Bryan Caron's Blog, page 6
August 25, 2019
Movie Mayhem – August Movie Roundup
For three weeks at the end of July/early August, there were a whopping three (count them – 3!) wide releases in theaters. How do the studios make up for that? Release 13 films over the next three weeks! To honor the glut of riches at the movieplexes, here are some quick reviews for all of the films I’ve seen in the last two weeks. Enjoy!
Good Boys
The best films that rely on extreme, raunchy behavior start with a strong, heartfelt center. Without that, all you’re left with is a series of gross-out shenanigans with no meat. Good Boys tries so very hard to find the heart behind its tween-kids-gone-bad premise, but when it comes down to it, the only thing the film really has going for it is witnessing a group of loud pre-teen kids watch porn, steal beer, and cause accidents while attempting to retrieve a drone so they can go to a popular kid’s kissing party. Brady Noon and Keith L. Williams are fine in their respective roles (and do produce some funny moments), but Jacob Tremblay is the glue that holds the whole thing together. Without him, the film would simply be obnoxious kids screaming all of their lines while doing things kids shouldn’t be doing. The film is fun, but is that enough to make it worthwhile? I’ll let you be the judge. B+
The Kitchen
Based on a comic book series of the same name, The Kitchen follows the wives of three criminals rise through the ranks of the Italian mob in 1970s Hells Kitchen after their husbands land in prison. The leader of the pack, Kathy (Melissa McCarthy), takes the reigns despite not having the guts to do what’s necessary. That job goes to Ruby (Tiffany Haddish), who passive-aggressively controls the complications the girls find there way into. Both of these characters remain quite stagnant throughout the film and don’t truly evolve as characters. That honor goes to Claire (Elisabeth Moss), who transforms from being incredibly docile to the strongest of the three women, especially after she falls for Gabriel (Domhnall Gleeson). It’s a shame her performance is overshadowed by predictability and lack of balance between gritty crime noir and girl-power machismo. B
Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark
I’ve never read the novel that Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark is based on, so I have no comparison for the film, which I think worked in my favor. Guillermo Del Toro is a master of creepy things that go bump in the night, and as co-writer (along with Dan and Kevin Hageman) and producer of Stories, his signature style is all over the film. It’s too bad he didn’t also direct the film, as André Ovredal doesn’t seem to capture the creepiness the film deserves. When Stella (Zoe Margaret Colletti) and her friends visit an abandoned home, she steals a book of stories written by one of the old residents, who has a typical horror-movie backstory. Suddenly, everyone who was in the home at the time of the burglary begins to perish as the woman (Kathleen Pollard) writes her scary stories about them. The story flows naturally from one death to the next, but like the scene where spiders burst from a girls cheek, the power of the ideas doesn’t quite match the execution. A-
Blinded By the Light
Blinded By the Light is a sweet love letter, both for Bruce Springsteen and for romantic coming-of-age stories. Javed (Viveik Kalra) is a young man who’s lost in his own world. All he wants to do is write, but his domineering father (Kulvinder Ghir) keeps him from doing anything that goes against supporting their family, who, as Pakistani’s in 1980s Great Britain, feel out of place and ridiculed for no other reason than because they’re different and misunderstood. When Javed is introduced to the song styles of Springsteen, his whole world is transformed as he finds the courage to live the dream he’s always wanted. The performances are excellent and the story is told with wonderful nuance, with several layers of love (from that of a first date to that of family responsibility) defining the process of finding the confidence one needs to live happily ever after. A
Overcomer
Faith-based movies aren’t known for their professional acting due to the fact that a lot of them, especially those written and/or directed by Alex Kendrick, use a lot community volunteers. This is an awesome aspect to these films and for the most part, it doesn’t usually affect my enjoyment of the film because the message is strong enough to counter the inexperience. Unlike films like Courageous and Fireproof, however, this isn’t quite as true for Overcomer. Though there were some good performances, especially from Cameron Arnett as an older blind man fighting for his life against diabetes in the hospital, and some other terrific moments that really hit your core, what Kendrick is trying to say here isn’t as strong as those aforementioned films, mostly because the script is a little all over the place, wherein plot points and character traits, such as Aryn-Wright Thompson’s tendency for kleptomania, aren’t developed enough to warrant the power of the message. In other words, Overcomer, while a good effort, just can’t seem to sustain energy in the way other faith-based films have been able to accomplish. B+
Ready or Not
Every year, there are a handful of movies that surprise you. When I first saw the trailer for Ready or Not, I thought it was interesting but didn’t strike me as a must-see. The more I saw the trailer, though, the more I was eager to see it. Then I saw the film and was hooked by its tenacity. The film is pretty standard horror fare on the surface, but it finds a way to rise above the familiar tropes because of the terrific performances of the cast, each of whom create a very unique character that blend perfectly into a mess of a family unit as they chase down the new bride (Samara Weaving) of their youngest son (Mark O’Brien) to sacrifice her to their dear-old great- grandfather. What clinches the film as one that will be remembered is the climax, which is both infuriating and pleasantly surprising, all rolled into a grotesquely disturbing bit of hysterical absurdity. A
47 Meters Down: Uncaged
A sequel in name only, 47 Meters Down: Uncaged doubles down on the females in peril and strips it of any character. Though, as the title suggests, there is no cage from which the girls are trapped, it can be argued that the characters are trapped in a different type of cage—a series of flooded, interconnected tunnels. What this does is beg the question: where are all of these sharks coming from? We know by several close encounters that the sharks can’t fit through the tunnels, and yet they keep showing up to chase Mia (Sophie Nélisse) and her friends as they try to find there way to the surface after choosing to go spelunking instead of on a great white shark tour. There is nothing to distinguish the characters from one another, so by the time the predictable third act comes around, it’s hard to care whether the survivors make it out or become just another piece of chum. B-
There are still a couple of movies out there (Angel Has Fallen and The Angry Birds Movie 2) that I’ll catch up with next week, along with yet another crop of films, including Don’t Let Go. If you would like to see a review of these or any other film out next week, please let me know in the comments below.
August 11, 2019
Movie Mayhem – Brian Banks
All you can control in life is how you respond to life.
Jerome Johnson (Morgan Freeman), from the film Brian Banks
The quote isn’t just a powerful message for the new inspirational sports drama, Brian Banks, but relates, on a much smaller scale, very well to this very review. Upon finishing my first draft, something happened and the entire review was wiped from existence. Like anyone else, I was angry at myself for not saving, and was angry at WordPress for not auto-saving and acting weird. The easy thing to do would have been to give up on the review altogether. Instead, I took a deep breath, recollected my thoughts and started anew. This has nothing on the major incidents of the film itself, however, it’s still relevant to the importance this movie’s overall message means for true happiness in life.
