Freaky - Review

 

After a few successful short films, writing some of the worst “Paranormal Activity” movies (any but the first one), directing the last “Paranormal Activity” film, and writing and directing the easy contender for worst film of 2015 “Scout’s Guide to the Zombie Apocalypse,” writer/director Christopher Landon finally seemed to hit his stride with 2017’s “Happy Death Day” and its sequel “Happy Death Day 2U.” Those films blended a sly sense of humor with horror thrills that managed to be engaging, if falling prey to the cheap PG-13 horror film squeamishness. However, his latest film “Freaky” manages to be his strongest and best yet, going for the jugular and the weird laugh.

Like the “Death Day” films, “Freaky” is a horror twist on a classic cinema trope, this time focused on the body swap movie. Unpopular teen Millie, played by Kathryn Newton (“Halt and Catch Fire,” “Big Little Lies”), swaps bodies with the Blissfield Butcher, played by Vince Vaughn (“Wedding Crashers,” “Swingers”), after he attempts to kill her with a sacrificial dagger during a full moon.

Typical body swap movie hijinks ensue, with the pair stumbling through their first moments in differing bodies, and its in this first act where the film is its weakest. While they become charming, the introductions to these characters, like Millie’s two friends Nyla, played by Celest O’Connor (“Selah and the Spades”), and Josh, played by Misha Osherovich (“NOS4A2,” “The Goldfinch”), are painfully cliched. The sassy bordering on toxic gay friend and the overly concerned longtime female best friend, the mean teacher, crush who’s out of her league, all of these tropes are brought out to trot themselves around for the teen movie familiars.

It isn’t until about 35 minutes into the film that things really start to get interesting. Coincidentally, this is when the blood starts flowing with reckless abandon. Newton’s performance clearly shows an actress ready to embrace her killer side, putting her well beyond the rolls she’s done in the past in works like “Blockers” and “Detective Pikachu.”

Likewise, it’s here in this teen horror comedy that Vince Vaughn might have his big comeback moment. He is hysterical here as the fish out of water (or out of body), as Millie tries to adjust to her new body. Comparisons could be made to Jack Black’s role as a teenage girl in a middle-aged man’s body from 2018’s “Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle,” but the film naturally gives Vaughn more to work with as Millie is dealing with a lot more than a case of mistaken identity.

The supporting cast is all mostly fine, Millie’s two best friends get the most time outside of herself and the Butcher to craft an identity, but Millie’s mother and sister feel far more one note, wasting what could otherwise have been interesting wrinkles in the body swap formula.

While most of its “kills” feel a bit out of place in what could otherwise easily be marketed as a bizarre teen comedy, its in that bizarreness where “Freaky” becomes its most interesting and engaging self. Not only do some of the jokes get really bizarre, but there’s also an underlying sense of queerness to the entire film. At one point, someone asks what pronouns they should refer to Millie as in the Butcher’s body.

What could have easily been a crass joke is an odd moment of respect as the characters use this to reflect on the weirdness of the situation. Likely due to it being written by two openly gay men, Landon and Michael Kennedy (“Bordertown”), there’s a surprising lack of punching down humor here, instead going for more character and physical gag that bring a sense of warmth to this slasher movie.

While it might feature some great performance and moments of go for broke humor and is refreshingly violent as it flaunts its R rating, “Freaky” is slightly kneecapped by its otherwise cliché ridden plot. As enjoyable as it all is, there’s nothing really new here. It’s a good time sure, and you aren’t laughing at it by any means. It just feels like a small scale cliched romp, anchored by some blow-out performances. It doesn’t really need to be anything more though, and like Millie by the end of the film, its comfortable in its own skin. 3.5/5

On the Rocks - Review

 

There’s something to be said for a light, bubbly film filled with nothing but amusing and well performed characters delivering amusing dialogue. That doesn’t mean these films should be disregarded or that they can’t make statements, but they’re more often than not just a light and fluffy affair.

Sofia Coppola’s (“Lost in Translation,” “The Beguiled”) latest film and her latest collaboration with Bill Murray (“Ghostbusters,” “Lost in Translation”), “On the Rocks” is an interesting blend of both light and dark elements. It would be extremely easy to watch the film as an amusing 90 minutes and think nothing more of it, but those who choose to look under the surface of these characters more, as well as those who know about Coppola’s father, will likely find far more to chew over.

