Sidney Lumet's Find Me Guilty tells a story that is almost too absurd to believe. Sent to prison for thirty years on a variety of charges, Jackie DiNoscio (Vin Diesel) is given a chance to turn state's witness against his friends in the Lucchese crime family. However, he refuses. What ensues is a nearly two year trial involving Jackie and the rest of the leading members of the Lucchese crime family in New Jersey. Complicating matters is the fact that, not only are all defendants being tried at the same time, but Jackie has opted to act as his own attorney. Funny, terrifically acted, and an engrossing drama in its own right, Find Me Guilty is so ludicrous and absurd that it just has to be true. At the heart of this film's success is the performance of Vin Diesel. Starring as Jackie DiNoscio, Diesel is in pretty much every shot aside from the brief moments shown from the prosecution's discussions about the case. Otherwise, this is Diesel picture. Casual, likable, and magnanimous, Diesel easily sells DiNoscio as a man who can be rooted for without endorsing what he did in his life. We see him as an honest and laid back who is one of the few men caught up in this trial who admits what he has done. There is no hiding that he is a bad man who did a lot of wrong, but DiNoscio is uninterested in hiding that information. Instead, the trial is personal for him as he tries to defend himself (and his friends as a by-product due to the nature of the charges) and examine how some of the people he trusted could betray him by testifying. Wearing his heart on his sleeve, Diesel nails Jackie in the more emotional scenes of cross-examining his cousin and in the more comical moments of him playing up his charm to the jury. In all, Diesel manages to make this mobster into a man who the audience is comfortable rooting for, which is perhaps the great accomplishment one could give his acting. He is honest, he is raw, and above all, he is intensely real. Diesel shows all sides of this man - his anger, his philandering, his drug use, his drug dealing, and his love of friends and family alike - and makes him into a genuine and, somehow, good hearted person. A lot of this is due to the film's great script that is very natural. Sidney Lumet's films obviously ride on the actors and the natural dialogue given to them with Find Me Guilty being no exception. The film is not one that is ever particularly stagy and the dialogue captures this perfectly. Jokes delivered by Diesel or one-liners rely on his natural charisma in part, but also in the film's dialogue that makes these lines never come off as written. Instead, they include the imperfections, the awkward phrasing, pace, and delivery, of a natural in-the-moment story or joke. In a similar vein, the script manages to balance this ambitious endeavor of showing the lengthiest trial in the history of the federal courts quite nicely. The film never feels crowded or abbreviated. It includes the important moments, the important conversations, and the important characters, without ever allowing the picture be weighted down with too much information. Rather, it shows us what we need to know, shows how it fits in, and then never belabors the point or clutters the rest of the film. It is an unfussy, focused, and stripped back that covers what it needs to without ever dipping into excess. It builds the character of Jackie - both personally and professionally - and it shows the important days of the trial, the crucial conversations, and the relevant cases. It is a film that may be slowly paced and possibly overlong, but it is not filled with much clutter whatsoever, making it one that is hard to argue should have been cut down. What really captures the eccentricity of this film perfectly is often the way in which Lumet opts to capture the action. Typically, courtroom dramas are shot with a heavy array of close-ups or medium shots. While this is occasionally still true in Find Me Guilty, Lumet largely relies upon a handheld camera or extreme high-angle shots to showcase the action in and out of the courtroom. Deep focus in the prison shows Jackie walk into his cell in the distance as other inmates closer to the camera mill about on their own. The same in the courtroom shows defendants as they laugh or fidget in their seats. In the hallway, a handheld camera gets stuck behind a crowd of observers as they all cram into the elevator with the deep focus giving us the belief that we too are stuck behind this massive throng of people. In the car as Jackie is transported over, the handheld camera whips between Jackie and the cops like a person's head would. As Jackie argues his case, Lumet often uses the aforementioned high-angle shot, creating a feeling of the audience being no different than another observer, sitting high up in the rafters of the courtroom. The same is continued in the prosecutors office with Lumet's high-angle shots creating a fly-on-the-wall experience.
For a film franchise with 18 entries, one would expect the Amityville series to have at least one good film. Yet, oddly enough, not even the original is good. It is alright, mainly because Margot Kidder (
A cliche, oddly preachy, and yet entirely thrilling endeavor, Jaume Collet-Serra's Non-Stop is a solid mindless entertainment. Fun and gripping for its first two acts, Non-Stop oddly slips into a preachy and rushed third act that is not just poorly written but highly implausible to the point that it is practically comical. Set aboard a transatlantic flight, Non-Stop puts Liam Neeson as an alcoholic and grieving air marshal on a flight to Britain. Half-way across the Atlantic, he receives a text message that a passenger will die every twenty minutes unless the sender gets $150 million deposited into a bank account. With a talented cast around Neeson - for some reason this one put together Julianne Moore, Scoot McNairy, Lupita Nyong'o, Michelle Dockery, and Corey Stoll - Non-Stop manages to be a gripping thriller that does truly entertain even if it hardly good enough to give it a full endorsement. Of course, it is always impossible to truly critique films such as this. At some point, you have to take off your "critic hat" and just enjoy a film. Non-Stop in particular has a climax where the plane rapidly descends, launching Liam Neeson into the air and throwing him back just as he lines up a shot against a hijacker, hitting him right between the eyes. One can only hope Neeson yelled out, "Kobe!" as he took that last second shot. As a gripping, even if cliche, contained thriller, Non-Stop allows the audience to comfortably enjoy the film and not worry about plausibility. It is a film that knows it is goofy, but manages to find tension in the panicked search for who is sending these texts, who is framing Neeson, and who could possibly die next. Though it is a film that always feels very "same", it nonetheless manages to entertain and really builds up terrific anticipation and excitement ahead of its climax and final reveal. Issues with the film's logic are inherent to such an absurd piece of fiction and it is even worth ignoring the fact that the film seems to forget its premise of killing somebody every 20 minutes. The real problem with the film comes in the climax. As a fun mindless action film, Non-Stop is always going to end up being unsatisfying. Not only is the reveal of the hijacker incredibly stupid with no clues leading up to the reveal, but the film's ending is massively rushed. While in the air, everybody believes Neeson to be the hijacker. Videos and images sent back to the ground and communication between the pilots and TSA both lead to news reports that Neeson is the hijacker (ignore the fact that they could text and watch television while in the air). Yet, once they land, Neeson is given a hero's welcome and there is no confusion whatsoever about him not being a hijacker. Somehow, without any communication about him not being a hijacker, the authorities and his bosses have entirely forgiven him and moved on. This ending is far too neat and implausible given the events we literally just witnessed. It also wastes the inclusion of his alcoholism and sketchy past, which could have been used against him regardless of his guilt or innocence. Where the film also slips up is in the reveal of the motive behind the hijacking. As he has a stare down with Neeson, the hijacker goes into a rant about the false sense of security in America. Talking about 9/11, the change in security protocols, how they signed up to fight in the war against terrorism, their disillusion with the country as they began to wonder what they were really fighting for, and how they wanted to take down this plane to make people wake up to realize how unsafe they really are, the hijacker's rant really takes the air out of this film. After smartly dealing with the theme of the spread of misinformation in the digital age without calling too much attention to it, Non-Stop's preachy turn at the end is really what makes Non-Stop not as successful as it could have been. As a silly airplane hijacking movie, Non-Stop is good fun. When it tries to become a heady comment on the current situation with America's foreign policy, Non-Stop winds up killing itself. Liam Neeson is back with another action movie and this time, he is able to get a 360 no-scope headshot while in mid-air. Non-Stop is suitably silly, convenient, cliche, and predictable, but entertaining all the same. Unfortunately, a preachy reveal of the hijacker and a rushed ending leave Non-Stop feeling more like a film that had an interesting premise but no idea where it should take that idea to turn it into a good film.
The third entry in the iconic slasher movie spoof franchise, Scream 3 is a film that still maintains the same level of fun as its predecessors and is mildly scary, but it is such a mess in execution that it is hard to claim Scream 3 is actually a good film. Due to horrible acting, too many meta references to the series itself, and an annoying continuance of calling out classic slasher tropes only for that exact element to be included in the film, Scream 3 falls apart. However, where the film truly sputters is in how it strives to just re-create the original film through not just references, but by literally returning to the set itself. Trying too hard to be irreverent and funny in depicting that level of metahorror, Scream 3 just winds up stepping in the same footprints as the original and the sequel, while falling into all of the same pitfalls along the way. One of the worst elements of this franchise is the inclusion of Randy or anybody who explains what this entry of a horror franchise typically includes. It is funny to some degree in calling out classic horror franchises and how true it often is, but in the context of the film itself, it just serves to sum up this film too much. Scream 3 is one of those spoof franchises that believes it can use the same tropes as the films it spoofs as long as it calls out how it is a trope and places its tongue firmly against its cheek. Unfortunately for Scream 3 and any other film that tries this, it only winds up being incredibly annoying to watch. Scream 3 knows exactly how silly the third entry in a horror franchise can get with unstoppable killers and revisionist history in the series, yet it opts to go full bore into both issues and more. It hardly even spoofs them anymore either, it just mocks the tropes and then uses those same tropes, which somehow makes it worse than the films it mocks due to this self-referential angle. In the same vein, Scream 3 cannot help but mention the events of the past films. Though it creates a compelling case in this film with the resurgence of a killer who leaves behind pictures of Maureen Prescott, the film's continuous referencing of the prior films feels like the new writer trying to remind himself of what happened as it progressed through the script. Every scene seems to have at least one reference to past events that brings newcomers to the series up to speed and allowed the writer to remember for himself. For those who watched the first two, Scream 3 winds up embodying the worst quality of many sequels in how it wrongly believes that just because it tosses in this fan service, it can get away with not being that good in its own right and just rehashing what made the originals so good. This does not work in the film and, together with its meta humor about the horror genre as a whole, Scream 3's reliance upon plot rehashes and refusal to innovate on its general narrative (once more, the film is just Sidney running from Scream with the help of Gale and Dewey, which is tiresome by this point) winds up turning this sequel into a poor re-enactment of its predecessors. Though still mildly fun and scary, Scream 3 just plays like a reminder that, if you do like these characters and scenarios, your time would be better spent watching its predecessors. Where Scream 3 is successful, however, is in its setting. While it does derive some horror from the inclusion of Maureen's ghostly voice, Scream 3's setting on the set of the fictional film Stab 3 and how it uses it to critique Hollywood is rather fun to watch. In many ways, Scream 3 is almost more of a critique of the Hollywood system than it is of horror films. Critiquing the way in which women have to sleep with men for parts, the way in which they are abused by powerful men, how serious directors have to make crappy sequels to get clout, and how stupid sequels are in general, Scream 3 is a film that is deeply Hollywood and yet it is unafraid to mock Hollywood and call out the abuses in place. The irony that Harvey Weinstein produced the film does seem lost on Scream 3, however. Fortunately, the smart critiques of Hollywood are not lost with the film having a fun time traversing the minefield that is Hollywood and mocking the absurd system that gave rise to a third, unnecessary Scream film. Mildly funny and occasionally scary, Scream 3 is a film that is too caught up in calling attention to horror tropes and referencing its predecessors to carve out its own path as either a horror film or a member of the Scream franchise. As a result, it just spoils itself by calling out exactly what will happen and it does so while just following a very similar to the original. Fortunately, the added twist of the Hollywood setting is a nice touch, even if its reveal of the killer and its revisionist history about the previous films is really stupid (dumber than usual too since it said it would happen).
As a remake of Alfred Hitchcock's Dial M for Murder, it is easy to head into Andrew Davis' A Perfect Murder with low expectations. However, in watching the film, it is clear that Davis re-invented the plot and characters enough that A Perfect Murder manages to stand on its own. The general layout starts off pretty much the same - though more sexed up, which would make Hitchcock deeply jealous - before diverting and really going in its direction. Oddly enough, it is this direction that is certainly lesser than the Dial M for Murder set-up, but it is nonetheless still intriguing and rather gripping to watch. It is a film that certainly has many plot contrivances and enough twists that it winds up twisting itself up. However, no matter where the film goes, it nonetheless manages to compel and entertain, while standing as one of the better murderous spouse thrillers from the 1990s thanks to strong performances from Michael Douglas as the shifty hedge-fund manager and Gwyneth Paltrow as his adulterous wife. Upon discovering his wife Emily (Paltrow) is having affair with painter David Shaw (Viggo Mortensen), Steven Taylor (Douglas) sees an opportunity. With his risky and illegal stock market bets threatening to collapse and leave him broke, Steven needs money. Fortunately, Emily has a trust fund and no pre-nuptial agreement was signed. Discovering David's lurid past with prior trysts with rich heiresses and his time in jail, Steven uses the information to blackmail David into agreeing to kill Emily for $500,000. Planning everything down to the smallest detail, Steven believes he has crafted the perfect murder that will leave no trail to himself and solve his financial woes at the expense of his wife who he does not love anymore anyways. However, when things go sideways and an unexpected incident occurs, Steven's plans are **** and he must evade detection by the now suspicious Emily. While it may not re-write on 1990s thrillers, A Perfect Murder nonetheless often embodies their best elements. Building great anticipation for the planned murder through meticulous pacing and planning by Steven and David, the film allows the audience to visualize the murder and how it will happen right before it finally does happen. This anticipation turns into great tension as the moment finally occurs and we watch Steven plan his alibi and put every wheel into motion that he knows will see him exonerated. Once the attack occurs and the cops show up, the tension rises dramatically. Somehow, Emily is still alive and now Steven must cover up his tracks. Forcing the audience to recall every element that he put in place beforehand as he must now clean up any mess leftover by the would-be killer, A Perfect Murder shows these loose ends throughout the rest of its run-time and his efforts to snuff them out before Emily and the cops detect anything. Thrilling and similarly showing the psychotic nature of this crime, A Perfect Murder is a film that drops you into the mind of a killer and, somehow, gets you root for him as he tries to navigate the minefield of a cover-up he has made for himself when his plan goes haywire in the execution phase. What really helps to sell A Perfect Murder as better than your average thriller is the acting. Though the film is riddled with cliches, it is the acting of its cast that allows it to really soar and carve out its own name. Chief among this is Michael Douglas. He really made his name for playing these men in poor relationships such as in Fatal Attraction or Basic Instinct, bringing this knowledge and his ability as an actor to the table for his role in A Perfect Murder. Calculating, wicked, and cold, Douglas' psychotic husband character is one that instills fear but an odd degree of sympathy as he is a man who is being cheated on. This confusion - largely brought on by him being the protagonist - is exemplified by Douglas who plays this charismatic charmer so well that we half forget he is also a murderous psychopath. As his wife, Gwyneth Paltrow gives one of her stronger performances. As she begins to piece together what happened to her, you can see the gears turn in Paltrow's head as well as you can see the denial and the emotion she feels as she comes to this shocking realization: both men she was with were liars and possible killers. It is a chilling place to be in for her and Paltrow sells this woman's confusion and emotion incredibly well. However, what does hold the film back is its cliches and its contrivances. For the latter, the inclusion of David blackmailing Steven in the end and threatening to expose him does bring the film home to some degree, but feels overly written. Similarly, lines of dialogue dedicated to David rubbing in the fact he is sleeping with Emily come as cheesy and rather gross, highlighting that the film though thrilling may not be the best written film ever released. In fact, it is a film that tries to do too much.
A return to genocide films for director Terry George, The Promise is a film made to build awareness about the Armenian genocide, the horror of the time, and the Turks' refusal to acknowledge the atrocities they committed. After it bombed financially, the studio even came out and said it was intended to raise awareness, not make money. Considering they did not fund it and it was instead funded by Kirk Kerkorian, an Armenian-American businessman and philanthropist who dedicated funding for a film about the Armenian genocide in his will, it is rather easy for them to say. Fortunately, The Promise is a film with greatly noble intentions, a powerful story, and solid execution. Featuring a love triangle between Armenian Mikael (Oscar Isaac), Armenian Ana (Charlotte Le Bon), and American journalist Chris (Christian Bale), set against the horrific events of the Armenian genocide, The Promise is a film that may be flawed but is just good enough to overcome those flaws and deliver a strong final product. Where the film is flawed is in its inclusion of this love triangle, which only serves to slow down the film far too much and forces it to be longer than needed to account for the development of the relationships. The love triangle is not quite dull, but it hardly really captures your attention too much and could hardly be described as particularly gripping. The real interest is in the genocide going on, but whenever the love triangle comes up, it feels too much like that episode of Seinfeld where Jerry makes out with his girlfriend as they watch Schindler's List. Scenes of Mikael and Ana being attacked by Turks outside are swiftly followed up by them going inside and having sex, which made me really identify with Jerry's mother and want to screw out, "You're having sex during The Promise?!" Fortunately, what the love triangle does not get wrong is that it does not distract from the genocide at all. It never feels offensive, forced, or thrown in at the last second. As with many war films before it, this just happens to be the entry point The Promise chose to explore the Armenian genocide and through that lens, it accomplished what it set out to reach. Unfortunately, it was never strictly necessary and could have been accomplished otherwise. Now, where the film soars is in the power of the story it presents. Capturing the fight, spirit, and pride of the Armenians, the film ends triumphantly with a speech by Mikael and on-screen text that sums up that fight we had just watched. Brave and willing to fight the Turks head on to avoid being captured, The Promise shows the sacrifice, the loss, and absolute stubbornness of the Armenians when it comes to their being wiped out. These are a proud people, which the film celebrates throughout and demonstrates the lengths they were willing to go to in order to save their families, their homes, and their livelihoods in spite of all of the pressure put on them by the Turkish government. As a by-product, it is impossible not to get swept up by this fighting spirit and truly feel every blow and bullet alongside the Armenians. It is obviously not surprise that we root for them in the film, but the degree to which The Promise manages to make an impact is impressive and is largely due to how well it shows the culture of the Armenians and celebrates what makes them who they are as a people. Beyond the action and the fight, however, The Promise earns points for never shying away from the gruesome nature of the genocide. We see Armenians be rounded up, led away, and put on trains where they reach out to beg for help. We see a woman shot right in front of her child. We see Mikael and Chris find the bodies of an entire town, including some of Mikael's family. We see Chris go to a village where two men were strung up and had signs attached to them. We see the callousness of the Turks towards the Armenians as they call them "thieves" or as a father sends his son to the military because he was friends with Mikael and brought dishonor to the family for the actions he took to help Mikael. This is not a film that skirts over details or forgets the horrors committed in the name of hatred and xenophobia. It is a film that brings them to the forefront, makes the audience see the hatred that led to the atrocities, and then shows the atrocities in their full detail. It is a film that may not be particularly graphic or gory, but it does need to be in order to showcase what happened in the Armenian genocide. Together with demonstrating the spirit of the Armenians in every character and in their courageous actions to save their people, these images of atrocities and the horror that led to them having to fight makes The Promise delivers on its powerful premise. This is not a film that has to be manipulative or cloying to create great emotional resonance, instead it is able to do it through the stirring depictions of loss and togetherness.
Chopped, cut, pasted, and slapped together by a committee of folks studying the latest results from a test screening, Dean Israelite's take on Power Rangers is everything a Power Rangers film should be. It is still rather bad, but it is fun with a child-like silliness that lets the audience know the events of the film are hardly serious. I mean, hell, how serious can one expect a film about a villain named Rita Repulsa (Elizabeth Banks) and her plans to create a monster out of gold named Goldar to dig out a crystal that gives life to Earth, which happens to be hidden under a Krispy Kreme? Power Rangers is dumb and poorly written, but is somehow fun to watch in a really immature way. Fortunately, that is exactly what Power Rangers always was since it was first created. The first act and beginning of the second act is really where the film has most of its fun as the rangers meet for the first time, beginning bonding, and getting to know one another. While it can be a bit cheesy and silly at times, the scenes of them bonding instill the film with this great light and goofy edge that keeps the proceedings moving ahead with a chaotic energy. None of these moments are particularly revolutionary, but they are greatly endearing to the titular heroes and allows the audience to really get a hold on all of the characters and their backgrounds. By the time they begin to discover they have new superpowers, Power Rangers manages to show great constraint. Initially, the kids are just shocked and slowly realize what powers they have. With a fun scene where they all put their colored coins on a table at the lunch line which causes all lunches to explode due to the power in the coins, the film keeps its fun energy going and avoids exposition at the very onset of their power. The film instead shows us some of the neat tricks, the strength they have, and laces the film itself with some decent mystery as to what is going on with these kids. Unfortunately, this all ends when they find the spaceship with hologram Zordon (Bryan Cranston) and the robot Alpha 5 (Bill Hader). Ignoring the fact that Alpha 5 literally cannot shut up, the film rapidly turns into an exposition machine as Zordon explains who Rita Repulsa is, what she wants, what they means for the Earth, and what she did to his team. The dialogue also gets appallingly on-the-nose at this point. For example, Zordon sends the kids to train in the pit. The film then cuts to Alpha 5 walking into the pit and saying, "So, this is the pit." This horror continues with on-the-nose exposition-filled dialogue throughout the film. Scenes of the kids just coming out and explaining their inner feelings and Rita Repulsa never beating around the bush and always taking the time to remind Goldar she wants to find the crystal under Krispy Kreme. Where the film is not on-the-nose, it becomes annoyingly dense. Acting like a child who has a secret that everybody knows but they continue to pretend nobody knows, Power Rangers tries to build to the rangers morphing by making it a mystery as to how it is achieved. When Billy (RJ Cyler) briefy morphs when defending his friends, the entire crew acts shocked and asks him how he morphed. For the next few scenes, this charade continues with far too many lines of dialogue able to be summed up as, "Woah dude how did you do that? We have the figure out how to morph." By the time the film reaches its sentimental and sappy moments of the rangers swearing they would die for each other, the film has reached its absolute peak of annoyance. Had the film just let the kids morph far sooner, the film could have been shorter, yet it instead opts to obnoxiously beat around the bush and pretend the audience is too stupid to figure out the key to this "secret". The final battle between the Power Rangers and Rita Repulsa is similarly horrifically written with the dialogue just highlighting exactly what will happen. Rita tells Goldar to push them into a pit, followed by Goldar pushing them into a pit. Jason (Dacre Montgomery) tells another ranger to throw a punch, so they throw a punch. It is team work, yes, but it is annoying. The film cannot help but tell us what is coming next by dedicating line-after-line to the exactly that pursuit. It is a film that trusts its audience so little that it feels the need to just let them know what is about to happen so they can brace themselves for it to happen. When the rangers fall in the aforementioned pit and come out as a single being, Rita Repulsa's reaction of, "How can they do that?!" is horrible and ignores the fact that she was once a ranger and is literally about to step inside Goldar in a similar way. The dialogue in this film feels written for a five-year-old and, as a by-product, it just feels lazy, mashed together, and just stilted. This is a film about a group of teenagers fighting a being called Rita Repulsa, yet the film feels the need to spoon-feed every bit of information to the audience.
