Christopher Robin - Review

 

Winnie the Pooh is probably the most unlikely candidate to make a comeback in today’s age of excitement and genre pushing excess. He’s slow, witty and tends to meander about. Rarely does he do anything with expediency and most of his stories tend to have an element of sadness to them. The latest film featuring the bear of very little brain, “Christopher Robin”, is set to tell the story of what happens to the Hundred Acre Wood after its human caretaker grows up. Is the resulting story as sweet as honey or is it of very little brain as well?

Clocking in at just around an hour and forty-five minutes, “Christopher Robin” manages to hit the sweet spot in terms of storytelling and pacing. It meanders about slowly, allowing its story to take as much time as necessary to build its conflicts to satisfying emotional crescendos.

Not once does it overstay its welcome or feel too slow, thanks to excellent visuals and voice work from its entire cast, especially the legendary Jim Cummings (“Darkwing Duck,” “Goof Troop”). This man has been voicing Pooh and Tigger for over twenty years, and his performance as the eponymous bumbling bear is still wonderful.

It is taken a step further though, thanks to the intelligence of the script. Writers Alex Ross Perry (“Listen Up Phillip”) and Allison Schroeder (“Hidden Figures”) go to great lengths to make this the most mature film of the Pooh franchise. Material relating to the importance of family and growing up is introduced, but it’s done in such a wonderfully scatterbrained way that it keeps the feeling of routine out of the picture.

The writer and director Mark Forster (“Stranger Than Fiction,” “Finding Neverland”) isn't afraid to inject somberness into this adventure without warning. It leads to moments of genuine shock and emotion, which in turn allows the emotional payoffs to feel just as impactful.

Ewan McGregor (“Moulin Rouge,” “Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith”) is excellent as the elder version of Christopher, keeping a balanced childlike wonder and adult pessimism throughout the film. Haley Atwell (“Agent Carter,” “The Duchess”) is also great as his wife Evelyn, but the standout of the humans is young Bronte Carmichael as Robin’s daughter Madeline. She’s completely adorable and wonderfully charming, feeling right at home with the creatures of the Hundred Acre Wood.

Geoff Zanelli (“Disturbia,” “Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales”) and Jon Brion (“Punch Drunk Love,” “Lady Bird”) manage to incorporate the classic Pooh themes into the music. Many characters have the melodies to their own songs playing underneath scenes involving them, and there’s a delightful piano whimsy to the entire affair.

Pooh and his gang of misfits all look great, with attention to detail in every facet. Tigger’s worn face resembles gray facial scruff, and the felt pads of Pooh’s hands are worn from years of play. It’s a gorgeous film in its simplicity, opting for quiet practical forest shots instead of busy computer-generated backgrounds.

Like previously stated, “Christopher Robin” does not overstay its welcome or have bad pacing. However, it does take a bit to really get going, and while its meandering nature is charming and lighthearted, it may seem slow and off putting to some.

Also, while the more mature and adult nature of many of the story elements is handled well, it results in a film that is fine for kids around the ages of 9 and upwards, but those younger may be scared or frightened of some plot elements that stray further than normal from the general family friendly nature of Pooh’s other outings.

“Christopher Robin” is an incredibly sweet and simple film. It knows exactly what it wants to say and how to get it across, without sacrificing intelligence, wit, or the maturity its story needs. Excellent vocal and physical performances balance out a meandering story that results in a film a lot like the silly old bear himself. Sweet, lovable, a bit slow, and endlessly charming. 4/5

Teen Titans GO! To The Movies - Review

 

For those unfamiliar with the show, “Teen Titans GO!” is a reboot of the original early 2000’s “Teen Titans” TV series. It abandoned the original’s serial-based plots and anime inspired style, for colorful flash animation art and quippy pop culture references and poop jokes. While the show has received generally mixed reception over its run, Warner Bros. Animation has decided to bring it to the big screen with “Teen Titans GO! To The Movies.” Can it be better than its source material?

Fans of the “GO!” reboot will be glad to hear that the show’s brand of fast paced jokes remains intact in this adaptation. However, even detractors will be glad to hear that the film’s sense of humor and storytelling is leagues ahead of what the show has to offer.

Jokes hit their mark far more often than in the show, leading to many amusing references and tongue in cheek jokes related to superheroes and the movies created around them. Both DC and Marvel are targets throughout the film, and some of the best jokes come from a true place of surprise.

This awareness of superhero abundance also helps the story succeed as well. The plot is based around the overabundance of superhero films, so much so that heroes without a film are considered inferior. This leads Robin to attempt to land himself a movie, and thus we have the basic plot.

