Friday, November 8, 2019

RAPID FIRE REVIEWS: November 8th, 2019



MRMOVIESETC REVIEWS:

“Tucker: The Man and His Dream” (1988)


“The Godfather” trilogy, “Apocalypse Now”, “Bram Stoker’s Dracula”, and nestled in-between all those for Director Francis Ford Coppola was “Tucker”; a biopic about Preston Tucker and his automobile lovechild creation – the Tucker Torpedo – back in 1948. While seemingly an odd choice for a man whom became legendary thanks to the other stylish aforementioned titles, Coppola did also place his name on other films lighter in tone, like “Jack”, “The Outsiders”, and “The Rainmaker”. Still, it’s understandable how a viewer could be a little underwhelmed with “Tucker” at first with its straightforward, no frills storytelling about the man that many, me included, know little about and yet had a huge impact on automobiles and the automobile industry as we know it.

In all honesty it is an interesting story, and I can imagine Coppola was able to produce it with relative ease having a talent like Jeff Bridges behind the wheel as the industry underdog, Preston Tucker. However, if it is a stout education you’re looking for, “Tucker” probably isn’t going to give you anything more than a taste despite doing a good job keeping all the Hollywood-isms to a minimum.

This isn’t a film that exactly has or ever will jump off the page next to Coppola’s other filmography, but definitely feels like a passion project all the same. For those into this type of subject matter, I suspect you might get the same general pleasure out of it as I did.

“Tucker: The Man and His Dream”: 7/10




“Stuber” (2019)


Damn, I’ve been trying to think of what “Stuber” reminded me of after watching it the other day, and now it finally hit me – this film is the gorier version of 2012’s “21 Jump Street”; only not quite as good. Yes, granted, there have been plenty of action comedies both before and after that time, but the two counterparts – both physically and emotionally – eventually bonding and teaming up to stop a deadly drug ring with tons of physical comedy along the way kind of speaks for itself, no?

Don’t get me wrong, Dave Bautista and Kumail Nanjiani are excellent together and are the driving force of making this whole thing work, overall. Having Bautista’s character be almost completely blind throughout the duration was also a nice touch to hinder what would normally be effortless badass-ery for him. There’s little worthy argument at this point against the fact that we have likely already seen the full depths of Bautista’s acting ability, but he has such a stoically comical demeanor that it could probably work for him for a long time as long as he can be dropped into intriguing surroundings to use it in. The same can be said for Nanjiani, whom is displaying a lot of the same mannerisms here as he did in “The Big Sick” a few years ago, but he’s so damn endearing it’s hard not to be in his character’s corner.

As for the rest of “Stuber”, like I said, outside the particular character attributes, the story borrows a lot from similar comedies that came before it, and while Stu’s arc had a better subtext conclusion than Vic’s, there really wasn’t much else to grab hold onto. By no means, though, does it fail as a comedy. Plenty of laughs registered throughout, and while it was a one-time watch for me undoubtedly, I can recommend it at least as a rental.

“Stuber”: 7.5/10




“Fast and Furious Presents: Hobbs and Shaw” (2019)


“Hpbbs and Shaw”, because I am most definitely not spelling that whole obnoxious title out every time, is a textbook example of a potentially fun spin-off gone wrong because, goddamn it, Hollywood just gots to have that sequel, y’all. Outside of a few bright spots, this film is phoned-in and inexcusably boring, and by phoned-in, I’m not talking about the cast. Dwayne, Jason, Idris, and Vanessa are all in and looking to have had a grand ol’ time on the set driving fast cars and blowing shit up.

At the end of the day, I was completely fine with that, and truly, that’s all I wanted out of this. I wanted to see a bunch of goofy banter between Johnson and Statham, and watch Elba go off the chain as a new breed of Terminator bent on annihilating the weakest of humans so he can rebuild the remaining humans as the new partially-mechanical super race while Hobbs and Shaw attempt to stop him.

Oh. Yeah. That one sentence summarizes the whole plot for a two-plus hour movie, by the way. I have nothing in the slightest against longer movies, you know, as long as they’re not pumped full of forty-five minutes worth of a filler just to end up at a non-ending that you can and will see coming at about, eh, the ten-minute mark. It starts to become even more painful when the Second Act starts and it becomes glaringly apparent that the script has already run out of gas with the two lead gents recycling jokes and punching their way out of the same group brawl for the sixth or seventh time. Thankfully, once the Third Act hits and the scenery changes to Samoa, the movie does get a second wind of redemption for about a minute until all the ideas there are similarly spent entirely too quickly.

Ugh. How can a movie designed for mindless viewing piss me off this much? I know like everyone else in the back of mind that this was a cash grab, but with the original “Fast” series already raking in a stupid amount of money, did we really need a whole second branch of sequels? Apparently, Universal says “Yes”. I think I’m going to get off this ride now and stay off.

“Hobbs and Shaw”: 4/10

Sunday, November 3, 2019

The Top Five Films of OCTOBERTHON VI



It's good to be back!

I had a pretty good feeling that there was no way in Hell I would be able to try and cram thirty-one films into one month along with keeping a healthy review regime going. I can get by without a ton of sleep sometimes, but that's a little much.

