Bryan Caron's Blog, page 15

Movie Mayhem – The Hitman’s Bodyguard

If they were to accurately title The Hitman’s Bodyguard, it would actually be called The Hitman and His Bodyguard. By making the title possessive, as they do, you would assume the focus of the film would be on bodyguard as opposed to the hitman, and though the bodyguard does have the stronger character arc, director Patrick Hughes tends to steer focus away from Ryan Reynolds’ Michael Bryce (aka the bodyguard) and onto Samuel L. Jackson’s Darius Kincaid (aka the hitman). It makes sense; Kincaid is the funner character, and this is a buddy action comedy reminiscent of eighties action comedies (a little Lethal Weapon meets Midnight Run), so by keeping the two characters equals in the title would have given a better sense of the film from the get-go.

[image error]

The Hitman’s Bodyguard — 2017; Directed by Patrick Hughes; Starring Ryan Reynolds, Samuel L. Jackson, Salma Hayek, Elodie Yung, and Gary Oldman

Bryce is a AAA protection agent (as he likes to put it) with Interpol who in the opening minutes of the film loses one of his protection details to a long-range sniper. This event puts him into a tailspin, leading to the loss of his job and his girlfriend, fellow Interpol agent Amelia Roussel (Elodie Yung). Two years later, Bryce has taken up a solo career in protective detail, targeting low-class clients that don’t mean a whole lot to the world at large. He’s a simple man of precaution, making sure his jobs run smooth, quiet and without incident. It’s why he’s never been shot or had to kill anyone unnecessarily.

Kincaid is a high-profile hitman with over two hundred kills to his name. After he and his wife, Sonia (Salma Hayek) are caught in a sting operation, he’s offered a deal: testify in the trial of a psychopathic world leader named Vladislav Dukhovich (Gary Oldman) and Sonia will be completely pardoned. Kincaid agrees, but as is the case with film’s like this, there’s a mole somewhere in Interpol who’s working with Dukhovich to silence Kincaid so he’ll walk free. When Kincaid’s transport is attacked, Amelia calls in a favor from Bryce to get her prisoner to the trial in less than 24 hours. It’s not quite as easy as that, as not only will Dukhovich’s crew continue to hunt them down, but Bryce and Kincaid have a bad history with one another that they will have to put aside in order to make it to the hearing alive.

As mentioned at the top, Bryce learns several life lessons throughout his ordeal with Kincaid, but Jackson is treated like the star, with Reynolds pulling up second banana. However, that’s why the whole thing works. This odd dynamic heightens the characters and their personalities. Reynolds plays Bryce as a despondent nobody who is so pessimistic about everything, it showcases his vulnerability. He blames himself for the murder of his client because he believes Amelia leaked the name to whomever killed him. This loss of a world he so cherished has hardened Bryce’s soul, making himself as inconsequential as he perceives himself.

On the flip side, Kincaid knows exactly who he is. Jackson adds flair and humor to the character by imbuing him with the most carefree of attitudes, one where he doesn’t care one iota for what happens to him, so long as the person he cares for is safe and protected. Under the hard, don’t-give-a flip exterior is a soft soul, one who won’t ever compromise when it comes to harming innocent people. His belief that he himself is the hero (Who is more evil? The one who kills, or the one who protects the killer?) fills him with a self-righteous power that allows him to get away with being a free spirit. Nothing can touch him because he does such good for the world, and life will do what it must. Just go with the flow and stop fighting what’s being dished out.

These two contradictory personalities take advantage of the other’s insecurities and traits. Though the majority of what happens throughout the movie is eye-rolling cartoonish, the two leads know that nothing ever said the film was going to be serious, and utilize that idea to raise the comedic ante in every scene, even as Hughes at times tends to hold back just a little. When Kincaid leaps off a building to crash and fall into a dumpster across the street, or when Bryce goes flying through a windshield, Hughes is setting up a certain vibe for the film, telegraphing a sense of lunacy that he doesn’t quite follow-up on in every frame.

Not that he has to. There are moments of downtime for character development meant to give some heart to the film, but when we get into those action sequences and not everything is as absurd as everything that comes before, the balance of the film feels slightly off. It’s almost as if production was winding down and they just needed to get the shoot over with. Even then, it’s still capable of providing a lot of inconsequential fun.

And part of that fun is found in the supporting cast. Though most of them seem a little sidelined, not getting enough meat to justify their actions, they do everything they can to add meaning to our main duo’s partnership. Joaquim de Almeida as the director of Interpol does what he’s meant to do, and Oldman chews as much scenery as the stars. But the award for best supporting character goes to Hayek. Spending the majority of her screen time in a prison cell, she makes every moment and every word count, projecting a fiery lightning bolt of foul-mouthed anger at everyone she comes in contact with. Though they share all but one or two scenes together, she compliments Kincaid perfectly. At no point are you confused by how the two would find each other irresistible, even when they’re giving each other crap.

It isn’t nearly as dynamic as the banter between Jackson and Reynolds, though, who after everything they go through are as equal at the end as they are at the beginning. The hitman and his bodyguard: brothers from a different mother who hate each other’s guts but hold tight to the same ideals — honor, justice, peace and love.

My Grade: A-

Take Our Poll

——————————————

Next week, new movies include Leap!, Polaroid, Birth of the Dragon and All Saints. If you would like to see a review for tone of these, or any other film out next week, please respond in the comments below.

