The Reel Life's Best of the Decade (2010-2019)

Jacob DiLandro counts down his top 20 favorite films of the past decade, with some honorable mentions thrown in for good measure.

Never Rarely Sometimes Always - Review

 

One of the hardest things a filmmaker can do is create a story outside of a political agenda. Think of the silliest, most bizarre films out there and they likely have some inkling of political commentary: “Raising Arizona” wouldn’t have happened if convicts didn’t lose so many rights once they were released, “The LEGO Movie” has a lot to say about corporations and social influencing, and “The Invisible Man (2020)” and “Halloween (2018)” are both tales of women surviving abuse and not being believed by the justice system.

So, to create a film that not only feels politically autonomous, but to be so autonomous while having a story about such a politically charged subject is either the mark of a master filmmaker or someone in way over their head. Luckily, writer/director Eliza Hittman (“Beach Rats”) clearly knows what she’s doing, and “Never Rarely Sometimes Always” ends up being a near perfect film.

Its incredible how little dialogue is in “Always,” instead just letting the audience members sit with the characters, taking in their journey and situation alongside them. This is a textbook example of “show, don’t tell,” instead of Autumn telling her cousin how she feels or how upset she is, it’s clearly visible in the way she interacts with the world and reacts to things as they come to her. You don’t need to be told how a situation has affected her, you can feel it too.

That’s a testament not just to the excellent direction from Hittman, but to the performances from these two leads; Sidney Flanigan and Talia Ryder, both in their film debuts. Their chemistry and friendship is immediately palpable, and it’s the lifeblood of the film. There is no other way to describe their performances other than perfection. Ryder might lean a bit more towards an outgoing side and Flanigan is the more “lead” actress, but both do such an incredible job together its virtually impossible to separate them.

Most will likely not like this film for a number of reasons, one of the biggest being that it is a slow movie. Things really take their time to happen, and it is a film that exists outside of a strict plot structure. “Always” isn’t a film where you ask yourself “does this scene matter more than this other scene?” because they’re all parts of a whole. As cheesy as it might sound, this is less a film and more so an experience.

This is bolstered by some great an inobtrusive cinematography from Hélène Louvart (“The Milk of Human Kindness,” “Pina 3D”) and music from Julia Holter (“Pure,” “Bleed for This”). Holter’s music fades in and out to compliment moments, not to provide a thumping score, and its used to beautiful effect to point out very specific moments within Autumn’s journey. Likewise, while Louvart’s cinematography is for the most part simple, there are specific moments where she deliberately uses Autumn’s attention and a focus away from the moments within ultrasounds and operating rooms to further accentuate her feelings.

Numerous moments throughout the film some might find shocking or upsetting, and question why nothing is done about them. To discuss those specific moments would be to get into spoiler territory but suffice it to say that Hittman has these moments here because, for moment girls and women, that’s how the world is. It’s brutal and shocking and upsetting, but Autumn and Skylar just have to deal with it, like so many other women in the world do. That unflinching commitment to realism might turn some away, as it contributes to the slow pace, but it just further cements the film as an absolute masterclass.

“Never Rarely Sometimes Always” is without a doubt the first truly great film of the year. While there may have been other good movies and ones that will enter the best of the year conversation come December, this is a movie that is virtually guaranteed to be on those lists. From the script to the direction to the acting to the music and cinematography, this is virtually a masterpiece through and through. 5/5

The Hunt (2020) - Review

 

Satire noun

The use of humor, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people's stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues. (Oxford English Dictionary)

Going purely off of the definition of the genre, “The Hunt” is, without a doubt, a satire. It uses its semi-horror movie setting and over the top violence to satirize the massive divide between the two political camps that exist in American politics today; the elite, snobby liberals and the down to earth, dirt covered conservatives. Are there people somewhere in between? Who knows, because according to Director Craig Zobel (“Westworld,” “Z for Zachariah”) and writers Nick Cuse (“Maniac,” “Watchmen (2019)”) and Damon Lindelof’s (“Westworld,” “Watchmen (2019)”) new satire, who cares?

While the idea of turning the current debate on American gun control into a film taking the model of the classic short story “The Most Dangerous Game” seems novel at first glance, the film doesn’t seem to be about that. Despite the writers citing it as an adaptation of that story, and it having an almost verbatim setup, this kind of an idea is thrown out the window by the time the film starts. It abandoning its original idea doesn’t even crack the film’s top five biggest problems though.

