John Wick: Chapter 3 - Parabellum - Review

 

The John Wick series is one of two things: professionalism and consequences. You’d be hard-pressed to find action films so meticulously obsessed with justifying the events that take place within their world, that aren’t based in some other reality. This series, that Keanu Reeves (“The Matrix,” “Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure”), director Chad Stahelski (“John Wick,” “John Wick Chapter 2”) and writer Derek Kolstad (“The Package (2013),” “John Wick,” “John Wick Chapter 2”) created, seems determined to be as elaborate and detailed as possible, in both its action and its mythology.

Really, that’s the easiest way to describe what makes “John Wick” different; the films are steeped in a rich mythology following a globe-spanning organization of assassins. There’s the chain of hotels known as The Continental, where it is against the organization's rules to kill one another, even if your target is sitting right in front of you. Most of the transactions play out using golden coins and blood-soaked emblems. At one point in “Chapter 3,” John presents Anjelica Huston’s character with a Rosary proclaiming it to be his “ticket.”

Truly, Reeves is the ticket that sells this entire series. He delivers lines and actions in a way that no actor could, and yet, the details he has woven into Wick’s life and background make him all the more lovable and charming. One moment after he brutally murders a dozen men on motorcycles, he’s enthusiastically petting the dog he hasn’t seen for days. It’s a great small example of how this series takes what could be simple characters and events and makes them memorable with ample attention to detail and world-building.

It’s this kind of world-building that makes these films so engrossing. If it was the same story, but without these overblown accoutrements, it would be far less engaging. Reeves and the team behind this series clearly know this, and “Chapter 3” spends a lot of time continuing to flesh out this world.

This further fleshing out introduces the standout character for “Chapter 3”; the Adjudicator, played with a grim swagger by Asia Kate Dillon. The fact that their character is never even given a name adds to the mystery of the world and the members of the “High Table” that they serve. The Adjudicator also comes to deliver consequences to many of those who have helped John in the past. These are some of the most engrossing sequences in the film, managing to stand toe to toe with the dance-like action scenes because of their deathly serious nature.

Speaking of deathly serious, the action in “Chapter 3” continues to escalate from the previous instalments. By now, most have likely heard of the series’ unflinching approach to violence. If someone gets shot, the camera will very rarely turn away, instead showing the impact of every gunshot, knife throw, and sword slash like few films would. The light touch of reality also continues to set the series apart, as the violence is accompanied by gore, but not to fetishistic levels. It’s probably as much as would be seen if someone was shot in the head, knifed in the eye, etc.

While there isn’t much done to freshen up the action, that’s because Stahelski and his crew have more or less perfected their style of doing things. Everything hits with an impact like no other, whether it be Wick killing someone in a library, on horseback, or even the third act's obsession with reloading. Most of this has to do with the intricate choreography throughout the film, and the heavy use of practical effects and general realism. Cinematographer Dan Laustsen’s (“The Shape of Water,” “John Wick Chapter 2”) work here walks a thin line between a stylish and a matter-of-fact presentation of the film’s violence, and it allows even the film’s slower points still manage to pack a punch.

Slower points? Yes, unfortunately. That’s one of the areas wherein “Chapter 3” starts to show the “Wick” series growing a bit tired. Though, it’s not for lack of effort. The middle of the film just slows down a bit too much. Wick’s journey in Casablanca and across a desert is still excellently shot and well-choreographed, but it feels plain compared to the vents that come before and after. Halle Berry (“X-Men,” “Monster’s Ball”) and Anjelica Huston (“The Royal Tenenbaums,” “The Addams Family”), who are introduced in this middle of the film also feel a bit out of place with the rest of this world, as if they were written as extended celebrity cameos than essential characters.

However, while not being as satisfying action-wise, the middle of “Chapter 3” also contains some of the richest story moments and examples of the previously mentioned consequences. It’s also the chunk of the film where the supporting cast is allowed to shine the brightest.

Like previously mentioned, Asia Kate Dillon is a supremely entertaining and solemn menace, paired excellently against the likes of Ian McShane’s (“Deadwood,” “John Wick”) hotel manager; Winston, Lance Reddick’s (“Bosch,” “Destiny 2”) concierge; Charon, Laurence Fishburne’s (“The Matrix,” “School Daze”) Bowery King; and Huston’s Director. Those with roles from past Wick films continue to deliver excellent work on par with the previous portrayals of their characters, with Reddick’s concierge continuing to be a scene-stealing delight.

The only other major new cast members are Jason Mantzoukas (“The League,” “The House”) seen briefly as a henchman of the Bowery King; the Tick Tock Man, and Mark Dacascos (“Hawaii Five-0,” “Iron Chef America”) as gleefully exuberant assassin Zero. His performance is easily alongside Dillon’s as one of the films most memorable characters. The ease with which he slips back and forth between steely-eyed violence to fanboying over meeting John Wick is entertaining and a bizarre kind of wholesome.

“John Wick Chapter 3” may slow down during its second act and have a few characters who feel out of place, but the only reason these small issues stand out is because of the high level of quality afforded to the rest of this film and the previous two. This is still an incredibly engrossing and thrillingly choreographed series, obsessed with its own world and mythology and constantly fleshing itself out. Come for the action, stay for the consequences. 4.5/5

Pokémon Detective Pikachu - Review

 

There are two ways to judge a movie like this: either compared to the general culture and craft of films as a whole, or to the specific category of video game movies. That body of work hasn’t exactly set the world on fire…ever. Sure, there are box office hits like “Rampage (2018)” or “Warcraft,” but you’d be hard pressed to find a game adaptation that the general populous would agree on as being good.

