tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-64164556344390531482024-03-04T23:33:40.063-08:00Indy Movie ReviewsIndyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17018620332465602342noreply@blogger.comBlogger426125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6416455634439053148.post-38705191891650656722023-07-03T20:14:00.001-07:002023-07-03T20:14:22.381-07:00Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny movie review.<div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhgf6rFKftR_nw5oLcLdu4yz-hMBNwfCPrEu6pcdzZigaHPa5pFdmHsBtXjwhrmhrkW85V6K3kyB9xU_2f57ty5ui1IRa_BcMbVpTlH5pzCtjJHUfExa9hOuDFf7mJxiOxWOXKYozDfq5LC3uCFZZMYLSAmXaWMovN7WLjxr6Js-JsVesC4fRQOrl0wGpg/s1500/dod.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1500" data-original-width="976" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhgf6rFKftR_nw5oLcLdu4yz-hMBNwfCPrEu6pcdzZigaHPa5pFdmHsBtXjwhrmhrkW85V6K3kyB9xU_2f57ty5ui1IRa_BcMbVpTlH5pzCtjJHUfExa9hOuDFf7mJxiOxWOXKYozDfq5LC3uCFZZMYLSAmXaWMovN7WLjxr6Js-JsVesC4fRQOrl0wGpg/w260-h400/dod.jpg" width="260" /></a></div>Indiana Jones, Harrison Ford's rugged adventurer with a Boy Scout complex, has captivated audiences for decades, as brought to life by director Steven Spielberg and creator George Lucas. I'm a huge fan of this series, and Raiders of the Lost Ark remains one of my favorite films. Period. Last we left our hero in 2008, he hotly divided audiences with Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, a rebirth that left many feeling underwhelmed by its finale to his story.</div><div><br /></div><div>But following Disney's 2012 buyout of Lucasfilm, and the rebirth of Star Wars, it seemed inevitable that Indy would return as well, here with Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny. This time directed not by Steven Spielberg, but by Logan director James Mangold, who looks to give the aging hero the same satisfying send-off he gave to Wolverine. However, for as thrilling as the latest adventure may sound, and I'm sure will entertain audiences, I ultimately leave this treasure hunt not wanting more, but wondering whether the journey itself made that reward worth it.</div><span><a name='more'></a></span><div><br /></div><div>In 1944, Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) recovered one half of a stolen artifact called the Antikythera, a device invented by Archimedes that can predict fissures in time, and send its user back to the past. Now in 1969, the aging professor is approached by his goddaughter Helena Shaw (Phoebe Waller-Bridge), and pursues her when she steals the device from him, intent on recovering its twin half. All the while, former Nazi scientist Jürgen Voller (Mads Mikkelson) also pursues the device, and the race is on to recover Archimede's ancient artifact.</div><div><br /></div><div>Continuing Indiana Jones was hard enough with Crystal Skull in 2008, given what a perfect, literal riding off into the sunset ending The Last Crusade was. Even moreso with Dial of Destiny in 2023, given Harrison Ford is now 80 years old at time of release, and old-school serials that Indiana Jones was paying homage to are all but extinct amidst the superhero genre. And yet, that very factor gives the film its first real nugget of inspiration; Indiana's age, something that had already been dabbled in 15 years prior, but Dial of Destiny now makes the main meat of the story, in both subtext and literal text.</div><div><br /></div><div>The film starts off strongly enough in the 1944 prologue, where a deaged Harrison Ford - the effects of which are not always consistent - infiltrates a speeding train, throwing punches and knocking out the Nazis one at a time. This whole sequence alone is its own rousing mini-sequel, one of the most superbly directed pieces of the series, and all before we get into the main portion; Indy is now the cowboy eclipsed by the astronaut. Indiana is a much different man in the film's main 1969 setting. He's bitter, his students are always inattentive and dismissive, and he himself has become a relic of times long since past.</div><div><br /></div><div>Even his step in the action has taken a hit, as Ford is obviously older and frailer now, and so while Indy is still ready and willing for adventure, the remainder of the movie is grappling with how time has changed him, and how precious that time was, and still is to him. It's fascinating new layers being given to this character, and Ford as always acquits himself terrifically to the part, making that infectious spirit of adventure feel as pronounced now as it's ever been, even as his body and soul have become more jaded.</div><div><br /></div><div>Not only that, but there now buds a struggle of wills between him and the younger Helena Shaw, his goddaughter and the film's co-lead. Helena is a brash, reckless adventurer, who views the treasure hunting in a more cynical fashion, treating the heaviness and danger with a very cavalier demeanor. Which makes sense, given that treasure drove her father, played by Toby Jones, to insanity, and so she's inherited a sense of nonchalant defiance because of it. While it does come across as somewhat annoying, including a weird tangent in Tangiers with her old past, Phoebe Waller-Bridge really holds her own, and comes away as the breakout character.</div><div><br /></div><div>But every Indiana adventure needs an entertaining villain, which we have with Mad Mikkelson's former Nazi scientist Voller. Admittedly, villains are some of the series' most one-dimensional elements, and it's usually the charisma of their actors elevating them; see Paul Freeman and Cate Blanchett for proof. And Mikkelson has played so many villains, he can act them in his sleep, but he feels genuinely enthused to be here, getting to revel in his character's hissable acidity, and vile sense of superiority. But to be fair, the film does give him that extra attempt at depth, given that he's also a prominent player in that 1944 train sequence. Even though he still is a blood-hungry maniac, you see the sense of logic propelling him to his end goal, and the twisted humanity Mikkelson is giving him.</div><div><br /></div><div>Where the film really feels like a step down is in its side characters. Indiana Jones usually has some terrific sidekicks along the way, but here, that seems to have alluded the film. The most prominent attention goes to Ethan Isidore's Teddy, whom we first meet in Morocco, and essentially acts as this movie's Short Round. The problem is, despite the fact that he does have crucial plot beats, he just doesn't give this movie any personality. And it's not Isidore's fault, it's the fact that this character just feels boring and convenient.</div><div><br /></div><div>Honestly, that could go for a lot of the supporting players, some of which are only here for a cameo, and some who just fade into the background. Antonio Banderas makes a cameo as a friend of Indy's, but really feels like he should have been tagging along the whole way. Boyd Holbrook shows up as trigger happy Klaber, who serves as the co-antagonist to Voller, but his only real trait, is vague menace, and I feel like Holbrook's only here as a favor to Mangold for Logan. There's even a bulky henchman, meant to be a stand in for the kind Pat Roach played in the original trilogy, but he doesn't even get a proper fight scene with Ford. He gets casually discarded, and could have been combined with other characters.</div><div><br /></div><div>And of course, John Rhys-Davies reappears as Sallah, for the first time since The Last Crusade. And this is bittersweet, because he's clearly enjoying getting to come back, and his appearance feels poignant. But he's underserved by the movie relegating him to that small cameo, when I think it would have made sense, especially considering Indy's age being a heavy theme, for him to join in. As such, it kind of feels like just another nostalgia button, of which the film is full of. Which makes sense with this being the last movie, but it can feel odd when the movie is making all these callbacks to prior entries, some deliberately stopping the film where it stands, and yet Crystal Skull gets conspicuously swept under the rug. That just feels like pandering to the audience, and what they supposedly want to see to me.</div><div><br /></div><div>As such, a lot rests on the action scenes, which as you would expect of Indiana Jones, are thrilling in their own right, and easily the biggest difference between the styles of Spielberg and Mangold. Mangold doesn't attempt to try and directly copy Spielberg's action sensibilities, especially considering Phedon Papamichael's camerawork is nothing like Douglas Slocombe's. But he is still true to the vibrant spirit and silliness of an Indiana Jones set-piece, whether it be the casual annoyance of accidental friendly fire, or the ickiness of a gross out creature encounter (eels being this movie's stand in for snakes). But the real highlight for me is the Tuk Tuk chase in Tangiers, especially in regards to the high speed movement and whip pans reminding you "yes, this is from the director of Ford v Ferrari."</div><div><br /></div><div>It helps that the action, as always, is so thoroughly driven by the power of John Williams' score, who returns to the series with the same gleeful spirit he did with Star Wars, bolstering those set-pieces with his sophisticated action beats, and those gorgeous central melodies. If this sadly becomes the last time I hear Williams in a multiplex, it was a phenomenal send-off to his career.</div><div><br /></div><div>That said, the action brings up another one of my main issues; namely too much CGI. I'm not against digital enhancements for more dangerous stunts, but even as early as the train sequence, it's blatant, and at times distracting. Given that Ford is 80 at filming, it does feel like a concession that, maybe, he can't do the stunts that he used to do. I'm fine with that, but if you're going to take that road, don't make it so noticeable. Even during the Tangiers scene, it keeps cutting back to inserts of Ford and co. plopped in front of what looks like the Volume, where it's obvious they're not actually in the car. And I know that the Indiana Jones films have always had this kind of corner cutting, but at a reported $300 million dollar price tag, you would think these digital touch ups would be more smoothed out.</div><div><br /></div><div>I also have very mixed feelings about the ending. Not because I dislike the idea, and I think it has merit, but because I feel like the execution to that eventual reveal feels unearned. Given this is Indiana's last hurrah, I feel like the MacGuffin, the Antikythera, has potential that goes untapped, especially because it doesn't feel like a treasure Indy would risk everything for. It goes more for symbolism and emotion than it does logic, but even then, eventually things just get resolved with a joke. And while I have a soft spot for the final moments, even I'll admit that as an ending, it's less letting Indy ride off into the sunset, and feels more like a shrug. I get the intention, which was to give Indy an intimate send-off, but I just don't think the endgame has panned out, and ironically, the perfect ending for him still remains that Last Crusade sunset.</div><div><br /></div><div>Dial of Destiny is not bad by any means, and in fact, it has some of the most ambitious ideas the series has ever had. Despite his stylistic changes, and the multitude of CGI, Mangold leaves a confident stamp on the franchise, especially with Ford's always unwavering commitment to the part. But if it was a worthy extension? I'll leave that for you to decide. Admittedly, I'm always a softy for Indiana Jones, and the only entry I actually hate is Temple of Doom. But compared to Crystal Skull, I think the two are roughly equal, and both have their merits and disadvantages. For this fifth film, while it probably is a disappointment, I still had so much enjoyment getting to go on another treasure hunt, getting to be thrilled on the edge of my seat, and giving its main hero some closure. It could have been better, but as Indy always manages to prove, "it isn't the years. It's the mileage."</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>*** / *****</div>Indyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17018620332465602342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6416455634439053148.post-38889497700611782072023-06-04T17:11:00.001-07:002023-06-04T17:11:25.094-07:00The Little Mermaid movie review.<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhxpatnH5GAAVyaUNDf0WaLjrZu-u8uyFNSuxaTomkWwdmkCpAD2gw9J40im9y0BXWdwyOnK8FT742KQGKykKl7coQ7VGXlaOp3vU2JKFfZMAgfKA_VcqURFaKcDBcbyVs-W5J9PgxE3EGQJUhI81s02dEFW4unzyxcfJBUGLG2Je9Wozm_nymAE_O0/s1481/tlm.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1481" data-original-width="1000" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhxpatnH5GAAVyaUNDf0WaLjrZu-u8uyFNSuxaTomkWwdmkCpAD2gw9J40im9y0BXWdwyOnK8FT742KQGKykKl7coQ7VGXlaOp3vU2JKFfZMAgfKA_VcqURFaKcDBcbyVs-W5J9PgxE3EGQJUhI81s02dEFW4unzyxcfJBUGLG2Je9Wozm_nymAE_O0/w270-h400/tlm.jpg" width="270" /></a></div>The Little Mermaid was a landmark Disney film. After a string of underperformers, it ushered in a new age of films recalling the glory of the company's golden age, beginning what we now know as the Disney Renaissance. Thanks to its stunning animation, lovable characters, and the first of three unforgettable Howard Ashman/Alan Menken soundtracks, it's remained a classic for decades, even if its lead character has been a hotly debated one, often through bad faith criticism made for cynical jokes.<p></p><p>In the midst of Disney remaking their animated classics in live-action, it seemed like a natural fit with the stars aligned. Director Rob Marshall, fresh off of Mary Poppins Returns, Lin-Manuel Miranda as both producer and song lyricist, and the breakthrough casting of singer Halle Bailey as the title character. The ingredients seemed to be there... but who cares? No big deal. I wanted more.<span></span></p><a name='more'></a><p></p><p>In the underwater kingdom of Atlantica, Princess Ariel (Halle Bailey) is fascinated with the human world, much to the frustration of her human hating father King Triton (Javier Bardem). After a shipwreck where she rescues Prince Eric (Jonah Hauer-King), her desires to see the human world lead her into forming a pact with the Sea Witch Ursula (Melissa McCarthy), who turns her into a human in exchange for her voice, giving her three days to fall in love with the prince and share true love's kiss. Aided by her friends Sebastian (Daveed Diggs), Flounder (Jacob Tremblay), and Scuttle (Awkwafina), she soon finds the prince, and the two form their bond as Ursula plots her overthrow of Triton.</p><p>Let's address the Mermaid herself; Halle Bailey is fantastic in the title role. Albeit, it hasn't been an easy road, as the casting of a black actress in a traditionally white role spurred critical reactions from Disney purists (including the purely racist variety, as usual). So it is refreshing to see Bailey almost instantly shush naysayers watching the film, as she feels perfectly suited to the character, even reinventing her in several ways. Ariel's often gotten a bad rep for changing her desires for a man, when really, the man was just the inciting incident to chase her desires. So while the remake does tweak her a bit to address these concerns, instead of feeling like a ploy for positive buzz, the changes are actually more thoughtful than you'd expect.</p><p>For one thing, it not only seeks to give Ariel more agency within the action, but consent becomes a central point through the film, and the importance that Ariel is fully aware and conscious of the situations that she's in. I don't think it overpowers her though. It feels just right, in that she feels empowered, but without falling into "girlboss" category. Also, given that Ariel's signature trait, her beautiful singing voice, is cardinal to her character, it certainly helps that Bailey is at her best during the songs. That's not a dig either, but a testament to the soul and power of her singing voice. Without overshadowing the original, she makes this creation her own, and crafts a rendition that can easily stand alongside that animated original.</p><p>I think something that also helps is how she plays off of Eric, played here by Jonah Hauer-King. The original often gets ridiculed for the three day romance, and while this new film does carry that over, I still think it works. Hauer-King may not be on the level of Bailey, and in some instances I did think of him as quite bland, what elevates him are the scenes they share together, because the two of them have good chemistry. The romance is actually something of an afterthought in this new rendition, but I honestly think that's for the best, because it gives them a chance to develop that bond through mutual trust, so that when we do get into the inevitable "Kiss the Girl" sequence, the romantic moments feel earned.</p><p>There is one huge scene stealer though, and that's Melissa McCarthy's Ursula. Ursula is not a complicated character in the slightest, basically a scorned outcast with a hunger for revenge, but her theatricality makes her so entertaining to watch. McCarthy is clearly having the time of her life, getting to camp it up like a queen, and relish the freedom to plunge headfirst into the wicked, with her "Poor Unfortunate Souls" number standing out as one of the highlights.</p><p>That said, this is where I get into my problems with the movie. Namely, LOTS OF FILLER! At 135 minutes, The Little Mermaid is almost an hour longer than the animation, and doesn't justify it. This goes back to my inherent issues with Disney's remakes, specifically the Renaissance based films, in that they have to set out to make the same film again, but stretch itself out to justify its existence. In fairness, when this new movie is trying to do something different, that's usually among its stronger elements. But when they have to recreate the same moments, just at an expanded running time, all that does is either negate, or weaken the original material. It's trying to add epic scale that it didn't need, when you can garner so much more emotion out of that shorter animation.</p><p>Speaking of epic scale, I'm not a big fan of how the film adapts the original visuals. Animation is a lot more dynamic, more fluid, and more colorful than you're able to get out of live-action, and the 1989 film still looks timeless. Here, because they've attempted to create some form of "photorealism," they've sapped personality away from the underwater world, and so the set up and staging feels a lot less inventive. Compare the "Under the Sea" numbers, where the choreography is so much more limited in live-action, recalling Jon Favreau's The Lion King, whose choreography equated to animals running in a straight line.</p><p>Lighting also isn't a friend to this movie, especially in Dolby 3D. The film isn't as drab as its trailers have implied, as there are some very colorful moments, but it certainly wavers, especially in darker scenes that play up the more muted color schemes. This actually becomes a huge problem in the climax with giant Ursula. The CGI itself is flimsy enough, but not helping is that they've decided "Ok. We're going to cast everything in thick shadow, you're not going to be able to see anything, and any shot of Ursula's face is going to be obscured."</p><p>The CGI doesn't fare much better with the animated characters, as because we've taken a photorealistic approach, you now have to drastically alter the character designs of Ariel's sidekicks. What's sad is that some of them are quite appealingly voiced, specifically Daveed Diggs as Sebastian, who seems to enjoy chewing into the thick Jamaican accent, andJacob Tremblay is a solid addition as Flounder. But the worst of them belongs to Awkwafina, who is badly miscast as the gender-flipped Scuttle, with a modernized sense of streetwise humor that really grated on me. If you enjoyed Buddy Hackett badly mangling "Romeo and Juliet's Love Theme," you'll be dying to hear Awkwafina's rendition of "Womp, Chicka-Womp-Womp!"</p><p>Scuttle leads me into another issue I have, which is its soundtrack. Alan Menken and Lin-Manuel Miranda are phenomenal songwriters. They've proven that time and time again, but they do not work well with each other. The original Ashman/Menken songs are acceptably revised (even if Menken himself is phoning it in with this movie), but the new songs have Miranda adapting to Ashman's original style, but not carrying over the soul of Ashman's lyricism. Miranda has three new songs, one of which does have his unique voice to it. Unfortunately, that new song, "The Scuttlebutt," is horrendously out of place. Despite the admittedly cute lyrics that play to Miranda's strengths, Awkwafina's delivery - coupled with the distracting rap style - brings the film to a screeching halt, and feels like everything a traditional Disney number shouldn't be.</p><p>The Little Mermaid is a confusing beast, in that there are plenty of admirable qualities to enjoy. For what it's worth, Bailey's Ariel is a fantastic addition, that stays true to the essence of what made that original character so charming, while wholly making her own version that I think viewers, and especially kids will take to. Unfortunately, she does have to come saddled to a film that lacks the invention, and the spectacle of the film its taking inspiration from, again making one question what it's reason is for being, if not simply to be a money-maker. There's really not much else to say.</p><p>Harmless it is, but for Disney to settle for harmless... <i>Pathetic...</i></p><p><br /></p><p>**1/2 / *****</p>Indyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17018620332465602342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6416455634439053148.post-51502123525043758612023-04-06T10:59:00.000-07:002023-04-06T10:59:43.728-07:00The Super Mario Bros. Movie review.<div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg9jdzeGFkcVA9WyCZrVR8qpndYUr3rp7FxoqMuqEkoYhuUfGMO1zD6Aey3c6ZGeswy7aR1dIaLrmgtWEaiMlzcckKpWg2LoeRDE6rm7eBm2MQHTZdI5vfG9G3ZiOUvvQSMVBnN97C0UtCVk2LsGWCcESqJWmIL3sGzsjY6rL0bK7tHXp__MP7LTMOH/s2000/smb.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2000" data-original-width="1263" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg9jdzeGFkcVA9WyCZrVR8qpndYUr3rp7FxoqMuqEkoYhuUfGMO1zD6Aey3c6ZGeswy7aR1dIaLrmgtWEaiMlzcckKpWg2LoeRDE6rm7eBm2MQHTZdI5vfG9G3ZiOUvvQSMVBnN97C0UtCVk2LsGWCcESqJWmIL3sGzsjY6rL0bK7tHXp__MP7LTMOH/w253-h400/smb.jpg" width="253" /></a></div>There's probably not a single person who doesn't know Mario, the most popular video game character ever. Along with his brother Luigi, the two have spent decades headlining numerous terrific games across Nintendo's consoles, helping cement them as the Disney of video gaming. So popular were they, they got their own film adaptation in 1993, Super Mario Bros. Unfortunately, that film was a disaster, suffering from a famously hellish production, and burnt audiences so thoroughly, Nintendo never set foot in Hollywood again. Since then, that film has become synonymous with the video game adaptation curse.</div><div><br /></div><div>But a lot has changed in 30 years. Not only are video game adaptations making greater strides, but Nintendo felt an itch again. What if they could take a stab at another film, made by people who love and respect the series? Enter Chris Meledandri, whose animation company Illumination - best known for the Despicable Me series - impressed Nintendo so much, they've dusted off the overalls for a new Super Mario Bros. Movie, and likely the first of a new franchise.<span><a name='more'></a></span></div><div><br /></div><div>In Brooklyn, brothers Mario and Luigi (Chris Pratt and Charlie Day, respectively) launch a struggling plumbing business, and while attempting to fix a broken water main, are sucked through a portal and separated in a new world. Mario lands in the Mushroom Kingdom, while Luigi lands in the Dark Lands, presided over by the tyrannical Koopa King Bowser (Jack Black), who intends to take dominion over the kingdom. Teaming up with Mushroom Kingdom's ruler, Princess Peach (Anya Taylor-Joy), and adventurous sidekick Toad (Keegan-Michael Key), Mario sets off on a mission to save his brother, and stop Bowser's destructive conquest.</div><div><br /></div><div>One credit in The Super Mario Bros. Movie stands out to me, and that's Mario creator Shigeru Miyamoto, sharing a producer's credit with Meledandri. On one hand, this is a no brainer, and the source material's original creator serving as a consultant promises faithfulness to its spirit. That said, given how famously gameplay-focused Miyamoto is, to the point of sparse story in his games, it also threatens to feel cookie cutter and safe, which is what it ends up being. While the film itself is fun, there's not much of substance to it as a story.</div><div><br /></div><div>It isn't an inherently bad thing to be so skimp on story in a Mario movie, where the most context the games would give you was "giant lizard kidnapped a princess, go stop him." As such, Illumination probably seemed like the perfect fit, given their strength is slapstick and set-pieces rather than story. And the set-pieces themselves are the star of the show, particularly for their adherence and fond tribute to the series, highlighted immediately by a sequence where Mario and Luigi have to run to make a plumbing gig, shot in a side scrolling angle that directly recalls the original game. The action and the chase scenes are so much fun on their own, ranging from Super Smash Bros. inspired arena combat, to a Mad Max style Mario Kart race on Rainbow Road.</div><div><br /></div><div>Of course, for the set-pieces to excel depends on the animation, and full stop, this is the best looking Illumination movie ever. Famously, they make their films for modest price tags, but whether by a budget increase or more artistic risks, they've considerably stepped up their game. The world of Mario is absolutely gorgeous, a distinct and vibrant world of color and mesmerizing detail, with wonderfully stylized character designs, and even genuinely inventive camera work. The film makes extensive use of long takes and tracking shots, which give you a refreshing sense of geography, and feels like a gleeful play session brought to life. Illumination's powers really come to a head on Rainbow Road, which is the most breathtaking sequence they've ever conjured, putting their squash and stretch style, and their fast paced eccentricity to maximum effect.</div><div><br /></div><div>It's no surprise, given this is made by Mario fans, that the film is littered with Easter eggs of every variety, but those would hog a review on their own, so I won't say much more. What I will say is that sharp eared viewers should take note of Brian Tyler's score, not simply because it's fantastic, but it's a gushing love letter to the original themes of Koji Kondo... and a few other friends.</div><div><br /></div><div>But with all that being said, as fun as the film is, the story itself is still an issue. This is an easily accessible movie, regardless if you're a Mario fan or not, but in order for it to be so, what story it does put forward feels very generic. I'm not looking for watertight plotting in a Mario movie, but I feel like it should have more invention in the transition. It's different for a game, where the lack of story is offset by the fun you have controlling Mario. It's different for a movie, where we're more of a passive observer, and we need more of an emotional stake to remain engaged.</div><div><br /></div><div>What's weird is that the Mario movie tries to have these emotional stakes, but at some point, they get brushed aside to get back to the set-pieces. The heart of the movie is meant to be Mario and Luigi's brotherhood, which has caused some division within his family back in Brooklyn. This is all sweet, but through much of the second act, it feels like this emotional anchor gets relegated to the background. That highlights some pacing issues for me as well, as while this is an airtight movie, it can also feel rushed to the point of breathlessness. The plot basically exists to facilitate the action and the references, and while I would be ok with this, I would like it if it weren't getting in the way of character development, as a lot of the central players do feel 2-dimensional.</div><div><br /></div><div>If there's anything giving them life, however, it is the voice cast. Say what you will about Chris Pratt's initial announcement as Mario... the rewards of his casting paid off. I wouldn't say he's stretching himself beyond his comical Brooklyn accent, but he does well at embodying the everyman spirit and whimsy of the character, and his chemistry with the other cast proves a huge plus. That said, Charlie Day's Luigi is the real scene stealer of the two, whose quivering nervousness and compassionate sweetness is utterly charming. It's just a shame that after the first act, Luigi kind of gets pushed to the sidelines, infrequently reappearing until he's paired back up with his brother.</div><div><br /></div><div>Anya Taylor-Joy makes a big impact as Princess Peach, showing this character in a more spirited fashion than prior versions, whose tender chemistry with Mario, seasoned wit and determination, and heartfelt compassion make her an endearing figure. Elsewhere, Keegan-Michael Key is another scene stealer as Toad, who caters to kids without feeling like he's talking down to them, and his infectious bursts of energy and humor, as well as his touching loyalty make him a standout. If anything, Seth Rogen's Donkey Kong might be the weak link, as not only do I think Donkey Kong is not well served as a character, including a rivalry with Mario that I feel like he never properly overcomes, but it just feels like... well, another one of Seth Rogen's voiceovers.</div><div><br /></div><div>That said, the real star here is Jack Black's Bowser. His ferocious voiceover dominates the film when he steps on screen, and it's obvious he's enjoying every second of it, getting to chew on the dialogue with ham and menace, as well as side-splitting humor. Bowser actually has motivation for his invasion, that being he's lovestruck by Peach, and a lot of his best gags come from his nervousness over his crush, offset by his jealousy and tyrannical nature. Honestly, he may be the most game loyal translation, and he owns the film when he is the center of attention.</div><div><br /></div><div>As far as The Super Mario Bros. Movie goes, I think you'll enjoy it most if you're a die-hard fan of the games, or if you're looking for a pleasant diversion for your kids. I myself saw the film with kids, who enthusiastically enjoyed it. It's hard to deny that I myself enjoyed it, but that being said, and while this is unfair, I'm also at the age where I expect more from my movies, and as a narrative, this movie didn't quite cut it for me. I think it's a solid addition to Illumination's catalogue, and plays to a lot of their strengths, but all in all, I just think it's another passable movie, in a lineup of films almost exclusively comprised of simply passable movies.</div><div><br /></div><div>That said, who's to know where they go from here? It's clear they and Nintendo are intent on sequels and possible spin-offs, and one could argue that this film walked so others could run, and I'm excited by what else could come of it. As it is now, The Super Mario Bros. Movie is serviceable fun for the whole family. It could just use a couple power-ups.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>*** / *****</div>Indyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17018620332465602342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6416455634439053148.post-36423134467986054312023-02-21T02:47:00.001-08:002023-02-21T02:47:11.953-08:00Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania movie review.<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhFHcjtp00Tl9cgzi9bfHzvyOYmaaRRs6bbcBkI_TfE0gg5hEZDxypl7fOWq58ONaSvnB4DYSqeIjYbNHEgNSf6cTaYr2FkJCGjBiqVrCkZD3_HyLBYnaUwy2vHpZvj8I_7hWYRktD-Fu1h7EuWz4Ril_qiHHRisF6vP0bcBM81RaCPOPLnyn8IVkVf/s1265/amwq.webp" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1265" data-original-width="794" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhFHcjtp00Tl9cgzi9bfHzvyOYmaaRRs6bbcBkI_TfE0gg5hEZDxypl7fOWq58ONaSvnB4DYSqeIjYbNHEgNSf6cTaYr2FkJCGjBiqVrCkZD3_HyLBYnaUwy2vHpZvj8I_7hWYRktD-Fu1h7EuWz4Ril_qiHHRisF6vP0bcBM81RaCPOPLnyn8IVkVf/w251-h400/amwq.webp" width="251" /></a></div>In the much broader MCU, the Ant-Man films have been some of the lighter, more niche titles in their lineup, usually as a pallet cleanser after the studio's much bigger Avengers titles. The original 2015 film was a lean, entertaining heist movie, owed to original director Edgar Wright's template, and the ever-reliable charisma of star Paul Rudd. It was then followed up in 2018 by Ant-Man and the Wasp, which while lesser than the original, was still entertaining in its own right, and gave co-star Evangeline Lilly her own meaty material to savor.