Showing posts with label 2016. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2016. Show all posts

Sunday, December 25, 2016

Non-traditional Christmas picks: Year Two

Merry Christmas! I figured I'd again list some movies, TV episodes, and specials I feel are terribly underrated and/or just a little unknown.

The Hunt (a horribly depressing and intense 2012 Danish drama with a climax during the holiday season)
Arthur's Perfect Christmas
When Harry Met Sally (sort of an all seasons story but key scenes during the holidays)
Justice League: "Comfort and Joy"
Scooby Doo! Where Are You?: "That's Snow Ghost"
Batman- The Animated Series: "Holiday Knights," "Christmas with the Joker, "Heart of Ice"
Nip/Tuck: "Joy Kringle," "Duke Collins," "Reefer"
American Horror Story: "Unholy Night" (a correction from the way I mistitled the episode from last year)
Arthur Christmas
The Town Santa Forgot
Rise of the Guardians
Mean Girls (key scenes during Christmas)
Mighty Morphin Power Rangers: "Alpha's Magical Christmas" (some nostalgia)
Ernest Saves Christmas
A Very Merry Muppet Christmas Movie
A Muppet Family Christmas
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (set at winter, but no cheer here)
Jingle All the Way (some so-bad-it's-funny)
Krampus
Prancer
Santa Claus: The Movie
Santa Claus (1959) (some hilarious and bizarre cult Mexican cinema)
Santa Claus Conquers the Martians
Any of the classic Nicktoons or Cartoon Network specials
The Night Before
Batman: Sub-Zero
Beowulf (has a winter vibe)
Hawaii Five-O: "Mele Kalikimaka," "Hana 'a'a Makehewa"
Batman: Arkham Origins (a video game, not a film)
Reindeer Games (not really a good movie, but a bit of dumb fun)
Edward Scissorhands
The Little Match Girl
The Wizard of Oz (now oft-forgotten as a holiday viewing favorite of the past)
Babes in Toyland (1934)
Courage the Cowardly Dog: "The Nutcracker"
The Toy that Saved Christmas
Fantasia 2000- "The Steadfast Soldier" segment
Toy Story (ends at Christmastime and revolves around toys)
The Ref
Happy Feet
Futurama: "Xmas," "The Futurama Holiday Spectacular"
The Nice Guys
The League: "Kegel the Elf," "Thanksgiving," "The 8 Defensive Points of Hanukkah"
The Office: "Dwight Christmas," "Classy Christmas," "A Benihana Christmas," "Secret Santa," "Moroccan Christmas," "Christmas Party"
Grindhouse "Thanksgiving" segment
It's Christmastime Again, Charlie Brown
Django Unchained and The Hateful Eight (both have prominent winter feel to them)
The Last of Us (video game, winter segment)

Again, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, or whatever holiday you find yourself celebrating!

 (Image: history.com)

Saturday, December 3, 2016

November Movies

Just looking at some films I've seen this past month that I didn't have enough thoughts on to post entire reviews, so here it goes:

Doctor Strange: This Marvel film was probably the biggest thing this season in terms of coverage and the amount of people who went to see it (obviously). The Doctor Strange character is rather unknown so I was happy to see that people will give lesser-known heroes a try, though the fact that it's all based on brand recognition is kind of a downer. The film had some very interesting visuals at times but nothing I would say is necessarily groundbreaking on any level.
There's plenty of forced, awkward humor (I think I only chuckled at two lines, and they were the more subtle lines in this film) and just bad Hollywood cliches (the useless random love interest is one that jumps to mind). I did appreciate the clever climax that wasn't just the villain and hero punching each other but overall the plot felt rushed, the villain was awfully contrived (and such a waste of the excellent Mads Mikkelsen), etc. Doctor Strange was a fun, schlocky superhero film but nothing more than just good. 6.5/10 stars.



Arrival: Denis Villeneuve is a newer talent that has now, year after year, proven himself as a terrific director and worthy of being selected for the Blade Runner reboot. I didn't love this film like his others, but it was a smart, subtle science fiction film that would've fit right into the catalog of slow burning, creative sci-fi films of the 1970s.
Amy Adams was effective in her lead role and I'm now very excited to see what she does in Nocturnal Animals. The cinematography isn't as jaw-dropping as in Sicario, but it is sweeping while being reined in, and while there were elements that felt reminiscent of his previous work (the muted and dour color scheme of Prisoners and one dream sequence felt right out of Enemy), it stands on its own and is far better than the majority of the alien invasion films of the past, focusing on a perspective rarely ever given a proper treatment which is that of communication with the aliens.
In keeping with that, I enjoyed how the film communicated story information to the audience; it does it in a not totally unique but very intriguing way which pays off in the end. Arrival is an innovative and fresh science fiction film that I would recommend to most everyone. 7.5/10 stars.

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them: While I was excited as anyone to revisit the nostalgia and wonder of the Harry Potter series, I can't say this film delivered on that monumental promise. This year was one of disappointment for fans, as the abysmal Cursed Child play also was released this year and was panned by critics and die-hard followers alike, and I can't say this film makes up for that. Eddie Redmayne is very charismatic and quirky in his lead role as Newt Scamander, so he was one redeeming quality. The cast is stellar, and I have to say, I was surprised by the quality of acting from Dan Fogler and Alison Sudol (better known by her stage name Fine Frenzy), as Fogler is known for dumb comedies and Sudol for her music career. However, their love story was incredibly rushed and odd.
Katherine Waterson, Colin Farrell, Ezra Miller, and Samantha Morton are fine actors in their other works, but here, they all turn in one-note performances that I could predict where they would go from the moment they appeared on-screen. The resolution of the plot is very schlocky and rushed, and a lot of the acting, except for the lead four characters, if very wooden and/or the characters are one-dimensional. Like why would Jon Voight's son who is running for office (played by Josh Cowdery) belittle a bunch of religious protestors who are potential voters by calling them "freaks" to their faces?
The movie is kind of cute and fun but that's about it. It's nice for kids, and I tried to remind myself the original Potter films aren't particularly subtle or objectively great, either and this one really is more for families. I appreciated some of the humor and fun cameos (by Ron Perlman and Zoe Kravitz, especially), but the constant name-dropping of Potter lore and the very rushed and convenient climax (with some destruction scenes more reminiscent of a lazy summer film) made Fantastic Beasts a let-down. 5.8/10 stars.

Allied: Robert Zemeckis, like Ron Howard and Steven Spielberg, has been hit-or-miss as of late and is no stranger to schmaltz. With this, I appreciated a totally fictitious story set during a historical event (something you don't really see a lot, funny enough), but overall the story isn't interesting enough to fill the whole two hours. Brad Pitt and Marion Cotillard have decent chemistry and there are some well-done scenes of tension (there's a small battle towards the end, a scene with a Nazi SS officer in Casablanca, and a scene involving a phone booth early on that were all serviceable as suspense sequences), but the cast is failed by a poor script.
There's also a strange aside that Brad Pitt's character has a military sister (played by Lizzy Caplan), who is in an open lesbian relationship in 1940's London with Game of Thrones' Charlotte Hope, which didn't add anything to the story and felt very off as homosexuality was illegal in the U.K. at the time. The score is bland, the story is alright but very predictable, and the "tragic" ending is pretty lame- as it was hard to really connect with the characters all that much- but it was somewhat relieving that Allied's mystery and the final set-piece avoid the tired gun-fights and explosions so often seen in mainstream action/war climaxes these days. 5.8/10 stars.

Rules Don't Apply: I was expecting this to be just the run-of-the-mill Oscar bait film released on Thanksgiving (like Allied), but, although that may have been its intention, it was surprisingly funny and quirky and I appreciated that, even at his old age, Warren Beatty can still deliver an above-average performance (his adaptation of Howard Hughes is more comedic than Leonardo DiCaprio's but still exudes a lot of pain in the latter half), and uses more modern editing techniques to milk more humor out of the film. Lily Collins and Alden Ehrenreich have a nice little romance and they do have a pretty realistic argument at the film's "climax," though it's washed out by an overbearing and unnecessary score that could have been absent from that scene. Overall, the acting was good, the music was fine (the original song which shares the film's title was surprisingly sweet and touching), and the humor was better than expected. Rules Don't Apply may not break all the cliches of an Oscar bait film, but it has enough of a heart to actually be worth a viewing. 6.5/10 stars.



(Images: Wikipedia)

Friday, November 11, 2016

Autumn Movies Catch Up: These 4 films I saw in theaters in the last month or so and haven't reviewed yet.

Here's just a quick little look at some films which I didn't feel strongly enough about to fill a major review, but which I did see and want to comment on.

Snowden: Good lead performance by Joseph Gordon-Levitt and some nice supporting parts by Shailene Woodley, Nicolas Cage, Timothy Olyphant, Zachary Quinto, Joely Richardson, Tom Wilkinson, Melissa Leo, Scott Eastwood, and Rhys Ifans. This is a very well-executed suspense film, with tons of moments of tension and is quite paranoia-inducing, something Oliver Stone has always been great at capturing. Gordon-Levitt captured Snowden's voice and mannerisms to a tee, and the only complaints is that the final act is kind of rushed because the film is already fairly long, but I felt the suspense could've been milked during the leaking/espionage moments just a bit longer. There is one major surprise towards the end which I won't spoil but which floored me and made my jaw drop a bit. Better than the average biopic/historical thriller. 7/10 stars.