From Iranian director Babak Anvari comes Under the Shadow, a mesmerizing and terrifying horror film with great social critiques laced with terror. Set during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s, Under the Shadow is a film that wears a variety of hats, but somehow manages to have them all fit and work together. As a horror film, Under the Shadow delivers great supernatural thrills with a young girl who, as with all kids in horror movies, might as well be left behind to appease this supernatural thing because not only is she annoying, but she is already friends with the thing. Have to cut your losses at some point. As a critique of the oppression of women in Iran, Under the Shadow is smart with great symbolism and references to the plight of women in the nation as the country ditches the westernization of before and heads into full sharia law. As a war film, Under the Shadows nails the first-hand experience of living through the threats against Tehran by the Iraqis and the palpable fear whipping through the city. All combined, they make Under the Shadow a thought-provoking, thrilling, and USDA-certified piece of nightmare fuel. From the first instant that the audience is introduced to Shideh (Narges Rashidi), we know she is different. Wearing a burqa as she pleads to be allowed to finish her education in medical school, Shideh is a woman who does not allow any oppression to stop her from pursuing her own rules. As the only woman in her apartment complex who drives, a semi-educated doctor who wishes to continue her education, and who works out to Jane Fonda VHS workout tapes on her illegal VHS player, Shideh is certainly liberated. In the country of Iran, she is a major exception amongst the women in her complex, being able to pursue many of the same career and life options as a man. However, her husband Iraj (Bobby Naderi) has mixed feelings, believing she should stay home and not be a doctor (which he says was just her mother's wish). He repeatedly accuses her of being a bad mother to their daughter Dorsa (Avin Manshadi), which is just part of her oppression by society. After accidentally walking outside without a burqa, she is arrested and told she should feel great shame for revealing herself in such a way, as women should want to wear burqas and fear being seen without one. As the horror of the film unravels, she gets a fake phone call that calls her a disgrace and a ****. Though she may be liberated, Shideh's individuality and freedom is under constant threat from the systemic oppression that is in place in her homeland. Thus, it is no surprise that Under the Shadow smartly has her and Dorsa being attacked by a Djinn, a mythical Arabic being that preys on what people fear. Though Dorsa appears to be the target after her beloved doll goes missing - the djinn allegedly take something somebody loves before taking them - it is actually Shideh who has been chosen by the djinn. Taking the doll to get to Dorsa and with the djinn taking the form of a woman who fills Dorsa's head with thoughts of how Shideh is a bad mother and does not love her, the djinn attempts to woo Dorsa away from her mother and, later, it takes Shideh's science textbook that included a note of admiration from her recently deceased mother (in essence, it meant a lot to her). Thus, it is no surprise that the djinn takes the form of a burqa almost exclusively. The only time it does not is when it appears as a man. Together, the burqa and this man symbolize the way in which society is trying to restrain Shideh and pull her back into line. She must focus on motherhood and being a respectful woman, which means no driving and no school. Her place is in the home and this attacking burqa seeks to cement her - literally, as her feet get stuck in a cement-esque substance that Dorsa has to pull her out of - in her place. As mentioned in the film, djinn present themselves as what one fears the most. Dorsa is not afraid of burqas or women, as she is too young. Thus, she cannot be the one under attack. However, Shideh is afraid of burqas and fears losing her independence if a new government or culture push occurs in Iran that sees her lose what she has gained. Thus, it is no surprise to see the film set during the war as it allows Anvari to lace the film with a great atmosphere. As missiles fly and bombs fall with sirens wailing to warn residents to hide, the tension and fear of the moment is the perfect setting for a being driven by fear to arrive and attack Shideh's family. As people run out of Tehran and Iraj begs his wife to leave the city as well, this palpable fear can be truly felt is brought to the forefront of the film with it being able to operate as a bit of a thriller with this first-hand account of the war. We see the attempts to run away, the fear, and the attempts to live life as if everything were still normal in the city.
Joseph Kosinski's Only the Brave is a tearjerker of the highest order, in its telling of the story of the Granite Mountain Hot Shots. A team of firefighters who fought fires head-on across the nation but were based in Prescott, Arizona, the all but one of the men in the group were killed in the Yarnell Hill Fire of 2013. Building up to this eventual tragedy, Kosinski's greatest achievement in this film is firmly established long before the men ever report to Yarnell Hill. Through the nearly two hours before this fire, Only the Brave pain-stakingly develops the men as individuals in their private lives and on the job. Though this film is about a tragedy and contains many scenes of firefighting action where the men are able to return home, Only the Brave is a film about these men in life and a celebration of who they were, instead of a film about this disaster. In essence, it is a story of the men and the wives/girlfriends/parents/children/siblings impacted by this tragedy, which allows Only the Brave to be an achingly human and powerful viewing experience. From the very beginning, Kosinski begins to signal that this is not a typical "based on a true life tragedy" film. Typically, these films include a brief scene of family followed by some brief bonding before jumping right into the tragedy. Kosinski, instead, takes a unique approach with nearly two hours of family, friendship, and the forging of a bond through fighting fires, before finally reaching that somber day. In the course of this, he introduces us to men such as Eric Marsh (Josh Brolin) and his wife Amanda (Jennifer Connelly). Many character building scenes are devoted solely to Amanda, showing her as a horse loving woman who rehabilitates ones that are neglected and teaches others how to care for horses properly. We see young Brendan McDonough (Miles Teller) do drugs, get arrested, and kicked out of his mother's home, only to learn he is about to become a father. We see Brendan join the group of firefighters, forge a friendship with Chris MacKenzie (Taylor Kitsch) and care for his daughter. In quiet moments, we see the men goof around, make fun of one another, and act like the young men that they are in their private lives. We see them fight fires with great success, even sitting on the edge of the Grand Canyon watching the dying embers of the fire they just fought off pour over into the canyon itself. While much of the focus is on Eric and Brendan to be sure, this is a film about the brotherhood between the firefighters and the people they will eventually leave behind as much as it is one about fighting fires. Never skimming through this character development and consistently taking the time to establish even the most peripheral of characters into enjoyable and recognizable presences in the film, Kosinski manages to make Only the Brave into a celebration of these men as they lived, not how they died. By the time the tragedy happens, these men feel as though they have become part of our own families and our hearts, making the tragedy all the more impactful and emotionally resonant. This is a film that builds great pathos, relatability, and depth in its characters that allows this film to work not just as an action or tragedy film, but as a fully-fledged drama with well-rounded characters across the board, protagonists you identify with and root for, and wife characters who are not just there as background noise instead strong, developed characters in their own right. In having watched many action films - let alone ones based on true stories - Only the Brave stands as one of the rare entries that values every single person it puts on the screen. It treats each with respect and care, capturing the essence of every single person mentioned and allowing the audience to understand who they really were, both in action and in the quiet times. While the film's strong writing certainly helps to bring light to the real men behind these characters, it is often the film's acting that lifts the film up. As superintendent Eric Marsh, Josh Brolin shines in one of his best performances in recent memory. As we see him express doubt over his life, uncertainty about having a kid, and whether or not he wants be a family man or a firefighter, Brolin transforms into Marsh with all of his emotion, authenticity, and inner conflicts. The bond between Miles Teller's Brendan and Taylor Kitsch's Chris is palpable with the two becoming these two men who, after having so much animosity between them at the beginning, became like twin brothers. In traversing the life of the recovering addict Brendan McDonough, the new fatherhood, and the eventual survivor's guilt he experiences, Teller similarly delivers one of his best performances in a truly moving performance. Delivering lines with great feeling and emotion, Teller similarly becomes Brendan.
Like a plain piece of white bread, Concussion is alright. It would be better if it were toasted. Butter would be a nice touch. Maybe even some jelly. Heck, some meat or cheese in between and the white bread could be transformed into a greatly delectable sandwich. Unfortunately, the toaster is busted, the butter expired, you ran out of jelly last week, and the meat and cheese were on the shopping list but you entirely forgot to pick them up. Thus, you are stuck with just this plain piece of white bread. It will get you through the meal, but it is rather boring, predictable, and presents a similar element - the white bread - to many better experiences eating white bread. However, with nothing to accompany this peace of white bread, it just has those echoes of greatness rather than actually achieving it at all. Concussion is exactly this, plus if that white bread had an African accent and cloyingly grabbed your arm trying to get you to understand what it was preaching about. With echoes of The Insider - hell, the film mentions how the NFL is similar to the tobacco industry repeatedly - but without any of the tension, Peter Landesman's Concussion explores the work of Dr. Bennet Omalu (Will Smith) in exposing the dirty secret of the NFL. It is a worthy subject and one that could be great in right hands. Unfortunately, Landesman only has left hands so that ship seems to have sailed. Detailing his research, solemn findings, and the eventual rejection of that information by the NFL, Concussion happens both too slowly and too quickly to truly make an impact. In essence, the film's pacing drags terribly. This is a slow, methodical film that deals with a very technical subject in a dreadfully uninteresting way. Will Smith is passionate in the lead role, but off-putting and unengaging as the self-righteous Omalu, who constantly gives off any air of superiority. Stodgily going through his research and fight with the NFL, Concussion is never thrilling or gripping. It seems to just go through the motions and beats **** film like The Insider without any of the heart or understanding of what made that film work so well. Instead, it just goes beat-by-beat without ever hooking in the audience or making them truly care about what it is talking about. It, instead, operates like a lecture about CTE and what happened to Omalu in the aftermath of his article being published about the topic. As a narrative work, it is just not that interesting and lacks any of the requisite passion, as such it just happens. A lot of this lack of intrigue, tension, or passion, ties into how the film goes too fast. The pacing is slow, but the narrative progression is rather rapid. In one scene, Dr. Cyril Wecht (Albert Brooks) urges Dr. Omalu to get a girlfriend. Just a few scenes later, he is handed a woman to house by his Church. He then gets married just a bit later. With his research, things do happen more methodically, but when the NFL rejects the presentation by Dr. Omalu's co-worker Dr. Bailes (Alec Baldwin), it seems as though the research has hit a brick wall. Fortunately, two scenes later, another poor sap dies and Dr. Omalu can get his big celebratory moment when his research is finally accepted. In essence, there is no triumph or sense of the film having earned its emotional send-off. It never builds the anticipation of seeing him victorious or positions it as too much of a struggle. Instead, the film's over-dramatic and showy approach to the film renders it dramatically inert, barreling towards a cliche celebratory speech with powerful words delivered to a body of men who do want to hear him speak. We know Dr. Omalu will be successful - even if unfamiliar with the story itself - because the film clearly positions him as a crusader for truth and the argues him to be the very essence of what makes America great. In this, the film is almost merciful in not beating around the bush and pretending that he may not be successful. Yet, this lack of doubt that feels akin to inevitability is often what robs Concussion of any intrigue or of being too compelling. It is a film that so desperately wants to cross the finish line and let its hero into the victory circle, it skims through the troubles he faces and instead opts to focus on the victory which is terribly dull. Tragically, even the pushback received by Dr. Omalu is either factually inaccurate or forced, demonstrating that perhaps the film was actually better off for focusing on his successes, even if unearned due to lack of tension. Showing the arrest of Dr. Wecht, a verbal attack by Dave Duerson (Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaye), his wife Prema Mutiso (Gugu Mbatha-Raw) being followed by a suspicious car, and then her later miscarriage, the film misconstrues facts to create tension but then immediately drops the topic.
The latest film to depict the heroics and horrors that occurred in the Holocaust, The Zookeeper's Wife is ultimately a mixed bag, but is nonetheless able to capitalize on the inherent power of its story through strong performances and honest emotion. Telling the story of the efforts of the zookeepers at the Warsaw Zoo to hide Jews during the Holocaust, The Zookeeper's Wife is a film that is as tragic as it is inspirational, depicting the actions that led to the couple saving over 300 people. As a moving tale of human sacrifice and survival amidst the horrors of the Holocaust, The Zookeeper's Wife works. However, too often, the film discards important stories or characters in favor of focusing on subplots that carry no weight compared to the horrors they are set against. As a result, it is a film with noble intentions that has a mixed ability to actually accomplish everything it wishes it could. Through its two-hour story of heroism in the face of great oppression, the film shows many Jewish survivors come through the home of Antonina (Jessica Chastian) and Jan Zabinski (Johan Heldenbergh). Through their time rescuing Jews from the Warsaw Ghetto, they rescue friends and strangers alike. Many times, the people they rescued would stay indefinitely. Other times, they would be there for just one night before being sent to a new location by the resistance. In the course of rescuing Jews and showing the great lengths gone to by the community and the Zabinski's to save these innocent people, the film never actually develops many characters. The closest is Urszula (Shira Haas), a young Jewish girl violently **** by two **** soldiers, who becomes like a daughter to Antonina. Her tale is tragic and drives home the barbaric actions of the ****, but she is the only one who actually gets developed, beyond a pair of people the Zabinski's were friends with prior to the occupation. Even then, the friends take a backseat to this one girl. Of the other 300 people hidden in the zoo, we see nothing but their faces, never hear their voices, and they become background characters. Without any depth truly provided to those that they rescue, The Zookeeper's Wife rides on the natural emotion of seeing somebody rescued from the Holocaust. This is easy to do, but shows no ambition on the part of the film. It merely sits back and lets the real events do the talking, without providing a voice to those senselessly slaughtered because of hatred. The film's lack of character development is also matched by a rushed feeling that makes the film feel like a two-hour film that crammed way too much into its runtime. This is exemplified when Antonina is shown as not pregnant in one scene, very pregnant in the next, experiencing labor pains, and then giving birth, all in the span of two minutes. Her pregnancy is not mentioned, beyond her having sex with her husband and then, once she gives birth, the baby is included in two scenes. It is clear that Niki Caro recognized that the birth was not really that pertinent, but since it happened, she had to find a way to work it into the film. However, in the way it is included, it hardly works and only serves to exemplify the way in which the film rushed through too much. Further examples include the process of the Zabinski's procuring Jews from the ghetto or simply the passage of time. As a film that tries to cram seven years into its runtime, The Zookeeper's Wife always feels abbreviated with Caro trying to cover everything she can in telling this story, rather than allowing any particular moment to really breathe. Much of this cramming and over-reaching is caused by the film's extensive focus on Antonina and her relationship with **** zoologist Lutz Heck (Daniel Bruhl). A cruel man who brags about killing animals in his zoo, obsessed with guns, Lutz winds up working for ****. Installing a breeding program in Antonina's zoo in an attempt to bring back the extinct aurochs, Lutz begins to come onto Antonina and repeatedly tries to touch her before attempting to **** her later in the film. He is a contemptible person, but feels extra to the plot. This is not a film that needed a villain. It was already one about the Holocaust. The villain should be rather self-explanatory. Yet, here is, hogging screentime to only hit on Antonina and then leave until Caro feels like the film needs him again. Distracting from the real story and consuming screen time, the film seems to suffer under the weight of keeping this character around, while never making him anything but useless.
In his directorial debut two years ago, S. Craig Zahler created a gripping, scary, and deeply violent western. Bone Tomahawk was imperfect to be sure, but was nonetheless a fun bit of western horror, blending together two genres that rarely mesh together. Yet, in spite of this rather unique path, Zahler directed it with great gusto and skill. In the years since, Bone Tomahawk has largely become known for a scene of absolute horrific violence. For those that have seen the film, the scene needs no introduction. For those that have not, some things are better left as a mystery. Recognizing that audiences really responded to this slow burn style that explodes into graphic midnight madness violence, Zahler followed it up with Brawl in Cell Block 99. Starring Vince Vaughn, the film tells the story of a man sent to prison for trafficking drugs. After his wife is kidnapped, he is told he must get himself transferred to a maximum security prison and kill a man in the notorious Cell Block 99. A dark corner of the world that, as Warden Tuggs (Don Johnson) says, Amnesty International would frown upon, it is in this prison that much of the film is set. As time goes on after the release of Brawl in Cell Block 99, it is hard to not imagine the film gaining a reputation for its violence. One scene in cinematic history that really sticks with me is in David Cronenberg's 1986 remake of The Fly. As two men arm wrestle, one of their arms snaps with the bones protruding. This, minus the arm wrestling, happens at least three times in Brawl in Cell Block 99 with limbs snapping like twigs under the weight of Bradley Thomas' (Vaughn) incredibly brawny exterior. Legs and arms, no matter. Similarly, a scene that has become infamous is one from American History X. In it, a skinhead curb stomps a black man. Fortunately, the viewer only has to hear the sound. In Brawl in Cell Block 99, three men have their heads crushed in with every gory detail shown and one even has their head repeatedly stomped on until it is decapitated. If this sounds like something you are into, then boy is Brawl in Cell Block 99 the film for you. For those that do not like this, then it is best to avoid this particular film. Oddly enough, it is this violence that often holds the film back. It is graphic, yes, but the film is never quite disturbing. It is cartoonish, 1980s violence akin to Cronenberg including exploding heads in Scanners or body horror in any number of films. It is intended to creep audiences and make them uncomfortable, but often lacks the justification. Instead, it plays as cheap attempts to gross out the audience instead of actually carrying much purpose or weight. These moments can be carried out without such violence and its inclusion feels like recognition by Zahler that there is not enough meat on this film. It is cheap entertainment for those that enjoy excessive gore. It is a mean-spirited film that derives great pleasure from this level of violence to the point that it would suffice as an admission of insanity by Zahler. Recognizing this lack of depth and coming to realization that this two-hour long film will really drag given the lack of depth, Zahler sprinkles in some thematic consideration early on about a variety of topics. Losing his job, finding out his wife is cheating, opting to run drugs for a friend to replace his income, and then eventually going to the end of the Earth to save his wife and child, Brawl in Cell Block 99 demonstrates the lengths a man will go to in order to save his family. Willing to sacrifice himself so that they may live, Bradley Thomas often serves as a representation of this drive and selflessness than even the most hardened criminal can demonstrate. However, beyond this rather simplistic element, Zahler's film does little it is not upfront about. Decrying conditions in American prisons, comparing them to European prisons, lamenting about the harsh treatment for drug offenders compared to violent offenders, showing the harsh and brutal conditions of maximum security prison that violates global mandates regarding torture, the horrible food, and the overcrowding, there are few hot-button prison-related issues that the film leaves untouched. Never really providing depth to them beyond Zahler using characters as mouthpieces to espouse these beliefs, Brawl in Cell Block 99 feels like a film of two worlds. On one hand, Zahler half-heartedly tries to provide depth by decrying the state of prisons in America. On the other, it is a horrifyingly violent film that serves as light-hearted midnight madness fare. In the end, neither side gels given Zahler's heavy-handed treatment of the former in order to focus on the latter. If actually given enough time to develop these themes, the film could have been quite the violent statement about the violence inherent in the system, but too often, the film seems to lose track of this messaging. Furthermore, the film is
Far too often, biographical films can be too ambitious. Often trying to capture every crucial moment of an individual's life and then sew them all together in a condensed package, biopics can be bloated messes that never seem to hit a consistent flow. Instead, they jump from moment-to-moment trying to paint a picture of the protagonist along the way. 2014's Get on Up - which also starred Chadwick Boseman in the leadinr role - is the perfect embodiment of this flawed approach. Reginald Hublin's Marshall is the exact opposite. Blending biopic ambitions with the formula of a courtroom drama, Hublin manages to make a film that may not tell the story of Marshall, but does something all the more important: it lets the audience get a feeling for who the man was in life and in the courtroom. As an attorney for the NAACP and eventually a Supreme Court justice, Marshall's life was defined by his words and passions in a courtroom. Thus, it is only appropriate to use this one case of a man accused of a heinous crime due to his race as a microcosm of the lifelong fight for equality embarked upon by Marshall and many others. It is a film that may not reinvent the wheel in its narrative structure, but it nonetheless embodies the possibility of both the biopic and the courtroom drama genres. For that, the appeal is easy to understand. After a black chauffeur named Joseph Spell (Sterling K. Brown) is accused of **** by his white employer Eleanor Strubling (Kate Hudson), young trial attorney Thurgood Marshall is sent by the NAACP to represent Spell, provided he is an innocent man only accused because of his race. Unable to try the case himself due to not being licensed to practice law in the state of Connecticut, Marshall must rely upon local civil lawyer Sam Friedman (Josh Gad) to try the case. Limited to only sitting at the defense table in the courtroom, Marshall instructs Friedman on what he must do, what he must say, and what questions he must ask. Directing the trial like a silent but firm teacher, Marshall is in full control and is not a man who can be muzzled by those who wish for him to stop talking. A thrilling and thoroughly engrossing courtroom drama, Marshall is a film that continuously keeps the audience captivated and fully engaged in the proceedings. As we are left hanging on every word, Marshall shows the murkiness of the case. Joseph Spell is a man with a lot of baggage - such as a dishonorable discharge and adultery - that makes him an easy man to convict. Comparatively, Eleanor is a rich socialite. In 1940s America, it is easy to assume what the result of the case is going to be, even if Marshall lends his legal mind to the case. What makes the film often so captivating, however, is the demonstration of the uncertainty as to whether or not Joseph committed the crime. He is passionate in arguing his innocence. Eleanor's story does not gel with what a reasonable person would be expected to do under similar circumstances. Yet, Joseph's story continuously changes. Is he a man who can be trusted? Thurgood Marshall hardly trusts him, incessantly asking Joseph to reaffirm his innocence to avoid an embarrassment for the NAACP. It is in this that the film barrels towards its conclusion in a shroud of mystery. We believe Joseph and the film expects us to believe him, but the film does not share the same regard for the justice system. Matching the mystery and confusion regarding Joseph with a great tension regarding whether or not the system will oppress Joseph or not, Marshall plays up this element to great impact. A great example of this comes as prosecutor Lorin Willis - portrayed by the excellent Dan Stevens who turns in a great villainous, racist, and deeply smarmy turn as this reprehensible character - moves for an answer given by Joseph under cross-examination to be stricken from the record. The question, pertaining to why Joseph would lie about having sex with Eleanor and only now claim it to be consensual, is answered passionately by Joseph as he details how, in this case, it is truth that would get him killed in the South because he is black and the woman is white. Incensed by the answer and recognizing the damage it can have on his case, Willis looks at the judge (James Cromwell) for help. With a dramatic pause - which was met with cries for the judge to "do the right thing" in my theater - Hublin builds great anticipation for what the judge will say that speaks to the strength of the film. Yes, it is a courtroom drama. However, it is never predictable. Instead, the court proceedings and even the case itself are shrouded in doubt. This uncertainty and the way in which Hublin utilizes it to create tension and anticipation of every word to come, is what makes Marshall such a courtroom drama. It is a film about racial tension, injustice, and the man who fought for equality. Yet, it does not just allow its courtroom setting to be a backdrop with the result of the case a foregone conclusion.