<p></p><p>Fast forward five years, Ant-Man and the Wasp go from pallet cleanser, to the starting dish for Marvel's fifth phase, and second chapter in the Multiverse Saga. While Marvel has had some strong showings recently, its fourth phase was a decidedly mixed bag, with Marvel itself course correcting and reconfiguring projects to prevent burnout, and with Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania, the studio is set to introduce the saga's overarching villain Kang... It's just a shame that this set up had to feel so exhausting. No exaggeration, Quantumania might just be the worst film Marvel has ever put forth.</p><p><span></span></p><a name='more'></a><p></p><p>Post-Endgame, former convict Scott Lang, aka. Ant-Man (Paul Rudd), enjoys a healthy family life alongside his girlfriend Hope van Dyne, aka. The Wasp (Evangeline Lilly), and his teenage daughter Cassie (Kathryn Newton). During the blip, Cassie had secretly built a device to commune with the Quantum Realm, but an accident causes the machine to shrink the three, along with Hope's parents Hank Pym and Janet van Dyne (Michael Douglas and Michelle Pfeiffer), into the Quantum Realm. Now stranded, the group must band together to escape the realm, all the while the sinister dictator of the realm, Kang the Conquerer (Johnathan Majors), plans his move against the human world.</p><p>It's a tough time knowing where to start, just because this movie is such a mess, even Paul Rudd can't save it. Which is a shame, because he's always acquitted himself well to the role, bringing an effervescent roguish charm and likability that livens up every scene he's in. That said, there's not much he can do to liven up his material here. I actually found Scott a bit out of character at times, namely how he's one of the few Avengers whose secret identity has been kept a secret, but between films, he's made his alter ego public, and actually written his own memoir? This is something the film could use to further explore his character, maybe as a means to teach himself humility amidst his rising fame, but oddly enough, the film drastically underplays it after it's established. It's introduced, but plays no factor in the remaining film.</p><p>That in itself you could see as a nit pick, but a bigger issue is that the film leaves him out to dry. While he is funny, Rudd is usually at his best interacting with other cast members. His chemistry is his real strength, but so often, he has almost no one to bounce off of, with most of his interplay being with his daughter Cassie. Cassie, now played as a young adult by Kathryn Newton, has some of the heftiest advancement here. The problem is, it feels like such a jump, it might as well be a new character, because it feels like such a stray away from the spirit of the character in the original films. I get the character has aged, but the transition just doesn't feel seamless, despite Newton's best efforts and the fact that she is a charming star.</p><p>But really, they're victims of a greater issue. Quantumania is the first Ant-Man film to feature one credited screenwriter, Jeff Loveness of Rick and Morty fame. It's also the first not to give credit to Rudd, and there I think is the issue. As wayward as the other films *could* have been, I think Rudd's signature wit as a script doctor really elevated those entries. I think that gets shown off by how frenzied, and virtually joyless Quantumania feels in comparison. This also highlights director Peyton Reed as a journeyman in terms of directing. He’s been taking the reins since the original film, and he’s capably handled it, but I don’t think he has an *eye* in regards to the film. Hand in hand, Reed’s direction and Loveness’ writing make it feel like an endurance test at times.</p><p>The film's first half is especially trying. The movie’s main conflict is that Scott and co. all find themselves trapped in the Quantum Realm. Essentially, this happens because Janet tries to deactivate Cassie’s machine that sends a signal to the Realm. This feels incredibly convenient, as it feels like the film is forcing the characters into this situation with a shrug, because they need to get from point A to B. But once they land in the Quantum Realm, the film keeps cross-cutting between Scott and Cassie, and Hope/Hank/Janet. This annoyed me, as the editing has no rhythm in regards to when they cut back, but also because we may be in the middle of a gag in one scene, but once we cut, we have an extended wait to see the tail-end of that gag. This keeps going on for well over an hour, as it borders on salvage job editing to liven up the film’s mood, but lacks discipline.</p><p>As for the van Dyne family, they feel like passengers for most of the movie, sitting on the sidelines until called upon. This is disappointing for Evangeline Lilly in particular, who had a stellar breakout in the first sequel, but basically acts as support and back up for Scott rather than the other half of a duo. Michael Douglas similarly spins his wheels, but Pfeiffer is given the ultimate shaft. I remember when I saw the first sequel, how I felt like Janet had potential that went untapped and could be expanded on in a follow up. If anything, it makes her work in Ant-Man and the Wasp look brighter, as Janet’s personal history fuels a lot of the film, but is deliberately kept hidden away from the audience - and her family - for no good reason, and so much of the events that happen could have been negated by simple communication.</p><p>If there’s any one actor elevating this film, it’s Johnathan Majors as Kang, which isn't surprising. This isn’t even his first rodeo, as Majors already made a huge impact in his small, but memorable reveal in Season 1 of Loki, even if he's wildly detached here from He Who Remains. Majors really knows how to sink his teeth into the role, as Kang dominates the screen with a natural manipulative charm to accomplish his desires, and if not then he's vicious and brutal enough to intimidate his victims into submission. So much so that he does add more weight to the film than it's capable of handling, given how intimidating a presence he makes. For all the film's issues, this is the one area they had to excel in, given his claims to succeed Thanos as the next long-term villain, and if nothing else, it excites me to see where Majors can go in future appearances.</p><p>But... the character also gives me some concern going forward. Given his existence as a variant, as apparently we're going to be diving deeper into the multiverse, I have this worry that they may have too much of a good thing in future entries. He's not the only villain we have in Quantumania, as we also have an inexplicable Bill Murray as an old ally of Janet, and the black sheep among them - sorry for the spoiler - is MODOK. Everything this character touches is awful, from their backstory that not only feels like a retcon for surprise's sakes, but the visual appearance of the character looks so goofy, and not in a good way. Essentially it's here as comic relief, but most of its jokes are just grating, and mildly tone deaf when they do show up.</p><p>Of course, even at their worst, Marvel's films can still be forgiven, because they can still be fun diversions. Quantumania doesn't have any such luck. Not only is the movie a mess, it isn't even fun. Some of these detached, badly structured comedic notes can be placed almost directly on Loveness, who in addition to following the studio notes, just feels out of his element. He comes from a background of thirty minute animation with a deliberately cynical mindset. A serious step away from the optimism that usually fuels Marvel. Even if the material here is faithful to the comics (still doesn’t make it good), it doesn’t feel like it. Scott and co. come across so many outlandish characters here, but none of them are charming. None of them are interesting. They just feel like rejected ideas from other films handed over to Ant-Man, purely for their zaniness.</p><p>And that zaniness is so pronounced, it’s buried the series’ heist roots along the way, diminishing the one element that made these movies unique, and reducing it to a mere echo. The most heist we actually see is a fetch quest mildly justified by Ant-Man’s subatomic shrinking, before it just gets brushed off to continue the old Marvel tricks.</p><p>But Ant-Man shouldn’t simply be zany, or just another Marvel movie. At one point, even Kang realizes that Scott is out of his league against him. Ant-Man isn’t like the Guardians of the Galaxy, who can exist as an obscure team that still plays to the bigger Avengers crowd. I would argue that Ant-Man should really be more of a niche title. Not to the degree of Howard the Duck, which has a very specific audience, but somewhere in that halfway area as a scaled back heist series. It should opt for more specific gears compared to the larger MCU, which is exactly why the character works so well in his Avengers crossovers.</p><p>I used to say after every Marvel movie, “One day, the bottom is going to fall out. But today is not that day.” Even something as limp as Eternals never made me think they were about to crash. But Quantumania is the first time I have ever been afraid that the bubble may burst. This surpasses Iron Man 2 and Eternals as the biggest misstep in the studio’s history, and if there is reconfiguration in the works, I hope it sets in soon, and for the better. Because after how careful Marvel was to lay their building blocks, and how it’s outlived nearly every imitator since (even the current DCEU by year’s end), to see missteps like this one finally unravel the yarn, and crater what was once a genuinely exciting and powerful franchise, would be tragic.</p><p>The only way I can recommend this movie is out of completion’s sake, because it still feels vital to the larger MCU, especially for the introduction of its looming antagonist. But as a film itself, Quantumania is a dud, taking a character who works on smaller settings, and trying to make him into a massive megahit that he’s not. It falls flat on its face, and serves as a weary appetizer to Marvel’s fifth phase.</p><p><br /></p><p>*1/2 / *****</p>Indyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17018620332465602342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6416455634439053148.post-30483589545228710292023-01-21T22:56:00.000-08:002023-01-21T22:56:51.341-08:00Brief thoughts on The Son.<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjgziPMeSJAtiToHL0Gr95my_IvucI--zaAC1tRDxmXhSGUn0mKvssx0xvB2NxhTqXGlhEpOcnMGO2QYmbVsFItZNFCtQBzYTsSKKMIfZiAOukRy2yrJhE90jTnP-u2B9HEsWJcWQSE9v-nNucoZzpuXJVC8ootbgZ-RySKZtWLfoD4av1bcoHRDSp2/s3000/ts.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1687" data-original-width="3000" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjgziPMeSJAtiToHL0Gr95my_IvucI--zaAC1tRDxmXhSGUn0mKvssx0xvB2NxhTqXGlhEpOcnMGO2QYmbVsFItZNFCtQBzYTsSKKMIfZiAOukRy2yrJhE90jTnP-u2B9HEsWJcWQSE9v-nNucoZzpuXJVC8ootbgZ-RySKZtWLfoD4av1bcoHRDSp2/s320/ts.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>In 2020, French playwright Florian Zeller made his film directorial debut with The Father, a psychological chamber piece based on his play of the same name. Not only do I consider it the best movie of its year, particularly thanks to a career best Anthony Hopkins in the starring role, but one of the greatest film debuts ever made. Naturally, one would be justified for their excitement to see Zeller continue on, as I'm sure many of us were with The Son, the second in a trilogy of plays by Zeller. I was very eager to see this movie, which is why it's heartbreaking for me to say that I really didn't like it. But why exactly? For one, I felt very disappointed as I left the theater... and then as it processed, I became quite angry with it. The Son has some deeply rooted issues to unearth.<span><a name='more'></a></span><p></p><p>However, Hugh Jackman is not one of those issues. I have problems with his character, but his performance is devastatingly honest. His character, Peter Miller, comes from a troubled childhood with severe daddy issues. He lived with a chronically ill mother that he was forced to care for to her dying day, all the while his father (Anthony Hopkins) furthered his political ambitions in Washington. Peter has never forgiven his father for the fallout, having vowed since then to be a better father than he ever was. The problem is, life took some unexpected turns. Despite a seemingly ideal marriage with Kate (Laura Dern), with their son Nicholas (Zen McGrath), that family eventually fractured. Now in a relationship with Beth (Vanessa Kirby), and with a newborn son Theo, Peter finds himself struggling in managing his work/life balance.</p><p>By all appearances, Peter is a good man and a dedicated father, but he's also a severe workaholic, barely home and at the office otherwise, and struggling to juggle the responsibility tossed his way. It's the classic story of the man who became what he hated. Even if his intentions are different, and he tries to be more actively involved with his family life, you can still feel those inklings of control and pride seep in, especially as his own ambitions drive a wedge between him and the ones he loves. Pride proves to be his greatest Achilles heel, midway through the film visiting his father for lunch, essentially there to humblebrag about what a good dad he's been, before Hopkins claps back at his ego, scathingly telling him to "get over it." A notion he unintentionally seems to be putting upon others, emulating his father by trudging out the unfortunate circumstances he grew up under, as if minimizing the pain of others.</p><p>And Jackman is terrific in how he handles those tonal shifts, and the conflicted emotions he experiences between scenes, at times practically carrying the movie. He's not the only one to be certain, as Laura Dern is wonderful as his ex-wife Kate, herself a sorrowful portrait of a mother at her breaking point, trying her hardest to understand a complex situation, and grappling with the weight of her options. Vanessa Kirby, quietly superb as Peter's new partner Beth, adds some rich depth and sensitivity with genuine chemistry with Jackman, while Anthony Hopkins' big scene halfway through the film is a major highlight.</p><p>However, this is where my issues with the film begin, and before I run them down, <i><b>I should warn you that I will be addressing themes of depression and self-harm, so if any of that upsets or triggers you, I just want to alert you upfront. With that said, let's begin...</b></i></p><p>By far the worst issue with The Son is Nicholas, and Zen McGrath's performance. This movie is about teenage depression, specifically major depressive disorder, which Nicholas seems to be suffering from. Nicholas is an apathetic person to say the least. He repeatedly skips school and lies to his parents about it, he has no social life and has no desire to have one, he's incredibly dismissive and aimless, and rarely does he ever seem to take joy in life. In addition, he's prone to repeated instances of cutting his arms to channel his pain, wracked from angst that even he can't pinpoint.</p><p>Ok. I know this movie probably had its heart in the right place. It knows the gravity of this topic, that these are very murky waters, and even includes a list of resources and emergency hotlines during the end credits. So I know Zeller wants to approach this with the best intentions... HOWEVER! That does not excuse the fact that this movie SEVERELY mishandles those talking points.</p><p>For this movie to work depends on the strength of Nicholas as a character, which in many instances, he isn't. He's a plot device, a sounding board for other characters, and a MacGuffin to move the story forward. Ideally, HE should be the main character, and he should be the perspective the audience most closely follows. If anything, the movie is less interested in how he grapples with his depression, and more interested in how it affects everyone around him. Key in this is where his depression even stems from. He's left in perpetual apathy, with Nicholas himself describing it as "I'm tired of living, and I feel like I don't belong anywhere." The film seems to be implying that it started when Peter abandoned his family, but with the acute degree that his depression has progressed, that suggests much deeper roots than is being acknowledged.</p><p>While you could read this as the film trying to remain ambiguous, I just took it as the film having no interest in plunging deeper into Nicholas' mental state, because that wasn't where their interests were. The interest was in having one more way to crowbar problematic parentage into the movie, with both Peter and Kate feeling ill-equipped on how to even address his behavior, and how to treat him for it; Peter in particular. I know this is part of the character's arc, in that Peter wants to be there for his son, but feels oddly detached and disinterested at the same time, but this actually serves to weaken their relationship. Characters in this movie so rarely feel willing to TALK to each other without reverting to melodrama.</p><p>There are instances where the film gets the balance right, such as a scene where Peter and Beth try to teach Nicholas to dance, set to Tom Jones' "It's Not Unusual," where Nicholas' smile almost instantly fades away amidst the fun. That is the direction this film should have gone more often, but it's not only inconsistent in how it tackles his depressive state, it only falls back onto it for cheap emotional wallops. The film may not be explicit, as its only intense image is fresh scars with mild blood on Nicholas' arms, but it certainly doesn't approach it with any sensitivity, bolting right out with its descriptions and potential triggers, to the point that it exploits them. Every one of these triggers feel calculated and cherry-picked for maximum shock value.</p><p>That's the real issue here. The Son uses the topic for melodrama, not just trying to tug the heartstrings, but to utterly rip them out. Everything that Zeller's previous film didn't do, and I could just feel him prodding me for an emotional response. Hans Zimmer's score is especially pandering, in that it's signposting when you're supposed to cry. But at this point, you don't care, not only because the core themes of the movie have failed to engage you, but you can pinpoint when key plot developments are going to occur. Without spoiling anything, Peter and Nicholas have a conversation where a significant detail is established, and so for the rest of the movie, you're sitting there waiting for that set up to come back around, and it is tasteless when it does.</p><p>And the ending only adds to the infuriating handling of those themes. Again, without spoiling anything, this is where the film feels most in line with Zeller's previous The Father, in which The Son tries to end on a note of profundity. Unfortunately, it backfires on the film, in that it instead feels like a cheap last attempt at wringing tears, as well as exacerbating earlier issues, and making them more pronounced. This is what drove me over the edge, and made me gradually lose patience with this movie, because it didn't treat this with the respect it needed. It used it as a tool.</p><p>The Son may not be a terrible film in any technical sense. It's well-performed, it isn't incompetent, it isn't even badly structured. The problem is that it tried to tackle a delicate topic, and mangled it to fit into a horrendous template. Which is a shame, because The Father proved Zeller could tackle a serious affliction with sensitivity, and could be heartbreaking because of it. But that same lightning in a bottle just isn't recaptured, and the final film frustrates me more than it brings me to tears. It broke my heart, but not in the way he intended.</p><p><br /></p><p>** / *****</p>Indyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17018620332465602342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6416455634439053148.post-36802592177763268412022-11-14T10:45:00.000-08:002022-11-14T10:45:12.696-08:00Black Panther: Wakanda Forever review<p><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhTbKBNzDe_uT7ssKkWF3uY7NIoo2bq-whagZErYQ2fhl11M9bXtfKV0NNbVqAL948yfAxBZZUxDJdlFpcPgUYULdN31dtat_l43EIeV36COd9XRRM6Oj4e450Wc5d-faDSnfzKYRjjxnwvuLLAFtisyO-pR0RGdp3czhqUoPll9LID6OnxyX34Z0oh/s4032/4EB38D96-4588-44D9-B357-1F5312815329.jpeg" style="clear: left; display: inline !important; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" data-original-height="4032" data-original-width="3024" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhTbKBNzDe_uT7ssKkWF3uY7NIoo2bq-whagZErYQ2fhl11M9bXtfKV0NNbVqAL948yfAxBZZUxDJdlFpcPgUYULdN31dtat_l43EIeV36COd9XRRM6Oj4e450Wc5d-faDSnfzKYRjjxnwvuLLAFtisyO-pR0RGdp3czhqUoPll9LID6OnxyX34Z0oh/w300-h400/4EB38D96-4588-44D9-B357-1F5312815329.jpeg" width="300" /></a>Before Infinity War in 2018, Marvel Studios debuted their film adaptation of Black Panther, directed by a fresh off of Creed Ryan Coogler. Starring Chadwick Boseman as the title character's altar ego T'Challa, it was a thoughtful, exciting, and progressive step forward for the MCU driven by its mostly black cast. A cultural milestone, that even severed from the larger universe was still a great movie. It's no surprise then why it was a massive hit with audiences, who gravitated to its characters, as well as the sweeping world of Wakanda. It's also not a surprise that Marvel courted Coogler back for an inevitable sequel with the cast returning.</p><p>Unfortunately, tragedy struck before the movie was able to roll cameras. In August of 2020, Chadwick Boseman passed away after his battle with colon cancer, at the far too young age of 43. It was a devastating loss, and amidst the grief, many began to wonder "what becomes of Black Panther then?" Choosing not to recast the role and reconfiguring the sequel from scratch, Marvel and Coogler unveil the sequel, Wakanda Forever, to not only move the world forward, but act as tribute to their late friend. And while understandably a step down from its predecessor, that makes it no less a worthy and strong follow-up with genuine heft.</p><span></span><span><a name='more'></a></span><p>The sovereign nation of Wakanda mourns the death of King T'Challa, leading his mother Queen Ramonda (Angela Basset) to ascend to the throne. As competing nations make a play to acquire Wakanda's Vibranium, with the nation itself housing the largest deposit of the metal on Earth, the Wakandan warriors find themselves facing off against the people of the secret underwater empire Talokan, led by the powerful Namor (Tenoch Huerta Mejia), who's people refer to him as the Feathered Serpent God. With the combined forces of Princess Shuri (Letitia Wright), Dora Milaje warrior Okoye (Danai Gurira), Wakandan spy Nakia (Lupita Nyong'o), and inventor prodigy Riri Williams (Dominique Thorne), the nation must rise up and band together to fight Namor's forces.</p><p>Let's address the elephant in the room: Boseman himself. Wakanda Forever will always be the ultimate "What If" of the MCU, and how it changed after his passing. He was a mighty presence as T'Challa, blessing it with a regal and ferocious, but humble and eloquent presence, a noble character who stood righteously with his emphasis on the power of compassion over violence. Something even Marvel's own "What If...?" playfully jabbed, considering he was able to single-handedly talk Thanos out of genocide. And Boseman himself was significant in carving out that place for the character, so recasting would feel like disregarding his contributions, but also invite unfair comparisons to whoever replaced him. He gave this role its soul and power, and you can't just sweep that under the rug. So while it is sad knowing the speeches he would never get to give, I think the direction this film takes in retiring him is better off for it.</p><p>That said, even without him, the spirit of Boseman still lingers over the movie. The filmmakers know you won't forget about him, and the movie itself doesn't want you to. There is this inevitable void in his absence, and so the beauty of the movie, of characters trying to pick up the pieces and carry on, pondering what comes next, fuels a lot of the raw emotional strength of the film. This is especially felt, given that for a Marvel film, the humor is actually quite downplayed and the mood more somber. But it isn't all grief. There's also celebration to the things that T'Challa inspired, and the hope that his actions and beliefs would instill. This idea that despite his absence, this world can still heal even amidst division. Honestly, that's something that we NEED to hear in this climate. So while the film may be imperfect and messy (and yes, I'll get to that), I'll still stand by this movie. Because that through line works, and it delivers with complete satisfaction.</p><p>But outside of that tribute, the passing of T'Challa has clearly rocked his surviving family. Without a ruler, his mother Ramonda has stepped up to reclaim the throne as Queen, as Wakanda stands in a very vulnerable place, even leading to other nations and mercenary forces striking Wakandan outreach facilities for their Vibranium, such as in the film's terrific first action set-piece. With this, Ramonda is ready to take a more active, defensive stance to ward off would be coup attempts, ready to move even if she is willing to discuss and reason. It's a huge boon for Angela Bassett, who was somewhat sidelined in the original film, but is given full command of the scene when focus is devoted to her, struggling to keep collected even as the loss surrounding her keeps adding up and taking its toll.</p><p>The loss also takes a toll on Shuri, played again by Letitia Wright. She was an absolute scene stealer in the original film, now being given a substantial expansion, and seizing it firmly. As well she should, given Shuri becomes something of a main character in this movie. Shuri is rocked all throughout the movie, feeling personally responsible for what happened to T'Challa, to the point of burying herself in her science to cope with her grief. Perhaps born out of some belief that by pushing herself, she can eventually feel at peace. So Shuri, and by extension Wright, does end up shouldering the most complicated arc of the film, as she evolves from this impatient girl scoffing at tradition, to a powder keg of boiling emotion, to trying to embody ideals of unity and compassion set by her ancestors, and all the messy feelings in-between to try and find her own identity.</p><p>And once again, Ryan Coogler handles all of that emotional baggage well. Coogler is a terrific force, an at once adept artist with a precise eye for visual detail, but specifically for his ability to set a mood. His somber mind frame and tributes to Boseman are one thing, but like the first film, it's his more weighty themes driving the narrative that give it real heft. Continuing on from the original film's hallmarks of misuse of deadly force, and the still lingering effects of Colonialism and appropriation carried on to this day, has to also touch on our modern fears of nuclear warfare, and systematic destabilization driven by fear and violence, which I'm sure was incidental, but it feels oddly prescient.</p><p>However, one area where the sequel doesn't measure up is its villain. The first film made memorable use of Michael B. Jordan's Killmonger, who directly opposed T'Challa as the Malcolm X to his Dr. King, and even directly impacted the latter's viewpoint despite his extremism. It's just a shame that the sequel doesn't have quite that strength, despite the best efforts of Tenoch Huerta Mejia's Namor, a demigod among his species of underwater warriors. They do get a killer introduction, infiltrating an ocean carrier by luring sailors off deck by way of siren calls. This is actually quite a horrifying entrance, perhaps made even more so by the sheer brutality of their species in combat. And yet, the world of Talokan - an underwater civilization of Mayan influence - does make a visually impressive showcase, as well as lend empathy to the regular townsfolk populating its waters, itself a potential target for the acquisition of its Vibranium.</p><p>That said, I do find them inconsistent, specifically in tone and continuity. In one scene, Okoye takes on the might of several water warriors, who despite her best efforts prove very hard to kill. And yet, in a later scene with Nakia, they go down with what feels like less effort. In turn, you do wonder "Well, what are their limits, exactly?" The film even feels unsure of how we're meant to feel about them, specifically Namor. To Mejia's credit, he plays it more as an antihero than a villain. He feels like a threat, albeit a tragic figure who tries to be reasonable. He's not too different to Shuri as a man who lost everything, driven by fear to protect his people, and he feels genuine in how he portrays his emotional beats. The problem is on a scene to scene basis, as sometimes he feels less nuanced and more overtly villainous, as evidenced by his own kingdom egging him on like a tyrant at times. Vengeance also becomes a key theme, even being a primary motivator and cautionary tale of wanton violence that will never satisfy. I do appreciate the film trying to find a more intimate and peaceful approach such as this, even if I think it sometimes undercuts that stance.</p><p>Despite the subtitle, Wakanda also slips to the sidelines at times, as the film goes on a more global scale, and so returning characters do make a mark, but have to wait a lengthy term for their chance to shine. Lupita Nyong'o takes until the end of the first act to appear, still putting in the effort despite it. Ditto for Danai Gurira, despite the film downgrading her after the first hour, and doing her a disservice. Winston Duke's M'Baku perhaps has just over ten minutes of screen time, and I feel like there was more for this character to do. But at least he makes the most of what he's given, unlike Martin Freeman who is barely in the movie, serving as glorified exposition piece.</p><p>So it's not hard to see why, even at a hefty 161 minutes, the movie feels overstuffed. Or at least it's focus isn't equal to all its pieces. And yes, I know this is gonna sound stupid, but I thought the Marvel influence was too pronounced here. Despite having to fit within the larger shared universe, the original Black Panther felt like an entity unto itself, where Coogler could reinvent the wheel if he wanted. He continues to do as well here, but he feels even more burdened by what the studio insists upon him. Key in this is Riri Williams, played by a vigorous Dominique Thorne. I do actually like this character, and I think she makes for a magnetic presence, but she feels like the most overt Marvel inclusion here, given that her Ironheart alter ego is reminiscent of Iron Man, with this sequel even making direct references to the original Iron Man.</p><p>Not that Coogler doesn't still make his stamp known. His way with action and his use of extended takes still serve him well, even if there is some familiarity, including a chase through Cambridge that draws from the Busan car chase of the first. And even if it isn't always the focus, the world of Wakanda is still a sight to behold, a wonderful creation that you could only wish to stand in. The set design, cultural touches, the lived in villages, and especially the costuming are gorgeous to lay eyes on. Ensuring that even with the Marvel mold to fulfill, it still feels home brewed to fit Coogler's style and artistic eye.</p><p>Alas, not all the techs are seamless. The original film deservingly earned some flak for some pretty ropey CGI, particularly the ending fight between T'Challa and Killmonger, which consisted of two rubbery men swatting at each other. Thankfully the sequel improves its CGI showcase (if sometimes unpolished), with the world of Talokan standing as one of the more stunning big screen spectacles. But during the climax, it's clear the filmmakers haven't entirely learned their lesson, as some of the acrobatics in the scene do look goofy and dated, at times cutting to digital doubles, as if certain actors were unable to handle the fight choreography.</p><p>But even for its faults, Wakanda Forever is still a strong showing within the MCU. The return on investment may not be as strong, and yes, despite only two credited screenwriters, outside forces could have certainly had an influence on its turnout. But on the whole, this movie still hits the ground running, paying satisfying tribute to an old friend, while pushing forward its universe and standing apart with its own unique identity. It couldn't have been an easy reconfiguration, and I'm sure we'll always mourn the sequel we lost in addition to its leading man, but this movie still delivers on its promises of catharsis and excitement. So for all its imperfections, I'm sure its target audiences will come away not caring, because the emotional pull of the film is Just. That. Strong.