Writer/director Rob Letterman (“Goosebumps,” “Monsters vs. Aliens”) and his team of writers; Dan Hernandez and Benji Samit (“The Tick (2017),” “One Day at a Time (2017)”), Derek Connolly (“Safety Not Guaranteed,” “Kong: Skull Island”) and most notably Nicole Perlman (“Guardians of the Galaxy,” “Captain Marvel”) have delivered a video game movie that is, at the very least enjoyable and good.

Breaking down exactly what that means is where the trouble sets in, because as enjoyable as it is, “Pokémon Detective Pikachu” has an incredibly rote plot. It is made more enjoyable thanks to the dialogue throughout and the chemistry between Ryan Reynolds as Pikachu and his human companion Tim Goodman, played by Justice Smith (“Paper Towns,” “The Get Down”). The pair not only play off each other well, but their growing friendship is portrayed extremely well and is immediately believable.

The supporting cast is also surprisingly excellent; Kathryn Newton (“Blockers,” “Three Billboards outside Ebbing, Missouri”) is a charmingly aggressive wannabe reporter paired with an anxious Psyduck. Chris Geere (“You’re the Worst”) and Bill Nighy (“Pirate Radio,” “Love Actually”) are well performed, if a bit bland, as a father son duo of corporate leaders, though Nighy gets some especially cheesy good material in the later half of the film. Ken Watanabe (“Inception,” “Letters from Iwo Jima”) is good, though his role is almost little more than a cameo. Special shout out to a silent performance by Suki Waterhouse (“Assassination Nation”) than ends up turning into one of the film’s weirdest and best moments.

That is where “Detective” is at its best; the times where the film gets weird. Yeah, it may be comprised of every detective film plot known to man, with every cliché known to man, but the writers are clearly not afraid to spice things up with the weirdness inherent in the source material. There’s a hell of a difference between an interrogation of a small-town thug and a Pokémon mime.

At the very least, this film is worth a view thanks to the top-notch production across the board. Not only do the Pokémon have a look that manages to perfectly blend the cartoony nature of the games and a real-world aesthetic, but the entire look of the film feels as though it was pulled right from the games. The sets have a warped look to them, accentuated by the heavy use of bright colors, giving a true sense of life to this fantastical world. This is only helped thanks to some great camerawork from John Mathieson (“Gladiator,” “Logan”) and a thumping score from Henry Jackman (“Kick-Ass,” “Wreck-It Ralph”).

It is fun to spend time in this world, when the plot isn’t grinding to a halt. A few sequences in the first half of the film seem to exist just to have characters explain parts of the plot, forcing everything to slow down and hurting the pacing as a result. Thankfully, this disappears in the second half, but it doesn’t forgive the problems in the first.

Pacing problems, plot problems; all of that aside, it’s hard to describe this film as anything but charming. The effort that has gone into bringing these creatures and world to life is evident constantly. Not once does it feel like a corporate product and that might just be the film’s biggest surprise; it has heart and soul.

“Detective” feels as though it is built on the very foundation of charm. Every frame seems tailored made to induce even the tiniest bit of smiles; whether it’s Pikachu flipping his empty coffee cups over like empty shot glasses or the many, many, cool Easter eggs and plot twists throughout. The cast, the world, the visuals, every bit of it is chemically engineered charm.

Be warned though, this is still a Pokémon movie through and through. If you’re not already familiar with the concept, there’s very little explaining that goes on to get you up to speed. It’s not impossible to enjoy without outside knowledge, but it’s definitely tailored made for those already indoctrinated with Pocket Monster fever.

Completely and unabashedly weird, “Pokémon Detective Pikachu” is a joyful mess. Its poor pacing and routine plot are accompanied by an almost unnecessary amount of charm from the cast and world, and a sheer sense of love and dedication to its source. material. It’s not perfect, but it is enjoyable. For a movie based on a video game, it is unquestionably super effective. 3.5/5

Long Shot - Review

 

Seth Rogen’s latest feature has remarkably less drug induced chaos than previous works that, along with a myriad of other small changes, makes his latest film “Long Shot” immediately feel distinct, even for someone who’s filmography includes a stoner Christmas flick, a biopic about a master of trash cinema, and an R-rated Pixar parody.

While most of the film’s traits and advertising has heavily relied on Rogen’s image and past films, the film simply does not belong to him. Rather, it is commanded by his opposite, the always excellent Charlize Theron. While Theron is mostly known for her action (“Mad Max: Fury Road,” “Atomic Blonde”) or drama (“Monster,” “The Road”) roles, her resume has quite a number of substantial comedies littered throughout. Having starred in critical darlings like “Tully” and “Young Adult” and audience favorites like “Hancock”; “Long Shot” gives her a chance to stretch her comedic abilities in a broader way.

Theron is clearly 100% game to jump into every f-word laden, drug fueled scene the film has, and she continues to show why her comedic chops are consistently underestimated. She’s extremely funny but her wit and smirk help to balance the sly sex appeal her character maintains. One of the funniest scenes in the entire film involves her “bossy” attitude and Rogen’s reactions to it during a tryst. If Theron didn’t have such clear and sharp control on Field’s characterization, it wouldn’t work. Thankfully she does, and it works so damn well.

Rogen is putting just as much work in, but the results are completely different. Most of his characterization seems dedicated to reversing Rogen’s real-life teddy bear persona, and instead builds a character who needs to come to grips with his angry, confrontative nature. His evolution over the course of the film works and it shows Rogen’s evolution as an actor. It isn’t anything radically different but is shows that he’s trying to make at least some changes to his typical roles.

Thankfully, the charm between the two leads is only somewhat present at the film’s start, leading to a gradual escalation in their relationship throughout the film. It means the scenes they share alone together or at parties together feel that much more impactful, and they end up being the best parts of the film. One sequence out at a drug fueled party is a highlight specifically because it doubles down on their happy-go-lucky chemistry.