Instead, I took some time off and thought I'd wrap up another OCTOBERTHON with the Top Five films that I had not ever seen prior to this year. I figured that would be more fun than filling the top of the list with obvious ones, like "The Exorcist", the "Addams Family" films, "The Changeling", etc.

Okay, let's dive in!


5. "Hell House LLC" (2016)

Despite getting too cute with its own premise in the Third Act and draining the film of some mystique, I still have to tip my hat to what turned out to be an effectively atmospheric, mysterious, and outright creepy low-budget horror film. It certainly doesn't hurt that the found-footage documentary style was utilized to its advantage and enhanced some scenes that otherwise may not have been as captivating shot in a more traditional approach. Again, it goes off the rails a bit towards the end, and while I don't know what that did yet for the two follow-up sequels currently out, my curiosity is piqued and I fully intend to check them out in the near future.





4. "Cargo" (2018)

Just when one might think the Zombie Apocalypse genre has become a completely drained meat sack on the side of the road, there comes a film or two that still brings a touch of creativity. "Cargo" not only brings back the slow-burn to the genre, but additionally offers something genuinely personal and heartfelt. Here, the apocalypse has come and gone for an uncertain amount of time, but a little family of three (led by Martin Freeman) has managed to stay alive in the Australian countryside. The hook in this case is that both he and his wife get infected, and their daughter is entirely too young to defend herself. Armed with the knowledge that they have 48 hours to find suitable safety for her, they start their journey against hazardous terrain while racing against the clock. 

Depending on your tolerance level for such things, it may not be more than a one-stop viewing, though I definitely recommend giving it a try. It deserves that much. Freeman carries a bulk of the load, and that alone should tell you it's in good hands.




3. "Begotten" (1990)

I don't know if enjoy is exactly the right term for this, but I do unquestionably respect the Hell out of it. I was initially under the impression that "Begotten" was a completely silent film that relied solely on interpretive storytelling and insanely goth imagery to play out said story. While actual spoken language is at an absolute minimum, and by that I mean hollers and grunts, this film is anything but silent in the most evil of ways. Gagging, defecating, raping, masturbation, stabbing, etc. - it is all there for the ingesting, and kudos to the stark audio mix that brings that shit to the forefront. I can handle quite a bit, but to see some visible gagging and hearing that sound so vividly that it makes me want to do it is as gross as it is awesome. 

Merhige, I don't know who hurt you, but you're kind of a genius, and I love it. God Killing Himself is my next Halloween inspiration without a doubt. 




2. "The Innocents" (1961)

Goddamn, I really miss the good old fashioned ghost stories that mainstream Hollywood doesn't see fit to make anymore. Lead by an almost entirely female cast - back in 1961 was imaginably a pretty big deal - "The Innocents" carves a gorgeous black and white chiller about paranoia, spirits, domestic abuse, neglect, and abandonment; just to name a few. There were also some really neat smoke-and-mirror tricks with the cast and camera angles that has clearly inspired more modern day horror filmmakers.

I don't want to say much more because this film demands full immersion. Definitely give it a shot; preferably Criterion's release of it. They really made it look brand new!





1. "Midsommar" (2019)

Yeah, I know, when I popped this in a few weeks ago and noted it on my Facebook page, I went on a miniature rant about how this one had me thinking up front that it was going to be more indie horror nonsense, and no, I didn't care that Ari Aster directed it, because while "Hereditary" was a good film, nothing about it knocked my socks off. 

On the plus side, I emphatically love when my preconceived notions are wrong. "Midsommar" was a big step up for Aster, even if I thought at first that I didn't need to see it again because there were enough issues to keep me from being wholly satisfied. Said issues do still stand, i.e., the characters are as disposable as those in a slasher film, there's a family story-line that doesn't amount to anything, and perhaps the budget could have been dedicated to improving a few areas that made me laugh unintentionally. 

However, the pacing for a film of this length was excellent, the main story arc was engrossing, and the main set piece was stunning even with some of the obvious CGI. The more I think about it, the more I like it, and I have changed my mind as to seeing it again. I believe I will gladly be adding this to my collection in the near future.




I hope you all had a Safe and SPOOKY October!!

Only two months left in 2019 already, and still so much work to do. Thank you to all of those that take the time to check out A Journey Through Film!


Monday, October 7, 2019

NEW REVIEW: "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" (2003)


MRMOVIESETC REVIEWS:


“The Texas Chainsaw Massacre” (2003)


"Get her in there, Goddamn it, she's deader than a goddamn door nail."

Take a little stroll down Memory Lane with me, if you will.

Over the course of a few decades, and likely a few hundred horror films at least, only three had successfully gotten under my skin:

“Child’s Play 2” – In my defense, I was really young at the time and caught it on television by accident. Nevertheless, the killer doll and blood squirting everywhere made me shy of the toy box for a while.

Alfred Hitchcock’s “The Birds” – Also fairly young at the time, but c’mon, animals that you see on a daily basis and think nothing about are killing people. Plus, the dude with his eyeballs pecked out. Yeesh.

