Ad Astra - Review

 

“Per aspera ad astra” – latin; through hardships to the stars

It’s common in fiction of any kind to use the fantastical to examine deeper and more common truths of humanity. Films like “Blade Runner” and “The Truman Show” have used elaborate and fanciful concepts to look at the simple concept of identity. “Ad Astra” is following in the footsteps of those films, using the concept of a not-to-distant future and space travel to examine some deeply human ideas.

Brad Pitt (“Fight Club,” “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button”) stars as Roy McBride, the lone spaceman traveling across the galaxy to find his long-lost father, played by Tommy Lee Jones (“Men in Black,” “No Country for Old Men”). Both Pitt and Jones are delivering career best performances here. While Jones is onscreen less than Pitt, the moments where he is there are captivating thanks to a deeply soulful and weathered delivery. There’s a loss and emptiness to his character that feeling genuinely authentic and heartbreaking.

Pitt, meanwhile, is an absolute showstopper. While its easy to throw criticism at the abundance of voiceover present in the film, it at least makes sense within the context of his extensive space travel solitude and the “psychology exams” the film brings up. Regardless, Pitt is delivering a stern and cold character whose life and character and fundamentally changed over the two-hour run-time. It feels so authentic and real, as if you’re watching a documentary of a man whose core beliefs and being are being changed over the course of his life.

Apart from Pitt and Jones, the rest of the cast consists of roles so brief they may as well be cameos. There is an extended sequence on a space shuttle to Mars with some great smaller roles and chemistry between the supporting cast and Pitt, but its over too quickly to really make an impact.

Ruth Negga (“Warcraft,” “Loving”) and Donald Sutherland (“Ordinary People,” “Animal House”) are the only supporting members present for long periods of time. Negga is as fantastic as she’s always been but is painfully underutilized here. Sutherland is victim of the same fate, introduced with boatloads of character potential, but written out in a fairly understated manner.

The script, penned by director James Gray (“The Lost City of Z,” “We Own the Night”) and Ethan Gross (“Fringe”), manages to straddle the line of believability and wordy vocabulary extremely well. It never falls into the pitfalls of a film like “The Goldfinch,” instead settling into a neat spot of vocabulary heavy seriousness. The middle of the film is a bit strenuous, as that is when the pacing drags for a bit. But its only really one scene that really feels out of place, a distress signal, and it at least has a purpose, even if it doesn’t seem entirely necessary.

However, where “Astra” truly shines is in the moment of quiet contemplation. This is an absolutely knock-out gorgeous film, without a doubt containing the best cinematography of the year so far, courtesy of cinematographer Hoyte van Hoytema (“her,” “Interstellar”). Some moments swell with incredible beauty and jaw-dropping vistas. When the seamless mix of practical and computer effects is coupled with that cinematography and the score from Lorne Balfe (“The Florida Project,” “The LEGO Batman Movie”) and Max Richter (“Jiro Dreams of Sushi,” “The Leftovers”), it becomes a purely incredible achievement in atmosphere.

Thankfully, Gray and Pitt put that atmosphere to good use. This is not a toothless film, and despite the inky blackness of space, there is a lot to ruminate on after the credits start to roll. The concepts of home, as well as what a parent owes their children, are constantly dealt with throughout the surprisingly short 124-minute runtime.

It might very well be one of the most affecting films to ever touch upon the subjects of isolation and loneliness.

Despite these heady themes, it never feels like a downer either. There’s a warmth to “Astra” that helps permeate through the seriousness of the subject matter to create a film that isn’t lighthearted by any means but feels remarkably human. It eschews the melancholy feelings from films like “Blade Runner 2049” or “Interstellar” and it creates a much more appealing film to the general populous as a result, without sacrificing the artistry.

It is worth noting that, even with its shorter than blockbuster length and consistent pacing, this a slow burn of a film, and therefore won’t be for everyone. Some moments just exist to showcase the mental state of the characters, and while they are satisfying in a story context, they might not be particularly entertaining for a general movie-going audience.