</p><p>Be at peace, great King...</p><p><br /></p><p>**** / *****</p><p></p>Indyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17018620332465602342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6416455634439053148.post-68034725364074946622022-06-18T12:46:00.000-07:002022-06-18T12:46:35.796-07:00Lightyear movie review.<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiF5NnIk_N8tjQ2V_p3rwr2K2liuQtGndsQgH5Up14eLoSbI6_an9Og2Qbsmf4LsEfKfo7BLA0gGI0G0Tf0s4OOjA9_4Wd1DwRWfL-yLbKV9FkrcpojViYl1NjUIS3uhgrq8rEhhvtAfxaG7alB4s4YpojX_5rx5RfTb4I7t_oyPzNmD3PeVKVrmX61/s1200/ly.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1200" data-original-width="810" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiF5NnIk_N8tjQ2V_p3rwr2K2liuQtGndsQgH5Up14eLoSbI6_an9Og2Qbsmf4LsEfKfo7BLA0gGI0G0Tf0s4OOjA9_4Wd1DwRWfL-yLbKV9FkrcpojViYl1NjUIS3uhgrq8rEhhvtAfxaG7alB4s4YpojX_5rx5RfTb4I7t_oyPzNmD3PeVKVrmX61/w270-h400/ly.jpeg" width="270" /></a></div>In 1995, Pixar burst onto the scene with Toy Story, their first foray into feature length filmmaking, and the first computer animated film in history. It was a groundbreaking film at the time, that even now has aged remarkably well, and is one of those rare films that is actually improved by the existence of its sequels. When even your fourth entry with a talking spork is a great movie, that's the sign of a truly remarkable franchise.<p></p><p>Part of that is owed to the creation of Buzz Lightyear, the cool space ranger voiced by Tim Allen, whose character instantly won over audiences. Almost 30 years later, Pixar has decided to go back to his origins, or at least his inspiration's origins. In-universe, Buzz Lightyear the action figure was modeled after Buzz Lightyear the action hero, the main character of Andy's favorite movie, Lightyear. Pixar's latest film allows us to finally experience that phenomenal blockbuster. I'm happy that Andy loved it so much, but personally, while I quite enjoyed Lightyear, it's hard for me to say it ever touches infinity, let alone goes beyond it.<span></span></p><a name='more'></a><p></p><p>When the crew of Star Command divert their ongoing mission to explore an unknown planet, they become marooned after an escape attempt leaves their starship damaged. Leading the mission to test fuel samples that could bring them home, space ranger Buzz Lightyear (Chris Evans) repeatedly tries and fails to successfully find a sample stable enough to withstand hyperspace. Although eventually a success, Buzz finds himself unintentionally dropping into a warzone, between the freedom fighters of Star Command, and the robot warriors of the Evil Emperor Zurg (James Brolin). Now with the aid of a rookie warrior squad, led by trainee Izzy Hawthorne (Keke Palmer), and robot companion Sox (Peter Sohn), Buzz will once again lead the charge to save Star Command by crushing Zurg's forces.</p><p>2022 is the fourth time Pixar has released two films in one year, with Turning Red having already made a big splash in March. So following up such a terrific film as that, especially how effortlessly it tackled its mature subject matter, would understandably make anyone nervous. Lightyear marks the solo feature length debut of Angus MacLane, who's worked at Pixar for over 20 years as a supervising animator. Just from his touch, you certainly get an idea of what Lightyear strives to achieve; epic, big-budget, stimulating spectacle. The film even makes its intentions known, with opening text explaining Andy's love for the film, immediately indicating to us "This is Buzz Lightyear, but not as we know him."</p><p>For much of the opening 30 minutes, Lightyear had me latched onto its every word. The film plays as an unabashed love letter to the Sci-Fi epics of old, with clear influence drawn from the likes of Star Wars, 2001, Dune, Flash Gordon, and many others. These even include more recent space epics like Interstellar and Gravity, and those influences are particularly key, given how much Lightyear leans into those quantum space mechanics. Specifically, each time Buzz fails, time feels like mere minutes to him, but could be much longer back on the surface. You especially get a good idea of this within the film's first act, in which Buzz is passing witness to the huge milestones of his friends and colleagues, specifically fellow ranger Alisha Hawthorne (Uzo Aduba), and seeing these events play out from this perspective is like a gut punch. It's a Pixar movie, it had to happen at some point.</p><p>When the film is operating at this speed, that is when it's at its most inspired. Not only because the meditative, borderline melancholy tone offers up so much possibilities, but because at the same time, those visual ideas are projected in breathtaking fashion. You can tell Lightyear comes from the loving hand of an animator, because the visuals are so meticulous in their creation, from the sheen and glare on surfaces and characters, to the assortment of color projected onto objects and settings. Especially given its space sequences, with more than several allusions tossed to Kubrick, and the terrifying void of stars that stretch on endlessly. As spectacle alone, Lightyear excels, and with these weighty ideas on its plate, that opening thirty minute stretch could easily rank among the boldest, most inventive, most breathtaking filmmaking in Pixar's history... so it's a shame that the momentum doesn't hold up.</p><p>The following two acts of Lightyear aren't *bad* by any mean, but they are by far the less creative and ambitious sections of the film. Following those weighty meditations, it settles into a much more conventional gear, becoming a straight action film for the remaining runtime, and letting all of those ideas and tension unwind and de-escalate. This is where the Flash Gordon influence really settles in, because it veers back into pulpy serial adventures as we're tossed into an ongoing war, with the robotic threats bearing murky intentions.</p><p>That's no accident itself, given the movie's in-universe 1995 release date, but the problem is that in playing as a pastiche of generic 90's blockbusters, it itself has become one of them. That's not played for satire either, because not only is it too earnest in execution, but too modernized at the same time. Given how it seems intent on *subverting* the customs of its own Sci-Fi subgenre, it feels like two divergent tones mashed together, as well as cowering away from its own potential. I know this is still a movie ostensibly aimed at children, and it's perfectly fine in that regard, but it is a disappointment nonetheless, because I feel like this movie had the promise of being something grander.</p><p>At the very least, Pixar continues to make fine use of its characters and voice actors. Given how perfectly Tim Allen's voice aligns with Buzz, recasting the role would certainly be an intimidating process. That said, Chris Evans acquits himself to the role superbly, as while it may not be a stretch from Captain America, Evans still carries himself with an assured and charismatic command, certainly embodying the heroism of his character, as well as relaying the silent turmoil of his failures. Elsewhere, Keke Palmer is also terrific in a sidekick role, anchoring the film with a deeply felt emotional depth and keen sense of wit, and between Lightyear and Jordan Peele's Nope looks set to have a great year.</p><p>Scene stealer notice though? That honor belongs to Sox, Buzz's personal robotic cat companion voiced by Pixar mainstay Peter Sohn. This character is a delight, proving himself an essential asset to the narrative flow, but also in his gentle, borderline deadpan nature, with much of the film's best comedy as a result of him. It certainly helps that he's adorable to boot. My heart melts every time he shows up, and honestly, he may just be the greatest cinematic cat... ever? Certainly one of the finest supporting characters Pixar has ever given us.</p><p>Elsewhere, characters don't stack up quite as well, because while the talent is there, the dimension isn't. While Uzo Aduba's Alisha is an affecting personality whose spirit lingers throughout the movie, Moe Morrison and Darby Steel - voiced by Taika Waititi and Dale Soules - are much more standard stock sidekicks. They mainly exist as comic relief, and while they fulfill their duties there, the depth just isn't felt, and in fact, they occasionally come across as more annoying than funny.</p><p>And this continues with Zurg voiced by James Brolin, fulfilling his role as the villain, and easily the weakest part of the film. Given that Zurg was already a parody of Darth Vader, there's only so much depth you can give to an intentionally generic antagonist. And to the film's credit, it does try to give him agency within the narrative, especially in how he challenges Buzz on a mental level, but Zurg is undone by the fact that he doesn't feel threatening. Some of this could be chalked up to his redesign, which isn't exactly inspired, especially given how the mass of purple gives him little visual contrast, and feels simplified and stripped back to the degree that it robs him of personality.</p><p>Other pleasures in the movie? The sound design is aces as usual, and Michael Giacchino's score is a beautiful tribute to classic Jerry Goldsmith, but otherwise, that's about it.</p><p>Lightyear is a fine movie, and if anything, it's probably better than it had any right to be. It has ambitious ideas, and has such an infectious affection for classic Sci-Fi adventure, which at least put it above your usual animated feature, and even your average blockbuster. However, after a certain point, it never reaches that peak of inspiration again. In trying to embody the spirit of those epic contemporary blockbusters, it also inherits some of their lesser qualities, leading to an odd mixture of genuinely inventive new takes, while feeling beholden to the customs of what the audience is expecting to see. It is still an enjoyable adventure, and has its heart in the right place, even if it doesn't stand with the best films Pixar has made. It doesn't fly, but at least it falls with style...</p><p><br /></p><p>***1/2 / *****</p>Indyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17018620332465602342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6416455634439053148.post-82382012009947163602022-06-11T11:13:00.001-07:002022-06-11T11:14:17.895-07:00Jurassic World: Dominion movie review<p><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhucSPdtDI3GWXiCrCEuRwXGTc7bYAhwBBEnEmEoCf1sOY482xDP5IPdasSchFjCdTrW5VchPLpYSt5TH1-9MExYMLHVjtMNHlSDRFNx3TD5G6VbzAg6_kMvCPO8A4FgYmh7J2zA_McXcN8rICi5I0utGV_4md7bzcZj1xe22Nq-3DR7AfnYFBg0fbB/s4032/36378B70-6292-4155-BF2C-66387A01E09D.jpeg" style="clear: left; display: inline; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em; text-align: center;"><img border="0" data-original-height="4032" data-original-width="3024" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhucSPdtDI3GWXiCrCEuRwXGTc7bYAhwBBEnEmEoCf1sOY482xDP5IPdasSchFjCdTrW5VchPLpYSt5TH1-9MExYMLHVjtMNHlSDRFNx3TD5G6VbzAg6_kMvCPO8A4FgYmh7J2zA_McXcN8rICi5I0utGV_4md7bzcZj1xe22Nq-3DR7AfnYFBg0fbB/w300-h400/36378B70-6292-4155-BF2C-66387A01E09D.jpeg" width="300" /></a> My favorite film of all time is Jurassic Park; a stone-cold classic that blended sci-fi fantasy, awestruck wonder, suspense, and horror in a way only Steven Spielberg could. Even he had trouble replicating its success with The Lost World, which went bigger and louder, at the expense of feeling sloppy and bitter. By the time Jurassic Park 3 rolled along, effectively becoming just another monster B-movie, the novelty had worn off considerably. No one's impressed by a dinosaur anymore...</p><div>Or so we thought. In 2015, the franchise was revitalized by Jurassic World, director Colin Trevorrow's continuation that recaptured some of the spirit lost between movies, and was an enormous box office hit. It came followed by Fallen Kingdom, which went for darker new avenues, even if it was let down by some stupid lapses in logic. But that movie was clearly a set up to bigger things, which we now see with Dominion, where Trevorrow returns to wrap up both his trilogy, and the original Jurassic mythos. Unfortunately, for what should be a satisfying send-off, what we instead get is a limp finale that doesn't so much roar, as it does whimper off licking its wounds.<span><a name='more'></a></span></div><div><br /></div><div>Four years have passed since the events of Lockwood Estate, and in the years since, dinosaurs have integrated themselves into the human world. Having adopted the cloned daughter of Lockwood, Maise (Isabella Sermon), Owen Grady and Claire Dearing (Chris Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard) have retreated off the grid to protect her. But eventually Maise, as well as Beta - the pup of velociraptor Blue, are kidnapped by poachers, and Owen and Claire set off to rescue them. Elsewhere, Ellie Sattler (Laura Dern) investigates a growing plague of mutated locusts, which seem to tie back to genetic giant Biosyn, and with the help of Alan Grant (Sam Neill) and Ian Malcolm (Jeff Goldblum), the trio attempt to uncover the company's secrets, and all groups strive for one purpose: Survive.</div><div><br /></div><div>Dominion was the story Trevorrow wanted to tell from the beginning, the main driving force that the first two films were just an appetizer for. And if that really is the case, I must ask... why? What was so compelling in this material? Why was THIS what that passion was put into? Because by the time it finishes, Dominion just feels like it was made solely to exist.</div><div><br /></div><div>If you remember Fallen Kingdom, you know a major theme was the ethical debate over whether the dinosaurs should be allowed to go extinct again, leading into the follow-up where humans and dinosaurs are now forced to co-exist, much in the same way we contend with extraordinary planet-wide changes, such as global warming or man-made disasters, forced on us by our own hubris. An interesting idea, and something that is at least new for this franchise, but if you were expecting that to go any deeper, you will leave disappointed. Because oddly enough, that world in which we co-exist with dinosaurs feels barely developed. There was so much room to see how we cope with these changes, but aside from the minimum lip-service, it runs away from that potential with its tail tucked between its legs.</div><div><br /></div><div>Trevorrow has Endgame envy. Because that feels like what he's trying to make this movie out to be, by bringing back the nostalgic stars of older movies, and merging them with the characters he himself created. The problem is that this movie is too clumsy to do those ambitions justice. That's especially true with the movie's first act, which jumps between locations in very erratic pacing, and so it struggles to maintain any semblance of tone. Actually, for much of the first half, it seems more intent on becoming a Bond film, as the dinosaurs themselves take a backseat to the bombastic action sequences. But Trevorrow's handling is not Bond, and honestly, after a while, started to feel more in line with Michael Bay action. Which isn't far off, because my beloved T-Rex has essentially become the Optimus Prime of this trilogy.</div><div><br /></div><div>That said, the human cast don't give us much to root for. Chris Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard return for their third time, and whereas they were once strong standouts, it really does feel like the boredom is setting in. Less so for Howard, who does at least try to lend some credence to her evolved character, but specifically for Pratt, whose novelty has worn off and who looks ready to call it quits. To be honest, much of the new cast can hardly be qualified as successes either. While Mamoudou Athie's Ramsay is at least a charming and engaging presence, DeWanda Wise's Kayla is a waste, whose only purpose is as a mode of transportation.</div><div><br /></div><div>All of the real energy goes into the second storyline, that following the returning trio of Dern, Goldblum, and Neill. To their credit, they all get back into the swing of things without missing a beat, with Goldblum in particular getting some standout moments. The problem is not with them, but with their subplot, with the three investigating the goings-on of Biosyn, and their ties to growing attacks of mutated locusts. Not only is Biosyn so hilariously, obviously evil (and a blatant reskin of Mantah Corp, the corporation from Jurassic's own Camp Cretaceous), but the main conflict being prehistorically gifted locusts feeding on crops feels hilariously on the nose. As if the commentary on man's own self-destruction weren't enough, we had to make them Biblical!</div><div><br /></div><div>But that's nothing compared to Maise. She was a controversial component of Fallen Kingdom, the result of Benjamin Lockwood cloning his own daughter to bring her back to life. That was the explanation given to us then, but Dominion goes into it further, with much of her backstory filled in by Henry Wu, again played by BD Wong in an unearned redemptive fashion. And if you thought the twist with Maise was bad then, just you wait, because this expansion is not only a massive retcon, but a full blown descent into outrageous. Suspension of disbelief completely flies out the window with the science of this subplot, to the point that, without giving much away, this backstory is the epitome of everything that is wrong with Maise. Because she isn't even a proper character anymore. Now she's just a plot device, and a convenient Deus Ex Machina.</div><div><br /></div><div>I don't think Trevorrow even cares about humans anymore. He's far more enamored with the dinosaurs. And to his credit, for all of the World trilogy's faults, he has at least done well in giving these animals personality. And yet, even with that quality in mind, the dinosaurs feel very underdeveloped as characters, probably not helped by the fact that there are A LOT of them. So much so that Blue, the unofficial mascot for the franchise, is barely in the movie. She bookends the film, but the rest of the attention goes to her pup Beta, and even she is just the funko pop version of Blue.</div><div><br /></div><div>Aside from that, this movie isn't great at fleshing out its dinosaurs. You get an idea of this in Malta, with the sequence in which Owen is chased on motorbike by Atrociraptors, and then later on a chasm, where Owen and Kayla have a face off with a Pyroraptor over an icy lake. Not only do they feel like blatant reskins of the Velociraptor, but because the film is so stuffed with dinosaur encounters (including with Dimetrodon, Quetzalcoatlus, and the return of the Dilophosaurs), the tension just doesn't have time to sit. It feels like watching one random encounter after another, before the scene ends so we can get to the next one. The only one that manages to stand out is the Therizinosaurus, and that's because of its pure suspenseful approach where the tension is allowed to simmer. It's also a nice novelty, because it's rare you see herbivores in these movies feel like a genuine threat, which really helps this one stand out.</div><div><br /></div><div>If I will give the dinosaurs anymore appreciation, I will say that the designs and effects work are still top notch as ever. While the CGI isn't always consistent, and in some cases is incredibly ropey, the live-action counterparts are a breathtaking sight to behold. They use a lot of honest to god animatronic effects, making the creatures feel all the more imposing and majestic, and so that is at least one area where it's respectful to the original.</div><div><br /></div><div>But on the whole, it really is wasted on such an uneven movie. At nearly two and a half hours long, Dominion is not only overstuffed and overlong, but it's framing device is incredibly messy, almost like two films being crammed into one, and so by the time you ultimately get those two groups of characters together, you've really lost sight of what the end goal was. Even the big baddie of the movie, the Giganotosaurus, just feels flavorless and tired, and massive for the sake of being massive. It only exists to give Rexy something to fight at the end, and by the time that climax rolls along, I was just done. The gas has run out, and the engine is stalling at this point.</div><div><br /></div><div>Jurassic Park has overstayed its welcome, and in retrospect, it's debatable whether it had the mileage to last more than one movie, and you really feel that in the way it keeps nudging at your nostalgia. And with all of these conflicting flavors - the nostalgia buttons, the corporate conspiracies, the drastic deviations, the wayward action, the oddball science, I have to ask... who is this movie even for? Dominion wastes so much talent on absolutely nothing, and the way it trips over the rug and lands with a resounding thud, Trevorrow has given Jurassic Park its own The Rise of Skywalker. It's so pathetic, I'm actually looking back more fondly on The Lost World. Yeah. It's that weak.</div><div><br /></div><div><br /></div><div>** / *****</div><p></p>Indyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17018620332465602342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6416455634439053148.post-20630410698713420732021-06-10T01:37:00.001-07:002022-06-11T11:14:10.320-07:00In the Heights movie review.<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgm5vZwgfSC-tI7Py7SdTeQdhMEYie3IddteVqar6sAL1L1ZXGxCb91H-IX8l4TCxoDwb1uIVl7-9tTVHlp3-gTaay8V-_7xO1Uk7A1F7y843D-EyfVMk5kMMCreq_LF3NQz0yk28dOcL0/s2048/ith.jpg" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="2048" data-original-width="1382" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgm5vZwgfSC-tI7Py7SdTeQdhMEYie3IddteVqar6sAL1L1ZXGxCb91H-IX8l4TCxoDwb1uIVl7-9tTVHlp3-gTaay8V-_7xO1Uk7A1F7y843D-EyfVMk5kMMCreq_LF3NQz0yk28dOcL0/w270-h400/ith.jpg" width="270" /></a></div>Before making himself a household name with Hamilton, actor/singer/songwriter Lin-Manuel Miranda became a musical theater staple with In the Heights, an ode to his humble roots in New York's Washington Heights, and all the debts, fireworks, and fiestas that came with the barrio. Playing in various stages before debuting on Broadway in 2008, the musical has become a beloved work of art in the years since, winning four Tony's including Best Musical.<p></p><p>A film adaptation had been kicking around since at least November of that year, under various stars, directors, and studios (one of which, unfortunately, being Harvey Weinstein). After all the development limbo, and the COVID-19 pandemic delaying the film's release a full year, we have that film adaptation at last, now under the leadership of Step Up and Crazy Rich Asians director Jon M. Chu. I was fortunate enough to see this movie a month early, and I'm happy to say the wait was well worth it. In The Heights is terrific in every sense of the word, engaging not only as an emotionally fulfilling thematic drama, but as a rousing and joyous spectacle.<span></span></p><a name='more'></a><p></p><p>It's summertime in Washington Heights, and Usnavi (Anthony Ramos) goes through his daily routine: running a small convenience store with his cousin Sonny (Gregory Diaz IV), and saving up to move to his father's old seaside bar in the Dominican Republic. All the while, his old friend Nina (Leslie Grace) returns from college to visit her father Kevin Rosario (Jimmy Smits), revealing she had dropped out. She also rekindles her old spark with her ex Benny (Corey Hawkins), while Usnavi struggles with his own feelings for Vanessa (Melissa Barrera), who's saving up to move to a studio out of Washington Heights. As the summer heats up, those interweaving bonds also get tested, as the various characters will learn what the true meaning of home really is.</p><p>In the Heights comes with the ultimate boon of finding a natural champion in director Jon Chu. Despite a spotty track record, he's shown great capability in construction of a scene, if the material handed to him affords it. That challenge is more than matched by Miranda's songs, and original bookwriter Quiara Alegria Hudes' script. What we get, as a result, is a match made in Heaven between story and director, brought to life through a mutual confidence with the material.</p><p>If spectacle is what you came for, you won't be disappointed, as the musical numbers are where the film hits its creative apex. Featuring 16 of the Broadway production's original songs, the numbers are spaced out well across its 143 minute running time, becoming dazzling exercises in technical prowess in their own rights. Miranda's songs are such infectious earworms, tapping into the roots of his Washington Heights heritage, and the distinct Latinx musical flairs ranging from samba to hip-hop. Chu is more than up to the task of keeping up with the rhythm and vibrancy of Miranda's songs, showing great confidence in bringing them to life with unabashed visual inventiveness, right down to the movie's editing, at times directly mimicking the songs in time with the music. Things start off on a spectacular note with the introduction, arguably the best song of the original production, and an impressive, virtually flawless expository number to the film's distinct setting, style, and characters. And that's merely the appetizer of what's to come.</p><p>The choreography of the film is phenomenal to say the least. Both in the sense of the incredible dancing put on display, but also in the fluid way that the camera captures these sequences. With Chu's background in the Step Up films, this should hardly be a surprise, and the amount of skill and energy that the dancers afford to those sequences are stunning to watch. Even more so with the swift, expansive movement of the cinematography, which helps lend the film this surprising fantastical beauty, nicely offsetting the more serious tone of the script with this dreamlike aura, and some truly arresting artistry.</p><p>And the numbers bring both a great modern sensibility with the break dancing, but also an effective debt owed to classic musical tropes. "96,000" becomes an early highlight, with characters conversing with hypotheticals while wielding imaginary objects drawn in chalk style, before moving to a large community pool with break dancing groups, and synchronized swimming directly recreating Footlight Parade's water ballet sequence. Busby Berkely isn't the only debt the film owes, as later number "Paciencia y Fe" shows nods to Bob Fosse with Cabaret inspired staging, along with a possible nod to Gene Kelly, with "When the Sun Goes Down" showing lovebirds Nina and Benny dancing on the side of an apartment complex, with a lush pink sunset behind them. In "Carnival Del Barrio," I could swear Miranda himself makes a direct reference to Les Miserables. Those are just a few of the touching odes lending to the fantastical nature of the film, and just a few gorgeous moments in a film full of them.</p><p>If all of this makes In the Heights seem like style over substance, I swear it isn't, for the direction and songs are perfectly balanced by Hudes' updated script. The film, and its stage counterpart, are both an affectionate love letter to that Latinx heritage and culture, as well as touching on greater issues faced within that community. It's no surprise that some elements of the original show have been beefed up for the film, which they had to, and those topics are covered and updated gracefully in the movie. Topics of family and the ability to survive separated from them, poverty in a biased financial system intentionally built against Latinx people and poor classes, as well as systemic racism within the country, specifically the movie's addition, tackling the struggles of children under the DACA umbrella, something that comes in a bit late, but is thoughtfully integrated none the less. Hudes tackles such themes with fitting confidence and empathy, especially in our desire to see these characters overcome those struggles and achieve their goals.</p><p>Speaking of characters, they're brought to life by an absolutely terrific ensemble cast. Leading the charge is a stellar Anthony Ramos as Usnavi, perfectly recreating the youthful, if exhausted energy of Miranda's original creation, fueling the film with an unmistakable charisma and lovable dorky charm, as well as a richly fulfilling emotional center. Elsewhere, the other leading players are just as much a standout. Corey Hawkins proves witty and touching in filling the role of dispatch operator Benny, Melissa Barrera steals scenes as Usnavi's passionate and frustrated love interest Vanessa, while Leslie Grace becomes something of a breakout star as Nina, the one who made it out come home, and torn between what the future holds in store for her, and if that future is even what she really wants.</p><p>The supporting cast is additionally fun to watch, not only for the emotional weight they lend, but because you can clearly see they're having such fun. Greogory Diaz IV is both hilarious and affecting in his role as Sonny. The salon ladies - hilariously played by Daphne Rubin-Vega, Stephanie Beatriz, and Dascha Polanco - practically steal scenes every time they show up. Jimmy Smits as Nina's father is also a touching player whose bond, and his personal attempts at trying to understand and work with his daughter, lends some of the more poignant interplay in the film. But I think the one that people will really love is Olga Merediz as Abuela, the godmother to her corner of the Heights, whose soulful, witty, heartbreaking recreation of her Broadway counterpart utterly steals the show, with a performance worthy of serious awards traction come Oscar season.</p><p>And that's really what makes In the Heights so great, in that it's a film with a huge heart beating under the surface, especially in regards to its message and resolution. Through much of the film, there's this emphasis placed on feeling "home" and what that even is. And that becomes a touching, and oddly relatable area to tackle, regardless of racial barriers, is being able to find one's true place in the world, and making peace with their familial history. And this gives some poignant moments of realization to the film's ending, with the idea of home being what you make of it, and family based not merely on blood, but by bonds forged with the people you choose. As such, the film concludes on a truly satisfying note, and an emotionally fulfilling closer.</p><p>In the Heights isn't a perfect movie. It has its fair share of distractions in its framing device and the occasional cameo, but those pale in comparison to the sheer, escapist wonder and empathic depth otherwise established. It's a gorgeous love letter to its people and their heritage, as well as a breathtaking spectacle of an already awesome stage musical. The trio of Chu, Miranda, and Hudes have brought that original production vividly, extravagantly to life, filled with both incredible characters and musical numbers. Even for non-musical fans (and I saw this film with said people), it proves just as arresting, and a month since I initially saw it, I would say it's actually grown in my esteem since then, and I may actually prefer this version to the stage. It's THAT good!</p><p>And after the devastating year it's been since the outbreak of COVID-19, I feel like this is the film we needed right now. In the Heights is an absolutely joyous film from start to finish, and the perfect crowd pleaser to welcome audiences back with open arms. <i>"Look at the fireworks..."</i></p><p><br /></p><p>****1/2 / *****</p>Indyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17018620332465602342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6416455634439053148.post-49465968054397303402020-02-17T08:16:00.002-08:002020-02-17T09:05:59.375-08:00The Top Ten Best Films of 2019...<div style="text-align: center;">
<i>Sorry that this is coming out so late. I've been very busy, and haven't had much time for writing.</i></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i></i><br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
With the bad side of 2019 behind us, we can look onward to the positive. And compared to the slate of 2018, which generally left me apathetic in spite of its very high highs, 2019 made up for it with plenty of good, quality films. As well it should be, given what a year of events it was.</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