 

Blair Witch: As both a fan of the original and of Adam Wingard's work, I was crushed by how disappointing, insulting, bland, boring, and hollow this film was. It was so empty and had such a lack of characters it felt like it breezed by in 40 mins, and the visuals of the cabin may have been nice, but unlike the original, this feels like a run-of-the-mill, direct-to-video throwaway found footage film, not a taut and slowly creeping horror phenomenon. I expected more humor, ingenuity and genuine chills from Wingard but this was just trash. I recommend the oft-forgotten and surreally bad Blair Witch 2: Book of Shadows over this any day. There was talks of making the 3rd film in this series an origin/period piece of the witch, which would've made a unique trilogy where each film is drastically different in style and execution but alas, this is a watered-down, nonsensical sequel with no real point. It would've been better to just ket the franchise die than to get this. 2/10 stars.




Jack Reacher: Never Go Back: The original Jack Reacher was a surprise audience favorite in December 2012, as it had a lot of exciting action mixed with lighthearted humor and poked fun at its own tropes. The sequel follows suit and manages to deliver another fun, harmless little spy thriller with a ridiculously skilled main hero as well as some new cast additions such as Cobie Smudlers, Aldis Hodge, Patrick Heusinger, Danika Yarosh, Holt McCallany, and Robert Knepper. The plot isn't quite as intriguing or twisty as the original's, but it is a solid follow-up with some Halloween sequences to hammer home the season. Edward Zwick brings his experience directing action to this film, and it's nice to see him and Tom Cruise work together again, though now it's becoming clear Cruise's age is beginning to make his roles as unstoppable super-killers less believable. 7/10 stars.



The Accountant: This unique thriller film sees Ben Affleck fully inhabit a character again, playing a man with some form of autism that makes him a genius mathematician and who is also trained to be an unstoppable murder machine by his ex-military father. The cast is fantastic, featuring J.K. Simmons, Jeffrey Tambor, John Lithgow, Jon Bernthal (a lot of TV bad guys here), Anna Kendrick, and Cynthia Addai-Robinson, and the plot is structured kind of strangely, with many plots not really coming full circle until the very end, but it is almost like a well-written suspense novel in that way, and I was sure it was based on some source material, but no, it's all from the screenplay of Bill Dubuque. Some of the twists may land differently for some people, but I felt they were all executed satisfyingly and probably can provide a lot of enjoyment on second viewings. Overall, a very solid thriller film with a great lead character. 7/10 stars.

                                                  (Images: Wikipedia)


Friday, September 23, 2016

31: Rob Zombie's breed of rock-n-roll horror is back once again

Today, I look at Rob Zombie's killer clown/survival horror film 31, which I had the fortune of seeing at an early screening on September 1st. The early screening is now kind of moot considering it's now in wide release already.
And with this, I'm finally caught up with films I've seen in theaters this summer and fall.

Rob Zombie's 31:
Traveling in the countryside, a band of carnival employees are ambushed and kidnapped by a mysterious cult-like group of powdered wig-wearing aristocrats. The aristocrats, whoever they are, have selected the unlucky group to play their annual Halloween game they call "31". The sick game of cat-and-mouse pits the group against a string of increasingly dangerous foes, called the "Heads," who are random psycho-killers hired for big money by these aristocrats to dress up like clowns and butcher the people. They have 12 hours to survive, and the odds are not in their favor.
    Rob Zombie can either make a great horror film or a not-so-great one. Despite being a personal favorite of mine, I can see why many people don't care for House of 1,000 Corpses, as it is very stylized and weird. The Devil's Rejects is universally heralded as his best film, being a convincing and realistic take on the savage characters from Corpses. His Halloween films are at least unique and don't copy the originals, but I don't really like them too much, they're just too over-the-top for me. However, despite hating it at first, his next film The Lords of Salem is a terrific throwback to the hardcore, acid trippy horror cinema of the 1970s.
    So how does 31 stack up? Happily, I can recommend this to any fan of horror. It's full of bloody, over-the-top violence, mean and vulgar characters, and a striking visual style. Sheri Moon Zombie, Jeff Daniel Phillips, Meg Foster, and Kevin Jackson are great as the trashy carnival crew. They are pretty unlikable sometimes, but you can't help but root for them against the much greater evil of the Heads and their masters.
    Speaking of, Malcolm McDowell, Judy Geeson, and Jane Carr are great as the aristocratic murder enthusiasts, with awesomely indulgent names: Sister Serpent, Sister Dragon, and Father Napoleon-Horatio-Silas Murder. They are smaller roles but are endearing and mysterious and it seems like the actors relish the tongue-in-cheek evil of the characters.
    Richard Brake, a highly underrated character actor, is fantastic as Doom-Head, the most dangerous of the hired killers and the one with the best lines. He is menacing and demented, with that grungey, country feel that many of Zombie's villains have. Brake's psychotic grin is incredibly frightening, and is evocative of the Joker (he would have made a far better Joker than what Jared Leto delivered).
    Ginger Lynn and the great Tracey Walter (Bob the Goon from Batman) have memorable cameos, and E.G. Dailey and Torsten Vorges have small but great scenery-chewing parts.
     Lew Temple and David Ury have slightly comedic parts as the excessively depraved and violent brothers Psycho-Head and Schizo-Head, respectively.
    Pancho Moler appears as Sick-Head, another hilariously vulgar and iconoclastic character. Moler speaks mostly in Spanish, un-subtitled, a creative choice I respected.
    The music in the film was pretty excellent, as Zombie as a great knowledge of rock and folk music that he employs perfectly in his films, and again, the visuals are pretty unforgettable.
    While not particularly scary, the film is violent, entertaining, and shocking, all things I expected and was satisfied by with this film.
    31 may not be Zombie's best or scariest film (those go to Rejects and Lords, respectively), but it is probably his most consistently entertaining since Corpses. It's crass, bloody, sick, a bit dream-like, and subverts expectations for typical genre conventions, and it's just a great time for the fall season. If it's playing in your area or offered on VOD, go out and see it, support a great indie film that was funded by the fans and is made by a man with true affection for the genre. 7/10 stars.

Fun fact: Saban, the entertainment group that distributed the film, was the group that distributed Power Rangers. Seeing their logo on my screen again triggered major nostalgia.

                                                 (Image: Wikipedia)

Suicide Squad and Sausage Party: August is always just a slew of disappointment, some are just worse than others

Today, I look at the (deservedly) universally hated Suicide Squad and the generally liked Sausage Party.

Suicide Squad:
After the disastrous events of Batman v. Superman (both the actual film events and the crushing disappointment), government agent Amanda Waller puts together a team of superhuman criminals and outcasts to face any major supernatural threats that may attack. When an ancient being threatens to destroy the modern world, this "suicide squad" is dispatched against their will to dispose of the threat. Meanwhile, team member Harley Quinn's psycho boyfriend and master criminal The Joker orchestrates her escape.
    This was a film I was excited to see after seeing the fun and over-the-top look of the film from the marketing. I was skeptical of Jared Leto as The Joker, but after hearing positive reception about his small role I was happy to see what he had to offer. I was devastated when I saw the film.
    It's a film that seems just mediocre when you first see it, but slowly you realize how much you hate it the more you think about it. At least that's what I felt.
    The cast are all just there. The only real stand-outs were Viola Davis, who was admirable as the ruthless and calculating Waller, and Margot Robbie, who, despite some cringey one-liners, was absolutely perfect as Harley Quinn, though her relationship with other team members was underdeveloped. Will Smith was good... as Will Smith. He was just miscast as Deadshot and they try to make this scumbag contract killer into a nice guy because he has a daughter, which somehow excuses his killing random people for money.
    Common just kind of shows up. For about 30 seconds. And then the Joker kills him.... for now reason (cause y'know, crazy).
    Adam Beach appears as Slipknot, the deadliest Squad member in comics, who is reduced to a cameo with one line before he disappears from the film in a comedically awful fashion.
    Jai Courtney does a fair job as Captain Boomerang, bringing a fresh take to the character in the vein of a chav/bogart punk that I found entertaining, despite, again, some cringey lines on his part.
    Ben Affleck has a cameo as Batman, and Jared Leto is absolutely terrible as The Joker. I've already elaborated on his performance before, so I'll link to an in-depth take on it here: https://www.quora.com/Why-do-people-not-like-Jared-Letos-Joker/answer/Matthew-Cotter-6?__snid3__=328470377&__nsrc__=1&__filter__=all
    Cara Delevingne seems to confuse her two careers, strutting about the screen as if on a runway and not saying or doing much instead of, you know, acting. Her villain entirely relies on her sex appeal to get by and that's kind of insulting.
   The rest of the cast are bland and the movie just comes off incredibly rushed (which apparently it was, as David Ayer, who had a much darker vision for the film, was forced to write in in 6 weeks and had most of it cut in reshoots to appeal more to the success of Deadpool by giving it a forced comedic overlay). Characters are given personality traits they've never before possessed (Killer Croc is now super in touch with his black heritage and is more a comedic relief character instead of a terrifying force of nature like he should be), and all motivations are rushed (even Jay Hernandez as El Diablo, the only character I really liked, is given a forced backstory which he tells in exposition only and even then it's just so the audience goes 'Oh, he had a sad life so now I like him.')
    The CGI effects are abysmal and confusing and the entire film is just boring and ugly to look at. The soundtrack reeks of "focus group" and all the songs are by mainstream artists and the most cliche music choices are made during the opening montages.
    Suicide Squad is trash. I'm not a Marvel fanboy, but I certainly would take anything (even Ant-Man) over this mess of marketing. DC just keeps making the same mistake: playing catch up with Marvel and fucking up their films as a result instead of slowing down and just focusing on making a good film individually. More creativity and effort went into the design of the posters than the actual film, apparently. 4/10 stars.