It all works nicely together, jelling like a Saturday Morning Robot Chicken episode. There are indeed a few jokes that don’t land, and some that over stay their welcome. They’re easy to look past, though, due to the rapid-fire nature of other background and foreground gags happening, and the earnestness of the vocal performances, with Scott Menville (“Shaggy & Scooby-Doo Get a Clue,” “The 7D”), Hynden Walch (“Adventure Time,” “ChalkZone”), Khary Payton (“Young Justice,” “The Walking Dead”), Tara Strong (“Batman: Arkham City,” “The Powerpuff Girls”), and Greg Cipes (“Ben 10,” “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (2012)”) all reprising their roles as Robin, Starfire, Cyborg, Raven, and Beast Boy, respectively.

Will Arnett (“Horrible Bosses,” “Arrested Development”) and Kristen Bell (“The Good Place,” “Veronica Mars”) provide great work, and there are a whole host of cameos that are wonderfully done, but the real stars are the Titans. The cast from both the original show and “GO!” reprise their roles and bring a cheerful earnestness that only seasoned voice actors can bring to a film this bizarre.

Halfway through the film, the plot seems to stop for an extended gag based around time-travel, and that gag is the best way to describe “To The Movies” as a whole. It puts the plot at a standstill to have some fun riffing in the DC universe. It isn’t Shakespeare, and isn’t going to deconstruct the way we view superhero films, but it is a bundle of fun, and that’s all it wants to be.

Surprisingly, there are also quite a few musical numbers that are pulled off well. The film also switches back and forth between different animation styles and techniques for different gags, even poking fun at a Disney classic about a third of the way through in what is probably the film’s best joke.

If you need 90 minutes of fun, look no further than “Teen Titans GO! To The Movies.” Fixing many of the problems the show had, the film is extremely funny with a well thought out plot. Nothing here is Oscar worthy, and there are definitely parts where it dips into the realm of grating, but the highs absolutely outweigh the lows to provide the most bizarre superhero film and studio film this side of Deadpool’s domain. 4/5

Mission Impossible: Fallout - Review

 

Love him or hate him, Tom Cruise (“Top Gun,” “Tropic Thunder”) will undeniably put himself on the line for his beloved “Mission Impossible” films. “Fallout” is no different, featuring lots of real-world stunts and crazy action, but it's also unique within its own series.

“Fallout” is the first film in the series to pull plot and character elements directly from a previous film, “Rogue Nation”, to build its story. Ethan Hunt must track down plutonium being sold to the remaining members of the previous film’s villain organization, The Syndicate, now known as The Apostles.

The film keeps the pace up throughout its entirety, not once letting audience members take a breath until the very end. It's incredibly refreshing that this tension works so well. Often in blockbuster cinema, threats to the characters feel so inconsequential and fake, due to an over-reliance on CGI, close calls, or any combination of things.

However, this is directly what sets “Fallout” apart. It feels like at any moment, something could go wrong. This is backed up by the green screen-less stunts and the rock-solid emotional core of the plot, and it allows the film’s tension to remain, even throughout quiet scenes.

“Fallout” isn’t afraid to put its characters through hell, but not just physically. “Fallout” is the most emotional of all the “MI” films, with moments of heart and tears peppered throughout the action. These are people who constantly put their lives on the line and could come back dead, and writer/director Christopher McQuarrie (“The Way of the Gun,” “Jack Reacher”) isn’t afraid to touch on those sentiments.

It’s almost impossible to describe what makes this outing so great, especially in comparison to 2011’s “Ghost Protocol,” and 2015’s “Rogue Nation.” Both are excellent films, head and shoulders above the first three, but there’s just a spirit within “Fallout” that sets it apart.

Never before has it felt like Hunt and his team could truly lose their fight, and it’s been years since any action film has so expertly avoided the feeling of inevitable victory. This is a film not afraid to pull punches, and yet it never feels too down. It does dabble in the somberness of its situation, with plenty of painful ironies and close calls, but it never overwhelms the proceedings.

That’s due to Cruise and McQuarrie having such a tight grip on the details and heartbeat of the film itself. It never goes anywhere they don’t want it to, meaning every fleeting moment can be carefully calculated to deliver the most excellent action film they’re capable of making.

Cinematographer Rob Hardy (“Ex Machina”) helps to bolster this excellence by giving the film an absolutely gorgeous look. Warm colors, in particular orange, accentuate this adventure, coupled with the most excellent musical score the series has seen yet courtesy of Lorne Balfe (“Pacific Rim Uprising”, “The LEGO Batman Movie”).