In this day in age, it’s hard to have a respectful debate when it comes to political topics. One side or the other is eventually going to call the other a racist or give up and walk off in an angry huff. It’s why I don’t like to discuss politics often; it’s exhausting and in most cases pointless when you know the other side of the debate will never have an open mind and relies on emotion to make their argument. I hate that the film is making me get political in my review, but it’s a film everyone should see, as it takes a respectful approach to a very sensitive topic.
Brian Banks (Aldis Hodge) was a victim of the #MeToo movement before it was even a thing. A high school football star with a booming career path that would eventually land him in the NFL, Brian’s dream vanished when a fellow student (Xosha Roquemore) accused him of rape. After being somewhat railroaded into copping a plea by the judicial system, Banks spent six years in prison and another five on probation. After a new law forces him to wear an ankle monitor that keeps him from playing football, Banks goes to Justin Brooks (Greg Kinnear) at the California Innocence Project to help clear his name before his probation expires and he becomes a registered sex offender for life.
Director Tom Shadyac conveys both the issues plaguing the justice system and they way in which society handles these types of accusations in a way that doesn’t demonize anyone. Yes, the girl is set up to be the villain for ruining this young man’s life, and his lawyer and the judge did not help matters at all, however, by focusing on the idea that life isn’t always sunshine and rainbows, and it’s the way you deal with life when bad things happen that make you happy, Shadyac strays away from vilifying those people and those systems. The girl was young and naive, and things got out of control. It should never have happened, but it did.
As the #MeToo movement began to grow steam, innocence seemed to became a lot less important in the mind of the public at large. Society was forced to believe that someone was guilty until proven innocent instead of innocent until proven guilty, which is not how the justice system was created. No one should ever take someone’s accusations for granted, especially when it comes to sexual misconduct and assault, however, we also cannot demonize someone without evidence.
Banks was considered guilty by everyone involved without any evidence to prove it. And because no one wanted to fight for him, he became a victim of the system, wherein innocent people are found guilty and guilty people walk free. It’s not perfect, but when we, as a society, begin to believe that everyone is automatically guilty no matter what the facts may prove otherwise, that’s when justice becomes nonexistent.
Shadyac takes time out in the film to look at the other side of the coin by introducing a character (Melanie Liburd) that was a victim of rape but was ignored by everyone. It’s a great juxtaposition for what happened with Banks, though I do wish Shadyac could have found a way to explore this side of the argument more deeply. We’re told about the incident and then it’s washed into the background without much fanfare, which does the message of the film a slight disservice.
What solidifies the message are the actors themselves. Hodge does a fantastic job as Banks, showing us his deep-rooted anger toward the girl who ruined his career as well as his strength in using the words of his mentor in prison (an uncredited Morgan Freeman) to see the positive in his situation, let his anger go and continue to move forward, despite his circumstances. Happiness starts in the mind.
Greg Kinnear is no stranger to inspirational true stories, and why should he be? He’s great in them. He doesn’t disappoint in Brian Banks as the founder of the California Innocence Project, who continually pushes Banks away because he knows the case is going to lose in court due to lack of new evidence. With Banks’s tenacity and the drive from his team, though, he eventually turns his thinking around and does what he can to find a way to give Banks back his dreams.
It’s easy for us as people to vilify someone for doing something so egregious to another human being. However, doing so without any evidence is just as egregious. There are plenty of real victims of rape, sexual misconduct and assault that are ignored, but there are also plenty of people who are victims of lies and deceit. Not all people are honest, good people; not even those who claim to be victims. It’s hard to know when someone is telling the truth or lying in situations like these, and until we all embrace the idea of innocent until proven guilty, the justice system we so deeply want to put our faith into will never be fixed. As a society, we need to do better; we need to listen, but also keep an open mind.
Until that happens, we will never be free.
My Grade: A
Bonus Reviews:
I’m sure that if you’ve watched, or are a fan of, the television series, Dora and the Lost City of Gold would make much more sense; but to the laymen who has never seen the show, this live-action adaptation seems more a muddled mess, unsure of what it truly wants to be — a grounded version of a cartoon, or a cartoon come to life. B
Based on the type of film The Art of Racing In the Rain is, we all know the dog isn’t going to make it out of it alive, so it was odd to see the lead up to this incident in the first five minutes. However, if this makes you think you won’t need plenty of tissues by the end, you’d be sorely mistaken as the film takes a much different turn than you might expect. A
Next week, new movies include 47 Meters Down: Uncaged, Good Boys, Where’d You Go, Bernadette and Blinded By the Light. If you would like to see a review for one of these, or any other film out next week, please respond in the comments below.
August 4, 2019
Movie Mayhem – Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw
You can parachute cars out of a plane; you can have a chase sequence between a slew of supercharged cars and a submarine in an icy tundra; you can jump a sports car from one hundred-story tower to another; you can have a guy rip the cast off his arm with his bare hand; heck, you can even defy gravity to save someone’s life and no one would expect anything less. But introduce your audience to a transforming, self-driving motorcycle and you’ve suddenly gone too far.
Suspension of disbelief is a tricky thing. There are certain expectations that come along with being able to set reality aside and enjoy whatever is being thrown at you. Ever since The Fast and the Furious franchise veered off from centering around fast cars and hot women to becoming what amounts to an international spy series, you’d think the whole thing would have broke down on the side of the highway. Fact is, the franchise only became better as it became more and more absurd.
It only makes sense, then, that as the franchise grows more popular, producers would want to milk it for all its worth. Best way to do that? Spin characters off into their own wild and crazy franchises. The first choice, Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs & Shaw, is the smartest choice, as it highlights two very bankable stars (and fan favorites since their respective introductions into the franchise) in an effort to see if this type of offshoot will work.
Luke Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) is an agent with a branch of the U.S. government who’s occasionally tasked with breaking some heads to retrieve intelligence from the bad guys while taking care of his young daughter (Eliana Sua). Deckard Shaw (Jason Statham) is some sort of secret operative who’s occasionally tasked with breaking heads to retrieve intelligence from the bad guys while looking after his mother (Helen Mirren) in prison.
After a raid to secure a deadly virus goes wrong, MI6 agent Hattie (Vanessa Kirby) injects the virus to keep it out of the hands of Brixton (Idris Elba), a former MI6 agent who has been upgraded with cybernetic body parts for a company who want to eradicate all of the “weak” from the Earth. Hobbs and Shaw are recruited to find Hattie and retrieve the virus before it becomes active and infects the entire world.