The Writer’s Learning Curve

When I started this writing journey, I was naive to the complexities of it all. I guess in it’s most basic state, writing is just me and the words on the screen or paper. It’s when I started sharing those words that things changed. Here are ten things I learned since I started (in no […]

via 10 Things Learned Since I Started Writing — (Almost) Average

Movie Mayhem – The Nut Job 2: Nutty By Nature

I am part of the problem. What problem? The overabundance of sequels, prequels, retreads, reboots, spinoffs and the Hollywood assembly line. I wrote a speech for a class in college denouncing sequels and their brethren, claiming we should get rid of them all but confessing my own culpability in keeping them alive by continuing to feed the beast with the purchasing of tickets. I can hide under the guise of being a movie critic, but unlike professional critics, I don’t get paid to see every movie that’s released, which means every choice I make when it comes to movies is of my own volition. At the same time, you never know when you’ll find a real gem of a film. There are plenty of sequels that build on the original story, add to the lore and give a sense of closure in some areas — sequels that give us more than we thought we wanted. On the flip side, there are films like The Nut Job 2: Nutty By Nature, a sequel to a forgettable throw-away animated film that does nothing to enhance anything but the studio’s bottom line.

[image error]

The Nut Job 2: Nutty By Nature — 2017; Directed by Cal Brunker; Starring the voices of Will Arnett, Katherine Heigl, Bobby Moynihan, Maya Rudolph, Jeff Dunham and Jackie Chan

The Nut Job 2 begins a little after the events of the last film. After thwarting a gang of bank robbers who were using a nut store as a cover for their base of operations, arrogant, self-centered squirrel Surly (Will Arnett) and his gaggle of friends have taken over the shop to live high off the plethora of nuts left behind, just sitting there in the abandoned building. The only one who doesn’t believe sitting around enjoying the fruits of laziness is worthwhile is Andie (Katherine Heigl), Surly’s infuriating love interest. Within ten minutes of the opening of the film, the nut store explodes for arbitrary reasons, forcing the group to head back to the park from which they originally came to once again forage for food like real animals.

Enter the obese, greedy mayor (Bobby Moynihan) of the unnamed metropolitan, who wants to replace the park with a low-rent amusement park to line his coffers even further than they already are. He plays it off as if he’s going to relocate the animals to a new location, but behind closed doors hires a maniacal animal control company to go in and wipe the animals out. If that isn’t enough evil for you, the mayor is saddled with a bratty, spoiled, obese daughter (Isabela Moner) who screams and yells and throws tantrums when she doesn’t get her way. Now the animals must rise up against the evil mayor and his cohorts to stop the amusement park from taking away their home. (Did I mention the mayor was evil?)

If the description I just gave sounds familiar, it’s probably because The Nut Job 2 doesn’t have much originality at all, borrowing from many different sources (right down to a weird, unoriginal “outtake” that also shows Jackie Chan in the studio…), slamming them together in a story that doesn’t do much to advance the previous tale. Adding a love interest for Surly’s pit-bull bodyguard, Precious (Maya Rudolph), and a “cute” mouse (Jackie Chan) with a posse of mice who are all adept at martial arts would have been fun additions had they had any weight to them and were given a chance to form their own voice outside of the noise of the main plot. Even the majority of jokes feel like underwhelming retreads. When there is a decent joke that actually makes you to do more than chuckle, it ends up being a reminder of how lazy the writing actually is.

As mentioned earlier, the incident that forces the animals back to the park to defend it is an explosion that makes no sense. First off, if the building had been abandoned, there would be no heat, electricity or water running to the building. I know, it’s just a cartoon, but overlooking all of that, an explosion just seems way too easy. If writers Bob Barlen, Cal Brunker, and Scott Bindley had a demolition crew come in and destroy the building and take away the food supply, this would have felt not only more realistic, but it would have added depth to the character motivations, giving Sully and his team one more reason to defend the park when the demolition crews come in there. “The man” took away one food source, they aren’t going to let them take away another. Instead, we’re left with characters that are only doing things for selfish, prideful reasons.

There are some interesting setups, like the aforementioned mouse gang, but they’re never really paid off in any significant way. Take for example the hunt for a new park to call home. Andie somehow knows of another park across the city and heads there to get the lay of the land. They quickly discover that the “park” is actually a golf course. How do they play this realization off? By throwing in another maniacal human out to harm animals. By this point, it seems as if the moral of the story is that all humans are inherently evil and all animals are cute and adorable. Not sure how I’m meant to feel about that?

The Nut Job came and went pretty quietly back in January of 2014, and I’m sure a lot of people don’t even remember it being a thing at all. It made a good amount of money worldwide, but I don’t remember there being a whole lot of fanfare for a sequel (not like there is for an Incredibles 2). Neither film is bad, per se, they’re just mediocre and unremarkable; something to bide the kids’ time while you take a nap. They’re harmless on the outside, but underneath is the issue I spoke of before: by continuing to feed into this type of unnecessary sequel, we push Hollywood into believing this is what we all want, instead of new fresh material we can sink our teeth into. Then again, there comes a film like Annabelle: Creation, which is not only a well made horror film, it’s much better than its predecessor. So, what are we supposed to do?

My Grade: B-

Take Our Poll

——————————————

Next week, new movies include The Hitman’s Bodyguard and Logan Lucky. If you would like to see a review for tone of these, or any other film out next week, please respond in the comments below.

IndieBook Review: First Words: Final Lesson

[image error]

First Word: Final Lesson by Shakyra Dunn

While I was reading Shakyra Dunn’s novelette, First Words: Final Lesson, I had no idea it was a prequel to a much larger world that has yet to be written. There is a small note in the book’s description that it sets the stage for a larger event, but it’s not as clear as it could be, so until I got to the very end and was given a taste of the actual first book in the forthcoming series (titled “The Final Lesson”), I was under the impression this was just the first book in a new series, when in actuality all it’s meant to do is showcase a few key pieces of information that should help in your enjoyment of the actual first book. With that said, the following review is on my initial read while under the impression that it was a complete novel that as opposed to a simple compendium setting up what’s to come.

First Words: Final Lesson tells four different tales, all of which (well, except maybe one) could very well have been expanded into their own full-length adventures. In fact, it probably would have been better if Dunn had done that very thing, because in its current form, it’s hard to connect with anyone on any level, or get invested in the incidents that happen throughout. There’s a fire, a death and a poisoning, and yet, the consequences of these events, and the emotional depth of reactions from the different characters involved is sorely missing, mostly due to the major time jumps that occur from the end of each separate tale into the next.