Cruise and the rest of the cast bring their A game to these proceedings, ratcheting the tension up even higher thanks to genuine emotional performances from each. Ving Rhames in particular is a standout, finally getting the recognition he deserves for his efforts throughout the series.

The entire film is such a white-knuckle experience that keeps you so in the moment, that it isn’t until credits role that audiences can appreciate just how good the film was. It’s an action film that delivers best in class action, without ever letting it sacrifice the character’s emotional arcs, the plot, or really anything.

It isn’t a stretch to call “Mission Impossible: Fallout” the best action film of the year, and one of the year’s best so far. It also wouldn’t be a stretch to put it up near “Die Hard”, “Mad Max: Fury Road”, “The Dark Knight”, or “The Great Escape (1963)” as one of the greatest action films ever made, period. Relentlessly tense, constructed with razor sharp genius attention to detail in both its action and its emotion, and gorgeous to look at, “Fallout” isn’t just a damn good time at the movies. It’s pure, sublime and phenomenal. Mission accomplished. 5/5

Sorry to Bother You - Review

 

Everything you’ve heard is true. “Sorry To Bother You” is incredible. Boots Riley’s directorial debut is a contradiction in and of itself. A film advocating against capitalism that is smashing box office records. It’s a film that shouldn’t exist in this day and age, and the fact that it does makes it all the better.

The plot centers on Cassius Green, a telemarketer for RegalView who is inspired by a coworker to start using his “white voice” while on calls. He does so, and immediately becomes successful. This is what the film’s summaries and trailers describe, but it only amounts to the first third of the film. That first third is also interesting in the context of the film itself.

It has bizarre editing choices and chooses to fixate on odd points and visuals. Some moments feel awkward and some lines are delivered bizarrely. However, once Cassius begins to see the world around him as it truly exists, as opposed to how he thinks it exists, those flaws fade away, and it becomes apparent that these were all choices made by Riley to further build the world of his film.

Decisions like this come up all throughout the film. The cinematography and sets give way to some extremely inventive scenarios that are pure low budget eye candy. Everything has a kind of weird tilt to it that seems reminiscent of if Terry Giliam’s “Brazil” was set in a modern-day Oakland.

Lakeith Stanfield (“Short Term 12,” “Death Note (2017)”) plays Cassius with a goofy kind of incompetence that grows and festers throughout the film, boiling over to create a rebirth that is a joy to watch. His performance in the latter half of the film is further enhanced thanks to great “white voice” work from David Cross (“Mr. Show”, “Arrested Development”) Tessa Thompson (“Dear White People”, “Thor: Ragnarok”) plays his morally grounded, activist girlfriend Detroit with razor sharp wit and a refusal to step down from her beliefs.

Terry Crews (“Brooklyn Nine-Nine,” “Idiocracy”), Jermaine Fowler (“Superior Donuts,” “Crashing”), Steven Yeun (“The Walking Dead,” “Okja”), and Danny Glover (“The Royal Tenenbaums,” “The Color Purple”) round out the supporting cast as Cassius’s Uncle and friends, respectively. However, it's Omari Hardwick (“Power,” “For Colored Girls”) and Armie Hammer (“The Social Network,” “The Man from U.N.C.L.E.”) who completely steal the show as the manager of RegalView and the manager of WorryFree, respectively. Omari manages to provide a swagger that’s intoxicating to watch, backed up by a sleazily great “white voice” provided by Patton Oswalt (“The Goldbergs,” “Rataouille”).

“Sorry To Bother You” clearly has a lot to say. From the long scenes depicting violence towards labor unions to WorryFree’s clear slavery parallels to the latter half of the film’s startling twist, it's not afraid to put its messages front and center. However, within that decision lies the genius of Riley’s script and his world building.

This is a journey and a world so bizarrely similar and disconnected from our own, that one can ignore the political and moral allegories and still have fun with the bonkers nature of everything happening on screen. Riley carefully balances these elements in such a way that they always complement each other and never sabotage themselves. There’s even nods for hardcore film fans, including one particularly knowing wink towards director Michel Gondry’s work.

Top all of that off with a joyously bizarre musical score and set designs and you’ve got one of the most unique, bizarre, and batshit movies of the entire year, and maybe the entire decade. It's staggering that a film that features deep themes of classism and violent riots, can also pull of some extremely juvenile humor expertly. It’s a sign of a great director and a great satire.