Lastly, “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre” from 2003 – oddly enough, but I think I blame this one on a cold, wet Fall night, sitting a few rows from the front of the theatre, and being way too buzzed on sugar and caffeine. Still, this one left me somewhat shocked and silent for a few hours after the fact; between the atmosphere and dark violence, something about it ended up bothering me most unexpectedly.

*** 

Until this year’s Octoberthon VI, I had never revisited this remake, due slightly out of intimidation. Although, I did also suspect that after nearly sixteen years that I would likely not have the same experience, and what’s worse, be a little embarrassed. At the very least, I was hoping to find something redeeming that would justify my being kind of a pansy about it when I was eighteen.

So how was the revisit?

Eh, it was fine. Not great or even really that good if we’re being honest, and it’s definitely not scary like I remember it, or scary at all, BUT there were more things that I liked about it than things that I did not. First off, and this was the one characteristic I was not all worried about it, was the look and vibe of this reimagined Leatherface. It certainly doesn’t hurt that Andrew Bryniarski is a fucking house of a man who, with a really slick-looking mask, is daunting and menacing with minimal effort. The only true disappoint I had with him in particular that I had completely forgotten about, and is not a fault of his, is the tease of Leatherface switching out masks. This happens only once as sort of a tongue-in-cheek jab at Jessica Biel’s character and it would have been so creepy and awesome if the filmmakers had committed to that. That being said, the iconic beast is provided some true justice in this film.

One other actor/character that I knew was going to be good no matter what was R. Lee Ermey as Sheriff Hoyt. Seriously, one of the best casting jobs in a horror film at the time. Ermey may not have been known for any spectacular depth as an actor, but his direct, icy glare and sturdy delivery made him both intimidating and delightfully disgusting as only Hoyt would be. Hell, I’ll go ahead and say it, the scene in the van where Hoyt is abusively forcing Morgan (Jonathan Tucker) to recreate the hitchhiker’s suicide from the film’s opening is award-worthy. Sure, that may sound like an exaggeration for a movie like this, but when Hoyt was talking, no one else existed in that moment, and that only speaks volumes to Ermey as a presence.

Lastly for the good stuff, I think this newer “Texas Chainsaw” catches the same spooky, suspenseful atmosphere as the original, particularly when it comes to the Hewitt house. However, the original did that setting far more justice than this remake. For one reason or another, the 2003 “Texas Chainsaw” took a lot of Leatherface’s chase scenes outside, and sometimes that was okay like in the clotheslines with the hanging sheets, but Leatherface and the suspense of the film in general are much better served in claustrophobic spaces. When he’s chasing people in a forest wailing and flailing all around, it’s not quite as much fun; although, I did really like this film’s ending a lot more than the original’s lackluster conclusion where it did go back to tight quarters that allowed for a better final brawl and escape.

On the down side, it’s mostly the same stuff that plagued horror back in the 2000s: lazy dialogue, jump scares that weren’t too effective on the “jumpy” part, and the main cast of characters were supposedly being sold as friends but it’s unintentionally hilarious how easily they abandon each other when the chips are down. There is really not much to dig into with that; you’ll just know it when you see it.

In the end, this is a remake that could have come out so much worse than it did. At the time, Hollywood wasn’t insanely overdosing on the idea yet, and clearly Michael Bay only put his name on this for a paycheck because it was far-too-underhanded to be something from his influences. This may be a film that barely scratches the GOOD surface, but it’s got enough coolness going on that I will hang on to my copy and watch it some more in the future.

“The Texas Chainsaw Massacre”: 6.5/10

Friday, September 27, 2019

NEW REVIEW: "Yesterday" (2019)

MRMOVIESETC REVIEWS:

“Yesterday” (2019)


"Can I just say one thing? Just to warn you. I've spoken with the doctor, and you will walk again. 
But you've lost your beard, and, um, two big teeth."

My immediate reaction after watching “Yesterday” was basically a straight wash. The takeaways were some really fine acting from both Himesh Patel and Lily James, seeing and hearing the more famous of the Beatles’ catalog played in a modern setting, and the whole “What if The Beatles never existed except in the memory of one man” premise that was destined to create more questions than it could possibly answer, yet could still work at face value without putting much thought into it.

I wanted to give the film a chance to settle before I started putting this review together. I was disappointed with it, but also had to take into account the possibility that I wasn’t in the right mood or perhaps too tired at the time. Who knows? Maybe it just needed a day or two to click. Besides, all the pieces were there to make a cute rom-com with impeccable music taste work, and for the most part, it did. So why didn’t it land for me? That’s the question I needed to find the answer to.

As most know already, “Yesterday” is about a struggling singer/songwriter named Jack Malik (Himesh Patel), whom has a charming voice and all-around good skills, but even with the help of his adoring manager, Ellie Appleton (Lily James), the gigs barely elevate past pub level, making escape from living with his parents to tour the world a growingly dim fantasy. By random stroke of luck, or, I should say, glitch in the Matrix that makes all the electricity on Earth to randomly flicker out that causes  Jack to get hit by a bus in the dark while riding his bicycle. Jack then awakens to a world where the Beatles never existed save for, strangely, his own memory and his alone.