As per usual, the macho egos get in the way of them actually working together until their individual investigations collide, forcing them to work as a team alongside Hattie to save the world. If it sounds familiar, it should—it’s almost identical to what happens between the pair in The Fate of the Furious.
What makes the two characters likable as a pair is the bromance brewing under their constant bickering and occasional fist fight. They hate and respect each other at the same time. It’s a fun dichotomy that worked extremely well in the Fast films. What’s the catch? It worked well among the ensemble of the Fast films.
We’ve seen time and time again producers trying to capitalize on popular characters by spinning them off into their own films, only to find that those characters aren’t quite the same on their own. Whether it be Captain Jack Sparrow or the minions, too much of a good thing becomes repetitive and labored.
By the halfway mark, you realize the reason Hobbs and Shaw worked so well in the Fast franchise is because they are surrounded by a larger ensemble that play perfectly off one another and balance their partnership with stability and nuance. Without this additional chemistry, the interplay between the two characters simply becomes tiresome with no relief from the constant squabbling.
This, I believe, is the same reason the absurdity goes beyond its limit as well. As an ensemble, the cast of the Fast franchise is able to subdue the silliness as a team, so that when each new film ups the ante, we’re able to go with the flow because we love the camaraderie between the characters so much. Remove that ambiance and all we’re left with is the absurdity. And though Johnson and Statham have both gotten away with making plenty of films that were full of nonsense, they can’t escape the preposterously heightened reality in Hobbs & Shaw.
If we had Vin Diesel and the whole crew fighting against Brixton and his evil conglomerate, I don’t think I would have batted an eye as Hobbs kept a helicopter from flying into the distance while holding onto a moving truck, or when a team of ex-car thieves hook several cars together by throwing chains at them while driving at top speeds. It would totally makes sense in that universe with those characters. Alone, all I saw was Johnson flexing his muscles like Captain America in Civil War and being reminded how ridiculous the idea is outside of an actual superhero film. Luke Hobbs, no matter how much we want to believe it, is not a superhero and this is not a Marvel film.
It doesn’t help that director David Leitch chooses to inter-cut several fight sequences like a mad hatter on crack. Whenever Hobbs and Shaw are separated, their fight scenes are cut together so that we bounce back-and-forth between them. What on the surface would seem to be a way to unite their prowess and styles ends up diluting the action. We’re only able to see five or ten seconds of each fight sequence at a time, so by the time we’ve settled back into one of their fights, we’re forced into the other’s again. We can’t ever get a chance to become fully invested in either, thus, we lose interest in both.
On that note, when the two characters are together, the action sequences are beautifully choreographed and fit into the Fast world quite well. Kirby is a great addition to the cast as well, and I would love to see how she plays with the cast of the main franchise in the future. As for the glorified cameos by a couple of superstars, one plays really well (but could have been utilized better) and the other feels a bit labored, as if the actor, who’s usually quite funny, seems to be trying too hard to play up his own perceived persona. I’ll let you decide which is which.
Hobbs & Shaw on paper was definitely a great idea, and for the most part, the execution of the film is right on point with the rest of the franchise. The new tech is cool (though somewhat questionable at times) and Elba brings some fantastic charm to his evil mastermind. But without the chemistry from the rest of the Fast cast to counterbalance the absurdity, I’m afraid the film falls a bit short of what makes the Fast franchise fly.
My Grade: B+
Next week, new movies include Dora and the Lost City of Gold, The Kitchen, Brian Banks, The Art of Racing in the Rain and Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark. If you would like to see a review for one of these, or any other film out next week, please respond in the comments below.
July 28, 2019
Movie Mayhem – Once Upon a Time in Hollywood
I am not much of a Quentin Tarantino fan. Of his nine films, I’ve only ever seen four of them, and by all accounts, that’s enough. Reservoir Dogs was okay, but I was not a fan of Pulp Fiction or Django Unchained. Tarantino has a very unique style, and his writing can definitely be sharp and witty, but it always felt to me that he can also be very overindulgent, an opinion that doesn’t end with Once Upon a Time in Hollywood — even as his ninth film finally breaks through as one I can actually say I enjoyed, despite having no discernible plot.
That seems to be another Tarantino staple — his films are more character studies than anything else, which I respect. But by focusing on the day of the life of several characters, where they don’t change one iota from the start of the movie to the end, the whole experience can become stale. Events happen, characters push through, the end. Nothing of significance happens.
With Hollywood, though, this idea gets subverted by a third act that takes us to a completely unexpected place. His tendency to explore a larger topic (in this case, the career trajectory of a Hollywood professional) keeps you engaged in one aspect of the film while he slowly builds the foundation for a heart-pounding sequence that shocks and awes while screaming ‘gotcha!’ in an oddly fun and interesting way.
Let’s break it down. The majority of the film takes place over the course of two days in February, 1969. Confining his events to a specific time period, whether it be a couple of days or mere hours, is another Tarantino trope that can sometimes become a detriment to the film. Here, it forces a section of the film to bridge events over a span of months, making the film feel rushed, as if they spent so much time on one thing, they couldn’t figure out how to cram in all of this other important information… even when it’s not even that important. It felt a bit lazy on Tarantino’s part.
The film itself focuses on three characters:
Rick Dalton (Leonardo DiCaprio), a former TV star who left his hit show, Bounty Law, to become a movie star and is now all but washed up, spends most of his time on set of another hit television show in which he guest stars as “the heavy”. He is going through an existential crisis as he ponders what’s next for his career and whether he should take the advice of a producer (Al Pacino) and make some films for the Italian cinema.
Cliff Booth (Brad Pitt), a former stuntman who may have evaded the law a few too many times, spends his days driving Rick around Hollywood and doing his chores. As he waits for Rick to finish filming, he takes a young, beautiful hitchhiker back to where he once spent several years working as Rick’s stunt double on Bounty Law. He learns quickly that a bunch of hippies have formed a sort of cult at the ranch. It’s none of his business (and it’s not ours, either, apparently, as Tarantino spends very little time exploring the ins-and-outs of what made the Manson Family tick); he just wants to check on his old friend (Bruce Dern).
And then there’s Sharon Tate (Margot Robbie), a young, up-and-coming movie star who married Roman Polanski (Rafal Zawierucha) and was famously killed by several members of Charles Manson’s (Damon Herriman) “family”. Sharon spends her day at the Playboy mansion and the movie theater, where she hangs out for real-time reactions from the audience while watching her first film. She doesn’t do much; she’s basically there to set up the third act.