Boots Riley has unmistakably made a mark on cinema with an audacious and bizarre debut that won’t be forgotten anytime soon. The balance of sharp wit and sobering truths, even in the face of some of the most insane ideas of the last decade of filmmaking, backed up with creative sets, cinematography and acting helps to make “Sorry To Bother You” an absolutely unforgettable satirical treat. The future is calling, Mr. Riley. And it may have an Oscar for you. 5/5

Ant-Man and the Wasp - Review

In a way, the first Ant-Man film was a throwback to the early days of the Marvel Cinematic universe when it was released in 2015. It was a solo film with smaller stakes that introduced the world to a bizarre hero. It was good, not great. And it was soon followed up with its main character appearing in a team up film. However, will Ant-Man and Wasp continue to follow in the footsteps of their Marvel Cinematic Universe counterparts, and produced a sequel better than the first?

Paul Rudd (“Clueless,” “Anchorman”) remains as charming as ever as the goofy Scott Lang, an ex-con turned superhero dealing with the repercussions of his decisions in “Civil War.” But his story is not the focus here. Evangeline Lilly (“Lost,” “The Hurt Locker”) helps to transition the character of Wasp away from a nagging two-dimensional daughter figure from the first film and into a fleshed-out superheroine here.

Her story is clearly the focus, and the ongoing struggles of her and her father play wonderfully against the carefree nature of Scott and his own struggles. There are a lot of elements at play all at once here, and while not all of them are done as well as others, the fact that they're all happening at once helps to add to the sense of urgency and to the film's time component.

That's right, in a wise move, the film is mostly on a time limit, and it helps to raise the stakes on an otherwise small-scale adventure. It adds some wonderful tension to the proceedings as well as create moments for humor. And there are a lot of humorous moments.

It’s as if Marvel saw the reception to the first film and simply gave the writing team of Chris McKenna (“The Lego Batman Movie,” “Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle”), Erik Sommers (“The Lego Batman Movie,” “Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle”), Andrew Barrer (“Haunt”), Gabriel Ferrariand, and Rudd and director Peyton Reed (“Yes Man,” “Down with Love”) more room to get weird with the character and the humor. It ends up being funnier than the first film because of this, and probably one of the weirdest Marvel movies yet.

Ghost, played by Hannah John-Kamen (“Black Mirror,” “Game of Thrones”) makes for an extremely interesting antagonist, especially when her motives and goals become revealed. This aren’t always as black and white as they seem, and the writers clearly enjoyed pitting these different minds and motives against each other.

Shrinking and growing around within the action is still extremely cool, and the crew continues to take advantage of the size differences for some visually engaging battles. It never gets old to see them jump around a wall at the size of an ant, only to grow to a building a moment later. Most scenes play out like Rube Goldberg machines of tiny action and they’re a joy to watch.

Overall, it’s just a more solid film than the first. The script is tighter, the story is more fleshed out and original, and the humor is brighter. Rudd really struts his stuff in the third act with some truly weird bits (“Oh, jellybean.”).

It also helps to show that Marvel still understands the importance of smaller scale stories. It’s fun to roam around the universe and save the world from Hydra death bombs, but it’s also perfectly fine to not do that. It helps create a sense of ease and carefree enjoyment within these smaller adventures.

However, that does lead to the fact that the film is weak in quite a few spots. The pre-Marvel logo scene feels like it unnecessarily talks down to the audience and second set of villains really feel undercooked. Again, the film does have a smaller scale and focus than past Marvel films, and some will also see that as a negative.

None of this can change the fact that “Ant-Man & the Wasp” is still a bunch of fun. It’s a funny film that isn’t afraid to get weird and let its incredibly charismatic stars just let loss and do their thing. Couple that with some excellent action and emotional arcs, and you get a film that is just an incredibly solid adventure. Nothing huge, but then again, that’s not really what Ant-Man or the Wasp do. Small scale enjoyment is their specialty. 4/5

Incredibles 2 - Review

 

Coming 14 years after the original, “Incredibles 2” enters into a world saturated with iron men and American captains. When the original was released, super hero films were occasional and not very good. The world has changed a lot since then, most evident by the fact that this sequel releases just a few months after “Infinity War,” a giant space opera of a super hero film. Do the Parr’s and their world still work well in this new day and age?

Gorgeously animated, “Incredibles 2” does in fact work quite well. Everything about this retro yet futuristic world pops with color and life. The advancements made in the last 14 years of animation haven’t changed designs or characters, instead making them even more beautiful than they’ve ever been.

Color in particular is an impressive standout detail. A chase scene halfway through the film is almost entirely orange and red, the Parr’s new house is a lush gorgeous sight to behold, and the city skylines put on display are frame worthy.

None of it gets in the way of the characters, however. Everyone is still just as super as ever, and the new focus on Elastigirl is pulled off excellently. That plot helps to showcase the film’s best aspects, its details.

