Mayhem.

Review #2469: Mayhem.

Cast: 

Steven Yeun (Derek Cho), Samara Weaving (Melanie Cross), Steven Brand (John "The Boss" Towers), Caroline Chikezie (Kara "The Siren" Powell), Kerry Fox (Irene Smythe), Dallas Roberts (Lester "The Reaper" McGill), Mark Frost (Ewan Niles), Claire Dellamar (Meg), André Eriksen (Colton "The Bull" Snyder), Nikola Kent (Oswald), Lucy Chappell (Jenny), and Olja Hrustic (CDC Official) Directed by Joe Lynch.

Review: 

"That’s what Mayhem is all about, it’s a battle against passive aggression. Everybody wants to discuss when they should just say no and just say that they don’t like this! Why do we have to side-bar everything? Why do we have to have another meeting? Because people’s voices might get raised? Someone’s feelings might get hurt? No one wants to get anyone’s feelings hurt anymore because someone will sue. That’s the problem with the corporate world. It’s this serpent eating its tail, because no one can be honest and everyone will sue. It’s such a deadening situation where no one can be their true selves. And part of directing is being able to be yourself, it’s your vision, it’s your voice!"

It only seems right to close things out with a fresh face. Joe Lynch initially started out as a child actor on Long Island but found himself interested in making films by the time he was studying at Syracuse University in the late 1990s. With a visual style described as being influenced by films such as "Evil Dead II, Goodfellas, and Raising Arizona way too many times as a kid", he graduated with a bachelor's degree in visual and performing arts and had a few student short films make the festival circuit. Lynch directed music videos for a variety of groups before becoming a feature director with Wrong Turn 2: Dead End (2007), which had a brief horror festival run before being released on DVD. Further efforts for films include Chillerama [2011] (directing a segment), Knights of Badassdom [2013] (a movie he disowned), and Everly [2014]. The script was written by Matias Caruso. Lynch had plenty of experience with corporate irritation, noting his experience trying to do anthology project to do videos that ran into plenty of hassles. The movie was shot in Serbia due to the country giving the filmmakers the proper amount of days they needed to shoot (25, which compared well to the 15 offered by Pittsburgh and 18 by Vancouver). The film was released in a few theaters and on "VOD and digital HD", and, well, I found it on a DVD pack that seemed promising, so why not?*

Sure, there have been a few action horror movies involving boatloads of crazed lunacy in a building. A cursory glance shows a few movies involving a fight to survive, whether that was Mean Guns [1997] (fight to the death for cash between killers), The Tournament [2009] (rich people watching others kill for sport), or The Belko Experiment [2016] (workers locked in a building told to start killing each other). Here you get one involving a virus that gets in your head and turns your impulses into a thing that may be a worthy killing machine, albeit one that makes sure to say the attacker isn't liable for their actions. I imagine there has also been at least one movie about fighting to the top of a building. But there is something infectious about the way the movie maneuvers through 86 minutes of a few thrills within moments of delirious execution at the office. The horrors of being in a crappy job that degrades one soul probably does go hand in hand with the horrors of people wanting to act their impulses to kick the crap out of you, to put it mildly. In that sense, it is a crowd pleaser for a handful of moments in terms of quick cuts to the action and a few fun lines, even if it likes the voice over perhaps a bit too many times. Yeun (best known at the time for his work on The Walking Dead*) does make for a solid lead to hold it together in wavering action status, one trying to balance the impulses that come with office politics and wanting to find a way out of being a drone off the old block. Weaving makes for a worthy pairing with Yuen in energy that bounce off each other in mutually assured destruction (of others), charming but convincing in being ready to handle whatever happens in the movie with nail guns and fists. Brand and others get their moments of making corporate stooges a bit more unnerving when poised to actually use violence beyond the usual corporate twist-and-turning, which works out for a few chuckles (mostly highlighted by Chikezie). At least the ending has a few chuckles in the idea of a business-mandated push to try and cure the virus (hey, this was made in 2017), although it probably is a bit routine in the actual endpoint (and a bit inevitable). In general, Mayhem has a few entertaining moments seeing the horrors of the corporate world go upside down for a few punches that might make for a worthwhile recommendation.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

*Unusually, you can thank The Last Drive-in with Joe Bob Briggs for this double-header coming to fruition, as I eyed a "double feature DVD" that had a disc of this film and Suitable Flesh. So one spends a little over two hours each watching a movie that happens to have little segments of Briggs making commentary on the film. Honestly, I don't actually watch the Drive-in because I'm not much of a streaming service (as available on...Shudder) person or a live show guy, but it does sound like something cool to see around.

*What's that show?

War for the Planet of the Apes.

Review #2209: War for the Planet of the Apes.

Cast: 

Andy Serkis (Caesar), Woody Harrelson (The Colonel), Steve Zahn (Bad Ape), Karin Konoval (Maurice), Amiah Miller (Nova), Terry Notary (Rocket), Ty Olsson (Red Donkey), Michael Adamthwaite (Luca), Toby Kebbell (Koba), Gabriel Chavarria (Preacher), Judy Greer (Cornelia), Sara Canning (Lake), Devyn Dalton (Cornelius), and Aleks Paunovic (Winter) Directed by Matt Reeves (#1038 - Cloverfield, #1814 - The Batman, and #1888 - Dawn of the Planet of the Apes)

Review: 

"I wanted to push us into the realm of the mythic. I felt like this was the thing that was going to create the legend of what Caesar would be to future generations of apes. That if he was going to be a seminal figure in their history, this had to be a Biblical epic – the final test that he must pass to have this mythic ascension into the pantheon of apes."

Sometimes you really have to respect the tenacity of a film series, particularly one as distinct as Planet of the Apes, which has managed to go forward and back again with a trilogy of films that served as reboots to those offbeat sequels that had arisen after the original 1968 film (imagine making any more sequels after the first sequel had the hero of the first one blow up the whole world). The script was written by Reeves (the director of the previous reboot film in Dawn of the Planet of the Apes) and Mark Bomback, who decided to make a story that in their eyes would have the character of Caesar "cement his status as a seminal figure in ape history" that saw them watch plenty of films from the old Apes film (with War, the ninth overall film in the series taking a cue or so from Battle for the Planet of the Apes [1973]). As before, the effects for the film were done by Weta Digital when it came to the apes that saw motion-capture and CGI key-frame animation that has a friendly mix of performers in suits (Serkis, Konoval, and Notary are the only ones to appear as apes in each of the three films). It felt particularly timely to watch this film with the impending release of the standalone sequel Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes in 2024 (Reeves isn't the director, but who knows what Wes Ball will bring to the series) set many years after War. 

Basically, one is watching the culmination of a person as a sort of a mythic figure on the lines that would make a biblical filmmaker proud (at one point, a character even mentions the belief of fighting a "holy war") to go along with a scope that is highly enjoyable to close out what has basically been a string of distinct ensemble films with one dominant presence in Serkis being in each one of them. It is a tremendous evolutionary process to see play out in this series that never shows a loose failing when it comes to trying to perpetuate familiar names into wanting to see play out for another go-around. The ideas of redemption (or vengeance) or a new step in the process of mankind can be found pretty clearly with this film in such an entertaining manner that plays out the nature of where "co-existence" can culminate in the face of reality. Serkis is tremendous once again as Caesar because he has managed to seal the destiny of a character with all of the traits in a mythic force of nature with displays of empathy and guilt to go with worthwhile physicality that provides further proof in the case of worthwhile performances that can be found in the art of capture. He is giving this the effort one would see from a Moses-type of character that is fascinating in ways that went past the expectations one might have had from going past people in suits onto having dots on their face. Seeing the rest around him is a pilgrimage worth watching the journey, particularly with Konoval in that all-encompassing devotion (as the cool orangutan) to show just where things could lead when apes do in fact roam the Earth at large with varying differences potentially arising, as is the case with Zahn and his worthy shaky affliction as the newcomer (note the coat). Harrelson apparently believes that he was "a little daunted" when it came to talking about films that he felt "rigid" performance-wise. It is interesting to disagree with him here, because there is something quite entertaining in his stiff intimidation that goes greatly in playing a mirror to Serkis when it comes to reacting to potential trouble to the structure around their leadership (consider that one had to face killing one of their own species right as the war starts and the other killed their sick son as a means of protection and then see who is haunted most). It is tremendously haunting in a manner that doesn't require a big climax for both him and Serkis to show the futility that arises from such determined stubbornness that is both necessary to lead and also a path to self-destruction (simply put, one has to be a little nuts to lead something such as say, the presidency but not too nuts). It is a useful film in the eyes of looking at what it takes to get to the idea of freedom that has plenty of time for imagery (such as with Miller and her eyes to convey "Nova") within the snow and eventual result, particularly with how it ends up when it comes to sacrifice and securing one's name. In general, the movie has a bleak but all-around worthy execution to it that accomplishes the sell of making a myth worth watching play out on screen with effective visuals and performances to back it up for entertainment that makes it easily among the best of the Apes films.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Lady Bird.

