Zombieland: Double Tap - Review

 

October of 2009 introduced the world to four misfits in the zombie apocalypse so determined to keep from making connections that they just used their destinations as names. Now, a decade later, “Zombieland” is without a doubt a modern cult hit. The wry sense of humor and gory glory kills gave way to fruitful careers for just about everyone involved: the writers have now written both “Deadpool” films, each of the four leads has been nominated for an Oscar at least once, and the director went on to direct the box office smash hit “Venom.”

If rumors are to be believed, this second “Zombieland” film, aptly titled “Double Tap” has been in the pipeline long before the current trend of rebooting and revitalizing old properties. It does have plenty of things that set it apart from the collection of years-later sequels that have come since 2009, and thankfully those differences help set it above those other cash-grabby sequels.

For starters, the entire cast seems completely game and willing to be here. Woody Harrelson (“Natural Born Killers,” “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri”), Jesse Eisenberg (“The Social Network,” “Adventureland”) and Emma Stone (“La La Land,” “Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)”) all still have great chemistry and comedic timing, as does Abigail Breslin (“Little Miss Sunshine,” “Scream Queens”), though she isn’t given as much screen time as the other three. The main foursome all seem like they’re having a blast, and not one comes across as here simply to collect a paycheck.

Newer characters are smartly balance between existing purely for jokes and serving some plot purpose. Luke Wilson (“Idiocracy,” “Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy”) and Thomas Middleditch (“Captain Underpants: The First Epic Movie,” “Silicon Valley”) are the subject of some of the film’s best extended gags, and Rosario Dawson (“Top Five,” “Luke Cage”) is equally as badass as Harrleson’s grizzled cowboy type. Even Zoey Dutch’s (“The Year of Spectacular Men,” “Everybody Wants Some!!”) valley-girl-esque supporting role doesn’t come across as completely annoying thanks to her fantastic comedic timing.

This is still Zombieland, and things are still as gory as ever. Blood and flesh spew from every frame of the screen each time zombies arrive, and each time it does feel glorious. While less inventive with its kills than the first, “Double Tap” does swap the cleverness with a sense of the absurd.

Not just with the zombie kills, either. Its almost as if director Ruben Fleischer (“Zombieland,” “Venom”) and writers Rhett Reese (“Deadpool,” “Life (2017)”), Paul Wernick (“Deadpool,” “Life (2017)”) and David Callaham (“The Expendables,” “Godzilla (2014)”) knew they wouldn’t be able to recapture the subtle wit of the first film, and instead decided to go for broke into the realm of the absurd. Elvis costumes, monster trucks, the leaning tower of Pisa, and native American bloodlines all come into play here and it’s done in the same delightfully unserious way as before.

However, absurdity might excuse some overarching plot beats, but it doesn’t excuse some rather confusing plot holes or contrivances. A huge part of the plot revolves around a pacifist camp where they melt down any guns that make it through their gate. While this is fine in theory, they are in the zombie apocalypse, and this kind of lapse in judgement comes across more as confusing than amusing.

There are also a handful of scenes that, while they might have great action or jokes, don’t really serve any purpose in the plot, existing just to pad out the runtime. Every film has scenes like this, but a few here seem egregiously obvious.

Still, the humor and comradery are what really make this something special. Just like the first, the themes of family and home set against the backdrop of vicious zombie attacks have an odd charm to them. The little touches throughout also do a great job of making this feel like nothing else out there. While the visual effects detailing rules for surviving and the like were minor elements in the first film, here they’re cranked up to eleven in some really clever ways.

They’re a great example of tiny things that nobody else is doing that help set these films apart. “Double Tap” may not be as inventive or fresh as the first film, but the same great sense of humor and comradery still shine through. That and its sense of increased absurdity help to balance out some blatant padding and plot holes to deliver a film that is just as delightfully silly and gory as before. The flesh might not be as fresh this time around, but its still delicious. 3.5/5

Maleficent: Mistress of Evil - Review

 

Here comes the queen, the dark faery, the mistress of evil. Angelina Jolie’s portrayal of Maleficent managed to overcome a mixed critical reception and flew straight to big box office receipts and audience praise for her version of the evil queen. A sequel seemed almost inevitable.

So here it is, and “Maleficent: Mistress of Evil” may even be an improvement upon the original in some respects. That doesn’t necessarily mean it’s a good film, but improvements, especially for a live action Disney film, are welcome nonetheless.

Jolie’s (“Girl, Interrupted,” “Salt”) version of the evil queen is just as bombastic as before. She sulks around each corner, brooding at anyone who dares cross her path. Yet, the threatening menace never robs her performance of a high energy as she overacts her heart out, spinning her scenes into pure melodramatic gold.