After a few days go by and the shock of this vastly different musical landscape starts to truly sink in, Jack reluctantly begins to take credit for writing some of the biggest hits the Beatles ever wrote and performs them to the public. At first, the songs don’t appear to land, and immediately I thought, “Oh, Christ, here comes the ‘Lost Generation’ stab from Papa Boomer”, but thankfully the film did not go there, and soon Jack’s success starts to pick up steam after his “original’ poetry catches the ears of mega-celebrities like Ed Sheeran. Before long, Jack is making the rounds in England and visiting all the famous landmarks from various Beatles songs and album covers in order to gain inspiration.

If the impeding conflict wasn’t obvious enough, all the fame pushes Jack to a crossroads between being away from Ellie - whom has confessed feelings for him – and achieving his dream of becoming a global superstar. Oh yeah, and the whole heavy conscience because plagiarism-of-the-highest-order thing.

Okay, so one of my main grievances initially with “Yesterday” was the writing. I feel as though so much more exploration could have been done here instead of the absolute bare bones, but I think I’ve more or less forgiven that. Like I said, the profound nature and consequences of a plot like this could have effortlessly taken the film down a rabbit hole for which there was no bottom. It’s okay to let sleeping dogs lie on this one, and that’s what I’m going to do.

Yep, here it comes…

BUT – I don’t know – there’s still a big something missing. I might get some flack for this but, “Yesterday”, to me, doesn’t have much of a soul. In the past, I’ve referred to this as surface gloss where everything looks pretty and proper on the face, but instead of a heart underneath, it’s a void. Hey, for all I know, maybe that was the point since the popular culture environment of music in today’s age is equally plastic and glossy. If that’s the case, fine, but since the screenplay was already stripped down to the rom-com basics, it’s not as clever as it tried to be.

Hell, I’ll go ahead and say it, I got kind of pissed off at a faux-cameo at the end of the movie (no spoilers) that got reduced down to nothing more than moral exposition mapping out what anybody watching this film had already said in their own heads about twenty minutes into it.

“Ah, that’s what it is all about! *slow clap* Got me right in the feels.”

Obviously I’m no screenwriting prodigy, or any kind of prodigy, but goddamn it, that could have been played so much better and really given the film a huge boost at the finish line. For the sake of cheesy analogies, it was like watching an epic guitar solo crash and burn on the final note.

To clarify, there is plenty to feel good about in “Yesterday” too. Jack is a character one can easily route for, even if somehow his story arc didn’t move me like I hoped it would. Patel gives it his all in this film, and I’m sincerely hoping to see him again in future endeavors. Lily James was also rather irresistible, though I do wish she had gotten a bit more to do with more depth outside being the doughy-eyed object of affection. Last, but not least, probably some of my favorite scenes were run by Kate McKinnon as the label rep in charge of Jack and his album production. Leave it to Kate to take something like “stereotypical corporate sleaze” and make it hilarious.

The production and musical numbers have a lot of energy as well, especially in the quieter moments. I found Patel’s voice more appealing without all the noise and distractions going on around him, even for the purpose of squeezing in a few jokes. I don’t know right offhand how much prep work he had to do for this, but the guy has some decent chords, and that’s no small thing to consider when trying to do justice to a library of this magnitude.  

Look, I can totally understand why “Yesterday” has created some passionate fans. As a few have said to me already, it’s The Beatles, so what’s not to like? Fair enough on that point alone, but I guess I might be the outsider on this one that walked away lukewarm. After a while, I got tired of watching all the missed opportunities walk by unnoticed when it really would not have been difficult to get them included.

It’s not a terrible or even bad film. That being said, it wasn’t great or memorable enough for me. It is what it is.

“Yesterday”: 6/10

Wednesday, September 25, 2019

NEW REVIEW: "The Man Who Fell To Earth" (1976)


MRMOVIESETC REVIEWS:

“The Man Who Fell To Earth” (1976)


"Are you Lithuanian?"
"I come from England."
"Well, that's not so terrible."

I just realized as I sat down to write this review that this viewing of “The Man Who Fell To Earth” is the first time I’ve delved into anything with David Bowie in it since he died over three years ago. I have listened to his music, sure, but I’ve not really watched him then. Unsurprisingly, his unique presence, even after death, has not diminished one iota.

I really hate that he is gone.

***  

“The Man Who Fell To Earth” comes courtesy of Director Nicolas Roeg, whom most people my age may have first been introduced to his work as a kid back in 1990 with “The Witches”.

You remember “The Witches”, right?

Sure you do. It’s the one where Anjelica Huston does the whole –


Those were good times!


Anyway, before Roeg thought it fun to try and scare the shit out of little kids with witches attempting to eat kids they transformed into mice, he had a string of gems back in the 1970s with “Walkabout” (1971), “Don’t Look Now” (1973), and “The Man Who Fell To Earth” in 1976; the latter of which is considered to be his one true masterpiece, and one of the most iconic personas played by David Bowie outside of Ziggy Stardust.

