Blog Archives

Quick Reviews, End of 2017, Part 2: The Mountain Between Us, November Criminals, The Foreigner, Victoria & Abdul, The Big Sick, Marshall

1/24/2018

The Mountain Between Us

The Mountain Between Us (2017): Stranded after a tragic plane crash, two strangers must forge a connection to survive the extreme elements of a remote snow-covered mountain. When they realize help is not coming, they embark on a perilous journey across the wilderness.

Geez that is quite the IMDB description. This film....is not great. It has two lovely leads, and that's about it. Kate Winslet and Idris Elba are charming together, and the scenes of them on the mountain are somewhat enjoyable, if not solely because you get to watch these two great stars on scene together. But that's alllllll this movie has going for it. Initially, this film was over-the-top in an enjoyable sort of way. While these two are out in the elements trying to survive, I had some fun laughing at things like their dog surviving on two pieces of meat, or their fire never going out in any situation ever, or the fact that it was NEVER dark. In the world of The Mountain Between Us, it's bright in Idaho 24/7. Did you know that? Those moments were fun. Uninteresting, but fun, and Elba/Winslet were still charming together so it kept me invested. But then there's a 25 minute epilogue that is absolutely TERRIBLE. I'll spoil it for you, because this film plays out exactly how you'd expect: they're rescued. (WHOA, I know right?) But I think some execs decided that the film couldn't end with them being rescued and decided they needed to add a whole post-rescue sequence that is rushed, half-baked, and SELF-SERIOUS. This film nosedived into the mountains (was that forced? I don't think that was forced) with a ridiculous "Will they or won't they?" sequence that was completely unnecessary and totally boring, and threw this film off a cliff. That said, this movie isn't the worst way to spend a Friday night, with a few caveats. Redbox it with some friends and some alcohol, (maybe more than "some") and bask in all its stereotypical glory. And in Idris Elba/Kate Winslet. But don't expect anything else.

My Number: 4/10

November Criminals

November Criminals (2017): A teenager takes on his own investigation of a murder in Washington D.C.

GEEZ WHAT HAPPENED HERE? This movie sucks! It's low budget, yes, but it features two great stars in Chloe Grace Moretz and Ansel Elgort. But my GOD are they both TERRIBLE. They have absolutely no chemistry, and they honestly look like they're just reading off a script off-screen. I don't know if these two were just too busy to care about this small indie film, but they sure don't look like they give a flying F in this thing. They're also reading some of the most painful dialogue I have ever heard in a movie. This script is SO BAD. The film opens with one of the most uncomfortable sequences I have ever seen between these two and features Chloe Grace Moretz deciding to have sex with Elgort with some logic that would even make even a porno go "nah man, that's too ridiculous for us." This sequence is just awful all around and is amplified in today's #MeToo era, and this movie has the nerve to lead off with it to establish a romance between these two. That's not how any of this works! I'm not going to lie: I didn't even bother to finish this trainwreck. I made it halfway through before another uncomfortable "romantic" sequence between these two made me throw up my hands and say "DONE!" OH YA. And this film has stereotypes-a-plenty! Don't you worry, because if you wanted to add racial stereotypes on top of an impractical and borderline disgusting romance, you can with November Criminals! Like I said, I didn't finish it, so I don't know what happens. But you know what? I don't care. About halfway through I realized that my time would be better off spent on other things. Take this as a warning: AVOID LIKE THE PLAGUE. You can thank me later on in life for NEVER seeing this. Why was this ever approved to go to production?

My Number: 1/10 (As Matt Atchity from Rotten Tomatoes would say....it gets a 1 because at least it's in focus)

The Foreigner

The Foreigner (2017): A humble businessman with a buried past seeks justice when his daughter is killed in an act of terrorism. A cat-and-mouse conflict ensues with a government official, whose past may hold clues to the killers' identities.

This film is ok. I must say: it's lovely to see Jackie Chan being Jackie Chan again, and it's nice to see Pierce Brosnan playing a character with less-than-stellar intentions at heart. (For once) Even if his Irish accent is hilariously terrible. Unfortunately, though, this film lives in a world already occupied by films like The Equalizer and John Wick, and it was impossible to watch this one without also thinking of those (better) action movies. The story here is....muddy, to say the least. There were several characters that had important roles in the second half of the film that were seemingly introduced out of the clear blue sky. I had no idea where some of these people came from or why they were doing what they were doing. The whole thing felt rushed, to the point that it was easy to miss the fact that Jackie Chan isn't even in his own movie for, like, a solid 30-45 minutes. I'm not really sure why director Martin Campbell choose to introduce new characters and focus on the terrorist group versus Jackie Chan's inner struggle to balance being a good man and wanting to find revenge for his daughter's death, but he did. There's an interesting story to be had here, but the decision to put Jackie Chan in the backseat of his own movie and focus on something far less interesting was killer. It's an average action movie, with some enjoyable fighting scenes and intrigue between Pierce Brosnan (and his ridiculous Irish accent) and Jackie Chan, but that's about it. And you're going to have to sit throw a massive second act you care nothing about.