Review #1983: Lady Bird.

Cast: 

Saoirse Ronan (Christine "Lady Bird" McPherson), Laurie Metcalf (Marion McPherson), Tracy Letts (Larry McPherson), Lucas Hedges (Danny O'Neill), Timothée Chalamet (Kyle Scheible), Beanie Feldstein (Julie Steffans), Lois Smith (Sister Sarah Joan), Stephen McKinley Henderson (Father Leviatch), Odeya Rush (Jenna Walton), Jordan Rodrigues (Miguel McPherson), Marielle Scott (Shelly Yuhan), and Jake McDorman (Mr. Bruno) Written and Directed by Greta Gerwig.

Review: 

“I really wanted to make a movie that was a reflection on home and what does home mean, and how does leaving home define what it is for you and your love for it. I felt like it was a love letter to Sacramento, and I felt like, what better way to make a love letter than through somebody who wants to get out, and then realize that they loved it?”

Sometimes, it really does help to go home in becoming a director. Greta Gerwig was born in Sacramento, California to a nurse and a credit union worker. A self-described "intense child", she attended St. Francis High School before attending Barnard College (one of the undergraduate colleges of Columbia University) to study English and philosophy. After graduation, she wanted to be a playwright but went to acting when she did not receive admission to playwright programs. In 2006, she began an association with Joe Swanberg by appearing in a small role in one of his films. The following year, she served as co-writer and star in Hannah Takes the Stairs, which has been label a "mumblecore film" (basically an independent film with natural acting and dialogue).  Gerwig became a director with Nights and Weekends (2008), serving as co-director with Swanberg while also writing and starring in the film. Lady Bird was the first solo effort for Gerwig; she followed that film up with Little Women (2019), which she also wrote, and her next film as writer and director is slated to come out this year with Barbie.

What a joyful time we have here. It is always a welcome occasion to view a comedy-drama that clearly is meant to evoke a worthwhile memory (it is set in 2002, so seeing a cell phone not in everyone's hand is certainly a given). Gerwig invited the cast and crew to read old yearbooks, photos, journals, and the passages of Joan Didion (a Sacramento native); she has stated that the film has a "core of truth that resonates with what I know". Sure, there have been a handful of coming-of-age films in the recent era such as Boyhood (2014) and Moonlight (2016) that have touched upon the plight of growing up in a modern sense, but Lady Bird manages to strike its own chord in being a lively film full of worthwhile characters and situations that seem real that never seems to linger in artificiality. It is a period piece of a specific time and place, but it is a worthwhile piece, one that depicts the power that comes in love and turbulence in youth and trying to figure oneself out at a key age. In its love letter to Sacramento, it is also a letter that details the importance of what matters most in the realm of families and attention. The truth of the matter is that home never feels like home until you make your way out of it for the first time. This is done in a way that never teeters on the brink of sappiness, mind you. It strolls along for 94 minutes with a pace on the episodic side that shows the general qualities that come along with growth in a youth beyond general labeling. With that in mind, Ronan (an American-born Irish actress already familiar with acting as a teen) has the self-confidence necessary to make the title role wholly believable in all the facets that come in the messiness of people when coming out of their shell. She soars as a bird trying to do flight on their own strength and does so with general warmth and timing to result in an endearing performance of flailing courage. Metcalf (best known for Roseanne alongside Tony Award-winning performances on Broadway) is the perfect match in family turbulence with two determined individuals. In other words, both sides are distinctly human in their qualities and flaws, which is mainly expressed in passive-aggression practicality. Their communication (or lack thereof) is what drives the film beyond the usual dynamic between parent and sibling, probably best represented by the opening sequence: a nice moment of listening to a book-on-tape that segues right into an argument over ungratefulness versus wanting to escape the "Midwest of California" before closing by someone jumping out of a car. Accompanying the action in tender support is Letts (who also has considerable experience in the theater), who proves brilliant in his scenes opposite Ronan. Hedges and Feldstein accompany Ronan in showing the facets of the joys and pain that come with having to accept hard truths about people on the cusp of adulthood that can either range from estrangement to worthwhile reunion (Feldstein in particular is quite amusing and bright). Chalamet practically absorbs the screen with a confidence that is entirely amusing in all the ways intended in the people that the script wishes to evoke of that particular character (which is basically a hipster). There is a small contribution of worthwhile seasoned support from Smith and Henderson, and the rest of the cast contribute well to the film seeming like a memory seared into one's mind, whether that involves spiraling lies or finding some sort of calling on a Sunday. At the end of the day, I enjoyed the film in its searing honesty that is consistently endearing in its elements of comedy and drama that jumps out at you with clear timing and focus. Gerwig has stated her desire to do a spiritual successor to the film that would still be set in Sacramento, and I can safely say I look forward to the possibility of seeing it in a theater someday. That I think is a clear indicator of how a pretty good movie can leave your imagination wanting more.

Overall, I give it 10 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: American Psycho.

Rings.

Review #1919: Rings.

Cast: 

Matilda Lutz (Julia), Alex Roe (Holt Anthony), Johnny Galecki (Gabriel Brown), Vincent D'Onofrio (Galen Burke), Aimee Teegarden (Skye Johnston), Bonnie Morgan (Samara Morgan), Chuck David Willis (Blue), Patrick R. Walker (Jamal), and Zach Roerig (Carter) Directed by F. Javier Gutiérrez.

Review: 

You know what would have been a better idea than making a re-hash from before? Doing nothing at all. Ring (1998) is generally considered the best of the Ring movies, and it was the first film adaptation of those Koji Suzuki novels that had inspired everything in the first place. But The Ring (2002) was a decent American adaptation, one that played the mystery angle with a bit less subtlety but just as useful execution. The Ring Two (2005) stunk when it came to trying to expand on the narrative of its threat of "Samara". Granted, it is hard to make a sequel of a film that doesn't fall into the trap of explaining too much, but it just didn't justify itself in where it wanted to go without becoming silly. Honestly, the better premise for a sequel came with the 2005 short film Rings, which involved teenagers circulating the VHS tape from before as a subculture within Oregon that pass the tape along when they get too afraid at what they see before the one-week deadline, complete with videoing their reactions. Twelve years later, here we are with a film called...Rings. The 2005 film told you who was the mother of the main threat, now you get to find out the father and the manner of conception. Well, and the tape has a new twist to it, because even I would be surprised if they re-used the exact tape from 15 years ago without any sort of change. The screenplay by written by David Loucka, Jacob Estes, Akiva Goldsman while the story was done by David Loucka and Jacob Estes, which evidently took a few elements from Suzuki's 1995 novel Spiral (that book had its own Japanese film adaptation, which coincidentally was a movie with terrible critical reception). The movie was directed by F. Javier Guttierez, who had exactly one feature credit in Before the Fall (2008).