2019 fittingly looked to be the year when all things in the decade came full circle, especially in the world of pop culture, what with the number of big franchises that closed off their final chapters, or at least closed off their sagas. We saw the end of Game of Thrones, Marvel's Infinity Saga, the current Star Wars trilogy, the original X-Men timeline, the Toy Story films, Martin Scorsese finally unveiling his passion project The Irishman, and many more. For all that pop culture impact, it's no surprise that Disney towered over the worldwide box office, with their non-Fox films garnering them $11 billion dollars in profit (side note: $200 of which was mine), including Avengers: Endgame dethroning Avatar as the highest grossing film of all time.</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
And for someone who really needed some comfort viewing for relief, when I felt like I needed it most, it showed up. Heck, Frozen 2 I've dubbed the year's okayest movie to make me tear up. And with my A-list subscription, it also helped me to break out of my comfort zone and discover new movies I'd otherwise miss out on. As 2020 opens, and hopefully things improve after Dolittle, I hope it will continue to look just as well.</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
And as always, I've compiled many of the films I've seen into a nice ranked list, but as always, because I haven't seen *everything,* this is in no way set in stone. For example, had I waited 'til June to publish my Best of 2018 list, Pawel Pawlikowski's <b>Cold War</b> would have easily taken the number 2 position.</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
But before the main event, let's shed light on some honorable mentions. <b>The Farewell</b> was a deeply affecting watch for me, that covered a very tricky subject matter with the most sensitive and objective viewpoint, aided by a stellar ensemble cast, especially Awkwafina and Zhao Shuzhen. <b>Knives Out</b> was some of the most fun I had in a theater last year, as writer/director Rian Johnson really enjoyed subverting the old tropes of the whodunnit genre, with another stellar ensemble making the most of their entertaining characters. <b>The Lighthouse</b> was a grim and claustrophobic descent into the dark side of masculinity, with the acidic power struggle between Willem Dafoe and Robert Pattinson anchoring it, as the two played off of each other spectacularly. <b>I Lost My Body</b> was an inventive and emotional wallop of a film, that spun a compelling narrative of self-acceptance and loss in both the physical and mental state, with its sketchlike and often macabre animation leading to some beautiful sequences. <b>Blinded by the Light</b> was an uplifting personal journey via Bruce Springsteen's music, that used its soundtrack for a tale of acceptance amidst cultural and societal pressures, and was just a universally wholesome movie that made me want to stand up and cheer.</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
So with those addressed, it's time for the main event, and the true top ten.<br />
All together now: <b>Jessica, Only Child, Illinois, Chicago...</b><br />
<a name='more'></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b></b><br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><br />Number 10</b><br />
<b><u><span style="font-size: large;">Wild Rose</span></u></b><br />
<span style="color: #999999;">Dir. Tom Harper</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEihPZJLfbdenjIgloidFESEVKEsKmMt1_Q-fWkWUSvtzv-OFY2iaSt1m5yoXTVc2r2V8mGnur-KoNqbfw8SpaA5c3YxTrWPg_-ZQu9MbrSXFomxbvD4YUpE9FqljvC8wFRt_81GKSki0e4/s1600/10.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="412" data-original-width="970" height="135" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEihPZJLfbdenjIgloidFESEVKEsKmMt1_Q-fWkWUSvtzv-OFY2iaSt1m5yoXTVc2r2V8mGnur-KoNqbfw8SpaA5c3YxTrWPg_-ZQu9MbrSXFomxbvD4YUpE9FqljvC8wFRt_81GKSki0e4/s320/10.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
A movie that not enough people paid attention to, this musical drama was one of the year's most pleasant surprises. Aspiring country star Rose-Lynn Harlan has recently been released from prison, struggling to balance between her dreams of becoming a country star, and raising her two children who've grown distant since her incarceration. Rose lives by the creed of "Three chords and the truth," with country being an emotionally powerful outlet for her, and like country music itself, despite its familiar style, this movie does carry a lot of truth with every chord.</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
Anchored by Jessie Buckley's star-making performance, Rose is a character we're happy to root for, but also one whose recklessness we hope to overcome, as because of her blind devotion to those dreams, she begins pushing those closest to her aside, including Julie Wlaters as the mother forced to take charge of her children. Like the best country songs, the long and winding story of her quest for stardom is tinged with a bittersweet and sensitive touch, with Buckley herself contributing her voice to some fantastic singing sequences. Some tropes, old-fashioned or not, can still make for one very moving film.</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Number 9</b><br />
<b><u><span style="font-size: large;">Toy Story 4</span></u></b><br />
<span style="color: #999999;">Dir. Josh Cooley</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgxGiATpSlu4VGz8cGjYyVdHJPRJhCG7KlAUUOa6dk71A-zfc5KSZsD4qfBWYR3whpPR-C_LdfFh1_8NB1RJQdqUkCthYVVOiseNXUg6DSqOpXbLPNPb8_JMyfqIJ3CesMtMzEzgGl-IgE/s1600/9.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="540" data-original-width="960" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgxGiATpSlu4VGz8cGjYyVdHJPRJhCG7KlAUUOa6dk71A-zfc5KSZsD4qfBWYR3whpPR-C_LdfFh1_8NB1RJQdqUkCthYVVOiseNXUg6DSqOpXbLPNPb8_JMyfqIJ3CesMtMzEzgGl-IgE/s320/9.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
The sequel we didn't need, but nonetheless another fantastic addition to Pixar's star-franchise. While Toy Story 3 felt like a natural conclusion, this fourth movie manages to find that much more ground to cover with these characters, and confronting their always pervading fears of abandonment. With Woody having lost so much after leaving Andy, much of the film's strength comes from seeing him adjust to a new life, and trying desperately to find new purpose afterwards. With the reemergence of Bo Peep, a new fire is then lit under him, with the two sharing incredible chemistry in an infectious love story.</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
And there's a lot more themes the movie wishes to explore as well, as embodied by the adorable Forky, which directly evokes metaphors on our possessions, even the most tacky ones, yielding as much value as we see in them. We also have stellar new additions to the character roster, including the scene-stealing likes of Keegan-Michael Key, Jordan Peele, and Keanu Reeves. It's also the funniest Toy Story film yet, with so many laughs packed into its running time, but just as much breathing room to unfold its perfect, definitive ending. To call it the "worst" Toy Story film is only a testament to just how good these movies really are.</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b>Number 8</b><br />
<b><u><span style="font-size: large;">For Sama</span></u></b><br />
<span style="color: #999999;">Dir. Edward Watts and Waad-Al Kateab</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi9bcVZEJOGNanL3Rt0DREE7f_3qW0r0bGgCKqdq9CZhYBKpqubBdut0-sDhp000-CEP-fW7_zWEobMG05u8k-auVUP5fbjV5sf14h3NGHPjBJS-2vh8a_6hUePk0sF6tRZlP5UY-zn194/s1600/8.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="481" data-original-width="1160" height="132" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi9bcVZEJOGNanL3Rt0DREE7f_3qW0r0bGgCKqdq9CZhYBKpqubBdut0-sDhp000-CEP-fW7_zWEobMG05u8k-auVUP5fbjV5sf14h3NGHPjBJS-2vh8a_6hUePk0sF6tRZlP5UY-zn194/s320/8.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
At once hard to watch, but absolutely vital to, this PBS aired documentary was one of the most affecting pieces of cinema I experienced in 2019. Following the daily routines of a married couple in war-ravaged Aleppo, Syria, the film documents their harrowing struggle to care for wounded citizens affected by the bombing runs, while trying to raise their young daughter amidst the carnage. In some cases, they know this is a losing battle, acknowledging the fact that to stay would be suicide, but were they to leave, would they be able to live knowing how that fear governed them?</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
Even with the specific focus of the film, there's a powerful universality to it, as families find themselves torn apart by forces beyond their control, but with how much they've dedicated their lives to their homes, to be forced to flee from them just feels wrong. Co-director Waad-Al Kateab captures the graphic and shocking footage with intimate sensitivity, using her personal stakes in the conflict as an engaging focal point, to show us the full effects of what this senseless violence can cost. It's a short, but powerful and essential piece of non-fiction, and one that left me in streaming tears.</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br />
<b>Number 7</b><br />
<b><u><span style="font-size: large;">Avengers: Endgame</span></u></b><br />
<span style="color: #999999;">Dir. Joe and Anthony Russo</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiIHgN7ksBZ1zen9gNsqs-CQCcebWhojI4OwAVI3M3TUWT2zJ0YxtHzHkDodPzWPYK4g3YKqQdoxj5OLckiUdvmAI-rxw7wdlwhGSf0LN9WmomfiQPk4Y3m1ybirAxBvEf_RADfUpKp6Do/s1600/7.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="844" data-original-width="1600" height="168" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiIHgN7ksBZ1zen9gNsqs-CQCcebWhojI4OwAVI3M3TUWT2zJ0YxtHzHkDodPzWPYK4g3YKqQdoxj5OLckiUdvmAI-rxw7wdlwhGSf0LN9WmomfiQPk4Y3m1ybirAxBvEf_RADfUpKp6Do/s320/7.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
My pick for the year's most thoroughly entertaining movie, Marvel brought their glorious ten-year Infinity Saga to a fantastic close. In a significant turnaround following Infinity War, Endgame consciously makes the decision, for much of the movie, to cut down drastically on its action. With most of the attention being devoted to character growth and their grief following the snap, it starts to feel like the MCU's answer to Logan, with even the proposed time heist to restore the lives lost having their own set of stakes, namely Tony Stark who is determined to hold on to his life as a father.</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
The cast interplay is once again stellar, featuring some of the best work these performers have contributed to a Marvel movie, especially during the heist-driven second act, where Marvel takes us down memory lane in films past. With such a lack of action in the first two hours, once that final showdown does kick off, it's a gargantuan and rousing spectacle, featuring some of the best action in the MCU to date, but not at the expense of the film's intimacy, with Cap's final farewell and the film's closing shots being particularly bittersweet. One has to wonder how Marvel can possibly top this movie, which stands as the best in the MCU to date.</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br />
<b>Number 6</b><br />
<b><u><span style="font-size: large;">Midsommar</span></u></b><br />
<span style="color: #999999;">Dir. Ari Aster</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj7Jhw2Ou7DUNfV-vOX_h5PBLTrvY_e8e8Z3kYC53MRmTmRyi5WHHzj07uT3VWXmiiWmggTO8XFDa1qf5KaaPDNreNXKGQzAnXCzlboh9P-B-owkxFOtHuL4Fjb_JeHmoR4W31gk1xxwfk/s1600/6.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="472" data-original-width="840" height="179" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj7Jhw2Ou7DUNfV-vOX_h5PBLTrvY_e8e8Z3kYC53MRmTmRyi5WHHzj07uT3VWXmiiWmggTO8XFDa1qf5KaaPDNreNXKGQzAnXCzlboh9P-B-owkxFOtHuL4Fjb_JeHmoR4W31gk1xxwfk/s320/6.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
Fresh off his surprise hit Hereditary, newcomer Ari Aster returns with another unsettling, and equally fantastic dive into the mentally tortured psyche. Less rooted in horror, and based more in gruesome dark comedy, Aster seems to have found a comfortable niche in stories tackling mental illness, and the unpleasant forms they take, as they exact their toll on those inflicted by it. Namely, the film feels like a breakup movie, of a main character whose life and relationship has become so toxic, and who has grown so dependent on that familiarity, that she has severely undervalued her self-worth outside of it.</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
As a result, the film becomes a freeing journey of self-acceptance, but in deliberately twisted ways. Midsommar tends to be more disturbing than outright scary, mostly off the back of the film's pitch black and sometimes surreal sense of humor, including one very uncomfortable sex scene in a bed of flowers. But the film's real secret weapon is Florence Pugh, who tackles her fragile and unbalanced main character with such power and budding confidence, especially during the third act when she is at her most cathartic, capped off by its fiendishly satisfying ending. I can only imagine what horrors Aster has up his sleeves in the future.</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br />
<b>Number 5</b><br />
<b><u><span style="font-size: large;">Little Women</span></u></b><br />
<span style="color: #999999;">Dir. Greta Gerwig</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNnwMKG9Ox7P3JCIdG3PYdC93Eg5O8Jv-FFRH1JOaaVr9gPN-mXvdnt_PW84annT5-dyyy-Xo_Ek1bDF6RviMzzRwqefahRLfL84OYMNul3x-Aopu043OPzdNL_lJN1emlrUwQD4rMNBM/s1600/5.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="300" data-original-width="600" height="160" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNnwMKG9Ox7P3JCIdG3PYdC93Eg5O8Jv-FFRH1JOaaVr9gPN-mXvdnt_PW84annT5-dyyy-Xo_Ek1bDF6RviMzzRwqefahRLfL84OYMNul3x-Aopu043OPzdNL_lJN1emlrUwQD4rMNBM/s320/5.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
Say what you will about it being another adaptation, but some stories like Little Women always find a way to remain fresh even decades later. Following up her fantastic Lady Bird, writer/director Greta Gerwig brings a fantastic modernized touch to the material, placing particular emphasis on its core themes, of women and young people anxious and uncertain of their eventual place in the world, when so many of these things feel unfairly predetermined. The film has a refreshing stream-of-consciousness presentation to it, highlighted especially by its cross-cutting between timelines, which give events both of the past and present a poignancy they might have lost chronologically.</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
Even as an old-fashioned story built on similarly old-fashioned techniques, there's such a youthful and honest sense of vibrancy and life to this movie, the energy that Gerwig brings to the material being at once infectious, but also blisteringly close to home in regards to that growing apathy. It certainly helps that Gerwig continues to prove a fantastic helmsman, especially in the stellar performances she extracts from her massive cast, including standout turns from both Saoirse Ronan and Florence Pugh. I haven't seen enough adaptations to call this the definitive Little Women, but its earnest touch certainly ensures it as one of the best.</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br />
<b>Number 4</b><br />
<b><u><span style="font-size: large;">1917</span></u></b><br />
<span style="color: #999999;">Dir. Sam Mendes</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgSBwdDseAXeir8UDnk4W8PoZoas6M5EyM9EFzApJt8eh1AThm5d6zK8IPHi6fXZ2lG38677O3ydT_wXQ_K16a1znqFLC_Ql6IuAEzHiJ2I8LZ_ShHOJ1iuyi4sw4xKD2-hj578fiNFfaM/s1600/4.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="628" data-original-width="1200" height="167" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgSBwdDseAXeir8UDnk4W8PoZoas6M5EyM9EFzApJt8eh1AThm5d6zK8IPHi6fXZ2lG38677O3ydT_wXQ_K16a1znqFLC_Ql6IuAEzHiJ2I8LZ_ShHOJ1iuyi4sw4xKD2-hj578fiNFfaM/s320/4.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
After an extended trip through the world of James Bond, director Sam Mendes returned with arguably his most technically astounding film yet. Inspired by the life of his late grandfather, 1917 pits us into a dangerous mission during WWI, and the desperate attempts of two men to stop the loss of 1,600 men. With the entire film shot and edited to appear as if one take, this brings a startling, and fear-inducing sense of immediacy to the events, especially as the fear and stakes of the mission gradually unfold, to the point that such efforts may be wasted on what is ultimately a suicide mission. But would they be able to live with themselves if they stopped?</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
And make no mistake, Mendes is the true star of this film, as his direction and technical prowess reach their peak capabilities, as he places a gradual sense of escalation in intensity and suspense, ratcheting up that tension even in the quietest sections. He also garners some fantastic work out of his usual collaborators, the legendary Roger Deakins especially standing out with his always lush and striking cinematography, that seamlessly and precisely captures the chaos of the ongoing war. Ditto the immersive sound design and music that offsets that action, especially in the heart-pounding second half, and the film is a poignant tribute on behalf of Mendes.</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br />
<b>Number 3</b><br />
<b><u><span style="font-size: large;">Uncut Gems</span></u></b><br />
<span style="color: #999999;">Dir. Josh and Benny Safdie</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi7uahI4e1txcA0mS8GnGcSne13JVPHOjBFHOBv4yCiARQETHm6vN30634Ma6cWC-tW8cgAX38VA0CqgsLWyn0i94urwdoZ5anzu7UHX6lnP0hUuuzJenw5T3pY_fwOm6DrtBgB80Pii7A/s1600/3.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="562" data-original-width="1000" height="179" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi7uahI4e1txcA0mS8GnGcSne13JVPHOjBFHOBv4yCiARQETHm6vN30634Ma6cWC-tW8cgAX38VA0CqgsLWyn0i94urwdoZ5anzu7UHX6lnP0hUuuzJenw5T3pY_fwOm6DrtBgB80Pii7A/s320/3.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
Between their last two films, filmmaking duo the Safdie Brothers are quickly establishing themselves as the next Coen Brothers, and that touch certainly carries over in their latest film. Following the life of Howard Ratner, as brought to life by Adam Sandler in the performance of the year, watching this film is the equivalent of having a two hour anxiety attack, given the hot water that Howard finds himself in owing a huge debt. Then again, it's not always easy to feel sorry for him, given how often he makes those messes himself, with both Sandler and the Safdies crafting a character who, despite his charm, can make you feel terrible for ever rooting for him.</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
Then again, such a condition isn't entirely on Howard, given America's central focus on capitalism, that places such devotion to the dollar, that it breeds a toxic hierarchy, encouraging an addiction to gambling and risk, just for the hope of becoming as wealthy and powerful as those at the top. The Safdie Brothers meticulously weave us through the neon hellscape of New York, whose bright-lights progressively overwhelm the viewer as the tension mounts, conversations and voices become more heated and overbearing, right up to its boiling point ending. It's a remarkable film in every regard, and the 2019 movie that had me biting my nails most.</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br />
<b>Number 2</b><br />
<b><u><span style="font-size: large;">The Irishman</span></u></b><br />
<span style="color: #999999;">Dir. Martin Scorsese</span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPNiyaFAzqnMbZWdOiQRH2LtUGxTTllF1dIDj-NJvhDyKI0apHNo2ftl5DCHipy0Nr8hlmPPehcRDa9Vieejg2yR6ittQQvRnk0x_1wkVzfwVBepTMeo9JtH3qL7Qh6deXpfr_KEXTXxQ/s1600/2.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="870" data-original-width="1542" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgPNiyaFAzqnMbZWdOiQRH2LtUGxTTllF1dIDj-NJvhDyKI0apHNo2ftl5DCHipy0Nr8hlmPPehcRDa9Vieejg2yR6ittQQvRnk0x_1wkVzfwVBepTMeo9JtH3qL7Qh6deXpfr_KEXTXxQ/s320/2.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
After decades spent bringing it to fruition, Martin Scorsese's long-gestating passion project finally saw the light of day, and the results were worth the wait. Fittingly for a three and a half hour long film spanning decades, Scorsese uses the film to capture a deep-rooted fear of aging. Stripped of the usual flashiness that most mobster movies revel in, the crime of The Irishman feels much less glamorous by contrast. As such, the lonely descent of Robert De Niro's Frank Sheeran feels even more bleak, a once good man driven to terrible methods in his gangster days, whose piling deeds and burned bridges eventually haunt him in his twilight years.</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
The Irishman is a movie fascinated with death, whether it be our own mortality, or lost lives directly tied to us in some way, whether it be confronting grief of loved ones past and those to come, or those lives ended in ill-will lingering over us like a specter of guilt. There's such a palpable sense of tragedy to the film, that Scorsese expertly weaves us through, especially with how airtight this movie feels, and what an excellent batch of performers he rallies together, including scene-stealing bits from a shouty Al Pacino, and an against type soft-spoken Joe Pesci. Despite its daunting length, it's so richly rewarding with every subsequent watch.</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br />
<b>Number 1</b><br />
<b><u><span style="font-size: large;">Parasite</span></u></b><br />
<span style="color: #999999;">Dir. Bong Joon-ho</span> </div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgdwEdg56pvNtKSAy7NstICMV48DtKDLRTYh2LONwwSmv8pQt475z_vsIWO3Eeqf5ThXiGlR_Ut21Sm5FH6c7UjffX-72J7OHRgG8ytxzsgzBauZ4mB_Zg95OW5t2oXeVkwh_k5p0rA5Fo/s1600/1.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="975" data-original-width="1600" height="195" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgdwEdg56pvNtKSAy7NstICMV48DtKDLRTYh2LONwwSmv8pQt475z_vsIWO3Eeqf5ThXiGlR_Ut21Sm5FH6c7UjffX-72J7OHRgG8ytxzsgzBauZ4mB_Zg95OW5t2oXeVkwh_k5p0rA5Fo/s320/1.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
It really couldn't be anything else. This year's (richly deserved) winner of the Best Picture Oscar, South Korean director Bong Joon-ho's latest film was one I instantly fell in love with, and the more I've spent reflecting on it, the more it's grown in my esteem. This is easily one of the best films of the decade.</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
Parasite follows a poor family living in a basement apartment, who through clever schemes and manipulation, slowly work their way into the graces of a rich family as their workforce. With that simple, but deceptively layered premise, Bong clearly has his sights set on themes of class divide and imbalance, which has been a running theme through his films. Even visually, those ideas are highly emphasized, with the very production design of the film built on stark contrast between the poor and rich homes, whose locations almost become characters in their own right. The outlook from the basement observes miles of homes left in unfortunate poverty, while the grassy lawn of the mansion is surrounded by trees blotting out the outside world.</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
That lawn itself is an effective metaphor (of which this film is so metaphorical), of those wealthy citizens who live oblivious to social issues outside of their bubble. Rain showers that may be destructive and dangerous to some, are instead viewed as healthy and beautiful by those without fear of losing everything. In essence, while it may be the poor Kim family infesting the Park mansion, those rich players are their own parasites, leeching off of the suffering of the other half, uncaring of the fact that the entire world could be crumbling outside. "Simple" is a perfect description of their worldview, painting these events in very black and white broad strokes, when the results are much messier, and while the film doesn't outright demonize them, it isn't afraid to highlight how, even unintentionally, that neglect can still be just as damaging.</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
But that simplicity is also a boon for the Kims, who realize how easily the Parks can be fooled, given their simple outlook. Through some impressive method acting and quick Google searches, it's very easy to fool those wealthy people, to the point that once they do fully integrate themselves to stay, they themselves begin losing sight of their bigger perspective. In a drunken rant, one character surmises that the Parks are only nice because "they can afford to be." And by losing sight of their poverty-wage lives, when another desperate party (themselves taking refuge in tunnels underneath the house) begs for mercy, they're unwilling to show it (they're not rich enough to be nice). So while these people may have a common enemy, Bong doesn't shy away from how those lower-income families can just as easily turn on each other out of desperation.</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
There's so much rich and textured satire present within Parasite, along with more broad pitch black comedy, which Bong expertly builds up through his seamless control of tone. A necessary tool if we're to be fully invested in the conflict of the Kims, who even at their lowest points, are still sympathetic and empathetic in every decision they make, performed by an outstanding cast of players, including Bong muse Song Kang-ho as the family patriarch, whose evolving journey from ambitious planner to disillusioned idealist lends to some of the most heartbreaking material of the film. The film's ending is especially melancholy in that way, echoing real world hopes of being able to live a wealthy life based on honesty, when in actuality, such things are likely to never happen.</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
Parasite is not an easy sit, but it is an endlessly fascinating movie, the product of a master filmmaker in complete control of his craft, contributing some of the greatest international viewing you're likely to ever see. Despite such language barriers, Parasite's themes still feel universal in their impact, and in many cases certainly struck a chord with me, and I will gladly continue to sing its praises from the rooftops. I may not get much originality points for it, but Parasite is richly deserving to be my favorite film of 2019.</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
Wow... <b><i>It feels so metaphorical!</i></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b></b><i></i><br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br />
And so concludes my rundown of my favorite films of 2019, and of 2019 in general. I'm going to be taking a hiatus from this point on, occasionally returning with some future thoughts should something stimulate me enough. But until then, thank you for reading. <b><i>Good night and good luck...</i></b></div>
Indyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17018620332465602342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6416455634439053148.post-55993880161835708452020-02-01T09:30:00.001-08:002020-02-01T09:30:54.584-08:00The Top Ten Worst Films of 2019.<div style="text-align: center;">
It feels very fitting that at the start of a new decade, we would be looking back on a year that felt like a mini-decade itself. 2019 was a very eventful year in cinema, with a whole slew of the usual great to good films, as well as the middling mediocrities, and outright atrocities.</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
If it seems like I'm struggling to make the year sound interesting, that's because for me, it was a bit of a toll taker. Last year, I stated I was tempted to drop my reviewing habit altogether, but while I have no intention of doing so, I feel I will be writing less. As life takes me in some new directions, I can't devote as much time to writing, and to keep forcing myself into it may only increase my burnout. So my postings will be a lot less frequent, but hopefully I can regain some spark with some much needed breaks.</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
And to be honest, the burnout may have had a lot to do with just how many films I saw last year, tallying up a record of over 120 films, which I have my AMC Stubs A-List subscription to thank for, or despise for given the topic we'll be discussing today, those being the worst films of last year. Or at least the worst films *I* saw, because I couldn't be bothered to give <b>Playmobil: The Movie</b> the time of day.</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
But as always, some dishonorable mentions. Just barely missing the list was <b>Pet Sematary</b>, which updated the classic Stephen King story while simultaneously sapping it of any identity or scare factor, and lived up to its signature tagline that sometimes dead is better. <b>Hellboy</b> was a failed reboot of the cult classic comic book character, forsaking decent story or coherency in favor of an onslaught of gratuitous gore, and couldn't so much as touch Guillermo del Toro's attempts. <b>Dark Phoenix</b> closed the mainline X-Men saga on a very underwhelming note, dragging its characters and conflicts out to such an embarrassingly hollow degree, most of its cast couldn't be bothered to care. <b>Noelle</b> was a poor Disney+ launch title, wasting the formidable talents of Anna Kendrick on a blatant Arthur Christmas riff, complete with a number of gags that landed with a thud, and was abrasive in its blatant product placement (stupid iPads). <b>The Laundromat</b> was a waste of all talent involved, squandering a game cast beneath the bungled, uneven narrative cogs pieced together with no coherency, and made me wonder if people are giving Steven Soderbergh a pass because he didn't retire.</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
So with those messes out of the way, it's time for the true top ten worst films of the year.</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><i>MMMIIIIIIIIILLLLKK!!!</i></b><br />
<a name='more'></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b></b><i></i><br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br />
<b>Number 10</b><br />
<b><u><span style="font-size: large;">The Curse of La Llorona</span></u></b><br />
<span style="color: #999999;">Dir. Michael Chaves</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi5cpTbY2eMNNZAtnSAsxqTeizx3XGKD8zVurK8WFsh-mETPbvnKQyHNOXCeVyA0A5JkXFAE7Blajg6mfrxe7XcliMa3u2cevU25LFWuI65TN4-XvuQZ020Bilbf42UL53zzyRKd3uojGk/s1600/10.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="900" data-original-width="1600" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi5cpTbY2eMNNZAtnSAsxqTeizx3XGKD8zVurK8WFsh-mETPbvnKQyHNOXCeVyA0A5JkXFAE7Blajg6mfrxe7XcliMa3u2cevU25LFWuI65TN4-XvuQZ020Bilbf42UL53zzyRKd3uojGk/s320/10.png" width="320" /></a></div>
2019 was a year of good horror films. This wasn't one of them. Taken from the folk legend of the weeping woman, this Conjuring spin-off wasted the potential of its juicier material, in favor of another cheap jump scare factory of the week. Following Linda Cardellini's CPS employed mother, it falls into the usual traps of the shoestring horror movie, forsaking any nuance or inspiration for blatant audience pandering. It's not enough to let the atmosphere of a spooky scene naturally unfold, it has to blast the volume up ten notches every time to give viewers a false startle, creating the illusion of anything actually scary.</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
Even by those standards, this film feels cheap, as most of the budget seems to have gone to the actors and the house, leaving the visuals themselves to look bland and flavorless, with even the titular haunt feeling like just another riff on Valak from The Conjuring. There was so much more scary material that could have been mined from this legend, but the film has no interest in actually diving into it, and is simply content to affirm the status quo. Oh, and apparently having Annabelle for a split second is enough to make this a Conjuring film.</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br />
<b>Number 9</b><br />
<b><u><span style="font-size: large;">Wonder Park</span></u></b><br />