My Number: 5/10

Victoria & Abdul

Victoria & Abdul (2017): Queen Victoria strikes up an unlikely friendship with a young Indian clerk named Abdul Karim.

This movie is superficially charming. There could not be a better way to sum up this film in a single sentence than that. Yes, I laughed quite a few times. There's some old school comedy in this film. Judi Dench is lovely as Queen Victoria, and Ali Fazal is charming as Abdul Karim. When it's just the two of them, I had quite a bit of fun. But, whenever I was starting to have fun, this film would do something rather despicable that would take me out of the moment. Mostly, it was trying to be funny with the blatant racism surrounding the two main characters. Oh, look! Lady Churchill hates Abdul simply because he's from India! Ha! Haha! Funny, right? I'm laughing so hard! There WAS some great humor scattered about but it was almost exclusively involving Abdul and the Queen. Too many times did this film try and make a joke out of racial biases, so then when the racism is painted in a negative light towards the end of the film, it felt horribly superficial to me. That said! The main characters of this film are fantastic, like an island in a sea of misery. (And blatant racism....funny guys!) And I really did enjoy a lot of this film as the dynamic of the two main characters was interesting. Even though Abdul did some less-than-questionable things at times that the movie tried to glance over. (What about Mohammed, the other person that came to Britain from India with Abdul??) The film also covers nearly 15 years in the blink of an eye, all while deciding to waste precious screen time on a useless plot to remove Abdul concocted by the Prince of Wales and the rest of Victoria's household. I wish director Stephen Frears had chosen his screen time better. But, there was enough here for me to have some fun watching this, and the costumes and makeup are excellent. Just....prepare yourself for being expected to laugh at racism. (Maybe just watch Get Out again instead)

My Number: 4.5/10

The Big Sick

The Big Sick (2017): Pakistan-born comedian Kumail Nanjiani and grad student Emily Gardner fall in love but struggle as their cultures clash. When Emily contracts a mysterious illness, Kumail finds himself forced to face her feisty parents, his family's expectations, and his true feelings.

Or, instead of watching Victoria & Abdul, watch The Big Sick! (Again, if you've already seen it) I saw this lovely little film earlier this year and was surprised to see I hadn't written a review for it, so here it goes: this movie is GREAT. It's funny, emotional, and compassionate. It tackles racism in a modern setting in a far better way than Victoria & Abdul ever could. It does show some uncomfortable truths that come with being a Pakistani in modern America, instead of taking the "Oh! Look at how funny these racist people are!" route Victoria & Abdul decided to take. Kumail Nanjiana is great, as is Zoe Kazan. (Even though she's in a coma for most of the movie, you still feel like she's a hovering presence throughout) Also outstanding here is Holly Hunter and Ray Romano, in a couple role taken straight out of the early 2000s. Bad jokes aside, everyone in this movie is fantastic, and this story is NUTS. It would have been so easy for this film to be a tonal mess, but it's not. It manages to balance some very serious themes around a comedy and it handles its difficult tonal shifts with wonderful grace. It's not perfect, though. This movie clocks in at 120 minutes, and it's DEFINITELY too long. The third act gets a little muddy as the film doesn't really know what to do with itself, and I do think 15-20 minutes could've been cut to make it feel a bit more crisp and polished. But this is a relatively minor complaint. The Big Sick is a fantastic little indie movie with an unbelievable story and wonderfully important themes, and I am SO GLAD it managed to net itself a surprising screenplay nomination. Well done to the Academy there. If you haven't seen this yet, do make an effort to change that! It's worth it!

My Number: 8/10

Marshall

Marshall (2017): About a young Thurgood Marshall, the first African-American Supreme Court Justice, as he battles through one of his career-defining cases.

This film came out at the wrong time. I really like what it is going for: it is well executed, full of good intentions, and MASTERFULLY acted by Chadwick Boseman, but.....it's tough for me to get on board with a movie who's entire premise is built around a woman lying about being raped. Not only that, but this film makes the poor decision to show "flashbacks" of the incident from both the alleged victim and the accused, which show the rape of a woman which, according to the end result of the trial, did not happen. I will not lie: in 2016, I would have had a blast watching this film. From start to finish. There is so much to like here, and I never would've thought twice about the importance of a woman falsely (according to the end result of the trial) accusing someone of rape. But the #MeToo movement has played a pivotal role in opening my eyes to sexual harassment in the workplace, and while I do not believe this film had ill-intentions at heart, it doesn't change the fact that in this day and age.....it is uncomfortable to watch this movie without tying it to current events. That said, if you remove the (what I believe to be accidental) ties, you are left with an outstanding and gripping courtroom drama. While the castings felt a bit off, (it was tough to take Josh Gad seriously, and Kate Hudson felt miscast) and the score felt out-of-place, the drama this story tells beautifully mashes an intimate courtroom drama with something as grand as the civil rights movement, all tied together by a performance that (almost) should have netted Chadwick Boseman an Oscar nomination. Seriously: this dude is a terrific actor, and this is one of his best roles. (Oh, and freaking Sterling K. Brown is awesome, as usual here). Unfortunately, this film came out in 2017, and in light of recent events, I can't find it to be a decent movie. Check it out if you're a fan of Chadwick Boseman, but otherwise there are better courtroom dramas out there that won't make you feel as uncomfortable as this one does.