Instead of saddling her with the lead 'just because', writer/director Brad Bird (“The Iron Giant,” “Ratatouille”) comes up with a legitimate and logical reason for her to take center stage. It shows how much care has gone into this world and it makes the film so much better for it. This is a double-edged sword though, as the care and attention put into the world seems to have taken away from the reasoning behind this tale.

While Bob and the kids take a definite backseat to Helen’s story, their interactions are fine enough and are entertaining. However, the entire plot feels a bit scummy given that it all revolves around trusting and relying on each other… which is the same exact message the previous film taught these characters. If they’d actually learned it then, this film’s events would’ve have played out like they did. It’s as if Bird gave the Parr’s a case of Deja-Vu for the sake of a sequel.

Michael Giacchino’s (“Up,” “Coco”) score pulse through some of the most fluidly animated and most fun action scenes of the year, and it speaks to the movie’s strong sense of fun and entertainment. Compared to the first film, which brought up heavy ideas of power, right and wrong, and the value of the everyday person, this sequel is a lot less intense and far more family friendly. But it doesn’t matter, because it’s so damn entertaining anyway.

It almost feels as though Bird wanted to get the serious stuff out of the way first, so he could let loose and bring out the absurdities in his world with the sequel. Because let it be known, the film is supremely weird. But it revels in it in the best ways possible, integrating its weirdness into the plot in clever ways.

However, the film's biggest flaw is in its villain. It's is extremely predictable, especially when compared to the first film’s. To clarify, the villain itself is well thought out, well performed and well written. But, it's also obvious who it is by the time it's revealed. To Bird’s credit, he does deliver a few twists that help to hoodwink the audience, but the result isn’t nearly as jaw dropping as it could have been.

“Incredibles 2” is an odd kind of movie wherein it just feels hollower, like a cash-grab despite many fantastic elements. The dialogue and characters are great but the overall plot and the characterizations feel thin. Its constructed well and still ahead of many other typical Hollywood animated films in recent years, but you can't help but feel that this is a film simply going through the motions. Bob, for example, goes from being a strong and intelligent father who learns to be more present by the end of the first movie, to a bumbling fool who borders on Homer Simpson levels of fatherly incompetence.

While extremely entertaining and filled with tons of great dialogue and animation, “Incredible 2” feels like it betrays the first film a bit. The plot only really makes sense if the characters forget what happened in the first film, and given how amazing that first villain was, Screenslaver is a bit bland. It’s still very entertaining, but not quite super. 3.5/5

Solo: A Star Wars Story - Review

 

A fan would be forgiven if their excitement level for “Solo” isn’t as high as other Star Wars films. The behind the scenes turmoil, coupled with the confusing idea of doing an origin story for a nameless smuggler makes this film seem like a very odd thing for Lucasfilm to focus on. But now it’s out, the marketing, behind the scenes and weirdness has passed, and now all that remains is the film itself. Should you have a bad feeling about this?

Alden Ehrenreich (“Blue Jasmine,” “Hail, Caesar!”) manages to rise above any initial worries related to his casting. His Han is funny, sweet and impulsive. He adds a fast thinking layer to his version of the eponymous smuggler, and it manages to do Ford’s original take on the character justice.

Donald Glover (“Community,” “Atlanta”) is the star of the show, however. While most of his Lando scenes are action based, when he is given a moment to sit down and lay his suave charm on, he does so excellently. He’s a character you simply want to see more of, as he adds a warmth and glow to every scene he’s in, without a doubt cementing himself as the best part of the film.

Of course, Chewy is there too. His scenes with Han still feature their trademark excellent back and forth, but now that he’s given a true subplot of his own, it goes a long way towards establishing him as more than a walking carpet. Emilia Clark (“Game of Thrones,” “Terminator Genisys”) does just fine as Qi’ra, Han’s childhood friend. She layers on just enough charm and smiles to help survive a fairly underdeveloped character, as does Paul Bettany (“Avengers: Age of Ultron,” “Wimbledon”) as the crime lord Dryden Vos.

Woody Harrelson (“Now You See Me,” “White Men Can’t Jump”) manages to surprise as Tobias Beckett. There isn’t anything particularly new to his character, but he feels like Obi-Wan did to Luke. An older mentor who truly wants to impart some knowledge to this younger protégé. He does so with gruff and downtrodden mannerisms that manage to add enough to rise above a cookie-cutter mentor cliché.

While the cast is all well and good, it’s the story they inhabit that proves to be the films weakest element. While the idea of a western/heist film in the Star Wars universe sounds cool, what writers Jonathan and Lawrence Kasdan have done is delivered an almost aggressively average heist film plot. The banter is good, no doubt about it, but the beats of this story are so familiar that it makes it hard to get excited about each passing scene.

