Ready Or Not - Review

 

Exaggeration is a vital component in any filmmaker’s toolbox. Whether you use it with extreme prejudice, like Martin Scorsese in films like “The Wolf of Wall Street,” or with extreme limitations, like Damien Chazelle in “Whiplash.”

Exaggeration can also easily lead to excess, which is how it is mostly used in the realm of horror. “Ready or Not,” a new horror-comedy from directors Matt Bettinelli-Olpin (“Devil’s Due,” “Southbound”) and Tyler Gillett (“Devil’s Due,” “Southbound”) is a lesson in excess, and a whole lot more as well.

Samara Weaving (“SMILF,” “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri”) is absolutely the film’s highlight. Her role as newlywed bride Grace may not be particularly deep, but Weaving dives headfirst into true scream queen territory. She fully embraces the grotesqueness of the events that play out and gives the kind of shriekingly authentic performance that previous actresses like Jamie Lee Curtis and Sarah Michelle Gellar have jump-started careers from.

The rest of the cast is fine; no one here gives an awful performance. But they just don’t have the commitment that Weaving does. Henry Czerny (“The Ice Storm,” “Revenge”), Nicky Guadagni (“Street Legal,” “A Nero Wolfe Mystery”) and Mark O'Brien (“Arrival,” “The Front Runner”) all have a two-dimensional nature that makes them fun to watch scream like props, but are otherwise uncompelling as characters. That’s not even getting into the smaller roles, wherein every character feels like they’re simply walking gag machines.

Andie MacDowell (“sex, lies, and videotape,” “Four Weddings and a Funeral”) and Adam Brody (“Thank You for Smoking,” “Jennifer’s Body”) thankfully bring some level of deeper acting to their roles, but not nearly as excellent as Weaving. They give what could have been one-note meat bags some personality and manage to make them interesting, even if it feels as though everything is thrown out in the last 15 minutes.

Because that is the smaller of the two large issues in “Ready or Not.” Screenwriters Ryan Murphy (“Minutes Past Midnight”) and Guy Busick (“Urge,” “Stan Against Evil”) have characters flip on a whim simply to further the plot as the film progresses. While there is some semblance of regret or moral quandary that exists within these characters, only one of them still feels in character when they suddenly flip sides. The other seems to be against everything that was built up for the previous 70 minutes, making any investment therein feel completely wasted.

Without a doubt, the biggest problem with “Ready or Not” is in its drastic tonal problems. Horror comedies that have defined the genre, like “Scream” or “Shaun of the Dead,” spend time firmly establishing the tone don’t break from it. “Shaun of the Dead,” for example, uses the humor to get serious plot information across, such as Shaun turning on the outside lights of the bar in the third act and seeing zombies outside. An amusing gag that gets serious plot information across without deviating from the film’s silly tone.

Where “Ready or Not” fails is in its pendulum of tonal shifts. One moment a character will die a serious and graphic death, meant to be accompanied by gasps of shocked audience members, and then a few moments later, the film will play another death as if it was a gag in a Looney Tunes short. This is one example of a lack of consistency, resulting in a film with zero stakes. If a steady tone cannot be established within the world of the film, then anything can happen, and not in a good way, and the audience fails to bother investing themselves.

This also means that the film’s biggest hooks and plot twists don’t work because, again, without consistent and reliable tone, the audience cannot get invested or even care about the character’s actions, meaning that whether the big twist happens or not, no one really cares.

The film’s craftsmanship is absolutely solid though. This is a gorgeously shot film, with great cinematography from Brett Jutkiewicz (“Them That Follow,” “The Preppie Connection”) expertly framing much of the crazy goings-on. Brian Tyler’s (“Iron Man 3,” “John Dies at the End”) score is equally as impressive, playing under the film’s sinister moments with a string wielding glee. The production design is also excellent, and the house the film is set in is a gorgeous display of woodwork and intricate designs.