Sausage Party:
In a local supermarket, foods worship the idea that one day they will be chosen to be in The Great Beyond, a place of magic and wonder where they can finally have sex, as long as they are good now. One sausage, Frank, finally seeks to learn the truth of what lies beyond the supermarket after a store accident leads to a warning from a dijon mustard that the Great Beyond is a lie and what lies beyond is an unimaginable horror.
    Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg bring their most twisted film to date. Turning the CG animation world on its' head, they take full advantage of the medium to get away with sickest, most taboo stuff they can think of that would never skate by in a live-action film.
    The voice cast are incredible, and I won't list them here, because part of the fun of the movie for me was finding out who voiced certain characters. (Sammy Bagel Jr., my favorite character, is voiced by a well-respected actor which I found pretty amusing considering who this character is and what he does).
    The animation is of decent quality, having a nice, colorful palate and crisp imagery. Most of the jokes rely on food and sex puns, which gets grating at times, but there's enough cleverness to balance it out. The plot takes some incredibly unexpected turns that I found both ballsy and hilarious and overall the film was a great time (though I think it'd be better drunk or high, and I think that was the intention all along).
    Sausage Party is a fun comedy with some sly humor and an effective social satire on religion, surprisingly. I say just stop reading this and check it out for yourself. 6.5/10 stars.



(Images: Wikipedia)

Monday, September 12, 2016

Lights Out and Star Trek- Beyond: July's most most mediocre offerings

Today, I look at the horror film Lights Out and the sci-fi adventure Star Trek: Beyond, in an almost pointless game of catch-up due to my ridiculous hiatus I've been taking as of late.

Lights Out:
After a number of strange and frightening occurrences, two siblings (one a 20-something punk rock girl and the other her pretty bland younger brother) begin to fear that their mother has slipped off the deep end and there is a paranormal entity hiding in the shadows of their homes, stalking them as prey and puppeting their unstable mother along.
    David F. Sandberg, a Swedish director, helms this directorial debut which was inspired by his low-budget but still effective and charmingly simple short of the same name he produced in 2013. I think it shows in this final product which has a paper-thin, predictable plot which was a little too reminiscent of The Ring at times (a film I only recently saw and felt was grossly overrated).
    Teresa Palmer was a forgettable and cardboard cutout lead character. I haven't seen much of Palmer's work but I'm sure she's fine in other things, just here she was nothing special. Alexander DiPersia was the standard supportive horror boyfriend character and Gabriel Bateman came across as a low-rent Ty Simpkins from Insidious. Bateman wasn't anything more or less expected from the genre. Maria Bello was probably better than most of the cast as the on-edge mother character though her psychosis came off as more irritating than scary. Alicia Vela-Bailey (who's gorgeous in real life, funny enough) carried a certain presence with her during her screen time as Diana, so she was the highlight of the film. Lotta Losten (the star of the original short and the director's wife) makes a cameo in the opening scene echoing the original short.
    The plot felt too brisk and repetitive, and ultimately it was just that: a run-of-the-mill genre piece that will be forgotten within a year just with an added gimmick of the "the villain only exists in the dark" plot point. They do play with that concept pretty cleverly a few times, like the use of black lights, but I felt the movie didn't deliver enough story or substance to make me enjoy those moments as much as I could have.
    Now, while I mentioned The Ring was a very overrated movie, I appreciated the visual style of the film and persistent sense of unease and dread that purveyed the film up until the somewhat mediocre climax. For Lights Out, rather than sitting in fear of the next scare, I was bored, awaiting the next cued "Boo!" moment.
    Lights Out is not a very promising directorial effort from Sandberg, which is disappointing after the hype of the short film, with bland and run-of-the-mill characters, too many conventions and not enough originality, and a misunderstanding of what made the original short scary. (For a breakdown of that, see this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPRppNlfaX8) 4.5/5 stars.




Star Trek, Beyond:
Some time into their five-year mission, the crew of the U.S.S. Enterprise's boredom with the minutia and repetition of their day-to-day routines is interrupted when they become stranded by a strange alien attack, leading them to become separated on a mostly vacant alien world, only populated by a group of rogue creatures who have a vendetta against Starfleet.
    The first of these films to not be helmed by J.J. Abrams (who of course have moved on to Star Wars), it is instead directed by Justin Lin, known for his work on the Fast and the Furious franchise, and written by Doug Jung and cast member Simon Pegg.
    Feeling a lot more like an episode of the original show and with enough wink-winks and subtle continuity nods to make even the most hardcore fanboy's head spin, this is probably the most goofy and bland of these new films, and my least favorite, but it is by no means a bad film. It's not the best the summer had to offer, but very far from the worst.
    The cast are still very comfortable in their roles, and the bittersweet feeling of seeing Anton Yelchin on screen for the last time made me more partial to the film (one scene near the end feature a framing on Anton in the center of the frame and a line about "absent friends" that's almost chilling
considering the film was in post-production at the time of his tragic death).
    Idris Elba played a pretty bland bad guy, which was unfortunate for such a skilled actor, and one with experience in playing cold, calculating baddies (anywhere from Luther on Luther, to Stringer Bell on The Wire, to Charles Miner on The Office).  Sofia Boutella has a nice role as the supporting as the scavenger Jaylah. Joe Taslim and Lydia Wilson also appear.
    Leonard Nimoy and Yelchin are given heartwarming little tributes on this film, and they will be sorely missed in upcoming adaptations.
    The unveiling of Sulu as gay was not supported by George Takei himself and I felt it was an unnecessary PC addage to diversify an already incredibly diverse cast of characters.
    The music choices in the film felt appropriate and one final sequence set to a popular song from a previous entry was clever and fun. Ultimately, despite a few clever set-ups, most of the action had little to set it apart from the constant stream of blockbusters recently.
    Star Trek Beyond is essentially an average episode of the original series stretched out to feature length, and is a decent summer outing, but nothing more. It felt somewhat empty, so it made me sad it would be the final film of Yelchin's career. 6/10 stars.

                                                     (Images: Wikipedia)



Sunday, July 31, 2016

The Conjuring 2: A fine sophomore effort in the marginally overrated horror franchise

James Wan once again returns to the horror genre to deliver a sequel even more loosely factual than the original.