In fact, none of them actually do much of anything. Rick gets some advice from the young star of the TV show; Cliff takes off his shirt and gets in a fight with Bruce Lee (Mike Moh); Sharon buys a book. It’s all very mundane and doesn’t move anything forward — except to seduce you into a sense of complacency.
And yet, the energy that all three of the lead actors radiate is kinetic. Each one imbues their character with so much depth with the simplest of facial expressions and body language, as well as how they interact with other people. It’s like watching a master class in subtlety. DiCaprio gives Rick a slight stutter when he’s not on set; Pitt lays back in his performance so much, he becomes his own sedative; and Robbie spreads joy with her never-ending smile. Each one of these details could have felt forced, but the way these three handle those idiosyncrasies is so natural, it becomes its own source of tranquility.
For the most part, you don’t feel the length of the film, as the performances are so good and the events are infused with just enough humor to keep your interest tethered to what’s happening, but there are moments when you do feel the weight of the over two-and-a-half hour run time. Tarantino relies heavily on several fetishes, including several minutes of people walking (first as a closeup of their feet and then of their upper body) and a penchant for spending too much time with characters that ultimately don’t have any purpose for anything except to hire some of his friends for what amount to glorified cameos — the most egregious of which is Damian Lewis, wasted as megastar Steve McQueen.
In the end, I believe I liked this film because it took an interesting behind-the-scenes look into what makes Hollywood tick, which I always find fun and fascinating. Getting to see poster art and footage from Rick Dalton’s fake films was great, and the art direction transported us back to the sixties with ease. One of my favorite sequences is when Tarantino imports DiCaprio into a scene from a famous film while Rick tells the story of how he was on the list of actors to fill a major role if the one who ultimately made the film had dropped out.
It may be a bit long in the tooth, but for my money, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is Tarantino’s best film (that I’ve seen), mainly because of the winning performances by his three lead actors. Whether it won me over enough to continue watching more of his stuff, I don’t know; but at least he won me over this one time. And as an artist, sometimes, that’s all you really need.
My Grade: A-
Next week, new movies include Fast & Furious Presents: Hobbs and Shaw. If you would like to see a review for this, or any other film out next week, please respond in the comments below.
July 21, 2019
Movie Mayhem – The Lion King (2019)
Live-action remakes have been around for quite some time (Popeye, anyone), they’re just much more prevalent now with Disney’s recent onslaught of remaking all of their beloved animated classics into live-action properties. I don’t mind these upgrades; getting to see your favorite animated films with real people can be a lot of fun, especially when the updates add more to the story and help develop stronger characters. The issue with these updates comes when a film relies too much on their predecessor (because, you know, they were perfectly fine in animated form), making them feel a bit lazy and underwhelming.
This is what happens with The Lion King, which isn’t so much a remake as it is a facelift; many scenes, including the grand opening sequence, are nearly identical to the original. Beauty and the Beast was criticized by many for this reason, though I didn’t mind it as much because real actors carried the majority of the film. However, because The Lion King is nothing but animals (no humans were harmed in the production of this movie), it’s hard to distinguish this version as “live-action” because the majority is still animated, just in a different way.
We all know how the circle of life works—after the lion cub Simba (voiced by JD McCrary and Donald Glover) is born to king Mufasa (returning voice James Earl Jones), Mufasa’s brother Scar (Chiwetel Ejiofor) plots to get rid of both and rule the pride lands. After Mufasa’s tragic death, Simba runs away and hides out with a new group of friends, including meerkat Timon (Billy Eichner) and warthog Pumbaa (Seth Rogen) until his best friend Nala (Shahadi Wright Joseph and Beyoncé Knowles-Carter) informs him of the devastation Scar and his hungry hyena pack have wrought on the pride lands.
It’s a simple story; what made the original work so well was the energy that the cast put into their performances. There was an abundance of whip-snap interplay between all of them, as well as a camaraderie that made them all feel genuine. Unfortunately, the updated cast doesn’t have near the same dynamic. And to be honest, all of them seem bored in comparison. One of the best parts of the original film comes from the kinetic energy between Timon and Pumbaa, and though the interplay between Eichner and Rogen is fairly good, there’s a spark missing in the duo’s banter that keeps it from being as quick, sharp or funny as Nathan Lane and Ernie Sabella.
This same issue plagues Glover as well. His camaraderie with Timon and Pumbaa are okay, but I never got the feeling that they were anything but acquaintances, which makes their decision to follow Simba back to pride rock less poignant. Glover is a fine actor, but his cadence and delivery are too dry to provide the necessary mix of innocence, regret and grief that’s needed for us to empathize and relate with the character.
The rest of the cast also lean much more on the mundane and monotonous, continually reminding you of how good the original voice cast was. Even the hyenas, who were so frantically boisterous and clever, are flattened in a way that keeps them from showing any life. Keegan Michael Key and Eric André have some decent interplay, but even that is subdued to the point of mediocrity.
I kept hearing the original cast, wondering why they didn’t just use that same vocal track and upgrade the animation (after all, it feels that way with every line Jones speaks). This didn’t happen when I watched Aladdin, mostly because those actors truly embodied the characters and gave them a depth of personality that separated them from the original. Much like the despondent pride lands, the voice talent in King is knee-deep in melancholy.
The Lion King doesn’t have anything new to say, either. Aladdin worked as a remake because it expanded on the world and brought something new and fresh to say within the context of the story we all know. I didn’t necessarily like all of the changes they made, but some of them worked well to enhance the original story. King actually does itself a disservice because instead of building on what’s come before with added nuance, it removes a lot of what that made the original so fun and exciting, as well as the deeper messages that came along with it.
Take Rafiki (John Kani) for example. In the original, Rafiki is a guiding voice for Simba; his guardian angel. He’s there to mentor him at the moment he needs him the most. His lesson comes in an extremely odd and playful way, but that’s what sets his character apart and gives him so much power. In the update, that character is stripped of all of his depth; he becomes nothing more than a catalyst without an ounce of character. The lesson he gives Simba that incites the third act is so watered down, it’s hard to understand why Simba has his change of heart.
On a brighter note, the visuals, the action and the musical sequences in the film are all incredibly well done. So much so, it begs the question: is the stunning animation going to be too much for younger audiences? There are some very intense and scary sequences in the original film, but those sequences were rendered “safe” for younger kids because it was animated. Because the animals feel so lifelike in this new iteration, those same sequences become much more intense. It’s no longer just a cartoon character; to a young mind, these are real animals in peril, which makes it much more affecting.