At the end of the day, this bizarre concoction of a film is a worthwhile viewing experience for horror fans, based on the production values and Samara Weaving’s performance alone. Otherwise, it’s worth consideration and maybe even a stream or a rental, but in the age of pitch-perfect horror comedies like “This is the End,” “Krampus” and  “Get Out,” it’s hard to recommend a theater visit based on good production values and a fantastic lead alone. Overall, it’s just fine, if a bit disappointing; a few cards short of a full deck. 3/5

Invader Zim: Enter the Florpus - Review

 

If there’s one thing that hasn’t changed in the last 20 years since it was on TV, it’s that “Invader Zim” is still gross. Weird purple and green color schemes clash with grotesque blobs and ooze at every corner of the screen. Even the cutest of objects in the show have a bizarre menace to them thanks to the prevalence of extreme closeup angles and overly ominous musical cues.

That may sound like a negative, but the fact that the Nickelodeon/Netflix TV movie “Invader Zim: Enter the Florpus” keeps those artistic choices constant is a blessing. In fact, everything about “Enter the Florpus” is complete and utter gold for those already initiated with Jhonen Vasquez’s tiny green alien invader.

From the first frame of this 75-minute-long special, it’s clear that the sense of humor that fans so badly desired is completely intact. While it isn’t as dark as some of Zim’s earlier episodes (looking at you, “Dark Harvest”), the bizarre plot and humor are still undeniably the same. GIR still drinks a soda called Poop and everyone around the main cast are still extreme idiots and it all still effortlessly walks a tightrope, neve falling into Newgrounds edgy-ness or squeaky-clean self-sanitization.

Richard Steven Horvitz (“The Angry Beavers,” “Psychonauts”) returns to voice Zim without any compromises. The screaming and adorable little alien menace is just as unhinged as he’s ever been. There’s actually a surprisingly large spectrum of emotions he goes through in the special, allowing Horvitz to showcase more of his range than before.

The rest of the cast keeps the high level of voice acting excellence from the original series; Rikki Simons as GIR, Melissa Fahn (“Cowboy Bebop”) as Gaz, and Rodger Bumpass (“SpongeBob SquarePants”) as Professor Membrane. Andy Berman (“Psych,” “Rosewood”) as Dib stand out. Like Horvitz, his character is taken through an emotional journey unlike anything he’s been through in the show, allowing for a larger and more impressive vocal range.

Thankfully, unlike specials like the previously released “Rocko’s Modern Life: Static Cling,” “Florpus” is not content with simply being an elongated episode. Rather, things go so far into left field plot-wise, that it seems like this could have potentially been a theatrical release at some point. The creative leaps that the team employ during the third act show some just how much Nickelodeon cared about this project and even flexes some major budget muscles.

The updated animation style may be off-putting to some, though. Whereas the “Rocko” special had consistent animation throughout, some sequences here are animated in exactly the same way as the original series, contrasting other scenes which feature smoother animation. Neither are bad, but they both seem jarring next to each other. It doesn’t take away from the enjoyment of the physical humor or glorious art-style though.

It makes for a satisfying viewing experience for those already indoctrinated. Unfortunately, for anyone who has never seen the series, they may find themselves lost. A brief description at the special’s beginning helps, but this is clearly something meant to be absorbed and enjoyed by the fans first and foremost.

“Enter the Florpus” is a perfect recreation of a cult classic series. It has all the humor and style of the original, coupled with still fantastic voice work. The larger scope means this is a full one movie experience and it delivers on everything it sets out to show. Zim is back in full form. Full, terrifying, disgusting, horrifyingly moose-infested form. 5/5

Good Boys - Review

 

You can try all you want to convince yourself that your little brother, sister, cousin, niece, nephew, or kids are innocent. But once they hit middle school, it all goes out the window. There may not be a better film that captures this than “Good Boys,” the latest from producer duo Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg.

Following three sixth-graders, “Good Boys” revels in its sense of absurdness. For every outlandish moment that happens on screen, the three boys react in exactly the ways you’d think they would. There are no kids acting like adults here, just kids stuck in outlandish situations and dealing with them as real kids would.

That gives everything a refreshing level of realism that makes the film better all around. If the boys acted more serious or like adults in tween bodies, the film just would have been less interesting, plain and simple. Screenwriters Gene Stupnitsky (“The Office,” “Trophy Wife”) and Lee Eisenberg (“The Office,” “Trophy Wife”) smartly allow the humor to grow from the simple nature of childhood.