For those willing to see a slow burn film though, “Ad Astra” is a masterclass in emotional authenticity and theme work. For a film about space, the authenticity and artistry of the atmosphere is undeniable. Lead by career best performances from Brad Pitt and Tommy Lee Jones, this is a singularly wonderous piece of science-fiction, with only minor blemishes from underutilized supporting characters and a somewhat out of place sequence. Its at times thought provoking, thrilling, gorgeous, and insightful, sometimes all at once. Talk about shooting for the stars. 4.5/5

Hustlers - Review

The evils of Wall Street have been dragged onto the big screen for years and years. Whether it’s a story about the general greed seemingly inherent in that strip of New York business (“Wall Street”) or more focused stories about the market crash of 2008 (“The Big Short”), the concept of the everyday person hitting back at the Wall Street crooks is an American power fantasy second only to that of becoming a Superhero.

“Hustlers” is different though. There’s something about it; the sense of style, the tone, the cast, something inherent in this project specifically that sets it apart from the rest of this miniature genre.

Jennifer Lopez (“Jersey Girl,” “Gigli”) is an absolute knock-out, both on and off the stage as Ramona, the queen bee of the strip club Moves. She glides through each scene with an attitude somewhere between a hungry shark looking for prey and a mother bear protecting her cubs. She’s completely fierce, funny, and dangerous. This is a role for the ages and one that can easily rest alongside other corrupt mentor figures in cinema.

Despite ample, and justified, praise being thrown at Lopez, she is still second to the incredible performance from Constance Wu (“Crazy Rich Asians,” “Fresh Off the Boat”) as Destiny. She is the definition of a layered character, constantly being thrown into moral quandaries that are given the exact amount of weight they need. Wu straddles the line between someone you want to root for and scream at, and it culminates in an emotionally vulnerable and fierce protagonist.

While some of the supporting cast has been a bit exaggerated for marketing purposes; as great as they are, Cardi B and Lizzo are basically just cameos. Its the other half of the main quartet who deserve just as much praise at Lopez and Wu. Keke Palmer (“Scream Queens,” “Akeelah and the Bee:) lights up the screen as she radiates anarchistic energy as Mercedes, and Lili Reinhart (“The Kings of Summer,” “Riverdale”) is the supporting scene stealer as Annabelle, the sweet younger one who just wants a home of her own. She will melt your heart.

Actually, all of them will. The friendship that grows as the film progress feels incredibly authentic, and its an excellent example of why the film is a cut above the rest. Throughout the film there are smaller scenes that seem to serve no purpose to the overall plot, such as a Christmas day bash or training Destiny on the pole.

However, it quickly becomes apparent that these scenes exist seemingly specifically to show how the friendship between these characters naturally grows over time. Because of the ample focus spent on fleshing these friendships out, it means they’re more believable, more engaging, and therefore easier to identify with and invest in.

It would be easy to worry about the film’s tone, as most of the trailers showed both the darker antics side by side with the glitter and glam. Thankfully, this is yet another example of how excellent the pacing is. As the film moves on, the tone shifts from hilarious party antics to terrifying life choices. The change is slow and purposeful, meaning it never feels out of place. It builds smartly on itself over its runtime, eventually exploding towards the end in a way that is nothing short of fantastic.

Even within the frame narrative of “Hustlers,” there’s interesting choices being made. The decision to have the film be told as if Destiny is talking to the reporter who published the real-life article, played with a warm, purposefully simple demeanor by Julia Stiles (“Silver Linings Playbook,” “10 Things I Hate About You”), is nothing short of genius. It allows for a brilliant audience surrogate to step in, and also means that there is ample room for the frame to be turned on its head.

Writer/Director Lorene Scafaria (“Nick & Norah’s Infinite Playlist,” “Seeking a Friend for the End of the World”) injects the wit and sarcasm present in her previous features into the script here with fabulous results. It is consistently funny, with great visual gags and amusing dialogue throughout. One scene involving a popular singer is an absolute riot and will go unspoiled here.  So much of it is so funny because the banter is so natural, again going back to the believability of these relationships. There’s even an art to the way its shot, with cinematographer Todd Banhazl (“Blow the Man Down,” “Dirty Computer”) letting the camera sit and rotate, fly, and hover exactly where it needs to.