Criticized upon release for being stiff, stodgy, dated, and dull, Robert Redford's The Conspirator is hardly deserving of its reputation. Though perhaps a perfect film for history classes across America, The Conspirator is nonetheless a riveting tale about the miscarriage of justice. Though its story of a young lawyer being tasked with handling a case that has been pre-determined by the judge, jury, and prosecution, only for that young lawyer to slowly come to see their defendant as innocent, The Conspirator is a film that rises above its cliches through a truly engrossing true story and the powerful re-telling put together by Redford. Strong acting hardly hurts matters. Chilling in the corruption depicted and a reminder of the blood that has always been on the hands of the justice system, The Conspirator is a film that may not re-invent the courtroom drama genre, but often displays what can make the genre so impactful and thrilling. Cited by many critics as a response the post-9/11 environment in which witch hunts were held for anybody believed to be even remotely connected to terrorism in the name of bringing the country together and allowing it to heal after tragedy, The Conspirator is actually so much more. Yes, it can apply to the post-9/11 world, but it can also apply to the red scare, the assassination of John F. Kennedy (or any other President), or even any number of seemingly "open-and-shut" cases that are argued in courtrooms across America. The Conspirator is a cry into the abyss for Americans to wake up and realize that, all too often, the truth is a foreign concept in the justice system. The pre-conceived notions of those involved and the desire of the prosecution to get a conviction at all costs is instead the order of business. There is no presumption of innocence, rather a guilty until proven guilty for many in the system with prosecutions willing to bend the rules to get the results they want and judges putting up blockades in front of the defense whenever they can. In The Conspirator, we see Mary Surratt (Robin Wright) experience this after being accused of being a co-conspirator in the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. As the owner of the boarding house in which many meetings by the conspirators were held and the mother of a man who held many of those meetings, Mary's innocence is never under any question by those in power. However, in the name of getting vengeance and providing the country with the sacrificial lamb they so crave, Mary is railroaded. With her son John (Johnny Simmons) in hiding after the assassination, there is no way for Mary to get out. Given a military trial alongside the other alleged co-conspirators with no chance for appeal, a prosecution who threatens jail time for those who disrupt the narrative, and a Secretary of War willing to bend any rule and display his own influence to get somebody from the Surratt family to hang, Mary is dead the moment she walks into the courtroom. Tried in the court of public opinion to the point that the trial is merely a moot point, Mary Surratt's case is just one example of somebody who did not receive a fair trial. Though parallels to the absolute patriotism, desire to heal after tragedy, and trial-by-fire style are certainly in line with the post-9/11 world, it is in this railroading and tragedy that The Conspirator shows the flaws in the justice system. This trial is not one stuck in 1865. It is one that is happening now in the alleged hall of justice down the street. Somewhere in America, the justice system is failing somebody due to their lack of influence or the fact that nobody believes them as that truth does not match with their present narrative. The Conspirator is a film that shows these gaping holes have always been there and, in that, it is incredibly chilling and horrifying to watch. To see how little has changed with regard to vengeance being the point of the justice and prison system to this very day instead of finding the truth, The Conspirator stands as a solemn testament to the way in which America has strayed from the laws that govern her. In telling this tragic tale of a woman left behind a system more concerned with revenge, The Conspirator is an incredibly powerful film. As we see the world of Mary Surratt crumble all around her and her family, there is incredible empathy. As we see the world of her attorney and war hero Frederick Aiken (James McAvoy) collapse around for having the gall to defend her, our heart aches. While the film's narrative formula may be one that has been done before, Redford's ability to create emotional resonance, tension, and to leave the audience thoroughly appalled by this miscarriage of justice, is what makes The Conspirator such a gripping watch. It is a hard film to watch, but one that is necessary for every American to watch. The slow and methodical pacing only benefits this as we see the slow, pronounced descent into chaos occur before our eyes.
Paris Can Wait is a film about Diane Lane being married to a creepy movie producer portrayed by Alec Baldwin and traveling across France with a creepy Frenchman portrayed by Arnaud Viard. Ann (Lane) is unhappy in her marriage to Michael (Baldwin), so when Jacques (Viard) starts to show her some attention, she begins to slowly warm to his company. A largely run-of-the-mill story about a middle-aged woman feeling beautiful around another man and possibly embarking on an affair with this other man, Paris Can Wait is largely rather dull and uninteresting, made all the more difficult to finish due to how annoying Jacques is as a character. That said, it is largely a harmless film that may be diversion cinema, but it at least manages the pass the time a bit. One of the biggest issues with Paris Can Wait is its lack of narrative depth and tension. The closest the film gets to the latter is when Jacques charges some expensive meals on Ann's credit card and says that his card was stolen. However, it is hardly anything substantial. Otherwise, the film just sort of floats by without much happening. They eat French food, he stops at the side of the road again, she gets annoyed with him, they eat again, and then he asks her some personal questions. It is in the latter that the film hints at depth with Ann discussing her marriage to Michael and Jacques accidentally telling her that Michael may not be telling Ann the whole truth all the time. However, none of this really brings them closer. Instead, Paris Can Wait relies on them both having experienced tragedies in their lives as a reason to sell their relationship and friendship. After one quick conversation about those they lost, they begin to get along a lot better with one another and seem to form a bond that was not there seconds prior. This cheap attempt to create both emotional resonance for the audience and sell the fact that Ann is set to do an about-face and fall in love Jacques, it really highlights how Paris Can Wait is just too underwritten. These characters are paper-thin and hard to really get involved with as the film seems to pre-occupy its mind with other pursuits. That other pursuit is food and French landmarks. As Jacques drives Ann from Cannes to Paris, he stops every five seconds to show her some landmark or get her to eat at some restaurant. Too focused on these landmarks and the food, Paris Can Wait too often feels like a bad Travel Channel show or episode of Anthony Bourdain. Espousing constantly about how great French food is and how great the French countryside is, Paris Can Wait manages to make for a great tourist advertisement, but it does little for the film itself. Instead, it just becomes a grating experience as Jacques stops every two feet, hits on Ann, and then rambles on about wherever they are. In fact, it becomes rather grating and off-putting to the point that Paris Can Wait often feels like the longest road trip in cinematic history, even if it only takes place over the course of two days. While mildly funny at times, Paris Can Wait is like a stale fish. Its characters are paper-thin, its narrative set-up of a woman meeting a man who finally pays attention to her in spite of her advanced age is a classic adult cinema trope, and its trip across the French country side seems to be a better fit for a television infomercial than a feature film. Though Diane Lane is charming in the lead role, Paris Can Wait is an ineffectual, trite, and absolutely dull film that can be safely avoided without missing anything.
A little under a year ago, I declared Denis Villeneuve to be my favorite modern director in my review of Arrival. Now, with Blade Runner 2049, Villeneuve confirms my assertion and furthers my belief that Roger Deakins is the best modern cinematographer. Put the two together and poetic, thoughtful, and visual magic happens. Blade Runner 2049 is the perfect embodiment of this with the two combining to bring forth a film that stands as one of the best of 2017 to date. Gorgeous, thoughtful, and brilliantly unraveling at a methodical-but-not-slow pace, Blade Runner 2049 is a film that makes me want to revisit the original, after having absolutely loathed it three years ago (I saw the Final Cut so do not even bring up the different cuts). Now, as my own journey through cinema alters, I am in a position to enjoy and bask in the glory that is Blade Runner with 2049, Villeneuve, and Deakins, being the gateway. Blending Tarkovsky influences, Tarkovsky religion, and the story of Blade Runner, Blade Runner 2049 is a thought-provoking work that goes well beyond the essential question of; are replicants equal and deserve to live or are they sub-human? That said, the philosophy and ideas certainly take a backseat to the work of Roger Deakins. Watching Blade Runner 2049 is akin to being able to watch a painter work on his masterpiece, marrying warm oranges with cold blues, hues of pink, and shades of green, all in the name of creating a smorgasbord of beauty that stands as a testament to both the skill of Deakins in shooting a film and his ability to use color to tell a story. In terms of just the visuals themselves, however, the gorgeous reliance on silhouettes as Agent K (Ryan Gosling) walks out of white, billowing smoke and as Agent K walks through the orange wasteland that is Las Vegas, demonstrate some of this beauty. As do shots of Gosling walks through the cold blues and greens of Los Angeles, the dark ships flying through the orange air of Vegas, the white light of a ship with orange taillights against the dark black sky, the shot of a dog staring into the distance as its master is gone, a fire burning bright orange in the dark of the night, a blind man walking out of the shadows into the orangeish hue of temple, a car pulling into a snowy and green-walled parking garage with its red brakes beaming off the ground, and a glowing pink hologram with blue hair bending over to talk to Agent K and bringing with her the pink radiance surrounding her and blending it with the dark blue aura about him. This is a film with no shot out of place, no moment that is not striking, and more than anything else, this is a testament to Deakins. Turning colors into a visual mosaic of mastery and the simple beauty of the colors themselves, Blade Runner 2049 - before the year is even over - is the most visually stunning work of 2017. There can is no debate. Few films paint such a brilliant picture that words seem to fall short of truly expressing. Perhaps one of the greatest displays of the film's brilliant visuals comes in how it uses the colors within its palette and also its locales/sets. As an agent for the Los Angeles Police Department, Agent K is tasked with hunting down replicants. He himself was synthetically made, but is a model who cannot rebel and made after the blackout, thus, is tasked with killing replicants who may still wish to rebel. While fully obedient, he is nonetheless an outsider. At home, he finds his front door has been vandalized to say "Die Skinner". Prostitutes are wary of him due to his status as a Blade Runner. The only one who accepts him is Joi (Ana de Armas), who is girlfriend and also a hologram made as a companion for him. As he walks the streets of Los Angeles, it is constantly raining or snowing with cold blues, greens, and purples, abounding through the streets. At work, the walls are flat white and his own demeanor his cold and repressed. Joi brings him joy, but limited given the fact that she is not real and they cannot touch. His existence is one that sees him kill replicants, who he feels a connection to, but he does as he is told. For Agent K, his life is one of coldness and repression. As such, his environment embodies exactly this. Cold and unwelcoming, the cold colors found in Los Angeles define Agent K as a man who lives on the outside. This is not his home, nor is he welcome in Los Angeles. He is a man in a foreign land with no fire to warm his chilly exterior. By direct contrast, Agent K finally finds his people and his cause in Las Vegas. As a post-apocalyptic and radioactive city, Las Vegas is covered in a thick haze that is turned a burnt orange due to the orange, burned out sky above. Left behind as Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford) is whisked away by Luv (Sylvia Hoeks), Agent K finds himself surrounded by replicants. Taken to the underground compound, surrounded by those like himself, and a warm orange fire, Agent K has finally found where he is meant to be.
Directed by Alan J. Pakula, The Pelican Brief is certainly a compelling investigative thriller. This is no surprise, considering Pakula knows his way around conspiracy and investigative thrills, with this on full display in the film. Unfortunately, the problems with The Pelican Brief are ones found more in the script and the editing. Overly complicated, contrived, cliche, predictable, and bloated, The Pelican Brief is a film that thrills, compels, and keeps the audience hooked in from beginning to end, but is certainly prone to dragging out the inevitable. We know what will happen in the end, yet the film continues to try to distract from this with additional layers, characters, and encounters, that just seem so forced. If the film could just hone in on and become a trimmed down version of itself, it could have been a great film. Unfortunately, this one was just one editing session away from being excellent. At the heart of this film is a conspiracy theory. After the assassination of two Supreme Court justices, young law student Darby Shaw (Julia Roberts) is intrigued by the murders and tries to assess who could have been involved by looking at similar opinions between the two justices. Showing her results to her lover and Professor Thomas Callahan (Sam Shepard), Shaw's theory - later dubbed the "Pelican brief" - is passed onto the FBI and, from there, Shaw's life collapses all around her. As those implicated close down on her and try to suppress the investigation underway by the FBI, Shaw teams up with reporter Gray Grantham (Denzel Washington) to further investigate her brief and bring the allegations to light in an article. A spell-binding thriller, it may be rather cliche but the twists, turns, and general conspiracy element (with a post-Nixon kick to it all) really intrigue rather nicely. It is a film that may be flawed, but one cannot accuse of it not being entertaining or gripping, as the exploits of Darby and Gray as the investigate these deeply influential suspects and run for their lives from the men sent to the kill them tell a believable tale that will you keep you engaged, even when it slips into predictability. Unfortunately, it is this predictability that does harm the film, especially when the plot instances can feel so contrived. As a film that 140 minutes long, The Pelican Brief is obviously far too long for what it is and much of that length is due to constant plot contrivances. Bumping into undercover hitmen or the wrong men at the wrong time, the two constantly are sent running or into hiding as a means of cheaply providing thrills and delaying the inevitable reveal of what is covered in the brief and its fallout. Further elements of the plot - the aforementioned contrivances - seems to occur just because the film needs it to move the plot ahead and provide tension. Constantly bumping into the same hitmen, killing the hitmen, or possible taking Gray off the story, the plot just runs through cliches, contrivances, and convenient plot elements to try drum up tension and anticipation when its central story is good enough to provide both if it just let it breathe. That said, one of the best elements of the film is a bit cheesy, but it works so well. After having experienced a car bomb first-hand earlier in the film, Darby is on red alert after getting into a car with Gray. The audience knows there is a bomb in the car, but neither know. Reading off information they just discovered, Darby casually pulls Gray's hand away from starting the car twice, in order for him to be able to pay attention to what she is saying. Tense and slowly building anticipation for whether or not they will figure it out, the final outcome of the scene may be obvious, but Pakula's tricks in eliciting this tension work phenomenally well and create a scene that really stands out as a highlight. A scene in which hitman Khamel (Stanley Tucci) hides in an FBI agent's hotel room closet and slowly opens the door to kill him is similarly tense, demonstrating Pakula's knack for suspense and thrills, utilizing these slowly drawn out moments of tension that allow the scene's suspense to slowly build before the big pay-off. While the film's predictability is certainly an issue, one element that really holds the film back is certainly how many characters are involved. With a seemingly endless number of indistinguishable slightly balding middle-aged white men in this cast, everybody blends in with one another, as none of the cast are able to really differentiate themselves enough to stand out or become a memorable supporting character. Some folks - the President or editor - are distinguishable to be clear, but far too many of the men tasked with stopping Darby and Gray or handling the investigation for the FBI just seem to blend in with one another.
Masking social commentary and satire under hundreds of pounds of splattered zombie brains and human intestines, George A. Romero's Dawn of the Dead is one of those films shows smart cinema does not need to be boring. Brilliantly crafted and thought-out social commentary is always on display in Dawn of the Dead, but the film nonetheless boasts a similarly impeccably constructed and thought-out representation of the zombie subgenre. As both a satire and horror film, Dawn of the Dead hits the mark, delivering both a thrill-ride of entertaining encounters and enough ideas to really leave you thinking after it is all over. As the follow-up to Romero's brilliant, Night of the Living Dead, the film similarly advances the horror set fort in the original, further setting up sequels that will continue to demonstrate the mayhem that is unfurling in, at first, Pennsylvania and, eventually, the world. As a piece of social commentary, Dawn of the Dead perfectly nails both the mindless consumer and thoughtless consumption of the American consumer. This brilliantly constructed critique is exemplified in the setting of the film: a mall. A beacon of capitalism that can be heard around the world, this large mall plays host to the protagonists and the zombies. As they fight off the zombies inside in order to establish the mall as a safe haven for themselves, the protagonists wonder why the zombies are coming, only for one of them to explain why. Deep in the subconscious of the zombies are memories of this mall and all they know is they have to go there, but they do not know why. Throughout the mall, there are advertisements for sales and there is even an announcement promising hard candy to whoever spend a certain amount. This showcase of mindless consumers and the carrots dangled in front of them to entice them to buy underscores the ideas behind Dawn of the Dead with much of this commentary playing nicely as somewhat funny satire. Romero takes it even further, however, and uses that as a jumping off point to show mindless consumption, even from those facing the zombies. As they race through a store, Peter (Ken Foree) and Roger (David Emge) agree to grab whatever they might need. Thus, Peter grabs a television and a radio. While they do use it, it is likely that other items could have been more essential. The television later proves to be useless as there are no longer any broadcasts, which naturally aggravates the men in the room as they can no longer mindlessly watch television. Later, a group of bikers go through the same store and one of the members is chastised for trying to grab a television. Added together with the ideas regarding the mindless consumer, Romero shows the change of pace in Dawn of the Dead from Night of the Living Dead. In 'Night', as theorist Richard Dyer argued, the white people are often depicted as lifeless. All of the zombies are white, while one white woman who is not a zombie is catatonic. The protagonist there being a black man, who is meant to exemplify life. Here, Romero shows that, due to capitalism, it is no longer just the whites that are lifeless. Now, there are black and hispanic zombies in the bunch, who must similarly be killed by the black and white protagonists. What was once the plight of only whites has now advanced in the ten years between the two films with the entire human race now turned into mindless consumers who only know where to go to buy something, not what they want to buy. Furthermore, Romero takes the race angle of 'Night' and updates it in 'Dawn' to show the true enemy in the film. Though the zombies are unrelenting and everywhere, they can be escaped without much fuss. A quick shot through the head and they are dealt with. The only become truly problematic when they sneak up on you or there is a gang of them. The same cannot be said for humanity. A human with a mind to commit crimes or express aggression can hardly be stopped as easily. Showcased through a SWAT officer with a hatred of Puerto Ricans and blacks who bursts into a building just to kill some or the bikers who come into the mall and cause more mayhem than the zombies, Romero showcases how it is humanity who is humanity's greatest enemy and predator. The zombies may be mindless, but at least they are equal opportunity and killing solely for necessity. Humans kill one another for any reason under the sun, whether it be hatred, accident, or - in the case of the bikers in the mall - for territory. Unlike zombies, the large armies of humans who stomp in to cause mayhem in a region are hardly as easily defeated unless you are willing to stand your ground and fight back.
Following the release of Truth in 2015, Dan Rather - who is portrayed by Robert Redford in the film - was asked what he thought about the film and its accuracy. In his response, he stated that, "I think it's the best thing that's ever been up on the big screen about how television news really works." Considering the film pauses every few minutes to wax nostalgic about Rather, his ability as a reporter starting way back in the 1960s, the glory days of journalism, and how Rather was a beacon of light in the changing times for journalism, it is not hard to believe that Rather himself would like the film. Of course, this quote and given the context of the film itself actually manages to touch on what makes Truth go so awry. Based on a non-fiction book written by Mary Mapes - who is portrayed by Cate Blanchett - the film explores CBS News and 60 Minutes' reporting on the Killian documents that seemed to discredit George W. Bush's service in the National Guard. As the book is by Mapes and the story is about Mapes and how she and her team were misled on a story, it is not hard to imagine this film as bein unwilling to criticize either her or her team. Unfortunately, that is exactly what happens and the film suffers for this "kid gloves" approach to its protagonists and their takes on the direction of journalism. A mixed bag, Truth is a film that has all of the makings **** journalism film, but one of the follow through. As a result, it is hard to not see Truth's greatest issue as being its source material. As it is written by Mapes who idolized Rather and, obviously, stands by her reporting, the film approaches both with no venom whatsoever. Instead, let's both of the hook - especially Mapes and her team - for accepting obvious copies as the real documents and forcing out a story that had some good reporting behind it, but was probably a few confirmations away from being good to go. Even then, once it was discredited and retracted, it is hard to stand by that reporting as being done in furtherance of a truly accurate story. Yet, the film seems to not understand that Mapes and her team got it wrong. Defiant in its denial, Truth seems unaware of the fact the memos were forgeries or that the team was entirely misled by their sources. While the story the film tells about the reporting behind the Killian documents story is compelling, it is hard to see this as a definitive telling of that story. Rather, it feels like Mapes making her case that she was actually in the right due to some perceived journalistic duty to report the story. Unfortunately, this ultimately gives way to conspiracy theories. Though her closing speech about the current state of journalism review by the public being that of nit-picking, yelling, and smear tactics, may make some strong - though heavy-handed - points, it nonetheless screams of hypocrisy. Arguing that people base their opinions on a select few facts that only serve to further their own point - which she is right about - Truth falls into the same trap. In a monologue for reporter Mike Smith (Topher Grace), he argues that CBS News is only pulling the story due to pressure from the White House, who had previously done Viacom a deal to ensure they could keep all of their current affiliates. Citing this apparent relationship as the reason why the story gets squashed, the film also focuses in on the political leanings of the men tasked with investigating Mapes and her reporting, naming one individual as a former Attorney under Bush Sr. and a friend of the Bush family. While certainly biased, the film seems to be lining up its cards to position this as a Conservative conspiracy to discredit Mary Mapes and her work when, in reality, SHE GOT THE STORY WRONG. It was wrong. Bottom line. At best, the film comes off as delusional for seemingly not understanding that the story reported by 60 Minutes was wrong. Though it accuses people of shouting to obfuscate points made by those they disagree with or focusing on conspiracy theories about the opposing side, the film falls into the same traps and points the finger at some shady dealings between Viacom and the government. Whether or not they are right that Bush and Viacom were close friends, it does nothing to change the point that the document that is used to base the entire story around is hardly the most trustworthy document in written history. There may be ulterior motives, who knows, but the film does nothing but point fingers and yell about it, while failing to actually offer any evidence that it is true.