My Number: 5.5/10

0 Comments

Movie Review: The Post

1/21/2018

0 Comments

Overhyped, but still good

The Post (2017): A cover-up that spanned four U.S. Presidents pushed the country's first female newspaper publisher and a hard-driving editor to join an unprecedented battle between journalist and government.

I'll be honest with you: I think this movie was overhyped. How could it not be, though? Two of the most iconic actors of the 21st century on screen together in a film directed by the man widely considered to be the most influential director in the history of Hollywood, (for better or for worse) one year after we saw, firsthand, what happens when we ignore the very institution this story is centered around? Ya, it's hard not to hype this one up to eleven. And don't get me wrong: The Post is a good, enjoyable, and important film. It takes a naturally dramatic event and portrays it as exactly that: a dramatic event. Meryl Streep and Tom Hanks are as charming as you would expect them to be together, and their time on screen was easily the best part of the film. As you would expect it to be. But. BUT. That does not change the fact that this film falls apart in the final 20 minutes. That does not change the fact that a crucial, CRUCIAL subplot is not resolved in any way. That does not change the fact that after such an energetic and dramatic setup, the film just, kind of.... ends. And that does not change the fact that there are other problems with this film. But more on that later.

The good of this film is obvious: Tom Hanks and Meryl Streep. While neither put in necessarily standout performances, it is still marvelous to see these two iconic actors on screen at the same time. It's a cataclysmic event for Hollywood that we've never seen before, and may never see again from these two. This is reminiscent of the 1951 film The African Queen, which paired Humphrey Bogart and Katharine Hepbrun on screen for the only time in their respective and legendary careers. The Streep/Hanks pairing alone will sell tickets, and I am very much ok with that, because this story is just as relevant in today's world as it was in the early 1970s. As a media nerd myself, I loved (almost) every second of this film. I cannot emphasize this point enough. I loved the "bedlam" (as executive editor Ben Bradlee, played by Tom Hanks, would say) we got to see as the newsroom, many of the most influential journalists of the 20th century included, frantically sorted through 4000 pages of government secrets in Bradlee's house as his wife (played by Sarah Paulson) served sandwiches. I loved seeing Bob Odenkirk go after his source for the Pentagon Papers in a way that would make Saul Goodman proud. This is a two-hour movie, but the middle of it flew by with tense scene after tense scene. However. This film makes a BIG mistake, and it centers around the decision-making process of its central character, the paper's publisher, Kay Graham.

Kay Graham inherited WashPo from her husband (who inherited it from her father) after he committed suicide. For decades, (and hard to believe now) WashPo was a little family paper headquartered in Washington D.C. that was, like everyone else, chasing the New York Times for the next big story. Now, this film does a brilliant job showing the paper grappling with the consequences of publishing the Pentagon Papers. There's no fault to be had there whatsoever. However, Kay Graham (Meryl Streep) has the final say on whether the papers are published or not, and she comes at this decision from a very different (and reasonable) angle. While Ben Bradlee and co. are deciding whether they should publish for fear of putting US troops in harm's way, Graham is risking the newspaper itself because The Post was also doing its initial public offering (IPO) at the same time as it was publishing the Pentagon Papers. And, as this film reminds us multiple times, there is a clause in the IPO that allows the "bankers" of Wall Street to pull out of the IPO within a week of its initial offering due to a dramatic event. (Like, say, The Post publishing top secret documents and being reprimanded in federal court. Something like that.) This risk is at the crux of her decision making. Unfortunately, not only is this debate not resolved in a satisfying way, it isn't resolved.....at all. After grappling with this risk for the vast majority of the movie, we don't get even a single scene of fallout from the IPO side of the paper. No shot of its stock tumbling. (or soaring) Absolutely. Nothing. And, because they make this the central focus of Kay Graham's character arc, it kind of made her.... irrelevant to the entire story. Yes, I know I just said Meryl Streep didn't need to be in this at all, but given how the film ended..... she didn't need to be in this movie. At all. While this is the only major issue I have with The Post, having your top-billed actress be relatively inconsequential to the events of your story is something of a major problem! Her only meaningful arc is her learning to have the resolve to run the paper as a whole. Yes, this is a good side arc, and a good/relevant one for 2017, but not enough to overshadow the fact that her main arc is, you know, useless!