There are tons of little details in “Hustlers.” Whether it’s the cuts back and forth to the frame narrative just for a well-executed joke, or the club’s DJ announcing things to the audience over the end credits, as if the club was closing, they all serve as perfect metaphors for the film itself; they didn’t have to exist, but they do, and they’re all the better for it thanks to the ridiculous amounts of effort therein.

“Hustlers” is a rollicking good time, with excellent tonal escalation, award worthy performances from Lopez and Wu, a delightful supporting cast, and a narrative that thrives on the friendship of these women and capitalizing on flipping audience expectations for a loop. It’s a neon drenched delight that should not be missed. 5/5

The Goldfinch - Review

 

“To lose something that should have been immortal. Please tell me it isn’t true.” That line may be referring to the titular “The Goldfinch” painting by Carel Fabritius, one could also repurpose it as a statement on the film adaptation of the Pulitzer Prize winning novel, “The Goldfinch,” by Donna Tartt.

Because, despite having an A-list cast, an Oscar nominated director, an Oscar winning production team, and a fairly substantial amount of hype prior to release, “The Goldfinch” flops hard and in incredibly interesting ways.

Ansel Elgort (“Baby Driver,” “The Fault in Our Stars”) and Oakes Fegley (“Pete’s Dragon (2016),” “Wonderstruck”) both play the protagonist, Theo. Elgort tackles the role in Theo’s older years, and he’s the best of the two. There isn’t anything amazing about his performance, but Elgort’s base level of charm that was shown off so excellently in Baby Driver helps him soldier through most of the incredibly poor script.

Fegley isn’t as successful and ends up spending most of the film either rambling with bizarrely high vocabulary levels given his age or staring into nothingness, looking cute and helpless. Meanwhile, his other child actor counterpart Finn Wolfhard (“IT (2017),” “Stranger Things”), is completely trying too hard. As Boris, Theo’s childhood Russian friend, he’s earnest and clearly trying to give a good performance, but the overblown and ridiculous nature of his character just doesn’t allow it.

The rest of the adults are just…bizarre. Luke Wilson (“The Royal Tenenbaums,” “Idiocracy”) plays Theo’s dad and his trying eyes aren’t a result of the father’s characterization, but clearly an actor trying with an extremely poor script. His wife/girlfriend, Xandra, shows Sarah Paulson (“Ocean’s 8,” “Glass”) desperately trying not to fall apart on set, and Aneurin Barnard (“Interlude in Prague,” “Dunkirk”), as adult Boris, at least fairs better than Wolfhard, mainly by toning down his eagerness and actually having a real Russian accent, instead of Wolfhard’s “I’ve seen Red Dawn” impression.

No one’s performance is a stupendously bizarre as Nicole Kidman (“Destroyer,” “Rabbit Hole”). As the mother of Theo’s best friend, who’s family takes him in after the horrific tragedy that kickstarts the story, there’s an expectation of motherly love and warmth. However, at every turn, Kidman seems to be trying to audition for a Friday the 13^th remake.

Her steely gaze and hushed whisper don’t give off any kind of motherly intent. Instead, it just comes across as is she’s giving bedroom eyes to Theo at all time; as a child and adult. While it initially seems extremely creepy, it eventually tumbles into the realm of comedy, making Kidman’s performance and every scene she’s in laughable when they clearly should be taken seriously.

Before touching on what makes this film baffling, it is worth noting that there are still elements of good within it. John Crowley (“Brooklyn,” “Closed Circuit”) directs the scenes excellently. It’s weird to say that, given how poor the film’s overall quality is, but Crowley and Academy Award winning Cinematographer Roger Deakins (“Blade Runner 2049,” “No Country For Old Men”) both shoot “The Goldfinch” in gorgeous shades of creamy white colors and utilize things like silence and sepia tones extremely effectively. This is, without a shadow of a doubt, a gorgeous looking and gorgeously shot film. The musical score by Trevor Gureckis (“Rattle the Cage,” “Bloodline”) contains some wonderful string pieces, and during the moments of silence and wonderful cinematography, it shows just how phenomenal the production crew of this film is.