If there’s one thing Roeg expected from his audiences with these kinds of films, it was their patience. Roeg excelled at taking big ideas and presenting them with a minimalist, yet psychedelic style of filmmaking that never moved at breakneck speed. Hell, the plot for “The Man” is pretty simplistic and stripped at its core, and somehow still justifies its over two-hour runtime on the back of a captivating performance from Bowie.

Bowie plays Thomas Jerome Newton, as he is known on Earth, for he is an extraterrestrial that, at first, appears to crash land on Earth. He quickly assumes the disguise of an Englishman and integrates seamlessly into human society, and by seamlessly, I mean he uses his own alien technology to launch one of the biggest conglomerates on Earth, making him beyond wealthy. Pulling strings behind the curtain so as to keep a certainly level of anonymity, Thomas has his attorney Oliver Farnsworth (Buck Henry) handle a bulk of the business dealings, and a hired professor/confidant, Dr. Nathan Bryce (Rip Torn), to realize his true objective – build a spacecraft that can transport both Thomas and water back to his family and home planet that has been ravaged by drought.

Prior to his arrival, Earth wasn’t equipped with technology advanced enough to carry out this objective, so the film’s story arcs over the course of many years; with the supporting characters growing noticeably older while Thomas never changes in appearance. Thomas must obviously occupy some of his time on Earth, so he develops a romantic-esque relationship with Mary-Lou (Candy Clark), manically absorbs human behavior via multiple television screens in his living room, and creates in him a rather dependent alcohol addiction to help keep his mind calm from the growing fear that his family will soon parish.

Unlike “Don’t Look Now” that came before it, Roeg makes “The Man That Fell To Earth” about the journey more than the destination. There are no big hooks, twists, or mysteries outside the being that is Thomas, and the reasons behind his quietly mysterious behavior. Throughout the entirety of the film, he gives off a vibe of having this incredibly vast knowledge of the universe beyond our borders, but at the same time, seems to believe that the human race is not capable of handling it all based on observed behaviors.

As I touched on earlier, it’s really kind of amazing how David Bowie was able to carry the weight of this film just with his mannerisms and ability to make the viewer hang on his every carefully-chosen word. Keep in mind that Bowie’s music career was still young at this time, and “The Man” was his debut as an actor. It’s unimaginable to think a film like this could be sold in today’s Hollywood with such a risk, even if this novel adaptation was tailor-made to fit Bowie’s quirks.

Thankfully, Roeg had already proved at this point that he has the kind of vision to make a combination like this work. True, the special effects in this film nowhere reach the heights nor sophistication of Kubrick’s “2001: A Space Odyssey” that came out only eight years prior, and one could argue the effects do not hold up very well to today’s standards also unlike “2001”; however, that’s where Roeg’s minimalist approach comes in handy. All the film’s flair just needed to be enough to help accentuate the narrative, and what it does have is effective in that endeavor.

Besides, there is one thing Roeg had that Kubrick didn’t always have – awkward drumroll – the art of the sex scene. If I were to ask myself from twenty years ago what I thought was important about the artistic style and context of sex in a film, the answer likely would have been, “I don’t care, they’re naked and that’s good for me!” I’m still a pretty immature bastard most days, but I have grown to appreciate how much sex and nudity being inserted cheaply into a film can often ruin it, or at least damage it.  Nicolas Roeg, on the other hand, has a kind of finesse with this art that is sorely lacking in modern cinema. Think about it – the final, steamy stanza with Thomas, Mary-Lou, and the gun – that was intense and suspenseful, and not in the way one would traditionally assume. The scene was something truly over-the-top, and yet felt right at home like the audience should have seen it coming.

It is humorous how something like that isn’t too strange anymore, but I cannot fathom the gasps it generated back in 1976. Oh, to have been a fly on the wall.

Another thing that a Roeg film often has a lot of is editing. Hell, editing was one of the big crutches of his previous film, “Don’t Look Back”. I can’t possibly imagine how much extra footage for “The Man” was out there that was taken out of this cut. Still, while not perfectly constructed, it’s another job nicely executed here. The passage of time is pretty vast in this film, so it’s not shocking to see random jumps without warning, although there were a couple that were kind of displacing. I could count a few instances where I was really into what was going on, and then suddenly found myself lost, thinking “Wait, how many years just went by? Thomas and Mary-Lou were just rolling around in the sack a second ago, and now Thomas is a miserable drunk breaking Mary-Lou’s heart?”

Of the few complaints I have, that covers most of them. I also cannot say I cared for some of the American interference angles that, while I won’t spoil them, came out of nowhere and didn’t really accomplish much. As far as villains go, they could have been kept in England and been much better developed.

Concerning the span of Roeg’s career and his films that I’ve seen so far, I completely agree, “The Man That Fell To Earth” is a must-see for not only sci-fi fans, but fans of film in general whom are willing to strap in for the slow ride. I wasn’t entirely sure what to expect here, and I ended up walking away having loved the movie. Roeg and Bowie were perfect for each other in this film, and it absolutely deserves its status as a piece of classic cinema.