Elle Fanning’s (“Somewhere,” “The Beguiled (2017)”) Aurora, meanwhile, is just fine. She isn’t as plain as to be forgettable, but she maintains a base level of status quo, as does Harris Dickinson (“The Darkest Minds,” “Trust”) as Prince Phillip. The pair have some great chemistry but aren’t particularly memorable. The same goes for Chiwetel Ejiofor (“12 Years A Slave,” “The Martian”) who’s role as Conall the dark faery likely consists of five minutes of screen time, all of them spent spewing exposition.

Ed Skrein (“Deadpool,” “Alita: Battle Angel”) continues his streak of bringing faceless anti-heroes to life, and the three fairy godmothers, portrayed by Imedla Staunton (“Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix,” “Vera Drake”), Juno Temple (“Far From the Madding Crowd,” “Horns”) and Lesley Manville (“Another Year,” “Phantom Thread”), are as bland and horrifying to look at as ever.

Thankfully, Michelle Pfeiffer (“Scarface,” “Hairspray (2007)”) is here and ready to compete with Jolie for the 2019 award for overacting. The pair churn out delicious melodrama ever time they share the screen; each one grins and broods, snickers and bickers with laser precision. They make the film worth watching, and it’s better for it.

Oddly enough, the supporting cast seems to make more of an impact than the leads here. Warwick Davis (“Return of the Jedi,” “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince”) might not be on screen a lot, but when he is, he continues to beam with the same wonderful charm he’s maintained for the last 37 years in film. Sam Riley (“Pride and Prejudice and Zombies,” “Control (2007)”) reprises his role as Diaval the Raven from the first film and continues to be just as lovable, if not more so, than before. Jenn Murray (“Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them,” “Brooklyn”) has a minor role here as the lead henchperson of Pfeiffer’s queen, but each time she’s on screen she’s clearly giving it her all, chewing up the scenery and reveling in the cliched ridiculousness.

That is what is at the core of this film. It’s part “Meet the Fockers” and part “every fantasy anti-hero film of the last three decades.” Not a shred of the plot feels original in any respect, and the longer it goes on the more the tiny plot inconsistencies pop up.

For example, how is it that, when they’re called to a big event in the third act, the entire population of the forest Moore where Maleficent and Aurora live only take up half of a church? How is it that the story of the first film has turned to manipulated legend in just five years’ time? How is this legend passed around and known by all, and yet the queen doesn’t even know what happened to Aurora’s former castle? How does no one notice the huge evil layer beneath the castle?

Also, for a film about Maleficent, she spends an awful lot of the second act doing…not much at all. She bums around the dark faery world and doesn’t leave it until she needs to do more semi-evil actions.

The visuals are also a sore spot, because, while the physical aspects are top notch, just about anytime a greenscreen is involved, things plummet for the ground. Maleficent’s outfits and makeup are a consistent highlight, growing and evolving as the film progresses, and the sets are clearly well constructed and gorgeous to look at.

The same goes for the world of the dark faerys, as the physical aspects of their world are extremely well done and gorgeous to look at. The other faerys are also gorgeously crafted, each sporting dozens of color, horn and wing variations, giving the feeling that this is truly a whole other race. Even the effects of Maleficent’s powers are sewn into the film well.

But anytime she takes flight, it’s clear that Jolie is floating against a greenscreen with wires all around her. Wires may not be visible, but there’s a clear cheapness to these flying sequences that dampers their effect. A handful of odd inconsistencies also pop up, like poor makeup on any fantasy child creature, and bizarre editing cuts that don’t even attempt to hide reused footage.

For all its flaws, there’s something remarkably engaging about “Mistress of Evil.” It isn’t good, but it has a melodramatic soap-opera feel to it that makes it constantly watchable. The overacting of Jolie and Pfieffer and likable supporting cast mix…interestingly with the plot-hole ridden story and weirdly inconsistent visual effects. It delivers a film that feels like if Disney did a big budget fairy tale soap opera; literally the entire film is 100% extra. If an entire film could be described as “scenery chewing” this would definitely be it. 2.5/5

Jexi - Review

 

The idea of pitting technology against humanity is nothing new. In fact, it isn’t even remotely new given the barrage to films that feature a technological antagonist. Age of Ultron, Terminator Genisys, Transcendence, I Robot, Eagle Eye, The Day the Earth Stood Still, Total Recall, Elysium, Robocop, Ex Machina, Chappie, and those are just from the last 15 years.