Murray plays Felix, an aging playboy and art dealer who spends his days traveling across the globe on a whim and trying to spend time with his daughter, Laura, played by Rashida Jones (“Parks and Recreation,” “The Social Network”), who dreams of becoming a writer. Laura feels like her husband Dean, a successful social media entrepreneur played by Marlon Wayans (“Scary Movie,” “Requiem for a Dream”), and Felix finds his way back into her life by grabbing hold of those anxieties that Dean is cheating on Laura and offering to help her find out the truth.

A summary like that might make the film sound like a dark globetrotting adventure, but like most of Coppola’s other films, its mainly focused on one city, New York. The streets and skylines make for a perfect backdrop to this mad-dash caper, and Philippe Le Sourd (“The Grandmaster,” “The Beguiled”), who previously worked with Coppola on “The Beguiled” takes full advantage of the neon lights and dark skies of the Big Apple at night.

Murray is at the top of his game here, unquestionably. After his career skyrocketed with the likes of “Ghostbusters” and “Stripes”, he was reborn in the early 2000’s as a darling of the indie film scene with movies like “Broken Flowers,” “Limits of Control,” “Get Low,” Coppola’s previous work “Lost in Translation,” and virtually anything by Wes Anderson. This is important to note because here more than ever before Murray seems to pull from both his playbooks. There’s the chauvinistic, charismatic, sometimes even crude chops from his 80’s-90’s comedy catalog, as well as a somber undercurrent that’s much more in line with his recent projects. It is a truly interesting performance to watch, as he staggers between being an eye-rolling delight and absolutely infuriating.

Jones delivers a performance that, while more straight forward, is nonetheless as excellent as Murray’s. The pair have chemistry that is hard to fake, really selling not only the father and daughter dynamic, but the history between the two of them. There are events that we the audience are not made privy to that have clearly influenced the way they act with each other, and that kind of recognizable history, without it ever being spelled out, gives their relationship layers. It also helps to deepen Jones’s performance as we see her mull over and deal with the events of the film, something we don’t see Murray do.

Coppola’s direction is subdued in just the right way. It isn’t flashy or showy, and the film overall avoids some of the more experiential moments of her earlier works. Whether that’s a good or bad thing is up for debate, but it delivers a more straight forward film.

This is a double-edged sword. While its nice to have a more commercially viable and lighthearted product, “On the Rocks” lacks the introspective nature or bite of Coppola’s other works. It’s not as wise or ethereal as “Lost in Translation”, not as anarchistic as “The Bling Ring” or “Marie Antoinette.” It’s not as eerie as “The Beguiled” or as empty as “Somewhere.” While there are layers, even those aren’t as detailed as one might expect from Coppola. It results in a film that, while her fingerprints as unmistakably present, could have been directed by anyone else and likely achieved similar results.

While that might sound like a damning critique, rest assured that its merely a long drawn out way of explaining a mere quibble. This is one of the funniest films of the year because of those winning performances and the way it interweaves the humor with its own dire straits. Humor is virtually weaponized here, as Coppola has Murray’s character delivering the same kinds of lines throughout, going from funny to tragic based on his own actions and the arcs he and Laura each have.

“On the Rocks” is a bizarrely complex film despite lacking any major bombshell revelations. Its superbly acted with Coppola’s deft hand for dialogue and charm. Murray delivers a career best performance, as does Jones, resulting in a warm and light film that goes down smooth and fills your head with bubbles. 4/5

Over the Moon - Review

 

With an animation career spanning over 40 decades of work and having worked on some of the greatest animated films of the last half a century, Disney Legend Glen Keane (The Little Mermaid, Dear Basketball) is an obvious choice to direct his own animated features. Mixing his experience with that of screenwriter Audrey Wells (Guinevere, The Hate U Give), Alice Wu (Saving Face, The Half of It), and Jennifer Yee McDevitt (Pittsburgh Passion) to create an animated musical based on the Chinese legend of Chang'e seems like an immediate and surefire success.

There are definitely elements here to praise. The cast does a fabulous job with their material, newcomer Cathy Ang does a great job capturing the science loving teenage angst of Fei Fei, and her reluctant brother Chin is also voiced well by newcomer Robert G. Chiu. The standouts amongst a fairly stacked cast though is Broadway star Phillipa Soo (Hamilton, The One and Only Ivan) who perfectly pulls off the complicated diva persona of Chang’e. From there, the rest of the cast is either used for 15 minutes, like supporting members John Cho (Searching, Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle), Margaret Cho (Bright, Rick & Steve: The Happiest Gay Couple In All The World), Sandra Oh (Grey’s Anatomy, Killing Eve), and Kimiko Glenn (Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse, Orange is the New Black), or worse.