Congratulations, you made a boring teenager movie. There is just nothing here to really grab on when it comes to any sort of new scares, unless you count everyone but D'Onofrio being bland as horror. Remember that short film? There is a resemblance to that in this film, since both films involve a group of kids deciding to get their kicks in checking out the VHS tape (at least there is file copying) before they find a mark to pass it on. Of course, the opening scene is something a bit different: someone trying to avoid the curse by riding on an airplane. Let's just say you would be better off being frozen instead. I do think there is something about the weirdness of people willing to take an experiment involving the soul and other gobbledygook (college, remember). The problem is that the film veers back into the Morgan plot in making a more "intricate" story...oh hell, it doesn't end mattering when you think about it. Does it really matter to know that a priest held someone captive and had a child with them only to, you know...? Besides, the twist ending that comes in the final minutes may have been a better idea to do an actual feature rather than as sequel bait (which apparently was spoiled in marketing, begging the question how one can market so badly). But nope, you get the mildest of mild people trying to make things interesting for the most uninspired efforts. Lutz and Roe just can't make this work out together, seemingly bewildered at being in a teen movie that can't distract itself with gore or any kind of meaningful characteristics that happen even in hack films (you know, ones that are overly self-aware...); in short, when they make dumb decisions, I don't even feel like caring about it. Galecki is barely worth mentioning in the movie, as out of all the people I would assume could play the role, he would probably rank in the bottom tier. Simply put, he brings nothing to the role beyond what a community theater actor might bring to a role that is barely written to begin with, and you don't even get to see him very much once the movie ditches its first narrative trick. If it wasn't for the fact that D'Onofrio is already in the movie, you would've ditched Galecki to the side of the road, because D'Onofrio at least makes the effort for deranged dignity, one that grabs your attention like any seasoned pro would do without hamming things up. The idea of terror veering its way onto new technology (i.e. not just a friggin' VHS tape) does sound like part of an interesting idea for a film, but it doesn't come together for something to justify its 102-minute runtime. Instead, it goes with bland cheap tricks and writing that doesn't know what it wants to be that results in a forgettable effort. You would be better off spending an hour looking at a film shelf rather than this movie.

Overall, I give it 4 out of 10 stars.

Next Time: One more movie for Halloween: The Week After 4.0 to close the circle. 3 from Hell.

The Lego Batman Movie.

Review #1864: The Lego Batman Movie.

Cast: 

Will Arnett (Batman / Bruce Wayne), Michael Cera (Robin / Dick Grayson), Rosario Dawson (Batgirl / Barbara Gordon), Ralph Fiennes (Alfred Pennyworth), Zach Galifianakis (Joker), Jenny Slate (Harley Quinn), Jason Mantzoukas (Scarecrow), Conan O'Brien (The Riddler), Doug Benson (Bane), Billy Dee Williams (Two-Face), Zoë Kravitz (Catwoman), Kate Micucci (Clayface), Riki Lindhome (Poison Ivy), Eddie Izzard (Voldemort), Seth Green (King Kong), Jemaine Clement (Sauron), Ellie Kemper (Phyllis), Channing Tatum (Superman), Hector Elizondo (Jim Gordon), and Mariah Carey (Mayor McCaskill) Directed by Chris McKay.

Review: 

I'm sure you remember the Lego movies, if only because of how bright and colorful they were. This was the second Lego-themed movie released by Warner Bros through their animation department, with the first being The Lego Movie (2014). That movie featured Will Arnett in a supporting role as a Lego version of Batman. A sequel was evidently planned for this movie, but the acquisition of the film rights by Universal Pictures in 2020 scuttled those plans. Admittedly, the Arnett Batman was meant to be as amusing as possible with a gravelly voice and macho characterization, so a movie wasn't particularly out of the element, self-promotion for Lego or not. This was the feature debut of Chris McKay, who had had studied at Southern Illinois University and Columbia College Chicago for film. He worked a number of years for video and equipment rental companies before starting his own venture into making videos and small movies; he also worked on television programs such as Robot Chicken in animation and direction. McKay served as animation supervisor on the aforementioned 2014 Lego movie, and he also served as a co-editor. The movie was written by Seth Grahame-Smith, Chris McKenna, Erik Sommers, Jared Stern, and John Whittington.

Honestly, I kind of just forgot to consider the movie when it came out five years ago, a casualty of just being the odd man out when it comes to spending time and money at a movie theater. I'm not sure I missed too much when it comes to looking upon the saturation of Batman movies in the last ten, twenty, thirty, forty years (or so). It may be the lightest toned of the movies since the 1960s Batman, all things considered (complete with a handful of references, such as having the "POW!" graphic show up near the end). It's a Batman movie that you can show the kids with no doubts (at least ones who get antsy about PG-13 ratings), which means you have a 104-minute movie with a few silly jokes that plays its family angle (or more specifically, family message) to moderate effect. Arnett plays the gravelly loner to basically what you would expect in heightened ego-pull that inevitably gets to learn a lesson and yadda yadda he has the timing required to carry it through. He won't exactly be included in the discussion for the ideal Batman (no animated version gets their due, no matter how much I can argue for Kevin Conroy), but he sticks out in showing the ideal version of what a Batman can be: confident and vulnerable. Cera proves quite eager to serve as partner to Arnett in a few chuckles that would probably make Burt Ward smile, which actually works in the favor of the movie when it comes to the lack of Robins in film to begin with. Dawson does fine here, a calm presence among the oddballs that does what is needed without delay, which can apply to Fiennes and his precise pinpoints of a role played again and again (one that is hard to mess up anyway). Galifianakis makes a quality foe in the vein of campy folks from long ago, hamming it up in ways expected when chewing scenery and counteracting Arnett in an attempt at hero-villain chemistry that lends some deranged charm (maybe not quite Cesar Romero charm but close enough). The other villains aren't exactly given more than a line or two but seeing the handful of references to the colorful assortment of villains through the Batman years is worth a chuckle or a view (along with non-Batman properties, which is kinda funny to see in Lego spoof). It's a Batman movie that happens to feature Legos, as long as one doesn't see the seams of a joke wearing thin (i.e. making too many of those jokes or movies) or sticking in bland mud, you have a good case to entertain your audience, and I think the movie works well in that regard. With a not-too cloying message about togetherness that makes a bright and cheery success, The Lego Batman Movie does pretty well for itself as a real one-of-a-kind look into Batman that does exactly what it aspires to do.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

mother!

Review #1580: mother!

cast: 
Jennifer Lawrence (mother), Javier Bardem (Him), Ed Harris (man), Michelle Pfeiffer (woman), Domhnall Gleeson (oldest son), Brian Gleeson (younger brother), Kristen Wiig (herald), Jovan Adepo (cupbearer), Stephen McHattie (zealot), Amanda Warren (healer), Laurence Leboeuf (maiden), and Emily Hampshire (fool) Written and Directed by Darren Aronofsky (#1112 - Pi)

review: 
“The idea with all my films is to entertain, to give audiences a journey they haven’t had before. But I want to do it with a subject that makes me passionate. What’s the point if you’re not doing that?”

Sometimes you can just track an interesting path of a director in their first film and see how it goes to the latest one - enter Darren Aronofsky. The New York native had an interest in the outdoors and show business as a youth, and it continued with his studies at Harvard University, where he studied social anthropology and filmmaking. Inspired by directors such as Jim Jarmusch and Spike Lee, he made his first movie with the senior thesis Supermarket Sweep (1991). His first feature film came with the release of Pi (1998), an ultra-cheap dark classic thriller. His next film in Requiem for a Dream (2000) was just as well received while noted for its intensity. The Fountain (2006) was not easily received (although it has a following), but The Wrestler (2008) and Black Swan (2010) both received considerable notice (particularly for its lead stars in each film) while Noah (2014) was his biggest film in budget/success.