The Conjuring 2:
In 1977, Ed and Lorraine Warren, the lovable ghost-hunting couple, find themselves travelling to London to investigate a poltergeist (disruptive spirit) in a townhouse occupied by a single mother and her several children. However, this seemingly everyday haunting (and probable hoax) grows evermore angry and invasive as time goes on, and the Warrens begin to suspect a far more sinister entity is at play.
    The Enfield Poltergeist, like any other case the Warrens were a part of, is one of the most debated ghost sightings/possible hoaxes ever documented, and this film milks that quite a bit. Watching the footage and photographs with the film back-to-back, the recreation is incredibly detail-accurate and many characters and locations are nearly identical to their real-world counterparts.
    The leads Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga are incredibly likable and hold the movie together, while also adding in humanizing flaws the first film left out of it's borderline angelic portrayal of the couple (Ed's passion and proclivity towards anger, for example). Wilson and Farmiga are terrific and often unnoticed actors that are able to generate a lot more chemistry than seen in most horror film couples (definitely moreso than in Wan's own Insidious, which featured Wilson opposite Rose Byrne), as well as give the film a more emotional, dramatic feel. The shame is the film Warrens are so likable it makes the very real (and oft-reported) possibility the real-life Warrens were nothing more than poorly masked frauds even more upsetting.
     Frances O'Connor and Madison Wolfe were very serviceable as the single mother Peggy, and her daughter Janet, the child the film pays the most attention to. Now this is no Exorcist, but Wolfe turned in a solid performance as the possessed girl, though sometimes the obviously dubbed "possessed" voice is more laughable than scary most of the time (hearing this little frail British girl speak in a gruff, Cockney man's voice is pretty amusing). O'Connor is also above-average as the single mother, who I felt a lot of sympathy for, and the fact that it's a single mother also makes the horror a lot more frightening, as this poor, stressed-out woman now has to deal with these fantastical forces she cannot hope to combat coming after her children. However, you may notice I'm using rather dull words to describe the performance of these two, like "solid" or :above-average," because frankly, after seeing this film over a month ago (that's procrastination for you), I can't really remember much about them other than being just pleased with them. Nothing to write home about. Unfortunately, that's rather routine for horror films these days.
    Simon McBurney plays Maurice Grosse, another key figure in the real-life case, who at first comes off as the cardboard-cutout, bumbling paranormal investigator who seems to be in it for his own publicity, but has some more grounded moments that ultimately won me over with him. However, one character I can say was the most terribly flat, misrepresented, almost insulting character was Franka Potente as Anita Gregory, another real-world character and a skeptic of the case. Nothing against Potente, but the character is purposefully written to make skeptics look bad. She insults the victims and other investigators at inappropriate times, and seethes smugness and bitchiness from the moment she appears on screen. Her judgemental and self-satisfying smirk as she tears down the daughter's claims towards the climax are enough to make anyone despise her. But then I realized "Hold on, this is a real person. This persona really exists. And here they are reduced to a caricature." She's not even a character, she's just a tool to make the audience hate skeptics and anyone who claims the Warrens or their cases are fraudulent. Another skeptic character (portrayed by Cory English) who appears early on on a talk show opposite the Warrens, is similarly portrayed as a pompous, irritable, and dislikable man who personally attacks the duo instead of relying on science and reason (as a skeptic would).
    Bob Adrian, veteran voice actor Robin Atkin Downes, Bonnie Aarons, and Javier Botet (known for his work on the REC series) round out the principle cast as the entities in the film. I will say this, for all the silly (sometimes downright laughable) moments and the reliance on jump scares, the film did a genuinely great job of building up the menace of the antagonists and really getting under my skin (Wan has a knack for this, let me tell you). While the "main" ghost I found not all that frightening (it's just a normal old man with a gruffer voice and discolored eyes, eerie? A little. Terrifying? Not really, seen it done better.), the other entities (the demon nun seen in advertising and another I won't spoil), were not a part of the real-life story but were nonetheless very effective. That nun crept into my dreams for nights after I saw the film (although, the use of CGI that sometimes accompanied it was really bad and took me out of it; I felt it was already really creepy in a refreshingly simplistic way, so having an obviously CG 'demon mouth' effect on it was just a bad call). The film's use of "Hark! The Herald Angels Sing" is not only appropriate (it's set during the holidays) but will make you shudder everytime it plays around Christmastime.
    Speaking of which, the music choices are excellent. Joseph Bishara's score is, again, a little reminiscent of his Insidious work, but the soundtrack is excellent. "London Calling" by The Clash and "I Can't Help Falling in Love with You" by Elvis Presley are terrific classic rock tracks that make it into the film, the latter being used very effectively, to my surprise.
    I also noticed the film makes use of the R-rating a lot more. The original's R rating was a shock to the producers and Wan, but they played it up in the marketing ("A film so scary and real it was rated R just because it's so accurate it scared the MPAA" was the gist of it), and now, they rolled with it, with some more gruesome moments (not full-on gore, but definitely bloodier than the first in a few key scenes).
    Some might also find the religious angle played up in this film, just like in the last, a little off-putting if you aren't really a religious person (the heroes are Catholic and use their faith in God to help them find the courage to fight demons- it's honestly even more overt than the religious themes in The Exorcist) but I wasn't all that bugged by it.
    Overall, The Conjuring 2 is a fun time getting a safe, easy scare. Is it a great movie? No. It's not even a particularly great horror movie. But it is an entertaining and fairly solid one. If it's still playing near you, go check it out if you like horror films or the paranormal investigative side of it (just don't consider this a historically accurate movie by any stretch). 6.5/10 stars.


Conjuring 2.jpg                                                (Image: Wikipedia)

Thursday, June 30, 2016

The Nice Guys: Shane Black's comeback after the lukewarm feedback on "Iron Man 3"

Today, I look at the new detective comedy from Shane Black, writer of Lethal Weapon and co-writer of The Monster Squad and director of Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang, Iron Man 3 and the upcoming Predator and Doc Savage movies. (Obviously, this guy has had quite the resume during his 30 year career.)

The Nice Guys:
After a girl named Amelia goes missing and a death occurs, bumbling, alcoholic private investigator Holland March is put on the case. Eventually, he crosses paths with Jackson Healy, an ex-something-or-other who now has made a business for himself as a hired muscle of sorts. The two eventually decide to team up when both are targeted by some hitmen and mob enforcers, leading them to believe that Amelia's disappearance and the nearby death are linked, and are tied to a much larger conspiracy.
    Shane Black goes back to his pseudo-noir roots with this pulpy action-comedy piece. From the opening reels, I was reminded of films like Chinatown and games like L.A. Noire, not just for the setting, but also because I knew going in there would be some sort of conspiracy (the trailers make that clear), and I could see the clues being dropped immediately. This is not to discredit the film at all, however, as Black throws in plenty of curveballs and twists that make just guessing how it all fits together impossible until all the pieces are revealed masterfully. I also loved how the conspiracy plot, once shown in its' full scope, is not as deadly serious as one might expect and fits the film's crazy, fun universe.
    Black's dialogue has always be whip-smart and funny, but this is arguably his best work in comedy. My God, I didn't even realize how much I loved the film or the dialogue until me and my brother who I saw it with started quoting it constantly. It's really a brilliant and highly-quotable film.
    Russell Crowe and Ryan Gosling have terrific chemistry on screen and show their range here. Crowe, while used to roles as the badass fighter character or the stoic hero, has a lot more fun with the role here, and is a lot more likable and even sometimes giddy than the trailers portray. Gosling trades in his usual role of the stone-faced, brutal anti-hero from films like Drive, The Place Beyond the Pines, and Only God Forgives for a goofy, flawed, weak-willed, lethargic private eye who needs his 13-year-old daughter to drive him from bar to bar. Speaking of which, the unofficial third part of the group is Angourie Rice as Holly. While her strange fixation on not killing got irritating at times, she ultimately is far more endearing and funny than any of the typical annoying kid sidekicks. She has great father-daughter chemistry with Gosling on screen, and even Crowe and her share some touching moments.
    Kim Basinger, Keith David, Beau Knapp, Matt Bomer, Margaret Qualley, Yaya DaCosta and Lois Smith fill out the rest of the principle cast, with memorable cameos by Murielle Telio, Ty Sympkins (a Shane Black alum), Jack Kilmer (the son of a Shane Black alum, Val Kilmer), and Hannibal Burress. All these players do fantastic jobs, but I can't really delve much into each part without spoilers.
    The action in this film, like in Lethal Weapon or other detective/buddy cop movies, is not the usual explosions and CG battles. It is more subdued, but no less fun or exciting. There aren't many true set-pieces until the final act, but the witty dialogue and slowly unraveling and increasingly crazy mystery was plenty to keep me engaged. This is a movie that feel longer than it is, in a good way. At only just shy of 2 hours, it was the shortest summer movie I've seen thus far, and it felt much more satisfying as a film than any others. It didn't feel like a bigger part of a franchise puzzle, and didn't feel cheap, and while there was room left for a sequel, it didn't pander, and that I respect more than anything I think. (The soundtrack, sets, and costumes were also fantastic, really giving an oversaturation that "this is the 70's!" that fit the comic book-y tone of the movie very well).
     The Nice Guys is an awesome ride, and is probably the best summer movie out right now, despite not really being typical summer movie fare. It's wild, hilarious, thrilling, and just a ton of fun, probably the most fun movie I've seen since last year's Mad Max: Fury Road, though the two are drastically different movies. 7.5/10 stars.

The Nice Guys poster.png                                            (Image: Wikipedia)

Wednesday, June 22, 2016

X-Men- Apocalypse: A fun, albeit overblown and uneven, chapter in the never-ending franchise

Today, I look at the latest installment in the X-Men series, what I thought to be the final, but which clearly shows there is no end in sight for this saga.

