Vice (2018) - Review

 

With a subject that doesn't immediately inspires laugh out loud hysterics, Adam McKay (“Anchorman,” “The Big Short”) continues his move from screwball comedy into the world of "based on a true story" dramedies. He’s chosen former Vice President Dick Cheney as the basis for his next film. With a cast consisting of McKay veterans and new players, he’s set in motion what could be his most complex film yet.

Could is the operative word.

Because when tackling someone like Cheney, a person that the film even acknowledges has a secretive life, a large amount of care must go into the proceedings to make sure everything is either correct or appears so. This can lead to a lot of difficult work from the writers, but it can pay off in the end. Like in his previous work “The Big Short,” writer/director Adam McKay has clearly put work into making sure the right people are saying and doing the right things.

It's evident that attention to detail was a major factor, and it shows. However, as good as this attention to detail is, it sacrifices something major that, before “Vice,” McKay had been a razor-sharp master of tone.

“Vice” has one glaringly huge problem at its center, much like Cheney’s early heart. The film itself seems unsure of what it wants to be. A riotous comedy filled with sly cutaways and “I-see-what-you-did-there” moments, or a serious drama about the trials and tribulations of one of the most reviled figures in American political history.

This leads to a lot of the storytelling techniques that McKay used in “The Big Short” failing here, due to the inconsistent and indecisive tone. As the film goes on, it becomes less apparent what is meant to be a joke and what is meant to be taken seriously, leading to a bizarre feeling of bleakness.

When Cheney is sitting talking with Bush about being his running mate, the film constantly flips back to shots of Cheney fishing. It’s as if we’re meant to think “Oh, he’s got him hook, line and sinker.” But when those fishing scenes are forgotten about as the movie progresses, it mainly leads to confusion.

The same can be said for the numerous other cutaway scenes present throughout the film, save for one. The narrator, played by Jesse Plemons (“Game Night,” “Friday Night Lights”), and his small story is done masterfully well and almost makes the failures of the other cutaway moments seem worse by comparison.

Also present are scenes that seem to serve no purpose in the film whatsoever. At times, there will be scenes of the Cheney family having dinner at home, discussing random happenstance events, before cutting to bombings in Iraq and news coverage. It seems like McKay’s way of showing how Cheney “slept at night” despite his actions, but it just comes off as haphazard.

The film also seems to just simply end. There’s no coverage or footage of the investigations into Cheney and the last 30 minutes just feel like randomly spliced together scenes of Cheney looking solemn with news footage of the Obama inauguration and events afterwards.

Despite the uneven tonal work and bizarre cutaway moments, every performance in this film is incredible. Christian Bale (“The Dark Knight,” “American Psycho”) continues to show why he’s one of the finest actors alive, completely transforming himself into the former VP. He tries his damnedest to prevent McKay from turning Cheney into a cartoon villain and it's his attention to small mannerisms and vocal work that really seals this as one of the year’s finest performances.

Amy Adams (“Enchanted,” “The Master”) also further proves her talent as Lynn Cheney, Dick’s wife, and manages to hold her own against Bale throughout the movie. Steve Carell (“The 40-Year-Old Virgin,” “Little Miss Sunshine”) doesn’t do jaw-dropping work as Donald Rumsfeld, but what he does he does well, and with a ner-do-well smile. Sam Rockwell (“Galaxy Quest,” “Moon”) manages to find a fine line with his portrayal of George W. Bush. He avoids the overly serious stylings of Josh Brolin’s version and the overly comical style of Will Ferrell’s. He hits it right in the middle, giving great charm and gravitas to what could easily have been phoned in as a bumbling character.

As previously mentioned, Plemons does work of equal quality to Bale’s despite having significantly less screen time. The supporting cast consisting of Allison Pill (“Scott Pilgrim vs. The World,” “The Newsroom”), Tyler Perry (“Gone Girl,” “Diary of a Mad Black Woman”), and Justin Kirk (“Angels in America,” “Weeds”) also do fine jobs.

What McKay has done with “Vice” is essentially what he did before with 2015’s “The Big Short;” taken a well-known bad thing and put his comedic spin on its true-life tale. However, that initial concept is where the similarities end. Because whereas before he seemed to be using a scalpel for his subject, here he appears to be using a club.

McKay is known for comedy, so it's understandable that he would try to take a serious situation like this and put an amusing spin on it. However, the film ends up feeling like he was the only one who knew it was going to be a comedy. It’s a dramatic story, told with dramatic performances, and directed like a comedy.

Poor and inconsistent tonal work and a bizarre reliance on cutaway sequences hurt a movie otherwise bolstered by a fantastic frame narrative and performances across the board. A lack of effective humor especially hurts, considering “Vice” marketed itself as a hilarious political comedy. It’s hard to say where exactly this movie went wrong, because nothing in it is really truly bad. It’s just deeply flawed. 2.5/5

Aquaman - Review

James Wan, the director of “Saw,” “Insidious” and “Furious 7,” is facing an uphill battle when it comes to bringing Aquaman to a solo big screen adventure. After all, this is the character who talks to fish, and was famously the fake superhero film pitched in “Entourage,” specifically because of the inherent goofiness and silliness related to his origin and powers. Can the man who’s mastered horror bring this character from the briny depths and deliver a seaworthy adventure?

For anyone who’s seen “Justice League,” one thing is already apparent: Jason Momoa (“Stargate Atlantis,” “Game of Thrones”) plays an excellent Arthur Curry. His frat boy attitude and somewhat goofy demeanor are balanced here far better than they were in the previous hero ensemble flick, and Momoa keeps his smile and charm flowing throughout the movie’s runtime.

As for the rest of the cast, well, it’s a mixed bag. Nicole Kidman (“Days of Thunder,” “Moulin Rouge”) does a great job given her relatively low amount of screen time, as does Temuera Morrison (“Once Were Warriors,” “Star Wars: Attack of the Clones”) as Arthur’s father. William Dafoe (“The Last Temptation of Christ,” “Spider-Man”) plays essentially the same character he’s always played, but does so well.

Patrick Wilson (“The Conjuring,” “Angels in America”) completely commits to the overly cheesy dialogue and plot that he’s been given, and it allows him to deliver a weirdly intriguing villain, despite not being particularly interesting. He’s intense and focuses your gaze when he’s onscreen and completely forgettable when he isn’t. Amber Heard (“All the Boys Love Mandy Lane,” “London Fields”) is the same; a good performance when she’s onscreen and almost gone from memory when she isn’t.