Angry about the world with its environmental state and as a whole enough to strike inspiration, Aronofsky reportedly wrote the script to the film in five days, and inspirations have been argued that range from Rosemary's Baby (1968) to The Exterminating Angel (1962). The easiest word to describe this film would be "esoteric", really. Get it? A film about mother (Earth)? Drawing a story based on the Bible (there is one character name capitalized, after all)? And it is still a cloying, divisive, ridiculous mess? The real surprise is in how much you want to know before seeing it - the answer would be none, because hearing an endless supply of "you just don't get it!" vs. "I don't get it, because X" would likely cause a great headache for all involved. It certainly won't help anyone wanting a film pegged under one genre, since "psychological horror" doesn't really seem to cut it. I mean, hey a husband-and-wife living in a country house wrapped with writer's block and intimacy problems suddenly have a couple of strangers turn up sounds fine. Is it blasphemy? Is it pretentious? Is it something else? It can fall under either or all of these three categories, depending on the patience and the point of view of the person watching it. To me, I thought it was incredibly silly, a monumentally weird movie that seems more like therapy for Aronofsky than anything else. It might as well have taken place on the stage (with...some modification to its gruesome scene at the end) with how it plays to the rafters of allegory, allegory, and allegory. Lawrence (having become an actress as a teenager and one with prominence years later) does fine with what she is given, balancing that fine line between emotional vulnerability and being stuck like a statue to ham-fisted metaphor. No one is really confused in their acting, although Bardem sure comes close here. Truthfully, one would hope to see more of Harris and Pfeiffer, each being equally amusing in pushy fervor that begs for more time to spend with loopy interlopers. 

Is it a challenging movie different from the usual fare released in mainstream theaters? Sure, but so was Zardoz (1974), and all one remembers from that film is Sean Connery in a nappy. Why stop there with the reference to that film? After all, both films try to meander through a certain type of philosophy from its director while subjecting their lead to some sort of memorable outfit/character (which in the case of Lawrence is a bunch of heavy stuff amidst statuesque acting all around) that involve some sort of supreme being (one being a rock and the other being...take a guess) while taking a hard swerve for its climax with some sort of revelation (in this case, a literal mad-house). Whether one believes in God or not, it is sure to be a strange one to evaluate, although truthfully I wish I could show this to a religious friend of mine, if only to see if they would get mad at it for my amusement. In that sense, it is equally appropriate to give this film the same rating as I did years prior to that film, because neither are particularly great pieces of work, but they sure are memorable in all of their ridiculousness. I applaud Aronofsky for continuing his vision of filmmaking with passion, and the commitment to have his actors participate in some weird pretentiousness, despite the overriding result of said camp. It will prove a welcome curiosity for those that favor Aronofsky and his films for what they attempt to do in story, while proving an irritant for those not in line with its ultimate goals.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

It Comes at Night.

Review #1579: It Comes at Night.

Cast: 

Joel Edgerton (Paul), Christopher Abbott (Will), Carmen Ejogo (Sarah), Riley Keough (Kim), Kelvin Harrison Jr. (Travis), Griffin Robert Faulkner (Andrew), David Pendleton (Bud), and Mickey (Stanley) Written and Directed by Trey Edward Shults.

Review: 

"With this one, I think I jumped into it as the audience would. The way it’s written is the way I jumped into it. I let it spew out of me. Also, it stemmed from something super personal, so it started from that and spewed out from there. I don’t build out this whole, huge world and start writing. It comes from this personal, little space and let it build out. And then I have my logical reasons for everything else, but I intentionally keep stuff out."

Never count out seeing a young voice find their place in resilient prominence in cinema, whether for drama for horror, particularly from a name that could prove quite useful to know in the future in Trey Edward Shults. The native Texan already had a love of films by the time he was a teenager, but his chance to move into the work of filmmaking came at the age of 19 when he was hired to work in the camera department on The Tree of Life (2011), directed by Terence Malick (a visionary director to discuss another time). The experience shaped his decision to drop out of Texas State University (having been at school for business management) and do work interning for Malick (which resulted in work on Voyage of Time (2016) and Song to Song (2017)). He made three short films as a director from 2010 to 2014, which includes Krisha - he would convert it into his feature debut the following year with members of his family participating in the film, which was a hit with the festival circuit. The basis for the film came from his reaction to his father's death, in which he tried to help his dad find some peace with the regrets he had, with the film being about the process of grief and regret that is torn by fear, reflecting his biggest fear - mortality. He found inspiration with films such as Night of the Living Dead (1968) and The Shining (1980) alongside works from directors such as John Cassavetes and Paul Thomas Anderson.

I'm sure you have heard this before, but sometimes it is what you don't see that is more scary, which can be drawn right in the open from the prominent featuring of Pieter Bruegel the Elder's painting The Triumph of Death. If one is expecting a slow burn involving paranoia wreaking havoc over all as opposed to a monster movie, you might be in for quite a tense winner. It relies on pulling the strings in stress and doubt for the majority of 91 minutes, and the enjoyment is in exactly how one feels about seeing fear play out like this, seeing people trying to survive despite the threat of sickness while cooped up away from the world (or at the very least trying to escape the problems the world can bring), because fear is one thing, but death is another. Edgerton is dependable here, capable of reacting to his surroundings with the conviction required to move in fear without seeming brazen about it. Abbott does just as well here, expressing his own control on the situation as it grows, maintaining the other side of tentative balance of family just fine. On the other side of reflected families, Ejogo and Keough each do well in matching the surroundings needed that keeps the doubts in check. Harrison (having been in small roles of film since 2012 before having a breakthrough here) proves the key piece of the main group, capturing a yearning fear and growth that makes for a usefully different kind of youth horror story. It builds a carefully-planned atmosphere of quiet doubt to longer on who and what one knows and doesn't know that makes for delicate human nature drama that works best within the details (such as during its dream moments, for example), relying on one's patience to make an efficient time (with an equally appropriate ending to go with said buildup). It won't merit the best for everyone in delivering everything in horror, but it is a quietly effective film of family and fear to match the moment needed to ponder on its content after the screen goes to black and one goes back to their normal life behind the screen.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Shape of Water.

Review #1061: The Shape of Water.

Cast: 
Sally Hawkins (Elisa Esposito), Michael Shannon (Colonel Richard Strickland), Richard Jenkins (Giles), Octavia Spencer (Zelda Delilah Fuller), Michael Stuhlbarg (Dimitri Mosenkov), Doug Jones ("Amphibian Man"), David Hewlett (Fleming), and Nick Searcy (General Frank Hoyt) Directed by Guillermo del Toro (#425 - Pacific Rim)

Review: 
Admittedly, I can't tell which was more surprising: the fact that this was the winner of Best Picture (beating such films as Get Out (#909) and Dunkirk (#980) while also winning Best Director, Best Original Score, and Best Production Design) or the fact that this came to my local theater in the middle of March, different from how I usually review films in the Theater Saga. In any case, enjoy a interesting case for Movie Night.

The world of fantasy can provide an outlet for creative movies on both a visual and story lervel that can have things just be what they are while dealing with subject that other genres can have shortcomings with. While this film may not be perfect with everything that it does, it is at the very least a fine achievement. It is interesting to note del Toro's level of involvement with this project, serving as director, co-writer, and producer, which makes the seem to be a clear passion project for him, and he projects that with an abundance of visual flair and imagination that works for what he intends - for the most part. I found that the film worked best when it showed off its characters and style more so than its story. Maybe it will go down as a great classic, maybe it will not, but I think it will at least find a place in the places of fantasy and romance people's hearts.

 It is evident that del Toro wanted his film to achieve a look that would sell his film as something to care for and appreciate, with Dan Lausten's cinematography along with Paul D. Austerberry, Shane Vieau and Jeff Melvin with production design and Alexandre Desplat's music, all striking at the chords for good effect. The main cast all do a fine job, with Hawkins shining in delivering a capable performance through the way she moves her face (since she communicates only through American Sign Language) and through her physicality that shines through and through. Shannon manages to turn what could've been just a cliche adversary and manages to make it feel interesting and useful to want to keep watching in a ruthlessly effective way. Jenkins does a fine job being the counterpart to Hawkins, being useful to watch. Spencer also provides a bit of levity along with sense to the film that helps give the film focus. Stuhlbarg also proves to be fairly nice in his role, and Jones does a decent job under all that makeup. The story by del Toro and Vanessa Taylor is a bit familiar in some of its notes, but it is at the least entertaining enough to make something worthwhile, having a fairy tale involving what is essentially inspired by movie monsters or arguably Beauty and the Beast. It falls into sentimentality at times, and perhaps it takes itself a bit too seriously, but there is enough drive and spirit to push itself over the finish line and succeed with elegance, which might've felt ridiculous or weirder in other hands. Are there moments in the film that seem a bit silly? Yes, particularly some parts with Hawkins and Jones, but also a bit in the climax (which I can't really spoil), but there also manages to be enough interesting moments too with the cast that makes up for it. I find the movie fine enough to recommend, provided that you are in the mood for what it tries to tell through its passion.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Hostiles.