In a genuinely confusing decision, Ken Jeong (Community, Crazy Rich Asians) plays Gobi, a pangolin and former servant of Chang’e. While his performance isn’t bad, it’s the character itself that becomes extremely grating. Gobi is simply the worst of all modern-day Hollywood animation rolled into one. He’s hyperactive, annoying, and then turns on a dime to deliver heartbreaking exposition, as if audience members are being punished for finding him annoying.

Visually, “Moon” explodes with color and visual flair at almost every moment. The team at Sony Pictures Imageworks has absolutely outdone themselves, and while clearly working with a smaller budget than a typical Pixar or DreamWorks film, there’s still a distinct visual style here. Each character seems sculpted out of clay, as if they exist as statues. Lunaria, the Moon city, is an absolute showstopper. With Day-Glo environments that pop and shine like gummies exploding onto the screen, it’s a colorful and memorable world for these characters to explore.

The musical elements aren’t executed as flawlessly as the visuals, but for the most part they’re admirable. Songwriters Christopher Curtis (Chaplin: The Musical, The Man Upon the Wall), Majorite Duffield, and Helen Park (KPOP: The Musical) craft some lovely melodies, and most of the songs are good. Ultraluminary, Chang’e’s introductory song infuses popstar and diva sensibilities into an introductory tune. Mooncakes is also a highlight, seeming as if its was plucked right out of the Disney renaissance.

From there, the songs aren’t bad, just unmemorable. Hey Boy is a rap battle set to a ping pong game that fails to make a lasting impression, and Wonderful is an out of nowhere tear jerker ballad. Again, these songs aren’t bad, they just fail to stick in viewers brains for longer than they’re onscreen.

That isn’t the only thing that fails to make an impression though, as the overall plot of Moon could’ve used some serious work. What exists here is an interesting tale of loss and emotion, with a STEM focused through line and a great sense of sci-fi imagination. However, the way its been presented in the film itself is in quite possibly the most generic and safe way possible.

There’s the “I want” song, the emotional 3^rd act song, the climactic chase with the fake out death, the 1^st act Chekhov’s gun, and the separation of siblings only to be reunited with a greater respect for each other. There are even subplots that are introduced and then forgotten about virtually instantly, like Chin being trapped and a bunny love story. It’s not a flawed story at its core, its just being presented in the most generic way possible, and as these events take place over top of gorgeous environments that look like you could eat them, its easy to think of a more creative and engaging way of telling this story.

Over the Moon is not the worst animated film of the year, not by a long shot. It’s animation and vocal performances are wonderful, most of its songs are great, and its always good to see a more diverse tale being told from such a big studio. However, it might just be the most disappointing animated film of the year, as its easy to see how much better it could’ve been. It’s a film that’s less than the sum of its parts but can still be a colorful and amusing distraction for a weekend stream. At least it isn’t overtly annoying. 3/5

The Boys in the Band (2020) - Review

 

In the realm of classic gay and LGBTQA+ entertainment, there is nothing quite like Mart Crowley’s “The Boys in the Band.” Premiering off-Broadway in 1968, the play was a sensation and was adapted into a film by William Friedkin two years after its premiere. Now, Netflix has brought us a second film version for the plays 50^th anniversary, retaining the same director, writer, and entire cast as the 50^th anniversary Broadway revival.

This means that everyone in the cast is already intimately familiar with their characters and their performances show it. Jim Parsons (“The Big Bang Theory,” “The Normal Heart”) leads the cast as Michael, a middle aged, smartly groomed and fiercely opinionated gay man. His catty remarks and acidic dialogue are delivered wonderfully by Parsons who makes a strong impression from the very first moment.

Matt Bomer (“Magic Mike,” “The Nice Guys”) might not be second billed, but he’s the one who’s in the film the most besides Parsons. His character, Donald, is the closest thing the work has to an audience surrogate, yet Bomer still imbues him with an easy-going charm without sanding down the most interesting elements. Brian Hutchison (“Blue Bloods,” “Jessica Jones”) meanwhile doesn’t get the most screen time but certainly gets some of the meatiest material to deal with as Alan. The sole straight person as this exceedingly homosexual birthday party, his perspective is warped, and it’s just as shocking to see the events spurred by him play out now as they were in 1968 (perhaps more so).