For starters, the film takes far longer than it should to do just that, start. The first 20 minutes flip flop between protagonists until it finally lands on the one who can stay alive the longest, Betty Gilpin’s (“GLOW,” “Nurse Jackie”) Crystal. Her set jaw and country drawl aren’t the least bit convincing or engaging. She resembles the imagined worst-case scenario for female leads for films like “Terminator: Dark Fate” or “Captain Marvel.” She’s just not that charismatic or engaging, speaking with an incredibly quiet growl, with near superhuman levels of foresight, only occasionally spouting out of tone jokes and physical comedy gags. The tonal whiplash that these gags cause might be necessary to just keep audiences awake.

Even if she was a charismatic lead (she isn’t), she isn’t the least bit interesting. She gains the least background and character building in the film, and by the time it’s revealed why, the reasoning is on par with a 10am rerun of “Days of Our Lives.” Its shockingly poor, causing a moment of silence as if the audience is waiting for her to stare at the camera and say “Sike.” She also is apathetic to the events as they proceed, frequently repeating the same line as new information is learned: “I don’t care.”

Now, while Crystal’s character and arc might be the biggest issue, the violence is not far behind. For a film that seems to market itself on its horror/thriller aspects, it’s hard to see annoying being scared or thrilled by the proceedings. What’s here either plays out like a bad episode of “The Walking Dead,” with stilted effects and cheap looking gore, or holds back on the goods, hiding exploding heads behind doors or wide shots. The few moments of gruesome violence that are here are played for laughs, which is incredibly confusing given the film’s messages and leads to its most glaring flaw.

If Zobel, Cuse and Lindelof wanted to make an overly violent thriller, that’s fine. If they wanted to make a satire on American politics, that’s fine too. But mixing the two together seems to have been the ultimate mistake, at least with this execution. Early on there’s a gag about a young woman falling into a pit of spikes, being impaled and being rescued. She is then blown up and falls back in the pit of spikes, this time with her intestines out and her legs missing. She asks a nearby ally to shoot her to put her out of her misery and when he refuses, she grabs the gun from him, calls him a pussy, and shoots herself.

Its genuinely uncomfortable to watch, given that this is a character that we’ve been endeared to so far in the film. Its not possible to laugh at the moment due to the context that she’s being hunted and brutally murdered for no apparent reason, and it’s hard to gather if the moment is trying to make a point due to how incredibly uncomfortable and overly violent it is.

The best way to explain why “The Hunt” fails so spectacularly is to compare it to a longstanding piece of satirical history; Jonathan Swift’s “A Modest Proposal.” Swift writes in the piece that, in order to solve Ireland’s issues with a lack of food and money, that poor families should start eating and selling babies. He does include in the piece moments where he describes which cuts of a newborn are the most delicious, but at no point is it ever mistaken for seriousness. “The Hunt” is so concerned with being taken seriously, that it fails to remember that to be an effective satirical work, it has to show how ridiculous its events are.

So frequently the film employs traditional and outplayed horror film violence that it obscures any point that could’ve been made. Also, given that the film spends so much time talking about guns and violence, it’s still baffling that its point isn’t about gun control in any way.

A work of satire should evoke some emotion in the viewer. It should empower those who agree with its points and anger those who don’t. If a film is setting out to be satirical and, when credits roll, the reaction from its audience is the same as its apathetic and droll main character (“I don’t care.”) the satirical elements, and by extension the film, has fundamentally failed. Its virtually impossible to see anyone on either side caring about this hunt. 1/5

Onward - Review

 

Once, there was magic in the world. It enchanted people across the lands with exuberant sights of fancy and tales of brave heroes and great sacrifice. And most of that magic came from a studio called Pixar. While their tracked record is still a cut above most, it’s easy to immediately think “It’ll never be as good or inventive as their originals,” at almost anything the studio has released post 2010.

However, there is something to be said for a tale that might recycle its overall plot in favor of cultivating a gooey emotional center. Those big beating hearts at the center of their films are what make most audiences put their butts in seats still to this day. That’s what “Onward” coasts on and what makes it a cut above.