However, it doesn’t really hit a balanced mixture of awkward and charming until Rogen and Theron start working together, meaning the first 15 or so minutes are pretty slow. Rogen’s best friend, played by O'Shea Jackson Jr. (“Straight Outta Compton,” “Ingrid Goes West”) is a wonderfully warm shoulder for Rogen’s Flarsky, but he’s mostly absent in the second act of the film. The time he is there, he’s a welcome sight though, as is the rest of the supporting cast; Alexander Skarsgård (“True Blood,” “Melancholia”) playing the Canadian Prime Minister is good for a few accent-humor laughs, and June Diane Raphael (“The Disaster Artist,” “Bride Wars”) as Field’s assistant Maggie is a surprisingly funny side character.

Bob Odenkirk (“Mr. Show,” “Better Call Saul”), playing a fictional president, is also amusing in his supporting role, but his subplot is a great example of one of the film’s issues. Throughout the film, there are cutaways and moments dedicated to showing the news and their reactions to the events on Theron’s campaign.

However, while about 3/4ths of them seem fairly normal, if a bit tongue in cheek, the clear Fox News parody comes off far too strong. This is a constant throughout the film, as the moral dilemma comes at the hand of a sleazy media conglomerate owner Parker Wembley, played by a damn near unrecognizable Andy Serkis (“The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King,” “Rise of the Planet of the Apes”). The conflicts involving him and basically just about every joke thrown at the right wing come off as meaner than the rest of the film’s comedy, as if they were thrown it at the end to get some cheap laughs from liberals.

Which is fine, as the jokes completely hit their mark. But given that a major plot point centers around Flarksy’s anger towards the media and his need to quell that anger and see things from multiple perspectives, these segments feel tonally off. Funny still, but tonally at odds with the rest of the movie’s earnest charm that helps to distract from the rom-com clichés.

Notice the word “distract” and not “avoid.” Because really this is the same exact story told in just about every “Cinderella”/“Pretty Woman”-style romance that has existed since the end of time. Where writers Dan Sterling (“The Interview,” “Girls”) and Liz Hannah (“The Post”) instead deviate is in a lot of the small problematic moments that often plague rom-coms, even modern-day ones. Just when a scene seems to be building to a faux jealousy moment because Rogen sees Theron dance with someone who’s not him, it goes in the complete opposite direction. Not only does he not get upset, but he even acknowledges his potentially jealous feelings and takes actions to dispel them from his mind.

When an awkward sexual encounter seems like it’s about to happen, the characters stop for a moment, discuss what they do and don’t want to happen, and make a plan of action to make sure they both get what they want. There are no cheating moments, no he said/she said, and no liar revealed tropes here. Instead, it’s grown adults talking about the issues that arise, and while that doesn’t immediately fix those issues, it nevertheless has them putting forth the effort to try.

It says a lot about the general culture surrounding romances in films that two of the biggest and most groundbreaking romance films of the past few years are both R-rated comedies. Just like “Blockers” did last year, “Long Shot” smartly subverts some of the rom-com clichés by simply making sure they don’t happen, instead of doing them in different ways. It’s so simple, it seems like genius, and that decision, mixed with the great chemistry of Rogen and Theron, helps to make “Long Shot” the best comedy of the year so far.

This ends up delivering a film that might be struggling tonally but is excellent at the ways it addresses and subverts the toxic tendencies most rom-coms tend to show. Anchored by its charming and chemistry infused leading duo, “Long Shot” is a bit slow and tonally confused, but still manages to be extremely funny, and refreshing in its unsatisfaction with letting the typical toxic details of the rom-com genre go unpunished. 4/5

Missing Link - Review

 

With a studio like Laika, it's difficult to know where to set expectations. Sure, none of their movies are bad, but there is a stark difference between “Coraline” and “The Boxtrolls.” So, anyone going into “Missing Link” wondering what to expect would be forgiven if they didn’t have the highest expectations, despite the studio’s illustrious history.

It’s a simplistic story, wherein an explorer agrees to help an undiscovered sasquatch find his cousins in exchange for allowing him to prove to the world that sasquatch are real. Thankfully, the cast is really what sells it, with each bringing their personalities to the role.

Hugh Jackman (“The Greatest Showman,” “Logan”) provides voicework here that rivals his other excellent vocal performances from films like “Happy Feet,” “Flushed Away,” and “Rise of the Guardians.” While his Australian accent, unfortunately, isn’t out to play this time, he delivers every line with wit and grace, creating a wonderful portrait of a bumbling yet posh explorer in Lionel Frost.

Zoe Saldana (“Star Trek (2009),” “Guardians of the Galaxy”) is also good as Lionel’s former flame Adelina Fortnight and while she’s mostly relegated to being Lionel’s voice of reason, she’s nonetheless engaging and amusing.

The real star of the show though is Zach Galifianakis (“The Hangover,” “Baskets”) as the Sasquatch himself, Susan Link. It’s remarkable how much emotion he’s able to work into his lines while also maintaining an easy-going, comedic attitude. Sure, most of his lines play on the “I’m new to this world so I take everything very literally” trope, but it strengthens the character due to his commitment and energy, rather than feeling like a cliché.

Just as was the case in Laika’s previous work, this is a gorgeous film to behold. The fluidity of their animation continues to border on CGI, and the color palette is simply astonishing. It’s a wonderous film with a great sense of scope as well, thanks to cinematographer Chris Peterson. Utilizing multiple bent angles and wide-angle shots, scenes of mountain climbing and travelling large vistas feel just as expansive as they would in real life.