So in stomps “Jexi,” a film written and directed by Jon Lucas (“The Hangover,” “21 & Over”) and Scott Moore (“The Hangover,” “21 & Over”) about a man who’s new Siri-esque phone assistant Jexi ends up making his life a living hell to try and make it better. It’s also a comedy, but that’s being very liberal with the term.

In the past, Lucas and Moore have created a string of unfunny comedies (“Four Christmases,” “Ghosts of Girlfriends Past,” “The Change-Up,” “Bad Moms,” “Office Christmas Party,” “A Bad Moms Christmas,” and “21 & Over”) but those at least had some redeeming qualities. Actors who were charming or committed, a handful of jokes that landed, or even a semi-interesting premise.

There’s nothing to “Jexi” though. None of those things are applicable. Nobody seems like they want to be here, even people who are clearly popping up for cameos. Adam Devine (“Isn’t It Romantic,” “Workaholics”) seems like he was told this would be a sketch comedy short and it just kept getting dragged out on him. Alexandra Shipp (“Love, Simon,” “X-Men: Apocalypse”) is doing the most fake smiles to paycheck ratio in recent memory, and Michael Peña (“Ant-Man,” “The Martian”) is just…probably trying to most but is also without a doubt the most egregious and annoying.

Even Rosy Byrne (“Neighbors,” “Spy (2015)”) isn’t really acting, since all she has to do is provide a monotone voice. It makes the handful of lines that are semi-threatening or could be worth half a chuckle fall flat because it’s 2019 and hearing a Siri voice say “fuck” isn’t funny anymore, if it ever was. At least the humor is consistently bad. It doesn’t go for any stereotypes or inherently offensive humor. It is offensively bad, but at least it sticks to f-bombs in every sentence and dick jokes.

Its also just boring. At 84 minutes, this clocks in at shorter than “The Addams Family (2019)” which opened the same weekend, and it somehow feels over two hours long. A handful of moments are amusingly absurd, but it isn’t because they’re actually funny. Moments where Devine is being chased by a self-driving car that is somehow controlled by Jexi or where he gets a promotion out of the blue that is insinuated to be because Jexi put the person who used to have it into the hospital aren’t well done, they’re so blatantly awful and bizarre that its hysterical that some executive thought they would work.

It also completely wastes what could have been a great supporting cast. Besides Michael Peña doing the most acting of his career, Charlyne Yi (“Stephen Universe,” “Next Gen”) and Ron Funches (“Trolls”) are here, and it seems like they lost a bet. They’re clearly trying to be genuine or charming, but it’s as if the script that they’re given is a cure for any decency in a human being.

Now, it would be bad enough if this film was just unfunny and boring. However, there are really really weird things in “Jexi” that are just kind of baffling. For example, everyone in this movie love “Days of Thunder,” the Tom Cruise Nascar film. Not just like it, they love it! Multiple characters bond over their obsession with the film, going so far as to quote it multiple times. When Kid Cudi shows up, playing himself for some reason, he and Devine bond OVER THEIR LOVE OF “DAYS OF THUNDER!”

That’s not even touching on the movie’s sudo-“her” like romantic subplot towards the end of the film. It’s as if you handed a dude-bro frat guy a copy of Spike Jonze’s “her,” he watched it, returned it, claimed it was a pile of garbage and that he could write a better film, and then he did.

There’s a layer of this film that also seems to be a cautionary tale about technology and its impact on society, but…it feels almost 15 years too late? Devine’s character is supposed to be this loser guy who obsesses over his phone, but he uses it in normal ways. He uses the GPS to get to work, orders food at home, watches Netflix, browses Facebook. Things that seemingly everyone else in the film do but aren’t chastised for. It also fails to address that some people legitimately need their phones for work or everyday life.

When Devine is harassed by a phone store employee, played by a very glazed over Wanda Sykes (“Over the Hedge,” “The New Adventures of Old Christine”), she lambasts him for wanting a new phone after his old one was smashed. Yet no one thinks to say “Hey, he lives alone in a big city. Maybe he needs a phone for, I don’t know, basic communication?” It’s 2019, they’re integrated into society now. The film just spirals out of control on a layer of logic so thin you’d break it by breathing on it. The technological sense of a 65-year-old boomer and the humor of a 19-year-old frat dude have come together to make one of the worst comedies of the last two decades.