Part 1 is about Leilana, a young girl who’s about to become the heir to the throne of her kingdom, which should have gone to her older brother Ennis until he succumbed to an illness that ignited his ability to use magic (which is illegal in this particular land). Upon finding a grimoire — aka a book of magic spells — Leilana becomes very interested in magic and the history of why it was banned in the first place.

Part 2 takes us to the land of Adrylis, where we meet the young prince Remiel. His boyish charm and ability to both hide in public without being recognized and befriend those who are less fortunate is quite enduring. One of these newfound freinds is another boy named Solus, whom Remiel takes under his wing when he finds out the boy really has no where else to go. Becoming fast friends, the two protect one another as best they can.

Part 3 moves to Magiten Academy, a school where kids with magical prowess go to learn (both regular everyday subjects as well as magic) before starting their trials in Adrylis. Here we meet Amiria and her friends, Lancett and Kindall, a couple of foolhardy boys who don’t take a whole lot seriously. These characters are eventually introduced to Leilana, a few months after finding the grimoire.

Part 4 takes us on a journey with Leilana’s brother Ennis to become a Warlord. He must travel the world in search of six totems from which he will gather and take to the Warlords of old to find out if he is worthy of their power.

As written, there’s no reason the events that happen here couldn’t have been slipped into dialogue or discussed in backstory in some way throughout the actual first book. Everything happens so fast, all of the events and character motivations are condensed into these little snippets that fail to expand on anything worthwhile. When Leilana meets a stranger who offers to help her with learning the spells in the grimoire, she accepts without any consideration as to who the person is or what his motives are, or what this could mean to her and her people. When Ennis ventures out on his quest, we get about a page of him collecting the totems, so we’re never invested in his growth or his potential.

That last example is one story I wish were expanded into its own full-length adventure. According to Chapter One of “The Final Lesson”, Leilana and her friends are about to embark on their journey to track down their six totems, so having had a full novel that has shown an important character doing this very thing would have added a nice juxtaposition to what happens with Leilana and her friends, and how each of them dealt with the obstacles they are sure to encounter. Instead, we don’t know anything other than Ennis found them, which makes it seem as if anyone could pass the test with ease.

I very much like the ideas that are presented, there are several characters (including Leilana, Amiria and friends) that are fun and enjoyable to hang out with, and after reading the first chapter of the The Final Lesson, I’m intrigued as to what Leilana’s journey will entail. But First Words: Final Lesson doesn’t live up to what could be (or what could’ve been). The prose can sometimes be a little stunted and the dialogue dry, and because there isn’t enough substance to care about what happens to anyone, the book itself is more a textbook for events that happened in the past that a cohesive tale of magic, friendship and wonder.

My Grade: B

Shakyra Dunn can’t stray away from the impression that there is always an adventure around every corner! When she isn’t playing the role of the Creator, she is marching through the worlds of her favorite video game characters or taking drives around her city to see the sights. Born in Chicago, Illinois, she currently resides in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, striving to experience more than the little town.

Check out all of Shakyra’s social media platforms:

[image error]

Shakyra Dunn

Author Blog

Amazon Author Page

Twitter

Facebook

Goodreads

If you are an independent author and would like your book reviewed, let me know in the comments section with a link to where I can purchase the book. If I find it intriguing, and it’s something I think I’d like, I will purchase a copy and add it to my reading list. I will be doing one independent book review per month, so not all requests will be accepted.

Movie Mayhem – The Dark Tower

Ever since Stephen King published Carrie in 1974, movie studios and producers have been clamoring to adapt his work to the big screen (the first remake of Carrie being in 1976), making King one of the most adapted authors of all time. But with this gluttony of films, it’s inevitable that there would be just as many duds as there are masterpieces. For every Carrie, Misery, Stand By Me, or Shawshank Redemption, there’s a Needful Things, Maximum Overdrive, Dreamcatcher and Thinner. Now, with two adaptations coming out in consecutive months (and two television series based on his work currently on the air), we’re getting to see that dichotomy unfold on a compressed timeline. Previews for the newest adaptation of It look incredible, so it’s only fitting that The Dark Tower fails to live up to King’s sprawling opus.

[image error]

The Dark Tower — 2017; Directed by Nikolaj Arcel; Starring Idris Elba, Matthew McConaughey and Tom Taylor

The first mistake was attempting to condense seven-books into a film that lasts a scant one and a half hours. As most fans of the series know, there have been a lot of bumps and different iterations in casting, directors and how producers wanted to tell this story on its long road to the big screen. The decision to reduce the cost and play it safe by cherry picking characters and overall themes from the books without also transferring over the scope does a disservice to both the books and fans alike. They tried justifying these decisions by claiming that the film was a sequel to the books, which is all well and good, but that theory wasn’t part of any of the advertising campaign, which means if you weren’t following news on the adaptation closely, you’d miss this claim and go in thinking you were getting a faithful adaptation, which this clearly is not.

The focus of the novels is Roland Deschain (Idris Elba), the last of the fated gunslingers meant to protect the dark tower — the center of all realms within the universe and the key to holding back the darkness and the evil beyond it — and his unrelenting hunt for the man in black (Matthew McConaughey), an evil entity (some would say, the Devil) determined to tear the tower down. However, with four writers credited to the story (Akiva Goldsman, Jeff Pinkner, Anders Thomas Jensen and director Nikolaj Arcel), the film alters focus away from Roland and places it on the shoulders of Jake Chambers (Tom Taylor), a young boy from “Keystone Earth” with incredible psychic powers who may or may not be the key to destroying the tower.

Because the entire film is from Jake’s perspective, we lose almost every ounce of Roland’s motivation for hunting the man in black. Though I’m not a fan of changing genders or races just to appease our PC culture, Elba does a good job creating a distinct mood for the film, but because his pain and determination is only being viewed through the lens of a child with a fascination for Roland, the connection between Roland and the man in black becomes far too removed.