Heading into A Ghost Story, one cannot be blamed for assuming it is an examination of grief. With a young husband (Casey Affleck) dying early on and wife (Rooney Mara) mourning his loss, eating pie, and trying to move on without him, it is easy to see how the film is about grief. Yet, in equal measure, it is a film about memory, time, purpose, music, stories, and every little detail that makes life so eternal, so essential, and universal. It is a film about grief shown through the lens of an unexpected protagonist - the ghost under a sheet - who traverses time, space, people, and location. Powerful, poignant, and silently accomplished, A Ghost Story is a rousing return to form for director David Lowery after working for Disney last year. In this low-key, gorgeous, and powerful film, Lowery re-establishes himself as the heir apparent to Terrence Malick's cinematic poetry throne. Silently sewing together images, Lowery's camera frequently finds stunning images. From the very beginning, shots of Affleck's ghost walking through open fields to get back home with the sun peaking over the horizon, the ghost lurking in the background with Mara in the foreground, or the shot of light pouring in as the home is destroyed, A Ghost Story is a film with stunning visuals. This was very much the case with Lowery's prior effort Ain't Them Bodies Saints - which also starred Affleck and Mara - and it is nice to see him return to this gorgeous style. However, compared to that film, Lowery is much less reliant on the beauty of the outdoors to create stunning imagery in A Ghost Story. Rather, he now relies upon drab gray and brown interiors, dark shadows, and a largely gloomy home that is fashioned as a prison cell for this ghost for the rest of eternity until he finds what he has been looking for all this time. Dark, ominous, and spooky, this locale is one that would work for a horror film, but rather, Lowery uses it as a place for existential horror. This ghost is doomed to stay here until he can get the note left behind by Mara that he wants to retrieve, yet he is unable to break through the painted wall to reach the note. Trapped, lonely, and solemn, the ghost's existence is one of little joy, pain (especially when Mara tries to move on), and anger at how he has been so easily forgotten. However, what is perhaps most interesting is how the aspect ratio communicates so much. Lowery himself has stated it was to make the film more claustrophobic to show how trapped the ghost is in this home, but that is just scratching the surface. With a squareish frame and rounded edges with drab colors, the film often looks like an old photograph. This is particularly pertinent due to the film's thoughts regarding memories and the little pieces of ourselves that we leave behind. Being remembered, our memories, and our brief time on Earth after which we are forgotten forever, are all constantly on the mind **** Story throughout. Mara leaving little notes of things she likes in houses she moves from, the quiet mourning of her husband, and a party guest speaking about memory and Beethoven, all exemplify this element of the film. Yet, what is abundantly clear in A Ghost Story is that time does not matter. It will advance, things will be left behind, people die, and people move on to other places. In the end, the only thing that does matter are the little pieces of ourselves we leave in the hearts and souls of those we touch. As Affleck silently lingers in the background with Mara eating a piece of pie, this fact is felt. She does not need to say anything, nor does he. Both miss one another and it is not because they existed, were in that home, or were even because they were married. Rather, it is because they both touched one another's lives and, now, circumstance and a freak accident have taken them apart from one another. Instead of holding one another, they now are left wallow in the solitude and thickness of the air in the home as they try to soothe the hole in their hearts. With a minimal script that often amounts to a character standing stationary for a period of time to the ambitious time traveling finale, A Ghost Story is a film that is nearly impossible to not compare to the work of Malick. Yet, it is not just in the style and ambition that Lowery manages to capture the feeling of Malick's best works, but also in the feelings they emote. The best Malick films, such as The Tree of Life, are ambitious and show life from the very beginning to the present day with a silent, melodic, and poetic flow to the proceedings. A Ghost Story is very much the same way. Instead of being a typical narrative film, A Ghost Story is often best described as visual poetry. Through small suggestions, such as what is on the paper (it is the quote from the book that Affleck knocks off the shelf and Mara reads for sure), or through this gorgeous mosaic of images that, on their own, often communicate every emotion and purpose perfectly, Lowery
A master piece of midnight madness filmmaking, John Carpenter's Prince of Darkness is a film that strings you along with a plot that may not make all that much sense, but it simply does not matter. This is not a film watched for the plot, for the acting, or for the dialogue (seriously, if Satan arrives and one of his first actions is typing on a computer through some woman to say, "In fact, YOU WILL NOT BE SAVED", I will bust a gut laughing), but rather for John Carpenter's ability to entertain audiences. Truly scary, ominous, deeply unsettling, and a film that makes you leery to investigate what just creaked downstairs, Prince of Darkness is a film with one hell of an atmosphere. Blessed by Carpenter's fantastic score, an engaging premise, and truly terrific scares, Prince of Darkness is a film that will leave you reeling once it is finished. As the second entry into John Carpenter's Apocalypse trilogy with The Thing and In the Mouth of Madness, it is seemingly fitting that Prince of Darkness concerns the return of Satan to the world. However, rather than a Biblical interpretation, Carpenter has a twist on the tale. Using matter and antimatter as the basis, the world in Prince of Darkness exists in the antimatter plane of existence, with Satan existing to bring darkness in the antimatter world rather than the lightness brought by God in the matter-side. Jesus came as an extraterrestrial to warn humanity of Satan's return, all while Satan was turned into a glowing green fluid by his father (who was sent to the dark side) and buried underneath an old church. Overseen by a secret group of priests, this green liquid starts to formulate with the death of the latest guardian revealing to a Priest (Donald Pleasance) that Satan is ready to return. Teaming up with physician Professor Howard Birack (Victor Wong) and students, the group must now fight back against this being by deciphering what it is, what it is capable of, and then having to wing it to fight back in the end. In other words, this film is absolutely insane. Yet, it is this insanity that makes Prince of Darkness so appealing. Playing fast and loose with logic and timelines, the only bits that are important are that this pile of green liquid is super powerful, takes over people to do its bidding, and then will slowly possess the body of one of the people to fulfill its goal of bringing its father back through a mirror portal. This all sounds like something Carpenter dreamt up, yet it all somehow works. The corny acting, the cheesy plot, and the B-movie aesthetics, are what gives the film its charm and makes it such a blast to watch. While hardly a concrete reason to love a film, as one can easily enjoy a bad film, Prince of Darkness is one those films that has such an immersive and well-thought out world that any absurdity, silly turns, or insanity is forgiven. It creates a world that is so easily dove into and enjoyed that the audience goes along with this insanity and wants to jump right back in when the film ends. It is a cinematic experience like few others, creating a world so enticing, unique, and thrilling, that it feels like cinematic cocaine. One hit of Prince of Darkness and you are hooked, begging for the film to just give you a little bit more or to simply never end. While the concept of this film is absurd on the surface, it is Carpenter who breathes life into this odd script and weird collection of events and characters. Delivering a slow build-up with the one-by-one elimination of the physicists, the realization of what is happening, and the slow return of Satan just in time for the finale. Carpenter's perfect pacing allows the film to unravel at just the right pace to keep the viewer on edge and jumpy. With the surrealist dreams as a great added touch on top of this, the ominous hints about what is to come only further serve the film's tension and fantastic atmosphere that leaves you hooked to see what is coming next. As with all Carpenter films, one of the film's greatest assets is undoubtedly its score. With a great synthy, ominous, and greatly creepy score, in its back pocket, Prince of Darkness sets the tone early and often with Carpenter often relying on the score alone to add tension to seemingly innocuous events. Yet, it is not the type of score that becomes overbearing or a film that becomes too reliant on its score to scare. The events depicted do that well enough. However, the score amplifies these scares and the tension, creating a terrific atmosphere that keeps on edge and makes the scares that much more effective. The audio as a whole does the same with little bumps, creaks, and other noises giving the film a great edge and bite to it that keeps audiences guessing as to what that sound was or simply creeped out as to what we just heard coming from the other room or the other side of a wall. Sound is often Carpenter's strongest asset and Prince of Darkness exemplifies why that is often the case in his films.
The Circle is a film that came out at the perfect time. With news reports rife with information about how integral Facebook or Google have become in our lives, how dependent we are on our phones, he loss of privacy, and the centralization of information to these corporations with profit-based incentives, The Circle could have been a film that shined a light into this dark world. Unfortunately, as it spins and sputters along, it becomes increasingly clear that this timely film with some thoughts and ideas on its mind is going nowhere. Seemingly never starting its engine and leaving its ideas undercooked, The Circle is a film that is filled with bloat and poor acting until it just ends with nary a whimper. While not boring and occasionally thought-provoking, The Circle is one of those films that just seems unfinished with the audience constantly waiting for the inciting action to occur, right up to the moment that the credits start rolling. The Circle introduces us to Mae Holland (Emma Watson). A boring girl who seems to do nothing but kayak and work at The Circle, Mae is a useless character but she is nonetheless the audience surrogate into this insane world. Getting a job at The Circle through her bland - but Scottish - friend Annie (Karen Gillan) and meeting the mysterious founder Ty (John Boyega) who is wary of what he creation became, Mae gets inducted into this cult of a workplace, hangs with CEO Eamon Bailey (Tom Hanks), and deals with her father's (Bill Paxton) multiple sclerosis as well as having to cope with seeing her parents have sex via a hidden camera. Dumping up exposition for the entire first act but never really explaining anything beyond "Mae really likes kayaking", The Circle (the company) remains a mystery. Seemingly a take on Facebook and social media, the film tosses out attempts to explain what it is and does so half-heartedly but nonetheless throws terms at the audience and companies (True You) that it assumes the audience will figure out what they are/mean, but never holds their hand. While this is welcome in many films, The Circle is not a film that can get away with this lax approach. Not only does it dump out exposition throughout about the inner workings of the company and Mae's family life only to come back and short change the audience on other crucial information, but this information seems to play a role in the story and relies on terms and sites that do not exist. Some explanation - even forced - would be welcome to let the audience acclimate. In both dumping exposition and not, The Circle builds an interesting world on the campus of this mysterious social media giant that has its hands in everything and wants even more power, but it never seems to really go anywhere with all of this. Instead, the film introduces a new product that gives them even more product, cuts back to Mae's family life and her kayaking, before then hinting at some cover-up. In watching the film, it is assumed the plot will start here. But, no. Instead, we learn more about Mercer's (Ellar Coltrane) antler chandelier that he makes, his fights with people on social media about him being a "deer killer", Mae's attempts to be more transparent by broadcasting her life 24/7, and her strained relationships with everybody. Then, the film comes back and mentions the whole conspiracy thing again but then it forgets about it in time for the credits to roll. The Circle is a film that seems to never start or figure out what story it wants to tell. Is this a film about a company having too much power? Is it a film that pulls back the curtain to show how little privacy we have left? Is it a film that celebrates the lack of privacy? Is it a film about health care? Is it a film about Mae kayaking? The Circle certainly does not know, instead it barrels forward to a conclusion that might finally reveal what it was all about and building towards. However, with an ending to do nothing more than hint at more things to come, The Circle ends and will leave audiences wondering if scenes were abruptly cut off of the ending. While The Circle never seems to figure out if it truly wants to be a techno-thriller with the plot to match, the film meanders about and seems reluctant to delve into a plot. Representing a lack of belief on the part of the writers in their ideas, the film seems content to just show Mae's kayaking, her adventures with Mercer, her facetime with Annie right before the climax, get used to working at The Circle, hang out at parties, and more. Avoiding the plot and the apparent shady dealings going on at The Circle to leave audiences guessing as to what Eamon was really up to at the company, the film is one with considerable bloat. Beating around the bush to the point that it drags considerably with excessive, unnecessary, and underdeveloped subplots, The Circle is a film that never dedicates adequate time to its story to make it one worth watching.
In recent years, there seems to be a run of somewhat comical biopics with a frat bro edge to them in the aftermath of The Wolf of Wall Street. Films such as this one, The Big Short, and War Dogs, certainly seem to check similar boxes in showing their protagonists do horrible things. Yet, in finding comedy in the absurdity of what their protagonists did, the underlying cover-ups and corruption at hand, and the sheer insanity of the coke-fueled antics ongoing in the film, it is hard to define these as anything less than greatly entertaining. In fitting squarely into this sub-genre, American Made certainly limits itself to some degree. Consistently coming back to pointing out how crazy everything that goes on is with director Doug Liman winking and nudging the viewer every few seconds and saying, "Look at this **** Ain't this just wild?", the film does become rather tiresome. In saying that, American Made is a film that features one of Tom Cruise's very best performances and is greatly entertaining cinema, even if that bit is incredibly fleeting. Set in the late-1970s and early-1980s, American Made details the exploits of pilot Barry Seal (Tom Cruise) and his work for the CIA and the White House. Initially just taking photos of communists in Central America before graduating to being a bag man in Panama, arming the Contras in Nicaragua, and later delivering cocaine for the Medellin Cartel in Colombia, Seal's journey is one that goes right up to the top under the direction of Ronald Reagan. While Liman may not necessarily do the material justice and even with many embellishments along the way, it is hard to say that the story is not the film's greatest asset. At all times, this absurd and comical true story is one so crazy that it has to be true. In detailing the government's involvement in Central America, the lack of organization with the Contras, and the rise of the Medellin Cartel, American Made may not be revelatory or original, but it works all the same. The reason why the film winds up being so entertaining, thrilling, endearing, and engaging, is because of how compelling its story is with a great political kick and cover-up angle to add solid intrigue to the film. In telling this story, Liman does a great job in doing two major things: creating the right look and feel for his throwback 1980s notalgia appeals and making the documentary-style work. For the former, the grainy footage, music, cocaine, and old school photos, all combine to giving the film the right free-wheeling and drug-induced atmosphere to really sell itself. In telling a story littered with horrific human beings, it is imperative that American Made nonetheless make itself entertaining and show the short-sighted appeal of their lifestyles. With the frenetic fun and lavishly extravagant lifestyle led by Barry Seal, it is hard to not get swept up in the chaos and fall in love with the way the film tells its story through this misguided guise of nostalgia. For the latter, the film's documentary style is one that plays perfectly into the style that Liman once displayed in the first Bourne film. Heavy on close-ups, handheld camera, and even some shaky cam, this blend of found footage and docu-style gives the film a greatly frenetic feeling that makes every shot kinetic. Everything seems to be colliding and rushing forward in this film with every shot adding fuel to the fire. Matching the manic nature of Seal's lifestyle, his rapid rise to the top, and quick fall to rock bottom, the film's style is one of its greatest appeals. With Tom Cruise bringing great energy and earnestness to the picture in the lead role, the film's frantic and deeply charismatic display of the life of this man making runs for the CIA and White House turns into a film that seems to have pushed the gas pedal through the floor. There is hardly time to breathe with American Made acting as a whirlwind of pepped up energy. With Cruise dominating in the lead role, it is no surprise that American Made is incredibly watchable as Cruise often makes his films just that when he is on his game. He certainly is here alongside a solid performance from Sarah Wright as his wife Lucy, a strong and unexpected appearance from Jesse Plemons as the Sheriff in Mena, and Caleb Landry Jones as Lucy's dimwitted brother JB. All three give the film great spark in supporting roles, especially Jones' deeply stupid and redneck character that acts as a parasite in the Seal household. However, where the film does slack in the acting department is Domhnall Gleeson. As I will later touch on, American Made's greatest issue is its tone and this is a problem that Gleeson never really helps. Always awkwardly being introduced, seeming uncertain of how serious or comedic his lines should be, and playing like a character cut from an entirely different film, Gleeson gives a performance that is far below his usual standards. Unlike Cruise, he never elevates the material. Instead, he plays right
For the first time in his career, Guy Ritchie is likely happy he directed Swept Away because without its existence, King Arthur: Legend of the Sword would have firmly established itself as Ritchie's worst effort in his career. Entering in the illustrious pantheon of bad films that bomb after being intended to start a franchise, King Arthur: Legend of the Sword is everything that is wrong about blockbusters today. Cliche and riding the hero's journey too closely, the film's special effects ridden action, frantic cutting (even beyond Ritchie's norm), and awkward injections of "humor" during tense or thrilling moments, the film is a hodge-podge of everything that studios believe audiences want. Unfortunately, as is often the case in these failed franchise starters, it turns out that audiences do not want to watch an incomprehensible, poorly edited, poorly acted, and exceedingly dull film. The tragic part about King Arthur: Legend of the Sword is that it starts off pretty well. With his castle under attack, King Uther Pendragon (Eric Bana) defends his people by using Excalibur to decisively cut through the invaders' forces and kill their leader. Unfortunately, he did not count on his brother Vortigern (Jude Law) having turned on him. Sacrificing his to become more powerful, Vortigern kills Uther and tries to take Excalibur, but Uther turns into a stone with the sword in his back. Setting up the legend of the sword with his son Arthur drifting off in a boat and being found by a group of women Moses-style, being destined to pull that sword out of him and liberate England from Vortigern. Though he is unwilling and tries to throw away his destiny (the classic cut-and-paste scene of the Lady of the Lake rising with the sword to give it back to Arthur that is in every King Arthur movie apparently), this destiny is not one he can run from unless he is willing to see Britain descend into darkness. Becoming the man who will liberate his people (Moses again), this prophet who is persecuted by the King (Moses again, but also Jesus to some degree) must rise to the occasion via the Hero's Journey to save England. Though cliched to a fault, the story is nonetheless one that can become gripping with Ritchie's occasionally sharp script delivering the fantastical journey and thrills necessary for a King Arthur film. Unfortunately, shortly after the film's strong opening, things begin to go awry. In other words, Guy Ritchie takes over. Known for his rapid cutting, Ritchie seems to forget he has already cut 15,000 times before unleashing another round of 15,000 shots of Charlie Hunnam's face on the world. Immediately after the credits, he shows Arthur growing up from a young boy to a man with intensive training and odd encounters in his brothel home. Rapidly skimming through time, the headache-inducing sequence tragically sets the tone for a film that puts a premium on rapid cuts and slow-mo action instead of story. So brief, distracting, and inconsequential, this particular montage would have been better if replaced by a "20 years later..." bumper before just cutting to Arthur being a ripped Englishman set to encounter his destiny. Reliant upon these rapid cuts throughout, Ritchie - as expected - uses it frequently as characters tell a story to somebody who was not there - such as Arthur giving an account of his whereabouts to a police officer with Ritchie flipping through the flashback and the present day with the flashback often matching Charlie Hunnam's every it of dialogue - or to toss in flashbacks and foreshadowing about Arthur's destiny, but where the film truly lacks with this rapid cutting are in action scenes. Rendering them nonsensical and often incomprehensible, Ritchie tries desperately to cover up the poor special effects with this flashy editing style, but it unfortunately has the opposite impact. Instead, these flashy cuts only serve to highlight the often poor special effects that are found in this film, especially as Arthur duels with officers towards the end. Cutting, pausing, slowing things down, and spinning the camera in a circle around the action, Ritchie tries every trick in his arsenal to make the scene look good but does nothing more than confuse and nauseate. Furthermore, it is a clear attempt to manipulate the audience into feeling tension and thrills during the action - especially as Arthur and his friends run from the cops with Ritchie rapidly cutting, using an extreme close-up with a handheld camera, and sprinkling in shaky cam into the scene - as even Ritchie can see that the film is not all that original. Trying to inject originality and beat back claims of predictability with these drawn-out and "stylish" action scenes, Ritchie only manages to further highlight his film's hollow nature. This half-hearted attack at style over substance only serves to prove this as he relies upon it like a crutch to make up for the film's thin writing and run-of-the-mill approach to Arthurian legend.
Cute and fluffy, Last Chance Harvey is unchallenging cinema with two fantastic leads as Emma Thompson generously gives geriatric Dustin Hoffman one last shot at love in spite of the fact that he is a horribly neglectful father. Fortunately, as a Manic Pixie Dream Middle-Aged Woman, Thompson's neurotic, always understanding, up for anything that benefits Harvey (Hoffman) after knowing him for a day, and easily alterable schedule, character hardly cares. The age gap - and Hoffman's appearance - are so bad that I initially thought that he was playing her father with Thompson's Kate being tasked with setting her aging father up with some other woman from the home. It is only later that I realized that, no, they were meant to be together. Though Hoffman may look a young 71, Thompson was still about 49 in this film. If she was gold digging, she may as well marry some guy closer to the grave or who at least has any gold. A cliche, simplistic, and largely run-of-the-mill romantic comedy about an old man finding out what finally matters: family and love. Though a cliched and predictable scrap heap of romance genre cliches, Last Chance Harvey somehow does work. Its success is perhaps because it is often adorable, but largely can be credited to its leads. While Hoffman and Thompson have a considerable age difference between them, they nonetheless click. Playing off one another very naturally when given the room to do so, the pairing does make sense when they just walk around London and chat. Displaying great chemistry and their usual wit, the happy couple work perfectly with one another and truly sell the romance. Though the writing is often slack, the earnestness of Hoffman's performance and the manic turn from Thompson do bring life to the dialogue and plot. Allowing the audience to truly feel their every emotion - namely Harvey at his daughter's wedding in his speech or Kate as she tries to wrap her around a man wanting her again - Last Chance Harvey manages to be a film that is oddly affecting and always adorable. Without Hoffman and Thompson at the center of this film, Last Chance Harvey would just be a dull, predictable, and dry romantic comedy that somehow everyone's parents have a copy of that has a permanent home on the bookshelf. However, what does truly hold this film back is its plot. Contrived and predictable, the plot just never works. For the former, Last Chance Harvey seems to operate in some alternate universe. On the day of his daughter's wedding, Harvey wants to get back to New York on a flight at 1:30 PM from London. Skipping out on the reception to do so, he nonetheless arrives late and states that the flight is about forty minutes from taking off. Placing his late arrival at about 12:50, the traffic beforehand likely means his daughter's ceremony began between 11:00-11:30. From there, he went to the airport where he was late. Meeting Kate, having a late lunch with her, getting a drink with her, walking around with her through the airport, racing to catch up with her to go to a totally different part of London instead of going to his hotel, walking around London, waiting around for her as she goes to a writing class for an hour, and then walking around again, Harvey clearly has a rather full day. By the time it is over, it is revealed that is approximately 7:00 PM. Stating that he left the wedding before the reception, which he says is likely over by now, Kate tries to get him to make it right before the end. Successfully convincing Harvey to go to his daughter's reception, the pair stop to buy Kate an appropriate dress for the occasion. Even if they rushed, the walk over, the trying on of multiple dresses, and the purchasing of them, likely places them leaving the store at around 8:00. Likely later. By the time they get back across town to where the reception is, it has to be about 8:45. Yet, fortunately enough, THE RECEPTION HAS NOT EVEN BEGUN. Harvey arrives just in time for the best man speech, the speech from the father, the father-daughter dance, and all of the partying. I understand, of course, that the reception may not start until later in the evening if the ceremony is so early in the day, but damn. How late did they intend on starting? Why did Harvey think it would be over if he should have known damn well that it did not start until about 9:00 PM? Why did everybody stay? If a wedding I attended had a reception that started no less than 10 hours after the ceremony started, I would have bolted. Even if I intended to stay, the suicidal thoughts that started around hour three of waiting for Harvey to finally arrive would have seen me book it for the door. Yet, no, the full house is eager and ready to go. Timing the start of the reception with when Harvey finally arrives - even though he was not expected to be there - there seems to be no animosity or confusion as to why the reception literally refused to ever start. Presumably it was delayed, as everybody is still dressed up.