The urban fantasy stylings, while it may be “Bright” by way of Disney, are what visually set the world apart though. Thankfully, while they may not be anything particularly new nowadays, writer/director Dan Scanlon (“Monsters University,” “Mater and the Ghostlight”) makes sure that these elements are more than window dressings.

Lighting is a huge wonder in this film, with neon signs and streetlamps juxtaposing brilliantly against cobblestone and the green haze of enchanted woods. The urban fantasy elements factor into every facet of the plot and make this feel like a tale that could only be told via this vibrant and fairly goofy animated world. It also wears the D&D inspirations on its sleeve, just likes its brotherly heart, and it’s all the better for it.

Tom Holland (“The Lost City of Z,” “Spider-Man: Far From Home”) and Chris Pratt (“Guardians of the Galaxy,” “her”) have excellent chemistry together as brothers Ian and Barley and that chemistry and emotional connection makes for the film’s biggest and best quality. There is no single moment wherein the love between these brothers does not seep off the screen. Scanlon doesn’t make their journey easy yet doesn’t fall into typical tropes like “the liar revealed” or “if we only just talked to each other.”

The bumps feel organically navigated, and neither feels too much like a stereotype. Yes, Ian is nervous and shy, yet he isn’t just as shy at home or around family and his desire to break free of his emotional crutches is seen throughout. Likewise, Barley isn’t just a bumbling oaf, as he has his own set of skills and is just as smart as his brother, yet in different ways.

Julia Louis-Dreyfus (“Seinfeld,” “Veep”) and Octavia Spencer (“Hidden Figures,” “Snowpiercer”) don’t get material as emotionally rich but are still very funny. Spencer’s Corey has her journey played mostly for laughs and while there’s clearly the inklings of an emotional breakthrough for Dreyfus’s Laurel, the mother of Barley and Ian, it just doesn’t have the same amount of screen time associated with it. Shoutouts go to Mel Rodriguez (“The Last Man on Earth,” “Overboard (2018)”) as Colt Bronco, one of the best mostly comedic characters Pixar has had in a long while, as well as Kyle Bornheimer (“Marriage Story,” “Timmy Failure: Mistakes Were Made”) and Tracy Ullman (“The Tracey Ullman Show,” “Small Time Crooks”) as the masters of doing great work with minimal screen time.

The film’s biggest struggles are completely plot based, as it does two things that are pretty annoying and make the plot much more obvious for attentive moviegoers. There’s a particular method in which the plot of the film is effectively telegraphed within the first 20 minutes, and while by the end it manages to be turned on its head, it doesn’t save the fact that it ends up resulting in a much more predictable adventure than what otherwise could have been.

Also, the film’s last 5 minutes seem as if they were added in after the film was already completed, as they serve more as putting all the ducks in a row in too short of a fashion, with some callbacks that feel incredibly weak compared to the ones implemented earlier in the film.

All of these issues are easy to point out after the fact because the thing that distracts the audience from them, the chemistry and love that radiates from the film’s center, only exists while watching the film. It’s the eternal struggle, as these issues are only truly apparent after the film is over, not during it.

None of these issues could mask what is a beautiful and emotional adventure from Pixar. While more formulaic than the studio’s other works, “Onward” knows where to put its time and energy to best make the emotional arcs work as opposed to creating something wholly original. That’s where is succeeds and passes with flying colors.

Only time will tell where exactly “Onward” falls in comparison with the other Pixar works, but as a film on its own, this is an emotionally powerful and gorgeous realized adventure choked full of clichés and charm, making for something big, goofy, warm and inviting. It’s also makes it virtually impossible to leave the theatre without your heart in high spirits. 4/5

First Cow - Review

 

If you know the name Kelly Reichardt (“Meek’s Cutoff,” “Night Moves”), you know exactly what kind of movie “First Cow” is going to be. The screenwriter/director has made a career out of telling stories set in the American Midwest, in various different time periods, and this is no exception.

There’s a thick fog that seems to linger over every aspect of “First Cow.” The sets, dialogue, characters, events. It all has a very authentic feeling, one of those films where it genuinely comes across as if the actors and director were the only ones on set. It lives and dies on its atmosphere, and luckily Reichardt has injected a wry sense of wit and critique into this gold rush era tale.