I’m a fan of McConaughey, and he does a fine job bringing the man in black to life — restrained enough to keep from becoming a cartoon, but staying true to the menacing fervor and seething evil that makes the man in black so formidable — but his chemistry with Elba is all over the map. The characters are meant to be rivals, one whose respect for the other shows through in their words and actions; the two want to see the other dead, but they understand the importance each has for the other. By pushing the perspective to Jake, the playful back-and-forth the two share is there, but is nowhere near as strong as it should be, leading to a connection that doesn’t quite spark the right amount of electricity.

Outside of our three main characters, there isn’t a whole lot of substance either. The acting, events and decisions from the supporting players show a lot of cracks, most of which come from the screenplay; with such a short run time, there was bound to be a lot of shortcuts and information that gets sorely overlooked. A lot of the events that take place happen without much explanation, leaving you slightly confused or unsure of how or why certain characters are doing what they’re doing. They attempt to resolve this with a few lines of dialogue, but it feels too little too late in most cases. It’s as if Arcel believes everyone in the audience will have already read the books and know exactly what everything is and why people act the way they do, which just isn’t the case.

Finally, we have the action sequences, which are mostly the saving grace of the film, though it is hard to contemplate how one might go about defeating someone who can literally catch a bullet with his bare hands with his back turned. The final battle is especially tantalizing as Roland utilizes his skills to wipe out a few dozen combatants with a whirlwind of bullets and stunts that will leave you wanting more. It’s not the best action sequence ever filmed, but it does make up for some of the film’s flaws, but at the same time makes the transition into the climax that much more jarring, as the final five to ten minutes of the film revert back to what made the film feel so weak, wrapping up events so quickly, it’s incredibly anti-climactic. The whole thing left me wondering, “Wait… that’s it?”

The Dark Tower series is meant to be a sprawling adventure that takes us on a long journey of vengeance, strength and redemption, all surrounded by the fight over the extinction of humanity between good and evil. This film doesn’t come close to delivering on that promise — it wants to be a grand western for a new generation, but it’s so small in scale and scope that it delivers nothing more than unfounded potential. It’s not a bad film, per se, it just doesn’t know how to live up to its source material in a way that will satisfy fans and push those who have never read the books to dive into the adventure of our lifetime.

My Grade: B

Take Our Poll

——————————————

Next week, new movies include Annabelle: Creation, The Nut Job 2: Nutty By Nature and The Glass Castle. If you would like to see a review for tone of these, or any other film out next week, please respond in the comments below.

Movie Mayhem – Atomic Blonde

There’s a lot to like about Atomic Blonde: James McAvoy draws you in with every wry smirk; Charlize Theron is magnetic as ever; and the action sequences blow away the competition. One scene in particular that bridges the second act into the third is a remarkable cinematic achievement. Filmed in one fluid uncut shot that lasts for at least ten minutes, the scene gets almost everything right, from the pace to the effects, adding in some brutal stunts and realism for good measure. By the end of this crazy ballet, Lorraine Broughton (Theron) is bruised, bloody, but most importantly (and unlike any action movie has ever done to portray their hero), winded and exhausted. It’s a scene that’s worth the price of admission. Unfortunately, that’s all this movie has going for it.

[image error]

Atomic Blonde — 2017; Directed by David Leitch; Starring Charlize Theron, James McAvoy, Sofia Boutella, Eddie Marsan, Toby Jones and John Goodman

Based on a graphic novel series, “The Coldest City” by Kurt Johnstad, Blonde takes place in Berlin during the events that led up to the fall of the Berlin wall. Why this is important isn’t quite clear, but it does have some relation to the what Lorraine is tasked to find — a watch that contains a list of covert operatives from all secret agency branches across the world. She is forced to team up with another British operative, David Percival (McAvoy), to not only retrieve the watch, but to track down a clandestine operative by the name of Scratch, a rogue agent from MI6.

At least I believe that’s the idea, since this aspect of the film is highly convoluted. There are so many characters that may or may not be good, who may or may not be a double agent, and who may or may not double- or triple-cross someone over the course of the movie, that the confusion of it all hinders your ability to feel fully engaged with what’s happening and makes the entire film feel uncharacteristically flat. Director David Leitch tries to make up for this by adding stylized titles, set pieces and violence, but in this case, style definitely can’t overcome the lack of substance.

One of the best aspects of the film lies in the chemistry between Theron and McAvoy. Their relationship has a spark that never ignites, but smolders like a water ready to boil. Every time they’re together, you’re invested in the moment, and the way McAvoy is able to mesmerize even when the scene fails to ignite is a testament to his ability as an actor. McAvoy can make the mundane feel like a day at an amusement park. Which is why it was incredibly unsatisfying to see him sidelined so often. I know this is Theron’s movie, and I get why his character is a bit more shadowed, but it leaves so much to be desired when he’s not on screen.

As for Theron, she does exactly what she was hired for — look tough, act sexy and kick some ass while doing it. But that isn’t enough to sustain a two-hour film. She needs a tight script to back her up and she just doesn’t have that here. The entire film feels so loose that you could throw in a scene of her having an affair with a female French operative and… oh wait. That does happen. Why exactly? I could understand if it made sense at all to what was happening (or as to where the film takes you at the end), but for whatever reason, the whole story line seems tacked on for no other reason than to add in some fleshy same-sex lovin’ to titillate the guys in the crowd. One problem: Theron and Sofia Boutella play together like cousins doing something naughty in the bathroom during a family get together. That is to say, nothing against Boutella, but she and Theron have no chemistry together, at least in comparison to Theron and McAvoy.