Unfortunately, the one character who seems to be the most interesting and obvious foil to Aquaman is also the worst performance. Yahya Abdul-Mateen II (“Baywatch (2017),” “The Get Down”) butchers almost every line he’s given as Black Manta. A cool suit alone doesn’t add up to create a compelling villain, and his hammy delivery also isn’t helped by the fact that the screenwriters seem to have thrown him in to this film purely to be sequel-bait.

Which leads to the film’s biggest problem: its script. Not the overall plot, which is mostly enjoyable, especially when it focuses on the well-worn adventure movie tropes it so clearly wants to play into. The script, and dialogue specifically, are the biggest flaw. Sometimes, everything is fine, and the action is playing out epically with not a care in the world.

However, there are a handful of moments that involve someone opening their mouths and delivering a line that is so out of nowhere bad that it takes audiences completely out of the moment. Not every line is like this, and some of the actors can deal with them. Momoa, Kidman, and Morrison can tackle just about anything the film throws with charm, meanwhile Wilson and Heard give as many terrible lines and they do cheesily enjoyable ones.

While the overall script may be flawed, one of the defining elements of the film, Arthur’s heritage, is actually handled quite well. It’s by no means subtle, but the themes of home, belonging, and familial worth do ring true, thanks to Momoa’s commitment to the role and respect for his hero’s backstory. It adds depth to him deep-sea hero and helps to balance out the script and plot’s more egregious flaws.

Was something like that inevitable? Is the basic concept of this character one that can’t help but deliver pure B-movie cheese? No, not necessarily, because the rest of the film’s aspects seem to be air-tight. For example, Rupert Gregson-Williams’s score is electric and pulse pounding, mixing guitar riffs and underwater melodies to create an epic score of both worlds.

The cinematography from Don Burgess (“42,” “Spider-Man (2002)”) maintains a wonderful divide; remaining unobtrusive during dialogue and getting weird during fights. In particular, the use of rotating camera angles and unbroken shots is the breath of fresh air that DC’s action has needed for quite a while. This naturally extends to the fight choreography itself, which is excellent. For the most part, the action is kept small and confined, allowing acrobatic techniques to be used that are just plain cool to watch.

If there’s one thing to laude “Aquaman” for, it’s the visual designs. The underwater cities teem with light and color, seeming closer to alien planets than liquid civilizations. A layer of blue from the water gives everything a cool sheen to it, and the simplistic nature of the submerged proceedings is an excellent counter to the overly-complicated bubble world Zack Snyder tries to deliver in “Justice League.”

Reverse diving suits, water transformation lasers, giant undersea creatures and physics and logic defying underwater abilities; with all of these, director James Wan has made sure to keep one thing in mind above all else, is it fun? And when it comes to the film’s visuals and designs, the answer is undoubtedly yes! Weird, but fun.

It’s just such a fun world to spend two hours in, with the technological designs contrasting the underwater escapades in such a wonderful way. This, coupled with Momoa’s charm and the excellent visuals and effects help to deliver a movie that seems like it could be on par with “Wonder Woman.” However, its poor script and hammy acting and melodrama drag it closer to the depths. It’s not bad, not close. It’s merely cheesy. Wet and cheesy, a surprisingly good combination. 3/5

Bumblebee - Review

 

It would be easy to be pessimistic about “Bumblebee.” The live action “Transformers” series is probably one of the worst film series in recent memory, and yet despite that, the billions of dollars it has made makes it seem like audiences don’t care either way. As long as it has big robots, they’ll turn up. Which is why “Bumblebee” is so important. And so, so good.

Set in the 1980s, the film is a semi-reboot of the Michael Bay series that preceded it. It never outright does anything that would cut itself off from the previous films, and yet it is very clearly trying to distance itself from them. However, this distancing never hangs over the movie like a cloud. Rather, it ends up distancing itself the most thanks to some pretty strong writing.

Screenwriter Christina Hodson does an excellent job of forming two likable characters and putting them together rather quickly. Really, this is a pretty simple story that has been seen before. Previous films like “E.T.” and “The Iron Giant” seem to have provided the template that “Bumblebee” follows, but its not without its own spins on the formula.

One of those spins comes in the form of remarkably better action that before. Gone are the overly-complicated CGI monstrosities and the overabundance of slow motion. It seems that director Steven Knight (“Kubo and the Two Strings”) has pulled from his animation background to make the action intricate without sacrificing clarity.

There seems to be a much larger emphasis on practical effects this time, or at the very least, blurring the line between the CGI robots and the real actors. It’s nearly flawless throughout, which helps with the film’s suspension of disbelief and with preventing everything from becoming an over blown CGI mess.

Much of the action is simple, going for hand to hand combat and some gunplay here and there. There are still explosions and there is still some gratuitous violence to other robots and humans, but the tone and visuals are what keep it all grounded.

Speaking first about the tone, everything has a bubbly lighthearted feeling that somehow persists even in the darker moments. There may be aliens coming to find our titular hero, but he still finds time to joke around with his human counterparts, and it helps endear audiences to the character more than ever before.

Visually, its clear the budget is lower than previous “Transformer” films, there are fewer giant robots of course. But the redesigns help to better establish the action and visual style of the film. Gone are the robots so intricate and detailed that it becomes a chore to keep track of them. This new Bumblebee is big and chunky and bright yellow. It’s closer to the original cartoon style, and it fits the tone perfectly. Every other robot is kept to this mentality: chunky and colorful.

Now, it is worth mentioning the biggest knock against “Bumblebee.” As good as the film is and as much of a breath of fresh air as it is for this series, there’s very little of the film that hasn’t been seen before. While the ways Hodson and Knight tell their story are different, this is still the same misunderstood alien tracked by the government story seen time and time again. The same twists happen, the same redemptions, the same misunderstandings.

In that case, it falls to the actors to help save this otherwise predictable story. The main two, Hailee Steinfeld (“Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse,” “The Edge of Seventeen”) and John Cena (“Blockers,” “Ferdinand”) are both equally excellent. Steinfeld plays a spunky and angsty teen Charlie, balancing both extremely well without becoming annoying. Cena’s sympathetic Sgt. Burns is anything but one dimensional, a refreshing change of pace from previous Transformer villains. The rest of the is still great, although their screen time and use within the story can vary.