John Magaro (“Not Fade Away,” “The Umbrella Academy”) stars as Cookie, a former indentured cook who just wants to make people happy and serve them good food. He has an apathetic nature to him that just begs you to fall in love with him. His warmth and kind nature shines through the entire film, and his gentle soul is simply a delight. He’s the kind of character that makes you smile simply by smiling himself.

His friend and business partner King-Lu, played by Orion Lee (“Only You,” “Chimerica”), is equally interesting. He’s far more blunt than Cookie, and his is the eye for business. Yet, as much as they disagree on the reasons behind their business, their love for each other is real. It has been a long time since a friendship has been portrayed so honestly and easily as it is here.

Yes, while King-Lu wants to make money, he also wants people to buy their food so his friend can continue to make it, and this is absolutely clear. As much as Cookie just wants to cook for people, it takes King-Lu to bring him around and help him become a bit more outgoing, and you feel for these two every moment they’re together.

The supporting cast helps maintain Reichardt’s somewhat serious, somewhat comedic tone authentically. Toby Jones (“Infamous,” “Captain America: The First Avenger”) plays a British aristocrat always a few steps behind everyone else and Ewen Bremner (“Trainspotting,” “Wonder Woman (2017)”) plays a somewhat bumbling and self-aggrandizing Scottish guardsman for Jones’s aristocrat. They’re excellent, helping to maintain the tonal shifts as the film moves from a slightly bent heist story to a more serious tale of survival.

This is where the biggest trouble comes with reviewing a film like “First Cow.” It is a slow film, often times with characters simply going through the motions and living their lives. We aren’t even introduced to what the central concept of the film is for about 20-25 minutes. And yet, despite the deliberately slow pace, things never feel like a drag.

It might be because of Reichardt’s script or just the chemistry between Magaro and Lee, but this is simply one of those films that fun to watch because you want to spend time with the main characters. You grow to care about them. It virtually fails to provide anything resembling a traditional “plot”, but it nevertheless tells their tale efficiently, even if it does lack a real ending.

Maybe this was the point, and it seems like it very well might have been. It’s a gorgeous looking film regardless of plot however. The forests and gold rush era setting dazzle with their authenticity and it becomes a nice respite to a time of simpler visual aesthetics. Cinematographer Christopher Blauvelt (“Meek’s Cutoff,” “mid90s”) uses the 4:3 aspect ratio simply and effectively, blending some great shot construction and depth work with the dream-like oldness of the setting.

“First Cow” is a slow film that somehow doesn’t feel slow thanks to the chemistry between its lead actors. Its easy to nitpick it apart, but what Reichardt has delivered is an enjoyable tale with dreamlike qualities and a non-standard plot that just wants to be about why people love food and why capitalism can be a killer. It’s a quaint film, nothing less and nothing more, and its all the better for it. 4/5

The Invisible Man (2020) - Review

 

In the world post Tom Cruise’s “Mummy” reboot, anything even remotely connected to the Universal classic monster movies is likely going to be scoffed at. However, this low-budget and modernized take on H.G. Wells’ tale “The Invisible Man” has both the acting and creative potential to pull off a satisfying surprise.

Unquestionably, the film’s groundwork is built off Elizabeth Moss’s (“The Square (2017),” “Us”) performance. Cecilia the kind of roll where if you don’t believe her, the entire film falls apart. Luckily, she’s delivering some great stuff here, balancing a performance that could have been too overpowering or too weak. It’s a great middle of the road between someone who’s put in such an intense scenario but still has their wits about them and she absolutely nails it.

Her ability to act against nothing is the crowning achievement. While most films nowadays have actors talking to tennis balls on sticks or puppets that stand-in for computer generated creations, her ability to act against legitimate nothingness and sell it is astonishing. The supporting cast is great as well, with Harriet Dyer (“No Activity,” “Down Under”) and Storm Reid (“A Wrinkle In Time (2018),” “euphoria”) providing small semblances of normalcy and Aldis Hodge (“Brian Banks,” “Straight Outta Compton”) stealing virtually every scene he’s in thanks to a commanding presence.

Writer/Director Leigh Whannell (“Upgrade (2018),” “Saw”) is likely most famous for creating the “Saw” franchise with James Wan, but “Invisible” is much closer to his 2018 film “Upgrade” in that it thrives on technical innovations on its startlingly small budget. Silence is key here, as is large areas filled with nothing, and Whannell clearly does not take the easy way out in constructing this terrifying tale.