The Bad Batch is the first American film from Iranian director Ana Lily Amirpour. Just a few years ago, Amirpour launched onto the scene with A Girl Walks Home Alone at Night. A chilling black-and-white vampire film, A Girl Walks Home Alone at Night was a slow and thinly written film, but one with enough atmospheric tension and narrative progression to complement Amirpour's stylish visuals. The Bad Batch, however, does not possess the same quality. Rather, this desert-set and sun-drenched film about a young girl named Arlen (Suki Waterhouse) who is sent to a prison for undesirables set in a portion of land south of Texas that is claimed by no state, is one that has many stylish sequences but just has nothing under the surface. There is no readily apparent theme, idea, or narrative hook to this film. It is devoid of tension or intrigue, both of which were found readily in Amirpour's prior film. Instead, The Bad Batch serves an indulgent excuse to wander around the desert with a model who cannot act. The film's strongest element is certainly its visuals. Though just a mishmash of Amirpour's inspirations from, mainly, western films or more modern drug-infused indie films, The Bad Batch is nonetheless an often gorgeous work. The classic western low-angle shot of a person walking towards the camera from a distance with the sun at their back is utilized here and looks terrific. Shots of the terrain or even the blue-lit shots in the home of The Dream (Keanu Reeves) are often rather gorgeous. However, the pinnacle of this film is when Arlen takes drugs at a concert held by The Dream. Tripping with the camera spinning about, rapidly cutting, and lit by the blue aura of the moon, this sequence is one that really captures the moment perfectly. With this editing technique, Amirpour simulates the feelings of being on drugs rather well. Her distorted vision and her dangerous encounter with cannibal Miami Man (Jason Momoa) really do ramp up the tension as she is unable to decipher what is going on, who he is, and what could happen to her as she trips out of her mind. Often visually gorgeous, The Bad Batch is a film that can be defined as a hypnotic fever dream. Unfortunately, though it may possess the colorful and stunning visuals, it also shares the confusion, lack of cohesion, and shallowness, of a fever dream. This is largely communicated via the plot's lack of narrative thread. Jumping from event to event as Arlen traverses this territory that holds people in the "bad batch", the film seems to lack any forward motion. Things occur, she has a bad encounter with cannibals, she is upset and goes to get revenge, she stops getting revenge randomly, she has to find Miami Man's daughter, she does not for a while, and then she finally starts looking only to meet him again. There is just nothing to grab onto. It is a plot that sort of just floats by with nothing but stunning visuals to hold it together. A lot of this issue is contributed by the film's absolute lack of dialogue. Thinly written films are fine, but the problem with The Bad Batch is that too often the dialogue is so sparse it is only used as exposition or to explain the thematic meaning of events or phrases. Often on-the-nose - The Dream explaining what "the dream" means or Arlen asking Miami Man why he is in the "bad batch" - and exposition-laden, the dialogue in the film's random appearances are never really welcome. Never illuminating anything regarding the constantly shifting direction of the plot, never really building characters, and only serving to explain what is happening at a certain location, The Bad Batch is just a hollow endeavor that lacks any meat on its bones. Of course, there is no requirement that a film tell a story. There does not need to be a narrative thread to a film to justify its existence, but then two things must be true. However, it then has to have great thematic depth to provide substance to the film-viewing experience, be character-driven, or be shorter. On all three fronts, the film fails. At an overlong and bloated two hours, the aforementioned lack of characters hardly helps matters with Amirpour hesitant to ever write anybody in this film beyond one-dimension. With regards to its themes, the film hints at some intrigue regarding The Dream and his harem of women, how Comfort runs on drugs, and more, but it hardly does anything with these items. Rather, it just presents it as it is, never explains how he got the money and place to live in a desert prison, and moves on. Amirpour never dedicates time to exploring his lifestyle or, when it does, it just comes out and explains what it all means. With such thin writing, The Bad Batch is hard to describe as anything better than vapid and pretentious. It has nothing going on in its mind of any depth and when it does, it just comes right out and says what it is about via simplistic metaphors ("the dream is inside me" or growing fruit).
The Witches of Eastwick is a natural follow-up to the Mad Max series for director George Miller. I mean, what else was a man who directed a trilogy of gritty Australian action movies expected to make? This New England set suburban fantasy horror comedy focuses on three women. Divorced, deserted, or widowed, from their husbands, the trio of Jane (Susan Sarandon), Sukie (Michelle Pfeiffer), and Alexandra (Cher) are lonely and occupy their time by hanging out with one another and their kids. In other words, they have no lives left whatsoever beyond discussing how they hate men and desperately want to meet the perfect guy. In steps the mysterious Daryl Van Horne (Jack Nicholson). Bewitchingly devilish, Daryl manages to rope in these three women and successfully seduces all of them, turning them into his little sex slaves. A comedy for the whole family, The Witches of Eastwick is a battle of the sexes for the ages. Throughout this film, men are really criticized. Even Daryl gets in on the action, lamenting how men kill women in marriage by squeezing out every bit of life in them, arguing that men keep women oppressed due to their own self-consciousness over **** size and power, and believing that women blossom once they ditch the men in their life. For the trio of witches/women, they whole-heartedly agree and see men as slick, repulsive, arrogant, and selfish. Yet, they cannot help themselves. Once they hear Daryl say he wants them, even if they would normally say no and do not find him attractive, they give in to his every whim. On the other hand, Daryl goes from praising women for their ability to give birth and produce milk to ripping them apart as nothing but a mistake and curse from God. After giving them so much, he is baffled as to how they could now reject him. How could they want more? He has already given them the world and powers previously inconceivable! Why are these women so unsatisfied? However, the truth lies in the relationship between men and women. Unless you are gay, the fact that men and women do not work together at times yet desperately need one another at all times will personally impact your life. Even then, you may hear friends in relationships lament about how awful their mate is, yet then express love for them to the next day. This "cannot live with them, cannot live without them" element is very much the status quo at times. Going from loving to being annoyed, The Witches of Eastwick oddly enough perfectly exemplifies this turbulent relationship, though shown between witches and the devil himself. If nothing else, it shows that nobody is immune from the strife that arises between two vastly different people coming to live with one another and build a life together as a single entity. This on-again and off-again relationship is one also shown by Clyde (Richard Jenkins) and wife Felicia (Veronica Cartwright) once she breaks her leg and becomes a tool for the devil to punish her incessant warnings about Daryl's home. Annoyed with her, Clyde is nonetheless beholden to her - as he rips his own reporter, Sukie, in a story about Daryl after Felicia begged him to do so - and annoyed with her - as he works the fire and gets some nefarious ideas and actions regarding his now grating wife. Yet, these extremes of sacrificing everything to sometimes wanting to ring their neck (not literally) is what defines the relationship between men and women. In The Witches of Eastwick, Miller showcases just how challenging it can be, especially when it is three women versus one man. Furthermore, the film often exemplifies the ideas of Laura Mulvey. To Mulvey, women in film have two roles. One, that of child-rearer. Second, as castrator due to their incessant **** envy. For the former, the film shows them all get pregnant or be mothers with Daryl lauding women's ability to get pregnant and carry a child to term. For the latter, the women frequently talk about the size of men's **** and what they would prefer only to later give Daryl's voodoo doll a very noticeable member. Often **** these women - especially as they seduce Daryl later in the film - The Witches of Eastwick is a film that is all about ****. Men have them. Women do not. Men are protective and self-conscious. Women want them. Why? **** represent power. Men must shield theirs and push women down to ensure that they can keep the power. Women want the power and will come straight for the jugular to get this power. By the time the women take down Daryl, we see his shriveled body and later see him as just a head on a television set where the women have the remote to shut him off. Losing his ****, and thus his power, Daryl is now beholden to the whim of these women as they have, effectively, castrated him while nonetheless giving birth to his children. Exemplifying this role of castrator and child-rearer, these women are ones who want the power and will stop at nothing to take it all from Daryl.
A thrilling and fantastical return to the Bureau of Paranoramal Research and Defense, Hellboy II: The Golden Army is far less gothic than its predecessor and, in focusing more on the fantasy element, is a great improvement on its already strong first entry. Far more in Guillermo del Toro's wheelhouse as more of a fantastical fairy tale with fairies, elves, and children reading those very same fairy tales, Hellboy II: The Golden Army starts off with informing the audience about the war between humans and elves. Born with a hole in their heart that is filled with earthly possessions, humanity sought to wipe out every other being on Earth. The only ones standing in their way were the elves who raised a golden army that was indestructible. Destroying the humans in numbers that disturbed the Elf King, a truce was reached for the elves to stay in the forest with two pieces of the golden crown that controls the Golden Army and the humans to stay in the cities with one piece of the crown. However, when elvish Prince Nuada (Luke Goss) returns and is determined to raise the Golden Army to wipe out humanity, it is on Hellboy and the gang to save the world once again. Central to this work is the role of Hellboy and his other supernatural friends in this world of humanity. However, it is largely through the guise of exploring those who are different. In his work, Del Toro is known for exploring creativity, fairy tales, those with their heads in the clouds, and those who are different from others for these reasons - namely Pan's Labyrinth and now again in The Shape of Water, as examples - and here, in Hellboy II, he firmly establishes this group as one of outsiders. Hellboy is equated to Frankenstein's monster as the people accuse him of harming a child even though they can plainly see he did not. Abe Sapien is equated to the Creature from the Black Lagoon. Liz (Selma Blair) feels "looked at" and scrutinized due to her fire-based abilities. The trio feel excluded and like outsiders to the world around them, yet they fight for this world all the same. Though they feel rejected and like outcasts, their wish to fit in is one that overwhelms them. Yet, at the core of it all, is their belief that there should be no boundaries. Abe falls in love with the Elf Princess. Hellboy and Liz are in love. There is inter-species romance in the air and this eclectic group of weirdos embrace these differences. Though rejected by the humans, they nonetheless fight for them because they love their differences, respect them, and wish to protect them and their culture when it is under attack. It is for this same reason that Hellboy struggles to kill a god of the forest and, later, the dangerous elf Prince. Waging war on the humans to maintain their own culture, the elves' cause is one that Hellboy sympathizes with entirely. The prince plays on this sympathy and continuously tries to win him over to his side, warning that the humans will never accept him and his differences. Yet, to Hellboy and the others, the humans are not the ones waging war. Though they may, that is not their concern in the present. Rather, no matter what pull they feel to defend the elves, they must defend those that they are entrusted to protect and those that have remained peaceful to other species in recent times. In the end, for this bad of misfits, the most important thing is acceptance, peace, and understanding. Those who wage war must go as their anti-cultural beliefs are ones that do not gel with them - see the **** in the first film - and though they wish to fight for all cultures to remain, there is a line to not cross that the elves have very flippantly disregarded. In this regard, the film perfectly uses the "end of the world" trope that has often maligned superhero films in recent years. Though the elvish prince does wish to unleash the Golden Army on humanity that would certainly wipe them out, the film has it all make sense. Rather than some nonsensical plot where it becomes clear that the villain has nothing but blood lust, the backstory and development of the elvish prince allows us to understand his plight perfectly. As a result, he is a strong villain as though reject his actions, his reasoning and cause are ones that are rather noble. Viewing his father's actions as ones that have eliminated the elves from the world, he wishes to restore his culture as one to be proud of and one that instills great respect wherever it travels. His violent ways are not the right path, but his cause makes sense and his method of rectifying these wrongs make sense as well. In essence, it often doubles as a symbol of nuclear warfare. With certain destruction of the enemy when using the Golden Army, one must exercise great caution in using the weapon. Yet, as with the Americans and Soviets, the elvish prince is fighting for a way of life and a culture. He is willing to press the red button and unleash the army to do so. As a result, he must be stopped even if his
John Carpenter's Vampires is one of those 1990s action films that honestly gives audiences a constant state of deja vu. Though we may know we have never seen this film before, the plot, characters, action, and dialogue, are so intensely generic that it feels very familiar. Fortunately, in this cheese and camp, Carpenter does manage to make a rather entertaining film but to call it any good would be quite the over-statement. As resident gun and stake-toting badass Jack Crow, James Woods and crew are tasked with hunting down vampires for the Vatican. However, upon finding a nest in the desert and not finding its "master", Crow and crew stumble upon a supremely powerful vampire, Jan Valek (Thomas Ian Griffith). A 12th Century Priest who renounced God and was turned into a full-on vampire by a botched exorcism done with a black cross, Valek is searching for this cross once more to complete the ceremony which would allow him to become immune to the effects of the sun. Though possessing interesting twists to vampire folklore, Carpenter's film is just so cliche it is hard to truly endorse this film as anything better than aggressively average. Turning vampires into a Hawksian western, John Carpenter does add a nice bit of stylistic flair to the lore. This element is certainly bolstered by the strong cinematography from Gary B. Kibbe, which gives the film the gritty and decidedly western look that Carpenter so desires. This visual element is just one of the appeals of the film, as Carpenter's additions to the vampire story are often rather interesting. Dispatching of the lore regarding garlic or crucifixes, Carpenter's vampires can only be killed via the sunlight or a stake through the heart. Though revealed through rather grating exposition right after we learned all of this information, these interesting touches make the vampire a far more formidable foe and one that must be fought via action, not with words. This crusade, as a result, becomes one with great stakes and purpose as these are not, "a bunch of **** **** hoppin' around in rented formal wear and seducing everybody in sight with cheesy Euro-trash accents." Rather, they are strong and powerful beings that are fully endowed with the dangerous power their sin has brought them. However, Carpenter approaches this film is such a generic fashion. With an action lead loaded with one-liners, a tragic past that influenced him to become a vampire slayer (and one he mentions every five seconds to give him a backstory), superiors who want to hold him back, a crew of friends who mostly die, an ally who stabs him in the back at the climax, and a super villain who wants to become super strong and is searching for that which will complete his strength, Vampires is a film that feels more akin to one made by Marvel than John Carpenter. Known for his unique worlds filled with cheese and adventure, Vampires is one with a great look that just never establishes worthwhile characters or a valuable plot. Instead, it is just more of the same in the action genre, complete with a badass tragic hero, a fun friend, and a damsel, all of whom must go into battle against this wicked being. Carpenter's action scenes further betray his established style by simply being generic and repetitive. Each gory showdown with the vampires is exactly the same as the last one as Carpenter relies too heavily on the crutch of dragging them out into the sun or the in-close hand-to-hand combat preceding them being out by the Jeep. The scenes play out the same each time and never really have any tension. Though they may look cool, there is very little substance to them. Instead, it just feels as though Carpenter is running through a checklist on how to make an action scene without any inclination to innovate or change anything. Relying upon his deus ex machina of the sunlight until the very end as the only way to kill them or Valek, especially in the heavily lazy final showdown between Valek and Jack where he fortunately himself in a weakly structured building that can collapse in just the right way to only expose Valek to the sunlight and not bring the whole building down. Lazy, predictable, and exceedingly dull, this action scene exemplifies everything wrong with this film. For such a formidable foe to have such an easily accessible kryptonite simply never inspires any thrill or excitement, robbing the film of a climactic and triumphant feeling of victory. The film is further betrayed by cheesy one-liners and juvenile jokes, namely when the Priest is on the screen ironically enough. Asking the Priest if he got "wood" when Jack threatened to beat him up, the film returns to this as the Priest confesses to getting some "mahogany" at the end of the film at the realization that he could fight these vampires as well. With other cliche one-liners littered throughout this film, the dialogue feels exceedingly lazy as Carpenter reaches deep into his bag of cliches to find ways to lighten the mood.
Perhaps no viewing experience is as jarring and visceral as the one when watching Raw. A French-Belgian co-production directed by Julia Ducournou, Raw is a deeply European work with a slow pace, lots of ecstasy, open sexuality, and a lack of fear in showing shocking violence. A smart look at growing up, finding what makes you happy (perversely enough), and familial strife, Raw is a film that shocks, stuns, and leaves you somehow dying of laughter once it all ends. Above all, it is a film with so many occurrences that make you look away that it becomes hard to even say you saw the film. For about 70% of this film, watching the film through your hands or just flat out looking away is to be expected. Even then, however, Raw is a film that may try a little too hard to shock and stun its audience, but nonetheless, it is one that works with chilling effect. Heading into the weirdest veterinary school ever, Justine (Garance Marillier) must embark upon a hazing ritual that includes having her room destroyed to get her to go to a party, being forced to eat raw rabbit kidney, being forced to have sex with some random guy while covered in paint, having blood dumped on her, and more, this hazing ritual is one that is beyond eccentric. Yet, it signals the beginning of her journey to self-discovery. A theme that is wrapped up at the end as she is urged to find what works for her, what will be her "solution". In essence, what will make her happy and feel satisfied in life. College is very much this place to discover this and if the school, the people, or the hostile environment surrounding her (even the professors hate her) and her cannibalism (a hyperbole for being different and sticking out) are not what she wants or one she feels happy existing in being a part of in her life. Finding people who accept her, embrace her differences, and celebrate those differences, is what Justine must find and her father hopes she will find. The only catch is that she is a cannibal. Otherwise, this is very much a film about a young girl trying to find out who she is and often being shocked about what comes out. Often as a result of this journey of self-discovery, Justine often finds herself in direct conflict with her sister Alexia (Ella Rumpf). Rarely talking in the beginning except when Alexia forces Justine to eat the raw rabbit kidney, the two are shown as being siblings who did not really keep in touch when the elder Alexia started at the veterinary school prior to Justine's arrival. Now that she is there as well, however, Alexia wants to ensure that Justine has the right experience. Taking her under wing, partying, giving her a dress to meet requirements for parties, and showing her the tricks of Brazilian waxing, Alexia is often a rather good sister. Yet, as she hangs out and texts with Justine's gay roommate Adrien (Rabah Nait Oufella), we see the jealousy and rage come out in both of them. Intensely jealous, warning her off of Adrien, eating her finger (wtf), being mocked by Alexia with a cadaver, fighting her in public, and then waking up to a surprise left behind by Alexia, the two of them seem to be in constant competition with one another. A light moment of the two of them trying to pee standing up is even marked with the obvious battle going on between the two. It is a sibling rivalry at its finest and one that often defines this film and Justine's experience at veterinary school. Yet, as with any story of siblings, there are tender moments between the two that show the bond between these sisters. As a result, the film uses this absurd tale of the two young cannibals coming to terms with what they are and finding themselves as a way to explore the unspoken bond between sisters. Though they may be fighting and constantly in competition with one another, even unknowingly with parents or peeing standing up, there is a connection between the two that, when one needs the other, will always take precedence. Incredibly brutal with violence, Raw - until the end - often handles violence very matter-of-fact. As they perform autopsies on animals or reach their hands in a cow's anus, the veterinarian students seem unbothered by what is occurring and the film exudes the same demeanor. Honestly, it may make this film all the more horrifying as it is positioned as being so normal and typical, with no pomp or circumstance surrounding each introduction of violence. The only time the film stalls a bit to let the impact build up comes in the climactic sequence and in the film's final act, both of which deliver a punch. Nonetheless, in this practically casual violence, Raw finds great horror. It makes it seem so natural to eat a man's bleeding head after a car crash or to bite your sibling in a fight and taste their blood. It is sick, twisted, and deeply unsettling, yet is presented in the same way as a coming-of-age story in which a character discovers a love of music. This disconnect is often what makes Raw so jarring
A truly horrifying descent in Dracula lore and superstition, Francis Ford Coppola's take on Dracula is far longer than the original 1931 version, yet so much more terrifying to watch. Demonstrating the backstory to Dracula (Gary Oldman) and providing the vicious vampire with more depth and emotional connection than in the original, Coppola allows his central monster to be felt as an extremely human character who only turned to evil as an expression of his incredible pain. With all of the classic characters from Bram Stoker's Dracula popping up throughout this film, Coppola's bloody descent into the very depths of hell set in Transylvania is one that lingers in the air like a dense, blue or green fog. Chilling to one's very soul, Coppola's take on Dracula may be infamous for the poor acting of Keanu Reeves, but it is so much more than anticipated. With Gary Oldman portraying the titular monster, Coppola's take on Dracula is one laced with menace from the very beginning. Sinister, morose, and sadistic, images of Dracula's demonic horde of women seducing Keanu Reeves' Jon Harker or consuming a baby for strength are seared into the very fabric of this film. However, comes after revealing what has sent Dracula into this hellish descent into sin with Satan as his tour guide. Renouncing God and stabbing a crucifix after learning that his enemies had deceived his bride Elisabeth (Winona Ryder) into believing he was dead, which caused her to kill herself, Dracula turns his back on the Lord rather violently and becomes a vampire. Capturing souls for Satan via the seduction of spiritually vulnerable women such as Lucy Westenra (Sadie Frost), Dracula's discovery that Jonathan is set to marry Mina (Winona Ryder) who is a spitting image of Elisabeta is one that sets him on a course for London. Roping her into his world of sin and evil, Dracula is a man who is intent on mending his broken heart and delves into sin, immortality, and violence, as a method of soothing this ache in his now-dead soul. A shockingly tragic figure who, along with his minions, commits abhorrent violence, Dracula is a man who instills fear into the hearts of all those who hear of him and his ways. Yet, through his anguish, he becomes a man who is sympathetic in the sense that he was once a force for good who, through loss, let his soul and sword be used a weapon of Satan. It is through this that the film's demonic exploits work in spite of the controversy surrounding them and why the film's "love conquers all" finale is so powerful. Tempting and using sin as a weapon against their targets, Coppola shows the bare-breasted demonic concubines seducing Jonathan by sliding through his spread legs and presenting themselves for his pleasure. Seducing him into lusting after them and committing a sin of the flesh, the women secure Jonathan's soul via this method. The disorienting camera work from Coppola and the decision to end the scene by showing the women swarm around a baby to drink its blood make the scene one that sends chills throughout the viewer's entire being. Yet, together with the characterization of Lucy as a sinful, worldly, and intensely sexual seductress of the men in her life, the film demonstrates the path by which one's soul is corrupted. Giving into this temptation leaves them open to sin, one which Lucy fully embraces and one that Jonathan stands strong and resists. This descent into hell and corruption of good is demonstrated in Mina as well. At the beginning, she is envious of Lucy. Well-mannered, strict, and hardly a seductress, Mina is shocked to see nude images in a copy of Arabian Nights. When Lucy sees these images, however, she explains to Mina what is going on, giggles, and puts deviously sexual thoughts into Mina's head and expresses her own. Planting these seeds of sin, Mina is set up perfectly for the arrival of Dracula. Unleashing her inner sexual being, he gives her the carnal pleasure she so desires in the scene in which he takes turns her into a vampire. With Jonathan - her husband - unwilling to go into such sexuality even with his wife, she turns to Dracula as the only possible source of this pleasure and the one who makes her feel most in touch with her most forbidden desires. Demonstrating the immediate ecstasy and pleasure garnered from giving into temptation, Dracula quickly shows the downside with Mina expressing immediate regret and guilt over her sin when she collapses into Jonathan's arms after Dracula leaves. It is through this necessary hellish descent into sin that Coppola expresses the soul of Dracula. A torn, broken, and hideously sinful man, he resents God so he corrupts those that would belong to Him. Putting sin, lust, and deceit, into their hearts due to the wrongs that he perceives to have been done to him, Dracula brings the hellish hurt and anguish of his soul onto the Earth in order to spread the pain, hunger, and forbidden lust that he feels in his soul. He is a man who cannot suffer
Dark, powerful, thrilling, emotional, and bittersweet, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 is one of those films where it flaws are entirely evident through. With contrived action that only serves to prolong the tension of the gang destroying horcruxes, especially in the Room of Requirement, the film seems resistant to finally reaching its ending and overly reliant on this constant need for tension and action. Toss in the prolonged and similarly contrived moments in the bank, the manipulative nature of Harry seeing his dead parents, the visit from Dumbledore in the spirit world, the predictable restoration of Snape's name, the cheap way in which Snape is run off initially, the cheap death of Bellatrix, the easy way in which Voldemort is weakened through telling him the Elder Wand is not his, the cheesiness of the finale, and the horrible name Harry and Ginny gave their son, the concluding film in the Harry Potter series is objectively flawed. Yet, for every simpering second of this film, I loved it. It was everything I could have wanted and more. A thrilling and rousing conclusion to this tale, director David Yates is blessed with the opportunity to just get right into the story. With this ability to make a constantly thrilling work from beginning to end, Yates instantly makes this the best Harry Potter film as it is the only one without long sections dedicated to teenage angst. Sure, we see Neville run off to profess his love to Luna, but it is a throwaway line to break the tension more than anything. Otherwise, this is a Harry Potter film without bloat and excess, instead utilizing every moment to build up to the climax and using every film - hello Chamber of Secrets and Room of Requirement - in the progression of this film that also serves as some stellar, but subtle enough, fan service. After building up for seven films, it is tough to imagine this concluding film to truly match expectations as a thrilling and satisfying wrap-up, but with both the plot and characters, the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 more than satisfies. Having built to an incredible emotional climax, the film may be a bit manipulative, but it always feels authentic. As Harry sees him, Sirius, the wolf guy, and ignores his father, the scene is dripping with emotional authenticity. It is hard not begin choking up as he asks them to always be with him. Though rather low hanging fruit, Yates lends the scene great credibility with strong direction and writing. The writing never seems to be overwrought or melodramatic, but rather appropriately emotional and ringing with authenticity. In a similar vein, the Snape dream sequence is rather powerful even if a tad too long. A strong wrap-up for the character and a reveal of something that is likely obvious, but nonetheless nice to finally see come to the forefront. In retrospect, it also fills in some gaps with the character rather nicely, explaining much of Snape's treatment of Harry and why he was so demanding of the boy throughout. Similarly, giving context to the doe that guided Harry to the sword of Gryffindor is an emotionally resonant touch that is far more subtle, but incredibly powerful once you realize who it represented. As the concluding entry to a fantasy adventure series, the film's final bits of adventure as the gang track down horcruxes is appropriately rousing and thrilling at all times. With the clock ticking down, the film thrills and serves as an incredible mystery work as the kids track down where everything is and what the horcruxes could possibly be. Though, again, the final horcrux may be a bit obvious at this point, Yates handles it strongly and powerfully at all times, allowing the reveal and following scenes to resonate beautifully even if a tad obvious. Interestingly, it is hard to not see the reveal of the final horcrux and Harry's face-off with Voldemort as being used as a parallel to the crucifixion of Jesus. Intended to die to save the world, mocked by his enemies, killed, and then resurrected to defeat his greatest enemy, the parallels are obvious and further cement Harry as the savior of the wizarding world in the face of the absolute evil that wishes to plunge it into darkness. With its action set pieces, the final showdown between Harry and Voldemort is intense and often powerful, even if a bit cheesy at times. The blast of the red and green beams combining with one another as Harry slowly overpowers his foes is gorgeous to watch and a beautiful contrast to the drab gray surrounding them. The powerful face-off is one that may be a bit cheesy in execution, but tossed together with Voldemort breaking into a million pieces like the dead bride in Tim Burton's Corpse Bride is more than worth the wait. It is built up so strongly and with such anticipation over the course of seven films that it was hard to see how the film could ever live up to expectations.