“The Man Who Fell To Earth”: 9.5/10

Friday, September 20, 2019

NEW REVIEW: "Dog Days" (2018)


MRMOVIESETC REVIEWS:

“Dog Days” (2018)


I have a feeling the think tank sessions for this film went a little something like this:

“Ok, the studio says they need a new romantic comedy with dogs. They said Dennis Quaid and Josh Gad can’t have all the fun. We need multiple storylines so the audience can stay easily entertained. And GO!

“An ex-professional athlete and a stiff morning show host bond and fall in love against the odds because their dogs play well together?”

“Excellent! What else?”

“A nerdy guy that loves dogs and runs a dog shelter makes a girl out of his league fall in love with him against all odds because she too loves dogs?”

“Alright, kind of a retread, but we’ll go with it. What next?”

“A teenage delivery boy and an older gentleman, whom start off as rivals, bond and form a friendship after the elderly gentleman’s beloved dog runs away and the boy vows to help get her back?”

“That will work. Keep going!”

“Said runaway dog ends up in the hands of an adopted girl whom is struggling to gel with her new adopted parents, and when she gets the dog, she instantly brightens up and inevitably creates a foreshadowed conflict that will make moms cry?”

“Damn. Sure, audiences love bittersweet feelings. That will be the worst of it, right?”

“No, one of the dogs will have to die.”

“Shit…”

“But we’ll have a Chihuahua wear a cute pink helmet with googly eyes for levity.”

“Great! Now let’s stop before you ‘Marley & Me’ this bitch.”

*** 

Sorry, but all you have to do is look at the promotional poster or watch the trailer to know that there isn’t a lot for me to review here. I had a little fun with it, sure, but that dialogue essentially is the plot of “Dog Days”. Yet, as predictable and paint-by-the-numbers as it is, somehow this cast, crew, and Director Ken Marino managed to salvage a solid, heartfelt, and damn funny movie.

Yeah, I’m pretty shocked, too. I keep going back over it in my head and I’m thinking that a film like this, on paper, looked like it was going to be way too long at almost two hours and was going to either crash and burn, or be mediocre at best. Perhaps this one benefited greatly from the fact that it’s not stockpiled with veteran actors and filmmakers looking to make an easy buck. A bulk of the performances and dialogue here are cheesy without a shadow of a doubt, but low and behold, it is amazing what can be accomplished when there is a genuine commitment on all sides to brush aside expectations and actually, gee, try. Hell, this film is trying to split screentime between four main narratives, and the editing and pacing is remarkably even. No actor or story really outshines the other, in a good way for a change, and despite a lack of any true character development, each transition from one storyline to the next and back again felt welcome.

Now, sure, I could knock it down a peg for taking no new chances, and for some reason, insisting on inserting these repeated one-off scenes involving a random meteorologist telling the same jokes over and over, except just a different delivery each time, which completely throws off the flow every time it came back. I don’t want to dwell on it too long, but let’s just say those bits were about as effective as the “Debbie Downer” skits from Saturday Night Live. I can already hear you groaning from here.

“Dog Days” is currently streaming on Hulu, and I would suggest checking it out. I can’t promise there will be a complete lack of eye-rolling or other such disapprovals from time-to-time – a film like this practically cannot exist without those – but you will also smile, laugh, and maybe even shed a tear or two. This one was an enjoyable watch and earns its praise.

“Dog Days”: 8/10





Wednesday, September 18, 2019

NEW REVIEW: "The Only Living Boy in New York" (2017)


MRMOVIESETC REVIEWS:

“The Only Living Boy in New York” (2017)


"I haven't done much with my life."
"You've had sex with your father's mistress. I'd say that's something."


I’ve got to do what I’ve got to do. I’ll get it out of my system now…

“There are gods, and then there is Kate Beckinsale

For whom the gods lustfully envy”


What? It’s better than saying “She’s fucking hot” all the time.

She is, though.

***  

Eh.

“The Only Living Boy in New York” walks that blurry, thin line between a film that could be considered legitimately sort of good and a film that fundamentally works so it’s tempting to call it good more than it deserves. The main issue with all of it is not so much the twist that you’re going to see coming almost immediately in a runtime that is already short, but all of its strengths lie on the surface. There is some good stuff to take in on that level, to be certain, however, the film lacks a soul that would have made it stick with anybody a lot longer than a few hours after it ends.

One good thing that I did end up liking about “Living Boy” and its narrative was its transition from what looked like a coming-of-age romantic drama in the beginning to something more like a study of a set of characters marred by their own illusions of weakness. It is enjoyable-ish to see it all play out, even if it does still feel hollower than it should.

Thomas Webb (Callum Turner) is a talented writer living in Brooklyn, whom has lost his sense of direction mainly due to his overbearing father, Ethan (Pierce Brosnan), deterring him from his passions of literature. To fill his time, he relentlessly tries to win the romantic affections of his friend Mimi (Kiersey Clemons), whom admittedly does like to tease him along, but keeps a firm stance on their remaining only friends. Being a young man in his early twenties and chemicals raging away in his brain - and other places - he often handles the rejection rather childishly.