This may also be why the film feels less fun. It’s interesting to see the world in this way, but because of its scope of “reality”, the sheen is wiped away, making it more gritty. When director Jon Favreau then removes a lot of the best moments and pieces of dialogue from the original (again to make it more grounded) and not replacing it with anything as clever, it deadens it even further. It’s an interesting experiment, but as its visual appeal removes the breath of life, all we’re left with is a stunning two hours of pretty pictures with hardly any depth.
My Grade: B+
Next week, new movies include Once Upon A Time in Hollywood. If you would like to see a review for this, or any other film out next week, please respond in the comments below.
July 14, 2019
Movie Mayhem – Crawl
Movies about alligators (or is it crocodiles?) attacking gorgeous teens aren’t quite as plentiful as movies about sharks attacking gorgeous teens, but there are still plenty of them crawling around out there. Sharks, on the surface, seem more deadly; they are after all out in the wide open spaces of the ocean, while gators are stuck mostly in marshy, humid areas where no one would want to camp or spend their holiday. But alligators can be just as deadly as sharks when they want to be, and Crawl proves that when a family of alligators attack a father and daughter during a major hurricane, begging the question, how many times can someone be bit by an alligator and survive?
Haley (Kaya Scodelario) is a very serious swimmer at a Florida college, made perfectly clear in the opening sequence by the way director Alexandre Aja frames every morsel of intensity pinched across her determined eyes and taut, focused body language as she prepares to tackle the last leg of what will turn out to be just practice. This initial sequence also introduces us to Haley’s father, Dave (Barry Pepper), who used to be her swim coach, but is now estranged for reasons we never find out about.
When a major hurricane is reported, Haley’s sister (Morfydd Clark), a character that doesn’t have any relevance to the story aside from trying to talk Haley out of going deeper into the hurricane, is extremely worried about Dave. Even though Haley and her father are far from Facebook friends, she risks her safety to track him down, going first to his rundown condo, and then to their old house, which Dave put up for sale after the death of his wife.
Haley finds Dave unconscious and wounded deep in the crawl space under the house. As she pulls him towards the stairs (still not sure how she was going to get him up the stairs), an alligator comes out of nowhere, driving them back into the belly of the basement. Now, to escape the alligators’s feverish hunger, the two must overcome their differences and flood waters that only rise when it’s convenient for the plot.
It’s safe to assume by now that Crawl is not a very good movie. Aside from those pesky, perfectly-timed flood waters, we have two protagonists that make one bone-headed decision after another. If either one of them had even a modicum of a brain, ninety percent of what happens in the movie would never have happened.
First up is the retrieval of Haley’s phone. I have no problem with Haley going after the phone; what I have a problem with is when she does get the phone, she doesn’t immediately get back to where it’s safe before calling the police. Instead, she takes her cue from an awful SyFy original and sits in harm’s way to dial 911, at which point the next attack begins.
When your ultimate goal is to get out of the flooding basement, it would seem to me you’d take any opportunity to do that. Not Haley. When a police officer checking in on Haley becomes gator chow (don’t worry; it’s not a spoiler; if you know anything about these types of film, you would have seen that coming a hundred miles away), instead of using that distraction to swim ten feet to get out of the basement, she swims back to her father to setup the next round of unavoidable, near-death attacks.
These and many other inane decisions lead to one faux pas that can’t be rescued. It involves one major decision that extends the film beyond its welcome by pushing the characters into a situation that they never should have been in, only to send them back to where they should have gone in the first place, simply to put our protagonists in peril (and prove Aja can change the rules whenever he wants) for no other reason than to extend the run time, which at its current state is only 90 minutes, and add a few more frivolous attempts at scares.
I’ve forgiven far worse in other films. The thing is, those films (like any Saturday night SyFy original, or even blockbusters like The Meg) know that they are mindless schlock with no real purpose but to see characters get chewed up by apex predators. What Crawl forgets to do in order to avoid focusing on all of the character’s poor decisions is to create characters that are worth watching.
First of all, none of the attempts at character development or relationships between characters work. Aja tries to setup Haley as being a great swimmer that doesn’t have the confidence to push herself to the limit, but the follow through on this specific trait doesn’t come naturally. Then there’s the aforementioned police officer; Aja spends several minutes setting up a backstory between him and her sister, but that idea is as irrelevant as a gang of looters stealing an ATM.
Finally, when it comes to our two leads, neither Scodelario nor Pepper display any form of personality. Pepper seems to have given up, forgoing the chance to inject Dave with a modicum of life in order to get through the day and cash his paycheck. It doesn’t help that his partner (who have teamed up once before in the Maze Runner films) is as dry as drywall.
Monotonous to a fault, Scodelario has one emotional state—boredom. Even as she screams and swims and runs and acts like she’s some sort of badass (another detail that’s played as some sort of saving grace and ends up being wholly irrelevant to the plot), Scodelario’s emotions are closed for duty, keeping anyone from feeling any empathy for her or her situation.
And that’s what Crawl ultimately boils down to; it’s a series of events that had you heard about them on the news, you’d probably think, Wow, that’s terrible, and then go on with your life because it doesn’t directly effect you. For a film like this to work, there has to be a strong, unique personality embedded within, either through the characters, the script, or in the style of filmmaking. Crawl has none of that; it’s just a bland film in a sea of films that will be forgotten next week.
My Grade: D+
Bonus Review:
Kumail Nanjiani injects Stuber, the latest buddy-cop comedy that finds Nanjiani’s down-on-his-luck Uber driver paired with the massive, revenge-hungry Dave Bautista, with a reflective innocence that pairs well with all of the subplots (some that work better than others) peppered throughout the well-balanced moments of action and comedy. B+
Next week, new movies include The Lion King. If you would like to see a review of this, or any other film out next week, please respond in the comments below.
July 7, 2019
Movie Mayhem – Spider-Man: Far From Home
If you didn’t already know from the second trailer, the fallout from the events of Avengers: Endgame plays a large role in Spider-Man: Far From Home. So much, in fact, that it feels as if Robert Downey Jr. is somehow playing puppet master in the background of the entire film. But that isn’t to the detriment of Spider-Man’s newest solo outing; having Iron-Man’s presence be such a large part plays into the larger themes of the film and helps propel both the story within the film as well as the overarching story of the entire MCU forward into new and interesting places.