X-Men, Apocalypse:
Ten years after the events of X-Men: Days of Future Past, Charles Xavier is running a successful mutant academy and mutants are becoming more integrated into society. In this new alternate timeline, Mystique is on the run, now a hero and martyr for mutant rights after her selfless acts at the conclusion of the past film. Magneto is living a quiet life under the radar in Poland as a factory worker, as he is now a wanted man for trying to kill President Nixon and destroy Washington, D.C. During this time of peace, a cult in Cairo, Egypt awakens the ancient mutant Apocalypse, the world's first, who is all-powerful. Quickly learning of man's history and capacity for destructions, as well as the creation of their own "superpowers" (nuclear weapons, technological advancements), Apocalypse decides to recruit four followers (his "Horsemen") and imbue them with advanced abilities, and plans to cleanse the Earth of those who he views as weak and unfit to live in the same world as him. With the help of CIA agent Moira MacTaggert (Xavier's old flame), the retired X-Men must find a way to stop Apocalypse from tearing the world apart.
    One thing I appreciated right off the bat with this film was the alternate timeline plot that Days of Future Past allowed. Now that the original series of films has been annulled, the series can proceed down numerous new paths without worrying about getting tangled up in continuity (though there's still some here, such as the age of the character Angel not fitting with either timeline).
     One thing I found laughable was the lack of aging on characters. Now, obviously the actors haven't aged, but the makeup team didn't even attempt to make them look older. They already clarified Mystique ages slowly so that doesn't bother me much. More like Beast, Moira, Xavier, Havok, Magneto, etc. all looking roughly the same age they did in First Class, which took place 20 years prior to this one. Apparently if you just make Magneto more unshaven and slap mullets on Havok and Xavier that equals aging. Even Quicksilver hasn't aged at all. Being a teenager/college-aged in the previous film made him living in his mom's basement plausible, but ten years later?!! With his abilities he never thought to go out and make a name for himself or do something? His mom (also the same as she was before) never bothered him about this? He even acknowledges, jokingly, what a loser he is and how nothing has changed in his life. Why? Because people like young, fun, carefree Quicksilver. (They also never clarify how or why exactly Magneto ended up with his mom, who just seems way below Magneto's league. Of course, their fling happened years prior, as Magneot is Quicksilver's father, so maybe they just make her look older and drained.)
    These ages lead to problems with the age of Havok compared to his brother Scott. Scott/Cyclops is in his late teens in this film, whereas Havok looks a few years older, but really should be middle-aged by this point, making their parents elderly, but they look to be in their 50's. Just issues like that got in the way for me.
     I think Jennifer Lawrence is a fine actress, but she just doesn't do it for me as Mystique. I think she's got the look right, and certain scenes work, but her youth makes some of the speeches she gives come off as naive, cringey, and undeserved. And her new status as a freedom fighter seems completely out-of-character (Mystique in the comics and original timeline is a cold-blooded killer and her original movie counterpart rarely speaks even), and kind of political. I don't think anyone is deluding themselves that Mystique has only gotten a larger role due to Lawrence's current mega-star status. Luckily, she's downplayed in this movie compared to last time (where she was the instigator of the entire plot and was placed the same size as Wolverine on the poster), but still has more screen time than the character would've had otherwise.
    The rest of the cast are a lot of fun, and just seem to be having a great time doing these movies. Michael Fassbender and James McAvoy both have their more dramatic moments, particularly Fassbender, who is able to bring a lot of emotional weight and grounds the film more in reality. Where Ian McKellen made Magneto both charming and very intimidating and shifty, Fassbender humanizes him and makes him more tragic, as if every time he tries to leave his violent past behind him and live a normal life, violence seems to find him.
    Sophie Turner is good as Jean Grey, though at times her character feels like her role on Game of Thrones. Luckily, her character her is nowhere near as aggravatingly naive and arrogant as her part on the HBO series has become, and has more of a genuinely powerful feel to her. Tye Sheridan also does a surprisingly great job as young Cyclops, who gets more development here than he did in any of the original films (poor James Marsden). Kodi Smit-McPhee was great as the partial comic relief Nightcrawler, who has been sorely absent from the series since Alan Cumming's fantastic portrayal in X2. However, of course the shining star of the cast is Evan Peters as Quicksilver. Taking one of the X-Men I was most aloof about in other media and making him into my favorite film character is a terrific feat, and he has yet another spectacular and entertaining slow-motion sequence in this film, topping the excellent "Time in a Bottle" scene from the previous film. I wasn't expecting them to do it again, but I hope it becomes a sort of tradition as the series progresses. Peters is just having a blast, and it rubs off of me as a viewer, and he provides much-needed comic relief in a world where everyone is always just talking about mutant politics and how hard it is to be themselves. Even though his comic relief is sometimes misplaced (the dramatic low point during the second act is tainted by his goofy antics), but is so well-executed and his character so lovable I excuse it. Lucas Till returns as Havok, getting a lot more screen time than the last movie. Here, rather than being Cyclops' younger brother, he takes the part of the older, and in the limited screen time they have, they have a lot of chemistry as a believable brother pair. Rose Byrne was bland here as Moira MacTaggert, who only serves as exposition and as love interest to Xavier here. She was a lot better in First Class, where she seemed to have more to do, and Byrne is usually a good actress, so I was disappointed. Lana Condor appears in a borderline cameo role as everyone's least favorite mutant, Jubilee. Hopefully in future films she has more screen time and can change the negative perception the character has from the animated series and comics.
     As for the villainous characters, Alexandra Shipp and Ben Hardy are fine supporting characters as the troubled characters Storm and Angel, and both of these characters, in their limited development, are leagues more interesting than their counterparts in the originals. Shipp's accent is also far more convincing than Halle Berry's embarrassing attempt at one in the original X-Men. Olivia Munn reportedly gave up the role as the girlfriend in Deadpool to play Psylocke, as she felt it was a stronger female role. Psylocke is a waste of space here, just thrown in to pander to fans who have waited for her appearance in a film for decades. She has few lines of dialogue, and spends most of her time strutting and hopping around in a latex suit (fun fact: fashioned at an LA sex shop), and has one fight scene with Beast and then skulks off camera as a sequel tease. She's not a character at all, she's a plot device and piece of eye candy. It's pretty pitiful, so let's hope to a sequel to shed more light on her and flesh her out a bit more.
     Now, the big question is of the titular big bad: Apocalypse. Oscar Isaac is a fantastic performer, so he is able to create a palpable sense of menace and dread when he's on screen. His determination to kill and lack of conscience or reason makes him so terrifying, and he is definitely one of the more memorable villains in the series, alongside Ian McKellen's Magneto and Brian Cox's William Stryker. However, as many have stated before me, his motivation (at least for the most part), seems very unclear. It kind of leaves it to the audience to pick up the pieces and determine for themselves his motive. He wants to cleanse the Earth. Why? Does he see humans as weaker than he is? Does he want only strong mutants and humans to live beside? Is he upset that humans didn't progress how he wanted and are trying to replicate his power? World peace by cleansing out the bad people? All of these options seem valid. His appearance is also hilariously reminiscent of Ivan Ooze from the Mighty Morphin Power Rangers movie. So he's a weakly developed villain, but Isaac's strength as an actor makes up for it, so he's kind of a mixed bag.
     The action set-pieces in this film are, like other installments, not as prevalent as in other films, but the first few are pretty spectacular. Unfortunately, the action peaks early on with the Quicksilver scene being the midpoint climax, and there is a scene shortly after it I won't spoil with a cameo in it, but it's also really awesome and surprisingly bloody for a PG-13 film. However, the final battle, while it had moments (thanks to Quicksilver namely), didn't do it for me overall. I felt it was kind of schlocky and too CG-heavy. I felt the films were at their best when they had more reserved, personal climaxes, where the action was more grounded in reality, and more multi-layered and not one huge video game-esque melee battle. I also felt the earlier films exhausted the best set-pieces for the most part, as I feel they had sequences that really played around with the mutant powers and really showed what these characters could do, while also being a thrill to watch. Here, it's just a bunch of people in bright costumes throwing CG beams and heavy rubble at each other, and feels just not right. I couldn't tell if too little or too much was going on, and you know it's bad when you can't even determine what's wrong with something because it's so fucked.
    X-Men: Apocalypse is solid summer movie material. Is it one of the best in the series? No. But there have been worse. Much worse. That's why the intense backlash this film has gotten shocked me quite a bit. It may be a slightly mixed film, but by no stretch is it bad. It's well-plotted and written for the majority, and has a lot of fun, technically astounding scenes, and characters you can actually really get attached to and like, which is more than can be said for much of its competition lately. 7/10 stars.

A Spoiler-filled but very entertaining review/discussion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjNSCLQGzLA  (RedLetterMedia)

Official poster shows The X-Men Team with Professor X sitting in his wheelchair, surrounded by friend and foe mutants, with the film's titular enemy Apocalypse behind them with a big close-up over his head and face, with nuclear missiles flying into the air, and the film's title, credits, billing and release date below them and the film's slogan "Only The Strong Will Survive" above.                                 (Image: Wikipedia)




Notes (SPOILERS ahead):

-The end credits scene foreshadows the new R-rated Wolverine film, which I am excited for, as it will provide the character with a much-needed but somewhat bittersweet final chapter, as it will be Hugh Jackman's final appearance as the character he began playing nearly two decades ago.

-The spoiler-heavy action scene I mentioned earlier is actually where Wolverine escapes Stryker's compound as Weapon X, mad with rage and amnesia. Bryan Singer makes a cameo as a guard Wolverine slays on his way out. Funny enough, I was actually thinking to myself right as the scene began how refreshing it was to have an X-Men film where Wolverine is absent. *sigh* Regardless, a very cool and violent scene reminiscent of the mansion raid scene in X2.