By the time one of the supporting characters tells Devine “Oh you’re a writer, that’s way scarier than what I do! You’re like a superhero of paper!” it’s officially time to check out and let Lucas and Moore fondle themselves over their frat house “Black Mirror” episode genius in peace. More enjoyment could be had playing with a bricked iPhone 6S. 0.5/5

The Addams Family (2019) - Review

 

Yes, they’re creepy and their kooky, mysterious and spooky, and all together ooky. They’re the Addams Family. But the creaky novelty of the characters has all but worn off nowadays. Not that they still aren’t beloved, but simply deliver a kid’s movie with a creepy shine on it isn’t enough nowadays. Unfortunately, unlike the charming and somewhat adult 90’s Addams flicks, this is just that; a kid’s movie with a creepy shine to it and not much else.

Where this new Addams strengths lie though is in its voice work and animation. While clearly working with a lower budget than the latest Pixar or Dreamworks film, Nitrogen Studios, a Canadian based animation studio founded by co-director Greg Tiernan and most famous for 2016’s “Sausage Party,” turns out some really stylish work here, going for an artistic bend rather than detailed shaders and lighting.

The designs of the Addams and their extended relatives are pulled right from the original comic strip, and they look great in this style. Wonderful touches like great explosion and dust effects lend this world a great madcap angle to it.

Voice talent is also high point. Oscar Isaac (“Ex Machina,” “Star Wars: The Last Jedi”) is just delightful as Gomez really leaning into the comedic liberties of such a role. Chloë Grace Moretz (“Kick-Ass,” “Let Me In”) is also great as Wednesday, and while Finn Wolfhard (“Stranger Things,” “IT”) as Pugsly and Charlize Theron (“Long Shot,” “Mad Max: Fury Road”) as Morticia aren’t hitting the energetic strides of Moretz or Isaac, they’re still enjoyable.

Nick Kroll (“Kroll Show,” “Big Mouth”) absolutely steals the show though as Uncle Fester. His delivery may be grating to some, but he’s without a doubt the one talent here who truly knows what kind of effort and energy has to go into voice acting, and he’s a constant delight.

Deliriously macabre humor is also wonderfully done here as well. While a few of the jokes seem remarkably on the nose, such as the red balloon “IT” reference seen in the trailer, much of it hasn’t really been toned down for a PG rating. Pugsly and Gomez’s explosive early morning battle is a hysterical delight and the oddball nature of a lot of the deadpan humor is thoroughly entertaining.

Yes indeed. Everything with the Addams is excellent. The humor, the voice work, the art style. If only that were all there was to the film. Because in reality there’s a solid 30-45 minute long romp here with the Addams and their kin. Where things start to go off the rails though are when the “normal” people are introduced.

The moment the clouds lift and the town of…Assimilation is seen, the bright colors and average people character designs start to show off the worst of what this film has to offer. The colors are garish and sometimes are literal eye sores compared to the Addams. Despite designs that lean into things like Pugsly’s rotund head and Wednesday’s elongated head, the average people designs are more hideous. Wednesday’s new friend, played by Elsie Fisher, is a particular eyesore, almost as if she was meant to be an Addams and her model was switch last minute.

Every piece of voice work for the townsfolk is either boring or completely inane. Allison Janney is here at her most shrill and given that she is the antagonist, she becomes absolutely unbearable by the film’s end. Fisher is fine, not really trying on any level, and the rest of the townsfolk are too over the top to take even remotely seriously.

While the Addams humor is great, the story it’s wrapped in is as lifeless as their relatives. It’s your prototypical “even people who are different are cool” plot line that even manages to try and be “self-referential” with characters singing songs with lyrics like “Why be different when you can be like everyone else?” and, again, the town is called Assimilation.

It just comes across as remarkably lazy, which is a shame because there’s clearly some kind of a good movie in here. Even the subplot with Pugsly trying to learn a macguffin sword dance to impress his family and be accepted isn’t that bad. It’s just boring, and at 87 minutes long, multiple pop song interludes and weird music breaks make the plot feel stretched far too thin.

As the film ends with an animated version of the original show’s theme song, it becomes apparent that this could have been the start of a new animated Addams show, a film franchise, or even some cool merch. But what ends up being delivered is a film that is far too routine and boring to bear the name Addams. While basically everything to do with the Addams themselves is excellent, that leaves half a film that is decidedly not, and an entire boring plot that has been done countless times before. It isn’t dead on arrival, but it ain’t too far off. 2/5

Joker - Review

There’s something otherworldly to “Joker.” Its dingy color palette and 1.78:1 aspect ratio conflict everything that past comic book movies have done. It’s small, cramped, claustrophobic, and mean. This is a dangerous and upsetting film, not for the faint of heart.