That commitment to the absurdity of the concept is where the comedy gold comes from. Some of the film’s best gags are things that just wouldn’t work in an adult-led comedy, like childproof caps or middle school hall monitors. This is a good thing given that the film’s basic plot and events therein aren’t particularly original. Nothing is snooze-inducing, but nothing, not even really the tween angle, is unprecedented.

Jacob Tremblay (“Room,” “Wonder”), Brady Noon (“Boardwalk Empire”) and Keith L. Williams (“The Last Man on Earth,” “Teachers”) all play convincing best friends. Their chemistry is great, and they milk the middle school friend mentality for all its worth. The supporting cast of comedian cameos are all great as well, with special props going to Molly Gordon (“Booksmart,” “Life of the Party”) and Midori Francis (“Ocean’s 8”), who steal every scene they’re in.

The cast is likely the film’s best asset, as everyone seems completely willing to embrace the film’s outlandishness at every turn. Even some of the sequences that drag or some of the jokes that flop don’t drag or flop as badly because of the sheer talent onscreen.

This is a good thing, because not all of “Good Boys” is, well, good. There are pacing problems towards the end of the film, and while the events therein are still funny, it still begins to drag. There’s also a bizarre amount of plot contrivances that being to pop up about halfway through that end up stretching out a movie that only sits at 95 minutes.

However, it’s all still funny. For every joke that flops, there are three more that land hard, and even the moments that drag or are the most boring either don’t last for long or are made amusing purely by the fact that they’re being carried out by a bunch of sixth graders. One moment of emotional conflict two-thirds in turns hysterical simply because it’s being performed by a bunch of sixth graders.

It's also just plain sweet at its core. There’s a lot of heart on display here, and the three best friends are all relatable in their plights. While Williams gets the most laughs at being the anti-Seth Rogen type, each of the boys are sympathetic and likeable. The feelings of adolescent dread and middle school drama that the writers zero in on is still remarkably effective, no matter how many times it’s been shown.

The sweetness and heart, not to mention a game cast help set “Good Boys” apart. It’s a funny film with a sugary center, as well as some by-the-numbers plot points and wonky pacing. Thanks to a very specific focus on middle school drama and adolescence, as well as great chemistry from its main trio, “Good Boys” manages to be just that: good. 3.5/5

Blinded By the Light - Review

 

A semi-musical about the work of Bruce Springsteen set in 1987 Britain and focusing on a young Pakistani boy who wants to be a writer. It’s quite an interesting pitch, but the fact that it’s based on the main character’s memoir and having the writer/director of “Bend It Like Beckham” involved makes “Blinded By The Light” a much easier sell than it otherwise would have been.

Because, let’s face it, unless you’re going the fantastical route like Danny Boyle’s “Yesterday,” movies that focus on a beloved artist’s work and their belovedness are kind of dorky. Thankfully, writer/director Gurinder Chadha (“Bend It Like Beckham,” “Angus, Thongs and Perfect Snogging”) embraces that dorkiness head-on. For every emotional revelation underscored by a Springsteen song, lyrics float across the screen or crackle across the edges of buildings. It at times feels like an overblown music video, but it works because these moments are there simply to supplement the main character’s emotional state, not to take the place of it.

That main character is Javed Khan, played with wide-eyed charm by Viveik Kalra (“Next of Kin”). He’s charming and a bit odd, but the kind of person who’s instantly likeable. His difficulties are easy to identify with and he fills the everyman archetype flawlessly. His best friend Roops and his girlfriend Eliza, played by Aaron Phagura (“Suburban Dracula”) and Nell Williams (“London Town,” “The Revolting World of Stanley Brown”), respectively, are just as likeable and charming. As the film progresses, it does a wonderful job showing their relationships grow and deepen, giving legitimacy to their emotional arcs.

The supporting cast is also excellent, if sporadically used. Javed’s father, played by Kulvinder Ghir (“Lunch Monkeys,” “Jadoo”) is a very strong familial anchor, and Ghir’s performance could easily suggest best-supporting actor campaigns in the future. His mother, sisters, neighbor, and the rest of the town are all well performed and likeable.