-The way Apocalypse is killed in this film made sense, but ultimately was kind of bland for me. All the very powerful mutants just blasting him with CG lasers and rubble until he disintegrates with Jean's Phoenix power. Also, I find it amusing that now, in regards to comic book movies, with all the resurrections and retconning that happens, particularly in this franchise, whenever a character is killed, I always see in the synopses on Wikipedia "the character is seemingly killed/destroyed." Same goes for here. Apocalypse was disintegrated into fucking air. I don't think he's coming back.

-There's a totally random and out-of-place scene where some mutant teens go see Return of the Jedi at the mall cinema, and have this conversation about which of the trilogy is the best. They all debate between Empire and Star Wars, before Jean Grey says "At least we can all agree the third is the worst." I was confused with the random bashing of Jedi and why the scene was included, until I quickly realized Singer was not-so-subtly taking a jab at X-Men: The Last Stand (originally the conclusion to the trilogy, and the first film he did not direct). I appreciated it, but also felt that anyone not familiar with X-Men movies would be thoroughly confused as to what the reference was all about. This scene does kind of make me question why mutants are so respected now in this new timeline, because Nightcrawler is able to walk around the mall publicly and no one bats an eye at a blue boy with fangs, a tail, and giant three-digited feet and hands? In a world where bigotry still exists against other humans, I highly doubt in one decade mutants would become this integrated, even though they establish the new timeline's people are a lot more progressive than in the old one.

-Blob, played by "Giant" Gustav Claude Ouimet, cameos early on, continuing the tradition of these films of just shoving in recognizable faces from the comics into cameo roles.

-The scene where Magneto's family is killed by clumsy police officers while trying to arrest him is heart-wrenching and well-executed. While I predicted what was about to happen, Fassbender's performance is so convincing for a comic book film that it saved it from being just a cliche tug at the heart-strings. The way in which he executed the officers is also really clever but also unnerving.

Monday, June 20, 2016

Captain America- Civil War: A mostly redeeming new installment in the increasingly stale Marvel Cinematic Universe

Again, a really late review, but I only recently saw this film in theaters.

Captain America, Civil War:
After another somewhat destructive attempt at containing a violent situation, the Avengers are contacted by General Thaddeus "Thunderbolt" Ross (the headstrong, stubborn military official who's usually off hunting the Hulk), representing the UN, who criticize the Avengers' often reckless nature, despite the amount of people they save. Ross instructs them to support a new set of bills that will put the Avengers under the jurisdiction of the UN, who will first discuss if a situation even needs their attention. Captain America doesn't want to be a part of this, for obvious reasons, and it leads to a split in the team: those in favor and those opposed. Iron Man leads those in favor, as he is in complete agreement with the UN (for reasons which are very apparently selfish). Meanwhile, a string of recent terror attacks are blamed on Bucky Barnes/The Winter Soldier, who is still on the run after escaping the clutched of HYDRA at the conclusion of the previous film. Captain America violates his commitment to his team to chase after and save his old friend from persecution by the government, all while new players come into the fray and a mysterious new villain pulls the strings of the entire situation.
    I wasn't even particularly excited for this film, but saw it more out of obligation, and was pleasantly surprised by how entertained I was with it. Is it a flawless film? Hell no. In fact, the entire basis for the conflict in the movie is contrived and clearly one-sided (Captain America's side is clearly in the right throughout the entire movie, and the government in this film is one of the most misguided and idiotic and stubborn in all fiction). It's not even the best Captain America movie (it's not as bland as the first, but is nowhere near as focused as the second). It was, regardless, a fun blockbuster movie, and really should just be considered an Avengers 2.5, as the only Avengers absent from the film are Hulk and Thor. The Russo Brothers are actually able to juggle the overstuffed roster of heroes, villains and supporting characters fairly well, but the character relationships meaning anything to you really rely on you seeing all the previous Marvel films first (great monetary strategy there, Disney/Marvel).
    One of my most dreaded aspects of this film was Spider-Man, as I felt having him introduced in someone else's film was no way for such a major character to get treated, and I felt it was just too much. While I still hold on both of those accounts, he wasn't in the film all that much, and I actually liked Tom Holland's portrayal a lot. Time will tell if he bests Tobey Maguire, but he was nowhere near as annoying or unlikable as Andrew Garfield's portrayal, and felt like an awkward, funny teenager. The suit itself is design-wise excellent, but the CG looked way too synthetic and they'll need to work on that in future installments.
    Daniel Bruhl as the main villain Helmut Zemo was actually a breath of fresh air for an MCU antagonist. He was genuinely compelling (as much as a summer blockbuster villain can be, anyway) and didn't rely too heavily on crazy costumes or a gimmick to make him stand out. However, once his motivation is revealed as an overdone and almost comical cliche, all the mystery and menace surrounding his character washes away and he falls flat. Even though a problem with many Marvel villains is they only show up for one installment and don't do much interesting, I hope he can be involved in future installments so he can do something interesting and redeem the damage done to his character.
    Frank Grillo briefly returns as Brock Rumlow/Crossbones, the renegade STRIKE leader from the previous film. While I was sad his role was cut short, I also felt he was used appropriately, the same way Batroc the Leaper was used in The Winter Soldier: have a more minor villain show up at the beginning to reintroduce the heroes using an exciting action sequence and provide a match for Captain America in a cool fight.
     New introductions to the series include Martin Freeman in a very minor role, and Chadwick Boseman, who does a fine job as T'Challa/Black Panther, prince of Wakanda and who is on a revenge mission against the Winter Soldier, bringing him to butt heads with Captain America. While is screen time is limited compared to other heroes, he is a welcome addition to the ensemble.
    There were many narrative problems with the movie, from some cliched and rushed scenes (the death of a character's father was cliche and totally handled poorly), and, again, as many have pointed out, the government and Iron Man in this film are very unsympathetic and their motivation is garbage. "The Avengers cause collateral damage wherever they go, resulting in thousands of deaths." Yeah, versus billions of deaths if they did nothing, which Ross almost acknowledges when he's not smugly and unflinchingly showing death footage of their various battles to guilt them into agreeing with him. And the UN bill wouldn't even stop the casualties, just acknowledge when the casualties were "worth it" for the greater good. And the government was all for nuking NYC in The Avengers, which would've resulted in far more civilian deaths had Iron Man not stepped in.
     As far as I understand, the Civil War arc in the comics was less a UN board squabbling over whether to let the Avengers fight and more a registration act like in X-Men, where each hero would have to publically register themselves (still a really stupid idea). But the motivation felt more realistic because the entire controversy in-story was set off when heroes neglected to contain a villain who can explode on command, resulting in hundreds of children dying, as they were fighting in a playground. Here, it's because an accident near the beginning leads to a few dozen deaths at a government office complex in Lagos, in addition to the other times the Avengers' actions led to unintentional carnage. That just feels a little forced to me, as the benefits of the team so clearly outweigh the flaws.
    The relationship between Bucky and Captain America feels a bit forced at times, but ultimately gets more fleshed out in this movie, and the final three-way battle between them and Iron Man is a lot more emotional and investing than expected, even though, crushingly, it (and the other events in the film) have little impact on the team in the end.
     Captain America: Civil War has plenty wrong with it, and often has too much going on (I didn't even mention the inappropriately placed and a bit creepy romantic interest shoved in this film- who is the niece of Captain America's original love interest) but it should just be taken at face value. It's better than the last two Marvel films for sure, and balances out the fun, campy humor with some more serious and dark moments, creating a good bridge of tones I felt should be kept for future Marvel films. 7/10 stars.

Two great reviews (the former more a discussion) about the film, with Spoiler Segments, that cover a lot of what I left out of this review:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJvUTFVqwJQ (RedLetterMedia)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7q6X8oHh7wA (Your MovieSucks)


Official poster shows the Avengers team factions which led by Iron Man and Captain America, confronting each other by looking each other, with the film's slogan above them, and the film's title, credits, and release date below them.                          (Image: Wikipedia)

Tuesday, June 14, 2016

Hardcore Henry: Ever seen a videogame you felt should've just been a movie? How about a movie that should've just been a videogame?

I followed news of this film from the original music video that inspired it ("Bad Motherfucker" by Biting Elbows for those that don't know, as well as its precursor "The Stampede"), to its sneak previews and premieres at film festivals, all the way to its anticipated release internationally this past April. So, did it live up to the hype?