Everything pops with vibrant colors and expansive sets thanks to some truly impressive production design from Nelson Lowry (“Fantastic Mr. Fox,” “Kubo and the Two Strings”) and Lou Romano (“Kubo and the Two Strings,” “Up”). Even seemingly drab sets like a marble country club or an American mining town are given visual life thanks to complete commitments to their distinctive color schemes. It’s a wonder to behold and should be viewed on the biggest screen possible.

However, be forewarned, do not go see this film expecting action or intrigue. This is a simplistic story that has been done before and done better as well. That’s not to say it's awful by any means, it's just somewhat bland. It’s predictable as hell, and the antagonists have little to no depth to their characters, simply appearing and disappearing when needed.

This is a film carried by the strengths of its dialogue and visual humor. While things aren’t always jam-packed with jokes, this is a frequently visually funny film. It excels when slapstick comes into the fray and the chemistry between Galifianakis and Jackman is top tier. This is a film meant to be watched for characters and not for the plot. It’s slow and meandering, but not in a boring way. Rather, it’s an easy-going film, letting you just sit back and spend time with these characters.

This results in a movie that, while not anything jaw-dropping, is worth a trip to the movies. Its artwork and incredible animation are reason enough to see it on the big screen, but its cast and their interactions really do make the most of an otherwise uninspired plot. It’s not terribly exciting or of an otherworldly level of quality, but it is quaint, charming and pleasant. 3.5/5

Hellboy (2019) - Review

Despite maintaining a relatively obscure existence, this is not Hellboy’s first foray into mainstream entertainment. He’s guest starred in video games like “Injustice 2,” had a few direct to video animated films, and was the subject of two PG-13 films in the early 2000’s from Guillermo del Toro. However, this latest film has no involvements from del Toro or his original cast and is instead coasting in on its R-rating and its new Hellboy: actor David Harbour (“Stranger Things”). However, is that enough?

Harbour, who’s made waves recently due to his enthusiasm for the role, isn’t working any kind of magic here. His Hellboy is just a big lumbering whiner, and while that works for some of the film, his pessimism and complaining nature continue past the point when he’s supposed to have grown out of it. This results in a character who’s sapped of just about any charm Harbour could bring to him since he just becomes progressively more annoying.

The rest of the cast doesn’t do him any favors either. Daniel Dae Kim (“Lost,” “Insurgent”), Ian McShane (“John Wick,” “On Stranger Tides”), and Sasha Lane (“American Honey,” “Heart Beats Loud”) seem to be only good for shouting lines at each other in various irritated tones. Most of their characters follows arcs that just plain don’t make any sense.

Milla Jovovich (“The Fifth Element,” “Resident Evil”) is the only one who seems to be doing anything of note. Whether that’s because of her ample experience in these kinds of cheesy genre flicks or not is unclear, however she is the most enjoyable actor to watch in the entire film.

Part of the blame lies with the actors, but a larger chunk has to be because of the script. While it isn’t incomprehensible, writer Andrew Cosby’s (“Eureka”) script sure is trying its damndest to be. Most of the plot revelations literally require other random characters to be pulled in from nowhere to tell the main cast what to do and how to do it.

Sure, most of these sequences look cool, like the house of Baba Yaga, but it doesn’t save the film from the fact that the writing and plot are so poor, that they couldn’t even find ways to naturally let it play out.

By the way, this “Hellboy” film is rated R. Don’t worry if you didn’t know that, because the film won’t let you forget it. While previous superhero films have dabbled in the rating of blood and gore, “Hellboy” makes them look like Saturday morning cartoons by comparison.

Literal waves of blood and gore can be seen on screen and they aren’t the least bit effective. It’s cool, at first, but the lack of restraint in any capacity eventually dulls the impact and makes it boring. When the film does a zoom on a shattered skull in the third act, it doesn’t mean anything because it’s almost the fifteenth time it’s been done.

Most of the gore isn’t that impressive either. For once it seems like the CGI is better looking than the practical effects, and that’s saying something considering the CGI looks pretty bad. Most of the visuals benefit from practical sets and a thick layer of darkness, but when they’re absent, the cracks start to show.

Monsters and most of the gore look like early PlayStation 3 games, and the practical effects look like they’ve been hobbled together out of Party City supplies. The only exception is Hellboy himself, and it seems like most of the budget must have gone to making him look excellent, because damn does he look excellent.

Even without these problems, the film at its core is a headache to watch thanks to some laughably bad editing from Martin Bernfeld (“Power Rangers (2017),” “Project Almanac”). The cuts back and forth come so frequently and quickly that it becomes almost nauseating. It’s as if the no one told the directors that, just because you have the shots, doesn’t mean you have to use all of them. Things cut so frequently and with such random nature, it’s as if the cuts were made at random, by throwing a dart at a dartboard.

This “Hellboy” is mostly a film of excess, and that’s where its problems lie. There isn’t just an excess of gore, an excess of plot devices, and an excess of editing, but there’s a lack of trust in the audience. Seeing Hellboy pull up to a building while “The Devil You Know” plays isn’t clever, it’s just groan inducing. The number of times people re-explain Hellboy’s internal conflict to him border on idiotic.

This is a movie where the creators felt their ideas were just so clever, they wanted to make sure they were obvious to the audience, by over explaining them every chance they got, in any way possible.