As in Spider-Man: Homecoming, Iron-Man is a large part of Peter Parker’s (Tom Holland) life. The original Avenger recruited him, trained him and put all of his faith in a sixteen-year-old New Yorker who’s thirst for being a part of something bigger nearly got him killed. Now, after returning from what everyone is referring to as “the blip”, Peter is no longer sure he can live up to the name that the world admires. This has led Peter to feel incapable of performing up to the standards he believes everyone expects (and in some way needs) from him. He just wants to have fun, go on vacation, fall in love — you know, be a sixteen-year-old kid.
Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson), though, isn’t having any of that. After Peter ignores Fury’s multiple calls in favor of going on a trip across Europe with his class, the director of S.H.I.E.L.D. shows up in Peter’s hotel room in Venice and drags him into the fight against the Elementals — large creatures made out of the base elements. Because of Tony Stark’s affinity for the kid, Fury believes Spider-Man is the only one who can help Quentin Beck (Jake Gyllenhaal) — a superhero from another Earth (!) — defeat theses destructive monsters.
Peter is full of doubt; of being an Avenger; of professing his feelings for MJ (Zendaya); of competing with another classmate (Remy Hii) for MJs affection; and of living up to Tony’s standards. It’s a complete reversal of who Peter was in the first film — the overconfident kid who thought he knew everything. But after what happened in the last Avengers double-feature, it makes sense he would see the world a little different; that he would feel out of his element; that his idea of being a superhero is nothing but a kid’s fantasy — an illusion of his youth.
And that’s really what plays into the heart of Spider-Man: Far From Home. You can’t believe anything or anyone in this movie. Almost everything is some sort of illusion, lie or played as subterfuge for something larger. It’s a game that helps Peter find his true path as both a person and as a superhero. Even Peter’s new suit — a sleek, all-black getup created by S.H.I.E.L.D. — fits in with this theme, as Peter doesn’t want to wear his Spider-Man suit for fear of his identity being discovered.
Now for a little criticism. Compared to Homecoming, Far From Home feels juvenile and a little meandering. Peter’s emotional journey can sometimes get lost in the need to layer the film in silly characters. The chaperons on the school trip (Martin Starr and J.B. Smoove) feel out of place in the larger picture. And although I like that Ned (Jacob Batalon) has a chance at love, I wasn’t sure sidelining him with a typical, by-the-numbers girlfriend (Angourie Rice) plot that doesn’t really go anywhere did much for his character or the film.
Gyllenhaal is also a mixed bag. I’m not sure the writers knew quite how to make the character work the way they needed. Gyllenhaal does all he can with what he’s given, but the character never finds his footing among what’s happening. And although he does have some beautiful moments (and is integral in telegraphing where the story will go in Spider-Man’s next outing) there’s one scene in particular that is so expositional, it feels as if writer Chris McKenna couldn’t figure out a way to get all of the information out in a more streamlined, natural way, so he just threw all of his original notes into the script and hoped no one noticed.
With that said, Spider-Man: Far From Home rises above all of that criticism with sprinkles of clever, sharp writing, some fine acting from everyone involved — most especially Holland — and a bevy of action sequences (and one mind-altering illusion) that completely make up for whatever flaws may be apparent.
Holland is such a likable actor, you’re drawn into what he’s feeling without having to try, and because of that, you’re open to go with whatever the producers throw at him, including two incredible post-credit scenes that alter the franchise in more ways than one. Like most films in the Marvel cinematic cannon, Spider-Man: Far From Home isn’t perfect, but it is yet another welcome addition to the MCU.
My Grade: A
Bonus Review:
I’m not sure what writer/director Ari Aster’s obsession with cult’s are, but whatever it is, I hope Midsommar was a therapeutic release, as the film digs deep into some dark undertones, highlighted by an incredible scene that releases so much pent-up anguish, it’s extremely hard to sit through and tells you everything you need to know about how disturbingly good the film is in exploring several themes dealing with loss and one’s own sense of self. A-
Next week, new movies include Crawl and Stuber. If you would like to see a review for one of these, or any other film out next week, please respond in the comments below.
June 30, 2019
Movie Mayhem – Annabelle Comes Home and Child’s Play (2019)
Toys have taken over the cineplex. You’d think all of the colorful (and emotionally impactful) toys from Toy Story returning for some new adventures last week would be enough, but apparently, the studios didn’t think so. Taking their lead from miss Gabby Gabby, producers found a way to subvert the fact that it isn’t Halloween and return not one but two killer dolls back to big screens for another round of violent, scary mayhem to begin our long, hot summer — Chucky is back in a revamped Child’s Play, and Annabelle Comes Home to her cushy glass case. So, which one takes the crown as the most evil? Let’s find out.
Annabelle Comes Home is the third chapter in the Annabelle series, and the seventh(!) film in what’s now known as the Conjuring universe. That information is key as this isn’t so much an Annabelle film as it is a third Conjuring film with Annabelle at the center (and since The Conjuring 3 is already filming and slated for next year, let’s call this Conjuring 2.5).
This film is almost a direct sequel to the original Annabelle. After a quick jaunt in 2017 to find out how Annabelle was originally born, we return to the moments just after Annabelle to witness what happened as Ed and Lorraine Warren (Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga, respecively) bring Annabelle home with them. They quickly learn, after a detour and a car mishap outside a cemetery, that not just one particular demon has attached itself to the doll — she’s actually a beacon for all other spirits.
A year later, on the eve of their daughter’s birthday, the Warren’s take a day trip, leaving Judy (Mckeena Grace) home with their trusted babysitter, Mary Ellen (Madison Iseman). Of course, with a movie like this, it’s inevitable that Mary Ellen’s friend, Daniela (Katie Sarife), would drop in to muck up the works, snooping about the home to find a way to contact her father, who died in a car accident that she believes was her fault. She, of course, is betrothed the crown for typical stupid teen and releases Annabelle from her protective case, inadvertently unleashing a bevy of supernatural creatures about the home to help Annabelle obtain a soul.
Annabelle is conspicuously missing from the majority of the film, relying heavily on other demons to attack our party of innocents, most of which are your typical ghouls playing games as they scare the daylights out of you. There were some strong visuals at play, especially when it involved the woman in the wedding gown, and the moments that do play well elevate the material beyond simple jump scares. But writer/director Gary Dauberman focuses most of his attention on one particular entity that turns out to have the weakest backstory.
At one point, the girls stumble across a case file that includes a picture of a young victim that resembles Mary Ellen. This play on identity could have given the film an unusual mystique. Instead, it’s played as nothing more than a way to make Mary Ellen the target of the deranged soul’s rage. The idea doesn’t come off as Dauberman may have intended, and does a disservice to Annabelle herself, who becomes a supporting player in her own film. It all leads to a finale that’s resolved much quicker than it should have with a few key moments that seem forced in order to wrap things up.