Andrew Rannells (“Big Mouth,” “Girls”) and Tuc Watkins (“Desperate Housewives,” “The Mummy (1999)”), meanwhile, play Larry and Hank, a couple who are constantly fighting with each other over who they are and what they want and the chemistry and love between the pair is electric. Michael Benjamin Washington (“Ratched,” “Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt”) and Robin de Jesús (“Camp,” “Gun Hill Road”) are Bernard and Emory, another couple attending the party and while they’re just as good as the rest of the actors, their plight is just the least interesting of the bunch. There’s also the character simply known as Cowboy, played by Charlie Carver (“Desperate Housewive,” “Ratched”), an attractive young man presented to the birthday boy, Harold, as a gift. He’s amusing enough but his is merely a one note character, misunderstanding fancy words and being attractive and dumb.

Speaking of Harold, he might only arrive about 45 minutes into the film, but when Zachary Quinto (“Star Trek (2009),” “NOS4A2”) struts on screen, he positively crackles with excitement. His is a role that is any actors dream, a persona so big it drapes over them like a duvet. He chews every line, delivers every word with a forked tongue, and yet imparts the most genuine reflection and wisdom of any character. It’s a performance for the ages plain and simple.

Given its origins as a stage play, most of “Boys in the Band” takes place in one location, and as smartly dressed and well shot as it is, by the film’s end it does start to feel like exactly what it is; a film all shot in one location. The warm amber lighting and 70’s furniture look immaculate, as does the nighttime terrace and corkscrew staircase. Its shot, by legendary cinematographer Bill Pope (“The Matrix,” “Scott Pilgrim vs. the World”) in a plain way that serves to accentuate the era its placed in.

The costumes, the set, the dialogue, the acting, its clear from the first few moments that this cast and crew know this material by heart. Performances and talent aren’t an issue here. And yet, there’s something lacking, not just in this adaptation, but in the source material itself.

Its not that the material lacks bite in our modern age, it definitely doesn’t. “Band” still excites and enthralls today just as well as it did in the 70’s. The problem is that those excitements don’t really come until about halfway through the film. Prior to that, it’s a lot of queer saying things, but signifying nothing. There are amazing moments, like when Hutchinson’s Alan first explodes, but it’s a far cry from the direction things go in the later half. One can argue that this is how it should work, a film should be more interesting as it goes, as one’s investment in the characters grows.

Yet, for some reason the first hour-ish of this 2020 “Boys in the Band” just feels like its nothing but quippy dialogue. It feels like watching a bunch of queens snap at each other while you’re waiting to get to the good stuff. It isn’t bad, it’s just passable.

Don’t misunderstand, director Joe Mantello’s (“Love! Valour! Compassion!,” “The Normal Heart”) “Boys in the Band” is still a great experience, but its not as good as the 1970 original. Those who are unfamiliar with the play in general will find this a pleasant, possibly even great, place to start, filled with terrific performances and shot gorgeously. It’s not quite as great as it could be, but its still a delightfully gay time. 3.5/5

Kajillionaire - Review

 

Miranda July’s (“Me and You and Everyone We Know,” “The Future”) films have never been what one would call “mass appeal” pieces. That’s not speaking to their quality, simply the fact that their bizarre and quirky nature isn’t something most audiences would gravitate to. However, her latest film “Kajillionaire” manages to bridge the gap, and is not only her most accessible piece yet, but a strong contender for her best.

Old Dolio, played by Evan Rachel Wood (“Westworld,” “Thirteen”), is the daughter of two con-artists; Robert, played by Richard Jenkins (“Six Feet Under,” “The Vistor”), and Theresa, played by Debra Winger (“The Ranch,” “Urban Cowboy”). This family of oddballs is immediately off putting and yet also extremely charming. They try to scrimp and save to pay their rent, while pulling off small cons like pickpocketing, rigging lost and found items, and stealing packages from PO boxes.

There’s an odd veneer of calmness to them despite their dire money situation. They live next to a cleaning company where bubbles constantly spill out of a crack in their wall, they live in an old cubicle office, and Dolio spends nights listening to hold music on her flip phone. It’s as if they live in their own world, completely cut off from the rest of society.

During one of the many earthquake tremors that rupture through California, Robert simply says “if you’re lucky, you’ll get crushed and then you’ll just die right then and there.” The anxiety of money and the vapidness of modern society is rampant throughout the film, and yet July takes an interesting approach to telling this story by not making it society’s fault.

This family could easily crawl out of their pit of debt if they managed to focus, instead of looking for cheap and quick tricks to make a buck. They’re clearly intelligent enough; they constantly keep a schedule to clean the bubble leak and have photographic memory of the bus schedules and theirs even reference to the fact that prior to the unknown event that left them destitute, Robert and Theresa were real estate agents and Robert even had a job with the military.