It is through films such as Antonia Bird's Ravenous that one is forced to question whether film criticism is really needed or not. Is there a way to truly qualify just how good or bad this film is? Even if there is, there certainly can be no way to truly tell if a reader would enjoy a film such as Ravenous. On an evaluation of its quality, Ravenous is pretty much best defined as "what the **** When it comes to whether or not to recommend it to somebody, it is best to stay away from that temptation. On a similar note, there is really no way to truly enjoy this, right? Ravenous is hardly the most disturbing film ever made, but its unique blend of comedy, horror, and suspense, is often thrilling, horrifying, and funny, yet just so distasteful that it is hard to truly come away saying it was a great time. The only thing certain about Ravenous is that it made the 20th Century Fox executives who greenlit this project start sprucing up their resumes right after the first screening. Perhaps the best quality presented by Ravenous that tilts it towards being a definitively good film is the score from Michael Nyman and Damon Albarn. Pulsating, thrilling in its own right, and truly unsettling, this constant within the film is really what defines the experience of watching Ravenous. Constantly keeping you on edge with each pounding hammer of a note, the film's score is one that perfectly sets the tone for the events on display. While the cannibalism would unsettle you in its own right, the score takes it a new dimension. It makes bone **** unsettling, frightening, and horrifying. Yet, what is oh so brilliant about Ravenous is how it often allows the score to do the talking. As Captain Boyd (Guy Pearce) races through the woods trying to find Colonel Ives / F.W. Calhoun (Robert Carlyle), the score races through the woods alongside them, creating an atmosphere of pure, pulse-pounding tension. This type of suspense via such a horrifying score is one mastered by a select few horror films and it is one that director Antonia Bird is impressively able to keep as a constant throughout, never letting up on the gas and instead constantly ramming it down the audience's throat, proving that often times the best tension is the kind that cannot be cut with a knife, but rather made into a stew. Where the film further increases its appeal is in its cinematography. Often taking on the style of a western - especially given its setting and the fact that it is about a group of soldiers at a remote outpost - Ravenous' beautiful imagery of the snow landing on the horizon is often quite gorgeous, as is the shot of approaching members of the army as they come to investigate the happenings at the fort. Combined with the far more intimate and close-up shot of Boyd and Private Reich (Neal McDonough) investigating the cave that is lit solely by candelight, Ravenous is a film that often has terrific beauty. For all of the gore and horror on display, Bird never loses sight of the fantastic scenery around them or the haunting possibilities of the perfect lighting in a remote cave where cannibalism is known to have occurred. With this perfect framing and lighting when needed, Ravenous is a film that often truly captures the attention of the eye even when the mind is so unspeakably repulsed by the fact that these men are eating one another. Where the film does slack, however, is in how conventional it can be at times. Playing with classic film tropes of protagonists not being believed by those in power or of the "they are never dead even if you see them dead" horror trope, Ravenous feels very been there, done that in its structure even if its events often cover up this fact. Via the return of Calhoun as Colonel Ives or the resurrection of Colonel Hart (Jeffrey Jones), Ravenous is often a rather contrived film that has very little originality in how it is structured narratively. This is particularly true of its characters with the outsider Captain who is disliked by his superiors, the mysterious stranger who may or may not be trusted, the kooky soldier, the dedicated soldier, the scared soldier/preacher, and the quirky colonel. None of them feel particularly fresh, even if Bird has a lot of fun bringing this odd blend of comedic characters into a horror film. While the film is enjoyable, funny, and thrilling, it is hard to come away not thinking that its cannibalism is not a bit **** to distract from how conventional and cliche it is written. Rarely as daring as it believes itself to be, Ravenous is a film that is pretty glossy on the inside but only to hide the often rough interior work. As a satire and comedy, Ravenous is certainly quite funny and a smart film. Though it is certainly about the military and Manifest Destiny to some degree, the film plays closer to a morality tale regarding sin and temptation.
Last year, Hooptober started for me with Guillermo del Toro's Cronos. Starting off this year with his follow-up to that film and his first English-language work, Mimic, was an easy decision. Unfortunately, Mimic is just alright. Clearly interfered with by Harvey Weinstein and his meddlesome minions at Miramax to make it more commerical, Del Toro's Mimic is perhaps his most conventional plot, his most scattershot, and perhaps his most cliche. Yet, all of this comes underneath the surface of a truly visually stunning work that matches the heights of Del Toro's filmography with pure visual splendor. Matching it with great sound work and creature effects, Mimic is a film with so many great parts that it is crushing to realize that it is truly nothing special, even if its surface details hint at a truly great semi-modern creature feature. Dimly lit at all times with the characters trekking about in the darkness of their labs, homes, or the New York City transit system, Mimic benefits greatly from Del Toro's ominous visual style. Playing out like a gothic horror film with stone walls and ominous dark corners lurking about, Mimic may be a modern film but its old-age stylings contribute to it being a truly haunting film visually. In terms of visual appeal, the darkness contributes to shots akin to The Third Man as they trek out of the dimly lit outside world into a dark tunnel holding unknown creatures. With light poking in from the outside that does very little to alleviate the darkness of the room, Del Toro manages to turn Mimic into one of those horror films that keeps the audience consistently in the dark as to what is occurring due to, literally, how dark the screen is at all times. This creepy production design keeps the audience guessing as to what could be around the corner and with the creatures constantly shrouded in darkness, it is never easy to decipher exactly what is going on. Alongside this fantastic production design, Mimic features a great use of sound throughout. With a menacing score present in all thrilling moments that really sets the tone perfectly, Del Toro keeps the audience on edge through other non-score sound effects. With clicking and the banging together of spoons, Mimic is one that is littered with little pitter-pattering of large bug feet walking about around the subway system. Able to keep the viewer constantly on edge with these ominous noises floating about, Del Toro is often able to scare us solely through suggestion. The chief example of this is when entomologist Susan Tyler (Mira Sorvino) is walking around on the subway platform. Seeing what she thought was a man and asking him for the time only to realize it is a bug, she starts to run away. Stopping to scan the situation, Del Toro uses a high and tight close-up of Sorvino as she looks around with a panicked look on her face. Suddenly, the subway rips by with a violently loud sound. Throwing the viewer right off the edge of their seat, Del Toro does not deliver this fright by showing her confront the bug, but rather through some peripheral sound that is not scary without the requisite atmosphere. With the fantastic production and sound design, Mimic is a film with the perfect atmosphere to pull off such a scare. However, where the film falters is towards the end. Banding together to fight off the creatures they had created to fight off diseased **** that were making children sick years earlier, Susan and a team of three others must sacrifice life and limb to kill these monstrosities. With a cliche-ridden final act as the group face off, needlessly sacrifice themselves, setting up a "final girl", and then tearjerkingly reuniting the lovers involved in this conflict, Mimic ends rather safely. Given that everything in the film was caused by Susan trying to play God, one could not be blamed for assuming that she would face some consequence for this. However, Mimic cheapens out, makes her the hero, and gives her the emotional send-off requisite of an action hero. Toss in a very convenient malfunction and fixing of a lighter to literally blow up the subway system in New York City that does not kill the one who starts the explosion and it is hard to really support Mimic as a good film. For a film from Del Toro, it seems so cliche, safe, predictable, and conveniently plotted, that it is hard to not see the fingerprints of Weinstein all over the film's final act. Beautifully put together with great attention to the set design and the sound design, but with useless characterizations, often iffy acting (Mira Sorvino yelling at the creature to come get her instead of the annoying child really sends chills down your spine due to how horribly she delivered the line), and a dreadfully safe final act, Mimic is simply a mixed bag. It is no surprise that Del Toro came back after a Spanish-language film after this one due to how his vision of this film was standardized and sterilized by Hollywood.
Joining Get Out, Baby Driver, and Wonder Woman, as solid but wildly overhyped films, Andy Muschietti continues to prove that he is a horror director who has no idea how to direct horror films. Excelling when it comes the childhood relationships on display and the mystery regarding the town of Derry, Muschietti directs the horror scenes like an amateur and has to rely on jump scares to actually conjure up any scare or any sense of atmosphere. Had the film lacked its heart - the kids - then Stephen King's It would have been a film that could have been tossed on the pile of other disappointing King adaptations. As it stands, it is a film that is far funnier and endearing than scary and, as a horror film from Stephen King, it should manage to be all of three of these things. Unfortunately, Muschietti's failure to conjure up any scares that have a lasting impact leave It as nothing more than above average film that fails to live up to its considerable hype. What makes the film's scares so dull and uninteresting is two-fold. For one, they are predictable. As the camera pans around a bathroom past Beverly (Sophia Lillis), it is obvious what will be in the corner of the room right behind her. As the kids walk through the Well House, it is obvious where the clown will be and what it will do. As the Jewish kid looks at the painting and the picture is gone, take a wild guess what is now behind him. It is a film that never shocks the audience. There are no chances taken. It is by-the-numbers horror filmmaking, putting Pennywise exactly where he is expected to be and then acting that it is scary anyways just because Pennywise makes some creepy face and sprints at the camera. Rarely does this work and Muschietti would be well served to keep his audience guessing, instead of giving into our every inclination. The best horror films hint at the evil lurking around the corner, but never show it unless the timing and anticipation is just right. For this film, it believes Pennywise to be such a compelling horror figure that it just has to rush him out immediately. Often times in film and in It, the horror is scariest when off-screen. Here, when other kids go missing without their disappearance being shown, the film is laced with a great sense of dread. Unfortunately, all too often, Muschietti gives into temptation and sprinkles Pennywise quite liberally throughout this film. By the end, the result is a clown that does not lurk in the shadows, but out in the open and right behind you every single time. The other element that holds back It's horror impact is its reliance on jump scares. Going hand-in-hand with its predictability, It relies on jump scares or Pennywise running at the screen as his head violently shakes far too often. Gross-out horror and gore are also relied upon at times with similarly minimal impact. Rather than taking the time to build anticipation and an overwhelming sense of dread, Muschietti instead relies upon cheap tricks to steer this ship. Unfortunately, for horror films, reliance on cheap scares is what often undermines their quality and what can make so many quite disposable and forgettable. Though It has a lot to love and some smart themes, it is not really one that can be described as scary. The closest it gets comes as the kids walk around the Well House looking for Pennywise which carries considerable dread and is loaded with classic horror moments that elicit panicked "don't go in there"'s from the crowd. Unfortunately, Pennywise will always pop up right where he is expected to via a pair of jump scares, rendering the scene one with a great build-up but no actual punch. In essence, It not only lacks any imagination for how to elicit fear, but when it does elicit fear, it does so cheaply and in a fashion that rarely actually scares. The film's cliche ending further disappoints. After two-plus hours of the kids coming together to fight bullies and urging one another to stick together, they do just that in facing off with Pennywise. Unfortunately, the scene not only lacks any tension, but it lacks any originality. Pulling off his mask to force this supernatural being to realize that he has no power anymore due to the lack of fear in the children's hearts, the film really sells its own villain short in the process of delivering a cliche, kill the bad guy as a group type of ending. By reducing Pennywise to being nothing more than a physical representation of fear, the film winds up undermining all of the ominous historical development it showed and turns the character into a rather pathetic one. Lacking the menace, horrifying unpredictability, and inevitability of the very best horror villains, Pennywise is a character who is easily defeated once controlled. Though smartly including this to bring the film's themes regarding fear and how to not let it consume you, it really makes for a lackluster villain in a film that needed his menace. Bill Skarsgard plays the role well, but the mightily
Calling a Terry Gilliam film weird and imaginative may be a bit obvious, but it is perhaps never been more true in recent years than in The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus. Hearkening back to his 1980s science fiction adventure fantasy work in Time Bandits, Brazil, or the Adventures of Baron Munchausen, The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus takes audiences on a magical adventure to a world never quite seen before. Guided by an old man, his daughter, little person assistant, and a young guy, this journey is one that has all the right moments of Gilliam's classics and touches on very similar themes to those films from his "Trilogy of Imagination", but never really comes together. The film lacks that "it" factor and a sense of cohesion to make it all come together as a strong work that brings Gilliam's career back to the quality of his peak and not just the same feeling of whimsy. In essence, The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus looks, sounds, and acts like a Terry Gilliam film directed by somebody inspired by Gilliam, not the director himself. In a similar fashion to Time Bandits, The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus is consistently focused upon the concept of good and evil. Depicting Satan via the three-piece suit wearing Mr. Nick (Tom Waits) and positioning Doctor Parnassus as a monk committed to saving people, the film shows the two competing for souls throughout the film that has led to many bets. One such bet resulted in Parnassus' daughter Valentina (Lily Cole) being given to Mr. Nick when she turns 16 and with her birthday a few days away, Doctor Parnassus is in his final hours of trying to save her. When a mysterious stranger, Tony (Heath Ledger), is found hanging on a bridge that Parnassus and his gang were passing over, the opportunity to win back Valentina arises. Given a final bet - first to five souls gets Valentina - and having to rely on Tony to help win over the five he needs, Doctor Parnassus must change his show to win over the five souls and rely upon Tony far more than he should to be able to do so. Inside the Imaginarium, visitors and possible souls are given a choice between good and evil, essentially. Operating with similar themes to Gilliam's Trilogy of Imagination, these choices can often be represented via materialism, promiscuity, or any other temptations. For example, a group of women enter the Imaginarium and to be able to receive self-fulfillment - which is the good path offered by Parnassus - they must shed their wealthy jewelry and accessories. Yet, the path to self-fulfillment is a challenging one. Visualized by having participants climb an incredibly tall set of stone stairs, the option is not one for the weak hearted. Given the challenge, the possibility of "easy ignorance" and fleeting fulfillment offered by Mr. Nick - in one trip, it is visualized as a motel run by Mr. Nick called the "One Nite Stand Motel" - can become impeccably appealing to those unwilling to make the arduous journey to fulfillment. The path chooses ultimately decides who gets their soul for the rest of eternity and, as a result, is a vital decision one must make when they enter the Imaginarium. With this temptation taking center stage in this battle for souls, The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus shows the dangers of giving into temptation and earthly pleasures instead of seeking fulfillment through some benevolent being. Imaginative in this pursuit, Gilliam never really innovates on ideas he previously presented, but nonetheless, The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus is a film so outside of the box in conception that it is hard to find fault. The film's commitment to showing the perils of choosing riches and spoils on Earth is one that even impacts its protagonist and is a strong message, no matter how prevalent of an idea it is in Gilliam's work. The different approach offered in this film and the film's refusal to let anybody off the hook or to avoid their true nature is admirable, demonstrating Gilliam's dedication to show how to find some measure of morality in an inherently immoral - demonstrated via the bars and seedy clubs the troupe operates in - world. However, where the film slips up is in the creation of its world and its themes. It has the beats, the feeling, and imagination, of all of Gilliam's films, but lacks the soul and the heart. It feels too haphazardly slapped together and clearly bore the brunt of its production problems regarding Ledger's death. It never feels like a cohesive work, instead operating as a film that has a set idea on what it wants to be and how it wants to look, but never really figured out how to make either work or how to make it all come together as an enjoyable film. Rather, it often feels incessantly frantic. Rushing through everything and simultaneously dragging - a tough feeling to describe or really create as a filmmaker - The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus has all the bells and whistles, but never really clicks or has the whimsical soul
After loathing Ben Wheatley's last film, High-Rise, my expectations for Free Fire were quite low. Yet, after watching, it is a film that may lose some steam along the way, but it works. Stylish, strongly directed, and terrifically acted, Free Fire manages to invest us in this brief moment at the end of these characters' lives as they engage in a shootout in Boston. Arising out of a weapons deal where one of the men selling the merchandise recognizes one of the buyers as the guy who "bottled" his female cousin and the wrong guns were provided, this hour plus long shootout in an old warehouse is thrilling, engaging, and often quite shocking to watch. Never shying away from violence or unexpected deaths or unexpected characters, Wheatley's film is one that attempts to re-invigorate the action-comedy genre with the kind of spirit found in the work of Quentin Tarantino, but minus all of that distracting plot. Free Fire gets to the good bits and then let's this attractive cast bleed all over the set instead. Like a lead-infused musical, Free Fire hits the right notes and creates sweet music as the bullets fly. Though never particularly deep - throw-away lines regarding the place of the sale being an old warehouse that made things nobody wants anymore or Brie Larson's anger regarding the "bottling" of some girl do not count - Wheatley is still able to make this one have great depth due to smart writing. Ditching the obvious and ham-fisted symbolism of his prior feature, Wheatley instead makes an action film that develops characters through bullets. With each shot defining loyalty and each line delivering some crucial element of the character, Wheatley is able to somehow make us care about people who should, given the lack of real plot or depth, be rather unmemorable. Yet, many stand out in their own way and become quite easy to root for. Given the size of the cast and often chaotic shooting in this warehouse, it could be easy to lose track of everybody, but the fact that each character feels distinct and distinguishable from one another is quite the achievement. Though it may seem a bit facetious or a low-bar for a film, it is all too often that even character-driven or plot-heavy films begin to lose track of who everybody is and what they mean for the story. Free Fire, however, never has this issue and instead develops its character smartly, without any kerfuffle, and without out any distraction. Instead, it neatly introduces them all, gives them all motivation, shows their bonds or lack thereof with the other characters, and then gives them a gun to fight their way out. Tight and smart, the characters in Free Fire are exactly what they need to be and that is all that can be asked. Of course, the acting certainly goes a long way in bringing about this appeal for the characters, as the strong acting across-the-board often serves to breathe life and individuality into these characters. As manic gun runner Vernon, Sharlto Copley brings a real wild card element to this film and plays this crazed lunatic incredibly well. Compared to the more straight-laced Justine (Brie Larson) or business-focused Chris (Cillian Murphy), Vernon's insane gun runner is one that brings that fun and care-free element to the film that often makes it such a joy to watch. For their parts, Larson and Murphy also deliver typically strong performances. Alongside them, Armie Hammer's dapper and charismatic Ord may not be totally out of his range, but it is nonetheless yet another role that he really nails. An incredibly unsung actor somehow, Hammer's laid back charisma is one that makes him easy to believe as a middle man between two criminal organizations, who is responsible for setting up the sale. In a smaller role, Sam Riley continues to scream out for roles akin to the one he received as the lead in Anton Corbijn's Control. Somehow sympathetic - perhaps just because I do like Riley's work - and absolutely insane as scumbag Steveo, Riley gives an unhinged and rage-infused performance that hits all the right notes. Stylistically, Free Fire is an impeccably crafted film with excellent lighting. Relying upon the orange-tinted lighting of the warehouse to provide all of the visibility in the film, the orange tint is appealing visually, but perfect for capturing the era. Set in, presumably, 1970s Boston, the terrific costume design naturally captures much of this, but the lighting further adds to this appeal. Giving it the look of an old photo or a dimly dreamscape of insanity, this orange hue is what defines the look of the film and what adds much of its visual appeal. Wheatley, additionally, injects style via how the shootout is framed. With tight shots of the characters as they hide behind various obstacles, the film rarely shows where the other characters are in relation to whomever is in the shot.