Despite being a CGI creation, Bumblebee himself is still full of charm and personality. He’s fierce and loyal, but he also manages to be downright adorable for much of the film. He is without a doubt, the film’s scene (and heart) stealer.

“Bumblebee” may be predictable and cliched, but it helps tremendously that those clichés are delivered but such talented actors and that the story revolved around such a charming character. This is a wonderfully charming film, with a great sense of visual balance and tone, never sacrificing its heart and sense of emotion for big explosions and intensity. It’s taken someone fiercely loyal, like Bumblebee, to transform this series into something special. 4/5

Mary Poppins Returns - Review

In the recent age of Disney regurgitating most of its past films to stellar (“Cinderella (2015),” “Pete’s Dragon (2016)”) and less than stellar “(Beauty and the Beast (2017)”) results, it’s easy to be cynical about anything coming out of the Mouse House that bears resemblance to past projects. It’s even easier to be cynical when that new project is based upon something so iconic, whimsical, and “practically perfect” as “Mary Poppins.” And then you actually see the film, and all cynicism is washed away.

To make a long story short, “Mary Poppins Returns,” the sequel to the original 1964 film, is not a remake or bastardization of the original tale. It’s a continuation, with a new Mary for a new generation of moviegoers.

Emily Blunt (“Edge of Tomorrow,” “The Adjustment Bureau”) perfectly encapsulates the energy of Mary, flowing through each scene like she’s on a cloud. Her smile and wit easily match that of Julie Andrews’ in the original, while also imbuing her with a bit more playful, almost cockney sense of humor during some of the most dazzling musical numbers.

The filmmakers have also cast Lin Manuel Miranda (“In the Heights,” “Hamilton”) as Jack the Lamplighter, and have utilized each of his theatrical musical skills to a T. His charming smile and talent for fast-paced lyrics are put to great use here, and he maintains the same amount of mystery that Dick Van Dyke blessed Bert the Chimney Sweep with over 50 years ago.

While not as prominently featured, the rest of the cast is also excellent. Colin Firth (“The English Patient,” “Mamma Mia!”) delivers an excellently smarmy performance as the bank owner William Wilkins, and his lackeys, played by Jeremy Swift (“The Smoking Room,” “Downton Abbey”) and Kobna Holdbrook-Smith (“Ghost Stories (2017),” “Mike Bassett: Manager”), are delightfully buffoonish, with Smith stealing most scenes he’s in.

The three Banks children; Annabel, John and Georgie, played by Pixie Davies (“Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children,” “Humans”), Nathanael Saleh, and Joel Dawson, respectively, hold their own against the older, seasoned adult actors, doing fine jobs playing wish-washy children with a penchant for mischief and imagination.

Ben Wishaw (“Paddington,” “Skyfall”) and Emily Mortimer (“The Newsroom,” “Doll & Em”) also do wonderful jobs as the grown Michael and Jane Banks. Wishaw isn’t afraid to let his charming and childlike smile loose every so often, and Mortimer is as likeable as ever, even if she doesn’t get a much plot devotion as she deserves.

It’s easy to wax nostalgic about the original film and point out all the endless references and tiny Easter eggs all throughout this new film as well. There’s kite flying, tuppences and so much more. But nailing down these references seem so against what this new film is all about.

Director/co-writer Rob Marshall (“Chicago (2002),” “Into the Woods (2014)”) and co/writers David Magee (“Finding Neverland,” “Life of Pi”) and John DeLuca (“Memoirs of a Geisha,” “Into the Woods (2014)”), along with the rest of their crew, seem so excited to show what sets they built and what numbers they’ve choreographed that the film moves along at a brisk pace and energy just to get through it all. It wavers a bit in the middle, a nanny does need her rest after all. But just as quickly as it rested, this crew of filmmakers is right back to tripping the lights and being fantastic.

Of course, Mary Poppins just isn’t the same without music to go with the adventure, and this new film contains nine new songs to go with it. Just about all of them are excellent, with “A Cover is not a Book” and “Trip a Little Light Fantastic” proving immediate standouts. Only one (“Turning Turtle”) seems to be lacking in the same energy. Still, the worst amongst a catalog of excellence isn’t that bad.

There’s a lot to say about this new adventure. It would be easy to say it’s slow, that not much happens and that it sidelines the grown Banks children. You could even say that it seeks to imitate rather that elaborate. However, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and even if it’s all imitation, if its half as good as the original, that’s pretty damn good.

“Mary Poppins Returns” features some excellent music and an ensemble cast worth cheering about. Emily Blunt can easily hold her own against Andrews’ original nanny, as can Miranda against Van Dyke. Really, it’s the film’s seemingly pure search for joy and magic that put it above the competition. When’s the last time a movie came along that made you not want to know how they did it all? Instead, it made you want to preserve the magic and keep it all a secret. Of course, even with all that, it's easy to be cynical about a movie like this; a movie that seeks purely to instill joy and magic. It's easy, until you see it. 4.5/5

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse - Review

 

In the late 70’s, the tagline for the upcoming film “Superman: The Movie” was simply, “You’ll believe a man can fly.” Now, four decades later, the superhero genre has been twisted around and contorted in numerous ways to continuously recapture audience’s attentions. Serious dramas (“X-Men,” “Logan”) have shared screens with wacky comedies (“Deadpool,” “Guardians of the Galaxy”), with Marvel Studios dipping their toes into various genres within the MCU. But no superhero film before has captivated audiences like “Into the Spider-Verse.”

This animated spectacle comes from Sony Pictures Animation, who haven’t made an objectively good film since 2009’s “Cloudy with A Chance of Meatballs.” After years of “Hotel Transylvania” and other lackluster projects, Sony and directors Bob Persichetti (“The Little Prince”), Peter Ramsey (“Rise of the Guardians”) and Rodney Rothman (“22 Jump Street,” “Popstar: Never Stop Never Stopping”) have given audiences a visually stunning world to explore.

Every frame pops with color and creative designs. The world Miles Morales inhabits is bright, vibrant and simply incredible to behold. It’s the kind of film that begs to be bought on Blu-Ray and paused at every moment to savor he crisp details present thanks to the wonderfully unique style. It’s something that must be seen to be truly appreciated.