However, underneath all of the song montages, likeable characters, and warm cinematography, “Light” is doing backstrokes through swimming pools filled with syrupy sweet cheese. To call this film corny would be an understatement. As powerful as Springsteen’s songs are, and as much as they work within the context of the film, by the fifth time Javed says “It’s like he’s speaking directly to me,” audience’s eyes may roll so far back they could see their brains.

Therefore, it’s a testament to the quality of Kalra’s performance and to Chadha’s directorial work that the corniness of it all never crashes the earnest and dorkiness that make the film such a delight. Yes, it’s cheesy, but it’s also a crowd-pleaser, knowing exactly when and where to deploy its buckets of charm to make audiences grin and cheer.

Within its crowd-pleasing nature though, Chadha and her fellow screenwriters Paul Mayeda Berges (“Bend It Like Beckham,” “Angus, Thongs and Perfect Snogging”) and Sarfraz Manzoor, who wrote the memoir the film is based on, dip deep into the film’s overall theme with some surprising results. Not content to leave things as surface level as “Follows your dreams,” much of the film examines how badly that can be if you completely isolate yourself, souring even the best experiences and memories. For a film that is a feel-good crowd-pleaser, it’s a remarkably dark and professional examination.

Despite feeling as though it’s coated in cheese for most, but not all, of its runtime, “Blinded By The Light” succeeds thanks to its charismatic cast and willingness to embrace its adoration of the Boss who inspired it. This is the film equivalent of the dorky kid who won’t stop talking about his favorite artist. You may roll your eyes from time to time, but you can’t deny the pure love and passion that lies at the center. 4/5

The Angry Birds Movie 2 - Review

 

With a name so obvious you’d expect a colon and subtitle to follow it, “The Angry Birds Movie 2” has officially landed in theatres. Most (Looking at you, Sean Penn) of the star-studded cast from the original film return and a new threat has been introduced, divulging this sequel from the “plot” of the video game the first film was directly based on.

That divulgence, as well as letting an animator’s animator direct, is apparently exactly what this film needed. Not only is this a thorough improvement over the original, but director Thurop Van Orman (“The Marvelous Misadventures of Flapjack,” “The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy”) fills the 95-minute running time with surrealist jokes and completely bonkers physical humor and sight gags.

Thankfully, the plot this time is nowhere near as detailed or drawn out. Screenwriters Jonathon E. Stewart (“Cars 3,” “Smallfoot”), Peter Ackerman (“Ice Age,” “The Americans”) and Eyal Podell (“Cars 3,” “Smallfoot”) waste no time in establishing the reasonings behind the hijinks that cause the plot to move forward. Their script relishes in simple and straight to the point emotional explanations, and that straightforward-ness ends up helping move the film along and prevent things from feeling rundown.

The lessons therein are also surprisingly sweet and well-thought-out. After the first film’s “let’s be immediately suspicious of the visitors from a faraway land” concept was received less than warmly, it’s no wonder the screenwriters decided to break away from the original game’s plot, instead focusing in on a tale of teamwork and diversity, along with some girl power and STEM plot points for good measure.

“Angry Birds 2” keeps things interesting beyond that thanks to a deluge of comical genius from its animation. From Orman’s signature bizarre facial expressions to a lack of seriousness to the general proceedings, there’s a Saturday morning cartoon feeling to the overall product in the best possible way. It’s a silly, jovial experience throughout, helped even further by its vocal talent.

Jason Sudeikis (“Horrible Bosses,” “Saturday Night Live”), Josh Gad (“Frozen,” “Murder on the Orient Express”), Bill Hader (“Sausage Party” “The Skeleton Twins”), Danny McBride (“Eastbound and Down,” “This is the End”) and Peter Dinklage (“Game of Thrones,” “Three Billboard Outside Ebbing, Missouri”) all reprise their roles from the first film and still deliver solid performances that get laughs throughout the film. However, it’s the additional talent that ends up making the biggest impressions.

Leslie Jones (“Top Five,” “Ghostbusters (2016)”) delivers an energetic and hysterical performance as the film’s villain, Zeta. Awkwafina (“Crazy Rich Asians,” “The Farewell”) and Sterling K. Brown (“This Is Us,” “The Predator”) also appear in smaller roles as the pigs Courtney and Garry, respectively, but both still manage to leave an impression thanks to great dialogue.