Apart from some decent-ish makeup and a cheesy good performance from Milla Jovovich, there is literally no reason to see this film. Its painful editing and unnecessary levels of gore would be bad enough, but it’s the way it treats itself high and mighty. It talks down to the audience, constantly trying to over explain a script that is barely coherent by itself. If there’s any desire for a Hellboy adventure, just rent both del Toro films. They’re legitimately incredible fantasy adventures. As for this version: stay the hell away. 1/5

Shazam! - Review

 

Superheroes are, by definition, completely stupid. Even the more realistic ones are built upon the idea that regular everyday humans can have the power of flight, invisibility, and impeccable beach bods. Despite how much the more recent DC films and the MCU as a whole have captured the various building blocks of the comic book, that kind of gleeful stupidity or whimsy hasn’t existed in a superhero movie since the 90s. DC’s response to all that? Just say the word.

That word is, of course, “Shazam!”, which is the name of the super-powered man-child played with gleeful abandon by Zachary Levi (“Chuck,” “Tangled”). It’s genuinely incredible how Levi manages to make this, walking embodiment of every 14-year-old’s dream of what an adult is, not come off as annoying. His performance is a ball of comedic mastery, with tightrope precise comedic timing, with the ability to still nail the epic superhero scenes.

His teenage form, Billy Batson, played by Asher Angel (“Andi Mack”) is just as charming as Shazam himself. Both have a wonderful sense of continuity, and it really does feel like the same person on the inside, which is a testament to the talent of both of them.

While his roommate and best friend Freddy, played by Jack Dylan Grazer (“IT,” “Me, Myself & I”) gets a larger chunk of the runtime to skip school and cause various shenanigans with Shazam, the remaining family members are shortchanged. This is a shame because each of them is charming and memorable in their own ways. The third act does bring them all back together in a genius way, but it would have been nice if they had each gotten more room to establish themselves.

Mark Strong (“Kick-Ass,” “Kingsman: The Secret Service”), who plays the villain, Dr. Thaddeus Sivana, does his job well; strutting and scowling like you’d expect from a big budget supervillain. His character does represent one of the film’s biggest weaknesses; the tonal shift associated with the character. They are only a minor issue though, as they’re ironed out after the first act.

Narratively, there isn’t anything particularly new about “Shazam!”, but it does its job well enough. Really, it’s the small moments of downtime and the power of Shazam himself that allows for the creativity of the filmmakers to shine through. Director David F. Sandberg (“Lights Out,” “Annabelle: Creation”) has clearly been let loose here, and his film feels less like the strictly structured superhero films of the modern day, and more like a kid, joyously smashing his action figures together.

There is one plot hole midway through the movie that may catch most off guard. Really, it boils down to one character blaming another for something that the other one was clearly responsible for. And the clear illogical nature of the character’s argument is never brought up. While it is minor, and plot is clearly not the film’s highest priority, it’s something that should have been either ironed out or addressed.

What is the clear and very highest priority of Sandberg, and his cast and crew, is fun. It is genuinely bizarre how much fun “Shazam!” is at times. It’s such a gleefully stupid and silly movie that practically begs you to make fun of it. There’s a genuine irreverence to the entire proceedings that make it a sheer blast. The cliched nature of the villain and his minions is poked at with every turn, and it serves to create a stronger identity at the core of the film.

Yes, it is funny, but it’s also a beautiful picture of whimsy and the joy of childhood. The comparisons to Tom Hanks’s 1988 film “Big” are apt, but this whimsy works because of the superhero genre itself. This is, again, a genre where people who can fly and talk to fish are considered normal. And while poking fun at those tropes has been done in films before, what sets “Shazam!” apart is the joy and excitement it has about those tropes.

Primary colors and scale are at the center of the visual identity of “Shazam!”, and it helps set the film apart. While just about every superhero film is set in a city, Sandberg and his cinematographer Maxime Alexandre (“Earth to Echo,” “The Crazies”) make the city feel big. Maybe it’s the child perspective or the use of scale with the surrounding buildings, but the world of “Shazam!” feels bigger and more consequential than your average superhero film, strengthened by an incredibly vibrant color palette.

The film is excited to show off Shazam, his powers, and his origin. It’s excited to show you the final confrontation, and it’s excited to show you just how bonkers things can get. It’s genuinely weird to say that this kind of excitement and sense of whimsy has been missing from the genre for quite a while, because the way “Shazam!” uses it, it feels like you couldn’t make a superhero film without it.

David F. Sandberg’s tribute to childlike wonder and whimsy manages to leap directly over its first act tonal shifts, its majorly minor plot hole and its routine narrative to create a film that wants to celebrate the idea of superheroes. It does this with flying colors, blasting past previous DC flops with a burst of primary colored joy and crackling humor, bolstered by a wonderful cast, and setting a very high bar for the future DC films to come. Apparently, all you need to make a great DC film is to be like Shazam and get in touch with your inner child. 4.5/5

Us - Review

 

It’s appropriate to fear for a director when it comes time for their sophomore film. While a great first outing is a good sign for a long career, most promising directors have been broken thanks to a shoddy sophomoric outing. Jordan Peele, the Academy-Award-winning writer/director of “Get Out,” does not have to worry about a sophomoric slump. Because he has “Us.”

Lupita Nyong’o (“12 Years A Slave,” “Black Panther”) is an absolute powerhouse here. Each member of the cast is impressive, as they all have to play dual roles, but Nyong’o’s is especially so, given the intense physicality and emotional states she is put through. It’s more than a mere “scream queen” role, she delves into Adelaide in a way that brings forth what is absolutely the best performance of her career and makes an Oscar nomination a sure bet.

Winston Duke (“Black Panther”) is a stalwart presence, providing both a welcome sense of humor to the grim events of the film, and also a warm fatherly sense of protection as Adelaide’s husband Gabe. Their children, Zora and Jason, played by Shahadi Wright Joseph and Evan Alex, respectively, do an absolutely incredible job, mirroring the excellence of Nyong’o.