With camerawork that seems to float through each sequence, everything comes together visually in a way that feels like a comic book leaping onto the big screen, in as literal of a sense as possible. It feels as though zero compromises were made visually, even establishing slightly differing styles for each of the five Spider-People.

There are five Spider-People, by the way, all crossing into Miles Morales’s world. He’s a young kid, voiced excellently by Shameik Moore (“Dope,” “The Get Down”), who is instantly likable and charming. He admires Spider-Man and has very specific opinions about his school and home life. In a year where even some of the best characters in film have felt compromised at least a bit, it’s incredibly refreshing to see that one of the most fleshed out characters of the year is not only animated, but a superhero as well.

The rest of the voice cast, without spoiling anything, all exceed expectations. Jake Johnson (“New Girl,” “Let’s Be Cops”), Hailee Steinfeld (“The Edge of Seventeen,” “Bumblebee”), Nicolas Cage (“National Treasure,” “Kick-Ass”), Kimiko Glenn (“Orange is the New Black,” “Like Father”), John Mulaney (“Big Mouth,” “Oh Hello”), Brian Tyree Henry (“Widows,” “If Beale Street Could Talk”), Mahershala Ali (“Moonlight,” “Luke Cage”), Liev Schreiber (“Spotlight,” “Scream (1996)”), Lily Tomlin (“Grace and Frankie,” “I Heart Huckabees”), and Lauren Vélez (“Oz,” “Dexter”) are the definition of a star-studded cast, and the excellent writing from Phil Lord and Rothman give them ample room to deliver some truly wonderful material.

So, what else is there? Because there have been gorgeous animated movies before (albeit none that have looked like this). There have been unique superhero origins, likable characters, good casts, and well written stories before. Not only does “Spider-Verse” manage to combine all those elements, but it does so without skipping a beat. Rarely, if ever, do things pause for a moment, letting the pace zip along throughout the film, constantly surprising and entertaining audiences with the next unique idea.

Because at the end of the day, while it is extremely weird and extremely funny, “Spider-Verse” treats it events with seriousness. Things may be weird, but they’re real to these characters, and because the writing and voice work are so good, it’s easy to believe this world and events are serious. It’s been so long since a movie hasn’t needed audiences to “suspend their disbelief” because it’s so excellent at worldbuilding on its own.

“Spider-Verse” also knows exactly where its heart is at, and it never loses a grip on its events because of it. Miles is the core of this story, and while the danger may be large, the scope never drifts outside of him. It’s so unabashedly joyous without ever letting the focus slip away. It’s sweet without every losing its silly. It’s serious without ever losing its sense of humor. It’s a perfect balance.

This is a movie that understands the boxes it has to check to be a superhero movie, but isn’t content with simply putting out surface level work. The level of detail and wit in the storytelling is as intricate as the visuals, and the story goes to places both unexpected and perfectly logical. Constantly flipping through various narrative threads with ease, there simply hasn’t been an animated film this inventive since the original “Toy Story,” or as narratively complex since “Wall-E.” It teaches the hard, thoughtful and ingeniously delivered lessons, and adults may find themselves walking away with as much to think about as the kids. Maybe even more.

There’s even a level to the film wherein it feels like a direct response to the naysayers of animation, the people who believe because something is animated, its inherently inferior or only for kids. Not only are there jokes that directly address this topic, but back to the stories complexities, it feels like the film is never satisfied with “good enough,” crafting a film that is for everyone, yet spits in the face of the “animation is just for kids” chunk of its crowd.

“Into the Spider-Verse” has delivered something fans of the animation medium and superhero films have desired for so long: innovation and creativity. But more than that, it’s a film that is delightful on almost every level. Whether you’re a superhero fan or not, “Into the Spider-Verse” is for you. It’s, quite simply, an excellent film in all regards. It’s spectacular. It’s amazing. It’s an achievement in film making, one of the best animated films of the decade and undoubtedly one of the best movies of the year. 5/5

Ralph Breaks the Internet - Review

 

This year, Walt Disney Pictures released two sequels years after the original films to two beloved modern classics. One was an interesting meditation on friendship and the toxicities that can creep into even the most well-intentioned people, and how that can lead to not only the friendship, but the entire world crumbling around that person. And the other was “Incredibles 2.”

That’s where “Ralph Breaks the Internet” pulls the rug out from underneath audiences. It’s a story about the internet and also about toxicity. It’s a story about social media and insecurities. These things are never directly linked together though. They’re merely sly inserted near each other, providing a subtle wink and nod to the dangers of modern-day technology, without ever making them the point of the film.

Rather the point is still smartly where it belongs: on the characters. Ralph and Vanelloppe don’t venture to the internet for no reason. The events that start them on their quest feel just as important to the story as the digital road they travel. When most movies would merely spend five minutes creating an event to catapult their characters into a new realm, co-writers/directors Rich Moore (“Wreck-It Ralph,” “Zootopia”) and Phil Johnston (“Wreck-It Ralph,” “Zootopia”) and writers Pamela Ribon (“Smurfs: The Lost Village,” “Moana”), Jim Reardon (“Zootopia,” “WALL·E”), and Josie Trinidad (“Zootopia,” “The Ballad of Nessie”) make sure that the original film’s events and world aren’t simply tossed out and forgotten to make room for this new adventure. It feels simple and natural, giving this sequel an easy jumping off point.

Ralph and Vanelloppe, voiced again by John C. Reilly (“Step Brothers,” “Chicago”) and Sarah Silverman (“School of Rock,” “The Sarah Silverman Program”), respectively, are still a great pair to hang out with, and their friendship and banter feels genuine and perfectly juvenile. New characters like dangerous racer Shank, voiced by Gal Gadot (“Wonder Woman,” “Fast & Furious (2009)”), hyper-intelligent search engine KnowsMore, voiced by Alan Tudyk (“A Knight’s Tale,” “Firefly”), and video sharing algorithm Yesss, voiced by Taraji P. Henson (“Empire,” “Hidden Figures”), all mange to be gentle parodies of their respective corners of the internet, as well as endearing characters in their own right.

“Internet” is without a doubt the sillier of the two films. It’s clear that the executives at Disney really let the creative team run wild, creating amusing sequences poking fun at the internet as a whole, Disney’s lucrative licenses and even dipping into some of the weirder and darker elements of modern-day technology.