Review #1048: Hostiles.

Cast: 
Christian Bale (Captain Joseph J. Blocker), Rosamund Pike (Rosalie Quaid), Wes Studi (Yellow Hawk), Ben Foster (Sergeant Charles Wills), Stephen Lang (Colonel Abraham Biggs), Rory Cochrane (1st Sergeant Thomas Metz), Jesse Plemons (Lieutenant Rudy Kidder), Timothée Chalamet (Private Philippe DeJardin), Jonathan Majors (Corporal Henry Woodson), Adam Beach (Black Hawk), and Q'orianka Kilcher (Elk Woman) Directed by Scott Cooper.

Review: 
Admittedly, it is interesting watch a Western like this in our day and age, one that is brutal but fair in its approach that ultimately feels like a solid winner. The film (which premiered at the Telluride Film Festival in September of last year before going into limited release in December and general release on January 26th) is based off an manuscript from the late screenwriter Donald E. Stewart, who had written for numerous films such as Missing (1982) and The Hunt for Red October (1990 - #080), among others. Undeniably, the most appealing aspect of the film is Bale, who delivers a tremendous performance. There is just something about the way that he commands the movie and shows numerous layers within his character that makes for a hauntingly good role. That's not to say that the other actors don't go a great job, with Pike and Studi also standing out in their own ways. Pike manages to interact with the harrowing world that she is thrust into with the right sense of emotion and timing. Studi also provides a fine performance, managing to complement Bale and his character with his own actions that he conveys in a convincing manner. Notably, a good part of the film features the speaking of dialogue through the Cheyenne language, which comes off as satisfactory to the film's benefit. The other actors do their parts well enough, particularly Cochrane, who plays the weary solider in the film rather convincingly. Another highlight of the movie is its look, with cinematographer Masanobu Takayanagi doing a fine job in capturing the locations utilized in the movie that give a crisp but useful feel. This is a redemption story through and through, and it manages to capture a feel of the Old West without feeling too hollow. The narrative isn't always the most consistent, but the parts that are manage to ring true enough, with the 133 minute run-time being forgivable. I'd recommend it, particularly if you are a fan of the genre and want something that is harsh but also arguably beautiful as well.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Star Wars: The Last Jedi.

Review #1027: Star Wars: The Last Jedi.

Cast: 
Mark Hamill (Luke Skywalker), Carrie Fisher (General Leia Organa), Adam Driver (Kylo Ren), Daisy Ridley (Rey), John Boyega (Finn), Oscar Isaac (Poe Dameron), Andy Serkis (Supreme Leader Snoke), Lupita Nyong'o (Maz Kanata), Domhnall Gleeson (General Hux), Anthony Daniels (C-3PO), Gwendoline Christie (Captain Phasma), Kelly Marie Tran (Rose Tico), Laura Dern (Vice Admiral Amilyn Holdo), Frank Oz (Yoda), and Benicio del Toro (DJ) Directed by Rian Johnson.

Review: 
Yes, I know it's been a few days since The Last Jedi premiered in theaters. But in any case, this is the 49th film in the Theater Saga, in which I watched a movie while it was in theaters, so let me just say that it was nice to see this movie in theaters with a big crowd. I apologize if this review feels a bit long, but I hope that it is worth it for you viewers, even if it is over the usual 300-500 word count that I try to hold to myself to.

It's hard to believe that it has been two years since The Force Awakens (#769), which I described as one "not bogged down by weight or its own characters...a movie that utilizes elements from the original trilogy with elements of its own to make a new mesh that works pretty well for itself." Obviously I still stand by those statements, although I can certainly find why some wouldn't find it as good as I thought it was. I have no doubt that I will be recapping what I thought of this film when it comes times for Episode IX two years down the line, but I don't know how I'll feel about this film after a matter of time passes by. In any case, The Last Jedi is a decent movie for my tastes, although I will say that it is a movie that inspires praise along with detractors, for better or for worse. Whether it lives up to the hype of following up the previous film or not, I did enjoy myself enough, but I can't say that it was better than the last one, or even as good as any of the original trilogy. It definitely is a movie that doesn't try to play itself safe, but it is also a movie that can't always hold all of its plot threads together, despite a 152-minute run-time. I don't mean to be too shallow but let me talk about the visuals for one moment. The movie does have a tremendous look when it comes to the action sequences and the landscapes and sets that it shows throughout the film, such as Ahch-To, the planet that Luke and Rey are on for most of the film, or the planet where the final climax takes place, with accompanying red hues. On a most basic level, this is good entertainment that will satisfying someone looking for some well-done space action. But in a franchise that now has eight primary movies (and a spin-off film, with another coming next year), the bar for satisfaction is not entirely too high. That doesn't mean that Star Wars movies need to just be big spectacles or heavy with plotlines, it just means that the best ones are the movies that find a middle ground. I'm not so sure that this one finds that ground perfectly, but I do think that it makes itself work with what it has just enough.

The performances are fairly entertaining, with the biggest stand out being Hamill, Ridley, and Driver. They are the main group that drives the movie forward, and they certainly have their own respective qualities that make them easily watchable. Even after over 30 years, Hamill manages to leap right into his role without any sort of staleness or taking the role into anything too radical, for what the writing requires anyway. Driver does a fine job in making his role seem more full-fledged, showing vulnerability and conflict that resonates well with the film, especially when with others. Ridley does a good job in showing this character with a bit more depth and tension, and it is easy to go along with her character in her actions, for the most part. Fisher (in her final film role) does a fine graceful job in the time that she has on screen, although I wished that there would've been a bit more with her, but I digress. The drama that engages the main trio is pretty good, and it certainly feels more gripping than the other plotlines, for better or for worse. The rest of the cast do a fine job, but I think the script doesn't help them all too much. One subplot involves Boyega, Issac, Tran, and del Toro, and they all do decent in their performances, but as a whole that plot-line does feel a bit strange. Serkis proves to be somewhat decent as Snoke (this time in physical form), but it leaves you wishing for a bit more. Nyong'o has one scene appearance, and I guess it is satisfactory, although I suppose there could've been more from her role. Gleeson does fine in his role, with a bit of ruthlessness along with a bit of ambition. Christie is fine in the sequence that she is in, although I can't say she was any better than she was in the last film. Tran does okay with what she is given, but I didn't really find myself really caring about her part in the plotline. It is nice to see Dern and del Toro, and they do decently in the roles they are given, even if they don't have too much screen-time. It's hard to explain the story quibbles without spoiling it, but I will just say that the motivations of certain characters do seem to rely a bit on of an idiot plot. Sure, the movie does have a decent payoff, but the way that certain characters seem to do things out of nowhere does detract (and distract) a bit from the enjoyment.

Ultimately, this is a movie that can be a bit of a mess. It has a story that tries to cover numerous bases, whether about the Force, the plot-line with the First Order and the Resistance, or something deeper, and while I can't say that it works all the time, there is enough enjoyment and entertainment to make a movie that is worth watching at least once. For a Star Wars fan like me, I found it to be satisfying enough for my tastes. Is it perfect? Obviously not, but it doesn't need to be. Am I anticipating the next one? Sure, but I'll try not to keep my excitement to a reasonable level.

Lastly, may the force be with you.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Because I can't find a way to put a sentence about the Porgs in the review, I'll just say that they were okay. Obviously, they were created to make for merchandise, but they are at least somewhat amusing without being too distracting. 

Review edited in 2025 for formatting.

Coco (2017).

Review #1016: Coco.