What turned them into their warped, paranoid selves is never mentioned, but that’s likely because it never feels like their story. While Jenkins and Winger play them with deft hands, never letting their absurdity or crackpot nature out play the dramatic moments, the film belongs to Dolio, both in plot and thanks to Wood’s performance.

This isn’t a comedic tale about wacky con-artists who shoot for the dirt, this is a story about breaking out of the binds of one’s upbringing. When the film shifts to focus almost exclusively on Dolio, it’s a turning point from absurdist humor to an introspective look at this character who becomes more fascinating with each passing moment.

Later in the film, there are numerous moments that some might call on the nose, a parenting class and a paid gig for someone to act like a mother, but for people s far removed from the typical family structure, this kind of shock to the system bluntness is clearly what’s needed. In the latter half of the film, when she’s asked why her parents are her parents, Dolio replies quickly with “We split everything three ways, we have since I was little” and its in that bluntness that the true tragedy at the center of this comedy is exposed.

Evan Rachel Wood’s performance, as well as her chemistry with also excellent mid-film addition Gina Rodriguez (“Jane the Virgin,” “Annihilation”), absolutely sells this character. It’s a showpiece for Wood’s ability to truly inhabit characters who’s lives have been less than straightforward with a gentle ease. Dolio’s journey feels a lot like watching a deer being born, she’s struggling to stand and yet so clearly wants to run, and the latter half of the film is utterly enrapturing because of it.

July’s film is shot with a clearly small budget, but its usage of ordinary locations like post offices, run down bars, and average middle-class homes lends it all a very fake sheen. It’s obviously on purpose, but it is a visual treat to watch so many of these moments play out as absurdly as they do in such normal locations.

With its electronic music and Wood’s performance, as well as the green and pink color scheme throughout, there’s a lot that can be written about the film as queer analog. The themes of breaking away from one’s parents and the way July presents it all are heartbreakingly similar to the tales of many kids who’re forced to hide of change themselves due to fears of parental abandonment. It’s a surprisingly meaty film, and in less thoughtful or skilled hands, it would’ve easily been turned into some sort of screwball comedy along the lines of 2016’s abysmal “Masterminds.”

But in the hands of a deft indie auteur like July, “Kajillionaire” is a brilliantly bizarre comedy that nears the title of masterpiece. The performances are perfection, with Evan Rachel Wood easily making the shortlist for the best performance of the year. It’s a sublime and surreal delight that might not be for everyone, but that everyone should try. 5/5

MAJOR EMOTION PICTURES Episode 4: The LEGO Movie

This is Major Emotion Pictures, a discussion show where I sit down with my fellow film loving friends and discuss movies that mean a lot to them, for better or worse. In episode 4, we'll be discussing The LEGO Movie, the 2014 animated action comedy with my guest, Aaron Clark Burstein.

Unpregnant - Review

 

As bizarre as it may seem, a comedy about abortion isn’t that unique of an idea. “Juno” and “Knocked Up” made the unplanned pregnancy funny over a decade ago and since then, numerous other films have centered around the idea; “Obvious Child,” “Saint Frances,” “Grandma,” “Palindromes,” “Polyester,” “Citizen Ruth,” and films like “Fast Times at Ridgemont High,” “Dirty Dancing,” and  “Alfie” have abortion come up within their plots.

In 2020 though, its extremely easy to see “Unpregnant” receive a whole heaping of comparisons to “Never Rarely Sometimes Always.” The plots are almost exactly the same, save for some differing locations and a clearly different tone. But, instead of comparing “Unpregnant” to that serious dramatic affair, its more aptly compared to 2018’s “Booksmart” in its tone, comedy, and winning cast.

The two leads, Haley Lu Richardson (“Support the Girls,” “Edge of Seventeen”) and Barbie Ferreira (“Euphoria”) have a perfect chemistry that flourishes as the plot requires. Their friendship never feels fake or forced, and the two play wonderfully off each other. While they are the two main roles, the supporting cast that pops up throughout their journey are virtually all scene-stealers, even if those scenes only last for a few minutes.

Breckin Meyer (“Clueless,” “Robot Chicken”) is an absolute scene-stealer as Mark, an overly devoted and antagonistic Christian father, Sugar Lyn Beard (“For a Good Time, Call…,” “Mike and Dave Need Wedding Dates”) is twitchingly creepy as his wife, Australian pop star Betty Who appears for mere moments as a wonderfully charismatic stock car driver, and Denny Love (“Looking for Alaska,” “Empire”) as a momentary kind face who helps the girls escape from the cops.