I only had a few other minor issues with this film. The first is (admittedly) VERY mute, but I wish the dialogue had been....smarter. Maybe it's just because I've seen The Newsroom, but I REALLY wish Aaron Sorkin had been the screenwriter for this movie. That's ok, though. He was too busy writing/directing Molly's Game, which, surprisingly enough, is a superior film. The ending overall was also very rushed, but I can hardly fault the film for having such a tense setup that it can't follow through on a conclusion to historical events. I mean, you know what's going to happen, so when you see the thing happen....how dramatic can it really be? But, IPO issues aside, many of the other "stakes" that are established in the setup here are glanced over in the film's final 20 minutes, if brought up at all. The film also kind of sequel-baits. Most of the time I don't have an issue when a movie does this, and even here I very much hope we do get a sequel, whether it be a direct or indirect one, but... after such a rushed conclusion, did we really need to do that? Did we really need that final minute? I don't know.... I guess I was already disappointed with the ending so the attempted sequel-baiting just got to me more than it would in another situation.

I've spent a lot of time hating on this film, but doesn't change the fact that it is a good movie with an engaging and dramatic story, and the top-tier level of acting you'd expect from a film that puts Meryl Streep and Tom Hanks on the same screen together. (And gives them a strong supporting cast to boot) Sadly, though, it suffers from being overhyped and overrated. If you're just looking for a compelling and dramatic film on media and journalism, go back and watch 2015's Spotlight. (It's available on Netflix right now) It won Best Picture that year, and for good reason. If you've already seen that film half a dozen times, (I wouldn't know anyone that could say that.......) and need your next media and journalism movie fix, look no further. Just.... temper your expectations a bit.

The Critique: While pairing Tom Hanks and Meryl Streep goes exactly how you would expect it would, The Post is sadly overhyped and overrated, with a rushed conclusion and wasted character arc at the core of its faults. It is (merely) a good film.

The Recommendation: There are a lot of reason to go see this film, (I don't feel like mentioning all of them) just be sure to give films like Call Me by Your Name and I, Tonya some love too, ya?

Rewatchability: Moderately High

The Verdict: 7/10 Good.

Image Credit:
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMGI3ZjUzYWEtMWI4Ny00MTJiLTk1MzMtMDUyNWI1YzJmMTMxXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNDg2MjUxNjM@._V1_SY1000_SX1500_AL_.jpg
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BYzZkMDZlNzgtNWFmZC00NGM2LWFkMjUtOTZiNDg4YTQ2NTRlXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNDg2MjUxNjM@._V1_SX1621_CR0,0,1621,999_AL_.jpg

0 Comments

Raw Thoughts: Molly's Game

1/14/2018

0 Comments

2017's Smartest Film

Molly's Game (2017): The true story of Molly Bloom, an Olympic-class skier who ran the world's most exclusive high-stakes poker game and became an FBI target.

These Raw Thoughts come from you from Braxton Labs in Newport, KY, approximately 45 minutes after seeing the film.

Molly's Game is straight fire. The directorial debut for legendary screenwriter Aaron Sorkin, this film takes the writer's trademark dialogue style and turns it up to eleven. This is done to the detriment of the film at times, but most of the time it works beautifully, especially surrounding the lead character. Molly Bloom is a total boss. The hero 2017 needed. She controls all the men around her (save one) while holding their hearts on a string, and she is played masterfully by Jessica Chastain. This is the role Chastain was born to play, and she puts in one of the sleekest and most badass roles of the year.While this performance may not net Chastain an Oscar, it is certainly one of my favorites of the year, and Sorkin's trademarked style meshes with Chastain better than PB&J.

As if that wasn't enough, Chastain’s male counterparts are fantastic, led the way by Idris Elba and Kevin Costner. These two are amazing. Heck, this may be the best role I've ever seen from the amazing Idris Elba. Freaking love this man! He is so charming and charismatic, and he gets to show that off as much as possible here. There's also a really deep (and strong) supporting cast. You know your cast is deep when someone like Joe Keery (from Stranger Things) has a total of two scenes! He does make the most of them, but the big loser from this is Michael Cera. He plays “Player X” and is clearly playing the “idea” of a character and isn't given much to do other than "be maniacal," which is unfortunate. But all in all this is a relatively minor complaint. The highlight of this film, without a doubt, is the dialogue.