<span style="color: #999999;">Dir. Plausible deniability</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivUthBSdANW1Qrp9YeMOUtYgYFPFyp_mMFlMyjNowqxgOFXMbBdFKM50BMk7nhjDsYyNuD7BmwAmcqU0ECREOp6UnXw0HukuRWGUy0ea6EaMhf82c9NOH04qb0hB6yFPyx_e6eZ6Ol5AM/s1600/9.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="563" data-original-width="1000" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEivUthBSdANW1Qrp9YeMOUtYgYFPFyp_mMFlMyjNowqxgOFXMbBdFKM50BMk7nhjDsYyNuD7BmwAmcqU0ECREOp6UnXw0HukuRWGUy0ea6EaMhf82c9NOH04qb0hB6yFPyx_e6eZ6Ol5AM/s320/9.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
This may seem unfair, since Wonder Park is clearly meant to be a set-up for a potential Nickelodeon TV series. But so have others in the past, and they felt more like movies than this. In spite of some Pixar worthy ideas, the film too often sheepishly backs away from them, ignoring the messy but intriguing negative emotions of a girl's world turned upside down (or Inside Out, eh?), rendering them mere footnotes that the film only remembers when it has to generate some quick drama and self-doubt.</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
Largely, the film leans on its sense of humor and quirky characters to carry it through, and even that can't hold it up, because their antics are often more annoying than charming, and so many of them are thinly sketched with no real layers to their characters. Not helping is the erratic pacing of the narrative, as within the span of ten minutes, a character distrusts, trusts, dismisses, then forgives our main character with no sense of progression. It may not be a huge time waster, but the small screen is where this movie should have stayed.</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br />
<b>Number 8</b><br />
<b><u><span style="font-size: large;">Anna</span></u></b><br />
<span style="color: #999999;">Dir. Luc Besson</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjUerTKhFjMyFmu5K7_gz1Tlu1oKbrvu99ipJ58pOJkLFhNM86SMfUXadAzgox0IAMbG-GprFcshKVSY-CWWEt3j5xgiss4_9rXmIcYfWidyfnSSclkoJhiWJHe4fzEBsOR7ogBs_vp_m0/s1600/8.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="681" data-original-width="1600" height="136" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjUerTKhFjMyFmu5K7_gz1Tlu1oKbrvu99ipJ58pOJkLFhNM86SMfUXadAzgox0IAMbG-GprFcshKVSY-CWWEt3j5xgiss4_9rXmIcYfWidyfnSSclkoJhiWJHe4fzEBsOR7ogBs_vp_m0/s320/8.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
Luc Besson has had such a fall from grace in recent years, and his latest action flick doesn't do much to rectify that. Following a young Russian woman turned model/spy, this movie is so in love with needlessly complicating what should be a simple idea, especially in regards to the sheer number of timeline jumps this movie falls back on. This movie loves flashbacks, often doing so to supply context to each intense scenario, that feel more like the film pulling new plot developments out of thin air, and uses them so much that by the time the movie is five minutes from ending, it's practically slipped into self-parody.</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
The movie so often has to rely on this jumping to offset what a dull time waster it is, populated with characters that can't sustain their game cast, with even Helen Mirren not being enough to supply life to it. Even as an action director, Besson does an ultimate disservice to his set-pieces through his toothless approach to staging, that hardly earns it's R-rating, when it already feels like it's been defanged for eventual edited for TV broadcasts. It may not be as insulting as Lucy, but that's only because it has such a low bar to top in the first place.</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br />
<b>Number 7</b><br />
<b><u><span style="font-size: large;">Cats</span></u></b><br />
<span style="color: #999999;">Dir. Tom Hooper</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhx6KwivKOlcMLhNwgK_x6hQaAB3qNUFzIrNqq1boRo57sZu85Hxoek8BztAKG_Yp7LOn4hvmrZvHA7HNKHKjva4EzlMuP_A635CEotadx0wLfqAUU4HjhXQ16xyLJ0ABmHS2mdnyzDBgM/s1600/7.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="563" data-original-width="1000" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhx6KwivKOlcMLhNwgK_x6hQaAB3qNUFzIrNqq1boRo57sZu85Hxoek8BztAKG_Yp7LOn4hvmrZvHA7HNKHKjva4EzlMuP_A635CEotadx0wLfqAUU4HjhXQ16xyLJ0ABmHS2mdnyzDBgM/s320/7.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
Tom Hooper began the decade winning the Academy Award for Best Director, and he may very well end it by winning a Razzie as well. Rarely do you see a film so misbegotten as Cats, that is so mesmerizing in the pure absurdity of its presentation, that any description of the horrifying visual aesthetics defy comprehension. Despite their commendable confidence, it's woefully misplaced on a movie with so much alarmingly sexualized pandering, complete with bewildering and nightmarish CGI creations, specifically the troupe of dancing cockroach people.</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
If it weren't for the notoriety, however, there'd be little left to remember Cats for, given that Hooper proves he's not a capable musical director. He rarely shows flair for the numbers, as do Andrew Lloyd Weber's needlessly overlong and verbose songs, making for an entirely introductory musical that sticks with its single gear, with an embarrassed all star cast struggling to lend it legitimacy. But confounding as it is, I still do have a soft spot for just how wild this film really is, as this feels like a potential Rocky Horror Picture Show in the making, and will likely resonate with cult audiences for years to come. </div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br />
<b>Number 6</b><br />
<b><u><span style="font-size: large;">The Hustle</span></u></b><br />
<span style="color: #999999;">Dir. Chris Addison</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwd6X5ge_6_XpTSLl2y4cX2HCn6BJrjBGCw6EjIPN7AcpBrANHvEEi2ylM3X1Y3psl4L04FRNSskp4vRI2Cc2itGPhVGelsYOkkA4KovVw3nmH-6qKKZII8Y84-FKnu_vc6Hn1GKJVuW8/s1600/6.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="500" data-original-width="1200" height="133" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiwd6X5ge_6_XpTSLl2y4cX2HCn6BJrjBGCw6EjIPN7AcpBrANHvEEi2ylM3X1Y3psl4L04FRNSskp4vRI2Cc2itGPhVGelsYOkkA4KovVw3nmH-6qKKZII8Y84-FKnu_vc6Hn1GKJVuW8/s320/6.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
The Hustle had plenty going for it, pairing Anne Hathaway with Rebel Wilson for a potentially hilarious caper comedy, but ultimately came across as more annoying than inspired. After a surprisingly watchable opening 20 minutes, once the duo form, everything goes wrong. Pitting the two against each other in their race to seduce a tech mogul, it completely flies off the rails, as the two take mean-spirited shots at each other, when seeing them paired up would have made an infinitely more funny film, and what we ended up with feels boring by comparison.</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
Hathaway is clearly having some fun in the role, but Wilson's material is far less entertaining, and so their chemistry and antics aren't so much charismatic or funny, as they come across grating and lazy. The story itself tries to pretend to be smarter than it actually is, never pulling the rug out from under the audience, so much as tripping over it and crashing into a wall, especially when we get into the final sections of the film, including a final twist that's as outrageous as it is insultingly obvious. Say what you will about Charlie's Angels, but at least that had some energy to it.</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br />
<b>Number 5</b><br />
<b><u><span style="font-size: large;">Men in Black: International</span></u></b><br />
<span style="color: #999999;">Dir. F. Gary Gray</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgIVGGEw8eRR_mJ4sfDFdnpmNfEY0aocCViAGh3s84LYRKMJkM8BdCN5Di5T-XYfO3ZypPXYtyjIIeDuUwKkq6x7SP6qJ5dg8vMqJ5J8UwDxzIt2S1fZSXdsWeuUSKz-sJRhyphenhyphencx6FHuXBk/s1600/5.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="719" data-original-width="1280" height="179" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgIVGGEw8eRR_mJ4sfDFdnpmNfEY0aocCViAGh3s84LYRKMJkM8BdCN5Di5T-XYfO3ZypPXYtyjIIeDuUwKkq6x7SP6qJ5dg8vMqJ5J8UwDxzIt2S1fZSXdsWeuUSKz-sJRhyphenhyphencx6FHuXBk/s320/5.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
I love the original Men in Black, but this is such a disappointing rebirth to the franchise. As opposed to the snappy and deadpan workspace comedy of the original film, International is a full on regression into full-blown cartoonishness, that completely lacks the grounded spirit and spontaneity of its original inspiration. Cartoonish would also explain the visual design, which forsakes creative practical effects and makeup for off-putting CGI creations, and by taking the film away from the central New York setting, also loses a lot of what gave the series its sense of character and personality.</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
Tessa Thompson tries her best, but she's let down by her Ragnarok co-star Chris Hemsworth, who is essentially spinning his wheels on another vapid prettyboy idiot, and feels like he's simply going through the motions. The script gets lost in so much needless and ridiculous fluff, feeling both threadbare and overly long at the same time as it jumps from location to location like Uncharted, and I frankly can't think of any movie that had a more stunningly obvious villain reveal. It's so weak, it makes Men in Black 2 look good by comparison.</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br />
<b>Number 4</b><br />
<b><u><span style="font-size: large;">Jexi</span></u></b><br />
<span style="color: #999999;">Dir. Jon Lucas and Scott Moore</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhagVH6_qEK2nlq1ccFylQeyWMVMZeNnAf8JBAMpIkkizLRtsE-LeB4-cEGf-cxm0SAXQUmdlEuthMnBhb88GjMhvjRF0zm5vq6kP7jlFgffUicfKawkN2YwrgWQZ5JBv8AWjgV5T4EcZw/s1600/4.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="800" data-original-width="1200" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhagVH6_qEK2nlq1ccFylQeyWMVMZeNnAf8JBAMpIkkizLRtsE-LeB4-cEGf-cxm0SAXQUmdlEuthMnBhb88GjMhvjRF0zm5vq6kP7jlFgffUicfKawkN2YwrgWQZ5JBv8AWjgV5T4EcZw/s320/4.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
Okay, let's give some credit to a terrible, terrible movie. If my phone had the voice of a snooty and emasculating Rose Byrne, I'd be pretty obsessed with it too. That's all I can say positively about this crass comedy, which plays like the Friedberg and Seltzer parody version of Black Mirror meets Spike Jonze's Her. The comedy is completely uninspired, taking what should be easy comedic targets about how intrinsically tied we've become to our technology, but tosses aside that potential for an onslaught of cheap gags that rest purely on their vulgarity.</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
It's such a repetitive movie in regards to comedy, with non-stop sex and bodily humor that reek of desperation, especially coming from Michael Pena's hard-headed sweary boss. That mean-spirited streak is especially pronounced once the movie reaches its second half, where it tries to aim for sincerity from its main character's loneliness and self-discovery, but feels cheapened and unearned by association of that low brow cruelty, feeling utterly tone-deaf in its construction. This feels like a Funny or Die sketch painfully expanded to feature length, with the same amount of substance stretched out to 80 minutes.</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br />
<b>Number 3</b><br />
<b><u><span style="font-size: large;">Miss Bala</span></u></b><br />
<span style="color: #999999;">Dir. Catherine Hardwicke</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiVIOtkvD3ZKEucXgfK6W9B3uDgeLz9LrKU6c5s_Gw79d37ThIMHMt6LvfiV7vGUoyFXdv6WaKer2q_Tzw2hosapKtqAK9s48IFIfkBMTgU1E6Bn0U0a6ZuhgOiwStjTaQeFgRScDQqs60/s1600/3.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="557" data-original-width="950" height="187" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiVIOtkvD3ZKEucXgfK6W9B3uDgeLz9LrKU6c5s_Gw79d37ThIMHMt6LvfiV7vGUoyFXdv6WaKer2q_Tzw2hosapKtqAK9s48IFIfkBMTgU1E6Bn0U0a6ZuhgOiwStjTaQeFgRScDQqs60/s320/3.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
A remake of the 2011 Mexican film, Twilight's Chatherine Hardwicke takes charge of this Gina Rodriguez starring vehicle, but even having not seen that film, I can still tell this is a horrid update to it, purely based on its own merits. This movie is little more than people competent at their craft going through the motions, and even still performing well below their talent level. Everything from the direction to the screenplay feels painfully unimaginative, and with how little emotional investment this movie fuels itself with, it's impossible to really care about the trials and hardships faced by its main character.</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
Gina Rodriguez tries her hardest, but she deserves so much better than this movie, which earns its spot due to the fact that the movie seems to relish in her misery. It's such a painful movie to endure, trying to pass itself off with the poignancy of Cormac McCarthy, but with none of the skill to back itself up, and so ends up feeling gratuitous in its violence and unpleasantness. And yet, it's such an easily forgettable movie at that, that despite its repulsive edge, can't even linger in that way. Sometimes I forget I ever even saw it.</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br />
<b>Number 2</b><br />
<b><u><span style="font-size: large;">A Madea Family Funeral</span></u></b><br />
<span style="color: #999999;">Dir. Tyler Perry</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj48SZ8_OsPYf1kL2WbHM2mXacUVHic8y5ijpHsuwQ9Wc-rB8QKATk6mw7uVxfbO3otkgrKKxZSTPC6uhf4E4u84yRG0U6_q3kaERPvix-a_z5F40rBAXAtM76zTpjwWbCQ4sSVhmguAEs/s1600/2.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="563" data-original-width="1000" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj48SZ8_OsPYf1kL2WbHM2mXacUVHic8y5ijpHsuwQ9Wc-rB8QKATk6mw7uVxfbO3otkgrKKxZSTPC6uhf4E4u84yRG0U6_q3kaERPvix-a_z5F40rBAXAtM76zTpjwWbCQ4sSVhmguAEs/s320/2.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
I'll give the other entries on my list this; at least they held my attention. I don't remember why I even watched this movie, just that I hated every minute of it, to the point I could only even give it cursory glances after a while. Tyler Perry's films have always walked an uneven line between comedy and drama, both of which remain true here, and his comedy proves especially grating here, particularly from the likes of Perry, Cassi Davis, and Patrice Lovely as the core older woman trio, whose chemistry is non-existent and like listening to nails on a chalkboard. Not helping are Perry's also annoying Joe, and new character, the voicebox wielding, wheelchair bound Heathrow.</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
And another credit to the other films on this list; at least they feel like movies. This is the cheapest, most flavorless TV movie-level filmmaking one can possibly imagine, actually showing Perry regress as a filmmaker with such a lack of imagination behind the camera, and feels content to coast on his name while the box office numbers roll in. Despite being the final film for Madea, it doesn't even have a proper ending, concluding on a jokey note of a character dating Mike Tyson, and then the movie just stops. It isn't just annoying, it's outright incompetent, and certainly we can all wish Perry's signature character a well earned good riddance.</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br />
<b>Number 1</b><br />
<b><u><span style="font-size: large;">Serenity</span></u></b><br />
<span style="color: #999999;">Dir. Steven Knight</span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgdDBMB-hnHlCAH8v5A43VPG39ZbBNf_DX6Er3bhijbXlq9j8azn8g-QTAeJabwyt52UiMPAEM-gPncKHEkKClXns_fSeznoq4gcx8Fv242Bajrzwe9El8Lc9ejPJ4X3gdSUM8PfEz7aVs/s1600/1-a.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="800" data-original-width="1600" height="160" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgdDBMB-hnHlCAH8v5A43VPG39ZbBNf_DX6Er3bhijbXlq9j8azn8g-QTAeJabwyt52UiMPAEM-gPncKHEkKClXns_fSeznoq4gcx8Fv242Bajrzwe9El8Lc9ejPJ4X3gdSUM8PfEz7aVs/s320/1-a.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
Okay, let me just say something first! Just because I say something is the worst movie of the year, that's purely based on a technical level rather than a subjective entertainment level. Because while Serenity is, indeed, my pick for worst film of the year, and has been since last January, believe me when I say I enjoyed every minute of this mess.</div>
</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
To be fair, there's no real indication of just how bad or insane this movie could be right from the outset, and it does show some actual promise early on. The main driving force that fuels the movie, Anne Hathaway's former flame hiring Matthew McConaughey to kill her new husband Jason Clarke, is a decent enough set-up for a morality tale of dark intentions, with all the heavy-handed symbolism to go with it (McConaughey's character hunts a rare fish named "Justice," incidentally). But something about the island he lives on, and the odd characters that he lives and works alongside, also seem to be pulling it in a different direction, like it's gearing up to be something out of The Wicker Man. And that's fitting, given how much McConaughey seems to embrace his inner Nicolas Cage, with the most McConaughey performance of his career.</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
But then comes the revelation halfway through the film, where the film flies spectacularly off the rails. That being the revelation that this entire island, and its inhabitants... is all part of a fishing RPG. The first time I watched the movie, I couldn't believe that this was the turn the film was making, and on subsequent viewings, it only makes what happens beforehand even more hilarious, from the arbitrary rules that come with living on the island, to the fact that the kid who created this game seems obsessed with his father's naked body. Only making it funnier is the total commitment of its cast, with the likes of Hathaway, Clarke, Djimon Hounsou and Diane Lane giving it their all, spouting this dialogue and playing out these roles with such sincerity, and to say their confidence was misplaced is an understatement.</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
I almost felt bad when I saw it for the first time, as while the woman sat next to me was crying during the ending, I had to bite my tongue just to keep from laughing. It's fitting the year started with Serenity and ended with Cats, with the former being especially confounding in every single regard. I couldn't believe this movie actually exists, but it made me happy that it did, because I enjoyed this more than some movies I actually liked in 2019. This was my Winter's Tale, and I would take this over Assassination Nation any day of the week.</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br />
So I implore you, <b><i>go out and catch that fish!</i></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><i><br /></i></b></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b></b><i></i><br />
And so brings an end to my takedowns of the worst films of 2019, but join me back again next week, when we can put it well to rest, as I rundown the best that the year had to offer. See you then!</div>
Indyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17018620332465602342noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6416455634439053148.post-88561284988668512922020-01-25T06:53:00.002-08:002020-01-25T06:53:33.475-08:00Brief thoughts on 1917.<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdMUmGHHbMv1G87BvRak79Vxr1DIdGk6sNXWrsX8hDDp4QdZXjeLrXfK3ZvywQijDIhyphenhyphenmgqIX3TDuz5SycwKqzfPU-sKPc1HjKKjVpl3KJQ7KgfTsfun4EYqGfwRW9meprQxL0vIaer9o/s1600/19.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="900" height="160" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhdMUmGHHbMv1G87BvRak79Vxr1DIdGk6sNXWrsX8hDDp4QdZXjeLrXfK3ZvywQijDIhyphenhyphenmgqIX3TDuz5SycwKqzfPU-sKPc1HjKKjVpl3KJQ7KgfTsfun4EYqGfwRW9meprQxL0vIaer9o/s320/19.png" width="320" /></a></div>
The devastation of World War I can never be understated, with its extensive loss of life as one of the deadliest wars in history, resulting in the deaths of 700,000 British soldiers alone. While that side of the war has been showcased to us several times before, from Steven Spielberg's War Horse to Peter Jackson's They Shall Not Grow Old, none have approached it with the visceral immediacy achieved by a post-Bond Sam Mendes, in the uniquely crafted 1917, my last major release of 2019, and a stunning swan song for it at that.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
Inspired by the life and stories of his grandfather Alfred, Mendes follows the intimate journey of two young men, sent off on a perilous mission to warn a fellow faction of the British Army to stand down, lest they walk into a trap set by German soldiers. The basic set-up of the premise is simple, but effective in pitting us in the headspace of its main characters, whose minimal, but compelling backstories and personal motivations lend us an intimate emotional connection to what they hope to accomplish, even if it means losing their lives in the process.<br />
<br />
Given what a suicide mission the assignment feels like, as George MacKay's Schofield points out several times, you can also understand the pure fear and terror they feel at every new turn. The trek to the Second Battallion is one of incredible danger. Not merely from the German soldiers waiting to attack, but from the exhausting and treacherous threats of the environment around them. The trek becomes a psychological test of endurance and survival, where failure feels all but set in stone, and to press further is merely prolonging the inevitable. But knowing they could have prevented those casualties, could they forgive themselves if they were to stop?<br />
<br />
There's such a strong emotional current that Mendes brings to the film, none the least of which is owed to the power of his real-time photography, realized through the lens of master DP Roger Deakins. Shot and edited to appear as if one take, while the flashy set-up could have fallen into an easy gimmick, it proves an invaluable support for the film, adding to the strong intimacy that fuels it, and only heightens the anxiety and terror we experience right alongside our main surrogates. Unsurprisingly, it's also a dazzling showcase of Deakins' always formidable photographic talents, weaving through each dangerous and tranquil environment with a laser-focused clarity, and a meticulous emphasis on striking iconography. It's hardly a surprise as to why he'll inevitably wind up with only his second Oscar.<br />
<br />
But Deakins isn't the only one at the top of his game, as Mendes, specifically once we reach the second half, is practically at the peak of his powers behind the director's chair. Through the slow build of his real-time trek, there's an almost effortless gradual hike in intensity that Mendes brings to the material, immersing us into the perilous hazards and gunfire with a POV level focus, especially in regards to the startling sound design filtered in from every angle. Things certainly reach a boil once entering into the final act of the film, with set-pieces where my heart was pounding from anxiety, offset by the minimal but stirring beauty of Thomas Newman's score.<br />
<br />
And this really does feel like a journey. An arduous and taxing one, but one leaving you filled with relief by its ending. From a purely technical standpoint, it's one of the finest achievements of the year, but matched to the strength of its simple central quest, it also lends much needed heart and tension to its masterclass construction. It's certainly Mendes' most ambitious film to date, paying off with one of the best films of his career, a poingnant tribute honoring the lives of the fallen that leaves you stunned long after it's finished.<br />
<br />
<br />
***** / *****Indyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17018620332465602342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6416455634439053148.post-4387923647966323282020-01-20T09:34:00.000-08:002020-01-20T09:34:28.558-08:00The Irishman movie review.<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhUiK49cWVv2PdKW747MYLkpN3oNauy008aHctVRqiydkYIgr4YS93wob5WuEs1MZZ_h8dDVcMTnlZ8hCEkEpJpms5hQWwvnH523Q4MIXp6TE8wH5QT6cw0nQKo1ulH4Tkc3bRr67aQmHs/s1600/ti.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="800" data-original-width="535" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhUiK49cWVv2PdKW747MYLkpN3oNauy008aHctVRqiydkYIgr4YS93wob5WuEs1MZZ_h8dDVcMTnlZ8hCEkEpJpms5hQWwvnH523Q4MIXp6TE8wH5QT6cw0nQKo1ulH4Tkc3bRr67aQmHs/s400/ti.png" width="267" /></a></div>
In October of 2019, director Martin Scorsese put forth a passionate response over the state of cinema today. Hailing from the auteur-driven heyday of the 70's, the Taxi Driver and Raging Bull director faced backlash after comparing Superhero films (and abrasive studio filmmaking in general) to theme park rides, noting how mechanical it made the theater going experience by forcing out more intimate, personal, independent fare, and director-driven projects. He's since clarified his talking points amidst confusion, and I can't say I disagree with him.<br />
<br />
I am something of a blockbuster loyalist, but even so, it frustrates me how commonplace that studio influence is, with even Joker having to depend on the DC brand name, since no one would pay attention to it otherwise. It's no wonder why the Academy Award winner, when bringing his long-gestating passion project The Irishman to the big screen, would be forced to turn to streaming giant Netflix, themselves a commonly blamed culprit for the downfall of cinema, just for it to see the light of day. The whole disparagement between art and commerce is a can of worms that's not worth getting into right now, lest it take away from the spectacular work that Scorsese's patience finally made possible. Simply put, The Irishman is one of the best films he has ever made.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
What's most surprising about The Irishman is, oddly enough, how tame it feels for Scorsese. For a film from the man behind Goodfellas, Casino, and The Departed, The Irishman is much more subdued in its approach to the genre. It is unmistakably Scorsese's picture, but his usual sensibilities and stylistic ticks are dialed way back. And that's really for the best, given what a somber, bleak story this movie is tackling, especially from the point of view of its main character.<br />
<br />
Our audience surrogate is one Frank Sheeran (Robert De Niro), who we meet in a wheelchair in his twilight years, looking back on how his life came to be where it is, and what the ending to that journey ultimately cost him. In his youth, Frank was a WWII vet who lived a modest life, providing for his wife and four children as a union truck driver. But he was nothing if not an ambitious man, taking side deals to put extra meat on his family's table, which eventually landed him under the wing of Pennsylvanian crime boss Russell Bufalino (Joe Pesci). With the opportunities afforded to him, Frank's honesty would eventually render him morally bankrupt, and emotionally vacant, especially as the horrors of his actions would finally dawn on him late in life.<br />
<br />
At one point, Frank recounts a significant moment during WWII, in which he ordered enemy soldiers to dig their own graves, doing so perhaps in the belief that if they obeyed, he'd be willing to spare their lives. The idea confounded him, and that becomes the first real linchpin in this movie's fascination with death. As Frank's actions pit him deeper into criminal activity, sometimes requiring him to pull out a gun and "paint houses," as it were, each lost life slowly becomes another lingering spirit to haunt him. In essence, Frank became something of a grim reaper after the war, watching the desperation and futile pleading before snuffing them out, and casually flicking the knife without so much as an expression of remorse at least on the surface. It's simultaneously a scary and heartbreaking turn from De Niro, as he slowly morphs from carrying tasks out without a second thought, to showing genuine regret for the things he did, even if he knows the bridges he burned are too far gone to be mended, none the least of which is the strained relationship with his youngest daughter Peggy (Anna Paquin).<br />
<br />
But his early beginnings were only a stepping stone, as all roads were simply there to lead him to Jimmy Hoffa (Al Pacino), the Teamster union President with a hand in criminal activity, using it as a personal boon for his standing and success. From this point on is when the film really begins firing on all cylinders, especially when Frank grows in high esteem of Hoffa, as the two become unlikely friends and allies. Even as his descent into the criminal underbelly grows, Hoffa slowly comes to be the one link to the honest, modest man Frank once was, becoming the one surrogate figure he can comfortably confide and be himself around, and whose own temperament serves as a perfect offset to the other.<br />
<br />
It's that dynamic chemistry which becomes the true secret weapon of The Irishman, in seeing the trio of De Niro, Pacino, and Pesci play off of each other, with sparks setting off like fireworks. Seeing Frank matched against, and in some cases caught between, the two most important relationships in his life, lends such compelling drama to the film, especially as brought to life by their respective performances. Pacino is the best he's been in a film in years, bringing his Hoffa to life with an ever-charismatic, high energy swagger, even as his stubborn nature won't let him back down, perhaps vindictively so. Hoffa himself comes to be a figure of envy from the eyes of Bufalino, with Pesci playing heavily against type, playing the character with a soft-spoken, but no less intimidating and eerily persuasive command and unease.<br />
<br />
Of course, while Steven Zaillian's script is a masterstroke of structuring and theme, it's Scorsese's touch that unsurprisingly becomes the real star of the show. While less flashy and subdued compared to his other output, the direction and craftsmanship of The Irishman is nevertheless a virtuoso accomplishment, where the man is operating at the peak of his powers, fine-tuning every detail to near-perfection. This includes the almost seamless CGI de-aging, as the three main actors age through the decade-spanning saga, which is often so subtle and brilliant, it was easy for me to buy into the illusion. Outside of one unfortunate gaffe where De Niro clearly doesn't move like a man in his 40's, I couldn't even register I was looking at an effect a lot of the time.<br />
<br />
But like any Scorsese movie, he's nothing without the also impressive skills of his longtime editor Thelma Schoonmaker. As usual, the two bring out the best in the other, and Schoonmaker's usually tight and laser-focused cutting skills, effortless pacing balance, and marvelous character pieces ensure that nary a second in the film, no matter how extended, never feels wasted or gratuitous, especially as we reach the concluding chapters in the movie's final hour, which is some of the most bravura filmmaking Scorsese has ever captured. Yes, three and a half hours does sound daunting on paper, but in execution, I swear it's not the slog it sounds like. Having watched the film twice in two days, I could hardly even register the length, which just goes to show how engaging this movie really is.<br />
<br />
There's a lot more I could say about the film; it's dark sense of humor, the stellar supporting cast, and just the general technical aesthetic. But it wouldn't really be doing it justice. Only by watching the film, absorbing the full weight of its story and character arcs, and possibly sinking more time into repeated viewings, do I feel like the film's power can accurately be captured and translated. For as long as it took The Irishman to be a reality, and I myself was a staunch skeptic intent on downplaying my hype, it all came together to form a spectacular package, and in some ways a somber culmination of Marty's career up to this point. Rare as it is to find nowadays, The Irishman is proof that cinema is alive and well... provided chain theatres will actually *SCREEN THEM!*<br />
<br />
<br />