However, each passing scene does manage to hold weight due to the simple fun of seeing these characters meet and interact. The meeting between Chewy and Han is one of the film’s highlights, and teasing moment involving other characters and brief mentions do manage to get a chuckle.

Visually, it’s one of the strongest Star Wars films to date. While that could easily be chalked up to advancements in technology, its more than that. The film has such a devout reliance on practical effects that do wonders in fleshing out the world. When Han sits in a dive bar and gives a death glare to a shifty looking alien, it works so much better than with CGI, because its clear Alden was looking at the alien puppet/costume.

It also helps to avoid the typical disconnect during big action scenes between the actors and their surroundings. They’re bolstered even more by the excellent cinematography from Bradford Young (“Arrival,” “Selma”). The camera seems to float through scenes, delivering even the most routine angles with a new sense of vision thanks to excellent lighting and sets. This isn’t the pristine nature of previous films. This is a movie filled with wretched hives of scum and villainy. John Powell’s score also does wonders, taking Williams’s classic notes and infusing them with a touch all his own.

“Solo” is many things. It’s a fun romp through the Star Wars world with characters that are fun to watch. It's also a poorly paced and extremely routine heist film. It’s also constructed and shot so expertly that it’s a joy to watch. Make no mistake, this is a fun summer blockbuster, packed with adventure and twists. But it also could have been so much more. It is, as Qi’ra tells Han, “A little rough around the edges, but still good.” 3/5

Ready Player One - Review

 

Ernest Cline’s pop culture mecca that is the novel “Ready Player One” would seem impossible to adapt for most filmmakers. While most of it has made the transition to the screen, much has also been changed or altered with Cline still on board to help write the film alongside Zak Penn (“X-Men: The Last Stand,” “The Incredible Hulk”). And if any director can get the pop culture rights and pull off such a bizarrely over the top adventure, it would be Steven Spielberg (“E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial,” “Jaws”). How close does he get to the top score?

The biggest hurdle would immediately seem to be the digital world of the Oasis; the online virtual reality world that everyone lives, eats, parties, and works in. Visually, it’s absolutely stunning. Thanks to a mixture of particle effects, pixilation, and a purposefully cartoony sense of style, the visuals maintain a pleasing look throughout the film without dipping into the uncanny valley.

Characters have this kind of dayglo, chunky appearance to them. Everything looks, appropriately, like it would in a video game. The entire world just seems to be brimming with unique colors, effects, and small details put there to make it simply a joy to look at. Spielberg also makes sure to continue to shoot the film like a film even in its digital moments, maintaining a consistency in terms of cinematography and style that keeps things from feeling disjointed.

This is made even more impressive by some scenes that are the definition of bleeding edge. Blending real-life film-making and the digital world are nothing new, but some of the unique ways in which cinematographer Janusz Kamiński (“Saving Private Ryan,” “Lincoln”) and production designer Adam Stockhausen (“The Grande Budapest Hotel,” “Moonrise Kingdom”) do this are just jaw dropping. Keep an eye out for the first scenes in the Halliday Journals in particular.

Musically things are largely positive. Alan Silvestri (“Forrest Gump,” “Who Framed Roger Rabbit”) keeps things light with a score that mixes cues from famous 80’s movies like “Back to the Future” and electronic beats, while also putting the requisite popular songs in place for montages. However, some sequences in the first act lack music when it seems like they should have them. It’s possible it’s a stylistic choice, but it seems odd nonetheless.

The film’s biggest problem is its first act. Not that its entirely bad, but it overall feels far too rushed, trying to squeeze too many things into a short amount of time. Things do pick up, though, and the pacing evens out to a much more manageable degree. A handful of the film’s side characters also don’t see much use, but the time that they are on screen is amusing and well done.

Tye Sheridan’s (“Mud,” “The Stanford Prison Experiment”) performance in the film could also be compared to the film’s structure. He’s too fast talking initially but he eventually grows. Olivia Cooke (“Me and Earl and the Dying Girl,” “Thoroughbreds”) and Lena Waithe (“Master of None”) are the absolute standouts as Art3mis and Aech, respectively. Ben Mendelsohn’s (“Mississippi Grind,” “Rogue One”) villainous Nolan is a deliciously evil bad guy who fits all the perfectly over the top stereotypes without ever making them too clichéd.

Despite the film not featuring any central character development in the traditional sense, the cast manages to grow and become likable due to their interactions with each other. It keeps things from feeling stale, and manages to bring a lot of great lines and moments of humor to the table.