Multiple sequences take place in locations filled with stark colored lighting, mirrors or giant windows. It’s a technical feat that works because it services the scares, not scares that service the technology. Cinematographer Stefan Duscio (“Sweetheart,” “Upgrade”) frames these moments with sharp angular camera movement and wide shots that often sit in corners, further isolating the characters and the audience. It absolutely helps that a faint, almost ethereal soundtrack from composer Benjamin Wallfisch (“Blade Runner 2049,” “Shazam!”) underscores every moment.

Its not a completely seamless experience, however. This is clearly a different kind of horror film than “Halloween” or even “Us.” It’s a slow burn and that leads to the first half of the movie being the most boring. Not that its bad, far from it: the character work done to build Cecilia into a believable protagonist who you care about is integral to the kind of story Whannell is trying to tell, and it’s necessary.

It just means that the first half of the film is the slowest and least intense, but Whannell more than makes up for it because when the twists and scares start to flow with reckless abandon in the second half, not only do they work because they’re scary, they work because they’re earned. It doesn’t mean the film is too good for some more obvious jumps and loud music cues, it just means that they’re in the minority.

Given that the film is about a woman being “haunted” by her abusive ex, its easy to see the allegorical through lines underneath the entire story. It isn’t even so much that these are undertones, they’re very clearly overtones, however, it doesn’t seem like the film’s biggest idea is a social one. Unlike horror films like “Us” or “Get Out,” these elements are there to build the genre thrills and aren’t the main focus.

This doesn’t mean that they’re disrespectful or poorly done though, far from it. It’s very easy to see articles and papers based on the themes of abuse, PTSD, and survivor’s guilt that course through the film. It might not be the focus, but its still handled extremely well. It’s also the hallmark of a successful reimaging: bringing it into the modern day with modern themes without overpowering the original material.

This new “Invisible Man” has all the scares and thrills one could want, backed up by some phenomenal technical innovations and social themes and overtones throughout. Moss nails her performance, cementing this as a modern reimaging that, while slow at the start, easily earns its place amongst the rest of the invisible men. 4/5

The Call of the Wild (2020) - Review

 

To many, “The Call of the Wild” is just another one of those “gung-ho America” books that was required during middle school, like “Little House on the Prairie” or “Hatchet.” The true legacy of the classic novel is likely lost on many growing up today, so it makes sense to change it some to fit the expectations of modern-day audiences. And while this version…isn’t awful, it doesn’t nearly live up to the source material.

Harrison Ford (“Star Wars,” “Raiders of the Lost Ark”) is likely the sole reason a lot of people unfamiliar with the novel will be seeing this film. His gruff attitude with a heart of gold helps his performance as John Thorton emerge as one of few inarguably good things about this adaptation. His smile beams through his beard and the numerous moments involving him shouting with pure elation at finding gold or a giant fish make it hard not to smile.

However, he’s only in the second half of the film, and his co-star for that second half is Buck, the completely CGI dog, with Terry Notary (“Avengers: Infinity War,” “Kong Skull Island”) providing the movements via CGI. Without even getting into the quality of the CGI, Buck represents a humongous problem with the film. Every vista, animal, beautiful mountain, etc. is completely computer generated. It robs the film from feeling like the awe-inspiring visual feast that the previous adaptations so supremely nailed. It doesn’t matter how good the CGI is, when Ford looks over a sweeping vista with Buck by his side, it looks just off enough to spoil the entire affair.

It wouldn’t have worked as well even if it was good CGI, and it definitely isn’t. While some moments and animals look better than others, a majority of the time the environments are so bright and pristine, they end up looking like satirical versions of the land their mean to emulate. They just look too pretty.

Buck meanwhile looks like an early PlayStation 3 game. He’s just simply too cartoony looking, practically rolling his eyes at the camera like he’s in “The Office” half the time. The decision to make him a lovable oaf who messes up half the time also undercuts some incredibly serious moments. It’s hard to think that there’s any real danger to a sled dog team when half the time Buck is tripping over his own feet and being comically dragged behind the rest of the team.