After a strong second outing, Annabelle deserved more.
A doll who definitely deserved a second chance at life is Chucky. After a half-dozen unnecessary sequels that got more brazenly terrible as they went along, I re-watched the original 1988 classic, which, for all intents and purposes, is also a terrible film in its own right, one ripe for a modern retelling of the possessed doll and his demented personality.
Except this Chucky (voice of Mark Hamill) isn’t so much possessed as he is reprogrammed. Unlike the original, which saw Brad Dourif’s soul get voodoo’d into the titular Good Guy doll, in this go-around, we get a much more logical reason for Chucky to eventually go psychotic.
The Buddi doll in this iteration is like a demented Alexa, able to control all of your appliances, as well as learn and adapt to your routine. One day, Karen (Aubrey Plaza) takes a damaged Buddi doll home from work to surprise her son, Andy (Gabriel Bateman), for his birthday. Little does she know that the disgruntled worker who installed this particular doll’s computer chip sabotaged it by removing all of the safety protocols. So, after linking himself with Andy (what is it with the name Andy and toys?), Chucky will do what he can to protect his new best friend. It’s only when Andy and his friends are found laughing at someone killing others in a cheesy horror film that Chucky learns that violence as a good thing — and doesn’t look back.
Most of the kills in the movie are well done and Hamill, as expected, is terrifically creepy, especially as the doll goes to great lengths to wipe out anything that might interfere in he and Andy having fun. The script is well-written as well, all up until the third act, which suddenly devolves into that same, oddly-schlocky craziness that would fit much better in one of the older sequels. (And lest we forget the poorly executed police presence, which does nothing for the plot of the film.) Overall, though, the film does what it can to make you think twice about bringing anything into the house that has a computer chip.
Figuring out whether Annabelle Comes Home or Child’s Play should take the title as this year’s most malevolent doll is a toss-up. Both films have their highs and both have their lows, leading in the end to a relative draw for supremacy. (Which doesn’t matter much, as Woody, Buzz and Bo-Peep will knock them both out at the box office.)
My Grades: Annabelle Comes Home: B+; Child’s Play: B+
Bonus Review:
As a love letter to the Beetles, Yesterday provides as much love to the band’s genius as they do to the two leads; as a film, the what-if scenario of the Beetles (among a few other things) disappearing from existence except in the mind (and heart) of one person is a great concept with a nice, if not safe, love story at its core. A-
Next week, new movies include Spider-Man: Far From Home and Midsommar. If you would like to see a review for one of these, or any other film out next week, please respond in the comments below.
June 23, 2019
Movie Mayhem – Toy Story 4
Whoa.
Not only is this expression oft-referenced by Keanu Reeves, who continues his “Keanussance” by joining the cast of Toy Story 4 as Duke Caboom, an Evil Knievel-style motorcycle stuntman who was tossed away because his real abilities didn’t match the magic of a commercial, perfectly utilized within the film, but it also beautifully sums up the prolific way Pixar has managed to once again match the fun, cleverness and emotional depth of its own groundbreaking, original computer-animated feature.
As anyone can attest, it’s hard to maintain a consistent level of quality over the years. The longer a franchise spits out sequel after prequel, ideas begin to get long in the tooth, actors get worn-out, characters become inconsistent and redundancy becomes apparent (see last week’s review of Men In Black: International). But the producers at Pixar must have found the Midas touch, as we’re almost twenty-five years into the Toy Story franchise, and it seems no amount of meddling will ever lead to anything but magical gold.
The closing scene of Toy Story 3 could be considered one of the most perfect ends to a brilliantly-constructed trilogy. Andy is ready to leave his childhood toys behind as he prepares to leave for college; what better way to move forward but still honor your past than to give your favorite toys to someone who would cherish them for many years to come. Bonnie (Madeleine McGraw), a young preschooler who has already grown attached to his favorite toy cowboy, Woody (Tom Hanks), is the lucky recipient. His toys still have purpose. All is right with the world.
Not so, says John Lasseter, the visionary director of Toy Story who dreamed up this heartfelt new chapter. At least for Woody, who’s left in the closet to play with dust bunnies when Bonnie grows more attached to Jessie (Joan Cusack) to the point she transfers Woody’s sheriff badge to the young cowgirl during playtime. That doesn’t stop him from doing all he can to protect Bonnie the best way he knows how. Against the wishes of room monitor Dolly (Bonnie Hunt), Woody sneaks into Bonnie’s backpack on her first day of kindergarten to make sure she makes the transition smoothly.
It’s a good thing he did, as Bonnie doesn’t make friends easily. Not until Woody secretly provides her with the tools (aka a bunch of trash) to build what will become her new favorite toy and best friend, Forky (Tony Hale). Woody now has a new purpose — protect Forky at all costs. Long story short, when Bonnie and her family go on a road trip, Woody must rescue Forky from a baby doll named Gabby-Gabby (Christina Hendricks) and her evil ventriloquist dummy minions before he’s lost to her forever.
The plot may sound very similar to previous outings, as each film in the franchise puts the toys in some sort of rescue mode. The differences between them, and what makes them so special, is how the characters react to the changes that the rescue missions bring about. The first film was about building new friendships with those you feel will threaten your way of life; the second was about exploring your past and what that means for the future; and the third was about finality and moving on.
This fourth installment digs much deeper into one specific element that is sewn into all four films, which is the fear of change and finding your true purpose. It’s no secret that Woody is afraid of change; it’s what essentially jump starts every one of the films. This time, though, that change is hitting him deeper than it ever has, and his ability to understand what he truly wants sits at the emotional core of the film. It turns out, what he truly wants is what we all want — love.
Toy Story 4 does a good job of filling in the gaps of what happened to Bo Peep (Annie Potts) and why she was conspicuously missing from the third film. When Woody finally reunites with his lady love, he struggles to make sense of her newfound love of being what amounts to a lost toy. Juxtapose this with Gabby Gabby’s one-and-only dream of becoming a child’s toy and you have a very well-executed dichotomy that fleshes out both characters really well and at the same time produces a conflict within Woody that isn’t easily resolved, but which the resolution is wonderfully acheived.
Because Woody’s story takes up most of the film, there isn’t a lot for the rest of the toys to do. The only one to get even a slightly extended storyline is Buzz Lightyear (Tim Allen), who’s introduced to an interesting new way of thinking when he begins listening diligently to his inner voice — that is to say his voice box, another piece of the puzzle that becomes ingrained within the story as a way toys can feel not only complete, but confident in themselves.