Comparisons to last year’s cinematic travesty “The Emoji Movie” are inevitable, but there’s an easy difference. Besides the fact that “Internet” has heart and soul inside of it, it never lets the brands or sites its riffing on takeover. eBay may be a part of the plot, but its still made fun of extensively, and every other major brand is reduced to window dressings and jokes. It manages to be fun and funny while taking place within the Internet without feeling like it becomes a shill to the brands that populate it.

Speaking of jokes, “Internet” may very well be funnier than its predecessor. Without a doubt its sillier and contains more belly laughs than before. This even extends to the credits, where the fun-poking and satire continue as jokes about the movie making process keep flowing until the very last frame of film. Even a pop song cover of the movie’s Alan Menken penned original song manages to maintain is amusingness, as the satirical lyrics paired with serious vocals just emphasize the joke.

All jokes aside, if “Internet” was merely a funny film with a new story, it likely would’ve been perfectly fine. However, with their first direct sequel in eighteen years, Disney Animation Studios has stepped it up a notch in one area in particular: the film’s central message.

There’s a deep underlying theme of insecurity and self worth to this film, with Vanelloppe’s frequent glitching moments clear parallels to anxiety attacks and even computer viruses being called “Insecurity Viruses.” Friendship is also mentioned, although instead of being about the unending power of friends, the film shifts its focus to being about friends who are apart.

There are much deeper themes contained in “Internet,” including self-worth, toxic friendships and being bad friends versus not being a friend at all. It’s seemingly heavy stuff, although delivered with the same sly smile that fills the rest of the film’s silliest antics, allowing everything to have a warm appeal even as things turn dark.

A few hiccups are present, like a subplot in the arcade that’s seems to have been forgotten about until the end, but you’d be hard pressed to notice it in the moment. “Ralph Breaks the Internet” keeps so many silly moments and intriguing meditations at its center, that any flaws seem to melt away while watching. It’s a brightly colored blast of satirical fun and whimsy, with its darker moments being cherries on top. It may even be better than the first film. 4.5/5

Widows (2018) - Review

 

Steve McQueen may very well be the most underrated filmmaker currently working. That sounds like his films receive little to no press, but quite the contrary. His past three films, “Hunger,” “Shame” and “12 Years A Slave” have all received critical praise and awards recognition. Even that adoration isn’t enough to fully communicate how talented of a filmmaker he is, and now with “Widows” he has teamed up with writer Gillian Flynn (“Gone Girl,” “Sharp Objects”) to create something truly special.

At its core, “Widows” is a heist thriller that follows a long-established template of the genre. Job goes bad, character wants revenge, characters tries job on their own terms, gets a crew and executes job. However, Flynn and McQueen take their characters deeper than that. This isn’t just the thrill of the job, there are reasons that they actually need the money.

It’s the series of layers that are slowly introduced that allow McQueen and Flynn to create characters that are more than just bodies for cool heist sequences. There’s a seriousness rarely seen in modern day heist films that feels utterly refreshing. They aren’t indestructible, and things need to be planned out slowly.

It removes the “turn off your brain” nature prevalent in most heist films and allows a sense of realism to be brought to the table. The fact that the final heist seems logical and like it could probably be pulled off speaks volumes about the world created for this film.

The four women at the center are excellent, and the supporting cast holds their own as well. Viola Davis (“How to Get Away with Murder,” “Doubt”) continues to show why she’s one of the greatest actresses working today. Cynthia Erivo proves that “Bad Times at the El Royale” wasn’t a fluke and that she has a long career ahead of her, and Michelle Rodriguez (“Avatar,” “Girlfight”) shows that she can act just as well as she can drive.

Elizabeth Debicki (“The Great Gatsby (2013),” “The Night Manager”) stands out the most though. Her and Davis are the film’s emotional anchors, and while both are excellent, Davis’s excellence is almost expected given her track record. Debicki surprises with her skills, blowing her past works out of the water to deliver a career best performance.

Rounding out the cast is Colin Farrell (“Horrible Bosses,” “The Lobster”), Brian Tyree Henry (“Atlanta,” “White Boy Rick”), Daniel Kaluuya (“Get Out”), Robert Duvall (“Get Low,” “True Grit (1969)”), Liam Neeson (“Taken”) and Garret Dillahunt (“Burn Notice,” “Raising Hope”). Liam Neeson stands out from the supporting cast though, getting to stretch his true acting chops more than his muscles for once, with wonderful results.

Shot expertly by cinematographer Sean Bobbitt (“The Place Beyond the Pines,” “12 Years A Slave”), McQueen and Flynn’s heist thriller moves slowly through each sequence, with a camera that’s not afraid to let shots linger or glide through scenes, instead of hard cutting away. It gives the world a slightly playful feeling, allowing them to nail a distinct tonal balance that never feels too somber or too playful.

Even when filling the characters and their motivations with backstories and themes that are timely and dark, the lightness is never lost. Despite having racism, gang violence, sexism and abuse all coming into play, the lightness is never lost, thanks to the care the writers, and by extension the audience, has for these characters.

That balance seemingly comes into question once the twists start flying forth, but even then, the razor thin wire they walk holds tight. This is a masterfully shot, written, acted and crafted film. The most fun a drama has been in years. Make no mistake, “Widows” shouldn’t be and isn’t a light-hearted affair. But because these characters are so grounded and expertly established, it allows the overbearing dreariness associated with the genre to be shaken off. “Widows” may just be a gamechanger, and even if it isn’t, its still a damn good film. 5/5

Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindlewald - Review

 

Credit where credit is due, “The Crimes of Grindelwald” accomplishes a feat that no prior “Wizarding World” film has been able to do: be a bad film. Even with that, the film faces a fate closely comparable to other blockbuster films, regardless of the quality, fans will still flock to the theatres and it will still make an abundance of money.

That being said, things aren’t completely dismal in this magical version of the 1920’s. Newt Scamander is still a wonderfully tame soul played with effortless charm by Eddie Redmayne (“The Theory of Everything,” “Les Misérables (2012)”). Despite a smaller than initially thought amount of screen time, Jude Law (“The Talented Mr. Ripley,” “Sherlock Holmes (2009)”) is also charming as a younger Dumbledore, working a smug smile into the powerful wizard’s repertoire of quips and misdirections.