The two supporting characters who get the most screen time are Alex MacNicoll (“13 Reasons Why,” “Transparent”) as Kevin, the clueless but well-meaning boyfriend of Richardson’s character and Giancarlo Esposito (“Breaking Bad,” “The Boys”) as Bob, a limo driver. MacNicoll rides the line between well intentioned and complete idiot perfectly, until he implodes in the third act. It’s a testament to Esposito’s talent that, despite not saying much, he leaves his bizarre mark on the film and transforms into one of its most memorable characters.

If there’s anything that will draw debate as more people see the film, it’s the use of humor within the subject material. Writer/Director and Funny or Die alumni Rachel Lee Goldenberg (“A Deadly Adoption,” “Valley Girl”) and the rest of her writers Ted Caplan (“Love Sonia”), Jenni Hendriks (“How I Met Your Mother”), Jennifer Kaytin Robinson (“Someone Great”), and Bill Parker (“Billy on the Street”), adapting from Caplan and Hendricks novel, make the smart decision of forgoing any and all jokes about abortion within the film.

Despite the premise, there’s never any “dead baby” jokes or things of that nature. There is an extended and elaborate sequence that makes fun of the far extreme pro-life activists in a way that virtually borders on parody. It’s a highlight of the film thanks to its ridiculous and goofy nature, but often times the humor gives way to the more emotional conversations the film wants to have.

An initially humorous moment turns somber as Richardson screams her frustrations at the governmental system and the men behind it who’ve forced her to travel 900 miles for an abortion. Her previously mentioned boyfriend turns from a comedic idiot to a sinister force as he reveals his true colors as the film progresses. It’s a great example of using the disarming aspects of comedy to peel back and reveal some real-world frustrations.

Unfortunately, it isn’t all great. The film’s biggest flaw is, for as entertaining as its sideshow characters are, it’s a pretty routine road trip comedy, complete with the same emotional beats between the two main friends seen numerous times before. It does lead to a feeling of sameness that sets in by about halfway through, but at least it’s an entertaining sameness regardless.

“Unpregnant” may be cliched by road trip comedy standards, but its central premise, cast of characters, two leads, and use of its humor make it a surprise delight of a film. It clearly isn’t the most serious take on its topic, but there’s still a surprising amount going on underneath the candy-colored and pop music sheen. 4/5

Mulan (2020) - Review

 

It’s hard to believe that anyone out there expects the live action Disney remakes to surpass their original films. So far only one has managed to do that, 2016’s “Pete’s Dragon”, and that’s really only because the film it was based on wasn’t that great to begin with. So, how does one judge one of these remakes if not by their original source material?

Well, its actually quite simple: do the remakes try to set themselves apart from the originals? Are they like “Aladdin” or “The Lion King” where they are so obsessed with the original films that it ends up being to their detriment, or are they like “Maleficent” or “Christopher Robin”, where they take characters and worlds and turn them on their head in new ways? In the case of “Mulan”, the answer is a bit of both.

This new film is more so a new adaptation of the legend of Mulan, rather than a straight remake of the 1998 animated classic. It brings more eastern influences to the story and locations, as well as concepts of chi and witchcraft. While the overarching narrative remains the same, these smaller changes help to differentiate it from the 1998 film in nice ways.

Quite simple there are plenty of times where it doesn’t feel like a Western film. The editing is easily comparable to Chinese martial arts and wars films, with quick cuts and sword fights that happen at superhuman speeds. While they might seem a bit odd, the film fully embraces these moments, peppering them throughout the film. The discussions of honor, chi, and a woman’s place come off cheesier than the editing, mainly because they’re mentioned so frequently. It is inherent to the story, and of course a 2020 remake would double down on these themes, but it nevertheless feels like it’s just a bit too much.

Those aforementioned action moments are sweeping and epic though. Swords clash and arrows fly with wild abandon, and the excellent cinematography creates battles of great scale and action. Numerous moments that play with smoke, snow, fog, fire, and other elements billow forth to create a wonderous sense of depth and creativity on the battlefield. These fights are also great highlights for the sweeping landscapes. A 200-million-dollar budget can buy a lot of shooting time in real locations, and its used to great effect here.

Director Niki Caro’s (“The Zookeeper’s Wife,” “McFarland, USA”) decision to excise some of the more-Disneyfied elements of the original film might be the subject of debate for years to come, but in the film they work well. The inclusion of certain lyrics in regular dialogue might cause some eye rolls, but they’re nevertheless effective, and the instrumental reinterpretations of some of the songs that play underneath some important moments are stirring.