***** / *****Indyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17018620332465602342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6416455634439053148.post-90762077199614151712020-01-10T20:28:00.002-08:002020-01-10T20:28:57.005-08:00Brief thoughts on Little Women.<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEib-Xo2cTdL46pGop7HxNqjGodFS0DymmPAydEMaiC75W3KGB6EJRxf0QuD8nsfNpIPmweeWn3L0P2dFw4FKyISDrHa3MrnNHqJc9AoH4MtLw83qizjWJgsMns6dMHQuZTx12vgzZoXBLc/s1600/lw.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="412" data-original-width="618" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEib-Xo2cTdL46pGop7HxNqjGodFS0DymmPAydEMaiC75W3KGB6EJRxf0QuD8nsfNpIPmweeWn3L0P2dFw4FKyISDrHa3MrnNHqJc9AoH4MtLw83qizjWJgsMns6dMHQuZTx12vgzZoXBLc/s320/lw.png" width="320" /></a></div>
Little Women by Louisa May Alcott has been a literary staple since its 1869 publication, becoming a smash hit with readers, specifically its target demographic of young girls finding their place in the world, who still gravitate to it to this day. Having inspired numerous film adaptations since, from those starring Katharine Hepburn and Winona Ryder, it goes to show what a thoughtful story the book is that any new artist can still find new life in it, as writer/director Greta Gerwig does in her fantastic follow-up to Lady Bird.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
Little Women has largely stood the test of time for its still timely and relevant themes, that are versatile enough, and the topics broad enough, that each adaptation can find something new and engaging beneath the text. As for Gerwig's rendition, in favor of a more traditional point A to B story, her focus is more deliberately aimed on the central themes, playing its story out in a non-linear cross-cut between timelines; one set during the childhood of the March sisters, and one set seven years later during their adulthood.<br />
<br />
True to her prior feature, Gerwig lets the film play out in a filtered, stream-of-consciousness style of presentation, capturing the wayward spirit and dreams of the individual March children, whose goals are constantly shifting as they come to terms with their eventual place in the world. Even with the Civil War period setting, many of those desires, anxieties, and frustrations over their place in the world still play true to the Millennial timeframe they've released. Even as an old-fashioned piece, there's such a contemplative, honest youthful spirit to the film, that even as someone outside of its target demographic, I could find myself greatly relating to. Through the vibrant sense of joy that she can capture, but also the lost sense of direction and apathy that comes with finding one's calling, and adapting to life's unpredictability.<br />
<br />
It's all delicately handled by Gerwig, who crafts the film with such a felt, energetic touch, and continues to hone her skills as a director. It's a credit to her craft that even as the film kept cross-cutting, I never once felt lost or confused, whether it be from the smart technical details (from costumes, makeup effects, and the vibrancy of the cinematography), to the deliberate matching and parallels to the events of the opposite timelines. This movie's structure is so well balanced in that regard, and had the film simply played out in chronological order, I don't think it would have hit with the same force.<br />
<br />
It also helps that Gerwig has assembled an amazing dream cast for the various roles. Each of them are so perfect in their respective roles, Timothee Chalamet ever so charismatic as the potential suitor of the various March sisters, Laura Dern ever so warm as the family's mother, Chris Cooper as the wealthy but gold-hearted neighbor, Emma Watson as the graceful eldest sister, and Meryl Streep stealing scenes as the snooty Aunt March. But the ones who really dominate the film are Saoirse Ronan and Florence Pugh. Ronan, looking set to be an amazing muse for Gerwig, is again fantastic as the movie's emotional anchor, especially as her inner conflict and frustration of her place in the world eat away at her. Pugh, who we can go ahead and crown MVP of the year, also excels as the bratty and naive youngest sister, especially as the trials of adulthood speed up her maturation and allows her to find contentment.<br />
<br />
I don't know if I would call this the definitive adaptation of Little Women (I haven't seen enough to adequately say), but it is, at the very least, one of the best thus far. As much as I adore the 1994 Winona Ryder starring version, I may actually prefer this one, even if only because of how it spoke to me. Yes, it's an old story, but one that still manages to cut deep as it pulls you in, and even outside of its timeliness, is just a great movie on its own terms. Undoubtedly one of the year's best.<br />
<br />
<br />
***** / *****Indyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17018620332465602342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6416455634439053148.post-89797930034578600972020-01-02T18:20:00.001-08:002020-01-02T18:20:25.434-08:00Brief thoughts on Uncut Gems.<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh158VR14_gAH1ul4qKiIRsfUz0M5n8hRQO9diBrr-vqAootUEC78CDNGRpbsPJ7PLc7RrceT9HBYia-HEsX5MXOwWtzHpqjI1OtZ2TkfP8I6avWWAOwye6NwRjISy-uTO5zoGziKVlpwk/s1600/ug.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="410" data-original-width="618" height="212" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh158VR14_gAH1ul4qKiIRsfUz0M5n8hRQO9diBrr-vqAootUEC78CDNGRpbsPJ7PLc7RrceT9HBYia-HEsX5MXOwWtzHpqjI1OtZ2TkfP8I6avWWAOwye6NwRjISy-uTO5zoGziKVlpwk/s320/ug.png" width="320" /></a></div>
America is many good things, but it is also not a perfect nation. As one of its more glaring flaws, it is a country overwhelmed by competitive capitalism, where the pursuit of happiness can be warped into something more sinister. As unfiltered greed and obsession with money can send egos spiraling out of control, such dark ambitions can even destroy those unfortunate to be cursed by it. Even the most unassuming of men can be turned into husks if not careful, showcased to us through the Safdies-directed/Sandler-starring Uncut Gems, which may just be the most nail-biting movie of 2019.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
Taking center stage of the dark morality play, our main figure driving the film forward is Howard Ratner, a silver-tongued, smarmy jewelry dealer in New York's Diamond District. At the beginning of the movie, Howard seems to be the type of man who has it all. He's a seemingly respectable businessman, living a seemingly happy life, raising three children with his wife Dinah (Idina Menzel), and from first impressions feels like a charismatic person. But peel back the facade, and it's a lot less charming. He's an ill-tempered man with compulsive gambling habits, engaged in an extended love affair with one of his employees (Julia Fox), and finds himself deep with sharks, owing a hefty $100,000 dollar debt. Needless to say, Howard is not in a good place.<br />
<br />
And honestly, it isn't an entirely undeserved situation for him. In order to truly accept the film, one must also accept just what a despicable human being Howard is. Throughout the film, he becomes obsessed with the huge return on investment surrounding a costly Ethiopian opal, that becomes representative of his obsession with always being at the top, and rivaling the stone from Parasite in its corrupting influence. At every opportunity, he has every chance of ending his debts and coming out clean, with a bevy of options afforded to him. As Howard is also a massive sports fan, it should seem downright cosmic that Kevin Garnett (excellently playing a darker interpretation of himself) becomes similarly obsessed with it, even offering to buy it outright from him. Were it not for Howard's hubris.<br />
<br />
At the center of its character study, the film shows Howard as being a man, simply put, who thrives from a knife to his throat. It's fitting that Howard should be such a huge fan of basketball, given what a taxing, often intense back and forth it can be, because it's his life in a nutshell. He lives for the risk, and finds life in the danger, viewing himself as some plucky underdog, rather than the greedy leech he is. Essentially, we're offered a glimpse into the dark side of gambling, where very wager becomes the equivalent to chipping away pieces of one's soul, one little bit at a time. It's a crippling addiction encouraged by our society, where the dollar is an idol to be worshipped, and to have more, and to fight for more, breeds a toxic hierarchy placing a chokehold on others beneath.<br />
<br />
It's touches like that which make Uncut Gems like a lost Scorsese-drama (who incidentally has an executive producer credit), but directors Josh and Benny Safdie, between this and their previous hit Good Time, feel more appropriately like this generation's Coen Brothers. They're incredible, meticulous, and nerve-wracking masters of their craft, unafraid to pit us headfirst into the seedy neon hellscape of New York, and even at their most dialogue heavy (oftentimes with several characters overlapping, yet at no point does it feel incomprehensible), are experts at ratcheting the anxiety meter to 10. If not in fear for Howard's safety, then often out of the startling escalation of the stakes. Also helping them are the impressive skills of their cast, with strong supporting turns from Lakeith Stanfield, Eric Bogosian, and especially newcomer Julia Fox who steals the show every time she appears.<br />
<br />
But for any of this movie to work depends on the skill of its main performer, Howard brought to life by a virtuoso Adam Sandler, in not only the best performance of his career, but a contender for performance of the year. Despite seeming like a caricature of a human being, Sandler always ensures something human and grounded to the character, his obsession bearing tangible credence to present day entitlement. Sandler strives to make Howard an eminently compelling and oddly charismatic person, and achieves it in the most snake-like precision, always tinged with opportunistic venom. As someone who's always secretly rooted for Sandler to have another big dramatic hit, this is the tour de force showcase I always knew he was capable of, and it may be one to truly change how viewers perceive him from now on.<br />
<br />
So it can't be said enough that I recommend Uncut Gems. As an introduction to the Safdie Brothers, I immediately understood why the pair are so well regarded, and I've already put Good Time very high on my watchlist. Uncut Gems is not always a pleasant sit, but it is one of the most watchable, bold, and exciting movies of the year, one that I'm eager to revisit later on.<br />
<br />
<br />
***** / *****Indyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17018620332465602342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6416455634439053148.post-88687028114152159772019-12-22T06:19:00.001-08:002019-12-22T06:19:37.656-08:00Why Cats is a fascinating failure...Brief thoughts.<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1EXh2CE4N6Y8LegJCeLaIREH2XH4h-rC1uu24GUGD6KEnokkY7aJSxUWGJyL-yLz_-3jhw1ek3eLdcFkZSgUfRsd7e1S1IfbDn8nuzOK1tALtt0vdsY3IMMN4VFmo8pb2cvJo5He7Xso/s1600/c.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="683" data-original-width="1600" height="136" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1EXh2CE4N6Y8LegJCeLaIREH2XH4h-rC1uu24GUGD6KEnokkY7aJSxUWGJyL-yLz_-3jhw1ek3eLdcFkZSgUfRsd7e1S1IfbDn8nuzOK1tALtt0vdsY3IMMN4VFmo8pb2cvJo5He7Xso/s320/c.png" width="320" /></a></div>
Andrew Lloyd Webber's Cats has been a staple of the Broadway musical scene for decades, debuting in 1981 to a mixed reception, but has garnered a massive following in the years since. It remains one of the most popular musicals of all time, standing as the fourth longest running Broadway show, and garnering $3.5 billion dollars in sales. It's those reasons why a film adaptation felt obvious, but through several failed attempts, including from Amblimation before the studio's closure, it isn't until now that we finally get it, brought to us by Les Miserables director Tom Hooper... and it's a trainwreck. Simple as that. There's no graceful way of putting that.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
Cats has had an uphill battle even before its release, as if you've seen that now infamous trailer, you're no doubt aware of the horrid CGI effects the film makes use of, giving them this eerie uncanny valley appearance. However, bad trailers for good films is par for the course in Hollywood, so there was at least some hope that it wasn't the final death knell on this film. Having seen Cats, however, everyone who assumed the film looked awful were right on the money. I cannot stress enough what a catastrophic error of judgment this movie is.<br />
<br />
If you can't get over the appearance of the cats themselves, then you're already in for a bad time. The stage musical is very notable for its offbeat character designs, dressing its performers in weird and wild costume and makeup, which certainly has its charms. For this film, however, they've abandoned those practical means in favor of heavy motion-capture. When you think about it, that's not necessarily a bad idea, as that style of performance would be well-suited. The way that Cats implements it, however, is such an eyesore. Everything about the cats just feels so unnatural, from the odd ticks in facial features, the Barbie doll smooth fur textures, and how those designs strive for whimsy, but more often come across as unsettling. You'd assume that feeling would go away as you got used to the film's style, but it continues to hang over the film like a ghost, taking the campiness of the stage show to baffling degrees.<br />
<br />
And speaking of fur textures, this movie is absurd in its apparent sexification of the cats. The musical is famous for its sexual undertones, but this adaptation takes that to a whole new degree. Obviously this movie's going to inspire a huge following with cult audiences, specifically those of the "furry" fanbase, but there are so many scenes that pander and cater to that particular subset. It's really uncomfortable the way those scenes play out, even beyond the most obvious culprits like Jason DeRulo's Rum Tum Tugger, showing particularly through the exaggerated feline movements of the cast. Like nuzzling each other to show affection, stretching their legs to mimic real cats, to the hourglass frames accentuating their curves. At one point, there's a scene where they practically get into bondage and choke play. The movie was already bewildering, and then they had to make it that extra bit creepy, which is so awkward when this is marketed as a family film.<br />
<br />
BUT... THAT'S NOT ALL! Turns out, the weirdest stuff wasn't even shown off in the trailers. Admittedly, Cats has always been seen as surreal in nature, playing like Alice in Wonderland in a back alley, which is carried over to the film, but between the dodgy effects and "sexying" up the cats, the rest of what happens really beggars belief, even in context. Such as the villain cat MacAvity played by Idris Elba, who is so desperate to be the best of the Jellicles, he Thanos snaps other cats threatening him, leaving grumpy Ray Winstone cat to push them off the plank into the river Thames. Ian McKellen sings a song about his name being Asparagus, the Jellicle cats become an Eyes Wide Shut cult in unified trance, Judi Dench breaks the fourth wall by addressing the audience, and Rebel Wilson's Jennyanydots, because she's so lazy, has handed off chores in her house to also horrifying mo-cap mice, and a brigade of cockroach people. You heard me right, COCKROACH PEOPLE! There's a point where Cats crosses the line from kitschy, and just becomes straight up horrifying. And it's no accident the film is already inspiring a cult fanbase, because even if it clearly isn't the intention, it's when the film leans into how scary it feels that it comes to life. It truly is some of the most baffling creative decisions you could ever expect out of a mainstream release.<br />
<br />
And honestly, the filmmakers should be thankful they have notoriety on their side, because if this movie's aesthetic wasn't so incompetent and peculiar, it would simply be dull. As Cats drew heavy inspiration from poetry by T.S. Eliot, the musical is deliberately built without any real story or sense of narrative. The most story you get out of it is who's going to be the Jellicle Choice, and from that point on, the movie is just a series of song sequences. It's all characters standing around, singing songs about themselves and their daily lives, repeating ad nauseum for nearly two hours. Without any real structure or story, if you're going to keep your audiences entertained, you need to fine-tune those numbers to perfection, and the movie doesn't succeed.<br />
<br />
Tom Hooper is not a musical director, not in my eyes. Even Les Miserables, a movie that I adore, is not a great film based on the merits of its musical numbers, but by pure virtue of the actors and the drama. That is where Hooper's strengths as a filmmaker lie, because when he has to rely on pure song and dance spectacle, he is miserably out of his element. Rarely do the musical numbers have any vibrancy to them, as he shows a lack of energy in staging them, and presents them in sometimes painfully literal ways. There are exceptions that are genuinely decently staged moments, and not just enjoyable in an ironic way, such as a tap dance sequence following Steven McRae's Skimmelshanks, but seldom does that creativity work its ways into the songs, with even the production design striving for grandiosity, but feeling so small at the same time.<br />
<br />
I can't even give the dancing much credit, because despite some extensive and impressive showcases in choreography, it's all marred by the digital and floaty implementation of the cats, which only adds to their unnatural and off-putting designs. And not helping are Webber's songs themselves, which are admittedly catchy and fun little melodies, but are so aggressively repetitive, with some numbers repeating their choruses for minutes at points. Many of them could have been cut in half, and you would lose nothing.<br />
<br />
And as if that wasn't bad enough, you have to feel terrible for the actors. On paper, this is an amazing cast, rallying together veteran screen icons and musical royalty for an impressive looking ensemble, and yet many of them contribute some of their most embarrassing work yet. From James Corden and Rebel Wilson competing to outbumble the other, Judi Dench and Ian McKellan struggling to lend the film legitimacy, Jennifer Hudson cry-singing most of her lines, and Idris Elba embarrassing himself as a boring villain. You have to feel sorry for Francesca Hayward in her debut performance as well, essentially serving as the audience surrogate, while the movie gives her *nothing* to do or contribute. It's really saying something when Taylor Swift, by pure virtue of her natural stage charisma and awareness to lean into the film's gonzo nature, is the one performer to come out the other end virtually unscathed.<br />
<br />
So that was Cats, one of the craziest, most confounding movies that has been released all year. It's a film built on one baffling decision after another, where at every point and new development, you find yourself wondering "what on earth were they thinking?' This movie is mesmerizing in how insane it is, and at least it has that going for it, because if it were tackled with any competency, there'd be very little left to remember this movie for. Honestly, if Cats were to work as a movie, it would probably be as an animated movie, if not made by Disney, then in that kind of style. On one hand, I do have to admire the confidence in which they approached this movie, but to say that confidence was misplaced is an understatement. Rarely do you see a wide release like this that is so misbegotten from start to finish, and it's one that needs to be seen to be believed.<br />
<br />
<br />
* / *****Indyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17018620332465602342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6416455634439053148.post-89008787739526297312019-12-21T04:38:00.002-08:002019-12-21T04:38:25.421-08:00Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker movie review.<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYPY9nd2Wdp-sPS_4Eb9fEQshmWhQp8AQrSK7gjCM_o28yMCFjvRUXNHIYfjF87cm7bKKXnjslEj5ryIx1HsCi2QEAo0LpCgrCXHtdYN63C6mXv9O4HyZ7s-tL8ej2BBlgvcBilYnxEnU/s1600/IMG_2265.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1200" data-original-width="1600" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYPY9nd2Wdp-sPS_4Eb9fEQshmWhQp8AQrSK7gjCM_o28yMCFjvRUXNHIYfjF87cm7bKKXnjslEj5ryIx1HsCi2QEAo0LpCgrCXHtdYN63C6mXv9O4HyZ7s-tL8ej2BBlgvcBilYnxEnU/s400/IMG_2265.JPG" width="400" /></a></div>
When Disney bought out Lucasfilm in 2012, their first major move was to greenlight an upcoming Episode VII, which resulted in the J.J. Abrams directed The Force Awakens, pleasing both critics and Star Wars devotees still burned by the prequels, crafting a sweeping story that felt both familiar and fresh, brought to life by stellar new characters and an abundance of spectacle.<br />
<br />
Cut to two years later for The Last Jedi from director Rian Johnson, a movie I also loved, even if it was and still is a polarizing movie for how much it tinkered with the fabric of Star Wars, leading to a vindictive outcry from the most toxic of Wars fans.<br />
<br />
And so, cut once more to two years later, where this new Star Wars trilogy comes to an end, coaxing J.J. Abrams back for one more adventure, to close off the epic Skywalker saga. It doesn't help, for The Rise of Skywalker is a crushing disappointment as a final chapter.<br />
<br />
<b>Also, potential spoilers are to follow in this review, so for those wishing to go in blind, read at your own risk.</b><br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<b></b><br />
A year after the battle of Crait, the Resistance, led by General Leia Organa (Carrie Fisher), is struggling in their fight against the First Order, now under the new leadership of Kylo Ren (Adam Driver). Meanwhile, Jedi in training Rey (Daisy Ridley) is continuing to hone her abilities and find her inner peace, joining former Stormtrooper Finn (John Boyega) and Resistance pilot Poe Dameron (Oscar Isaac) on a quest to recover a vital artifact. But as Rey finds herself pulled more to Ren, and the spirit of the deceased Emperor Palpatine (Ian McDiarmid) haunts the galaxy, the Resistance and the First Order will soon face off in the ultimate battle of Light Side vs. Dark Side.<br />
<br />
The Rise of Skywalker went through quite a shift in production, originally under the direction of Jurassic World's Colin Trevorrow, who departed citing creative disagreements, which thinly reads as "Lucasfilm saw The Book of Henry." With this and The Last Jedi's heated response, they've decided on bringing Abrams back, hoping to course correct the film by giving the fans what they want, while doing his best to honor Johnson's contributions. Having seen it, I can tell you he does not honor Johnson's work, nor is it satisfying to anyone who thinks about it longer than 2 seconds, a perfect example of why you don't hand blockbusters to legions of angry Internet fans.<br />
<br />
Right from the opening, you can tell something is off. The first act is incredibly busy as it builds to the greater stakes in the later sections of the film. The first ten minutes get into some prequel-level cross-cutting, bouncing between Kylo Ren's main driving force, fast-paced action with the Resistance, and Rey's continued training. It takes this movie a good while to find its footing, and so it struggles to nail down a consistent pace and mood, especially as the film gets into its fetch-quests in the middle act, where characters start jumping from planet to planet like a wayward Bond film, and speaking of which, this really does feel like the Spectre of Star Wars.<br />
<br />
As a result, the characters take a hit in this new outing, but that's not to undercut the work they're still putting in. Chief among them is Adam Driver, who proves himself the most well-rounded performer of the trilogy, and who has been a fascinating character from the start, constantly at war with himself over his conflicting heritage, and walking a thin, blurred line between Light and Dark. He's a character that believes himself to be too far gone, with a guilt visibly eating away at him, and through Driver's usual intensity and commitment, we're able to share and partake in those emotional layers, and I truly believe that this is everything Anakin Skywalker should have been.<br />
<br />
No slouch as his closest counterpart is Daisy Ridley, whose Rey has always been a standout inclusion, and one of the strongest heroes this franchise has ever featured. Here, she continues to anchor the film with her same unmistakable soul and nobility, even as forces beyond her comprehension start pulling her to the Dark Side, committing to and tackling her own rocky journey with intensity and charisma, even if the material threatens to best even her. This isn't Ridley's fault, but Rey gets dealt a flimsy hand by the new directions her character is taken, many of which owing to the inconsistent throughlines established within the trilogy, where Abrams has to contort the script to fit with his pre-conceived notions of where the character should have gone, blatantly retconning the revelation about Rey's parents from The Last Jedi, and the ultimate explanation is much less fulfilling.<br />
<br />
The other characters don't fare as well, especially given how many of them are pushed to the sidelines under the weight of the main narrative. John Boyega's Finn, once a fantastic addition that stole The Force Awakens, really shows how little new ground that he has left to cover, as most of his significant contributions amount to him just tagging along where he's needed. Oscar Isaac also gets a raw deal, because despite their best efforts to give Poe Dameron agency and pay-off, he actually loses some of the distinctive spirit that made him such an endearing character, with humor that even veers him closer to the Han Solo type they'd done well to distance him from.<br />
<br />
And that's only pointing out the main cast, for the supporting players have it worse. Poor Kelly Marie Tran and Lupita Nyong'o serve as glorified background extras. Domhnall Gleeson's Hux, despite the film attempting to give him some proper closure, veers into territory that makes little to no sense for him, joined by Richard E. Grant doing his own Peter Cushing impression. Keri Russell even shows up as an old ally of Poe's, in what I assume was a favor for Abrams, given what a non-entity she ultimately is. It's just too many characters the movie has to keep track of, and what main characters they do place focus on aren't always fleshed out.<br />
<br />
That's before factoring in characters from older Star Wars movies, including unused footage of Carrie Fisher to finish her character's story arc (rather gracefully, at that), as well as the returning Billy Dee Williams, who - to his credit - enjoyably steps back into the the shoes of the character, and whose sparing screen time makes his appearances all the more effective and poignant. And there's still more, with any number of references and cameos pouring in, but really, it's all just leading to the Emperor.<br />
<br />
I really don't have many good things to say about Palpatine's reappearance here, because he is essentially the mascot for where this movie really goes wrong. Admittedly, looking back on this new trilogy in hindsight, it's clear that the filmmakers didn't have a game plan in mind, which is made all too evident by the way the movie has to stretch to make the Emperor fit in continuity, serving as some puppet-master to the events before the film as if he were Blofeld. Not only does it feel unimaginative, but it cheapens whatever potential drama and layers you could have tapped into with the characters you have, as opposed to bringing one back for conflict's sake. I can't even give Ian McDiarmid's performance much credit, as his evil aura is much more subdued in this outing, and so he doesn't have as much freedom to really chew the scenery, which is one area the prequel entries vastly outperform this film. His performance is also not helped by the fact this his scenes are poorly shot, as his figure is mostly kept shrouded in shadows, with only the odd strobe effects illuminating his face.<br />
<br />
And yes, the Emperor is perfectly emblematic of how overloaded this movie is with nostalgic callbacks, where the movie becomes downright pandering in its attempts to win back fans scorned by The Last Jedi. Outside of carrying over the mind-bridging sequences (which are amazing when they play out), the events of that film are often diluted, with The Rise of Skywalker playing much more like a sequel to The Force Awakens than the previous film. This is a mistake, as not only does it sacrifice consistency for cheap applause, but they expect those callbacks to do the heavy lifting. Yes, The Force Awakens had those moments too, but those were naturally woven into the narrative, as opposed to this movie bolting them on and calling constant attention to them. What they've essentially done is miss the forest for the trees, and in an attempt to please fans, have over-corrected to the point of losing imagination. They should have known better than to bend to the whims of those angry voices, and Abrams should have shown more decorum in merging his ideas with Johnson's, instead of the retcon tug-of-war he plays.<br />
<br />
Now, that doesn't make The Rise of Skywalker *all bad,* because true to the stamp of quality of the franchise, it is an exercise in glorious spectacle. Every penny of the multiple-hundred-dollar price tag is clearly on the screen, from the glorious production design and creature effects, the immersive sound work, another magnificent musical score by John Williams, and the always staggering visual effects work (just the puppetry and animatronic work alone merits praise). Even at their worst, the epic scale of these movies is always to be admired, especially in the way that it translates to the action set-pieces, which are fun and entertaining in their own ways, even if they don't always come together to serve the story. For all his story issues, Abrams is still a marvelous visual director, with a perfectionism that does at least pay off in that area.<br />
<br />
But on the whole, this was not the finale that Star Wars deserved. The Rise of Skywalker is not without its pleasures, but as the capper to a 42 year saga, it's a mess. Too often does it let audience goodwill and nostalgia do all the work, rather than actually show some imagination by taking risks with the story. And it's a shame, because this movie had everything in its favor. Whereas Abrams excelled in bringing new life to the franchise and jumpstarting the trilogy, and Johnson took bold and effective risks in building on the blueprints he laid out, this is a frustrating step backwards, where the series has regressed into glorified fan-fiction, bending over backwards to appease fans rather than make an actual good movie. It may not be the worst Star Wars - the honor of which still belongs to Attack of the Clones, but it certainly contends with Solo as the worst film since then.<br />
<br />
For this to be the final say on the Skywalkers just feels wrong to me, and while this obviously won't be the last Star Wars film, it puts those classic characters to rest on such a sour note. Saying goodbye to some of my favorite film characters, the emotion I feel shouldn't be disappointment.<br />
<br />
<br />**1/2 / *****Indyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17018620332465602342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6416455634439053148.post-64151153049382439222019-12-19T18:46:00.001-08:002020-01-02T18:21:24.150-08:002019 Catch-up reviews.I haven't felt like writing much as I used to do. In what I assume is a natural ebb and flow, I've felt less compelled to trace down my thoughts on *every* new movie I get a chance to check out, certainly not helped by an ever-hectic personal life, and in the future, I may feel less compelled to give as many movies an essay like examination. However, just because I'm writing less doesn't mean I'm seeing less, and I do have a number of films to offer thoughts on. So before the conclusion to the galaxy far, far away eats up my attention, I'm going to do some catch up on some films I've checked out over the year, which you should see if you get the chance. Enjoy, everyone!<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood</b>:<br />
A touching, earnest, if occasionally dry dramatization of a classic Esquire profile of Mr. Rogers, Matthew Rhys excels as a damaged man of well-intentions, grappling with anger he can't let go, with personal demons he must learn to confront and soothe. Tom Hanks is perfect casting as the irrepressible Fred Rogers, if not an exact physical match for him, then a perfect embodiment of the undying graciousness and patience that made him so fascinating, lending poignant depth to a man literally born without any cynicism. It's the perfect mood brightener.<br />