Hardcore Henry:
You, the audience, awake in a POV state. Your scientist wife, Estelle, addresses you as Henry, and says there was an accident that has led Henry to becoming a cyborg. Suddenly, mercenaries burst in, slaughtering the staff and kidnapping Estelle. Henry barely escapes the facility, and must travel the countryside without memories, chasing his wife with your mysterious new associate Jimmy (who may or may not be trustworthy), pursued by the mercenaries, led by the telepathic and gleefully theatrical villain Akan. Learning the extent of his newfound powers, Henry shoots, stabs, and bludgeons his way across Russia, becoming a hardened killer and super solider on his quest for revenge.
    I was very excited for this film, having heard it compared tonally to films like Mad Max: Fury Road and Crank for its emphasis on style over substance, and mindless and bloody fun over plot or character. Not that I don't love films with deep, fleshed-out characters and intricate plotting, but I also enjoy a well-made piece of escapism as well. Now, the actual film was disappointing on a few fronts, and I'll cover those right away. I felt the use of GoPros for the limited budget and goal of entirely being in first-person was impressive and practical, but the quality of the cameras does not exactly translate to the big screen all that well, as many shots were slightly fuzzy-looking. The special effects for many shoot out sequences were fine, but the CGI blood sprays and explosions often looked like a YouTube video, which is not to disrespect CG animators on YouTube, but for a feature film, it's a little more noticeable.
    Also: the lack of plot and incredibly rigid structure of this film made it often exhausting. While that sounds contradictory, I mean there was no real characters (just archetypes) to get into, so the action took center stage, But after a while, the rinse-and-repeat formula (crazy action scene, then calm break of about two minutes, then next action scene) left me feeling drained, and that this would function better as a web series or video game, something where you can take breaks at your leisure or that felt more interactive. There was also a sound issue in the final battle (the song was quieter than the sound effects), and the way the film ended felt abrupt and kind of awkward and amateur but those are incredibly minor.
    Other than those minor issues, I felt the film delivered on its promise of weird, crazy, chaotic, fun, violent action and the set-pieces were incredibly well-constructed for a first time feature director, and the lack of characters and over-the-top acting often added to the charm of this wild movie. There were non-action sequences that were incredibly Neveldine and Taylor-esque (a song and dance number near the climax of the film added some much-needed comic relief as well as tied together a mysterious plot line). The final battle was jaw-dropping, as I was not expecting the film to pack the amount of gore it did, especially not in its' final moments. It was exhilarating and entertaining as hell. Also: the opening credits sequence was very Bond, while also foreshadowing the possibly Evil Dead inspired splatstick style of humor.
    Danila Kozlovsky was entertaining as the tongue-in-cheek and ridiculous villain Akan, Haley Bennett played a decent damsel in distress (though the reveal with her character is very predictable towards the climax), and Tim Roth has a nice cameo. But the only character i can truly say is impactful in any significant way is Sharlto Copley as Jimmy. Once again, Copley shows his incredible range as an actor: he spend the movie doing silly accents and wearing goofy outfits, but is also some good comic relief and ultimately a bit of a tragic character who I actually grew to care about on some level (he is supposed to be the audience's guide/companion of sorts).
    Do not go into Hardcore Henry expecting a traditional moviegoing experience. If you like any sort of linear narrative or strong central characters, then I suggest looking elsewhere. But if you love so brainless, energetic, if a bit gruesome action and humor, then I would highly recommend it (if you've seen the music videos the film is based on, or listened to the director's band Biting Elbows' punk-style pop rock, you'll know pretty much what to expect). It is a lower budget indie film, so it may not have the special effects many Western audiences are used to expecting from action films, but the impressive choreography and insane sequences will provide ample distraction. Bravo to Ilya Naishuller on a terrific first outing, and I'd like to see him pursue more films in the future. 7/10 stars.

Hardcore (2015 film).jpg                                                           (Image: Wikipedia)

Batman v. Superman- Dawn of Justice: Bloated and boring, a review I don't want to write as much as I didn't want to see this movie but felt obligated to

I'm just trying to get this one over with.

Batman v. Superman, Dawn of Justice:
After the destruction of Metropolis at the conclusion of Man of Steel, the public is debating whether or not having Kal-El/Superman around is a good thing. Continuing his relationship with Lois Lane and job at the newspaper as Clark Kent, he is faced with a new challenger. The aging but still very active and violent vigilante Batman is operating in the neighboring city of Gotham. Batman, after first hand witnessing the fallout of Metropolis' demise, is determined to stop the overpowered alien visitor from causing any more havoc, even if it means having to take him down personally. All the while skeevy young tycoon Lex Luthor (Junior) is pulling the strings to get Superman out of the picture so he can rule Metropolis. Why is all this happening? Because DC needs a quick movie to catch up with Marvel.
    Everything about this film feels forced and purely corporate driven. It is far too early to cram this many heroes into one film as not each hero has been set up yet. Not necessarily saying everyone needs an origin movie, but at least a means of setting them up prior to the battle royale film. It took Marvel almost ten years since the original Iron Man to get to their Civil War film because it takes time to build these character relationships (however cliche) to get the audience to care about the conflict. This film barely can even find a reason for the two heroes to dislike each other, simply they have different approaches to dealing with completely different problems (i.e. Superman fights cosmic threats, Batman deals with street thugs and psychopaths).
    The problem was also adapting several different stories: they adapt The Dark Knight Returns and Superman: Doomsday simultaneously, while also doing a Justice League setup and Batman vs. Superman story. It is a jumbled mess that completely is tonally off. It is very clear that this film had extensive cuts made (solidified by the upcoming "Ultimate" R-rated cut) to keep it to the still draining 2 and a half hour runtime.
    Ben Affleck actually delivered fairly well as Batman, being dark and imposing, almost like a horror character, and really selling the idea that this is a vengeful person who puts the fear into criminals and cops alike. However, his "no killing" rule that has been so integral to his mythos for so long has been scrapped in favor of the militarized, borderline self-parodying Batman of the Frank Miller graphic novels that does not seem to wince at bloodshed or torture to achieve his goals of clean streets. Also, his motivation to hate Superman is staggeringly weak. For such a worldly and intelligent character as Batman is supposed to be, he sure jumps to xenophobia and paranoia quickly.
    The rest of the cast (at least the returners from Man of Steel) do fine but ultimately are just so droll and lifeless that they cease to be investing. Zack Snyder's casting now matches his visual palate: he's able to do such remarkable things with visuals, but always tends to suck out the color and energy in his films, surprisingly, given the comic medium's great strengths have always been a reliance strong visuals and striking colors.
    Callan Mulvey appears as KGBeast (only called by his name in this film), Scoot McNairy and Holly Hunter have new supporting roles, and Jeremy Irons is Alfred and all do okay, as none are given enough screentime to really develop (or in Mulvey's case, he's a one-dimensional henchman character who was only included to give comic fans the hope that more obscure villains will be used in the future).
     On a related note, Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor was not all that bad. Sure, he had some off moments (probably due to those extensive cuts I mentioned), and many complained he's too chaotic for a Lex Luthor, but ultimately I thought the idea of turning him into a jittery, eccentric Silicon Valley-esque CEO was a fresh take, even though his dialogue was often hammy and over dramatic.
    The film's plot is drawn out and dull, and certain sequences stand out (namely the introduction of Batman, which was tense and surprisingly eerie), but a lot (the opening slow-mo sequence is just the same Batman origin scene we've seen a million times, with some added laughable religious symbolism) didn't amount to much and the real action set-pieces don't begin until the climax, at which point the movie shifts from overly brooding and grim (seriously, the charming Superman doesn't so much as crack a reassuring smile when he's saving people from danger) to a campy, silly CGI mess. Even the actual Batman vs. Superman fight felt overlong and didn't fit in this universe at all (Snyder's Kal-El went from disintegrating skyscrapers with minimal effort in the previous film to barely being able to dent Batman's armor here), and ultimately was just boring to watch because there was no investment in the characters.
    The overall choices made in the film were dismal (Jimmy Olsen, a beloved comics character, is not even named on screen and dies 30 seconds after he's introduced as Lois' CIA contact on a trip to a warzone; the odd release date in March; the extensive cuts and rush to get this film to theaters; the cramming of far too many characters and ideas into what should be just a Batman vs Superman piece; having Batman and Superman fight in only their second film together; not just making a Man of Steel sequel, etc.) If this is really DC's method of making films, then I think it's time for them to quit trying to catch up with Marvel (they're a near-decade behind them), and just stick to doing what they've always done best: standalone films. Or maybe, just maybe, slow their roll on this whole "cinematic universe" idea. Because judging by this film's reception, people aren't having it, and DC will tank if they keep this up. Zack Snyder should go back to adapting novels and remaking things because when he has to build a fresh script from the ground up, it never ends well, and his visuals are his strong point, not his storytelling abilities. 4/10 stars.

The two titular heroes, Batman and Superman, are confronting each other, with the film's logo behind them, and the film's title, credits, release date and billing below.                                                             (Image: Wikipedia)

Wednesday, May 25, 2016

10 Cloverfield Lane: A terrific psychological thriller that was almost ruined by marketing and rewrites

Today, in an immensely delayed review, I look at the spiritual sequel to 2008's found footage hit 10 Cloverfield Lane.