All of this is tied together through a story thread that finds Lorraine in a debriefing after the events described in the movie have taken place. Toby Jones plays the main operative, Eric Gray, who assigned Lorraine the job (along with his cohort, Cheif ‘C’ (James Faulkner), who sits quietly behind the glass during the debrief in an interrogation room). He along with CIA operative Emmett Kurzfeld (John Goodman) do a nice job bantering back and forth with everyone in the room and play the comedy well. I also like the fact that because the events are being dictated by Lorraine, that it’s hard to know whether she’s a trustworthy witness.

However, by structuring the film around Lorraine telling the story of what happened as we watch the events unfold adds a little discrepancy to some of the scenes that we’re given. In more than one instance, we’re shown something Lorraine couldn’t possibly have known about, at least at the time it is shown in the film, which make these scenes seem somewhat out of place. Some would make sense if they were edited into the movie at a later point, but when we see one of the villains beating down a bunch of kids in an abandoned werehouse, you have to wonder two things: How did Lorraine know about this incident, and 2) why is it important?

That last question is probably the most imperative question, since you may have already noticed, it arises more often than not, and not only in the action on screen. Much like Baby Driver a few weeks ago, music is very important to this film, at least in Leitch’s mind. But is it important to the film itself? In Baby Driver, the music had a purpose; here, it feels like they threw it in because it sounded cool on paper. For the most part, it works, and adds a little substance to what’s happening, but had the intentional use of it been stripped from the film, it wouldn’t have hurt it in any major way. I wanted to like this movie, and as I said at the top, there is a lot to like; but in the end, the film just fell too flat and felt to messy for my taste. Maybe if I watch it again after knowing the final twists, I might catch some of the nuance that leads up to it, but I shouldn’t have to; I should want to, and in that regard, I’m not sure I do.

My Grade: B

Take Our Poll

——————————————

Next week, new movies include The Dark Tower, Detroit and Kidnap. If you would like to see a review for tone of these, or any other film out next week, please respond in the comments below.

Movie Mayhem – Dunkirk

Over the last couple of decades, Christopher Nolan has become one of the most unique directors in the industry. As aging stalwarts like Steven Spielberg, Robert Zemeckis, and Ron Howard have shown some creative fatigue, so-to-speak, Nolan’s river of inventiveness continues to flow through original stories heightened by ingenuity, incredible acting and mind-bending ideas that never fail to capture your imagination. Having Nolan’s name on a film all but guarantees quality — there’s a high level of excitement in seeing what’s next. So you can understand how much it pains me to say that with Dunkirk, Nolan’s new World War II drama, Nolan seems to have finally shown some cracks in his prolific armor.

[image error]

Dunkirk; 2017 — Directed by Christopher Nolan; Starring Fionn Whitehead, Damien Bonnard, Mark Rylance, Barry Keoghan, Tom Hardy and Kenneth Branagh.

It’s hard to put my finger on where the cracks originated, but it may have to do with Nolan tackling a true story for the first time, which limits his ability to create his own world unaffected by anything but his own imagination. By choosing to tell the story of one of the most highly-publicized retreats (and rescues) of the British and French, Nolan has trapped himself into a box that he tries hard to break free of by drafting a script that scrambles the events in a unique way. However, by doing so, Nolan sacrifices a chance to dive head deep into the heartbreaking emotion that underscores the frightening moments of men who could only be classified as target practice for the Germans on the shores of Dunkirk.

Nolan divides the script into three separate story lines that take place in different measures of time.

Story thread #1 follows Tommy (Fionn Whitehead), a young soldier who does everything in his power to escape the beach, including aligning himself with a French soldier (Damien Bonnard), who ends up causing tempers to flair, even after he saves multiple lives from certain death. At the same time, we meet Commander Bolton (Kenneth Branagh), who spends all of his screen time on the major pier stressing over every decision as he does what he can to rescue all of his men. All of the actors, including Harry Styles as a fellow soldier, give great performances, but we’re never allowed enough time with any of them to feel the fear coursing their veins, so when certain events happen, that’s all they are — moments in history, nothing more.

Story thread #2 involves the British Empire’s attempt to send civilians to Dunkirk to help in the evacuations. The main focus is on Mr. Dawson (Mark Rylance), an ornery old man who disembarks before given a Navy escort that might hinder his decisions while on the ocean. He’s joined by his son, Peter (Tom Glynn-Carney), and another teenage boy, George (Barry Keoghan), a character who’s relationship to Dawson and Peter is never established. Dawson’s eldest son has already died in the war, and Rylance does an outstanding job of conveying his grief over that event, his experience in war and as a sailor, as well as his ability to empathize with the soldiers, which carries his determination in guaranteeing his son’s death wouldn’t be in vain.

One of his first acts is rescuing a soldier (Cillian Murphy) stranded on a floating piece of metal in the middle of the ocean. His shock and fear of having to return to Dunkirk leads him to do things against his character. At least that’s what we’re supposed to believe, but other than being part of the battle, we don’t really know why this character is so shell-shocked, especially since we never see much of any battle that would warrant his response. Once again, Murphy does a terrific job with the character, but without context, I couldn’t truly connect with him in the way I believed I should.

Story thread #3 flies high with a trio of pilots that save lives by getting rid of the German pilots that are bombing both the beaches and the rescue ships. The major problem here is that we never see these characters outside of the plane, or without their flight masks (at least in the first hour of the movie), so each pilot is nearly indistinguishable from the others, and because of the way the Nolan constructed the film, their story (and their place within the overall narrative) becomes extraordinarily confusing.

Any one of these stories would have made for an excellent film all their own, and probably would have helped us connect with the characters on a deeper level. Because of the editing style, and how Nolan seems to be attempting to out-Rashamon Rashamon, we’re jostled from one story to the next, inadvertently causing the events to become off-putting or disconnected. For example, when an altercation occurs between George and Murphy’s soldier, the consequences fall flat because we haven’t had the time to absorb their characters enough to care about what happens.