<br />
**** / *****<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Blinded by the Light</b>:<br />
Bend it Like Beckham director Gurinder Chadha uses the music of Bruce Springsteen as a compelling backdrop for her latest film, set in a messy and deeply prejudiced late-80's England amidst protests and racial tensions, using the Boss' lyrics as a universal message for acceptance and the dream for a better life, both in the intimate and larger sense, that are still as incisive today as they were then. From its rousing musical set-sequences, to its stellar performances - such as a standout Kulvinder Ghir, it's a film that makes you want to stand up and cheer.<br />
<br />
****1/2 / *****<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Ford v. Ferrari</b>:<br />
Logan director James Mangold deftly handles the lead-up and payoff to Ford's bid to take on Ferrari at Le Mans '66, as the brilliant, calculated minds of seasoned racers Matt Damon and Christian Bale tinker with their racing machines, with Bale in particular having a blast. The pacing is buttery smooth, making the two-and-a-half hour runtime feel like a breeze, with the waiting paying off when we get to the spectacular racing sequences at Le Mans, which is some of the most rousing action spectacle you'll see all year. It's last five or so minutes are only one of a few dings on an otherwise near perfect film.<br />
<br />
****1/2 / *****<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Jojo Rabbit</b>:<br />
Ham-fisted for the type of film it is, Taika Waititi's prestige picture is nevertheless a thoroughly enjoyable time. Managing to balance near-seamlessly between emotional tragedy and gut-busting fits of laughter, there's an earnest sense of timeliness to Waititi's wacky representation of the Nazis, that despite how stranger than fiction their actions in film appear, are unfortunately not too detached from circus shows of debauchery going today, anchored by a splendid cast of performers including Scarlett Johansson, Sam Rockwell, and Thomasin McKenzie, who continues to cement herself as a star in the making.<br />
<br />
**** / *****<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Judy</b>:<br />
Largely free of real surprises, and following in tropes of the classic tragic last days biograph, Judy is an affectionate tribute to the legacy of icon and legend Judy Garland, passing no judgment over her actions, from her well-meaning attempts to secure a better life for her family, while unafraid to show the tragic after-effects of a business that scarred her. All of which are brought to life by a fantastic Renee Zellweger, who effortlessly inhabits the skin of Garland, and creating an at once intimate, and larger than life portrait of the incredible talent.<br />
<br />
***1/2 / *****<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Knives Out</b>:<br />
Rian Johnson returns to the director's chair following The Last Jedi, taking his habits of subversion to the Whodunit genre, and wringing similarly clever results out of those. Honestly, the central mystery is the least compelling thing about it, as the characters Johnson crafts are such wild, distinct creations, from the many members of the vile Thrombey family, to Daniel Craig's hilariously theatrical Poirot-meets-Columbo detective, although the real standout is Ana De Armas as the mortified caretaker. There's a real wit to the dialogue of the film, especially as the pieces of the mystery come together, with surprises both of the shocking and hilarious variety. It's one of the most purely entertaining films I've seen all year.<br />
<br />
****1/2 / *****<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>I Lost My Body</b>:<br />
A striking and beautifully simple animated feature, while its central gimmick and time jumping can be initially jarring, the sense of progression that the winding narratives give us, as well as the continually deepening connections it gives to the people at the center of them, makes for a tremendous pay-off near the end. Some of the most soulful, powerful emotional resonance of the year came from this film, the simple animation taken to maximum effect, giving personality to the most unlikely of objects, and so many frames of this beautiful film could be their own paintings.<br />
<br />
****1/2 / *****<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Wild Rose</b>:<br />
A Star is Born style story with its feet firmly planted to the ground, the soul of country music are sank into the bones of this modest, but no less powerful and moving tale of reinvention, and the personal sacrifice - and negligence - that can come from the search for fame. Jessie Buckley is a revelation as the titular Rose, who in the midst of her quest for long-desired reconstruction, finds herself continuing to make the same mistakes, unable to find a balance between what she desires, and what she actually needs. Like country itself, it's simple in its construction, but grand in its execution, and Buckley's mad singing skills are not to be short-changed either.<br />
<br />
****1/2 / *****<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Waves</b>:<br />
Trey Edward Shults wrings subdued, but heartbreaking drama from a suburban family grappling with crisis and change, many of which have been boiling up for a long time, and many that are slowly developing out of new events. Almost Malick-esque in its approach, there's often an esoteric touch to the shifting nature of the film, even if stylistically it doesn't always sit well (namely the tinkering with the frame rate). But through that approach allow some powerful, raw emotion to seep through, especially through the heartbreaking likes of Sterling K. Brown and breakthrough Taylor Russell, delivering some heavy gut punches within the film's last twenty minutes. It's not showy, but it's one of the most honest and affecting films of 2019.<br />
<br />
**** / *****Indyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17018620332465602342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6416455634439053148.post-13734693725966989972019-11-27T11:59:00.001-08:002019-11-27T11:59:49.627-08:00Frozen II movie review.<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjoaNPX-hLKpDoYPpmzyqyYUm7d6qedcXcliZM9LMo22V6VF-COG_6wFKjbryruL40rEkIckPiTX38I6nV_KS3-1jwAxlK61D0t9T-hnwyx7_i_68i1UCZtGKtyTPs-wQuxTccDfQFoDpM/s1600/IMG_E2255.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1200" data-original-width="1600" height="300" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjoaNPX-hLKpDoYPpmzyqyYUm7d6qedcXcliZM9LMo22V6VF-COG_6wFKjbryruL40rEkIckPiTX38I6nV_KS3-1jwAxlK61D0t9T-hnwyx7_i_68i1UCZtGKtyTPs-wQuxTccDfQFoDpM/s400/IMG_E2255.JPG" width="400" /></a></div>
It's only been six years, but Frozen feels like a lifetime ago. Releasing in the middle of Disney Animation's ongoing Revival era, the film was another callback to Disney's storied fantasy musical heritage, and arguably its greatest since the classics of the Renaissance. At once a sweet and funny little adventure, it also served as a successful deconstruction of Disney's oldest tropes, directly subverting and course correcting some of their mixed messages of the past. Being a musical, it also helped that it had a spectacular soundtrack, with people still refusing to let it go.<br />
<br />
Surprisingly to everyone, including Disney, it became a monumental pop culture phenomenon, inspiring a bevy of spin-offs and merchandising possibilities, that helped Disney establish their newfound position as a global superpower. And despite the rarity of seeing Disney Animation tackle a sequel, perhaps the dollar signs made Frozen all too irresistible, as we now rejoin the continuing adventures of Elsa and Anna, as they venture into the unknown in Frozen II, an ambitious follow-up that, nevertheless, is a bit of a fixer-upper.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
Set several years since the original film, after mysterious elemental forces plague the kingdom of Arendelle, Queen Elsa (Idina Menzel) intends to find the apparent source of the power, a mysterious siren that calls to her. Believing it to be linked to an old bedtime story told by her parents (Evan Rachel Wood's Queen Iduna and Alfred Molina's King Agnarr), she sets off to find the mythical Enchanted Forest with her sister Anna (Kristen Bell), snowman Olaf (Josh Gad), ice harvester Kristoff (Johnathan Groff) and his reindeer Sven. In doing so, she may uncover the secrets to the forest's downfall, and even the origin of her mystical powers.<br />
<br />
Frozen II brings back most of the original team behind the first film, including directors Chris Buck and Jennifer Lee, whose goal with this follow-up is to simultaneously tell a more intimate and epic story, while expanding on the greater world beyond Arendelle. As such, there is a lot of potential to mine from this story, but while those ideas are terrific in concept, in execution there's much to be desired.<br />
<br />
The strongest quality of the original story was the bond between the two sisters, with the younger Anna getting the lion's share of focus and character development. In the sequel, leading status has been shifted to Elsa's favor (played terrifically once again by Idina Menzel), to give her more growth as a player. Since the original, she's learned to better control her powers, and finally has some long overdue peace in her life. Time to spend looking over the kingdom, and share in friendly games of charades with her family. But there's still so much she still wants to know, history she has to uncover, but in doing so, that may mean uprooting herself out of her happy kingdom life, for answers she may not want to uncover.<br />
<br />
Change becomes a major recurring theme for Frozen II, and the sometimes unpleasant consequences and fears of those changes coming to pass. Loved ones drifting away, irrational fear of the foreign or unknown, even to the dark side of change, directly evoking connections to historic colonialism. For better and for worse, all that change and more becomes a necessary stepping stone for Elsa, to further aid her in controlling her abilities, and possibly find closure she's long since craved.<br />
<br />
All the other original characters also find their way back, but their mileage wildly varies from character to character. Kristen Bell's Anna is once again a winning creation, sharing in an excellent and tender chemistry with her sister, grappling with her own fears of change for the future, frightened by the idea of losing her sister all over again, while also pushing past that fear to be a braver individual. Josh Gad's Olaf also makes a return, albeit with less successful results. For the most part, his character's contributions are as a reactionary figure, bringing levity to the film through his comic relief. While he does get some effective comedy as a result, most of his devoted screentime is really just padding, and it's at this point that his novelty is wearing off. But at least he has something to do, because I genuinely wondered why Johnathan Groff's Kristoff was even here, as his sections of the film are the dullest. His schtick mostly revolves around his repeated attempts to propose to Anna, sometimes leading him into some sitcom level stakes, and every time it cut back to him, my interest waned.<br />
<br />
Screenplay duties are once again handed off to co-director Jennifer Lee, aided in the story department by four other writers (and contributions by Alison Schroeder), so it's no surprise that Frozen II is a mess in story and structure, because there is just too much plot. Frozen II has a number of juicy ideas and interesting subplots to make use of, but rather than pick a few of them and expand them to their fullest potential, the film throws out any semblance of self-control, throwing all of those ideas and the kitchen sink into the mix.<br />
<br />
Outside of the main driving force of Elsa's quest to uncover the secrets of her past, and anything to do with the original cast, we also have new conflicts present within the Enchanted Forest. One of which is owed to a mysterious rivalry between Arendelle, and the Northuldra who inhabit the land, with Sterling K. Brown and Martha Plimpton voicing the two sides' respective leaders. That in itself could have made for strong material, but they get sidelined almost as quickly as they're introduced, and so much of the film feels like that. Poor Evan Rachel Wood is brought on to serve as the new voice for Queen Iduna, but she might as well be a bit part for how little significance she has.<br />
<br />
And there is so much ambition that is ripe for the picking, but by the end of it all, the film just leaves all those threads dangling. That is, if those threads even started at all. With the amount of ground to cover in this film, often all the film will do is pay the bare minimum of attention to them, and then proceed to do nothing with it. As such, the stakes end up feeling incredibly low or artificial because of it, which you can get a real taste for in the film's climax, which is such an underwhelming conclusion, I was honestly surprised the movie was almost over. It was so non-eventful and indifferent, I was almost convinced I was watching one of Disney's direct to video sequels.<br />
<br />
That said, the film has its share of incredible technical skill to its credit, none the least of which is Disney's always impressive animation. While the film doesn't take full advantage of its world in the story department, the animators go that extra mile in making their world feel alive and mystical, from the wonderful expressions present on each character's face, to the awe-inspiring beauty of the magic flowing through the world, as well as one adorably destructive salamander.<br />
<br />
Being a musical, we also have Kristen and Robert Lopez returning for songwriting duty, penning seven original numbers for the film. That said, one may want to keep their expectations somewhat tempered for their contributions this time. Compared to the original film, the staging and songwriting are a lot more subdued, perhaps owed to the film's attempts at a more serious tone, which unfortunately means it can't go as stylized. But the songs are still incredibly effective when they do show up, with their own catchy melodies and more of the Lopezes witty writing, with highlights including "Into the Unknown" and "Show Yourself." Just don't expect any of the songs to hit the majestic heights of "Let it Go."<br />
<br />
Frozen II had a lot of promise, especially coming off the feels of such a great film as Frozen. But, while this certainly had no shortage of enjoyable qualities, it's also a lot messier as a production. What narrative ideas it does have are commendable, and if it had streamlined and expanded on just a few of them, those that shone brightest could have made this an epic to rival the original. Instead, it feels like no idea was left off the table, and the film suffers for it. The film can be best described by Olaf himself, who in one comic set-piece recounts the story of the original film, including the line "then a bunch of other stuff happened, and there was a happy ending." That is perfectly representative of how scattershot this movie feels, unfolding a bunch of ideas in front of us, and then it stops. By the time it has the chance to go full steam, it's already time to walk out, when it should feel like much more of an event.<br />
<br />
If you're a fan of Frozen, then I imagine you'll get some enjoyment out of this follow-up, but it adds little to the original's legacy.<br />
<br />
<br />
*** / *****Indyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17018620332465602342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6416455634439053148.post-2362859392578862912019-11-15T09:58:00.001-08:002019-11-15T09:58:13.066-08:00A Disney+ double feature: Lady and the Tramp and Noelle.<div style="text-align: center;">
I have to say I'm ashamed of myself. In my weak state of mind, I did something I promised myself I wasn't gonna do...</div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
I tried out Disney+.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiAcoaoPr4G507JlBqWUXpDnTZPxpP-Al_nHldgXY7zMVeXwLgUlC-jpxzJF16DJCXhvDGsPMU1MaVqgoJ2JCxJOvCt0_jXyABDdVRz4fuvtEmv6a8jL342avZUvdDdpjYTpBWPwyh4zGc/s1600/d%252B.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="800" data-original-width="1200" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiAcoaoPr4G507JlBqWUXpDnTZPxpP-Al_nHldgXY7zMVeXwLgUlC-jpxzJF16DJCXhvDGsPMU1MaVqgoJ2JCxJOvCt0_jXyABDdVRz4fuvtEmv6a8jL342avZUvdDdpjYTpBWPwyh4zGc/s320/d%252B.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
In a world where Netflix and Amazon dominate the digital streaming marketplace, the Mouse House just couldn't resist putting their names in the Goblet of Fire, launching their own service with their own content for viewers to consume. If anyone were to do it, Disney made the most sense, boasting thousands of movies and TV shows across their eight decade history. Whether it be their own in-house live-action and animation studios, or their acquisitions like Star Wars, Marvel, and the films of Fox (The Greatest Showman is officially a Disney musical now).</div>
<br />
That said, I was always hesitant to sign up for it. Even though Disney is one of my most nostalgic childhood staples, I'm growing increasingly wary and cynical of them as a corporation. But even then, I knew my curiosity couldn't be contained, and I had to give it a try. Where else can I binge the entirety of Darkwing Duck?<br />
<br />
And like Netflix and Amazon, Disney+ came with its own original content, including two movies on launch day. To start, I immediately turned my attention to those, so before I commit to my mass Darkwing Duck marathon, let's talk about them.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<b>Lady and the Tramp</b>:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgRT9ptC0im6lVPrwVgdrHWpma7yjXTdJHnDDd8kGpGP2D1k-MY0wkhXeOUOIgOZbAN7zC9iQXcKVcbZ75eQYNOnmurASBvc4TRjBQ1P3NaPqa7Wo5DHuLsNQ_jTHkNUdyxM1xASPhRNlQ/s1600/latt.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1500" data-original-width="1012" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgRT9ptC0im6lVPrwVgdrHWpma7yjXTdJHnDDd8kGpGP2D1k-MY0wkhXeOUOIgOZbAN7zC9iQXcKVcbZ75eQYNOnmurASBvc4TRjBQ1P3NaPqa7Wo5DHuLsNQ_jTHkNUdyxM1xASPhRNlQ/s320/latt.png" width="215" /></a></div>
When I call this one of the better live-action Disney remakes this year, that's less a credit to the film's quality, and more to speak of how dishwater dull they've been. Of all the live-action remakes to come this year, Lady and the Tramp always felt like the odd one out. I love the original film, but it's not the type you think of and say "worldwide box office smash." But perhaps that off the wall thinking could be a boon to it, and result in a pleasant surprise... Or not, and it's just fine, but completely unremarkable.<br />
<br />
I feel like I could practically copy and paste my thoughts on Aladdin and The Lion King, in that while this may have some nice updates for the time we live in, there's very little room for surprise in this movie, given that it's the same exact film just in a shinier package. Aside from some small deviations, it follows practically the same rhythms and beats of its original inspiration. Also like those films, what changes they do make aren't always for the better, as often all it really does is dilute the original scenes in some way.<br />
<br />
While individual scenes can be entertaining on their own terms, the whole doesn't come together, as there's something so painfully literal about its faithfulness. But there was one example of change that didn't pan out, that being the necessary alteration of the Siamese cats, which would not fly by today's standards. That whole sequence gets reimagined as a Janelle Monae written swing number, that completely took me out of the film with how out of place it felt.<br />
<br />
That said, there is still plenty to enjoy about this movie, and there is such a sweetness running all the way through it, even if as a dog lover, I am somewhat disappointed by the abuse of CGI. When it comes to the facial expressions, while there are cases where the faces feel lifeless, the animals show an effective range of expression and personality. Alas, that does come at odds with the physicality, as the CGI - solid as it is - is laid on so thick, it distracts from the sometimes impressive animal training. At times it's necessary, including one genuinely funny scene where a dog fakes rabies, but at other points it's an unnecessary blemish.<br />
<br />
That then leaves the cast, which makes use of a huge list of name talent. With a busy last few years, Tessa Thompson has proven herself a reliable, and ever charismatic performer that can elevate her material, which she continues to do with Lady, gracing her with such a lovely and ever-so-charming tone. But the real surprise is Justin Theroux as Tramp, who sounds like he's having a lot of fun in the role, playing up the character's rugged and roguish swagger and nonchalance, with a penchant for straight-faced humor. Together, they play off of each other very well, often elevating scenes purely on their performance and chemistry. Sadly, the same quality isn't afforded to the other voice actors, as the likes of Sam Elliot, Ashley Jensen, and the aforementioned Monae spend so much time pushed to the sidelines, and while they have their charms (particularly Jensen's moments of humor), it's never anything particularly special.<br />
<br />
Ultimately, it's a fine appetizer for the service, and honestly a much better talking animal movie than The Lion King despite the lower budget, but it's yet another addition to the pile of unremarkable remakes.<br />
<br />
<br />
**1/2 / *****<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<br />
<b>Noelle</b>:<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjRbi3daTSzFkA8wZ9Gzgi38QQVBausLKgEwW4fHxpRI7uSxCAsKnmBB_V9-R-lXsJOXFSJhOPpGUCFlkbVGfMINQz_K0cMog-_Dfiy7WLdXyuwnAyQ8ZEnUO8hUyfVHrQiNiuyYojnOiE/s1600/n.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1200" data-original-width="810" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjRbi3daTSzFkA8wZ9Gzgi38QQVBausLKgEwW4fHxpRI7uSxCAsKnmBB_V9-R-lXsJOXFSJhOPpGUCFlkbVGfMINQz_K0cMog-_Dfiy7WLdXyuwnAyQ8ZEnUO8hUyfVHrQiNiuyYojnOiE/s320/n.png" width="216" /></a></div>
I'm a sucker for Christmas movies, and every year, I'm always ready and on the hunt for the next great classic, the next Love Actually and Arthur Christmas to add to my yearly marathon. I've already been looking this year, having seen Paul Feig's Last Christmas (which was bad, to be honest), but I was also hoping that Disney's Noelle could satisfy my thirst. To put it bluntly, it did not. If anything, while it was playing, it may have had a reverse-Grinch effect on me, shrinking my heart three sizes.<br />
<br />
If Noelle has any *one* thing in its favor, it is undoubtedly Anna Kendrick. It's not a role that in any way challenges her, as it's yet another in her string of snarky, bubbly rays of sunshine characters, but so long as she works with that mold, I'm still taken in by it. Kendrick has always been a vibrant and ever-reliable performer, with just a little of her natural charm and humor going a long way, which continue to serve her with Noelle, where she has such an added sweetness to her, embodying that Christmas magic that she holds near and dear to her heart. It shows once again, through sheer determination, how capable she is of elevating even her worst material.<br />
<br />
But even that isn't enough, because despite her best efforts, this movie is terrible. When I brought up Arthur Christmas earlier, that wasn't merely as an example, but because that's the benchmark this movie so desperately wants to hit. From the very start, it's impossible not to be distracted by the similarities, with its family squabbling that fuels much of the main conflict, the desire to update the North Pole into an Amazon Prime style delivery service, and the discovery and meaning of what "Christmas magic" really is. Noelle tries to aim for those same standards, but lacks the same level of invention or skill of that film. What inventions it does have isn't even that remarkable, with such mind-blowing concepts as "Why can't Santa be a woman," that at best are barely tapped or even commented on, and at worst come across as cynical pandering.<br />
<br />
But even putting aside the comparisons to Arthur Christmas, even as its own entity, this movie's cardinal sin is how relentlessly boring it is. While Kendrick herself can be commended for her charm, there is virtually nothing charming to the actual film itself. It's a clumsy mess of a film that can't even sustain decent humor, with many of the gags falling miserably on their face, with at least several comic bits taken directly from Elf at that. Not only that, but the film has such an unearned sentimentality running through it, only rarely ever feeling legitimately sweet in intention, and instead more often feels mechanical and bland. It's also a sad waste of a talented cast, that includes Bill Hader and Shirley MacLaine among its ranks, who deserve far better than the material they're handed, and the weak humor they're forced to spout.<br />
<br />
Too often does Noelle feel like a blatant product to be sold, which isn't helped by, I kid you not, some of the worst, most invasive product placement I have EVER seen in a film. It's immediately noticeable, with floor tiles in the opening scene bearing Mickey Mouse ears, and it only gets worse from there. Nintendo Switch games, Petco, Hot Topic (is that even relevant anymore), Supercuts, and many more are shoved down your throat with the subtlety of a neon marquee, but I think the most infuriating may have been the iPad, which becomes a tiresome running gag through the whole film, repeating the joke of "kid wants iPad" ad nauseum. If I ever hear the word iPad again, it'll be too soon.<br />
<br />
So yeah, I really didn't like Noelle, and having now seen both recent Christmas films, I'd sooner take Last Christmas. Because for all the issues I had with it, at least it didn't anger or bore me in the same way that this did. Rather than inspire cheer, all it really does it aggravate you, and make you wish you could be watching something much better. It's practically begging for a lump of coal in its stocking. Preferably one shaped like an iPad.<br />
<br />
<br />
*1/2 / *****Indyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17018620332465602342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6416455634439053148.post-52402639717778394252019-11-14T16:16:00.001-08:002019-11-14T16:16:50.219-08:00Brief thoughts on Parasite.<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh4uvcGXl5uwub0aKQ68znrWbSSV5M56YvGpCGqHfFJ2a-2Xn5TD3e3BgPG4WcVlS2E5QSbRAXcG_wZzq7pK_Bzq2SuyMCqZ9ewB21gE6w1W8Yo3zhrfYzB-BzXOpULQY_ZkfoyG4D-agQ/s1600/p.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="800" data-original-width="1200" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh4uvcGXl5uwub0aKQ68znrWbSSV5M56YvGpCGqHfFJ2a-2Xn5TD3e3BgPG4WcVlS2E5QSbRAXcG_wZzq7pK_Bzq2SuyMCqZ9ewB21gE6w1W8Yo3zhrfYzB-BzXOpULQY_ZkfoyG4D-agQ/s320/p.png" width="320" /></a></div>
Several times in Parasite, a man deflects during conversations about topics he doesn't understand, using the phrase "It's so metaphorical!" Scratch beneath the pseudo-intellectualism, it's easy to pick apart his vague response, highlighting how truly out of place he is in the environment he occupies, and yet with how casually his responses are dealt out, others are so oblivious to his awkwardness, maybe because it's easier to live in simplicity than in rationality. That comprises only one chunk of the weighty ideas juggled by Parasite, the latest from South Korean director Bong Joon-ho, coming in late in the year as one of 2019's greatest surprises, and easily a contender for its best film.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
Parasite follows the lives of the struggling Kim family, a married couple and their two children, sharing an unflattering basement apartment. In desperation, they sap away from other homes' Wi-fi, take commission gigs from WhatsApp, and in one extreme, leave their windows open for free fumigation (they have a nasty stink bug infestation, which is more than a little ironic). It's a simple, but incredibly effective introduction, giving us a first-hand, intimate glimpse into the lives of these people, allowing us to empathize and readily sympathize with their decisions come later. The metaphors only grow more metaphorical, when a friend of the son (Kim Ki-woo, played by Choi Woo-shik) is gifted a granite sculpture, said to bless its owner with prosperity.<br />
<br />
Ki-woo is offered a job by his friend, serving as an English tutor to the daughter of the wealthy Park family, a job that requires he fake his way in. What starts out as a simple favor soon turns into something much greater, taking full advantage of the quote-unquote "Rich and simple family", perhaps none more gullible than the worrisome mother (a scene-stealing Cho Yeo-jeong), and integrating more and more into that privileged lifestyle. I dare not say anything more beyond that, for fear of spoiling the many twisty routes this movie goes down, and just how metaphorical everything becomes.<br />
<br />
The greatest, and most obvious metaphor is no doubt the clear class divide. The marked difference between the households is certainly not lost, going from the cramped claustrophobia of the basement, to the towering height of the spacious mansion. With such an emphasis on the intricate locations, the houses become as much a character as any of the people in the film, with their own secrets to tell, and their own layers of character development. Even the vistas go a ways in deepening the viewpoints of their inhabitants. The basement looks out on miles of underprivileged and struggling households, a firsthand insight into the daily grind of their lives. The mansion looks out only onto a green, grassy backyard, surround by trees blotting out the rest of the world, ignorant of the problems beyond their blissful extravagance.<br />
<br />
"Simple" certainly fits how they see things, tapping into this idea of people who only see what they want to see, putting aside basic semblance of rationality for convenience, and anything that doesn't affect them, or anything within their bubble is meaningless. The entire world outside of theirs could be crumbling (and in one example, it literally does), and they wouldn't be bothered by it. This is even further highlighted by the film's blocking, sometimes literally and figuratively showing characters as "beneath" others, as well as the emphasis on scent, which becomes its own recurrent theme. Which doesn't make them *bad* people, the film never goes so far as to villainize them, but sometimes ignorance can be just as damaging as intentional neglect. In a way, *they* have become parasites feeding off of the other half. But said ignorance proves just as vital a boon to the Kim family, for in the Parks' obliviousness to what goes on beyond their grassy garden, they can just as easily be fooled.<br />
<br />
Method acting becomes a vital tool to the Kims, for if you can act like you belong, than you can fake your way through anything. You can turn that family's ignorance against them, and in your favor. In essence, they have become like those stink bugs, taking advantage of the hospitality and ignorance of their hosts, and slowly making themselves at home. And as the cash flow and scheme grows, so too does the negative influence. There's an entire tangent in the film about the effects of money, where a character rants about rich people only being nice because they can afford to be. And yes, within the film's narrative, there's definitely credence given to that idea, but it's also an idea that gets turned right around on its head, as the Kims become victims to their own blissful ignorance. I cannot say why without crucial spoilers, so just trust me when I say that what follows is all kinds of gloriously messed up... and I gobbled up every minute of it.<br />
<br />