It is one of those films that does take a bit to get going. The first 10-ish minutes aren’t the films strongest, but it is important exposition for the rest of the film. This is also an odd case that every single member of the cast is good, without anyone really standing out as excellent enough to mention on their own. Yifei Liu (“Outcast,” “Hanson and the Beast”) is great as Mulan, balancing her internal struggle with her external force. Donnie Yen (“Ip Man,” “Rogue One: A Star Wars Story”) is also good as Commander Tung, the commander of Mulan’s regiment. Yoson An (“The Luminaries,” “Mortal Engines”) as Chen, the soldier who befriends Mulan, is also good without really standing out.

The few cast members worth mentioning in particular are Jason Scott Lee (“Lilo and Stitch,” “Seventh Son”) as the scenery chewing villain Bori Khan, who’s performance isn’t so much good as it is overacting in the best way. Gong Li (“Raise the Red Lantern,” “The Story of Qui Ju”) as the witch Xian Lang provides the most depth in the film outside of Mulan, and the scenes the two share together are rich with tension and chemistry. Jet Li (“Kiss of the Dragon,” “Hero”) seems miscast as the Emperor, lathered in old age makeup and seeming as though he’s putting on an “old man” voice for the while film. He isn’t in it that much, so it isn’t a huge issue, but it is an odd choice.

Thankfully, the new “Mulan” manages to be in a rare class of live-action Disney films that differentiates itself from its original film rather than trying to simply replicate it. There are some hokier moments and some editing and shooting choices won’t be for everyone, but its hard to deny that the film simply works on a fundamental and earnest level that few other live-action Disney films do. It’s not perfection, but its quite the adventure. 3.5/5

Tenet - Review

 

Christopher Nolan is a director near impossible to review. Not because his films are unworthy of your time or they are bulletproof to criticism. Most, if not all, are based around such tightrope acts of delirious plotting and high concept action. He makes the thinking man’s blockbuster, and with “Tenet” he’s created, for better or worse, his most cerebral and ambitious project yet.

John David Washington (“BlacKkKlansman,” “Ballers”) stars as The Protagonist, the lead character who goes without a name for the entire film. He’s cool and collected, giving off the same gravitas that one might expect from a James Bond type spy, yet he’s also not afraid to express when he (often) has no idea what is happening, allowing the audience a small semblance of solitude as, if he doesn’t know what’s happening, neither do they.

Robert Pattinson (“Twilight,” “The Lighthouse”) is his handler, Neil, and the pair have great chemistry as they loop through the events of the film, shutting themselves off from quips when it comes time to get work done and allowing an easy rapport to evolve off the clock. Elizabeth Debicki (“Widows (2018),” “The Night Manager”) is also great as Kat, an art appraiser and abused wife of Kenneth Branagh’s (“Dunkirk,” “Hamlet (1996)”) antagonist Sator.

Debicki’s performance is the most uneven, mostly due to the whiplash her character goes through. She’s without a doubt the character who knows the least of what’s going on, and it shows in her performance, for better or worse. Branagh, meanwhile, is chewing up the scenery with a thick faux Russian accent and long philosophical monologues throughout the film. He’s certainly doing a lot of acting here.

From a technical standpoint, “Tenet” is an absolute beast to behold. Like his previous films, Nolan is a stickler for using as little CGI as possible. That would normally make scenes like a Boeing 747 crashing into an airport free point thrilling enough but knowing that this and numerous other sequences were filmed multiple times, syncing everything up to get the flow of time mechanic of the film just right is mindboggling.

It’s a film full of technical wizardry. Smoke is sucked back into the ground as people fire guns normally. Even just a simple moment where the Protagonist steps into a puddle, only to have it splash in reverse as he moves forward is incredible. The music is also exceptional. Composer Ludwig Göransson (“Black Panther,” “Creed”) continues his meteoric rise to the top of every filmmaker’s most wanted list and delivers a stirring score in both the calmest and most pulse pounding sequences.

From a technical standpoint, “Tenet” is immaculate. However, its in the plot that things get far stickier. No plot information will be given outside of what little is detailed in the film’s trailers but suffice it to say this is Nolan’s most ambitious film narrative yet. It’s the kind of movie that you might understand when its over, but if you were asked to explain it, it would be nye impossible.

This means it lacks the sort of easy explanations of films like “Inception” or “Interstellar.” Not only that, but both of those films were also easily digestible to audiences because their concepts were doled out much more slowly as the film went on. They didn’t differ in density, merely were explained more slowly. “Tenet” doesn’t hold your hand at all, even in the sound mixing department, merely throwing you headfirst into its action and saying, “try to keep up.”

