus Carl Franklin, who plays a young incarnation of “Dylan.” For a child actor, he does perfectly fine.

While Cate Blanchett is always the one to get the most praise, I believe that Heath Ledger gave the closest fulfillment of a character. Of all the stories, his was the easiest to follow. This is supported by the talented Charlotte Gainsbourg, who plays his wife.

But I have the same problem with all of the cast. I still do not know who Bob Dylan was. Scenes happen at random, weaving back and forth between actors.

For a film of this complexity, I wish I had more to say. Bob Dylan fans will love this movie, and that’s fine — it was made for them. But for me, I found myself checking the time every twenty minutes after the hour mark. “I’m Not There” is two hours and fifteen minutes, but it felt twice as long. So, in that case, I cannot recommend this film to anyone but Dylan’s followers.

Rating: C-

Matt Bilodeau can be contacted at mbilodeau@keene-equinox.com

Halloween

 Jason Voorhees, Freddy Krueger, Chucky, Pinhead — only some of the most prolific slasher villains in film history. Throughout the decades, they have all expanded through multiple sequels, leaving behind a legacy. Alfred Hitchcocks’ “Psycho” was the original slasher, but it wasn’t until John Carpenter came around that it became a mainstream sensation. Hence, it became the dawn of Michael Myers.

Right before his transfer, the dangerous mental patient Michael Myers escapes from the institution. Having watched over him for a number of years, Dr. Sam Loomis [Donald Pleasence] knows where Myers may be heading. Cut to Haddonfield, Illinois on Halloween night where Michael is loose on the street. He sets his sights on a group of teenagers, waiting to strike when the time is right. Little does Laurie Strode [Jamie Lee Curtis] know, that she’s in for a Halloween that she’ll never forget.

Even while writing this review, the “Halloween” theme is playing over and over in my head. How do you forget the iconic mask that glares in the shadows? Thanks to director John Carpenter, we now have a whole legacy of Michael Myers to look back on.

Philip Bergeron / Graphic Designer

From the opening tracking shot to the dense atmosphere, everything in this film adds to the eeriness of Michael’s return. Donning a white William Shatner mask, our favorite slasher moves quietly, barely making a sound. He is the embodiment of what people think of when describing the boogeyman.

What better comrades to face off against Michael Myers than Donald Pleasence and Jamie Lee Curtis? Thanks to “Halloween,” Curtis rose to stardom while earning the nickname “Scream Queen.” Pleasence, on the other hand, was already a respected actor by this time. His involvement in this project only added another bright spot to his career.

There are multiple things that could be said about “Halloween,” but it would take too long to get to them all. So sit down, grab a bowl of popcorn and a white mask and get ready for the night “he” came home!

Rating: A+

Halloween II

With the box office success of “Halloween”, multiple slashers came out of the woodwork. The first film had little to no gore, the entire film relying on suspense and atmosphere. Other slashers saw this as a chance to top it by adding the gore effect.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that, but they missed the point of what the classic “Halloween” was to begin with. With the sequel, the filmmakers added more blood and nudity. Picking up exactly where the last film left off, Dr. Sam Loomis [Donald Pleasence] runs outside to see that Michael’s body has disappeared.

With Dr. Loomis on the hunt once again, Laurie Strode [Jamie Lee Curtis] is brought to Haddonfield Memorial Hospital. Just when she thought it was over, Michael learns of her location and leaves a trail of bodies in his wake. This time around, Michael’s true motivations are revealed which gives context to the events of the entire night.

While the film isn’t as good as the original, it is still a worthy sequel nonetheless. John Carpenter comes back to produce rather than direct, handing the directing chair to Rick Rosenthal, who would later make the worst Halloween movie in the series. This time, the directing seems more clean and polished, thanks to a bigger budget.

Returning for the sequel is Jamie Lee Curtis and Donald Pleasence who step back into their roles as if they never left them. Here, they’re both presented with challenges that makes this night even harder for the both of them. Besides the two, the rest of the cast are typical horror movie characters that are only seen as meat. Because of this, some of the suspense from the original is lost, since the characters are fairly simple. Although, I’d be lying if I said that I don’t enjoy Michael walking around, doing what he does best.

All that aside, “Halloween II” is an entertaining sequel, even if it doesn’t hold a candle to the original.

Rating: B

Matt Bilodeau can be contacted at mbilodeau@keene-equinox.com