Joaquin Phoenix (“her,” “You Were Never Really Here”) is positively electric as Arthur Fleck. His performance is impeccable and will likely grab a lot of awards talk come next year’s Oscars, but there’s something about his performance. It’s detached and raw, and it feels real in a scary way. At times it doesn’t feel like an actor playing a role; instead, in the film’s most jarring moments, it just feels like watching a person live.

This is a testament to Phoenix’s talent, but also to the work that he, Writer/Director Todd Phillips (“War Dogs,” “The Hangover”), and Co-Writer Scott Silver (“8 Mile,” “The Fighter”) have taken to make sure the film never glorifies the actions and inspirations for them. Rather, they take ample time in showing the puzzle pieces that build to eventually create this shattered man.

If Arthur felt happy about an action, the film shows that, and succeeds in not painting the action either way, leaving it up to the audience to decide. There’s an explicit difference between showing the events and glorifying them, and Phillips seems to understand this completely.

Pacing also helps in telling his tale in just the right way, and the film ends up beginning with a very slow burn. While initially moving slowly and deliberately, the latter half quickens things up quite a bit as more and more things start to spark and explode at the same time. An excellent musical score from Hildur Guðnadóttir (“A Hijacking,” “Chernobyl”) meshes with cinematography from Lawrence Sher (“Godzilla: King of the Monsters,” “The Hangover”) that is at times understated and grandiose. Both are excellent.

Also excellent is Robert De Niro (“Casino,” “Goodfellas”), delivering an excellent performance and almost becoming an audience surrogate in the latter half of the film. He doesn’t get as much screen time as Phoenix, but the work he does with it is just as good.

While Phoenix steals the show, the supporting cast feels utilized mostly well. Brian Tyree Henry (“Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse,” “If Beale Street Could Talk”) serves as more of a cameo than was initially suggested, and Brett Cullen (“Person of Interest,” “42”) as Thomas Wayne does a wonderful job at balancing his character to avoid teetering into one moral side. Frances Conroy (“American Horror Story: Murder House,” “Six Feet Under”) as Arthur’s mother is also wonderfully understated.

None are used a lot or particularly excellently, but they all serve their roles in worthwhile ways. If there is a scene stealer, it would be Leigh Gill (“Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them,” “Game of Thrones”) as Gary, a charming British friend of Arthur’s, as he’s just a genuinely nice person who feels like the bright spot and gets treated horribly for it.

However, even for the segmented, puzzle piece nature of the narrative, one character isn't really dealt with that much. Zazie Beetz’s (“Deadpool 2,” “Atlanta”) role is introduced, has a few moments, and then is disappointingly cast aside. The fate of this character is even left ambiguous, which is disappointing given how concretely the rest of the major impacts on Arthur’s life and the results of them are shown.

It is clear though that this is not meant to be a point by point plotted film. Rather this is a character study, a powder keg of a film. Not everything is spelled out and explained, just the pieces that matter in the tale of this man and how he got to this state. Some elements that could be seen as lazy or surface level regarding Arthur's motivations seem almost purposely so.

His is a character whose actions are at the same time meant to be unthinkable and also unfounded. So, the surface level actions that push him to that point are justified in being two-dimensional in order to allow his horrific transformation to remain horrific.

It isn’t as well rounded as other comic book films or character pieces, but it’s clear that this is going for one specific thing, and the goal is to perfect that one thing so expertly that all the other elements, while still very good, can be forgiven for not being as excellent, as they aren’t the focus.

This is also a film that is just, point blank, difficult to think about. Again, there’s a difference between glorifying these actions and simply showing them, and “Joker” knows this. It succeeds in not glorifying, but that doesn’t mean it is any less upsetting. Controversy will follow this film like a white-hot magnet, and whether or not that is justified will be discussed by critics for months to come.

There is something to respect here, as well. Not since “The Dark Knight,” and maybe not even then, has such a particular vision of what was once seen as comic book pulp characters been realized. It achieves what it sets out to do, and it cuts deeply because of that. There is a reason DC’s name is actually nowhere on the film itself, apart from the credits mentioning “Based on Characters from DC.”

“Joker” is distinctly uncomfortable, and dangerous. This is a film filled with white hot rage yet keeps it just distant enough to avoid painting this protagonist as a hero. It is a cautionary tale, not a glorifying one. Those aspects, and the film as whole, will likely be discussed for months to come, for good reason. Its cinematography, music, production designs, everything is impeccable, led by a jaw shatteringly good lead performance. “Joker” is a film that lingers on the mind. One that you might desperately want to forget yet is impossible to. Be warned though, when it’s over, you’ll need a good, cheap laugh. 4/5