For some, this will work. If you’re into the kind of films where you throw your hands up and succumb to the experience, “Tenet” will be thrilling. By the end it does make sense, in its own way, and yet there are still massive gaps in the plot that don’t so much feel like a director inviting the audience to piece it together, but more a director saying, “If you don’t get it, I can’t help.”

It’s an auteur blockbuster film if there ever was such a thing. It’s a film that is so clearly one man’s vision, with no compromises. Even if you don’t understand what’s happening, its impossible not to get swept up in the action as it unfolds, as its truly like nothing else that has come before in cinema.

Yes, it has more than its fair share of “holy shit” moments of realization, but its also the kind of film that reminds what’s possible with the medium of film. Love it or hate it, a movie like this could only exist now, with today’s technology and today’s movie audiences.

In its own special way, “Tenet” is a fabulous reminder of the magic of the movies; when a creator is given free reign to do whatever they want, money and logic be damned. It helps that Nolan has some great actors and technical merits to back up his most bonkers story yet, and whether or not you like it, its inarguable that you won’t forget “Tenet.” 4/5

I'm thinking of ending things - Review

 

Charlie Kaufman’s (“Being John Malkovich,” “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind”) movies have never ever been for the faint of heart. While there are some that are more mainstream and easily digestible, like “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind” and “Anomalisa,” there are also films like “Synecdoche, New York” that are beloved by film fans and virtually impossible to be enjoyed by the average cinema goer.

“i’m thinking of ending things” is the latest from Kaufman, adapted from the novel of the same name by Iain Reid. To classify the film’s genre is actually more straight forward than his past films, as this one veers far more into psychological thriller or even horror territory than his past works. Even at his most depressing in “Synecdoche” or “Anomalisa,” Kaufman blends his works with a wry sense of black humor that are unmistakable when compared to his contemporaries.

His directing style here is minimalist, almost like he’s mixing Wes Anderson’s static shots and lateral movements with David Cronenberg’s sense of dread and darkness. It makes for a purposefully uncomfortable viewing experience that feels more like you’re being dragged along for the ride, rather than experiencing it alongside the characters.

Those characters are all extremely fascinating in ways that are impossible to parse while the film is happening, but thanks to some incredible performances, not once can you tear yourself away from them. Jesse Plemons (“Other People,” “Friday Night Lights”) is the only named character, Jake, a young man taking his girlfriend to visit his parents for the first time. His performance teeters on neurotic and self-aggrandizing but is an absolute powerhouse throughout the entire film. Jessie Buckley (“Chernobyl,” “Wild Rose”) is Jake’s girlfriend, and delivers a triumphant performance that makes her an easy frontrunner for an Oscar.

Toni Collette (“Muriel’s Wedding,” “Hereditary”), as Jake’s mother, continues to mine her newly minted middle-aged scream queen status by turning in a truly bizarre role that is equal parts endearing and absolutely unnerving. David Thewlis (“Anomalisa,” “Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban”), as Jake’s father, is a slow and quiet counterpart to Collette, but is nevertheless fascinating to watch. Guy Boyd (“The Young Pope,” “The Loudest Voice”) plays a janitor that seemingly doesn’t do much of anything and yet does everything by the end.

There’s almost no way to review this film. You can easily talk about the physical makeup of its construction; how it looks, sounds, how the actors are, how the dialogue is, but at the end of the day all of that is thrown out the window if the final product somehow doesn’t coalesce into one finished piece. “ending things” somehow does and doesn’t.

It’s the perfect masterpiece of a singular vision, one that begs to be discussed for weeks after the first viewing is over with. Kaufman’s master control over the pace and tension of the film means that nary a moment goes where he doesn’t have a firm grip on the audience’s attention. Yet, numerous moments throughout the film cause nothing but a “What the fuck?” reaction. Nothing is explained, yet everything is fascinating.

So where does it lie in terms of quality? How can a critic judge a work like this? Everything is expertly constructed, placed in each scene verbally and physically with the precision of a surgeon. Is the point of it to create discussion? Is it purposefully confusing or just meant to be open to interpretation?

This is without a doubt one of Kaufman’s most intense and enveloping films. It’ll be discussed for months, and it’ll never really leave the viewers head. Some aspect will still be there, be it the performances, the music, the cinematography, or any number of the philosophical ideas and time paradoxes it presents. It is a boldly original work that defies the “one and done” viewing attributed to disposable cinema, and even the “I’ll see it in theatres twice” suggestion purported by critical darlings or Oscar bait pieces.

But still. How do you judge a work without knowing what the work is?

The best answer I can give is, you don’t.