One day, while catching a show together, Thomas and Mimi catch Ethan in the act of having an affair with a gorgeous woman named Johanna (Kate Beckinsale). Thomas doesn’t appear nearly as concerned about the ramifications of this on his father, as the two are not very close, than he is with how badly it will affect his mother, Judith (Cynthia Nixon), whom suffers from severe depression and sees her family as the only perfect thing in her life holding her sanity together most days. He then takes it upon himself to follow Johanna around until he can properly confront her and demand she break it off with his father. Much to his shock, Johanna falls into lust with Thomas, which, while obviously a good time, complicates the matters at hand that much more.

Between all of these events, it’s worth mentioning that Thomas has been getting the advice of a new, wise, and drunken neighbor, W. F. Gerald (Jeff Bridges). Thomas begins to see W.F. as a father figure that helps steer him out of his shell and go after the affections he craves with more confidence, including Johanna.

All of that doesn’t sound like it would cover a decent chunk of the plot, but it really kind of does. That’s not altogether a bad thing as this movie definitely would have been crippled from any unnecessary convolution. Interestingly enough, though the plot would make her sound like nothing more than an object of sexual desire for two men, Johanna’s impact is something far greater and serves as an interesting catalyst to set the unraveling of all personal demons in motion in an unexpected way. I won’t spoil it, though I really want to because it’s easily the most redeemable aspect of a story that is rather thin otherwise. In fact, I would say this angle was almost too good and made everything else going on look weaker and lackadaisical by contrast.

Being a character-driven drama, the cast brings very little to complain about in their efforts to make sure “Living Boy” never entirely sinks. Bridges has been playing the drunk yet wise old man for so long that it is a science; Beckinsale is still average as far as her range is concerned, though she knows just how to make the room warmer on purpose; Brosnan is more or less phoning it in, but he’s “serviceable” (inside joke from the movie); and both Turner and Clemons are by far the most intriguing of the bunch with an intentionally awkward chemistry that gels almost perfectly alongside the equally great banter between Bridges and Turner.

Like I’ve hinted at a few times, the film’s main falling point is its story. I almost want to compare it to a piece of furniture that one would get from IKEA. It has a basic, barebones design that looks nice when assembled properly, but there is nothing particularly vibrant about the craftsmanship. “Living Boy” is essentially Storytelling 101 that lacks the ebbs and flows and depth that could have made it hit so much more forcefully. Instead, we’re left with a film that, while thankfully doesn’t overstay its welcome, was too afraid to do anything beyond simple, functional mechanics. I don’t mind simplicity, not in the least, but in this case, it’s not done in service to the feature. There are no genuine surprises at any stage either; a feat that an A-list cast like this could have pulled off in their sleep if only they had been given the chance.

Other than that, there’s not much else I can say. At the end of the day, I somehow still had some fun watching this one play out. I only wish it came in with more of an attitude to reach for more rather than settling for easy.

It’s not exactly recommended, but on the plus side, if you do decide to see it, it won’t take up much of your time.

“The Only Living Boy in New York”: 5.5/10

Monday, September 16, 2019

NEW REVIEW: "The Illusionist" (2006)


MRMOVIESETC REVIEWS:

“The Illusionist” (2006)


"I'm a cynical man, God knows. But if your manifestations are somehow real, 
then even I am willing to admit you're a very special person."


“Dante’s Peak” vs. “Volcano” = “Dante’s Peak” wins, but it’s close.

“Armageddon” vs. “Deep impact” = I’d say “Deep Impact”, but again, it’s close.

“Madagascar” vs. “The Wild” = Damn, Disney, sans Pixar, the 2000s were rough for you, huh?

“The Prestige” vs. “The Illusionist” = ?

*** 

Okay, we all knew the answer to that question beforehand, and this was the first time I had seen “The Illusionist”. I’m not sure why it took me so long either considering that Paul Giamatti could probably sell me ice in a Midwestern blizzard (yes, even roleplaying as Cleveland Heep). Casting-wise, “Prestige” held a slight advantage with Bale, Jackman, Caine, and even David Bowie as Nikola Tesla, because the other three names just weren’t enough. But hey, Nolan just came off one of the best Batman films ever made, for at least three years until 2008, so one could say the scales were tipped from the get-go, leaving “The Illusionist” somewhat in the shadows.

Really that’s kind of a shame, because while it’s had plenty of time to finally reach a bigger audience, “The Illusionist” has many of its own charms to appreciate. Rather than be loaded with twists and turns like “The Prestige”, “The Illusionist” banks all of its efforts on building up to one central conceit, and it’s not half-bad at all.

Per legend, and before he became the popular illusionist known as Eisenheim (Edward Norton), Eduard Abramovich (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) was the lower class son of a cabinet maker in rural Austria-Hungary before he met a lone magician that strikes a fascinating chord with Eduard. Before long, he begins mastering the art of magic and illusion at a remarkably young age, and soon catches the eye of Sophie (Eleanor Tomlinson), a girl of greater wealth and class whom he is forbidden from socializing with. After breaking said boundaries and being forcibly separated from Sophie, Eduard leaves his village and travels abroad to gather an audience with his talents.