Sure, he is cute, but it’s hard not to watch his lower effort CGI body prance around and not think of the most recent “Planet of the Apes” trilogy. Those films also utilized motion capture and maintained a startling level of realism that, had it not been achieved, would have made the films collapse.

Early on in this film, Buck is captured and confronted with a dog seller with a nasty club. Buck tries to escape and is hit fairly hard on the head with that club. The main, adorable dog of this film was hit with a club by a clearly antagonistic character. And the audience was silent. Not whimpers from the kids in the crowd or gasps or crying, nothing.

Because at the end of the day, it doesn’t matter how good the effects are if it sells the emotion and characters. The ones used here just don’t. Director Chris Sanders (“Lilo & Stitch,” “How to Train Your Dragon”) and screenwriter Michael Green (“Logan,” “Blade Runner 2049”) have both worked on effects heavy movies before that focus on the odd couple pairing shown here with Buck and Ford. Yet the emotion here is boiled down to cartoony levels of absurdism. Ford doesn’t even appear until the second half of the film, and before then it’s a bizarre mixture of intense dog fights and weird physical comedy via mail delivery.

Even an intense moment involving a frozen river is undercut as it ends on an elaborate joke. When Ford shows up, it doesn’t immediately go away. There are multiple moments where guns are pulled, and characters are in life or death peril and yet there’s nothing to feel. A supposedly threatening antagonist is laughably acted by Dan Stevens (“Downton Abbey,” “Beauty and the Beast (2017)”) and by the time his arc is introduced for the climatic finale of this calm nature novel, all bets are out the window.

Despite having a lot of visual problems, most of the story issues can be forgiven if you just want a simple movie that looks nice and you’ll forget about in a week. Ford is reliably charming here, and the film is over in just under 100 minutes. For those looking for an adaptation that captures the harsh reality of the novel, give it a pass. This is a film for those just looking for some over-glossed escapism. It isn't bad, just bland and passable. 2.5/5

Sonic the Hedgehog (2020) - Review

 

Sonic has had quite a few ups, downs, and loop-de-loops over the past 29 years, and the official first design of his film version definitely ranks up there with the biggest missteps of the franchise. However, thanks to a quick redesign and a more faithful approach to the character, he actually seems to physically resemble the speedster beloved by all. Thankfully, the similarities to the iconic character are more than just physical.

Ben Schwartz (“Parks and Recreation,” “This Is Where I Leave You”) delivers a fun and energetic version of the blue blur that is right on par with the 90’s cartoons and video games. He has a wit as quick as his feet and a childish personality that feels right at home with the character. The small changes, like the more outsider personality, fit snuggly into the characterization that Sega has been perfecting for decades.

He really is so easy to love, and his charming characterization is the big fat beating heart of the entire film. Meanwhile James Marsden (“Westworld,” “X-Men”) proves that, despite his previous attempts, the human sidekick in this sub-genre of CG creature and human duo road trip films doesn’t have to suck.

He’s earnest and means well, and thankfully is never shown to be an idiot. The same goes for his wife, played by Tika Sumpter (“Get On Up,” “Gossip Girl”). While their screen time together is brief it shows how easy it is for a film to avoid making the human characters so annoying; make it seem like they actually enjoy being around each other.

And who could possibly forget about Jim Carrey (“Ace Ventura Pet Detective,” “The Truman Show”) as Doctor Ivan Robotnik. This whizbang maniacal doctor is without a doubt the best character in the film outside of Sonic. The way in which he beams through each line, dripping with cartoony menace, makes his moments the most manic moments of the film. He’s also the perfect encapsulation of the film as a whole.

Because while the characters are nailed and the re-design works oh so well, the film’s humor has some hits and just a few misses while the plot is shockingly cliched. That’s not to say that the mere presence of a character as charming as Sonic necessitates Oscar worthy material, but the unoriginality of the plot delivered by writers Patrick Casey (“Golan The Insatiable”) and Josh Miller (“Golan the Insatiable”) is genuinely surprising.

While the action never disappoints and the scenes where Sonic lets loose are an absolute blast, the tale of a loner who wants to fit in, find a friend, and teaches his reluctant sidekick something about family is incredibly redundant. There are also moments of product placement that, while expected for a film like this, are shockingly obvious. An early mention of Zillow seems innocuous enough, but then multiple mentions of Olive Garden are so bizarrely in your face that they border on parody. Thankfully, these moments are in the minority.