While neither Joseph or Duke have roles as physically involved as Nyong’o’s, Alex certainly does. He commands the screen just as much as Nyong’o, delivering a performance that eclipses most major adult actors, let alone child actors in their debut film role. In fact, both he and Joseph make their big screen debuts in “Us” and it makes their skill and talent that much more impressive.

Peele has crafted a world that is slightly closer to sci-fi than horror, but manages to exist in this bizarre space of reality. Everything looks and sounds almost too normal, resulting in a sense of tension that is impossible to describe. At any moment something could happen, and Peele uses this to his advantage, building on each moment in increasingly creative and narratively satisfying ways.

Because in order to craft a horror film that resonates and remains inside an audiences’ head, you have to give them characters to care about. True horror is built out of fear for the people onscreen, and Peele without a doubt understands that. He spends time before the carnage starts establishing a strong and fleshed out family dynamic, and even continues to thread character building moments throughout the scares.

Cinematographer Mike Gioulakis (“Split,” “It Follows”) helps him do this, and he helps zero in on Peele’s favorite narrative object: eyes. They’re the focal point of the film, just like in “Get Out,” and this focus, as well as smooth camera work and shot compositions, create some truly gorgeous looking nightmares.

There’s a large emphasis on color as well, and the bleeding red that weaves its way throughout the film leaves a visual imprint on audiences’ brains that is hard to forget. The passage of time in conjunction with the length of the film also serves as potent fuel for Peele’s tension machine. He isn’t afraid to let a scene or sequence linger for minutes on end.

Peele has reteamed with composer Michael Abels (“Get Out”) for the score for “Us” with a mostly effective result. While it remains an undercurrent of the film, raising and lowering with the bloodshed to appropriately accompany the horrors, there are a few times when the music feels a bit too heavy-handed. It doesn’t take away from the proceedings, but it is noticeable.

Despite Peele’s efforts to craft a wholly original horror story, there are elements of the film that do feel predictable. However, this predictability only really sets in once the film is done. This is in part because of the unique craftsmanship of each individual scene. It’s as if Peele has crafted a puzzle that is, for the most part, a puzzle you’re familiar with. But the shapes of the individual pieces are so bizarre and unexpected that it still keeps you on your toes.

The craftsmanship of the film is one reason the predictability doesn’t set it.

But the ending recontextualizes everything.

It is absolutely crucial to go into “Us” knowing as little as possible. Not only because it’s a story worth seeing unspoiled, but because the film also works as a carefully layered mystery just as much as it does a horror film. When credits roll, Peele has essentially tossed a chair through any reaction that could have been established prior, effectively requiring multiple viewings to fully take in the events of the story. It also helps to establish “Us” as a movie that refuses to paint anyone as an explicit protagonist or antagonist.

The questions it raises, not only about the events and their repercussions in the film’s world, but in our own, are staggering. However, “Us” also doesn’t give as many answers regarding its subject as “Get Out” did, but it also doesn’t seem like it wants to. The intense mystery is part of the film’s immense charm, and it’s a film that wants its audience to marinate on the questions rather than their answers.

“Us” may be, on the whole, kind of predictable, but it’s hard to even remotely think about that in the moment. Peele has crafted a film whose various questions and themes almost refuse to give easy answers, allowing for a viewing experience that is the absolute best kind of uncomfortable. Lead by Nyong’o in an Oscar-worthy performance with a completely committed cast and a world that is built upon layer by layer, “Us” is a supremely terrifying second feature. Just make sure, when you’re gripping your theatre seat in terror, that you know whose hand you’re holding. 5/5

Dumbo (2019) - Review

 

Dumbo is a character beloved for how unloved he was. Burton is a director who has built a career on giving the spotlight to exactly those kinds of characters. So, why shouldn’t the two of them meet in the middle for the latest of Disney’s live action remakes?

Burton smartly brings some of his past colleagues onto Disney’s payroll for this film; Eva Green (“Penny Dreadful,” “Miss Peregrine’s Home for Peculiar Children”), Michael Keaton (“Birdman,” “Batman”), Danny DeVito (“Batman Returns,” “It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia”) are all here, as well as frequent musical collaborator Danny Elfman (“Charlie and the Chocolate Factory,” “Beetlejuice”).

Green does a serviceable job here, as does DeVito. Both are clearly doing the best with a shaky screenplay, as their characters don’t really have an effect on the overall plot. DeVito’s especially feels like he’s merely forgotten about in the latter half of the film. Keaton meanwhile hams it up, walking the line between acting and just chewing the scenery to pieces. Oddly enough, it makes him the film’s most interesting character.

At least he’s more interesting than the center family. Colin Farrell (“In Bruges,” “Horrible Bosses”) is, like the others, doing the best he can. It’s commendable, and he does a decent job, turning his father figure of Holt Farrier into the most emotionally resonating character in the film. However, his children are an entirely different matter.

Finley Hobbins is perfectly mediocre as Holt’s young son, Joe. He wants to have an act, does handstands, and is generally un-annoying. However, Holt’s daughter Milly, played by Nico Parker, is an absolute disaster.

Not only does the movie seem determined to dumb her down into a one-dimensional STEM stand-in, but Parker turns out one of the worst performances of the year. She consistently sounds flat, moving from having no emotion whatsoever to have a slightly higher inflection. It’s maddening as she is clearly meant to be the film’s emotional center, and it's hard to take anything seriously as she delivers the most important lines in the flattest way possible.

Dumbo, meanwhile, is just fine. While he’s animated well, that’s about all that can be said about him. He’s unassuming and cute but fails to make a real impact. His ridiculing doesn’t really register, since the people immediately around him, the circus folk, immediately care for him. So, his outcast nature doesn’t land because he never feels like an outcast. Sure, the audience might laugh at him, but the people who actually take care of him and spend time around him shoe the naysayers away.