The movie, if you already haven’t guessed, is another tearjerker, but just like the rest of the films, there’s plenty of clever wit and comedy throughout to keep your spirit soaring. The aforementioned Duke Caboom is a delightful new character who has to discover his own confidence, and although the addition of a couple of plush carnival toys, Ducky (Keegan-Michael Key) and Bunny (Jordan Peele), give us some great lively moments, that’s about all they have going for them.
Over the years, I’ve come to rely pretty heavily on Pixar to deliver a great story with well-developed characters. Even when the trailer seems average or uninspired, I’ve learned to trust that they will deliver in the final product. It was hard to comprehend where the franchise could go after having such a heartfelt (and heartbreaking) finale in Toy Story 3, but they found a way to create yet another beautiful chapter in the Toy Story saga that not only lives up to its predecessors, but gives Woody some much needed closure while creating a whole new dynamic for a new generation.
Whoa, indeed.
My Grade: A
Bonus Reviews:
Unless you are an ardent fan of The Fifth Element, Luc Besson isn’t necessarily a household name, but with Anna, his newest high-octane spy-thriller, it’s clear he should be as he continues to develop films that buck the trends in whatever genre he’s working in. A-
I don’t know if it was Mindy Kaling’s well-written script or Emma Thompson’s magnetism (or a combination of both), but Thompson is at the top of her game in Late Night as a beleaguered host of a late-night show who tries to boost her ratings before she is ultimately fired. A
Next week, new movies include Annabelle Comes Home and Yesterday. If you would like to see a review for one of these, or any other film out next week, please respond in the comments below.
June 16, 2019
Movie Mayhem – Men In Black: International
It’s been seven years since Will Smith last put on the signature shades that made him look good; 19 years since Tommy Lee Jones dawned the last suit he’d ever wear; and 22 years since Barry Sonnenfeld first brought us into the world of intergalactic protection. Now, director F. Gary Gray takes us across the pond for Men In Black: International, a fun but ultimately wasted showcase for its new crop of agents as they try to protect the most dangerous weapon in the universe from getting into the hands of an evil alien race known as The Hive.
I say wasted because the film never truly develops the London branch’s star recruits, H (Chris Hemsworth) and M (Tessa Thompson), beyond their superficial exteriors. Hemsworth and Thompson are great, both on their own and as a team, but the characters they portray are nothing but a pair of one-note Barbie dolls saving the world. H is your typical dashingly cocky rogue that plays by his own rules to the chagrin of his coworkers and his boss, High T (Liam Neeson), who was also once his partner when they first battled the Hive with nothing but their wits and series 7D atomizers.
M, on the other hand, is girl-power incarnate. She is meant to follow in the footsteps of Smith’s J, a young ingenue who learns everything on the job while battling aliens in the field. But where J learned and improved upon the skills that we already knew he had before being recruited, M seems to know how to do everything, from fist-fights to rebuilding alien technology and free-soloing rocky cliffs, with absolutely no basis for those skills whatsoever. All we know about her before she weasels her way into New York’s MIB office is that she’s halfway intelligent. But nowhere do we see that skill utilized in the back half of the film.
The script is so confused with itself, as a matter of fact, that it makes M come off rather dense. One scene in the trailer shows the pair in front of a nice new car. M says she’s driving and then gets in on the left side of the car. Because it’s London, the steering wheel is actually on the right. Funny, maybe, but where this happens in the context of the film is actually after we’ve already seen M in several cars where that fact has already been established. So it doesn’t make sense for why she wouldn’t already know that the driver’s seat is on the opposite side of the car.
There are some moments when Gray attempts to build some depth between his two leads, but never does it go far enough, always remaining just on the cusp of true emotion. If it wasn’t for Pawny (voiced by Kumail Nanjiani), the diminutive sidekick the pair pick up along the way, I’m not sure any of the “intimate” moments between the characters would have worked. The film is at its best when all of that is set aside to let Hemsworth and Thompson dig into the explosive action sequences.
Which is a good thing, since most of the villains are visually nice to look at, but seem stale otherwise. The twins (Laurent and Larry Bourgeois) that are hunting for a small crystal that transforms into what amounts to a hand-held Death Star, demonstrate massive powers that make it hard to believe they wouldn’t get their hands on the weapon with the snap of a finger. (In other words, they are easily thwarted far too often). Then there’s the Hive, which is all build-up with no true landing (though the creature design is visually compelling). And last but not least there’s your typical mole within the agency.
Gray does his best to bring the franchise back to what it originally was back in 1997 — a fun adventure of mystery and intrigue with some great action sequences and a more down-to-earth vibe than the previous two sequels. For the most part he accomplishes that. Most of the film feels grounded in the reality being setup, never straying into cartoon shenanigans better suited for a spoof than an A-list summer blockbuster.
But no matter how much you fall in love with Hemsworth and Thompson, they’re never able to match the dichotomy of Jones and Smith (and in some respects, Smith and Josh Brolin as the younger version of agent K), probably because the characters are too much alike. It doesn’t help that writers Matt Holloway and Art Marcum aren’t quite able to cohesively transition from one scene to the next or build strong character arcs.
One early sequence shows M discover a runaway creature after it breaks into her house, which is meant to setup M’s quest to find the men in black. There are multiple problems with this scene, however: 1) When a pair of agents show up, the parents tell them their daughter is in the house, but they don’t attempt to wipe her memory along with theirs; 2) the agents never search the house for the creature; and 3) the bond that M is supposed to make with the creature that will pay off later in the film doesn’t establish a strong enough bond between the characters that make sense.
There are other moments like this sprinkled throughout the film that keep it from rising to the heights of the original film. Because of the visuals, the action sequences, and the charisma of the two leads, you want to like this entry into the franchise, but the script can’t find a strong enough footing to hold everything together; and when the foundation is weak, so goes what’s built upon it.
My Grade: B+
Bonus Reviews:
Most of the deadpan-style comedy in writer/director James Jarmusch’s The Dead Don’t Die is clever and witty, but there’s an oddness that can’t seem to rectify itself as Jarmusch doesn’t go far enough with the scattered meta-humor and the slew of cameos that are as shockingly bizarre as the third act of the film. B
The Secret Life of Pets 2 plays more like a trilogy of vignettes than a cohesive story as all of the returning pets are split up into groups to have their own adventures that eventually tie into one another, each one with a few highlights that tend to overpower the core of the story, which is to believe in yourself and not let fear hold you back. B
Next week, new movies include Toy Story 4, Child’s Play, Wild Rose and Anna. If you would like to see a review for one of these, or any other film out next week, please respond in the comments below.