Jeffrey Wright (“The Manchurian Candidate,” “Casino Royale (2006)”), as Theo’s pseudo caretaker and mentor, is also the only actor who seems to come out of this unscathed. He’s warm and understanding, a bright spot and a real person in a movie otherwise filled with cardboard Bloomingdale’s cutouts. Ashleigh Cummings (“Pork Pie,” “NOS4A2”) as Pippa is not as good as Wright, but she manages to deliver a pleasant and simple performance in the sea of actors trying to keep their heads above water.

Without a doubt the biggest stumble of this film is the script, and not just for reasons of poor dialogue. It makes sense of hire screenwriter Peter Straughan. He’s an accomplished playwright and wrote the screenplays for “Frank (2014)” and “Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy.” However, his most recent job was the screenplay for the abysmal 2017 adaptation of “The Snowman.”

It’s clear that his work here more closely resembled the half-melted thriller from a few years back. Characters are stiff and speak extremely eloquently, regardless of their age. It’s the opposite of a writer like Aaron Sorkin, who mixes a complicated and specific way of speaking with the messiness of casual encounters. Everyone always knows exactly what to say at exactly the right moment, as if the characters they’re playing are being fed lines through an earpiece. The entire film has a thick air of privilege, as if someone wearing 15 million-dollar pants waltzed in and farted up the entire theatre.

Having a film focused around characters with immense wealth and privilege doesn’t immediately damn the film, but the way in which they’re presented here quickly becomes insufferable. Films like “The Princess Diaries,” “Arthur (1981),” “Legally Blonde,” hell, even “Iron Man” have characters with immense wealth and privilege, but it’s worked into the story in ways that make sense. Here, it seems so lazy, like an afterthought. Characters talk at length about antiques, painters, going for sailing weekends in Maine, and it all feels hollow. At no point does anyone ever appear to know what they’re talking about or to even be real people.

However, there’s a point where thing shift. Maybe it’s because the film is stupidly long at 2 hours and 20 minutes, with a second act that not only feels pointless, but literally is pointless to the overall plot. But something happens. Things become amusing, laughable even. The tone hasn’t changed, but things become so overblown and ridiculous, that it turns from frustrating to hysterical. It becomes a gorgeously shot train wreck, and starts to have more in common with the bizarre watch-ability of the similarly over-privileged Kardashian shows that the Oscar-bait films it’s trying to imitate.

At the very least, the last 30 minutes becomes even more weirdly engaging. It could just be because of a out of nowhere mobster movie subplot, or the headache inducing way it wraps everything up, but there’s something weird intriguing about the ending, as it all spirals into nonsense and veers straight off a cliff.

This should have been a resounding success. This adaptation of a Pulitzer Prize winning novel, by an Oscar nominated director, from a star-studded cast, and a writer who’s even done pretty admirable things. It’s a complete nosedive on everything but a technical level. It may be amusing and even funny it it’s drawn out, ridiculous nature towards the end, but that doesn’t change the fact that someone should’ve fed this bird to a street cat. 1/5

It Chapter Two - Review

 

Welcome back to Derry, Maine. Returning seemed inevitable. After the runaway success of the 2017 “IT” remake in the form of critical praise and box office records, it seemed like only a matter of time before the second half of arguably the most famous of Stephen King’s novels was adapted to the big screen.

Released almost two years to the day of the first film, “Chapter Two” picks up 27 years afterwards, focusing on Pennywise’s return and subsequent rampage throughout the town of Derry. However, given the way the first film ended, it’s understandable to expect his attacks to be more focused on the Losers Club.