Man, I love Mad Eye. Brendan Gleeson is such a burst of manic energy to this series. Oh no, he is dead now. Well, at least this one added Bill Nighy as the new Minister of Magic. Nighy always makes films great. Oh my God, how are you going to just kill Nighy like that? DOBBY. OH MY GOD DOBBY IS BACK. PLEASE DO NOT IRON YOUR HANDS, FRIEND. HELL YES YOU ARE A FREE ELF. OH MY GOD NO NOT DOBBY TOO. HOW ARE YOU GOING TO KILL DOBBY?! A truly traumatic watch, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 compounds the trauma of killing of Gary Oldman a few movies back by killing three of the other great parts they had going for it. Beyond writing out Kenneth Branagh's insanely narcissistic teacher, under-utilizing Alan Rickman throughout, and seemingly forgetting they have Emma Thompson as a professor, this entry may be the most egregious in killing off writing out the best characters. The worst part is it does this all while letting Ron's teenage angst and jealousy get so out of control that he storms off and ditches the mission that he fully understood would be difficult half-way through. Why kill of Gleeson, Oldman, Nighy, and Dobby, and under-utilize Rickman, Thompson, Branagh, and even John Hurt, if Ron is still allowed to live? Really missed major opportunities in the name of keeping this kid around. As the set-up to the final film and, by extension, the final showdown between Harry and Lord Voldemort, Part 1 of the Deathly Hallows packs a considerable amount of menace throughout, in large due to the excellent opening. As Voldemort kills a hostage and then attacks the Order as they move Harry to a safe location, the film starts off on an incredibly thrilling note. With beautiful special effects as they change into all looking like Harry, great mid-air duels, and a gorgeous combination of Voldemort and Harry's wands fending one another off, the opening of this seventh film is perhaps the best yet in the series. Without meandering or bothering to slow down the pace, the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 drops us right back in the wizarding world and dares us to keep up as it weaves its tale. Starting with its foot on the gas and never letting up - aside from the scenes in the woods to some degree - this first entry into the Deathly Hallows novel is menacing, thrilling, and one that has you constantly looking over your shoulder for Voldemort. Combining this tension with a great central mystery regarding both the horcruxes and the deathly hallows, the film really ramps up the tension nicely. Perhaps the greatest touch is one yet to come in how this introduction of the deathly hallows ties in Harry's invisibility cloak. As the trio of friends traverse the country side in search of these horcruxes, the film really builds up the stakes nicely as they race with Voldemort to find them all and to find all items in the deathly hallows. That said, where the film really trips up is the ending. Showing Voldemort taking the wand from the deathly hallows out of Dumbledore's grave, it really begs the question: who the hell thought the MOST POWERFUL WAND IN THE WIZARDING WORLD would be safe being buried with a dead guy? Did nobody foresee Voldemort just walking on over, exhuming the grave, and then just taking the wand? At this point, Snape playing both sides is hardly the main issue at hand. The issue is the sheer incompetency of the Order of the Phoenix. While the sequences in the woods can often drag, they provide some great character development and shore up the bond between the central trio very nicely. After Ron is manipulated by a horcrux and storms off, Harry tries to cheer up Hermione by dancing with her. Perhaps a superfluous scene to the plot, the sequence nonetheless really brings a smile to your face and shows the connection between the two. Coming right off the heals of Hermione resting her head on Harry's shoulder as he visits his parent's grave for the first time, the two moments show the emotional connection that goes well beyond the events the two are experiencing at the moment. Powerful and moving to watch, these two moments show the growth of these characters into caring young adults who truly love one another and, above all else, want their friends to be happy and safe. These moments are very nicely acted and brought to life by director David Yates, who gives them just the right amount of emotional charge. As in all of the films, Yates gives the film some great imagery along the way. One such shot is one of Ron and Hermione skipping stones in the background with Harry in the foreground. Beautifully framed and a tranquil moment amid the chaos of the impending war, the shot highlights the sheer beauty this series has been able to create at times. The aforementioned combination of Voldemort and Harry's wand beams coming together always serves as a beautiful shot earlier in the film. One of the highlights of the visuals, however, comes when Harry finds the sword of Gryffindor.
If given the chance to re-live your life and change who you become, would you take it? Many would, though Peggy Sue (Kathleen Turner) is not given a choice, rather thrust into this decision after fainting at her 25-year high school reunion. Waking up to realize she no longer has her children Scott and Beth, is still with high school boyfriend and soon to be ex-husband Charlie (Nicolas Cage), and is just five weeks away from graduating high school, Peggy Sue is given the chance to re-live her life. She can put that **** Delores (Lisa Jane Persky) in her place, rectify her main regret and sleep with hopeless Communist romantic Michael Fitzsimmons (Kevin J. O'Connor), help nerd Richard Norvik (Barry Miller) come up with new inventions before they come out by 1985, and help Charlie try to stay in music while breaking up with him at the same time, Peggy Sue takes every chance to change her life. Yet, by the end, she realizes that her life as it was - even with all of the bumps and the pain - was exactly what she wanted all along. Accepting these imperfections in our lives is perhaps the hardest part of growing up. Constantly **** by thoughts about what we could have changed, where we wish we were, and praying that we wake up to find our lives are different, people have coped with these what-if questions, likely, since the beginning of time. There is always something we could have changed, somebody we could have kissed, or something we could have done that, if it were done, would make us happier than we are right now. Yet, it is always a give and a take, which is what Peggy must learn. She is unhappy with Charlie and his philandering ways, but loves her children. Willing to give up anything to have her kids, the first thing she worries about when thrown back into the past is where her locket with their pictures went. No matter how tempting changing her life and avoiding the hurt that awaits her with Charlie is, there is no exception - not even with long-time regret Michael - that will make her want to give up her children or risk losing them as a result. Peggy Sue, nonetheless, is guilty of seemingly forgetting this aspect at times, however. She desperately wants her life to be different and to have never been with Charlie, but he luckily keeps coming back to her at the exact right moment. Seemingly never realizing that to lose Charlie means she will lose her children, Peggy Sue falls victim to what many do. So caught up in regret and what-ifs, she forgets what is right in front of her eyes. Though her life has seen hardship, it is only through this experience back in 1960 that she realizes that all of it was worth it in the end because it got her the two children she adores. No matter how much Charlie may hurt her, being with him begot the best thing to happen to her. Barreling ahead at a slow pace with an unclear plot, our lives may not always be fun or fulfilling, but we all have something or somebody that makes that exact moment worth being around for and not being stuck in the past wondering what could have been. In essence, it is the classic belief that the grass is always greener on the other side. If we had somebody else's life, then we would be happier. Yet, their life is not our own and wishing otherwise will only lead to us missing out on the opportunity to be happy with those who make us truly feel happy and fulfilled. In going back to her youth, Peggy Sue may initially be flustered, but quickly realizes that one of the most important things to alter is her relationships. Heaping praise upon her parents, enjoying the company of her grandparents, hanging out with her sister, and listening to each of them and what they have to say to her, Peggy Sue hits pause on the awkward and chaotic teenage years. Able to soak up every moment with her family that was available to her, but not appreciated due to the fact that she still had them all with her, Peggy Sue is finally able to enjoy the moments she once discounted. Using the years of her life to her advantage, she now knows that these moments are ones to savor, not disregard. In the process, she learns to re-love Charlie. Seeing him as a youthful wannabe pop star with a great voice and even better work ethic, Peggy Sue learns about the lengths that Charlie went to in order to make it, only for her to discount them entirely and constantly advocate for him to quit. By the time he does quit, she realizes it was all for her. His life goal was to be a singer and not work in his dad's appliance store. Yet, by 1985, he is just like his dad, as he runs the appliance store and chases skirts around the store all day. However, at the prospect of losing her, he drops everything in order to be her husband. Though it does not excuse his cheating on her in 1985, these moments in 1960 give her back the perspective she had lost. Now embittered by the relationship, she realizes that they not only had some "good times" together, but remembers why she loved him
Dark, grimy, and disturbing, Midnight Cowboy is not exactly the film I thought it was going to be. I knew it was about a male prostitute, but I thought both Jon Voight and Dustin Hoffman were going to be prostitutes, not just Voight. It was also my assumption that he was not some wannabe prostitute who does not really work, but rather an established one in New York City. Naturally, in line with this, my expectation was to see a lot more sex than I actually got. Now, none of these are bad things, in fact rather good. By not meeting these expectations, Midnight Cowboy manages to actually tell a far more interesting story of a young, hurt Texan boy coming to New York City to try to become a prostitute and meeting an ill loser with a limp who becomes his best friend. As a startling counter-point to the American dream at the height of the Vietnam War, Midnight Cowboy is a very good character study and a pure technical showcase for director John Schlesinger. With this young Texan cowboy Joe Buck (Jon Voight), Midnight Cowboy creates the quintessential American male. Name dropping Gary Cooper or John Wayne as similar ideals of what a man is supposed to be, it is only natural that in the counter-culture 1960s, Schlesinger would take this example of masculinity and throw him into situations unfit for men. Sleeping with women as a prostitute or even partaking with some men when times are hard, as well as going to seedy underground parties with drugs, Joe Buck seems to be a man who could not be further from the old school definition of masculinity even if his look and style of dress say otherwise. Compounding this, he steals readily. Inspired by friend Enrico "Ratso" Rizzo (Dustin Hoffman), Buck begins to rob people or steal small items to attempt to get any small number of funds for the two of them, Buck flies in the face of classic cowboy western stars Cooper and Wayne. Known for playing Sheriffs or simply passer-bys who fight against men who steal land/cattle from others, Cooper and Wayne are strictly on the "right" side of morality. Buck, however, by trading in sex and stealing stands as the complete foil to those classic men, to the degree that he would be an appropriate antagonist in one of their films. Schlesinger certainly hints at this dark villainy by the film's title of Midnight Cowboy. Dark and ominous, the addition of "Midnight" makes it read as being the darker version of a cowboy and, as it plays out, it is very appropriate. In the process, Midnight Cowboy stands as a critique of the American dream. With a small town boy coming to the big city on a bus ride that takes him through quintessential American items - commercial billboards, oil, diners, etc. - the film presents Americana and then shows the polar opposite: the dark underbelly. Showing how this unassuming and innocent boy is quickly corrupted and spit out by the big city, the film shows Joe's journey from renting a small hotel room to being kicked out and having to stay in a condemned building with Ratso. Going from the penthouse in which he spends an afternoon with a rich cougar to the literal sewer with a man nicknamed rat, Joe goes from king of the hill to bottom of the heap in no time whatsoever. As easily as he walked in, New York City and its high barriers to entry spit him out into the gutter with drug-infested parties, dirty homes, and grime around every corner. On the surface, for men such as Joe or others who journey to the big city to achieve their dreams, it all seems so easy. Once they arrive, however, the city and its machinations put up barriers all around that make "making it" a challenge few can accomplish. Unfortunately for Joe, he is not one of those and, as a result, he must live in what can only be defined as "squalor" on a good day. To capture the horrors seen by Joe - even if he does not believe them to be horrors - Schlesinger uses hectic and pretty nifty camera work throughout. Constantly cutting with jarring flashbacks revealing Joe's horrifying past in Texas with his unstable girlfriend, Midnight Cowboy can really only be described as a kaleidoscopic descent into the madness of this grimy and dark world of sin that he has found himself trapped within. Yet, perhaps most interesting is the party sequence. Using what is best described as a picture-in-picture approach at times, Schlesinger shows a shrunken version of the shot in the middle of the screen with the blown up, out-of-focus version of that shot playing in the background. It is deeply unsettling, off-putting, and greatly unique to watch. It really captures the mind-altering and vision-altering impact of drugs and makes what is already a deeply unsettling sequence to watch feel even grimier and more distorted.
Certainly operating with material that is far below what this cast deserves and relying far too much on the age of the characters for comedy (lol they are old and about to die!), The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel is nonetheless a pleasant return to India. Putting the recently amended Stanton-Walsh-Nighy rule to the absolute test, The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel gives Nighy very little to do over the course of its two hour runtime, yet he nonetheless steals the show. Is there anything this senior British charmer could not make passable? The fact that he is 67 years old and looks ten years older is truly tragic. God clearly needs to give him the same immortality that he has given Harry Dean Stanton (that man has looked 92 since he was 50). Setting Maggie Smith up to be killed also serves as a reminder of both her and Judi Dench's mortality, which is tragically coming up upon us. Killing Maggie Smith, however, is the death nail in this, right? There can be no The Third Best Exotic Marigold Hotel unless Nighy just takes over running the hotel, right? Less funny than the first installment, watching the interplay between these British screen legends, this time joined by Richard Gere who, shockingly, plays against type as a charming middle aged man that makes middle aged women's ovaries explode (yes there is a line dedicated to this). Really stepping out of your comfort zone, eh Richard? David Straithairn also joins the cast in a small role and, as always, his performance serves as a reminder that, for some reason, he continues to be only able to get bit parts. Aside from Good Night, and Good Luck, when has Straithairn ever been able to really scoop up a majority of the film's running time? Frustratingly limited to what feels akin to a cameo role here, Straithairn nonetheless makes the most of it due to the rapport he builds with Smith in the two scenes in which he appears. For their parts, Smith and Dench once again turn in strong performances and further suggest that this is a film that could have been a classic, but is instead a largely fun, care-free, and rather funny film for your grandparents to watch and recommend to you. On that grandparents note, The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel dedicates much of its time to the romance angle, especially that between Nighy and Dench's characters. Operating on the theme that, just because one is old, it does not mean they need to stop living their life, the film's often rather powerful even if its will they or won't they romance between two people allegedly near death is a bit odd. Can these two old folks just get it on already or will the film make us wait for the sequel: The Best Afterlife Marigold Hotel? That said, with all of the reminiscing and looking ahead, the film does manage to be a rather powerful look at how age is not to be seen as a restraint to living one's life to the fullest. If anything, it is the reason to jump unabashed into the night and taking chances because, hey, it is all ending soon anyways. A fun and light film, The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel has an excellently charming cast once again, it is a bit spottier with humor than its predecessor, and shows that these tires do have some wear on the tread. That said, as a return to the world of these characters - mainly the actors - is a welcome one with director John Madden able to make this one of those films that seem to defy logic and conventional rating systems. Instead, it is cliche, typical, and wholly unremarkable, but winds up leaving a goofy smile on your face after watching due to the joy expressed on the screen and the tears shed along the way. Though not an unforgettable cinematic classic, The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel is a great film to use when wanting to pull the rug out from under your parents or grandparents and beat them to the punch when it comes to recommending this movie.
Perhaps one of the best directors who is never really spoken about as such is Albert Brooks. Delivering quality film after quality film in the 1980s and 1990s, Brooks is the indier version of Woody Allen. Often starring in his own films, exploring relationships between men-and-women, exploring mortality, exploring weird life decisions, and always led by a neurotic and frantic demeanor, the work of Brooks may be rather unsung nowadays, but is impossible to ignore. In Lost in America, Brooks' David Howard gets fired from his high-paying advertising job after missing out on a promotion. Convincing his wife Linda (Julie Hagerty) to quit her boring personnel director job, the two liquidate all of their assets and buy a camper to travel across America. With about $150,000 to their name, the two hope to see the country, find themselves, and finally settle in some small town on a huge lot of land that costs just $50,000 or some other cheap figure. Naturally, things wind up going very differently. Lost in America is a film about the death or misuse of the American dream. Told from youth that if you are smart, go to college, and put your nose to the grindstone, you will rise to the very top of the corporate world. Unfortunately, what is neglected to be mentioned is that there are only so many chairs left and the music is just about to end. Hoping to become Senior VP, only to be transferred across the country, David is a man scorned by this dream. Linda, for her part, is stuck in a dead end job. Both have given just under a decade to their current positions and, yet, both have found there to be no more upward mobility. If they are content, they can stay in these jobs for the rest of time while rotting away on the inside. Or, if the feeling of just waiting for one's death is not appealing, they can always try to find a new job. However, they will never be able to get their present salary, position, or respectability. In essence, at a certain point, there is no more stone to grind with one's nose. Instead, there is a status quo that will remain until action is taken. For David and Linda, the best option is to just drop off of the grid and travel the country. By his own admission, this is a path that David once mocked people for in his youth, but it is one he is not greatly envious of being able to accomplish. Likely a by-product of life always being greener on other side, the idea is nonetheless rather admirable. Similar to the counter work culture experience in the 20th century via films such as Fight Club, American Beauty, and Office Space, Lost in America speaks about the hollow existences experienced by those in the workforce. Get up, get dressed, go to work, come home, pass out, and then do it all over again. This robotic lifestyle has turned us all into corporate drones, merely waiting for our next promotion or opportunity to prove ourselves at work when, in reality, investing in ourselves and in our lives is far more worth our while. Rather than kissing ass at work, why not let loose and live a little for our own mental health? Yet, Brooks' film is smart. Never idealizing the lifestyle of just living on the road, Lost in America shows the perils and sore points that could arise. Loose spending and celebrating one's newly found liberation a little too much could lead to great stress and anguish in the blink of an eye. In essence, Lost in America argues for a balance. Taking time away from work to live one's life is a vital part of living that everybody should attempt. Becoming a mindless zombie who only knows how to go to work is not what the American dream is truly about, no matter what we have been taught growing up. Rather, the American dream is about the freedom to live one's life as they choose. We can never entirely drop off of the grid, as a source of income is a necessary evil in the world. Yet, that necessary evil is no reason to remain stationary and never utilize the freedom of movement. As a result, the American population have misused the American dream through misinterpretation. Believing it to be solely about how anybody can make themselves into something through hard work - implying dedication work - the American dream is truly about how anybody can live their life as they wish and by their own design. Striking a balance between what we need to do - work - and what we want to do - in the case of the film, travel and move to new locations - is where the key to truly utilizing the American dream lies. Becoming a slave to work or an unemployed drifter are perfect examples of taking a lifestyle to the extreme with that way of life feeling too restrictive and dull after a while. Blending the two together allows one to truly find a measure of happiness in a world so dictated by success in the workplace. If, as a society, we came together to realize that work-life balance - and thus, truly realizing the American dream of building a family (life) and a career (work) no matter who you are
From the very beginning, the Safdie brothers' Good Time is a very good time. Telling a conventional story in a rather unconventional way, Good Time nonetheless can never escape the banality of its plot, even if its camera work, score, and acting are all top-notch. Directed with great flair and this gritty, television-esque level of grain akin to Dog Day Afternoon, Taxi Driver or Thief, Good Time is a film about a man who needs $10,000 to bail out his brother after the two of them robbed a bank. Given that his brother is mentally handicapped, the problems faced by Constantine Nikas (Robert Pattinson) are only worsened, let alone his own inability to get out of his own way. A classic screw-up character who has a set goal that leads to him breaking the law further in an effort to get out of the hole he dug himself, Good Time blends that with Rain Man or Of Mice & Men in depicting the relationship between Connie and his brother Nick (Ben Safdie). Thrilling from beginning to end, Good Time provides strong genre entertainment but not much else. This conventional story, no matter how much it is told unconventionally, and its cliche characters are truly what holds Good Time back from being a great film. As it stands, it is largely an above average film with some style and flair, but no sense of originality in its writing. It is a director's showcase where the writer's seemed to just fly through the writing of the film after watching a 1970s gritty New York-set crime film marathon. Encountering drugs, people who are all too willing to let a stranger spend the night, fellow criminals, and scummy bail bondsmen, the film's cliche plot - man needs money for any number of reason - tossed in with his cliche inability to make anything work or stick makes the film one that feels as though it has been done many times before. While the characters are fun and easy to sympathize with, they often operate as nothing more than average stock characters. Starring a screw-up with a good heart, a dimwitted brother along for the ride, an anger-filled mess up **** who leeches off relatives, and a weird side character who the protagonist meets that introduces a new way for them to possibly make money, Good Time never really feels fresh. Instead, it often falls flat and never really sunk its hooks into me personally. Rather, it felt like a showy and decadent attempt to distract from its plain and run-of-the-mill plot by checking off a list of modern touches that indie audiences adore: neon lights, a synthy score, and a previously disregarded actor firmly establishing themselves as a star in the lead role. As a result, Good Time is never bad, but is never great. Instead, it seems to just settle into being a fun ride while it lasts, but one that will slip away from memory quite rapidly. The film often seems to try and play itself a modern "edgy" drama, akin to moments from Deadpool or Kingsman where it tries to play up the lurid underworld of the characters too much to the point that it tries too hard. Showing this world of crime and drugs, Good Time makes its point pretty quickly that these characters are ones living in a dark world that has them in a terrifying spiral of crime and disorder. Yet, with characters constantly yelling at one another, a BSDM-themed theme park called "Adventureland", and a rough sex scene that seems cut from a porno than reality, the film is like a teenager's attempt to seem mature. By yelling at one's parents and indulging in anything to make its situations seem more x-rated and adult, children often masquerade as adults and will frequently yell out, "BUT MOM, I'M AN ADULT NOW." At times, Good Time feels like the cinematic equivalent of this annoying not-quite-adult person through its incessant portrayal of items that children believe to be adult, namely with regards to sex and drugs. Driving forward on pure convenience, the film often seems to defy logic throughout with characters acting out scenarios that seem so far removed from reality that they could only occur in a film. Namely, the sequence where Constantine is allowed to stay at this stranger's house with her teenage daughter and no questions are asked. Who, in their right mind, allows just anybody to stay in their home when they are an absolute stranger? The same occurs with the daughter, who proceeds to hang out all night and go to White Castle with these two complete strangers. All of this comes after her seeing the news report about Connie being wanted by the police. In spite of him kissing her, there is no way she missed that report. The bank robbery is also rather implausible, especially with the response by the teller. Only giving a robber what one has in their drawer and then scribbling a note about it is impossible to give them more because of policy is a policy that no bank has. Bank policy regarding robberies is to give the robbers anything they ask for, not stop at the drawer and blame policy for not giving them more.
Right when you think you saw the weirdest film ever, something like Woody Allen's Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex But Were Afraid to Ask comes along. An episodic adaptation of David Reuben's book of the same name, the film asks seven questions about sex that wind up putting the characters in hysterical and absurd situations. Featuring Woody Allen as a court fool in medieval times trying to sleep with the queen, Gene Wilder as a general practitioner who has sex with a hot sheep named Daisy, Woody Allen as an Italian whose new wife can only orgasm when they have sex in public, Lou Jacobi as a transvestite, a rabbi who likes to be tied up while his wife eats pork and a model whips him, a giant boob that spits out half & half while killing people in a small town, and Woody Allen as a sperm being ejaculated while Burt Reynolds works in the man's brain to ensure the sexual encounter goes smoothly, this film is nuts. Honestly, it is like a cinematic fever dream to the point that it is nearly impossible to believe it is all actually happening. Due to the film being an anthology, it is perhaps best to approach this differently than many of my other reviews. Given Allen's structure of a Q&A format, I will lift that for this review. Q: Do Aphrodisiacs Work?
A: Set in medieval England, court jester Woody Allen uses a love potion on the Queen only to meet some difficulty regarding her chastity belt. That said, the love potion certainly worked, so it is fair to say that aphrodisiacs do indeed work, but it is imperative to ensure that there are no other possible hiccups once your beloved is beholden to your every whim. A chastity belt to which neither of you have the key would certainly be a hiccup, as would getting your hand stuck on her ass through said chastity belt when her husband, the King, returns. Quite funny to watch to be sure, in large due to Allen's purposefully horrific stand-up routine for the King and the hijinx he gets into with the Queen, all while referencing Hamlet. Feels as though it hits all the beats of Allen's work to come later, but never necessarily as witty or smart as it may seem to think this sequence is. However, in saying that, it is certainly quite funny to watch due to the hilarious situation at hand and, as a result, this first question is a great way to start off the proceedings. Q: What Is Sodomy?