The dialogue. If you've never seen a film by Aaron Sorkin, you've missed out on one of the most distinguishable storytelling styles in recent Hollywood memory. In his films, every character is the smartest person in the room, and they make sure everyone else knows it. They pull some of the deepest references out of thin air and know exactly what each other is talking about at all times. (At one point, Jessica Chastain starts talking about three poems that Idris Elba is making her daughter read. When did she have time to become fluent in poetry? Does it matter?) This film is no exception, and it is just so much fun! However, with Sorkin in the director's chair for the first time, no one was around to tell him no, which means sometimes people are….too smart. Sometimes, scenes will linger for too long because Sorkin can't help himself. It's the classic Quentin Tarantino problem. Sorkin is in love with his own dialogue, and without a director to tell him that he's written too much of it for a certain scene, they tend to be overlong as the characters will put out one reference too many. Personally, I LOVE Sorkin’s dialogue, so I have no problem with this, but if you're even slightly turned off by Sorkin's style…..you're gonna be turned off here. This is Sorkin's dialogue on steroids, so consider yourself warned. Though, to be fair, I don't know how you can hate his formula! It's sleek. It's sexy. It's intelligent. And it's FUN. I had a blast watching this! This movie is all of those things, and if you like Sorkin's dialogue then it's a STRONG directorial debut, led by the dazzling performance of Jessica Chastain.

“Player X” is a bit weak, and the film does glorify gambling a little too much, (I know, I know, gambling is romanticized in every Hollywood movie) but it's not enough to offset the greatness of here. See it for the craziness of the story, (and know it'll be nominated for an Oscar in the Adapted Screenplay department) the sleek and sexy actors, (Idris Elba and Jessica Chastain especially) and the amazing dialogue, however if you've never seen a Sorkin screenplay (somehow)....don't start here. Start with something like The Social Network. (Fun fact....that was the fifth review I ever wrote! And I still think it's one of the 5 best films of the 21st century)

My Number: 8/10

Image Credit:
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMTYzNjczMTkyM15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwODcyMzIyMzI@._V1_SY1000_CR0,0,1498,1000_AL_.jpg

0 Comments

Quick Reviews, End of 2017, Part 1: Darkest Hour, It Comes at Night, Bright, Mudbound, Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle

1/7/2018

0 Comments

Darkest Hour

Darkest Hour (2017): During the early days of World War II, the fate of Western Europe hangs on the newly-appointed British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, who must decide whether to negotiate with Hitler, or fight on against incredible odds.

This film can be summed up in two words: Gary Oldman. That's basically the only reason you go and see this film. He is mesmerizing as Winston Churchill, completely hidden behind some fantastic makeup, a THICK accent, and some quantifiable changes to his physique. Oldman is absorbed into this role, and it is a role well-deserving of an Oscar nomination. I just wish it were built around a better film. It's fine, no doubt. But it takes place around the evacuation of Dunkirk, and after seeing a vastly superior film about those events just earlier this year, this one felt like overkill. The film centers around the power of words and Churchill's ability to utilize them masterfully, but for the most famous of his WWII speeches.....all we get to see of him writing it is a quick shot of him and Elizabeth Layton (played by Lily James) in a car. No sound or anything. Why you do this? Speaking of Lily James, what happened?? She's one of the most charismatic actresses around (just watch that Mama Mia! 2 trailer and tell me she doesn't breathe charisma) but here she's so....dry! I don't know if she shot this on her off days on another film and was too tired to get into it or what, but she was quite lackluster, and Churchill's wife, Clemmie (played by Kristin Scott Thomas) is barely even in this film. Oh and the only subplot she has (about the family having no money) is silenced about five seconds after its mentioned. OH! And the wartime sequences look like poo. Those looked so bad they should've just been cut from the film. But there's still enough to like here (there's some really good politic-ing from Chamberlain and his crew against Churchill) that it wasn't a snooze-fest. (There was another awesome scene where Churchill rides the Underground and gets his courage back from the British people....that was a good scene!) But it's basically just worth seeing for Gary Oldman's performance, and his performance alone.

My Number: 6/10

It Comes at Night

It Comes at Night (2017): Secure within a desolate home as an unnatural threat terrorizes the world, a man has established a tenuous domestic order with his wife and son. Then a desperate young family arrives seeking refuge.

Ugh. What happened here? This movie should've been awesome! A24 takes on a creepy post-apocalyptic world where there's this contagious/deadly virus that is killing humans like it's nobody's business? SIGN ME UP. But this is one of those movies where all the interesting bits take place off-screen and are merely discussed in a dark room among the main characters. Why haven't people realized that this doesn't work? The first Purge movie did this too, and it nearly prevented the second and third installments in that franchise from ever being made. Yes it does make this movie feel claustrophobic. Yes, the hallway to the main entrance/exit is freaking awesome, and director/writer Trey Edward Shults gets a lot of suspense out of it. But the characters should've spent one act TOPS in this house before being forced to move on and go outside versus the ENTIRE film there! Yes, Joel Edgerton is once again great, but he could've been great outside the house too! Why oh why did you put this entire film inside the house? It doesn't help that for the first hour of this 91 minute film, basically nothing happens. There are a few tense sequences scattered here and there, but until the final act there's a lot of "waiting around to see what happens." This makes the pacing practically nonexistent to the point that in the last 30 minutes I didn't really care what happened to the characters. I wanted to like this one. Really, I did. I kind of hope they make a sequel and go full Purge: Anarchy with it, because I would love to see the world this film takes place in. But I have no intention of seeing this movie again any time soon. It's boring and forgettable, and the suspense that you do get is not enough to keep you even remotely invested. Avoid like the plague! (tehe)

My Number: 3/10

Bright

Bright (2017): Set in a world where mystical creatures live side by side with humans. A human cop is forced to work with an Orc to find a weapon everyone is prepared to kill for.