One of the best things about the film is actually one many were worried it would have trouble with. While there is the sheer joy that comes from seeing things like the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles fighting alongside Chucky and Master Chief, or Akira’s bike weaving in between the legs of the Jurassic Park T-Rex or King Kong, these items are never window dressings. Even in the simplest of moments, they serve as methods for the plot to progress, focusing on them for a short time before moving on.

It also manages to help tell the film’s wonderful emotional through line, and remind audiences of just how much these characters and action figures and games can bring people together as well as tear them apart. Yes, there are jokes and moments of humor based around pop culture, but often times whether or not these moments work boil down not to the references themselves, but to the characters.

It all manages to come together in such a wonderful mixture of heart, action, and humor that truly feels like something only Spielberg could have done. It takes a deft hand to balance it all, and he's done so excellently, leading to not only some moments of watery eyes, but moments of genuine cheering as well.

It is bizarre though that for a film with such a large scope and world to explore and visual detail, that the opening logos of the film and its end credits are so disappointingly bland. No, it doesn’t impact the film, but it’s a bizarre decision nonetheless.

 “Ready Player One” is packed with a rushed first act and a few underused side characters, as well as the woes of those dismayed by the marketing, but delivers a solid action spectacle film with engaging characters, devilish villains, and jaw dropping visuals that only Spielberg can bring to the table. Bursting at the seams with splendor, “Ready Player One” is a treat for almost every dimension. 3.5/5

A Wrinkle in Time (2018) - Review

 

Featuring a star-studded cast with the likes of Oprah Winfrey (“The Color Purple,” “The Butler”), Reese Witherspoon (“Election,” “Legally Blonde”), Chris Pine (“Star Trek (2009),” “Hell or High Water”), and Mindy Kaling (“The Mindy Project,” “The Office (2005)”), a Disney-sized budget and award-winning director Ava DuVernay (“Selma,” “13^th”), Madeleine L'Engle’s supposedly unfilmable classic novel comes to the big screen. How does this story of love and family wrapped in science and intellect fair?

Credit where credit is due, the film’s sweeping visuals are its most excellent part. From the clever interpretations of the space traveling technique known as “Tessering” to the flamboyant costumes of characters such as The Man With The Red Eyes or Miss Which, “Wrinkle” has visual gusto to spare.

Ramin Djawadi’s (“Pacific Rim,” “Iron Man”) excellently bizarre score helps to bolster these grandiose sights with even grander sounds. It is also worth noting that there are countless moments where the sheer earnestness of the cast can allow joy to take hold within the audience members. However, that joy almost completely leaves when the character’s open their mouths.

The simple fact is that this is a terrible script, filled with awkward and stilted dialogue and numerous plot holes. Scenes move awkwardly and the entire film feels uneven. One moment everyone seems to be taking their leisurely time and the next, it’s a race against the clock. These kinds of tonal shifts pop up repeatedly throughout the film, and they never cease to be jarring.

Storm Reid (“12 Years a Slave,” “Sleight”) is a fine and earnest young actress, but she lacks the skill to overcome such a stilted script. Her younger brother, played by Deric McCabe fairs far better, but the worst offender is Levi Miller (“Pan,” “Better Watch Out”) as Calvin. He’s so wooden and delivers his lines in such a boringly routine way that halfway through the film he becomes groan inducing.

It’s understandable for a film about dimension hoping, space and time, and leaping across universes to have some inconsistencies regarding its plot. However, "Wrinkle" manages to be purely confusing at points due to how little the film chooses to explain about the events going on. Not everything is obvious or even manages to be disengaging, but eventually things start to pile up and it just becomes irritating how little is explained.

“Wrinkle” does win some points for its sheer bravery however. Few big budget spectaculars such as this would be willing to go for such a genuinely intense emotional center, and it’s one of the few things that feels earned. It’s realness in its emotional peaks helps to prevent the film from completely falling apart.

The film’s third act starts to redeem itself a bit. When the world truly starts to turn dark and twisted, it delivers some of the film’s most affecting moments in both emotion and surprise. The best scene in the entire film is one of pure emotion, a simple scene between two actors, with not a special effect in sight.

While it does look grand, “Wrinkle” also manages to feel overly manufactured. For a film involving these wondrous worlds and imaginative characters, so much is clearly fake due to the film’s overuse of CGI and random effects. It may all look exquisite and detailed, but at the same time, it still looks fake and overused.

Some of the movie’s best moments are completely ruined due to the film’s overreliance on pop songs. Beautiful moments that could have been so effective with a simple musical score become almost laughable with over manufactured pop lyrics being filtered in instead.