It’s the individual scenes and sequences of humor within that plot are where the film excels, but it’s hard to ignore something so recycled from other family films of better and worse quality. The jokes here are good, with only a few groan worthy lines here and there. It isn’t Shakespeare and it definitely has its fair share of fart and “meme” gags, but it’s hard not to smile at the childlike silliness that is at the core of the film.

This is the perfect example of a film for the fans. If you’ve ever played a Sonic game or consider the character to be a part of your childhood, then you won’t be disappointed here. Director Jeff Fowler (“Gopher Broke”) and the writers have done an excellent job translating the attitude of this character to the big screen, and while it isn’t very original, it’ll satisfy fans young and old alike. Meanwhile, if you’ve never touched a Genesis and think a Chaos Emerald is some kind of drug, this isn’t the movie for you.

“Sonic the Hedgehog” is a burst of silly energy carried by some energetic performances and a sense of childlike humor and speed. While its plot is shockingly unoriginal at times and the humor isn’t always consistent, it nails who this character is and why so many people love him. It’s a delightful adventure for those who hold the blue blur close to their hearts. It’s hard to ask for more than that. 3.5/5

Farmageddon: A Shaun the Sheep Movie - Review

It’s hard to ever fault Aardman Animation. Even when they don’t reach the high water mark of “Chicken Run” or “Wallace and Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit,” then still end up turning out movies that are either remarkably smarter than they first seem (“Flushed Away”) or have gallons of heart and emotion to spare (“Shaun the Sheep Movie”). While this sequel to the 2015 almost-silent film hit is still funny, it lacks in one particular area the previous film excelled.

Shaun and his flock of wooly friends are as hilarious as ever. The silent film antics Aardman often employs in Shaun’s various adventures continue to delight here. Whether it’s misunderstandings over the proper feed for the sheep or over a new hay bailer, the comedy flows freely throughout this adventure. There are also just as many smaller touches as there are in any Aardman film. The studio’s trademark visual style of leaving in smaller imperfections, such as thumbprints on the characters’ clay bodies or the holes in their eyes from where they were placed with toothpicks, is still ridiculously charming and leaves the impact that you really are watching something made by hand.

Aardman has never really gone for broke when it comes to their films, unlike studios like Laika, and this is no exception. First time directors Will Becher and Richard Phelan keep the film breezily moving along and focusing on smaller comedic moments to keep the sub-90-minute runtime feeling energetic. Moments in a supermarket with an interstellar belch are just one of many highlights.

Speaking of interstellar, yes, this film features an alien finding its way to Shaun’s rural U.K. farm home, and this little creature, referred to as Lu-La, is absolutely adorable. She’s a delight, mischievous and also homesick, setting the adorable-meter off mere moments after being introduced.

Things do get surprisingly intense in the third act, though no one ever really feels in harm’s way. The Aardman style of visuals and humor hardly ever shows much menace, let alone in Shaun’s world. It doesn’t reach the heights of creepy intensity of “Curse of the Were-Rabbit” and the final “battle” is instead yet another excuse to showcase some great visual gags and set pieces.

This is where the biggest criticism of the film comes into play. While every moment of Shaun’s intergalactic adventure is enjoyable, it feels lacking in one aspect that the first Shaun film did so well. Despite the lack of language, with the film being reduced to all manner of baa’s and grunts, the emotional through line of the first film was surprisingly heart wrenching, bringing audiences to tears numerous times throughout its plot. It was and remains one of the most unexpectedly emotional animated films of the last decade.

“Farmageddon” simply doesn’t have that. It does have a much smaller emotional arc, but it doesn’t feel nearly as inventive of unique as the first film’s and ends up being kind of a letdown. What this means is that instead of being the complete package of witty humor and heart wrenching emotion, “Farmageddon” is merely just really really exceptionally funny and clever.