That’s where the casts skills seem to end though, because the rest of them, even those reprising their roles from the first “Beasts” movie, seem to be floundering. Johnny Depp (“Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas,” “Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl”) seems bored as he prances around as Grindelwald, and most of Newt’s friends seem like they’ve had the life sucked out of them. There’s also a steady flow of side characters that keep being slowly introduced, most of them without any real purpose. That doesn’t seem entirely their fault though.

It something seemingly thought impossible, but the script and writing is by far the film’s weakest link. Despite her pedigree, J.K. Rowling has delivered a chapter in her world that just seems overcomplicated and boring. She’s choked this outing full of subplots that either don’t conclude or are just funneled in to conclude in the next film. Director David Yates (“State of Play (2004),” “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince”) doesn’t seem to be helping much, merely acting as an autopilot, funneling viewers through a series of gray set-pieces until things build enough to call it an ending while still leaving plenty unexplained for the next film.

It at least maintains the distinct visual quality set by the previous Wizarding World films. Sets are mostly practical, blending real effects with CGI in a way that maintains a clean and solid look. A few moments of bad green screen stick out though, and the entire film just looks very dark and black.

It’s a film that spends so much time meandering in its plot, that by the time things actually start to move along, it’s in the third act. Most of it also just doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. Newt seems to have a semi-decent relationship with his brother, until the plot dictates they must give chase. It just feels like things are being made up on the spot to dictate the plot, pre-established lore be damned.

For a small example, Professor McGonagall pops up for a split second in the background. She’s addressed by name by Dumbledore, and leaves. She’s on screen for a total of 60 seconds. Sounds fine. Except, according to pre-established lore that Rowling herself wrote, McGonagall isn’t born, yet alone old enough to be a professor at Hogwarts. The film clearly takes place in 1927, and McGonagall isn’t born until 1935.

Which is bizarre. As much as the movie throws out and contradicts key pieces of Potter lore, it also tries to capitalize on it. Characters from deep cut Wizarding lore and dragged into the plot for mere moments, simply to say their names, and leave. It’s just as bad as any other cash grabbing nostalgia-bait film, but somehow worse. How a film manages to be a cash-grab, meant to capitalize on die hard fans, and yet get lore that those fans would know by heart wrong is kind of impressive.

Even if lore is thrown out the window, the result is a movie that’s just plain boring. Sure, there are a handful of amusingly entertaining sequences. Newt gets some good beastly moments, just like before, and they’re undoubtedly the highlight. The same goes for Law’s version of Dumbledore, and when Newt and the Professor are onscreen at once, then the film actually seems to be building to something great.

Even if its boring for most of its runtime, things really start to go downhill once the third act twists start being thrown out. The worst part is, in reality there’s probably only two or three big third act revelations. But because of how poorly this plot conveys any information to the audience, it feels closer to five or six plot twists. None of them are earned, especially not the one at the film’s very end, which manages to be simply confusing and illogical.

By the time everything comes to a head, it feels like this film is the middle chapter of three. The “Deathly Hallows Part 1” of this series, like it exists to fill in lore before the final installment. Except, not only does that lore feel so out of place and poorly constructed that its hard to tell what matters and what’s merely worldbuilding, but also that this is the second film OUT OF FIVE.

Even with the actors doing their best, solid visuals and a good musical score, “Crimes of Grindelwald” feels just like its title. It’s a crime to Wizarding fans, a crime to coherence, a crime to those who’ve spent time loving this franchise. It truly feels like Rowling doesn’t care, like she’s throwing characters and plots in to just create a film and collect a paycheck. This isn’t the Wizarding World we once knew. It’s bad, and quite worse, it’s boring. 2/5

Overlord (2018) - Review

 

You are not prepared for “Overlord.” No matter what the trailers have shown you, the posters have promised, or what other reviews have said. Know this right here and right now: this film is a shock to every sense and a visceral powerhouse of terror, violence, and pulse pounding thrills. And it accomplishes everything it sets out to do in the most unexpected and satisfying of ways.

Following a group of soldiers assigned with taking out a communication jamming tower mere hours before D-Day, “Overlord” jumps right into the business of grabbing audiences by their shoulders and shaking them up. The opening ten minutes deliver a wonderfully pulpy sense of atmosphere before throwing characters straight into hell.

What glorious hell it is too. Every crackle and pop from gunfire and explosions sizzles with raw power. Sound effects and design are absolutely top notch, especially in the later half of the film, when things start to bend and crack in ways they were never meant to.

Cinematographers Laurie Rose (“Free Fire,” “High-Rise”) and Fabien Wagner (“Justice League”) turn the dank and decrypt halls of Nazi labs and a crumbling small French town into live wire fright scenarios. Thanks to subtle camera tricks, with angles bent just enough to cause anxiety without ever setting it off, the pair make even the quieter moments incredibly tense.

The entire cast is excellent, keeping the same composure and characterizations consistent, even as the weird hits the fan. Wyatt Russell (“Black Mirror,” “Everybody Wants Some!!”) and Jovan Adepo (“Fences (2016),” “mother!”) play off each other beautifully. John Magaro (“The Big Short”) and Dominic Applewhite (“The Inbetweeners”) are both charming and surprising in their smaller roles. Iain De Caestecker (“Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.”) gets bonus points for one scene in particular, about halfway through the film. You’ll know it when you see it.

“Overlord” is an incredibly hard film to write about. Every moment or item discussed risks giving something else away. That’s because everything in this film is wound so tightly, every moment so razor sharp, that even saying one detail about one event threatens to send the whole thing tumbling down.

Most miraculously of all though, director Julius Avery (“Son of a Gun”) and writers Billy Ray (“The Hunger Games,” “Captain Phillips”) and Mark L. Smith (“The Hole”) manage to keep the tonal balance rock solid throughout. Even when things barrel past the hour mark and things start to go from bad to buck-wild in an instant, it all feels solidly established, avoiding any sort of bizarre tone shift that a film like this could easily create.

However, if there’s one big thing worth mentioning above all else, its that this film is R rated with a capital “Gore.” This movie is the definition of body horror. Blood and guts spew quite a bit, and the crew isn’t afraid to let a smashed in head or exploding brain be seen in all its glory. This is war, after all.

Most impressively though, some of the sequences later in the film combine physical effects, prosthetics, animatronics and CGI in such ingenious and baffling ways. Its worth watching purely to see what kind of scenario is thrown out next, and how the crew will accomplish it from a technical standpoint.