“A Wrinkle In Time” is a deeply flawed film. Enjoyment can be obtained due to its effective use of science and emotional love, its gorgeous visuals and designs, beautiful musical score, and the sheer earnestness and joy coming from its cast. But that can’t completely save a film burdened with a terrible script, wonky pacing, and overbearing plot holes. In the end, “Wrinkle” is best summed up using one of its own lines: “I’m underwhelmed.” 2/5

Fifty Shades Freed - Review

 

In order for a film to have a thriller, it must have certain elements. Suspense, intrigue, a sense of danger, and semi-decent pacing. In order for a film to be erotic, it must excite the viewer, either giving them more than they thought they wanted, or teasing them with just barely not enough. In order for a film to be considered a film, it has to have acting, chemistry between its actors, a coherent plot, and decent direction. “Fifty Shades Freed” is none of the above.

As this is the final installment in the “Fifty Shades” trilogy, the film finds itself beginning to wrap up the plot of Ana, a former literature major who’s now a fiction editor, and Christian, the man she interviews in the first film and became smitten with, and their new marriage.

Be forewarned however, the film does nothing to explain the previous events of the series. It simply begins as if the audience has all the information it need. Even with other lengthy series such as “Harry Potter,” audiences were still given information to keep them going, even if they’d skipped out on the previous films.

There is some plot. Very little of it, but it’s still there.  Anastasia and Christian are now married and people from their past are still trying to get revenge on them for…some reason. The film never attempts to coherently explain why. In the last five minutes, attempts are made to tie up loose ends, but end up leaving far more questions than answers.

Not only are these questions about character’s past and their motivations, but questions about the lives of other characters who were introduced but never resolved. Characters simply spring into existence, are there for a few scenes, and then disappear.

A subplot with Anastasia questioning the loyalty of Christian’s brother to her best friend exists for a sum total of 10 minutes and is never brought up again. It isn’t even resolved. It just isn’t brought up again.

For a film that seems to market itself as a sexy thriller, its missing both sex and thrills. These scenes are pedestrian and, obviously, break up the pacing and the plot, but they don’t give good enough payoff to justify it.

They just feel as though they exist to exist. If they were cut out, then the film would be shorter and the plot would move faster, but then there would be no reason for people to watch it.

Speaking of moving the plot along, the filmmakers forgot to. By the time the film actually begins to move with a semblance of urgency that the “thriller” tagline on its IMDB page would suggest, there’s only thirty minutes left in the film. The previous hour and a half were simply comprised of Ana and Christian bickering like high schoolers, flying to expensive locals, and making use of red leather and low lighting.

Also, Christian is a jerk. Not in the sense of “he grows as the film progresses,” he’s just a major jerk. He’s mean to Ana, he breaks his own safe rules within the red room, and he never speaks above a low growl. He and Ana fight like high school sweethearts, yelling at each other whenever a slight disturbance comes into their fairy tale love fest.

That, coupled with the pure stupidity of some of the film’s lines (“Hello wife.” “Hello Husband.” “It’s boobs in boobland!” “Babies happen when you have sex!”) ends up making “Fifty Shades Freed” the funniest movie of the year so far. If this film must be seen in theatres, bring some friends, and get ready to make fun of its seriousness, Mystery Science Theatre-style.

“Fifty Shades Freed” also promises to be a thrilling conclusion and that, per the poster, you “won’t want to miss the climax.” Well, there wasn’t one. The film ends so quickly and anti-climatically that it feels like there’s still more story to be told. Except there isn’t. Also, given the speed at which the plot moves in the last thirty minutes, it may be the only time that the phrase “shorter than it was” is used in a negative context.

Dakota Johnson is trying her best, but there simply isn’t enough substance in any aspect of this relationship, or this film, to keep anyone invested. Jamie Dornan’s American accent sounds like he’s speaking with a constant lisp, and you could count on two hands the number of times he speaks intelligibly throughout the entire film.

The supporting cast is just as bad. Half the time, the actors just don’t seem like their trying. One scene in Ana’s office has an elderly man who, the moment he walks in the door, looks as if he’s forgotten his lines. He pauses, and then says something unintelligible and continues the scene like normal. Pure hilarity.

Get ready for the blockbuster comedy of the year, “Fifty Shades Freed” has all the substance of a piece of microwaved cheese pizza, and all of the sexiness of a blurry polaroid. Despite it partially being saved due to its unintentional hilarity, a theatre trip simply can’t be recommended for a film that is both the visual and intellectual equivalent of a wistful perfume ad stretched to two hours.

Dumb, irritating, hilarious, and painfully trying too hard with its sex scenes (Looking at you, ice cream) “Fifty Shades Freed” is absolutely painful. Not in the way most of its audience wants it to be. But scream your safe word as loud as you want, because at least the series is finally over. 1/5