Zombieland: Double Tap - Review

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maleficent: Mistress of Evil - Review

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jexi - Review

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Addams Family (2019) - Review

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Joker - Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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