This is not a film for the weak hearted or weak stomached. And its far darker and bloodier than even its own trailer seemed. It’s also best experienced with an audience, that way everyone can cry out, wince and shield their eyes all together.

“Overlord” is absolutely crazy. From frame one it throws audiences headfirst into the kind of action, horror, sci-fi, World War II mutation extravaganza that has to be seen to be believed. Every twist and turn feel expertly planned and intentional. The world and its tone are rock solid, with performances that catapult the film from pulpy fun into the realm of the sublime. Its gore is impressive and excessive, maybe to a fault. Regardless, “Overlord” is buck-wild and bonkers. That’s all there is to it. 4.5/5

The Grinch (2018) - Review

 

There’s quite a bit of bizarre pop culture trivia based around Illumination’s version of The Grinch. There was a huge leak, later proved false, for the upcoming Super Smash Brothers game that was supposedly confirmed thanks to a piece of Grinch advertising material in the background of the leak. This was also the last Seuss movie Universal made before Audrey Geisel, Seuss’ widow, jumped ship to Warner Animation Group. It even has a set of original songs by musician Tyler, The Creator. This latest Grinch is a weird one, and it doesn’t end there.

Because at the end of the day there’s a fair amount this film doesn’t do very well. Most of its narration and rhyming techniques feel like they’re being used just to pay lip service to the original material. Despite being heavily featured in advertising, the original songs are only used twice; once during the Grinch’s introduction and again during the credits. For a property that has such a specific musical identity, it’s underwhelming.

There’s also a general blandness to the film’s sets and characters, feeling like a cheap imitation of Seuss’ drawings that stopped at “good enough.” The Grinch himself looks fine and well designed, and his dog Max is just too adorable for words. But the Who’s and their Whoville are so cookie cutter “creative” that it becomes blah by only twenty minutes in.

Illumination’s animation continues to be solid, despite the general lack of imagination put into the designs. The sense of physical humor continues to shine here, as well as the quirky cartoony exaggeration. The Grinch’s style of inventions makes for some good visual showcases, and there’s an amusing West Side Story-style Caroler scene early on. The third act robbery sequence is a visual highlight especially., with the Grinch’s smile reflecting the audiences’ as he creatively snags all of the Whos various trinkets.

Speaking of the Whos, the subplot involving Cindy Lo Who, played by Cameron Seely (“The Greatest Showman,” “The Jim Gaffigan Show”) and her mother, played by Rashida Jones (“Parks and Recreation,” “The Social Network”), is just boring and bland. A variation on it has been done in just about every other Christmas film released (including the Jim Carey “Grinch” film) and it just doesn’t stand out.

Despite being fairly bland, there’s a weird sense of inaccuracies within the film. It’s odd to point out, but there are moments wherein geometrical logic seems to have gone out the window. At one-point, young Cindy Lo Who slides down a massive snowy slide, and ten minutes later, that slide just disappears from the front of her house? Keep an eye on where Whoville is located during the film’s third act mountain scene for another geometrical oddity.

Illumination does smartly tone down its somewhat annoying humor here, though not by much. While the overall affair is less hyperactive and crude than in the “Despicable Me” or “Secret Life of Pets” films, it isn’t completely gone. Grinch’s reindeer Fred is just…kind of there for no reason. And the screaming goat meme pops up three times because…it’s a meme? At least these moments of pandering humor are less than other Illumination productions.

Benedict Cumberbatch (“The Imitation Game,” “Doctor Strange”) is the star of the show here. Rightly so, given he plays the title character, and his slightly grated, wry vocal fry gives his version of the green grump a distinct tone. He is the film’s best asset and the filmmakers know exactly when to pivot away from the boring subplots and back to him.

It’s easy to be cynical about this latest Grinch film, and there’s a lot to complain about within it. But then something happens. Two thirds of the way through, after the Grinch has carried out his plan and is starring down at Whoville, something breaks inside him.

Herein lies the film’s biggest and smartest decision: they don’t give the Grinch a distinct reason to be angry. While that may seem like a downside, it adds so much to this film’s version of this yuletide meanie. Because his reason for hating the season isn’t the direct fault of anyone else, it invites a kind of challenge to the audience. It points out the Grinch within all of us and does so in a remarkably grounded way.

It directly challenges the ideas of seasonal cynicism, and even pointing fingers directly at audience members who may have gone into the film rolling their eyes. It’s smart and adds a lot to Illumination’s version of Seuss’s Christmas curmudgeon, helped along by Cumberbatch’s voicework and the general low stakes nature of his pre-Christmas Eve antics to make this Grinch more relatable in his antagonistic ways.

Sure, even taking the initial cynicism out of it, it still isn’t anything groundbreaking. But its fun, colorful, with a great performance from Cumberbatch and a generally unique take on the Grinch’s ideals. It’s not the greatest Seuss adaptation around, but its sweet enough for a theatre viewing and charming enough to watch during the holidays. At the very least, its leagues ahead of “The Lorax.” 3/5

The Ballad of Buster Scruggs - Review

 

Some filmmakers have put so much effort into their craft and turned out such quality work, that every time a film from them is announced, it’s a celebratory occasion. Even when that film is a Netflix movie. Thus, is the case here, as “The Ballad of Buster Scruggs” is written and directed by Joel and Ethan Coen, also known as The Coen Brothers, the creators of “The Big Lebowski,” “Fargo,” “No Country for Old Men,” “O Brother, Where Art Thou?” and “Burn After Reading.”

As always, the script and overall writing is excellent. Just like previous Coen features, the dialogue is ripe with instantly quotable lines and wry dark humor. Even some of the very concepts of the stories within the film, like a super nice guy who’s okay with point blank murdering random people, practically ooze black comedy from their very pores.

However, within the film’s basic concept lies its biggest flaw. When it was originally announced, this wasn’t supposed to be one film. It was originally announced to be a six-part anthology series. Despite being reworked into one film, the six-part nature remains, and it ends up hurting the overall product.

Some stories, like the titular “Ballad of Buster Scruggs” are amusing and ripe with possibilities but are over in less than 10 minutes. Meanwhile others, like “All Gold Canyon” are at the perfect length. Yet some even seem like their equipped to last longer than their short story nature, like “The Gal Who Got Rattled.”