That balance in tone just might be Parasite's shining quality, shifting seamlessly between dark comedy and pointed commentary, without forgetting the soul at the center of the film. Even as the main characters have to resort to some lows, we still oddly find ourselves in their corner. They're so thoughtfully fleshed out at every single turn, and even if their actions aren't always pleasant (in fact, sometimes they're downright despicable), we're still always reminded and understanding of why they must resort to these decisions, even if at heart they do sacrifice some of their identity to achieve it. It helps that director Bong has assembled a phenomenal cast of players to occupy these roles and breathe life into them, with his muse Song Kang-ho standing out among the batch as the family patriarch, with some of the most heartbreaking and charged sections of the film.<br />
<br />
I don't consider myself among the Bong Joon-ho initiated, as I've only been following him since Snowpiercer, but having now seen Parasite twice, this may be the film that finally converts me to a fan. It's a movie that almost effortlessly balances between weighty commentary and savage comedy, wrapping it around a compelling family drama with so much entertainment value, and that tone was the winning formula above all else. After Okja, where tone completely eluded Bong, he is firing on all cylinders in this follow-up, and makes me realize what many see in him as a filmmaker. A singularly unique and inventive artist, with a fittingly singular film to his credit. It's so metaphorical!<br />
<br />
<br />
***** / *****Indyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17018620332465602342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6416455634439053148.post-32823607159460271842019-10-29T20:41:00.001-07:002019-10-29T20:41:06.849-07:00Brief thoughts on The Lighthouse.<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHZaNxIToHwyrFd5XRufzRt3KTuwqo38P5EKIEE2Pu2zg_XOAfMp25tPXWdIjNRIld4APp-Rs36qmkLTsdEOAqingRfgQcH3hbLR8UxkXfC4Vvkn2k41P-B42aoIUi8wcE-DR8s_aoqek/s1600/tl.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="502" data-original-width="600" height="267" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhHZaNxIToHwyrFd5XRufzRt3KTuwqo38P5EKIEE2Pu2zg_XOAfMp25tPXWdIjNRIld4APp-Rs36qmkLTsdEOAqingRfgQcH3hbLR8UxkXfC4Vvkn2k41P-B42aoIUi8wcE-DR8s_aoqek/s320/tl.png" width="320" /></a></div>
Newcomer Robert Eggers made quite the name for himself with The Witch, one in a string of intriguing low-budget horror fare from distributor A24. Regardless of *my* unimpressed thoughts on the film, I can't commend Eggers enough for the trend he helped set, migrating horror away from jump scare factories, in favor of richer, more eerie fare. As such, I'm sure most had high hopes for his follow-up film The Lighthouse, in which Eggers migrates to the psychological horror, covering the deterioration of two men in unwilling isolation, after their station is struck by a storm. The Lighthouse is certainly a film loaded with secrets of its own, one that, compared to Eggers' freshman effort, leaves me fascinated to spill its beans.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
Winslow and Wick, played respectively by Robert Pattinson and Willem Dafoe, are stationed to watch over a New England lighthouse for four weeks, tending to its daily needs. One of the joys of discovering a new film is uncovering the secrets of its main characters with fresh eyes, a joy that The Lighthouse features in spades, especially given the confrontational attitude between the two leads. They're two men matched together by seeming chance, holding their personal histories very close to the chest, so much so that they don't even find out the other's names until half an hour in. With the level of baggage they carry in, it isn't long before the cabin fever begins to set in, as we see the two in their polar opposite ideals clash at each other.<br />
<br />
But what that confrontation represents, at first glance, can be quite puzzling to the mind. In spite of such a simple idea, there's a whole wealth of complex ideas Eggers manages to extract from it, as the sparring partners progressively go for the other's throats. As for what kind of themes it stands for? I see it veering into several directions.<br />
<br />
One, perhaps the most immediately noticeable, concerns the two undermining and challenging the others' masculinity. Much of the chores around the island call for turns between the two, but given how experienced Wick is in the job, he hands most of the heavy-lifting and busywork to Winslow, while Wick keeps himself holed up in the lighthouse beacon every night. That disparity becomes the first wedge between the two, with Wick relaying his sometimes unreasonable demands thick on Winslow, and holding his seniority and superiority over Winslow in borderline condescension. The two are driven mad to prove themselves the bigger man (the clever use of shadows even highlight just how "big" or "small" the two are feeling in any given scene), overwhelmed with a sense of lust (sexual, or otherwise), and they only seem to be able to tolerate each other when chugging down whiskey. That toxic attitude hasn't made either of them appear bigger, but may as well leave them shriveling and pathetic, regressing them from men into mindless animals, at one point quite literally.<br />
<br />
Another angle could be a more esoteric and religious one, a parable of men's folly by challenging God and nature. Being a man of the sea, Wick is a very superstitious man, heeding closely to tall tales and legends out of fear of them enacting some cosmic vengeance. While Winslow at one point claims to be a God-fearing man, most of his actions seem to contradict that stance, especially given his disdain of the myths Wick clings to like gospel. It's for that very disdain that ultimately kicks off the suffering in the rest of the film, driven jealous by the beacon that they both crave (like Heaven itself, the beacon appears to represent some higher enlightenment), with notions of faith - or lack thereof in some cases - and everlasting reward pushing them closer to battle. On one hand is Wick, who's long enjoyed the clarity and spirit given to him by the beacon, but who has also grown drunk with the power it gives him. Then we have Winslow, the man desperate to feel the spirit that the light represents, but perhaps has neither the strength nor the respect for what an overwhelming power it is. But in their enjoyment or craving for that light, showing blatant abuse or disregard for God's creations, has unleashed suffering upon themselves like one of the ancient plagues. Or if not overtly religious in intentions, it could just as easily be substituted with nature acting against its inhabitants, those who show little care for the environment they wander, and how that corrupted, polluted nature will only destroy them in the end.<br />
<br />
Thirdly, The Lighthouse could also be a representation of nostalgia gone wrong. This is an old-fashioned film in every sense, from its simple premise, to its picturesque postcard photography, to the practicality present in every frame of the film. But behind those nostalgic lenses is also something far more sinister. Being a shanty-man spinning tales of his past and of the ancient sea on a whim, Wick establishes the lonely nature of the lighthouse as some grandiose adventure, even though Winslow can see right through that façade, and the frightening power it yields over those who occupy the island.<br />
<br />
The black and white, 4:3 photography serves more purpose than just to look stunning (and it is), but serves as an added storytelling tool in its own way, to emphasize just how cold, lonely, and claustrophobic the space of the titular lighthouse is. Often pushing the two leads uncomfortably close together, even though one of their egos can usually take up most of the image, let alone both of them. Between the many parables that drive his screenplay, and the brutality come from the secluded, unforgiving setting, The Lighthouse drips with an unsettling sense of isolation, further punctuated by its dreamlike, often hallucinogenic imagery to help us emulate the mindset of the two main players.<br />
<br />
With the isolation, it depends a great deal on the talent, and sparring abilities of its two-man show, played to superb effect by both Dafoe and Pattinson. With how lonely and bleak the atmosphere of the film is, and with what a reportedly brutal shoot the film was, many other performers could just buckle under the pressure. Instead, that behind the scenes stress only fuels their resolve, giving the two greater credibility as men who despise the others' guts. It's a tense relationship from the start, and as the beans continue to spill, it only escalates as the two constantly snap at each other, or get liquored up just to sit in the same room. That manages to mine some levity and humor despite the cold aura, and pushes the two to bring their A-game against the other, showing themselves to be among the finest character actors of their generations. The legendary Dafoe is titanic as the crazier of the two, managing to convey just as much genuine warmth and laughter from his deceptively friendly nature, but just as easily can be an utterly terrifying presence, with the piercing gaze of his eyes staring into one's soul like a knife to the heart. But the younger Pattinson is no slouch either, in a more subtle performance built upon continually peeling layers, as what seem to be the naïve intentions of an apathetic young man, show much darker shades of someone who isn't as innocent as he lets on.<br />
<br />
It's those two that carry the film on its shoulders. Much as Egger's script may be fascinating in its themes, and compelling in even the most dialogue-heavy scenes, were it not for the stunning commitment of the leads, I don't think this movie would be nearly as great as it is. I didn't expect such a reaction out of a film from the maker of The Witch, a film that I respect but am incredibly indifferent to, but I was taken aback by The Lighthouse. The Witch may have revealed Eggers' talents to the world, but The Lighthouse solidifies them, showing his gifts fully formed and to virtuoso quality. Another success from A24's lineup.<br />
<br />
<br />
****1/2 / *****Indyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17018620332465602342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6416455634439053148.post-77240558004894981572019-10-13T15:29:00.001-07:002019-10-13T15:29:34.961-07:00Brief (conflicted) thoughts on Joker.<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjxnmq7JBlgQeSOC4mADI5U9zdVGr1jU_oyyXIhVNjJY1UPHlPCATtIQCxoxOSxbdj4UlAMg7Z_EHjcOZj4alSFe74L_Iw6cRhLzKRoAZXmHNCm5eRptHZw1EkUCiyUYzhAvPWy2H8wATg/s1600/j.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="540" data-original-width="960" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjxnmq7JBlgQeSOC4mADI5U9zdVGr1jU_oyyXIhVNjJY1UPHlPCATtIQCxoxOSxbdj4UlAMg7Z_EHjcOZj4alSFe74L_Iw6cRhLzKRoAZXmHNCm5eRptHZw1EkUCiyUYzhAvPWy2H8wATg/s320/j.png" width="320" /></a></div>
The Joker has long been the greatest enemy of Batman, the embodiment of chaos in its purest form. While conceptually a simple character, his methods of exploiting the fragile insanity of human nature, as well as his prevalence for anarchism, has made him an eternally iconic character for the ages, especially when brought to life by the likes of Mark Hamill, Heath Ledger, Jack Nicholson, and unfortunately Jared Leto. But away from Batman, is there a chance the Joker could stand on his own? If the latest incarnation is evidence, realized by Joaquin Phoenix, the possibility's certainly there.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
This new rendition of Joker comes brought to us by Todd Phillips, best known as the director of The Hangover trilogy, and has an extensive background in comedy. Which makes Joker such a drastic deviation, given the dark subject matter of the project involved, and pulling an American Hustle, makes obvious the debts he owes to the films of Martin Scorsese, Taxi Driver and The King of Comedy among them, that even drastically downplays the comic book-roots of the character. Aside from loosely adapting the Killing Joke storyline (and I do mean loosely), Joker could almost exist completely detached from DC's lineage. Unfortunately, Phillips' intentions, while interesting, is far less than the sum of its parts.<br />
<br />
We can start off positive with the main draw, that being Joaquin Phoenix's performance, because bless him, he attacks this role with everything he's got. With the impressive lineage he's coming into, it's vital for the film's success that he and Phillips work quickly to establish a unique representation of the character, which they do so by focusing squarely on his human side. Arthur Fleck is not a very fortunate man. He's a lonely, depressed, mentally unwell man, continually beat down and taken advantage of by other people, stricken with severe emotional incontinence, and serving as sole caretaker of his elderly mother.<br />
<br />
Ironically enough, it's always been Arthur's dream to be a comedian, with many of his jokes (some very pitch black in nature) scribbled almost incomprehensibly in a notepad. They say that tragedy inspires the best comedy, but with each punchline Arthur delivers, the result isn't so much funny, as it is a devastating step into his damaged psyche. His is the kind of mind that society - very pointedly stated - doesn't care about, a minuscule blip on the classist hierarchy of Gotham, paralleling our own societies downplaying of mental illness, neglect of middle or low wage individuals, and favor catering to the wealthy privileged.<br />
<br />
While the actual writing of the character has its issues (more on that later), Phoenix's commitment to the role cannot be understated. If not unfamiliar territory for him, especially for any familiar with his Freddie Quell of The Master, it's still a harrowing and engrossing tour de force from him, managing at once to create a figure both oddly charismatic, but also deeply violent and unnerving. While I still feel Heath Ledger's rendition is virtually untouchable, Phoenix does well to make the character his own, and is often single-handedly hoisting this movie on his shoulders.<br />
<br />
There's a reason that so many would focus exclusively on Phoenix, because outside of him, the overall film is a mess. While Phoenix may be committed as can be to the character, the actual material given to him is so often a wildly unbalanced one. As evidenced before, Arthur is a very tragic character, coming into his own after one act of cruelty too many, but with that focus on tragedy, I feel like that somewhat misplays the character. Because of how cruelly Gotham treats him, we're geared very early on to sympathize with Arthur, and almost encouraging us to root for him. Already, that's somewhat the antithesis to Joker, given that his entire MO has always been chaos without reason. He's a nihilistic character intent on bringing out the darkest in people, which is not something to readily feel sorry for.<br />
<br />
And I'm okay with a more sympathetic rendition of Joker on paper, but too often it feels like this movie tries to have its cake, and eat it. I suppose you can make the argument that the movie doesn't want us to *sympathize* with Arthur, but more *empathize* with him, or at least see him as the classic unreliable narrator casting himself as the hero. The problem is that, tonally speaking, the movie walks a very shaky line when it comes to his handling. With how often this movie hammers its talking points home, and the way Phillips portrays his gradual descent one beating at a time, intentional or not, it still feels like it's projecting this undercurrent of sympathy for him, while at the same time falling back on writing him as a straight villain, inspiring city-wide extremism and rioting playing in the background. It tries to cater to both forms, but it would have been better to skew towards one side rather than the uneven approach here.<br />
<br />
But does that make it an irresponsible film? Is it the type of movie to inspire gun violence, as has been tastelessly touted by heated pre-release debates before its release? Absolutely not! I in no way believe that such art does that, and that it is the individual with which those issues lay. However, if Phillips does indeed go for that societal satire, that doesn't do much to muddy his themes up less. But speaking of Phillips, as this really is just the Joaquin at the end of the day, he really is just pulling a David O. Russell. He's done well to capture the Scorsese aesthetic, with a multitude of stylistic choices thrown out, but it still hasn't managed to capture the Scorsese spirit. It just does feel like something of a pale imitation, with well intentions, but ends up feeling like empty flattery. Honestly, at some point, it does feel as if Phillips is a journeyman, whose direction is not the main draw of the attention.<br />
<br />
All of the attention is owed to Arthur, for better or worse. From Phoenix's larger-than-life performance, to the very nature of the character as put to paper, there's surely a lot to discuss and dissect about Joker. There's definitely a reason that this film is so polarizing to viewers, with equal merit on both ends of the spectrum, regardless of where you fall. If you liked the film, good. I'm happy that it did something for you. It just didn't for me. But hey, <i>that's life</i>...<br />
<br />
<br />
**1/2 / *****Indyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17018620332465602342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6416455634439053148.post-33459744754661611432019-10-03T12:48:00.001-07:002019-10-03T12:48:54.013-07:00Brief thoughts on Abominable.<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEggQiVRx4kk7L4-sa_33yL1cwmjxt8lUkB1kfo7B07YaYMaIVdBV5gCN2mzRfll7aTV-wMm9t1HXZRAAtNpexo6touUsHfNKcJ9qeL_YQmfUk82bPCvLah4WuDfpos2o2ubszkJ4C8uARI/s1600/a.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="200" data-original-width="600" height="106" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEggQiVRx4kk7L4-sa_33yL1cwmjxt8lUkB1kfo7B07YaYMaIVdBV5gCN2mzRfll7aTV-wMm9t1HXZRAAtNpexo6touUsHfNKcJ9qeL_YQmfUk82bPCvLah4WuDfpos2o2ubszkJ4C8uARI/s320/a.png" width="320" /></a></div>
It's been a while since I've felt like writing anything. Why not now?<br />
<br />
After taking an extended break, Dreamworks Animation returned strong earlier this year, concluding their How to Train Your Dragon saga. Such was a big film that the studio was hopeful for, given the company's string of unfortunate underperformers in recent memory, and now being under Universal ownership, and supervision by Illumination's Chris Meledandri. After that film performed so well, I'm sure the studio hoped that their follow-up, Abominable, would be able to as well.<br />
<br />
I mean, it didn't... but it's the thought that counts.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
At first glance, it's very easy to admire Abominable, if only from some superficial viewpoints. While often inconsistent with the quality of their craft, Dreamworks' animation department have almost always been a reliable master of their craft. With so much of the film revolving around a quest to the Himalayas, the vivid landscapes matched with the striking Chinese iconography afford the animators a well of potential, all of which they firmly seize ahold of. Abominable is a massive, breathtaking film to observe, a colorful cascade of rich texture, especially owed to the expressive body language of the characters, that instantly endear us to them.<br />
<br />
That kind of effort particularly pays off in the budding friendship between main character Yi, voiced by Chloe Bennet, and adolescent Yeti named Everest. There is a deliberate attempt to ape the dynamic of Hiccup and Toothless of the Dragon films, especially given the similar progression of trust that the two must trek to build that bond, but it's a dynamic that pays off well enough. Yi is a very charming protagonist, perhaps the closest the film gets to a fully realized character, that through each new discovery around the corner, and each little revelation of her character, makes her a progressively appealing lead, even if some of those routes are on well-trodden ground. Everest is no Toothless, but he succeeds at being the cute, lovable main draw he is, continuing Dreamworks' string of excellent silent characters. It's hard not to be won over by his innocence and playful spirit, quite a few times making my heart melt purely through his expressions, and matched with Yi, that budding bond makes for a strong anchor to the film.<br />
<br />
The problem is... you've already seen this movie dozens of times. If you've seen any number of "kid and their strange pet" movie (heck, if you've seen this year's Missing Link from Laika), then you already know the general plot of Abominable. There's very little room for actual surprise through this movie, at times content to merely affirm status quo, rather than aim for truly compelling targets. Topics like the tragic death of Yi's father, the delicate balance humans share with nature, and more are addressed, but are merely rendered footnotes, because the film is so preoccupied with the derivative story. There's certainly heart and humor to fuel the film, which keeps it afloat nicely enough, as well as the generally charming, if not spectacular voice overs (Sarah Paulson, doing a better British accent than her American Horror Story one, seems to really enjoy chewing the scenery).<br />
<br />
Aside from that, Abominable is just a wholly adequate movie, and nothing more than that. As a nice diversion, it's entertaining and should hold your attention. But Dreamworks can do so much better than that. They've already done better than that just this year, and while Abominable may be cute enough, there's little to it that's even worth remembering.<br />
<br />
<br />
*** / *****Indyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17018620332465602342noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6416455634439053148.post-21990866107270214892019-09-06T09:37:00.001-07:002019-09-06T09:37:07.258-07:00It Chapter Two movie review.<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNwBYKsIa0Av1mQlY8iWvXCXJ0O9aojqhmD85RDTlGUG7QZsSamZWzq9ix2MIkccrSAfh1_uORaQTPFxQe4hFqraAmc_89MQcj68jRrI4tt5HIHfiS8TSfZx5oyQx7wGW5-1L2GHImL40/s1600/IMG_2041.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1600" data-original-width="1200" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNwBYKsIa0Av1mQlY8iWvXCXJ0O9aojqhmD85RDTlGUG7QZsSamZWzq9ix2MIkccrSAfh1_uORaQTPFxQe4hFqraAmc_89MQcj68jRrI4tt5HIHfiS8TSfZx5oyQx7wGW5-1L2GHImL40/s400/IMG_2041.JPG" width="300" /></a></div>
Published in 1986, Stephen King's It was a skin-crawling horror saga, following a group of friends on their quest to rid their town of an ancient shape-shifting monster, that feasted on their fear. Having been previously adapted into an ABC mini-series, the novel eventually inspired a 2017 film adaptation. Under the direction of Andy Muschietti, the film solely tackled the novel's first half, following the group as children in the 1980's. I was genuinely surprised by that film, finding it equally scary and emotionally fulfilling, and on its own would have made a great standalone film.<br />
<br />
However, that still left the unadapted adult sections, making this one of the few justifiable instances of splitting one book into separate films. Once again under Muschietti's leadership, and recruiting much of the same team of the first, along with some stellar character actors in the adult roles, maybe Chapter Two of King's story could do just as well. But not everything floats down here, namely a sequel that can't, and in some instances doesn't try, to match that standard.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
27 years have passed since the last cycle of It, the ancient shape-shifting monster with a hunger for fear. Once again donning the disguise of Pennywise the Dancing Clown (Bill Skarsgard), It has awakened from its slumber, intent on acquiring more sustenance from the small town of Derry. The Loser's Club (including James McAvoy's Bill, Jessica Chastain's Beverly, Bill Hader's Richie, and James Ransone's Eddie among others) have since drifted apart, and forgotten much of their experiences of Derry. But when reuniting in their hometown, and with their memories returned, they decide to fulfill their childhood vow to destroy the monster, all the while It torments them both past and present.<br />
<br />
Even as much as I loved the original film, I will concede that It felt like it had chunks missing, and at times could felt like it was rushing to the finish. In hindsight, that does end up becoming a saving grace, as because of its compact nature, it isn't bogged down by unnecessary filler. Funnily enough, Chapter Two suffers from the inverse problem, in that it would *benefit* from tightening itself up. With so much material left on the cutting room floor, the content has elevated the running time to nearly three hours long, and simply put, the movie tries to handle way too much.<br />
<br />
Structured in similar format to the first, Chapter Two follows the individual lives of the Losers, and how their lives have turned out post-Derry. Most of them have become quite successful - Bill as a writer and Ben as an architect, even if some of them still have residual drama and psychological hangs-up. Eddie has married a woman just as domineering as his mother, and Bev is in an abusive marriage. This then leads to the eventual meeting of the fully formed unit, and their attempts to thwart It's sadistic hunger. The original film made stellar use of its young cast, and this follow up has some similarly effective use of their older counterparts.<br />
<br />
Jessica Chastain is as obvious and perfect a casting choice can be, looking like a dead ringer for Sophia Lillis, and having previously collaborated with Muschietti on Mama. She is truly the heart of this film, giving it a luminous, capable, enriching presence as the group's emotional anchor, with a muted but still fiery determination to face her fears for her and her friends. But the real standout is Bill Hader, continuing on from Finn Wolfhard as Richie. Hader has most of the funniest moments of the film, and his sardonic sense of humor and deadpan bewilderment, a welcome offset to the film's gruesome nature, results in some real laugh out loud moments. But it's also a genuinely affecting dramatic piece for him, with new layers continually peeling back to reshape and deepen his character, with some of the more gut-wrenching emotional wallops in the film.<br />
<br />
Elsewhere, James McAvoy serves as the capable group leader as Bill, grappling with his own emotional trauma, having accepted young Georgie's untimely fate, even if new guilt has begun to eat away at him. James Ransone is a spot on reinterpretation of Jack Dylan Grazer's Eddie, and even Jay Ryan's new take as a more handsome Ben, while a bit on the bland side, does provide some sweet scenes, especially matched against Chastain. The only unfortunate outliers are Isaiah Mustafa as Mike, who was already slimmed down considerably from his book counterpart, but especially for Andy Bean as an adult Stanley (Fault of the book or not, this character could have been used much better).<br />
<br />
Individually the pieces are strong, but it's when matched together that they really shine. One of the best sequences of the film is their initial reunion at the Jade of the Orient, where the magic has been seamlessly recaptured, and sparks fly like fireworks. However, Chapter Two makes the fatal mistake of keeping them apart for far too much of the movie. About an hour into the film, the Losers separate for an extended amount of time rediscovering their pasts. Because of that lack of shared screentime and chemistry, the film tends to lose a lot of its luster, and until the group finally gets together to give Pennywise what for, a lot of what precedes that is on the dull side.<br />
<br />
A lot of this has to do with how bloated the script is. Unlike the original film, which made use of original director Cary Fukunaga's template, this sequel is credited entirely to Gary Dauberman of Annabelle fame. Being given free rein on the script, he leaves no stone unturned in the narrative, which tries to wrap up every dangling thread, or acknowledge as many fan favorite elements from the original story as possible, even if it makes no narrative or structural sense. Like Henry Bowers, who somehow survived a ragdoll fall down a well, and has been committed to an asylum. He could literally be cut from the film entirely, and the only thing you'd lose is your purist points (love the book or not, it's a movie now, and some things were never meant to be deeper than a puddle). There's all sorts of little pieces like that which run up the length, and while it isn't unbearable, it is unjustified. There is no reason this needed to be just ten minutes shorter than Avengers: Endgame.<br />
<br />
As such, a lot rests upon Andy Muschietti's abilities as director. Thankfully, it's clear he still has a knack for creating effective horror sequences, but while these pieces may be great in isolation, as a whole, they are much less than the sum of their parts. Everyone's already familiar with the extended meeting with Mrs. Kersh, which has become a staple of the advertising campaign, and scenes like that do well to continue the nightmarish imagery of the first, although the real standout horror bit, for me, was a claustrophobic trek through a funhouse hall of mirrors. This whole sequence feels like Chapter Two's answer to the nightmarish slide projector scene from the first, and really stands out for its creep factor, haunting atmosphere, and gruesome consequences.<br />
<br />
That said, those tend to be exceptions more than examples. If you remember the first film, you know it had a number of jump scares laced throughout. Funnily enough, Chapter Two actually depends *less* on them... and yet it still isn't as scary. I think this just has to do with the whole dynamic of the cast. Playing against the teens, everything from the clown to Derry itself feels like a much greater threat, made even more apparent by several flashback scenes, which are scarier than almost anything with the adults. But against grown adults, these things just don't have the same effect. The sense of atmosphere in Derry isn't nearly as pronounced or felt, and taking inspiration from Pennywise's bizarre dance routine of the first, like something plucked out of Evil Dead, at times it just ends up feeling sillier by comparison, which is only one of the problems with Pennywise here.<br />
<br />
To his credit, Bill Skarsgard continues to be fun to watch, running with his clown gimmick to its fullest potential, and making great use of his humor and eeriness, even if there's not quite enough room for him to stretch it, at least without getting foiled by heavy CGI or creature effects. But so much of what made Pennywise scary was how much he was kept offscreen. In some cases, the anticipation of his attacks were even scarier than the acts themselves, and the mystery surrounding him compounding it. But little is left to the imagination in the follow-up, which relies too much on him as it gets closer to the end, where they've given him him so much of a spotlight, they've made him boring, which was the worst possible thing they could have done.<br />
<br />
In fact, any semblance of terror and atmosphere gets chucked out the window in the climax, which is such a shambling mess that undermines the horror established beforehand, buried under abusive overuse of CGI, and at times is virtually unbearable to look at, with strobe effects that gave me a splitting headache. Thankfully the closing sections recover with some sweet emotional send-offs, but not enough to wash away the aftertaste of that showdown.<br />
<br />
It Chapter Two is not a *bad* film, but it is a crushing disappointment. The first chapter was a genuinely inspired and at times terrifying film, a plesant surprise that served as a course correction for mainstream horror. This sequel had all the ingredients to recapture and continue that spirit, but lacks the charm, and scare factor that film had. This film doesn't work, and even though I haven't read the book, I'm not sure the adult sections do either, at least in concept. I'd argue that the best thing they could have done, would have been to solely adapt the child perspective, and abandon everything concerning adulthood. If you ignore the sequel baiting of the original, it can stand just fine on its own, whereas Chapter Two tries so hard to catch that lightning, it has to cannibalize the original for deleted scenes and mine audience nostalgia (which is so weird, because it's only two years old).<br />
<br />
This sequel isn't without its pleasures or effective frights, but like Derry itself, the more time you spend with it, the less compelled you feel to stay.<br />
<br />
<br />
**1/2 / *****Indyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17018620332465602342noreply@blogger.com0