10 Cloverfield Lane:
After an argument with her boyfriend, a Louisianan woman named Michelle drives into the countryside looking to escape. After she is involved in an intense car accident, she awakes to find herself the unwilling inhabitant of an underground bunker, created and ruled with an iron fist by the mysterious Howard. She is joined by fellow inhabitant Emmett, and soon the survivalist Howard explains that there has been some unexplained attack which has resulted in apocalyptic conditions outside, so no one can leave the bunker. But as tensions rise among the three and Michele desires a way out, they find that whatever lies for them outside may be better than staying.
    The basis for this film was an micro-budget script titled The Cellar. I think this is incredibly apparent in that the connections to the Cloverfield franchise are incredibly loose and don't even come into play until well into the third act. I would have almost preferred it just be its own film as opposed to tying it to a nearly decade-old found footage film, but then again, in this depressing state of Hollywood it probably wouldn't have gotten a quality studio treatment without being tied to some pre-existing property.
    Mary Elizabeth Winstead makes for an impressive leading lady, and she is definitely undervalued and it is a shame she seems to exclusively get shoved into genre pieces. John Gallagher, Jr. is also strong as her male companion Emmett, whose presence in the bunker seems to put Howard in a bit of a mood for some reason. He is an effective romantic interest and very likable character for the little we get to know of him. Bradley Cooper has a nice voice cameo near the beginning, and Suzanne Cryer also cameos.
    The final member of the cast and the shining star of this film is John Goodman. Good God, the transformation of one of the most lovable actors in Hollywood into a threatening and domineering screen presence is remarkable. Every moment he's on screen and every piece of dialogue is dripped with tension, as literally almost anything could set his hair-trigger temper off. Not that he doesn't get moments that humanize him a bit, but his character ultimately comes off more pitiful and sad than sympathetic, in direct opposition to Goodman's usual Teddy Bear appeal.
    The film really was a solid and tense psychological thriller, and incredibly well-done and paced bottle story (i.e. story set in a single location with a small cast) as well as mystery. The last 15 minutes almost ruin the entire movie, as that is when they shove in the unnecessary "tie" to Cloverfield, and honestly I thought of two places exactly where they could have cut to black and I would've been totally satisfied and even impressed (i.e. right after a character leaves a location and discovers something about the outside world, or right after this same character sees an object in the distance and says "You've got to be kidding me," you'll know what I'm talking about as soon as you finish the film).
    Overall, this is a terrifically tense movie that succeeded in getting me invested into its not entirely unique but still intriguing premise, though I would recommend just turning it off before the climax totally drops the ball (you'll know exactly what I'm talking about). Maybe a fan edit will be created one day (hopefully). 6.5/10 stars.

10 Cloverfield Lane.png                                          (Image: Wikipedia)



Friday, March 18, 2016

The Witch: A terrific examination of Puritan culture, repressed desires, and paranoia, all in a tightly paced and impressively executed period horror package

Today, I look at the incredible debut project from Robert Eggers.

The Witch:
An isolated Puritan family on a farm in the uncharted territories of New England are faced with horrific tragedy when their newborn Sam goes mysteriously missing. Suspecting a witch is in their midst, the family must fend off this insidious and seemingly supernatural force as it tears their family apart, fueled by their restrictive religious beliefs and superstitious fears.
    Robert Eggers has constructed here a brilliant horror film, and a tautly thrilling period drama about an unraveling family facing both the hardships of their isolated, conservative lifestyle and poor harvest as well as more primal fears such as the fear of the unknown. The inspiration from Puritan folklore is undeniable, namely given away by the subtitle A New England Folktale, but also the setting and themes. The dark, foreboding wood which threatens to envelop the relatively peaceful and serene green farmland is a staple of Grimms' Fairy Tales like Red Riding Hood and Hansel and Gretel, not to mention the brief glimpses we get of the titular monster's cottage in the deep woods and her various guises she takes (I won't give one away but let's say it's fairly reminiscent of a popular female fairy tale character) seem to be images we've all seen re-imagined in countless interpretations of classic stories.
    The nuance and subtlety of characters and their motivations and repressed desires is something I was surprised the film tackled as well as it did. It never feels as though it is shoving anything in your face, but rather has slight implications, and keeps you in the dark. In fact, it can never be sure up until the climax that what we are seeing is just the product of cabin fever mixed with religious indoctrination-related fears of the Devil, or is truly the Prince of Darkness infesting the familial cottage.
   The musical score by Cube composer Mark Korven is pitch-perfect, reminiscent of the more experimental soundtracks of the 70's horror films while also capturing the tone of the film well: slow-building, uncomfortable, and searing to experience. The compositions made each scene elevated in tension and ominousness, making me hope that the upsetting and gruesome acts on screen would cease and the horrible, disjointed chants and rhythms of the music would stop infesting my eardrums, and I cannot give a bigger compliment to the sound design than that.
    Eggers' attention to period accurate sets, costumes, and dialogue will off-put the teen audience members who will have unmistakably flocked to this film expected the dull and tired jump-scares of Blumhouse films, only to discover the scenes in this film sometimes read like that classic play they hate reading in English class. The shame in the greatness of this film is the majority of its' audience (the aforementioned teens and college-aged slasher and jump scare buffs)  will not appreciate the period dialogue or subtle psychological horror or dramatic tension and will mistake the film for boring, pretentious, or just plain weird and pointless.
   The acting was incredible from the central players, who are the only characters we really get to know in the movie. Anya Taylor-Joy was unexpectedly inspired as Thomasin, the eldest daughter and the closest thing the film gets to a main heroine. She was vulnerable and stressed with the immense pressure on her to help in the family affairs, but also felt like a real teenage girl living in that period: repressed, confused, tired of living in fear of God, etc. Her interactions with her siblings, including her brother Caleb (played by an also terrific Harvey Scrimshaw, who portrays the struggles of an adolescent boy growing up in such a restrictive and isolated family) felt so real and vivid. Ralph Ineson and Kate Dickie, both recognizable faces and veterans of character acting, especially in fantasy and period pieces, are almost Oscar-worthy as the parents. Ineson's father is gruff and righteous, but unlike most Puritan patriarch characters, he is too vulnerable and feels human and tormented, and you do get a sense that he is devoted to his family, even in his darker moments. Dickie's mother is utterly passionate in her devotion to both God and her children. Her declining sanity as her family's existence goes to hell is tragic and yet totally understandable given the circumstances and Dickie is experienced in portraying slightly unhinged matriarchs (just see her supporting role on Game of Thrones for further proof of that). The family felt real and incredibly sympathetic, making early scenes with them hard to stomach. I wanted this film to just be some period drama piece so nothing truly awful would befall them, but I also knew this was a horror film, so there was nothing to do but just watch the family slowly devolve into treachery and madness. If I ever do a more in-depth look at this film (which I intend to some day), I will more fully develop my thoughts on each character's specific flaws and desires and how they are exploited in throughout the film by the supernatural forces around them.
    The scenes with the witch (or is it a witch?) were handled remarkably. They were brief and disturbing, and offered only glimpses of the twisted world of this woman. It also makes one realize that it's no wonder why Puritans were so paranoid about witches in real life: if I though these women were real I'd be terrified, too. The portrayal of black magic in this film is raw and unflinching, but also vague enough to provide a sense of mystery about the subject to remain frightening and avoid bad taste.
    I cannot help but compare this film with Rob Zombie's The Lords of Salem. Both are frightening in their own respects and both center around witchcraft, but they are completely contrasting in styles (The Witch is a slow-burning period piece with minimal gore and a downplayed witch; The Lords of Salem is a throwback to the acid trip-esque exploitation films of the 70's and is very in-your-face with its' presentations of witchcraft and some truly demented and bad taste imagery). I like both films (though I like this recent one a bit more), and I feel both are throwbacks to true horror. No jump scares or silly slasher kills, just pure terror and human misery. And it is because of this that these are classics in any other period but now. Due to the way the horror market is now, it is essentially just a teen playground where it's all safe scares that have CG ghosts who go "BOO!" and are essentially a beginner's level of horror film. This means for these witch films to be a financial success, they have to be marketed to the teen horror audience. However, the general teen audience is also not mature nor educated enough to really comprehend the subjects tackled in these films and therefore will walk out hating the film and probably feeling cheated or revolted or both. If you are a person reading this who just wants a fun night out at the movies, a funhouse-style scare show where you can laugh it all off at the end, steer away from these films. But, if you are someone looking for some thought-provoking art that spurs real conversations on culture and religion while also packing in expertly crafted tension and nightmare-inducing imagery and sound design, then I cannot recommend these enough.
    While everyone's raving about Deadpool, I'm going to spread the word about The Witch. It's the first movie in a while that I've actually loved the more I've thought of it and I believe it is one of the best horror films in years. Hell, it's just a really good movie all-around. The acting, period detail, music and sound, assaulting imagery, and roots in classic folklore all add up to something that I think is truly Academy Award-worthy, at least nomination considerations. But, to my everlasting frustration, horror just isn't "Academy material" it seems looking at the recent years of the Oscars. Robert Eggers has proven himself a creative visionary to be looked out for in the near future, Anya Taylor-Joy and the other child actors have cemented names for themselves and hopefully get more work (and take it away from the dreadful child actors that get most of the work), and Ineson and Dickie have again proven themselves to be criminally underrated performers and strong leads. Just go see it. I don't care if you are the type of person I mentioned above who would probably not like it. Do yourself a favor, go in with an open mind and moderate expectations and you will probably be as blown away as I was by such a powerhouse debut for a director. 8/10 stars.

The Witch poster.png                                                   (Image: Wikipedia)