There’s nothing wrong with that, not in the slightest. It breezes by and ends up delivering just as much twee humor for the whole family as could be possible in this format. After all, it’s not very often that a film exists where the little kids can understand it just as well as the grownups. However, given how strong the first film’s emotional arc was, it’s disappointing that this film ends up being only just exceptionally witty. Although, an Aardman film that’s a bit lacking is still leaps and bounds ahead of pretty much anything Hollywood animation is churning out. 4/5

Birds of Prey - Review

 

She’s definitely got moxy. That’s one thing nobody will argue against when it comes to Dr. Harlene Quinzel, aka Harley Quinn, the kooky ex-girlfriend of the Joker and general hell raiser in her own right. Despite appearing like a lost puppy looking for the Joker in the celluloid turd that was “Suicide Squad,” the past decade of comics, television, and animated films have been spent establishing Harley as a force all by herself. Thankfully, “Birds of Prey” continues the streak DC started with “Shazam!” by providing a delightfully zany and scatterbrained anti-hero adventure.

Margot Robbie (“The Wolf of Wall Street,” “I, Tonya”), who’s also a producer on the film, clearly loves Harley. Her performance here is leagues above “Suicide Squad.” She cracks wise to the camera, flips the narrative around when it suits her, and constantly narrates scribbles and words across the screen. She’s a delight for every moment she’s on screen and her arc is quite impressive. Themes of “working together” come full circle by the time the rest of the team shows up, and Harley has made legitimate changes and it leads into the film’s most action-packed act yet with strong narrative grounding.

Not everyone gets as much time devoted to them, however. Despite the title being “Birds of Prey,” it’s basically Harley’s story. That does leave the film feeling a bit uneven, but the rest of the cast still holds their own. Jurnee Smollett-Bell (“Friday Night Lights,” “The Great Debaters”) as the killer voiced Black Canary has the most equal arc and screen-time compared to Harley. Her performance is also just as varied as Robbie’s and the pair really go there with their arcs.

Meanwhile Ella Jay Basco, in her film debut, as Cassandra Cain, and Mary Elizabeth Winstead (“Scott Pilgrim vs. The World,” “10 Cloverfield Lane”) as Huntress end up playing more comedic versions of their comic counterparts. They’re still plenty fun, but they never seem to be taken that seriously. The same goes for Ewan McGregor (“Moulin Rouge!” “Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith”) as Black Mask and Chris Messina (“Argo,” “The Mindy Project”) as Victor Zsasz. While both are menacing in individual moments, their best bits are their fantastic comedic chemistry, putting a thick layer of homoerotic cheese over their crime sprees.

If anyone gets the short end of the stick, its Rosie Perez’s (“Fearless,” “Pineapple Express”) Officer Montoya. Not only is she handed the most cliched and underdeveloped part of the script, she’s also playing this officer incredibly ham-fistedly. Not that she doesn’t get some moments to shine, she’s great in the first act playing straight to Gotham’s overblown shenanigans. She’s just the weakest link in this flock.

Thankfully, it almost doesn’t matter if there even is a weakest link, because director Cathy Yan (“Dead Pigs”), screenwriter Christina Hodson (“Bumblebee (2018)”) and cinematographer Matthew Libatique (“Requiem for a Dream,” “Black Swan”) ground the film in a sense of pure camp and absurdity. The film is constantly flying back and forth between Harley’s narration, fantasy sequences, and the supposed reality of the film. It lends everything a very surreal feeling.

Similarities to films like “Deadpool” and “Pulp Fiction” are understandable, but it’s the clear personality that immediately sets the film apart from those. Often times, the audience is cut out of an important conversation because Harley was cut out of it or just wasn’t paying attention. It works because the entire project is so clearly wrapped around her own psyche and perspective on these events.

One could argue that the film’s heavy subjects, such as empowerment, police corruption, the male gaze, toxic relationships, and more, require a more respectful hand, but given the kind of film that this is, there’s something to be said for purposefully going over the top to make a point. While it might not be to everyone’s taste, this state of silliness is consistent throughout the entire film, never flinching or falling prey to tonal shifts or imbalances.

The action scenes keep the bizarro absurdity, with the camera floating through car chases and fun houses with the same ease. Blood spews for every goon Harley whacks with her oversized hammer while gracefully gliding around on her roller skates, and as she beams, it becomes clear exactly what kind of film this is.

It’s the antithesis of every superhero film of the past decade. Part Deadpool, part Pulp Fiction, with enough blood and foul language spewing from every orifice to make both of those films proud, it feels like it should be derivative. However, it’s the strong chemistry and commitment to the absurd point of view of this killer clown queen that makes this flock soar higher than its so-so character development should have allowed. 4/5