Most impressive of all though is Silver, played by Rachel Bloom (“Crazy Ex-Girlfriend”). Initially, the character seems as though she could easily becoming annoying or a Mary Sue, but it’s as if there was a conscious effort from both Bloom and the writers to avoid this. The results are a genuinely sweet and likeable character who ends up anchoring the film’s emotional arc in a wonderful way.

All of that being said, this still isn’t Shakespeare. There is a lot of suspension of disbelief (even for a movie called “Angry Birds 2”) that has to go on in order to accept the proceedings. Half the time the movie just laughs at physics and logic in general. However, these always seem to be thrown out simply to meet the goal of laughter.

There are some truly inspired comedic sequences throughout the film, and even as the plot gets further and further from the film’s attention, the gorgeous animation and slapstick sensibilities stay firmly intact. Some moments even break the fourth wall in interesting ways, even playing with the subtitles and overlays of the film itself. Sure, it may end in an easily predictable Deux Ex Machina style manner, but that’s what it takes to get the hysterical 85 minutes prior, it seems like a fair trade.

“The Angry Birds Movie 2” shows that with a willingness to put what works first; humor and animation, as well as adjusting the plot and characterizations to complement those elements, a Sequel can not only improve on the original, but can be a hilarious and enjoyable surprise. These birds may not soar to the heavens, but they certainly do fly. 4/5

Rocko's Modern Life: Static Cling - Review

 

Twenty years ago, Nickelodeon’s lovable marsupial got blasted into space with his two best friends, his dog, and his house. However, with this 45-minute made-for-TV film, the latest in a series of original creator-driven film reboots, Rocko’s life is getting even more modern in ways that likely no fan could have predicted with “Rocko’s Modern Life: Static Cling.”

What is likely the most important thing about this film, and the reason it's so effective at recapturing the style and humor of the original show, is that the characters and stakes feel genuine. This isn’t Rocko travelling to Hollywood or stopping an alien invasion. Yes, there are some livelihoods on the line, but it’s nothing that hasn’t been done before in the original series.

The connections to the original series provide for some interesting callbacks and plot moments in this film. Without spoiling anything, it smartly calls back some background characters whose journeys had not yet been finished in the show and brings them back in very clever ways.

With the return of the original voice cast and creators, things look and sound as great as ever. Carlos Alazraqui (“Reno 911!”) does great work as Rocko, and his buddies Heffer and Filburt are reprised excellently by their original voice actors; Tom Kenny (“SpongeBob SquarePants,” “Mr. Show”) and Mr. Lawrence (“SpongeBob SquarePants”), respectively. If there’s a standout of the bunch, its creator/director/writer Joe Murray (“Camp Lazlo,” “Rocko’s Modern Life”) as Rachel Bighead, if for no other reason than for the soothing deep voice he delivers.

What will likely be talked about most from this special is its central theme of change. Avoiding spoilers, there are many plot and character elements that directly deal with themes of nostalgia and avoiding change. It’s unique for a revival of a classic series, nostalgic for many, to directly address these themes. The way “Static Cling” manages this avoids the pitfalls and ends up being well told and pretty poignant.

The slapstick and occasionally perverse humor that made the show a phenomenon is still here in spades and the inventive animation, thankfully still hand-drawn, delivers a ton of great comedic material. There’s been no updating to modern techniques; this is classic, smooth, and beautiful 90s hand-drawn animation. Sure, a few of the jokes at the 21st century’s expense are easy targets (Yet another parody of Apple and the iPhone), but they’re at least done skillfully, with great slapstick underpinning it all.

If there are any negatives with this special, it may just be that it lacks a true spark to set itself apart from the previous episodes in the series. That is technically a good thing, and the commentary on change and nostalgia is well done, but it may leave the question of “So, why now?” in audiences’ heads.

Make no mistake though, this is still classic Rocko and very much worth watching for any fan of the series. It’s thoroughly entertaining despite some easy gags, and the commentary on the idea of change might be the strongest in the entire series. It’s been a long time, but Rocko and his modern life don’t seem to have changed a bit, and that’s in the best way possible. 4/5