I think what hinders the film most is the time frames from which all of the different stories take place: Story 1 essentially takes place over a week, though we only see approximately two full days; story 2 takes place over the course of a day; and story 3 takes place over an hour. When we see events from one story occurring in another, it’s meant to be an incredible a-ha moment or a visual way to help us navigate the chaos, but all it really does is force us to figure out where the event happened, keeping us from staying bonded to the depth and emotional beats of the characters. As the stories finally converge into the same moment of time, the power of heroism of each specific character is washed away because of the lack of investment.

Now let me be clear: Dunkirk is nowhere near a bad film. I’ve already praised all of the performances, the cinematography is gritty and unpleasant, the action sequences are intense and the sound is amazing. Nolan is also able to capture the complexities of what that moment of time probably felt like to those involved, and his style gives you a real sense of confusion and madness that makes war what it is and the fact that, unless you’ve lived it, there’s no way you can understand what these soldiers actually went through. But by focusing on this as opposed to building characters we could become invested in, none of it works as well as I thought it should.

My Grade: B+

Take Our Poll

——————————————

Next week, new movies include Atomic Blonde and The Emoji Movie. If you would like to see a review for tone of these, or any other film out next week, please respond in the comments below.

Movie Mayhem – War for the Planet of the Apes

One of the biggest twists in film history is at the end of the original 1968 classic, Planet of the Apes, when Charlton Heston’s George Taylor discovers that he was on Earth the entire time after coming upon the broken, worn Statue of Liberty. Not so long ago, Twentieth Century Fox planted the seeds of that iconic reveal for the basis of what can only be deemed a modern classic, Rise of the Planet of the Apes, creating an origin story that allowed for the natural birth of a more intelligent ape species that also led to a devastating virus that eventually wiped out the majority of the human population, all while delivering a realistic vision of apes through motion capture technology and performances that generated true emotion. Six years later, the geniuses at Weta Digital continue to use these great performances to create their own fully-realized characters in War for the Planet of the Apes, the third chapter in the rebooted franchise.

[image error]

War for the Planet of the Apes — 2017; Directed by Matt Reeves; Starring Andy Serkis, Woody Harrelson, Steve Zahn and Amiah Miller

The guys toiling away countless hours behind a computer aren’t the only ones who deserve credit, mind you. Director Matt Reeves (who co-wrote the script with Mark Bomback) envisions a rich and vibrant world that never comes across as disingenuous. Even though the story is about a society of apes taking over the planet from humans, you truly feel for the plight of the apes and what they’ve had to endure since the rise of their IQs. This is mostly due to the fact that the apes really didn’t have anything to do with what happened to humans. The simian flu virus that wiped out the population was created by humans in a vain attempt to play God. The apes, led by the original test subject, Caesar (Andy Serkis), only want to coexist with their human counterparts.

But now a new threat to human civilization looms. The simian flu, which as we’re told basically still lives dormant in the immune, has found a way to evolve and is now attacking humans by stripping them of their ability to speak. The Colonel (Woody Harrelson), a merciless army colonel, believes the only humane way to stop this new mutation from spreading and turning everyone into speechless animals is by killing those who get infected and burn all of their possessions. Other human factions have a different opinion, believing they can stop the spread of the new virus through science. The two sides are in the midst of war with one another at the same time they continue to fight the imagined threat coming from the apes.

The real credit for the success of this new trilogy, though, must go to Serkis, who imbues Caesar with such torturous conflict. Because Caesar was raised by a human, he cares for them and doesn’t want to see anyone die, especially his own kind. He’s heartbroken for having to fight his own to prove his willingness to cohabitate, but most humans still don’t understand, or care. So when the Colonel kills Caesar’s wife and child during a raid of the apes’s home, he transforms from the peaceful patriarch to the vengeful monster the Colonel believes him to be. But his true self remains buried beneath the anger and hatred, and Serkis conveys every crack and every painful decision with aplomb, drawing genuine sympathy out of his pursuit of vengeance. He understands what he’s doing his wrong, but he can’t help himself, and that conflict shines through, even under the computer animated costumes.

Just as Caesar led the Apes as a peaceful warrior, Serkis encourages the other actors to follow his lead in delivering outstanding performances. Sara Canning does a terrific job as Lake, the girlfriend of Caesar’s eldest son, Luca (Michael Adamthwaite), showcasing a strong will and a broken heart all at once. She helps Caesar grow strong when he’s at his weakest and doesn’t show an ounce of weakness, despite the circumstances they’re forced to endure. When Caesar heads off to kill the Colonel for what he did, a few of his closest friends and protectors join him, including Maurice (Karin Konoval), the orangutan who helped Caesar rise up against both his abusive captors and become alpha among his own kind. When the group crosses paths with a young girl (Amiah Miller) afflicted with the new virus, the kindness and compassion he shows for her is overwhelming.

Relative newcomer Miller also does a wonderful job as the girl. With just one silent look, she does more than Isabela Moner did in the entirety of Transformers: The Last Knight, and her character has a purpose. It’s not anything huge or monumental, but just her being there allows Caesar to fight to remain true to who he is and what his legacy will become. But as I’m sure most people will say, the best new character is a small, skinny ape who calls himself “bad ape” because the people who abused him while part of a zoo continually said that to him. Bad ape is played with ridiculous flair by the master of ridiculous flair, Steve Zahn, and he’s able to provide the overall dour film with a spark of life and humanity, not to mention a slew of comic-relief that doesn’t feel forced or out of place.

Another nice addition is the subtle nods to the original 1968 film, as we meet the younger versions of a couple of very important characters who could very well carry the mantle in future Planet of the Apes sequels. What Reeves does well is bring these connections to light without shoving them in your face. If you’re a fan of the original, you’ll understand the references; if not, they don’t appear to be all that important. If there was a flaw in the film, it would be that the film wraps everything up a little too easily. But I like the soft nod to The Great Escape that occurs in the third act, and everything that leads up to it is a soft meditation on the ramifications of going against nature.