A: Gene Wilder gets into a torrid love affair with a sheep after a patient from Armenia asks for his assistance in getting Daisy the Sheep to start responding in the bedroom more. Yes, really. So, I guess it is best to answer this question by saying that sodomy is when a man gets really, really lonely in either the Armenian mountains or his loveless marriage, turns to a sheep for a refuge, and then gets sodomized by his wife in court as she takes all his money and loses his job. This is certainly a really, really weird section, but almost in a good way, especially when we see Wilder in bed with Daisy as she wears a garter belt. It is quite the image and one that speaks to just how damn odd this sequence is, but that is entirely the point and given that it is rather funny, this section does work. That said, it may be the epitome of a litmus test for whether or not somebody loves weird cinema. Q: Why Do Some Women Have Trouble Reaching an Orgasm?
A: Allen's first attempt to really pucker up and kiss Federico Fellini's ass, this section stars him as an Italian man who cannot make his new wife orgasm. She is, allegedly, a virgin, in spite of her father giving Fabrizio (Allen) a map of all of her erogenous zones. As Allen discovers, the answer here is multi-fold. On one hand, perhaps it is the fault of the man or a lack of foreplay. Yet, if all else fails, clearly having sex in a department store must be the answer to solve these concerns. Funny and a nice send-up to Italian cinema, the sequence is probably the weakest to this point, but watching Allen and Louise Lasser getting busy under a dinner table is a truly great moment in cinematic history. Q: Are Transvestites Homosexuals?
A: Honestly no idea. I guess the answer here is no since Sam (Lou Jacobi) still loves his wife, but this one is clearly one that Allen had no idea how to really approach. It is probably insensitive, but given that it is from 1972, it is hard for the film to not be offensive in some way on this front. The sequence is not particularly funny and lands quite flat, though watching Sam climb out the window in women's clothing is kind of funny, but in a very Some Like It Hot kind of way where it is only funny because it is a man in women's clothing. Given by disdain for that film, it is no surprise that this segment is tied for my least favorite in the film. Not particularly funny and it keeps repeating the same jokes, lacking any of Allen's trademark wit. It does not really work and, combined with the section after, makes the middle of this film really drag.
Detailing the respective affairs of married couple Michael (Tracy Letts) and Mary (Debra Winger), The Lovers borders on the touching and poignant, while never really having enough meat on its bones to make it all come together. Instead, it is too much of a re-hash of prior commentary on affairs in relationships to really break out on its own. Content to just focusing on the sexual portion of relationships, how people get tired without any spice in the relationship, and how people constantly promise their mistress/mister(?) they will tell their spouse, The Lovers has some interesting situations but never really hits the right notes to make it all come together. As it stands, The Lovers is just too paltry and stripped down to be an overly compelling watch and, as a result, it is rather difficult to recommend this one as a truly necessary watch. Relying largely upon a score to tell its story for much of the film, The Lovers often goes through long stretches of time with little-to-no dialogue. Oddly enough, this potentially dull approach is the film's best quality, adding this feeling that we are watching a visual accompaniment to a symphony orchestra instead of a film. It also allows the film to cover-up its rather dull treatment of its themes, but by-and-large, it is often beautiful to listen to and allows the film to achieve success that it limited story cannot reach. This rather dull and paltry story, however, is what largely undermines the film as a whole by never allowing it to separate itself from better and more in-depth looks at affairs and the emotions surrounding them. Instead, the film i rather simplistic and just shows the sneaking around and some of the anger, but quickly advances through it all in the name of simple and unspoken decisions. Had the film been willing to confront more of the emotional weight surrounding such actions in a relationship, The Lovers could have avoided becoming dull or having to rely upon the score to really tell a compelling story. However, as it stands, this score is nothing more than a band-aid for a story that never really achieves stand-alone status and could have instead been told in a short film. While Tracy Letts and Debra Winger do a good jobs in their respective roles, The Lovers also suffers from some poorly written and acted bits that only serve to undermine the authentic emotion of that moment. Chief among them in a scene of Michael and Mary having dinner with their son and his girlfriend. Awkward to sit through due to the undercurrent of emotion all of them know to be present, the dinner is best described as people trying to act awkward and stiff, but doing so in an awkward and stiff manner. As a result, it feels akin to something out of Invasion of the Body Snatchers, except the whole has already been turned into pod people and is trying to act like this whole lack of emotion thing is better than really feeling anything. It really ruins the moment, and unfortunately, too many dramatic moments get the same treatment. Both Robert and Lucy exhibit the same behavior when fighting with Mary and Michael, respectively, as Jacobs' sparse dialogue renders their conversations feeling more akin to highlight reels taken out-of-context with the scenes never able to really soar as the actors are given so little to work with in the way of depth or content, plus Jacobs never allows the scenes to stand on their own by either relying on the score or just cutting away. Feeling rather disjointed in structure and instead relying upon an awkward flow to keep the proceedings moving forward, The Lovers is both unoriginal and dully handled. Had it been longer, it would have been a tougher watch, but as it stands, the enjoyable acting from Letts and Winger make this one that is rather easy to get through, even if it is lacking any of the substance or emotional resonance a film with these themes should have been able to possess.
With many of the length and meandering issues of the other Harry Potter films, this sixth entry in the film largely sums up everything I have not enjoyed for half the film. Yet, somehow it pulls if off surprisingly well, turning its slow and character-driven first half into an enjoyable diversion from the high stakes drama surrounding the looming presence of Voldemort. By the time the film finally jumps into the central battle of the series, director David Yates is able to deliver the goods with a thrilling, rousing, and powerful, climax that is smartly low-scale and content with being just a cog in the whole wheel. As a result, the Half-Blood Prince manages to take the story where Order of the Phoenix left off and set it up perfectly for the finale of this beloved series. Though not necessarily a great stand-alone work due to how much it relies upon the other films to have a story that makes any sense, it nonetheless works incredibly well in context, being one of the most pleasant and filled-with-wonder entries in the series since Prisoner of Azkaban changed the tone entirely. For the first half of the film, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince operates like a soap opera version of itself entitled Harry Potter and the Horny Teenagers. Will Ron finally wake up and make a move on Hermione? Oh poor Hermione, having to watch Ron kiss another girl! Oooo Harry is finally moving past that Asian girl whose named I do not know that they built up as a lover for him two films, only for her to stab him in the back last time. Of course it is Ginny though, those two are meant for each other! I wonder what will happen with that weird blonde girl though? Do I smell a second love triangle? In this game of musical chairs and hot potato that is teenage relationship, the Half-Blood Prince seems fully invested in divulging every single detail. Ironically, while this is exactly what I dislike about the series at times - too much focus on items that do not matter - it works here quite nicely. It is funny, cute, and oddly endearing as we watch them go through the works of teenage relationships. It is a reminder of their youth in the face of the horrors and challenges they must face in fighting Voldemort. As a brief calm before the storm that will come in the Deathly Hallows, the Half-Blood Prince makes this feel like the final summer before they all head off to college, likely to not see one another again. In this, the bittersweet and nostalgic charm is hard to deny as incredibly fun to watch. By the time the film settles into its second half, the Half-Blood Prince makes good on the suggestions and hints regarding who the Half-Blood Prince could be with a tension-filled and atmospheric finale. As Dumbledore and Harry go into the cave, it feels like a last stand for an old gunslinger in a western and, as with that, it comes with every bit of the tension and anticipation. Featuring a chilling sequence of these humanoid creatures jumping out of the water and Dumbledore having to use fire against them, the scene is one with excellent production design and strong direction David Yates. After building up some tension regarding this locale and biding his time the whole film, Yates manages to make the whole wait worthwhile, while not over-exerting this film into becoming another grand battle between Voldemort and Harry. Instead, as a minor battle as part of the larger war, the Half-Blood Prince manages to be thrilling in its own right without stealing any thunder from the concluding journey. A poignant death and memorial sequence only furthers the film's accomplishments with powerful staging of the memorial and deeply compelling possibilities about where Snape's loyalty may in fact lie. Is he still a death-eater or is he working for the order as an informant? Smartly, the Half-Blood Prince leaves this mystery open, making the Deathly Hallows a film that is hard to not highly anticipate. As always, the Half-Blood Prince is often quite beautiful look at with Yates' camera often finding truly stunning images, especially in the cave or in the aerial shot of the memorial. While this series is seriously milking those shots of the valley in the sunrise, it is hard to deny that it is not beautiful all the same. These Harry Potter films often use their special effects in the perfect way to create a beautiful shot and the Half-Blood Prince is no exception to that fact. Where the film falters, however, is often in the over-reliance on cuts. When Harry is attacked by the humanoid creatures in the cave, Yates' camera cuts repeatedly without moving Harry or actually showing anything. He just falls back, cuts, and then he is in a slightly different place an inch to the left. With about 10 cuts in a millisecond in this sequence, it is borderline headache-inducing. The same then occurs as Harry talks to Hermione in the castle with the camera desperately needing a fidget spinner to keep still. Spinning around, cutting, and changing angles
A descent into the hellish mind of resident cinematic mad scientist David Lynch, Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me is the prequel to his surreal early 1990s television series Twin Peaks, which was recently revived by Showtime. Introducing us to this sadistic and surrealist world, Fire Walk With Me starts off withe murder of Teresa Banks (Pamela Gidley), the disappearance of FBI agent Chester Desmond (Chris Isaak), and then moves into the central mystery regarding the suspicious incidents happening to high school prom queen Laura Palmer (Sheryl Lee) in the lead up to her death. From what I gather, her death is the mystery explored in the original television series. What is perhaps the most interesting is how little is actually revealed. Sure, we see what kills her here, but that is hardly the only bit that is important. A film that defies definition and reaches comical levels of Lynchian absurdity, Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me is simply a damn good time if you are a film lover who adores being thoroughly confused. What is perhaps most obvious in this film is the balance between heaven and hell that Lynch creates. With references to how, once you walk with the fire, it consumes you entirely with innocence the first thing to go. Read as being in reference to hell fire or walking in sin, Laura Palmer exemplifies this by working as an apparent sex worker who goes to seedy, red-tinted dance halls with creepy men who give her drugs. In dancing with the devil in such a fashion, Laura has let her soul come into direct contact with danger that leaves her open to losing her soul entirely to the pits of hell. With a scene calling back to Rosemary's Baby, Lynch shows what appears to be Laura's father or some other guy named Bob (it flips between the two) mounting Laura as she sleeps, clawing with long finger nails against her body, and thrusting as she slowly wakes up, leading her to wonder if it was all a dream or not. This scene is certainly similar to Rosemary's Baby when Mia Farrow's character is **** by Satan in a dream-like sequence. In many films, such as Angel Heart or The Devil's Advocate, Satan is depicted as having long, gnarly looking nails and the character of Bob has these exact same nails. The further she descends into madness and sin, Laura loses sight of any of the light of God in the film. In an early shot, Lynch shows a painting on her wall that has an angel serving food to children. Later, this angel is gone. In a scene where she is being attacked along with a friend also caught in this life, the friend is able to escape after a guardian angel arrives to untie her hands. Laura, however, is left to deal with every bit of the terror that her sinful ways has brought upon her. While perhaps not the most important theme, it is clear that there is some evil forces bubbling under the surface here with these nefarious characters clear depictions of absolute evil in our world, capable of destroying the purity, innocence, and mental health of those who give into their temptations purely by being in their presence. In line with this concept of purity, Lynch places with ideas regarding incest and the protective nature of fathers throughout. Creating horror out of images of Laura's father Leland (Ray Wise) seeing her getting awaiting his arrival to the bedroom after he had asked Teresa to bring her friends to their next encounter, the film dances with going all the way as Leland/Bob/Satan mounts her in the bedroom and has sex with her. This incestuous relationship is naturally jarring to watch unfold and one that neither wants, with both sharing repulsed glances at one another once they know the devious lifestyle the other leads that has led to some unwelcomed shoulder rubbing as a result. On one hand, the film manages to create horror and tension out of this weird relationship between the two that often spirals into absolute insanity, while also calling into question just who Leland is and why he is being used to get closer to Laura in this way. Much of the horror shared between Leland and Laura is derived from the natural desire of a father to protect his daughter from growing up and meeting seedy characters. Seeing her as a sexual being is not just jarring, but Leland seeing her somebody being prepped for a man as sexually depraved as himself really does him in completely. He knows that Laura is just like the girls he sees, none of whom he actually respects. Thus, it is no surprise to see him freak out on her to wash her hands when he sees her after their unfortunate near-encounter in the bedroom. Yet, it is clear that this is not just some simple case of a father trying to protect his daughter from sex. By rubbing shoulders with these evil characters in his own journey through the film's story, Leland knows the dangers they pose to him, let alone his previously innocent and proper daughter Laura.
A truly challenging watch from beginning to end, Ingrid Goes West is one of those films that is often disturbing, frightening, darkly comedic, and oh so cringey. No matter how smart and funny it is, the cringey actions of Ingrid Thorburn (Aubrey Plaza) keep the film as being one that is often best watched through the gaps between one's fingers. Spiraling out of control as she stalks and befriends social media influencer Taylor Sloane (Elizabeth Olsen), strikes up a romance with landlord Dan Pinto (O'Shea Jackson Jr.), and moves to Los Angeles, Ingrid is a woman with a few screws loose in her head. A tragic figure, she serves as the gateway for director Matt Spicer to critique modern culture, celebrity worship, and reveal the damage both have done to those who partake or follow these vapid and fake human beings that proliferate social media. Equal parts funny, dark, and sad, Ingrid Goes West is an excellent feature debut for Spicer. From the very get go, we are introduced to the world of Ingrid. Using Instagram extensively and being hurt by a "friend" that did not invite her to her wedding, Ingrid resorts to stalking the woman's instagram, crying over the wedding photos, and then showing up to pepper spray the beaming bride. Locked up in a mental hospital, healing, and soon released, Ingrid decides to get a new start in Los Angeles after reading a magazine ominously calls Taylor Sloane "your next girl crush". A classic social media influencer with sponsored posts, "deep" quotes with stupid photos, and living in a constant state of vacation, Taylor is the perfect target for Ingrid. Working her way in Taylor's life by stealing her dog and then returning it the next day, Ingrid befriends Taylor and her husband Ezra (Wyatt Russell) effortlessly and quickly catapults to minor **** after she is included in an Instagram post by Taylor. Meanwhile, she uses her inheritance from her mother's death to rent an apartment from Dan and abuses his trust by both taking his car all day, missing a planed appointment with him that she agreed to in order to borrow his car, and by wrecking that very same car. What ensues is an often chilling portrait of modern society and the damaging effects social media has had. Chief amongst these critiques is Spicer's demonstration of how life is now lived through phones and social media. Part of it is certainly being obsessed with news and what is happening, but much of it is in the desperate search for affirmation. By liking posts on Instagram and commenting constantly, Ingrid hopes to create new friends and be as popular as the girls she sees on the site. In a life of solitude after her mother's death, this world of social media is her only opportunity for human interaction and she makes the very most of this chance. Yet, she is hardly the only one. Taylor lives her life in a similar fashion, yet is never called deranged for the same behavior. She lives behind a screen, posts constantly to remain popular, and forgets to actually live life in the process. Even worse, her world vision is so warped by social media that she convinces Ezra to quit his job to make paintings where he just takes somebody else's work, tosses a social media buzzword like "#SQUADGOALS" on it, and then sell it for over $1,000. This constant and desperate search for affirmation in the eyes of followers, shows the dangerous impact social media has had on our world. Emotion, feeling, experience, and life, have become disposable. In their place, false compliments and shallow popularity have taken their place with people valuing themselves solely based upon how many followers they have and how many likes they get. Prior to her discovering that Ingrid is a psycho, Taylor is great friends with her. However, once Harley (Pom Klementieff) - a social influencer with 1 million followers - arrives in town, Taylor forgets all about Ingrid. Even her husband feels slighted by her new lifestyle, as she was once a normal girl with no friends in Los Angeles, but would now do anything for followers. By sacrificing herself and her own personality in the name of becoming famous on Instagram, Taylor has lost herself in this world and, for many, the same exact thing occurs. Social media has become people's reality with a phone not just being a device to call or text occasionally, but rather a life support machine that serves as a person's only connection to the outside world. In Ingrid Goes West, we see Taylor and Ingrid do drugs, blow their money, and practically sell their soul, to gain any semblance of popularity. For them, nothing is too steep a price for a like on Instagram.
Playing out like a sitcom, complete with musical transitions between scenes, My Big Fat Greek Wedding is one of those unexpected box office smashes that became a bit of a cultural touchstone. Written by and starring Nia Vardalos as 30-year-old Greek virgin who is expected to find a nice Greek boy to marry and have kids, the film is an uproariously funny work with sharp wit and great cultural jokes about Toula's (Vardalos) painfully large and Greek family. With a wedding around the corner to American white boy Ian Miller (John Corbett), the Greek family behind Toula must grow to accept this non-Greek into the family over the course of the film's 90 minutes, all while celebrating their Greek heritage throughout. Though perhaps not a great piece of filmmaking, My Big Fat Greek Wedding shows that two things are true: real life is often funny enough on its own and writing what you know yields phenomenal results when done right. As a comedy about a wedding and an obnoxious family, My Big Fat Greek Wedding is not exactly a deep work. There are some light themes that emerge, but they seem to just pop up out of the circumstances shown in the film, instead of any actual purposeful intent. For example, themes about assimilating into a culture you are unfamiliar with or having to accept the unfamiliar person into your world are both discussed at length due to Ian joining the family, but these are hardly major developments or revelations. Plus, as a comedy, this fish-out-of-water element is played more for comedy than any semblance of thematic nuance. That is not an issue, mind you, but this is certainly not a film with a lot of substance. Rather, it is one that exists purely to entertain and make you laugh, which makes it a tough film review to rate. At which point does one recognize there are faults in this film - the televisual feel that is pervasive in the film and the bad acting, namely - and still recognize that the film nailed all of its stated goals. Personally, I prefer to head towards the latter when it comes to films such as this. Consistently funny, smarted scripted, and capable of making fun of a culture in the way that only those who are a part of that culture can, My Big Fat Greek Wedding is an absolutely hysterical film. It is one of those few films that nails jokes throughout with no sign of letting up. Often times, these joke-a-minute films start to lose steam at a certain point, but this never does by retaining the same wit throughout, as well as the correct running gags (Windex). As a romance film, the "meet cute" moments are cliche to be sure, but still effective in putting a big, goofy smile on your face. It is a cheesy and sugary romance, but rings with authenticity and realism due to the problems faced by this cute couple in advancing their relationship to marriage. Never overstaying its welcome with the comedy or the romance, the short runtime allows the best moments of both to stay in with the film feeling rather stream-lined and focused, never straying into subplots or bloat that could have rendered it a far worse film. My Big Fat Greek Wedding is a quintessential example of using the romantic comedy formula to your advantage with a funny, smart, and cheesily romantic work. It may be predictable and cliche, but it shows why those cliches became cliches in the first place. A charmer from beginning to end, the film is a guiltless pleasure.
Born out of the counter-culture revolution, Alex Cox's Repo Man is a cynical, madcap, and absolutely absurd critique of the world of 1984 made by a man who had very little he liked and a very nihilistic view of the world around him. Set in small town California with young rebel Otto (Emilio Estevez) unwittingly having to remove his oversized earrings to become a repo man alongside Bud (Harry Dean Stanton), Repo Man is the kind of cultural critique that hits every possible area of American life to the point that it becomes a bit much. Fortunately, Repo Man's frantic pace, wacky plot, and delightfully odd characters, make it a film that as hard to resist as being offered by speed by a middle aged repo man as you cruise around town talking being repo men. Honestly, no film may better sum up 1980s cinema than Repo Man. Goofy effects, **** young adults, Harry Dean Stanton, inventive ideas, and an anti-consumerist undercurrent running throughout the film. Using the repo man profession as an entry into this wacky science fiction comedy, Repo Man is interesting in how little it actually focuses on science fiction. Aside from a few mentions of aliens or the possibility of getting a Chevy Malibu as a repo (which is the car carrying those aliens), much of this film is just Otto, Bud, and Lite (Sy Richardson) picking up cars. As a result, Cox is able to mock and criticize the consumerist culture we have in America. With people constantly pissed off at the fact their car is being taken even though it is their fault, Repo Man sets the tone by showing just how dumb people can really be. The poor buy cars they cannot afford or need. The rich buy cars and feel superior to having to pay them. To Cox, both of these sides are idiotic and those who get upset about losing their car in a repo deserve to get their ass whooped by a gang of repo men with bats. Yet, the reason is not because of capitalist ideology or anything of the like. Instead, it is based upon one's word. As Bud states, credit is the only thing in this world that really matters. It separates us from the communists, yes, and Cox clearly does not like communism as he openly mocks it and the idea of things being "free", but the obligation to pay in the mind of Repo Man is not out of making the economy work. Rather, it is because somebody gave you money to buy something, thus you must pay them back. Credit shows how trustworthy a person is to return that money and, to the film, that defines a person's character. Somebody with bad credit is a bad person and vice versa. By not having credit as a way to determine somebody's trustworthiness, it makes communism inherently bad. That said, in true nihilistic fashion, Cox hardly appreciates capitalism either. Critiquing the hustling televangelist who has Otto's parents in a trance and demands thousands of dollars in the name of God or by simply having Otto lament about television shows where people just consume, consume, and consume, Repo Man is a film that rails against consumerism and, by extension, capitalism. Showing the stress on society of a culture defined by what you have, the film shows the lengths people have resorted to as a result. With people not paying their cars, engaging in carjacking, or shooting people over repossessing their car, this car becomes an extension of who they are and how they define themselves, making it a personal affront to take it or to put obstacles in the way of them owning the car. This blase attitude to purchasing, in spite of consumerism, is really exemplified in the group of kids who go around engaging in robberies. Robbing the same store repeatedly, stealing the Chevy Malibu, and constantly questioning authority, the group is morally opposed to buying things, lest they appear poor. By stealing, they still get to identify themselves as members of this capitalist society and, by extension, as adults. To a comedic degree, Repo Man consistently demonstrates just how immature these characters are by simply showing their interactions with one another. With criminals Duke (**** Rude) and Debbi (Jennifer Balgobin) robbing stores, the two seem to really gel only when committing crimes. In one line, Duke demonstrates his maturity level by looking at Debbi and saying, "Let's go get sushi and not pay." Juvenile and a child's definition of living life on the edge and not paying, these robberies clearly make him and Debbi feel like adults. It gives them some control and a semblance of an adult life in spite of their childish surroundings and behavior. Underscoring these actions as ones from a wannabe adult, Cox shows Duke asking Debbi to "have my baby" with the reasoning that it is what people seem to do from what he has noticed. These are lost kids, trying to find meaning in a world without any. By the time they are adults, the television-obsessed and consumerist adults have demonstrated two things has being marks of adulthood: having things and having kids. Who can blame these kids