Cast: 
Anthony Gonzalez (Miguel Rivera), Gael García Bernal (Héctor), Benjamin Bratt (Ernesto de la Cruz), Alanna Ubach (Mamá Imelda Rivera), Renée Victor (Abuelita Elena Rivera), Ana Ofelia Murguía (Mamá Coco Rivera), Edward James Olmos (Chicharrón), Alfonso Arau (Papá Julio Rivera), Selene Luna (Tía Rosita Rivera), Dyana Ortellí (Tía Victoria Rivera), Herbert Siguenza (Tío Felipe Rivera and Tío Oscar Rivera), Jaime Camil (Papá Enrique Rivera), Sofía Espinosa (Mamá Luisa Rivera), and Luis Valdez (Tío Berto Rivera) Directed by Lee Unkrich (#074 - Monsters, Inc, #155 - Finding Nemo, #382 - Toy Story 3, and #441 - Toy Story 2) and Adrian Molina.

Review: 
You are likely wondering if there was anything before or after the film. In this case, Olaf's Frozen Adventure, a 21-minute "short" played before the main feature. Long story short, it is a finely animated piece, but I don't see the point of playing this before Coco. Sure, it is a Disney production for a film released by Walt Disney Pictures, but this is something you would see as a television special, not on a big screen. Long story short, it doesn't detract from Coco, but it isn't really anything you absolutely need to see, unless of course you're a huge fan of Frozen. Hopefully you enjoy the following review.

I will admit that I had a fair amount of expectations from this film, likely because Pixar does have a fair (but not perfect) record with their movies, but also because it seemed particularly interesting. Admittedly, there are likely some comparisons that could be made to The Book of Life (2014), but there isn't much point in doing so in my view seeing as I hadn't seen the other film before this (one can likely search the web all they want for the comparisons they desire). In any case, Coco is a wonderful movie, achieving a great look with tremendous animation and a riveting story and cast of characters that surely makes for great entertainment for all audiences. Gonzalez does a fine job as the lead, never approaching the lines of annoyance or unlikeability, while also making his character fairly interesting to follow for the film, and he also does a fairly decent jobs for times when he sings as well. Bernal does a pretty commendable job, having some fine moments of amusements, but he also proves to be an interesting character to follow as well, with him and Gonzalez having pretty good chemistry together. Bratt is enjoyable to watch as well, having a fine amount of charisma that certainly seems believable. The rest of the cast is also fairly pretty good at their roles, each having at least one good moment throughout the film, most of the time having a pretty good effect. The animation is wonderful to watch, having a dazzling colorful effect at times that shows a good deal of creativity and imagination while not distracting one from the story itself. The movie has a fairly cohesive narrative that sticks well enough while also making sure to cover its bases splendidly. Although it has its amusing moments, the movie does manage to create some emotion without feeling fabricated nor overly sentimental. At 110 minutes, it feels like the right kind of run-time for a film like this, although some could find it to be a bit dragged in the beginning, but I'd say that the film is never boring on any level, whether on the eyes or for what the film wants to be about, saying some fairly interesting things about culture and family along with other things that should be watched and not spoiled in a review. This is an easy film for me to recommend because of the elements that make this a clear winner, from its animation to its heart.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Justice League.

Review #1011: Justice League.

Cast: 
Ben Affleck (Bruce Wayne / Batman), Henry Cavill (Kal-El / Clark Kent / Superman), Amy Adams (Lois Lane), Gal Gadot (Diana Prince / Wonder Woman), Ezra Miller (Barry Allen / Flash), Jason Momoa (Arthur Curry / Aquaman), Ray Fisher (Victor Stone / Cyborg), Jeremy Irons (Alfred Pennyworth), Diane Lane (Martha Kent), Connie Nielsen (Hippolyta), J. K. Simmons (James Gordon), and Ciarán Hinds (Steppenwolf) Directed by Zack Snyder (#788 - Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice)

Review: 
To fellow readers: I did not intend for this review to be over 700 words, but here we are. Hopefully this review is consistent enough and useful for you.

Admittedly, the DC comic book films over the past few years have a been a bit...diverse (#788 - Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, #828 - Suicide Squad, #942 - Wonder Woman), with their own particular brand of taste and style (and that is putting it lightly). This remains the case with this film, which is certainly a strange movie for one that is also wildly mediocre. Sure, I enjoyed the movie, but it is easily one that won't go down as anything great (in fairness, it's not like Thor: Ragnarok will go down as a hallmark of comic book films). It's clear that this movie wants to be lighter and fun, with varying results that come off as slightly inconsistent, particularly with characters like Batman, though that is not the biggest flaw. In any case, let me start with the main six, which is certainly an interesting bunch.

Affleck pulls off a pretty decent performance, being somewhat endearing even if seems like the character shifts tone from stoic to snarky, though it isn't too awfully distracting. Gadot is the best one of the group, being quite enjoyable and graceful as she was in her prior film. Miller is fairly entertaining in the film and is likely the most amusing part of the film. Momoa is fairly decent, though I'd say it takes time for him to really grow on you. Fisher is probably the weakest of the six, feeling a bit flat (though his character is at least useful to the plot). Cavill (with accompanying CGI-erased mustache) is decent enough for the time that he appears, but he doesn't really appear as much as he probably should've appeared. The supporting cast aren't really given much to do, and that can prove to be a bit disappointing (even in a movie all about the main six). It's not so much that Hinds does a terrible job as the villain as it is the fact that his character just isn't compelling to watch. with this being the worst part of the film. He is not a character that ever inspires fear or anything other than a mild expression, with his scenes with dialogue or fighting reminding me more of cut-scenes than actual scenes. Naturally, he is a villain that doesn't take too long to take down, with the victory feeling somewhat hollow that actually feels amusing to laugh at. The action sequences prove to be a mixed bag. On the one hand, they are sometimes pretty entertaining in their spectacle. On the other hand, the CGI just doesn't hold up that well, and for a movie that was reportedly made for over $300 million it certainly seems puzzling to see how it doesn't really work in the department. The film is at least sometimes amusing, and the cast does seem to have some good chemistry with each other, although at times it can come off a bit rushed, which can also apply in some way to the plot, which isn't too special, especially when it seems to go all over the place with its characters.

The film certainly feels a bit jumbled, no doubt due to post-production efforts in which Josh Whedon  (director of #312 - The Avengers and #706 - Avengers: Age of Ultron) was hired to rewrite additional scenes. In May of this year, Snyder stepped down during this process due to the death of his daughter, with Whedon taking over for rest of post-production, serving as director for scenes that he had written. In any case, Snyder is listed as the only director, though Whedon is given a credit for the screenplay (along with Chris Terrio, who had also co-written the story with Synder). The film certainly feels like a jumbling of numerous things, trying to give time for the three characters without their own film (Aquaman, The Flash, Cyborg). Subsequently, the film feels rushed when trying to deliver exposition for them.

Ultimately, this is a movie that achieves its most basic goals of being escapism and entertainment. It is ridiculous in how okay it is, but I found it to be fairly acceptable, warts and all. It isn't anything worthwhile, but it's a movie that will prove just enough for some audiences. Take this film for what it's worth.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Thor: Ragnarok.

Review #1009: Thor: Ragnarok.

Cast: 
Chris Hemsworth (Thor), Tom Hiddleston (Loki), Cate Blanchett (Hela), Idris Elba (Heimdall), Jeff Goldblum (Grandmaster), Tessa Thompson (Valkyrie), Karl Urban (Skurge), Mark Ruffalo (Bruce Banner / Hulk), Anthony Hopkins (Odin), Benedict Cumberbatch (Doctor Strange), Taika Waititi (Korg), Rachel House (Topaz), Clancy Brown (Surtur) Directed by Taika Waititi.