It just ends up throwing cohesiveness out the window for a series of amusing short stories. It begs the question, why stitch it into one film? It doesn’t do anything for the overall film, except make it feel like something’s missing. None of the characters even cross over in any way, and given the film’s overarching theme of death, its easy to see a few simple ways that they could have.

Even with that, the writing is still excellent, and the performances are as well. This is surprising, given the ensemble nature of the piece, but even with so many players, everyone maintains a surprisingly high level of quality.

Tim Blake Nelson ("Holes," "O Brother, Where Art Thou?"), Tom Waits (Seven Psychopaths," "The Book of Eli") and Zoe Kazan ("Ruby Sparks," "The Big Sick") all standout though, even among the rest of the cast’s excellence. Nelson’s bizarrely nice Buster Scruggs is such a fascinating anomaly, and Kazan and Waits deliver such wholesome and lovable performances, bringing their esoteric characters to life.

The decision to push all of these stories into one film does some good though. It allows for some much more somber stories, like “Meal Ticket” to be balanced out by the more cartoony nature of some of the others. However, others like “Near Algodones” just feel pointless in comparison. Not bad, as they’re still fun to watch good actors say good dialogue, but just pointless.

Because look at any of their past films, and it’ll become quite apparent that the Coen brothers can write extremely funny and intricate plots. “The Big Lebowski” was praised for being a film that is about nothing, despite creating tons of different story threads within it. Even with the high quality of the writing within each story, it’s saddening to imagine what more could have been done had this been approached as a full film first, instead of a short series stitched into a film later.

It is possible to look past all of that while watching. Because even with their frustratingly separated nature, the stories that are told, though not all equal, are all so interesting and well executed that any flaws thought of in the moment are easily ignorable.

Which is the struggle when presented with a film like this. Because it really isn’t a film. It’s a collection of six short films, smushed into a two-hour-and-twenty-minute movie. If they were all judged on their own, that would be different. But as it stands, “Buster Scruggs” is an amusingly dark, instantly quotable and flawed good time. 3.5/5

The Nutcracker and the Four Realms - Review

 

“The Nutcracker and the Four Realms” could have easily been called “The Four Realms.” Or ‘The Four Realms of Christmas.” Or anything other than “The Nutcracker.” Because it isn’t about the Nutcracker or the story of the Nutcracker. It loosely references past events, but not even in a cohesive way. It has ballet on display for five minutes, but it seems to be using the name simply for popularity points. Because if there’s a pop culture property that is guaranteed to be popular in 2018, it’s the Nutcracker.

Really, what lies at the center of “Four Realms” is nothing short of inane. It’s a boring story that plods along, constantly switching between themes and motifs like a hyperactive child. Throughout the film, ideas are brought up that all seem like they’re fighting for control over the main plot. Themes of letting go, believing in yourself, believing in your intelligence, kindness, etc. They all jostle for the spotlight and fill an already convoluted story with unnecessary gibberish.

While some elements of the story are serviceable, they’re brought down lower simply because of the film’s self-aggrandizing view of itself. Spend just fifteen minutes with “Four Realms” and it immediately becomes clear that directors Joe Johnston (“Captain America: The First Avenger,” The Rocketeer”) and Lasse Hallström (“What’s Eating Gilbert Grape,” “Chocolat”) and writer Ashleigh Powell think they’re geniuses.

There’s an air of self-importance that the film tries to glide on throughout, that only make its numerous plot contrivances more irritating. In the second act, a twist occurs that is a bizarre combination of completely predictable, and yet so out of character that it feels otherworldly.

Not even remotely because the twist is clever. Not in the slightest. It’s just that the rest of the film is populated with so many boring and insufferable characters and moments that, not only is the audience to bored to notice the obvious nature of the twist, but the idea that the writes would care enough to put a twist into the film is almost laughable.

At least the film looks nice, but even that is a double-edged sword. While the real world looks appropriately magical, with a good amount of quality production and costume design, things fall apart when entering the Four Realms. Everything goes from subtle and downplayed to overblown and garish in an instant.

Colors that once were vibrant and nice become eyesores by the end of the film, and some of the makeup effects are positively ugly. Even the greenscreen that’s used for a large majority of the film’s shooting, (see Tim Burton’s 2010 “Alice in Wonderland”) comes off as surprisingly cheap looking, with the CGI effects that pad out most of the film’s visuals reek of desperation.

It’s a film that’s written and shot like a soulless cash grab, but using a property that is nowhere near a guaranteed money source. So instead of providing a film with enjoyable or charming characters trapped in a dull world and story, like most cash grabs do, this films just leaves a lack of anything significant.

The actors are fine. No one does a bad job; Mackenzie Foy (“The Little Prince (2015),” “The Conjuring”) is fine as Princess Clara, and her nutcracker Captain, played by Jayden Fowora-Knight is also serviceable. Helen Mirren (“The Queen,” “Hitchcock”) fares the best out of any of the actors, mostly because she’s Helen Mirren, turning the poorly written and underdeveloped Mother Ginger into the film’s only true bright spot.

And then there’s Keira Knightly (“Bend It Like Beckham,” “The Imitation Game”). Where to begin with her Sugar Plum Fairy. Initially, she seems to be doubling down on a character of innocence, one who imply sits back and cheers because she’s too adorable to fight or get into any mischief. However, a late second act shift turns this innocent bystander Fairy into a bizarre sudo-sexual portrayal of a house wife going into a dry spell, spitting out lines with such intensely sexualized delivery that it simply becomes uncomfortable.

Mostly because it just doesn’t make any sense. That’s the most remarkable thing about “Four Realms.” From the story to the characterizations to even the film’s conception, its just lacks any kind of logic. Even any internal logic.

At one point, Princess Clara complains that upon opening an item she should have been given the answer she was looking for. However, upon hearing this, it’s worth noting that the audience has no idea what question she needs answered. Because there never was one. Because the film was too lazy to try and create one, simply throwing in this late second act annoyance to fill time.

“The Nutcracker and the Four Realms” is a film so bad it’s incredible. Because not only is it bad, it’s clear while watching it that it thinks it’s the next big thing. But not even Helen Mirren can make this pure weirdness Disney CGI fantasy watchable. There is almost a charm to its oddball nature that makes it intriguing. You want to keep watching, if for no other reason than to see how much worse it’s going to get, and in how weird of a direction it’s going to go. 1/5