Though I’m sure this won’t be the last we see of the Planet of the Apes franchise, War for the Planet of the Apes was a fitting end to this particular trilogy and a nice bridge from where James Franco started to when Charlton Heston crash lands on an unusual world ruled by apes who keep speechless humans in cages.

My Grade: A

Take Our Poll

——————————————

Next week, new movies include Dinkirk, Girls Trip and Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets. If you would like to see a review for tone of these, or any other film out next week, please respond in the comments below.

Movie Mayhem – Spider-Man: Homecoming

Before we begin, I would like to report that Michael Keaton has ditched his old DC stomping grounds to sail the high seas in the SS Marvel, once again donning wings, this time as a desperate father who leaves his day job as a construction clean-up foreman to become a bird man who collects alien tech so he can sell custom-made weapons to spite the heroes who all but took his livelihood.

This semi-meta description lays the foundation for what Spider-Man: Homecoming, the newest entry to the unstoppable Marvel Universe, does so well. Sony made a wise decision when they chose to share custody of one of the most famous Marvel Comic characters, allowing him to become part of one of the most lucrative and beloved film franchises in history. As a non-origin origin story, the two producing titans offer up a fun, inventive story with a set of brand new characters that hold their own against the ones we know and love.

[image error]

Spider-Man: Homecoming — 2017; Directed by Jon Watts; Starring Tom Holland, Robert Downey, Jr., Michael Keaton, Marisa Tomei, Jacob Batalon, Jon Favreau and Laura Harrier

We’re all aware of Spider-Man’s origin story: Peter Parker (Tom Holland) is bitten by a radioactive spider, gifting him with the abilities of a spider (with maybe a little cockroach thrown in for good measure), which he uses to fight crime and avenge the death of his uncle Ben. After two big screen iterations, we don’t need to see that again, and since this film takes place after the events of Captain-America: Civil War, the producers have made the wise decision to leave that backstory on the cutting-room floor, choosing only to mention it briefly in passing. (In fact, I don’t believe Uncle Ben was ever even mentioned, which begs the question — does he even exist in this universe?)

Instead of making the film the origins of a hero, they turn it into a coming-of-age origin story of a high-spirited kid finding his place in the world, both as a mature teen and a responsible superhero. The film begins on a high note, showcasing clips of a video diary from Peter’s trip to fight alongside Tony Stark (Robert Downey, Jr.) against Captain America (Chris Evans). Peter’s reactions of joy, excitement and awe of this event continues throughout the film, keeping you emotionally invested in Peter’s journey — the more fun he has finding his way, the more fun we have watching him evolve into what he will eventually become.

Of course, jumping into a major Avengers battle as part of your first major conflict would make anyone jones for the opportunity to do it again. Being the friendly neighborhood Spider-Man just doesn’t cut it when there’s so much action to be had out there. This drive for more is eventually what leads him into trouble, stumbling upon a gang of thugs robbing ATMs with some very high-tech (and alien) weaponry. He does what he can to report the weaponry to Tony Stark (or his Avengers liaison, Happy (Jon Favreau), who finds Peter a little too annoying for his own good), but when he continues to get the brush off, Peter takes matters into his own hands.

It’s ironic then, that almost every incident Peter must rescue people from is an incident of his own making. Because he’s still young and inexperienced, his attempts at locating the mastermind behind these dangerous weapons puts everyone around him in more danger than they probably would have been had he left things alone. Peter, thus, is basically going around cleaning up his own messes, which is exactly what father figure Tony Stark (who saw the same situation happen to him after inadvertently creating Ultron) was trying to keep Peter from falling into. It’s also why Tony sets so many parameters on Peter’s suit — he sees the young enthusiasm and knows it will take time and patience for Peter to become mature enough to handle the complexities of being a superhero on the same level of the Avengers.

There’s so much to like about this new iteration of Spider-Man beyond its core. From the little we see of her, I can’t wait to see what Marvel über-president Kevin Feige has in store for Marisa Tomei’s Aunt May, and Zendaya delivers a ton of charisma in the laid-back, subtle role of Michelle, one of Peter’s non-conformist decathlon teammates. She may not have a lot of screen time, but she uses every second to display the perfect amount of gravitas that you don’t ever want to cut away from her. But it’s newcomer Jacob Batalon as Peter’s best friend, Ned, who brings the spirit and love of Spider-Man to life. This duo puts the whole film in perspective and glues the conflicting sides of Peter Parker together. Because Ned learns about Peter’s secret early on, he spends the majority of the film hounding his friend about his abilities, the Avengers and trying to worm his way onto the team by being Peter’s “guy in the chair,” all of which show the immature high-school side of the film while balancing the growth of Peter’s abilities.

The weakest character — and aspect of the film — is Liz (Laura Harrier), Peter’s would-be love interest. The chemistry between Holland and Harrier was nearly non-existent, and I’m not quite sure the series of writers knew what to do with her beyond being the typical damsel-in-distress whom Peter continually disappoints. Then again, she does play a role in the final act twist, which does make her important… but not really. Though the twist was an interesting one, the revelations that come of it could have been handled differently. It’s a good thing Liz wasn’t a major part of the film, otherwise it could have dragged the film down.

Luckily, Michael Keaton makes up for this small misstep. I can’t say he adds any real depth to the character of Adrian Toomes, aka Vulture, and he’s nowhere near the same level of villain as someone like Loki, but his presence on screen is as electric as ever. He walks with a confidence that he and only he matters, but gives us a reason to both like and fear him, earning respect and a place as more than a typical paint-by-numbers Marvel villain.

Overall, Spider-Man: Homecoming does almost everything right. It delivers on the same level of warmth, action, surreal, comedic and emotional level as every other Marvel Universe film before it, but adds a little something of its own, leading to a terrific end-credit scene that is a little bit meta but holds true to the films spirit while connecting it to the film in a fun, creative way. What else could you ask for in a film, much less a superhero film? Not much. Spider-Man: Homecoming is, by all intents and purposes, as good as it gets and though the year is only half over, has made a strong argument for being the best film of the year.