There's a good movie around here somewhere. The world established in Bright is at least somewhat interesting, (though even it has some glaring faults) but the story we get in this film and in this universe is TERRIBLE. It's not interesting in any way and had me throwing my hands up in disbelief over how stupid it was on more than one occasion. Will Smith's character is a jerk to his partner for NO REASON, and Joel Edgerton (my man....two bad films back-to-back here) is hidden behind so much makeup he's unable to establish himself in any meaningful way. I mean, Oscar Isaac's portrayal of Apocalypse in X-Men is criticized for the gratuitous amount of makeup he was hidden under, so why the heck would it be ok here??? Edgerton just doesn't make any impression at all, and Smith is completely unlikable. Oh, and their "partner arc" WISHES it was as good as director David Ayer's massively superior End of Watch. So the story is terrible and the two leads are terrible. What else do you have to look forward to in a sci-fi movie? Well....the effects. The effects here are probably the best part of the movie, but given the fact that most of this thing is a dumpster fire that's not saying much. They're subpar at best, and downright awful at times. (Some of the elf acrobatics looked hilariously bad) But look. I'm willing to give a film funded by Netflix a pass for having B-level effects. That's fine! But now you have an awful story, bad acting, AND mediocre effects built around a mildly interesting world. I will be honest with you: if I had seen this in a movie theater, I would've walked out about 90 minutes in. (The scene in the orc church is where I finally said "I'm done!" out loud and stopped caring) And to those who say, "It's just a popcorn flick! It's just meant to be fun!" I want to agree with you, but this film tries SO HARD to bat you over the head with a racial segregation theme. (Did you know that orcs have been segregated from society for 2000 years? Did you know that could tie itself to our society? WHOA I NEVER WOULD'VE GUESSED) It's hard to "just have fun" with a film when it's trying desperately to be something more. AND the action sequences are so poorly filmed! Like....if you scoff at something like Furious 7 (which is what the absurdity of Bright's action scenes seem to be striving for) but thought this movie was good.....you need to take a good, hard look at yourself and what you define as a "good movie." Because Furious 7 is the popcorn flick style at its best, (the definition of a film not trying to be anything more than what it is, and having fun with itself and its absurdity) whereas Bright is the style at its worst. I stuck with it through the final act, but it didn't get any better for me. Bright had some potential but squandered it at every turn and unwittingly became one of the worst movies I've seen all year. Why is Netflix, with its limited resources, planning a sequel to this?

My Number: 2/10

Mudbound

Mudbound (2017): Two men return home from World War II to work on a farm in rural Mississippi, where they struggle to deal with racism and adjusting to life after war.

Wow. You want a FAR better Netflix original film look no further than Mudbound. This film is admittedly a very slow burn, but its climax is one that will resonate with you long after its done. Director/writer Dee Rees (and fellow writer Virgil Williams) does a spectacular job setting up these characters throughout the film, and sets up a climax that will leave you emotionally devastated. While there are some problems in this film, most notably with Carey Mulligan's shallow character Laura, the men of this movie are incredible. Jonathan Banks steals the show as the despicable and racist father Pappy, and Jason Clarke, Rob Morgan, and Jason Mitchell all shine in their respective roles too. I wasn't a huge fan of Garrett Hedlund's Brad Pitt impersonation, but the dynamic between him and Mitchell was incredible and had a major role setting up the climax. But this film.....it's honestly appropriate that I saw this and Bright, another Netflix original film, in the same night. Both of these films have race-based storylines in them. Bright ties the orc race to modern America, while Mudbound does it in a far more subtle and effective manner by just showing us what Mississippi looked like around WWII, and discretely tying it to modern America. At one point during this film, I couldn't help but think to myself, "This. When someone defends the Confederacy as 'their heritage,' or defends Confederate statues because of the 'history they represent,' this is what they are defending." That's the message of Mudbound, and it conveys it far more effectively than Bright, where Will Smith treats Joel Edgerton like a jerk for no reason and suddenly "coming to his senses" at the end of the film. While there are some missteps here, (Carey Mulligan being all but wasted chief among them) and the slow burn does make the first half of this film drag a bit, it's ending is well worth the wait. What happens here will devastate you, and will show the ugliness of racism far better than Bright ever could.

My Number: 8/10

Jumanji: Welcome to the Journal

Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle (2017): Four teenagers are sucked into a magical video game, and the only way they can escape is to work together to finish the game.