That means that the central emotional crux of this story is gone. Poof. A dream on the wind. What else does Dumbo have if it isn’t an outcast story? The answer is nothing. What we’re left with is a movie with decent actors and some stellar visuals.

Because if there is one reason to see Dumbo, it's for the visuals. While most are CGI, it makes the actual sets, like the latter half’s main location DreamLand, really pop. When Dumbo does fly, it feels spectacular, even for a brief moment, like something out of a storybook. It’s Burton’s distinct visual style at its best, with deep colors conflicting with dark imagery to evoke some real menace. The CGI that does exist though, is painfully obvious. While Dumbo and his mother are well done, every other animal and item looks like cheap plastic. It’s as if 99% of the budget was given to Dumbo and the remaining 1% was spread out to everything else.

This visual distinctness also extends to the music, which, alongside the visuals, is the film’s best aspect. Elfman has created a confident and bizarre score that feels ripped from his heyday of 90’s horror-comedies. The cheeky menace that reverberates from every musical note helps to elicit reactions when the film’s script falls flat. It also makes, however short it may be, the Pink Elephants scene the best part of the entire film.

There’s also a weird tonal disconnect at the heart of this film. Not within the tone of the film itself, but with the studio behind it. Here is a film about an animal who wants to be set free from its captivity in an amusement park, trapped by a charismatic man with a glowing smile who constantly talks about making “dreams come true.”

You’d be forgiven if you only saw the last hour of the film and thought it was a parody of all of Disney’s ideals. But, because it’s a legitimate Disney film, it makes it hard to take seriously. When the film’s ending rolls, with messages about how no animal should be caged for human amusement, it’s hard not to think of Animal Kingdom in Florida.

Granted, Disney is not the worst company to have animals in theme parks (Hello Seaworld), that background knowledge makes everything feel disingenuous. It doesn’t go far enough in its Disney parallels or fun-poking to be considered self-parody either. It feels like being lectured by a teacher about not smoking cigarettes, to then be sold a vape by them later that day. Sure, it isn’t as bad, but it isn’t great, either.

All of this, in addition to an amazingly rushed and incoherent third act, take the air out of the film’s wings. Sure, it has some decent actors and a distinct visual and musical flair. But none of that can save a movie when it lacks heart and soul. When “Dumbo” flies and the film talks about imagination, it only cements how creative and emotionally bankrupt it is. Sure, the elephant can fly, but it would be even better if he had a soul whilst doing it. 1.5/5

Wonder Park - Review

 

Considering their involvement with one of the most successful children’s networks, it’s surprising that Paramount Pictures doesn’t have a well-established animation studio. Now they have “Wonder Park,” the latest film from their revamped Paramount Animation.

Animated mainly by the Madrid-based Ilion Animation Studios, with Paramount Animation handling the story, editing, voice cast, “Wonder Park” is a definite visual wonder. The lighting is especially incredible, and the film’s various multicolored sets and contraptions are detailed and intricate.

Virtually every scene has some sort of visual magic going on, whether it’s the multitudes of tiny Chimpan-Zombies running around or a cascade of sparks and lava during an action sequence, it’s a movie tailor-made to show off 4K TVs at home or in Best Buys. A sequence halfway through at a fireworks ride is without a doubt one of the most gorgeous of the year so far. Although, it is accompanied by a bizarre fisheye lens zoom effect for the first act.

Which is unfortunate overall because, that’s really all that “Wonder Park” has. A voice cast consisting of Jennifer Garner (“13 Going on 30,” “Daredevil”), Matthew Broderick (“Ferris Bueller’s Day Off,” “The Cable Guy”), Kennan Thompson (“Kenan & Kel,” “Good Burger”), Ken Jeong (“Community,” “Dr. Ken”), Mila Kunis (“That 70s Show,” “Family Guy”), John Oliver (“Last Week Tonight with John Oliver,” “The Smurfs (2011)”), Norbert Leo Butz (“Bloodline,” “Mercy Street”), and Ken Hudson Campbell (“Armageddon,” “Herman’s Head”) can’t even dredge a muddled and mediocre script back from the brink.

However, you cannot mention the voice acting without also bringing up newcomer Brianna Denski, who absolutely kills it here as the young June. While she has a few smaller credits to her name, Denski makes her big-budget debut here, and she goes above and beyond to make the best out of an inconsistent script. It’s truly admirable and she’s one of the film’s best aspects.

To be fair, none of these actors are delivering top-notch work though. They aren’t awful. In fact, Broderick is a warm and enjoyable father figure for main character June. Oliver is funny enough and he’s the only consistent stream of comedy that it’s flat. Butz and Campbell, as Boomer and Peanut, respectively, are the only ones to seem to be putting any effort in. Both of their characters provide nice gooey centers of emotional support, and Peanut ends up being a legitimate surprise in terms of emotional vulnerability.

It’s a shame that vulnerability isn’t put to good use though. About 95 percent of the plot is rehashed ideas from past animated ventures. The sick parent, the child who loses their imagination, a mysterious “darkness,” etc. Not of it is particularly awful. It’s just so incredibly bland and lifeless, seeming even more so when accompanied by the gorgeous animation.

However, credit where credit is due, it does try to incorporate some new ideas into its lazy script from Josh Appelbaum (“Mission Impossible Ghost Protocol,” “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Out of the Shadows”), André Nemec (“Mission Impossible Ghost Protocol,” “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Out of the Shadows”), and Robert Gordon (“Galaxy Quest,” “Men in Black II”).There’s a thinly veiled metaphor for depression that has an admirable conclusion. The logistics of the theme park itself, and where it fits into the film’s lore are also supremely interesting, especially regarding its creation.