Review: 
It is interesting to see how one will be able to compare this film to the previous two installments, Thor (#041) and Thor: The Dark World (#827), along with how it compares to the other two Marvel films released this year, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (#932) and Spider-Man: Homecoming (#966). In a way, this is a film that wins and loses with regard to comparison. On the one hand, it is likely the lesser of the three Marvel films for this year, but on the other hand, it is likely the best Thor film yet. Hemsworth had already shined in the previous two films (along with appearances that he made in other Marvel films), but he does a tremendous job this time around, having a fun flair that is energetic along with entertaining. Hiddleston also does a pretty good job once again, having a mischievous but also fairly compelling, and his scenes with Hemsworth are entertaining. Blanchett does a fair job as the villain, having a few moments where she seems menacing, though I wouldn't say it is really too memorable or great. Goldblum, on the other hand, is pretty maniacal but also pretty entertaining for such a strange role, and he takes full advantage of it that works pretty well. Elba and Thompson are fine, with Hopkins and Cumberbatch doing well in the time that they appear on screen and Ruffalo being decent as well. The end credit scenes are fairly nifty as usual.

The film certainly tries to play itself for more of a comedic angle this time around, and on some level it works but it also can seem a bit overplayed and distracting, depending on the kind of mood or tone you're looking for. It feels more earned for something like the Guardians of the Galaxy films than it does for this film, but I will say that this film at least does shine with some amusement, with Hemsworth and Ruffalo's scenes being pretty good examples of that. At 130 minutes, it seems to have a fairly coherent pace, and while the film may not work for everyone, it certainly had enough to win me over with the fun that it has.

And with that, this ends the 117th review of Movie Night for the year of 2017. It isn't exactly an accomplishment, but this review means that there are more reviews published than there were last year in total (116). In any case, it's good to see some sort of productivity from myself (heck, there were only 90 reviews in 2015), so here's to productivity and more reviews in the future.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Blade Runner 2049.

Review #997: Blade Runner 2049.

Cast: 
Ryan Gosling (K), Harrison Ford (Rick Deckard), Ana de Armas (Joi), Sylvia Hoeks (Luv), Robin Wright (Lt. Joshi), Mackenzie Davis (Mariette), Carla Juri (Dr. Ana Stelline), Lennie James (Mister Cotton), Dave Bautista (Sapper Morton), Jared Leto (Niander Wallace), Edward James Olmos (Gaff) Directed by Denis Villeneuve (#753 - Sicario)

Review: 
It has been over five years since I reviewed Blade Runner (#100, The Final Cut edition), and I will admit that I never actually thought a sequel would happen. Well, here we are with a sequel 35 years later (and 897 reviews after I did the original, which seems fitting). I even watched the original film hours later I saw this, mainly so I could process my thoughts for this film a bit better. In any case, that film still manages to hold up quite well, but I still never dreamed that there would ever be a follow up, because of how the film built itself, owing to its direction but also its screenplay by Hampton Fancher and David Peoples; I mention this due to Fancher returning to write the screenplay for this film (with Michael Green serving as co-writer).

Honestly, this was a pretty great movie. For fans of the original, I would say that it was worth the wait, and its shining achievement is in how it is not a retread of the first film, managing to utilize elements from it that make for a capably clever narrative. Like the original, it is a bleak, shocking kind of science fiction film, and it certainly is a movie made to tell a story with numerous threads to it, owing to the 163 minute run-time (which is probably the longest for a film I've seen in quite some time), but it never bored me as it earns every minute of its time, although it admittedly could take a while to really kick in. Roger Deakins, who had done the cinematography for Skyfall (#572), Sicario (#753), and Fargo (#765) (along with several other films) does a tremendous job in this film, utilizing light and shadow all throughout the movie with a wonderful touch. Gosling does a fine job, carrying the film with the right kind of tone and feel that you would expect. It isn't too much of a spoiler to say that it takes quite a while for Ford to show up but when he does it certainly seems like the best time for him to appear, with the film having built itself enough tension already. Ford also does a fine job, being quite useful for the narrative while also showing some emotional prowess; likely the best scene with him in it involves him and Leto, mainly because of the exchange that they have. de Armas does a fine job in a role that certainly is unique while also being fitting for a film all about it means to be human. Hoeks steals the show, being quite chilling and incredibly stealthy in her role. Wright also does a fine job in the time she has on screen, as does Davis and Juri. Leto has a few scenes that certainly come off as a bit strange...so of course it makes sense in the context of the film, which he pulls off pretty well. Even if I wanted to, it is hard to really talk much about the film's plot because of how it builds itself with imagination that certainly will leave the viewer with some sort of emotional response (and some questions) by the time the film gets to its end.

Watching this film is not so much an endurance as it is an experience (which I hope does not come off as sounding pretentious), and it is one that I would recommend for someone looking for a film that challenges you to follow every step it ventures to take with its tone and characters. Whether there is a sequel to this film or not, this is a movie that stands on its own as a fine piece of entertaining science fiction, doing what it sets out to do without any kind of restrictions or bounds. It isn't a perfect film, but it is definitely an exceptional one at least.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Kingsman: The Golden Circle.

Review #994: Kingsman: The Golden Circle.

Cast: 
Colin Firth (Harry Hart / Galahad), Julianne Moore (Poppy Adams), Taron Egerton (Gary "Eggs)" Unwin / Galahad), Mark Strong (Merlin), Halle Berry (Ginger), Elton John (Himself), Channing Tatum (Tequila), Jeff Bridges (Champagne), Pedro Pascal (Whiskey), Edward Holcroft (Charles "Charlie" Hesketh), Hanna Alström (Crown Princess Tilde of Sweden), Poppy Delevingne (Clara Von Gluckfberg), and Bruce Greenwood (The President) Directed by Matthew Vaughn (#042 - X-Men: First Class and #993 - Kingsman: The Secret Service)

Review: 
Sequels always seem like they have to try and live up to the original film, whether by having high stakes or anteing up the action/effects. In the case of this film, there is definitely an attempt at making a bigger piece of extravagant action and violence (complete with an extended Elton John cameo), for better or for worse. It is hard to not compare this film to the first one, and in that comparison this is the weaker installment, not seeming to have much in terms of cleverness, though it does retain most of the charm and style. It doesn't play for any kind of safe territory that other spy films might pull, and it certainly is daring to see the risks that the movie takes, even if it sometimes feels a bit much. Some might term the film's tactics as "overkill", but it definitely has an appeal for someone looking for a movie that will go off the rails and yet still have enough pull from its action sequences and humor to work. If there is any kind of film that this one might remind me of, it would likely be Men in Black II (#212), or even Die Another Day (#174) - take that for what you will.

Firth and Egerton are still a fine duo, even if they don't have that same kind of chemistry as before. Moore proves to be fairly entertaining, and her plan is definitely an interesting one, but I felt that her plot thread nearly went off the rails by the time the climax ended. The Statesman crew are fairly interesting, although they do not have too much screen-time (with Tatum's role feeling like a cameo) as compared to the main Kingsman, with Pascal being the key standout, mostly because he certainly comes off as the most interesting. The rest of the cast is fairly decent, with Strong being a fine highlight. Whether one is a big Elton John fan or not (I have two songs of his in my one of my playlists), he certainly has an interesting presence over the time(s) that he appears in the movie - which can either be charming or tiresome - I found him to be fairly entertaining on the whole. The run-time may be an easy issue for some (141 minutes, as opposed to the original's 129 minute run-time), in part because it may just seem too long for a movie that seems to want to pack in every sort of action and effect it can, which can come off as a bit tedious. The film strives to entertain, and it does on some level succeed in its goal, but whether it comes at the price of competency is up to the viewer to decide. I fall around the middle, it that I know the movie is somewhat inferior to the first film, but I also know that I had a fine time watching it.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

It (2017).

Review #991: It.

Cast: 
Jaeden Lieberher (Bill Denbrough), Bill Skarsgård (Pennywise), Jeremy Ray Taylor (Ben Hanscom), Sophia Lillis (Beverly Marsh), Finn Wolfhard (Richie Tozier), Chosen Jacobs (Mike Hanlon), Jack Dylan Grazer (Eddie Kaspbrak), Wyatt Oleff (Stan Uris), Nicholas Hamilton (Henry Bowers), Jake Sim (Belch Huggins), Logan Thompson (Victor Criss), Owen Teague (Patrick Hockstetter), Jackson Robert Scott (Georgie Denbrough), Stephen Bogaert (Mr. Marsh), Stuart Hughes (Officer Bowers) DIrected by Andy Muschietti.