Ok, for those who read my review of Bright (this film is my official punching bag now, if you couldn't tell) and thought "This guy doesn't know how to have fun at a movie." I present to you Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle. This movie is the definition of a mindless popcorn flick, and you know what? It's a shocking amount of fun. Do we need a new Jumanji film in our lives? No. Nobody asked for it, but I am glad that we got it! While it is FAR from perfect, and some of the CGI animals looked a little silly, I still smiled gleefully at the various set pieces of this film. I mean....who doesn't want to see The Rock and Kevin Hart on screen again? Who doesn't want our heroes flying around in a helicopter four feet above the ground that can't go up (for some reason that doesn't really make any sense) while a giant pack of rhinos chases them down? Who doesn't want The Rock, a man who's charisma enters the room about 15 minutes before he gets there, playing a nerdy teenager with no charisma whatsoever? Who doesn't want Karen Gillan being a total badass while playing a smart, quiet, and socially awkward teenager? Who doesn't want a relationship to bloom between Jack Black and Nick Jonas? And who doesn't want Kevin Hart being, well, Kevin Hart? The role swaps here are funny and charming, and it helps to set up a very entertaining film with some enjoyable action sequences. Sure, there are some problems outside of the slightly corny CGI, most notably with Jack Black's character. Outside of his budding relationship with Nick Jonas, I wasn't a huge fan of him playing a female. Sure, she's the "cool and popular" girl, but she could've also turned into a much older woman or something in the game. With her becoming a guy there's also a decent amount of penis jokes that ensue that aren't super necessary. But overall? Yes. It's a fun action movie that isn't trying to be anything more than a mindless popcorn flick, and in this realm.....it excels. See it if you want to take a break from all the "important" films that come out this time of year. We didn't need a new Jumanji movie, but I'm glad we got it.

My Number: 7/10

0 Comments

Raw Thoughts: Downsizing

1/3/2018

0 Comments

An incoherent mess

Downsizing (2017): A social satire in which a man realizes he would have a better life if he were to shrink himself to five inches tall, allowing him to live in wealth and splendor.

These raw thoughts come to you from Darkness Brewing immediately after seeing the film.

That sucked. That really sucked. I wanted to like this film. And somewhere here, there is a really good movie. But it's too long, SUPER PREACHY, and overall just a mess. This film is a mishmash of ideas, and unfortunately barely any of them stick. It's been a bad year for Matt Damon, as i think both this and Suburbicon will find themselves on my “Worst Films of the Year” list.

There isn't much good to say about this film, but the highlight is undoubtedly Hong Chao. She is sensational as Ngoc Lan Tran, a Vietnamese woman forced to “downsize” while in prison. While there are some worries that her character is a racial stereotype, (I believe those complaints are overblown, but have some validity) she still dazzles in her role, providing a glimmer of hope for an otherwise joyless film. Matt Damon is…..Matt Damon in this, and outside of Christoph Waltz, who's at least somewhat charming, the entire supporting cast is pretty lifeless. Why is Kristen Wiig even in this??? Actually, she's part of a bigger problem with this film.

As I said before, this film is a mishmash of incoherent ideas. But it also feels like two films thrown into one, and that doesn't help its cause. The first half of the film features a totally unnecessary “origin story” for the downsizing process, (seriously - the first 15 minutes of this film are completely useless….we don't need to see the origins of the downsizing concept) then we get this uninteresting story of Damon and Wiig deciding whether they should go through the procedure, just to have Wiig RANDOMLY decide to not go through with the process at the LAST possible second. This 180 from her character isn't earned AT ALL, and in the second half she's all but a distant memory. So….why was she such a prominent character early on? Beats me.

Finally in the second half we see Hong Chau's character, which was a wonderful thing because by that point I was really struggling to get through this disaster. For the briefest of moments, I saw glimmer of hope: a love story between her and Damon that made me think of the movie Her: a mismatched relationship with a lot of complexity and depth and heart. But as soon as this glimmer came…..it faded away, and the film morphed into this ridiculously preachy statement on global warming. It felt like “The Day After Tomorrow meets Birdemic” with this abrupt OMG GLOBAL WARMING IS GONNA KILL US ALL TOMORROW SO LET'S ALL ENJOY ONE FINAL SUNSET TOGETHER surrounded by some terrible, TERRIBLE exposition. It was so stupid! Look. I don't mind being preached too about something that's important. But what director Alexander Payne does here is basically stop the entire film to be like LOOK, GUYS. GLOBAL WARMING, AMIRITE? Matt Damon has a decent character arc in the second half, but his “Wow! I can't believe this is happening to me!” mantra gets really old, really fast. It didn't end up mattering how good or bad his character arc was, I just wanted him to stop talking by the end of it. Also, for how good Hong Chau was, her character was not written very well. She has no arc to speak of, she just gets a few good lines. But she is the only redeeming quality in this otherwise disappointing film. See it for Chau’s (likely soon-to-be Oscar nominated) performance, just wait for it to hit Netflix so you can skip the first 75 minutes of it.