There’s also a fair amount of effort put into heroine June’s characterization. She’s extremely smart, but never in a way that annoys like other movies with smart young protagonists. Her ideas, inventions and intuition save the day for most of the movie, and she’s a confident creator at that. It’s a welcome role model for the young kids, especially girls, who’ll see her in this flick.

But goodness gracious does this film play a tonal tap-dance. What starts out as a fun meditation on imagination then turns dark with the previously mentioned “parent got sick” plotline, before derailing into a territory populated by tiny destructive “Chimpan-Zombies” and multiple cute and cuddly mascots uttering the words “We’re at war!” It’s virtual tonal whiplash in the first act, and while things eventually settle to a more consistent level, it takes half the movie to get there.

“Wonder Park” also plays an interesting balancing act that, if it were intentional, might seem like an achievement. It is somehow ridiculously hyperactive in its animation and dialogue, with some sequences moving so blazingly fast they seem like they’re missing frames, yet some sequences move normally. It’s as if someone chopped the movie up and put random scenes on fast forward.

This is not a film devoid of any creativity or fun. The stuffed-toys-turned-Chimpan-Zombies are amusing as they run around committing acts of destruction while spouting cheery theme park catchphrases. There are the aforementioned attempts to make the plot something deeper, and, to reiterate, this movie is beautiful!

Things even manage to pick up in the third act, often where most mediocre animated films fail. The last 15-20 minutes are satisfying, bringing the film full circle in a clever way, and showing what could have been with a more focused vision to match the gorgeous look of the film.

At the end of the day though, beauty can only get a movie so far. Especially one that is clearly trying to present deeper ideas to its audience. A few committed voice actors, a gorgeous display of visuals, a great third act and a well-intended, but flawed depth can’t set “Wonder Park” apart from its own poor tonal work and blandness. It’s like a balloon from a theme park. It’s shiny and pretty, but there are a million others like it. 2/5

Captain Marvel - Review

 

Hot off the heels of “Infinity War,” here comes “Captain Marvel,” an origin story focusing on Carol Danvers and the hero she will become. A prequel to, essentially, the entire Marvel Cinematic Universe and Marvel’s first female lead film, a lot is riding on this glowing, alien hero.

Brie Larson (“Room,” “Short Term 12”) perfectly encapsulates exactly who Danvers is. She’s tough, but snarky and sarcastic, fitting perfectly next to Tony Stark and Peter Quill into the kind of mold that the MCU has been churning out for years. When she’s strutting her stuff, showing off her ridiculous powers to Nick Fury and others, she seems completely in control and undeniably charismatic.

Samuel L Jackson (“Pulp Fiction,” “The Avengers”) is also wonderful, with a much larger role than in any of his previous MCU appearances. The decision to play regular hard-ass Nick Fury as a bit of a softer desk agent was risky but pays off. It’s supremely interesting to see a character so associated with being a stone faced, quip shouting bad ass getting his feet wet.

Ben Mendelsohn (“Rogue One: A Star Wars Story,” “Mississippi Grind”) delivers depth to his Skrull character Talos that remains intriguing as the film progresses, and it’s a testament to his strength as an actor that, despite the major twist halfway through, his performance and characterization remain consistent throughout. The same can be said for the supporting cast, with everyone consistently pulling their weight to bring the most to these fresh new faces.

However, as much as Larson excels at providing a balance between her captain’s sarcasm and stoic attitude, it takes some time to get there. The film’s first 15 minutes, basically everything prior to arriving on Earth, are slow and boring. Yes, it is essential information for the plot going forward, but its paced so poorly that it drags down the movie as a result.

Danvers’s final moments of badassery are just that, badass, but there isn’t a huge fight by the film’s end. It doesn’t feel like she’s had to physically overcome anything. Most of the action has her handedly whooping everyone else around her, and while it does look cool, Larson delivers it only decently well. The larger action sequences leave something to be desired, lacking the kind of nuance or flow from other Marvel films like “Winter Soldier” or “Black Panther.” That being said, the smaller scale fights do not disappoint.

There are times where it feels as though the action and powers almost aren’t the focus of the film. That is not a bad thing by any means, because directors Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck (“Mississippi Grind,” “It’s Kind of a Funny Story”) instead shift the focus to Danvers’s emotional journey, leading to one of the MCU’s more emotionally satisfying stories.

Danvers is not a character who is unsure of what she wants or who she is. Instead of taking someone insecure and throwing them into this amnesiac story line, Boden and Fleck have instead chosen to show the kind of journey that someone who is that headstrong might go on when filling out their unknown past.

Its makes for legitimately engaging drama and has some of the MCU’s most unexpected and thematically satisfying twists ever. This is again thanks to the talented cast, but thanks also go, in no small part, to the wonderfully evocative electronic score from Pinar Toprak (“Sinner,” “Krypton”) and the indie movie styled cinematography from Ben Davis (“Kick-Ass,” “Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri”).

“Captain Marvel” is also unabashedly and unflinchingly a feminist piece. This is not only due to the fact that the cast and crew have stated this multiple times, but from the story line itself. Numerous moments throughout the film showcase the times in Danvers’s life when her gender has caused her to struggle. There is zero beating around the bush when these moments are brought up, and while some will likely have issues with that, it’s also refreshing to have a big budget, multi-million-dollar film so earnestly and clearly wear its heart on its sleeve like is done here.

Because that’s what “Captain Marvel” has at the end of the day. It’s pure and unabashed sense of heart helps it soar despite a slow start and less than stellar action. It’s carried by wonderful performances and has a joyful sense of optimism. One of the MCU’s most satisfying films, story wise, “Captain Marvel” may not rocket into the stratosphere, but it definitely soars. 4/5