My Grade: A

Take Our Poll

——————————————

Next week, new movies include War for the Planet of the Apes and Wish Upon. If you would like to see a review for tone of these, or any other film out next week, please respond in the comments below.

Transformers – The Last Knight

Ah, Transformers. Love the franchise or hate it, there’s something to be said about mindless action that provides a sense of levity. I’m not going to lie, the Transformers films aren’t perfect by any means; in fact, looking at them through the lens of a critic, most of them are downright awful. But Michael Bay couldn’t care less about what you think, and that’s what makes them so much fun. There are some films you can tell right off the bat everyone involved is making the film for nothing more than the paycheck, or don’t understand the nature of the product they’re delivering. Neither can be said for Bay (or Mark Wahlberg, for that matter), who knows what he likes and puts every last ounce of that passion into these silly movies about alien robots and their love/hate relationship with Earth and the humans who occupy it.

[image error]

Transformers: The Last Knight — Directed by Michael Bay; Starring Mark Wahlberg, Anthony Hopkins, Laura Haddock, Isabela Moner, Josh Duhamel and John Turturro.

Transformers: The Last Knight expands heavily on the franchise mythology Bay has set up throughout the previous four films, sending us back to the dark ages with a brief “history” lesson behind the myth of Lancelot (Martin McCreadie), Merlin (Stanley Tucci, returning for his second film in the franchise, evidently for no other reason than to be in it), and how the transformers are connected to King Arthur and the knights of the round table. This information sets up the two main plot lines of the film, the first of which deals with Optimus Prime (voice of Peter Cullen).

After leaving Earth at the end of the last film, Optimus returns to his home planet of Cybertron and meets Quintessa (Gemma Chan), a mystical robot who claims to be the creator of the Autobots. She needs Optimus to retrieve a staff given to Merlin so that she can use it to destroy Earth and revive Cybertron. I won’t spoil it here, but the reasons behind wanting to destroy Earth expands on the mythology in a fun way that could lead the franchise in a couple of different directions.

The second plot line revolves around our resilient inventor, Cade Yeager (Wahlberg). Much like Zack Snyder did in the DC Comics universe, the destruction of Chicago that Cade was involved in has not been forgotten. In fact, it has led the government to quarantine the entire city, deem all transformers enemies of the state regardless of whether they helped save the world, and create a brand new task force, the TRF, to take them all down before the same can happen anywhere else. Cade is also in hiding, marked as a wanted man for aiding and abetting the Autobots. Doing his best to protect those he knows are heroes, Cade roams the states for other Autobots who may need a helping hand.

On one such mission back to the quarantine zone, Cade is unwillingly bestowed a relic that clings to him and, when the going gets rough, protects him from harm. This comes in handy when the TRF track Cade back to his junkyard hideaway, where he lives with some of his old Autobot friends (and a few pet dinobots). He eventually escapes, thanks to Sir Edmund Burton (Anthony Hopkins), a mysterious old man who knows quite a lot about the history of transformers on Earth. He brings Cade together with academic/love interest/Megan Fox replacement Vivian Wembley (Laura Haddock), who, it turns out, is the last of Merlin’s bloodline, something that becomes of great importance in keeping Megatron from destroying the Earth (at least, until the next film, when he devises another plan to do so).

Now if you’ve seen any of the trailers (especially this one in particular) you may be wondering why I’m halfway through this review and have yet to mention twelve-year-old Izabella (Isabela Moner). There’s a reason for that — no matter how much the marketing department wanted to make this girl seem important to the film, she’s not. I mean, she’s so inconsequential to anything happening in the film, with just a couple of tweaks, you could remove her entirely without skipping a beat. I kept waiting for her to live up to the hype, or be put in a situation where only she could do something to save the mission, but it never came. Moner isn’t a bad actress, and she holds her own against her other famous counterparts, but she’s nothing but dead weight, a cheap surrogate for Cade’s daughter, who’s conveniently “away at college” while her father places the weight of the world on his shoulders.

She’s not the only inconsequential character that Bay shoehorns into this movie either. Cade has a new recruit, Jimmy (Jerrod Carmichael), who was brought on to, I don’t know, offer some comic relief where there is already plenty to be had? Much like Izabella, he doesn’t do anything of major importance and you probably wouldn’t have missed him had he been excised completely.

Bay also brings back a couple of familiar faces. The first is Josh Duhamel, returning to the franchise after sitting out the last film. His character, Lennox, has joined forces with the TRF, even though he knows not all transformers are inherently evil. Though it was nice to see him again, he isn’t given a whole lot to do. The other is John Turturro as former Agent Simmons, who if I’m not mistaken, is the only actor (aside from a couple of voice actors) to have appeared in all five Transformers films. Simmons has exiled himself to Cuba where the transformers can live freely. The funny thing is, though he spends the entirety of his screen time doing everything he can to worm his way into the plot, once he does, he heads off to the beach to never be heard from again.

I know what you’re thinking. With all of this negativity, how could I possibly like the film? The question is valid, and I could go on and on about the contrivance of several plot points, how easily some events get resolved, and the confusion behind how Bumblebee is able to use his actual voice in a key sequence. But the bottom line is, whatever the reason, I genuinely enjoy the mythology Bay has set up in these movies. It’s been said that this will be the last time Bay directs a Transformers movie, and if that’s true, I have to wonder if the director who is given the reigns for the next chapter will continue to provide the same campy tone, bring something new and fresh to the series that will elevate it above the numbing mindlessness, or kill the fun because they aren’t sure what they’ve gotten themselves into. Whatever the case may be, this final Bay product lives up to the brand and does nothing more than what it sets out to do — whisk you away into another world for a couple of hours and entertain. And in my book, there’s nothing wrong with that.

My Grade: A

Take Our Poll

——————————————

Next week, new movies include Despicable Me 3, The House and Baby Driver. If you would like to see a review for tone of these, or any other film out next week, please respond in the comments below.