Director Andy Muschietti (“Mama”) returns and he and cinematographer Checco Varese (“The 33,” “Lemonade Mouth”) manage to bring together some wonderful and evocative sets to life. Practical effects ooze from every pore, and even some of the CGI manages to not be as obvious or overbearing as it could have been. Composer Benjamin Wallfisch (“Hidden Figures,” “Blade Runner 2049”) also returns and continues to use music to underscore the creepiness expertly.

The group of kids who escaped his grasp in the first film all return, now aged up, and the way they’ve been brought back is hit or miss. Some, like James McAvoy’s (“Atonement,” “Split”) adult Bill, Isaiah Mustafa’s (“Shadowhunters”) adult Mike and Bill Hader’s (“Barry,” “The Skeleton Twins”) adult Ritchie are excellently done, with interesting dynamics within the rest of the group and ample story time.

Others, like Jessica Chastain’s (“The Tree of Life,” “Molly’s Game”) adult Bev or Jay Ryan as adult Ben, give performances that pale in comparison to the younger actors who portrayed them in the previous film. Meanwhile, the rest of the Club, James Ransone (“Sinister,” “Starlet”) as adult Eddie, and Andy Bean (“Swamp Thing,” “Power”) as adult Stanley are all just fine and they get the job done respectably.

As in the first film, though, the clear star of the show is Bill Skarsgård (“Hemlock Grove,” “Assassination Nation”) as Pennywise. He continues to show excellent work here, diving headfirst into the physicality of the role like few others can. Thankfully the film gets to showcase more toned-down moments of Pennywise as well, even featuring a few scenes where he’s just talking to the Losers and it fleshes out his fearfulness.

However, those talking scenes are most of Pennywise’s moments in the film. He just doesn’t show up that much. Not only does this mean that Skarsgård’s charm and chemistry with the rest of the cast are absent for most of the film, but the scares without Pennywise just don’t hit as hard as they should.

While the last 40 minutes is bombastic and excellent, the previous two hours feel both incredibly slow and not very scary at all. Yes, there are frightening things happening, and some are just as expertly pulled off as in the first film. But others feel like cheap retreads or even cop-outs. One even seems closer to a moment from a summer blockbuster, as opposed to a scene that fits into a Stephen King film.

For example, the leper as seen by Eddie comes back twice in “Chapter Two” and the heavy use of flashbacks in the second act makes it hard to keep track of what is happening and when it is happening. This also means that the ample time spent on reintroducing the Club and getting them all back to Derry drags far more than it should have.

What could very well be the film’s biggest issue however is in its tone. While a lot has been said in recent years about putting comedy in films like “Star Wars” or the MCU, the implementation of humor here might just be the most egregious. It’s understandable for there to be an element of humor in Pennywise, as he is a clown and there is something darkly comedic about his scare tactics.

But moments that exist seemingly just for a joke; misunderstandings in conversations, unexpected pratfalls, musical cues, and oddly delivered lines, completely throw off the tone. How can a scene be scary if, less than two minutes before, the audience was in hysterics over a pratfall off of a bike? The worst offender is a pop song musical cue directly in the middle of a scary attack scene.

Despite all of these issues, the last 40 minutes of this film is truly something special. It feels like something truly connected in tone and quality to the previous film, and thankfully Muschietti knocks it out of the park where it counts the most. The CGI, practical effects, lighting, music, and acting all coalesce to create some of the most jaw-dropping entertainment put to screen this year. There is no exaggeration when saying that when the acting, production design, and music all come together in the end it is fantasy horror at its most excellent.

“Chapter Two” unfortunately can’t entirely capture the horrific magic of the first film. It has excellent performances, but they’re less consistent. The few scares and Pennywise scenes, as well as tonal inconsistencies, are juxtaposed against a phenomenal third act, excellent filmmaking on a base level, and a wonderful sense of place. It’s fun for a spell, and definitely shoots for the stars (or Dead Lights) this “Chapter Two” likely could have used another draft to truly become something spectacular. 3/5

Ready Or Not - Review

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Invader Zim: Enter the Florpus - Review

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good Boys - Review

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blinded By the Light - Review

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Angry Birds Movie 2 - Review

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rocko's Modern Life: Static Cling - Review

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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