My Number: 3/10 Bad

Image Credit
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMjAzOTcxMjE3MV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwMzIyOTUzNDM@._V1_SX1500_CR0,0,1500,999_AL_.jpg

0 Comments

Raw Thoughts: All the Money in the World

1/1/2018

0 Comments

All the Christopher Plummer in the World

All the Money in the World (2017): The story of the kidnapping of 16-year-old John Paul Getty III and the desperate attempt by his devoted mother to convince his billionaire grandfather Jean Paul Getty to pay the ransom.

Happy new year everyone! So I'm going to try a new thing here on Enter the Movies. Some of my favorite posts in the past have been the ones where I write them almost immediately after seeing the film. I also do this every year immediately following the Oscars. So I'm gonna turn this into a new series that I will use occasionally. Aka whenever I feel like it. Hope you enjoy it!

These raw thoughts come to you from the bar at Braxton Labs in Newport, KY, immediately after seeing All the Money in the World.

There's a great story behind this. After allegations of sexual assault arose against Kevin Spacey, director Ridley Scott and company removed him from the film just six weeks ahead of its nationwide release, and they stumbled onto gold with his replacement, Christopher Plummer. The highlight of this film is Christopher Plummer’s performance as J. Paul Getty. Plummer was Scott's first choice before Sony asked him to “find someone more famous” for the role, and I can see why he wanted to go with Plummer initially. HOWEVEr, that does not excuse the glaring faults of this film. The film plays fast and loose with its subject matter, which doesn't make a lot of sense to me given how naturally dramatic the actual story is. After getting off to a bang with some terrific sequences with J. Paul Getty, the film doesn't know what to do with itself as it slugs through its snoozefest of a second act, losing all momentum it had initially built. It does manage to recapture some of its intensity in the final act, but it also torpedoes itself here with this completely absurd town sequence that had me practically saying, “There's no way that happened in real life” out loud. Not to mention a rather silly epilogue that's only there so we can feel like we “stuck it to the man.”

This may be Scott's best work in recent memory (though if it were me I'd probably still go with Alien: Covenant) but he just can't get out of his own way. In real life, Gail Harris (played beautifully here by Michelle Williams) wages war with her grandfather-in-law in the press. Here, the press is nothing more than a leeching paparazzi group, and we only get one scene in the film of Harris using the press to her advantage. Even in that scene the press is vilified for no real reason other than to be vilified. Ugh! The second act of this film could've been this interesting cat-and-mouse political game between Harris and Getty, but instead we got this slow moving section that doesn't know what to do with itself.

That said, the acting is excellent. Christopher Plummer leads the way with one of the best performances of the year, and when you factor in the fact that his performance was shot in nine days it becomes all the more impressive. Michelle Williams is, once again, great and Mark Wahlberg is pretty good too.... though he admittedly doesn't have much to do other than “be mysterious.” He has one exchange with Getty that was a great scene, but it was CLEARLY a Hollywood-esque scene. Absolutely no chance it really happened. (Like way too much of this film) While it is a pretty enjoyable film, and it will get some love from the Academy, (definitely more so than Downsizing and The Greatest Showman, the other big studio “for your consideration” Oscar films) there's just too many absurd moments for me to consider it a must-watch. And I SWEAR TO GOD IF RIDLEY SCOTT IS NOMINATED FOR BEST DIRECTOR AT THE OSCARS. What are you doing, Golden Globes? Yes, it's impressive that they did these reshoots in nine days, but it doesn't overshadow the other glaring problems of this film. Many of which come at the hands of Ridley Scott! (Deep breath) Anyway..... Watch it if you're a cinephile like me and want to see what a performance shot in nine days looks like, otherwise there are better things to see at the theater.

My Number: 5/10 It's FINE

Image Credit
https://metrouk2.files.wordpress.com/2017/12/all-the-money-in-the-world2.jpg
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMjQwNjk5MzQ3MV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwMTU5MTQ1MzI@._V1_SX1500_CR0,0,1500,999_AL_.jpg

0 Comments

Quick Reviews, End of 2017, Part 2: The Mountain Between Us, November Criminals, The Foreigner, Victoria & Abdul, The Big Sick, Marshall

The Mountain Between Us

November Criminals

The Foreigner

Victoria & Abdul

The Big Sick

Marshall

Movie Review: The Post

Overhyped, but still good

Raw Thoughts: Molly's Game

2017's Smartest Film

Quick Reviews, End of 2017, Part 1: Darkest Hour, It Comes at Night, Bright, Mudbound, Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle

Darkest Hour

It Comes at Night

Bright

Mudbound

Jumanji: Welcome to the Journal

Raw Thoughts: Downsizing

An incoherent mess

Raw Thoughts: All the Money in the World

All the Christopher Plummer in the World

About Joseph

Genre

Date Reviewed