Review: 
Admittedly, I hadn't read the novel of the same name by Stephen King before going in to see this movie; I also never watched the 1990 miniseries adaptation, partly because I wanted to go into this like I would with any kind of horror film, without any real sense of comparison or with too much hype. In the end, I would say that this definitely succeeds as a thrilling piece of entertainment, even if it may not be the chilling kind of horror movie that one might have desired, though there are some quality scares. The cinematography by Chung-hoon Chung stands out pretty well, with the film's 80s look certainly passing itself off pretty well (without being doused in too many references), which makes for a good atmosphere.

The core of the film is the seven child actors (Lieberher, Taylor, Lillis, Wolfhard, Jacobs, Grazer, Oleff) that do tremendous jobs that surely keep the movie on the rails while also standing out quite well; Lieberher proves to be a quite capable lead, with Taylor and Lillis also being fairly interesting, though the one who sticks out the most is Wolfhard, who helps inspire some laughs with some timely "mouthy" remarks. With regards to Skarsgård and his performance, he does a pretty good job, mostly because he toes the line between playful and terrifying, with accompanying facial expressions (and some digital effects that are mostly successful) that make for satisfactory creeps and chills. The rest of the cast (such as Hamilton) do pretty decent in their roles, definitely helping in the creepy factor. It doesn't go too much into the gore factor, but it definitely is a movie that uses its R rating decently enough. Admittedly, there are a few jump scares, and while they don't come off as too distracting to the film's credit, I can see where someone might find it more harmful to the film. At 135 minutes, this certainly has an acceptable length when it is all said and done, and seeing how there most definitely will be a "second half" to this film in the near future, I can say that I will be waiting for it with curious anticipation.

It seems fitting to have done a horror film as part of the countdown to #1000, and it is also fitting that it is done just five years since the first installment of the Theater Saga on Movie Night, Paranorman (#240), done on September 8, 2012. Interesting how times have changed. The movie theater certainly has gone through some changes, but the experience is still pretty fun even to this day. 

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Logan Lucky.

Review #984: Logan Lucky.

Cast: 
Channing Tatum (Jimmy Logan), Adam Driver (Clyde Logan), Daniel Craig (Joe Bang), Seth MacFarlane (Max Chilblain), Riley Keough (Mellie Logan), Katie Holmes (Bobbie Jo Logan Chapman), Farrah Mackenzie (Sadie Logan), Katherine Waterston (RN Sylvia Harrison), Dwight Yoakam (Warden Burns), Sebastian Stan (Dayton White), Brian Gleeson (Sam Bang), Jack Quaid (Fish Bang), and Hilary Swank (Special Agent Sarah Grayson) Directed by Steven Soderbergh.

Review: 
Admittedly, this is a film that I did not see too much promotion for until roughly a week before its release, but I was still interested due to the fact that it seemed to have an interesting cast assembled; while it may not be the biggest success with audiences, I found this to be a neat little caper, having just enough turns and laughs to serve for good entertainment. The main cast (Tatum, Driver, Keough, Gleeson, Quaid, and Craig) have good chemistry with each other, inspiring some laughs because how offbeat (but fitting) these characters are in how they do a caper inventive as this; one of my favorite scenes is Craig explaining the principles of what makes the "bang" to the others. The film is inventive enough to let these characters operate without trying to give them some sort of "sympathy moment"; even the parts with Tatum and his onscreen daughter (Mackenzie) seem charming and relatively useful. The way the film is structured is also commendable, having a good amount of finely set characters and a pace that never drags its cast nor its story in the turns that the heist has. The other members of the cast are fine, with Yoakam, Gleeson and Quaid being pretty amusing in their roles. The film's climax is perfectly satisfactory, even if the parts with the two FBI agents is a bit sluggish (though at least Swank is fine); the (brief) parts involving MacFarlane and Stan aren't too great, though the latter's scene prior to the race is pretty amusing. The film's ending does seem to hint at a sequel (future note: sorry), and whether there is a follow-up or not to this story and its characters, this is undeniably a good experience that has enough charm and brilliance to work at least for now.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Dunkirk (2017).

Review #980: Dunkirk.

Cast: 
Fionn Whitehead (Tommy), Tom Glynn-Carney (Peter), Jack Lowden (Collins), Harry Styles (Alex), Aneurin Barnard (Gibson), James D'Arcy (Colonel Winnant), Barry Keoghan (George), Kenneth Branagh (Commander Bolton), Cillian Murphy (Shivering Soldier), Mark Rylance (Mr. Dawson), and Tom Hardy (Farrier) Directed by Christopher Nolan (#054 - The Dark Knight, #055 - Inception, and #062 - Batman Begins)

Review: 
I must admit, I did not know how long this film was going to be, in part because I had figured that a war film like this would be roughly two hours (or more), but as it turns out the film manages to run for 106 minutes; in any case, the movie (as stated by Nolan himself) is more of a suspense film than a war movie, but this is still a finely tuned film that achieves most (if not all of its goals). It shines especially on a technical level, from its structure to its editing to its cinematography, with the film having a great look and feel to it. The battles (along with the sequences in the water) are executed well as one would expect. It isn't a film that tries to show the horrors of war, but it does manage to have a lot of tension through the facial expressions of the characters along with sounds (such a ticking noise). The cast do a fine job, with the narratives each having something interesting to watch (aside from the tension that never lets up); Whitehead and the others within his narrative don't give any sort of great performance, but they are watchable enough to where one cares about their survival without having the film being about them (after all, we don't know any of the character's full name), and it works in delivering thrills in that regard; Rylance, Branagh and Murphy are fine standouts, delivering their roles with fine authority in the amount of time they have on screen. There is never a moment where you are taken out of the experience, it is an unrelenting film that approaches its subject matter with class and dignity (with the effects looking good as well). The best thing I can say about the film is that it is well executed in its vision by Nolan that surely will be up for some awards on a technical basis later in the year. It isn't a perfect film, but it is definitely a fine experience that is worth watching at least once.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Atomic Blonde.

Review #978: Atomic Blonde.

Cast: 
Charlize Theron (Lorraine Broughton), James McAvoy (David Percival), John Goodman (Emmett Kurzfeld), Til Schweiger (The Watchmaker), Eddie Marsan (Spyglass), Sofia Boutella (Delphine Lasalle), Toby Jones (Eric Gray), Bill Skarsgård (Merkel), Sam Hargrave (James Gasciogne), James Faulkner (Chief C), and Roland Møller (Aleksander Bremovych) Directed by David Leitch (#905 - John Wick)

Review: 
This is adapted from the graphic novel The Coldest City by Antony Johnston and Sam Hart, It is good to ring in the new month of August with another film from 2017, which has had quite a diverse amount of films, such as John Wick: Chapter 2 (#906), released earlier in the year. I say this because of how this film reminded me of that film and the previous Wick film, which Leitch help direct (though this is his first credited feature as director). Like those films, this movie has a great sense of execution with its action sequences, managing to not blur the line between action hero and killing machine. The plot of the film takes time to really gel, in part because of it doesn't try to be simple with its espionage, but it is never boring in part because of the actors and their performances. Theron pulls off an entertaining performance that is as engaging and capable as one would expect from something like the James Bond films, and her scenes with Boutella are also fairly compelling (and not gratuitous in any shape or form, thankfully). McAvoy is pretty clever, managing to have a sort of mania and enjoyment that balances off of Theron rightly enough. Goodman and Jones are also fine highlights, and the rest of the cast all seem necessary and useful to the plot. There are numerous highlights within the action scenes, with the staircase scene featuring good editing and fine pacing to it, and the cinematography by Jonathan Sela (who happened to do the cinematography for the first Wick film) is also a fine highlight. The music is also neatly handled well (in part because of it being set in 1989), with my personal highlights being "The Politics of Dancing" by Re-Flex, "London Calling" by The Clash, and "Under Pressure" by David Bowie and Queen. The run-time of 115 minutes is likely a bit too long, although it isn't anything too harmful. It's not a perfect movie by any means, but there definitely is enough competent action and presence by Theron to justify checking this one out.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.