Around fifteen years later, he returns home with his new name of Eisenheim, and is gaining considerable popularity at the local theatre. He even catches the eye of Chief Inspector Walter Uhl (Paul Giamatti), whom would love nothing more than to figure out how Eisenheim conducts his illusions. One evening, he performs in front of the highest of guests, Crown Prince Leopold (Rufus Sewell), a wicked, proud, and violent man whom is not at all thrilled about Eisenheim being able to push his buttons without being to pinpoint how he does his magic. He’s especially bitter about how Eisenheim seems to have an eye for his bride-to-be, the now Dutchess Sophie von Teschen (Jessica Biel). The closer the two former childhood lovebirds come to rekindling their romance, the more dangerous the Crown Prince becomes, to the point that both Eisenheim and Sophie become targets of his deadly rage that Eisenheim must use his powers against.

As I say most every time with these kinds of films – copy and paste – there’s considerably more to the plot than this, but I’m starting to lean against the SPOILER wall, so that’s my queue to stop.

I’ll get to the other particulars in a moment, but I wanted to start with what really stuck out to me the most, and it’s kind of minor, but I absolutely loved the editing in this movie. During the flashback scenes, the coloring was made to look faded with noticeable framing transitions like something you would have seen back in the early silent film era. I’m glad it was not used for the film’s entirety as that would have gotten hard on the eyes with all the dark and dreary backdrops the set pieces had already. It’s certainly not something they needed to do, but it was a really crafty touch that I wish more modern filmmakers would embrace. Then again, we are getting “The Lighthouse” soon, and that appears to be going all out on this aging method, so there you go.

As I said in the beginning, “The Prestige” may have had the advantage bolstering a hugely talented cast, but “The Illisionist” has its own set of guns, too. The accents were a little shaky, if I were to be perfectly honest, and I am fairly positive I heard Norton’s crack a few times, but overall everybody carried it well enough. Norton’s turn as Eisenheim was well done and quieter than most of his lead performances, Giamatti as the not-quite-fully-corrupted Chief Inspector was solid like everything the man does in his career, and Biel does not have the high presence that the cast list invites one to think, but she plays a believable Juliet to Eisenheim’s Romeo. All three actors are fully in to sell this, and as one can picture with a premise like this one, poker faces make all the difference.

I would have liked to have seen Sewell’s Crown Prince be a better-written antagonist. Sewell’s characters tend to get this way in some of his past features regardless, but he is a full-on cartoon in this movie, especially in the second half. Far be it for me to suggest Director Neil Burger not let him off his chain; he’s just not as intimidating as he should be and really is when he is more subdued and hissing in an almost whispered tonal authority. I will say that his arc comes to an intriguingly dark peak that I did not see coming at all for reasons I wish I could say.

I do wonder how long the mystique from “The Illusionist” is going to stay with me. When I was reflecting on it afterward, I wanted to compare it to a nice fireworks show: A purposefully steady buildup of drama, suspense, and mystery that concludes with the Big Spectacle finish, and then it’s over. The whole experience was a good time and had all the right pieces, yet it starts to fade from memory once the adrenaline wears off.

While that may sound like a slant against the film, I want to emphasize that it is not – at least not entirely. “The Illusionist” is good and there is plenty about it to enjoy, but it is not quite great either. If this and “The Prestige” were placed in front of me and I were asked to watch one or the other for a total of ten viewings, I’d likely pick “Prestige” eight of those times. Timing may have been against “The Illusionist”, but that can’t shoulder all of the blame; “Prestige” is the superior.

Still, if you are like me and haven’t given this one a shot over the past decade for one reason or another, I do recommend it as a stream or rental. It does certainly deserve a fair shake.

“The Illusionist”: 7.5/10

Friday, September 13, 2019

RAPID FIRE REVIEWS: September 13th, 2019


MRMOVIESETC REVIEWS:

“John Wick Chapter 3: Parabellum”


John Wick has returned yet again to deal some unapologetically copious amounts of ass-whoopin’. Actually, though, he doesn’t literally kick many people, like, right in the ass. He does kick a lot of dudes in the junk, which many said dudes would argue is far worse than getting kicked in the ass; either way, right after he does that, he puts bullets in their skulls, so anything else prior is kind of moot.

The point is that Keanu Reeves is still awesome. Duh.

*** 

Those whom have avoided keeping up on the “John Wick” films aren’t likely to care about any of this anyway, but for the rest, “Parabellum” picks right after the events of “Chapter 2”: Wick is alive albeit badly beaten, and he is quickly trying to get medical attention and hightail it out of town as he is about to become excommunicado, which simply means he’s no longer to be in the company and protection of the league of assassins, and there will be an Open Season on his head with a hefty payout to follow for any killer thinking they can take him down. In the meantime, Wick desperately works through what few allies he has left to get to Casablanca, home of the “Elder Above the High Table”, so he can plead his case and hopefully get the High Table off his back.

While John is off trying to get his affairs back in line, an officer of the High Table called The Adjudicator (Asia Kate Dillon) is going around making threats with her own army to anybody that has assisted John Wick during is “crimes”, including Winston (Ian McShane), The Director (Angelica Huston), and the Bowery King (Laurence Fishburne). Suffice it to say, Wick & Co. will need to accumulate their highest body count yet in order to survive.

That’s pretty much it. Now, that doesn’t sound like it could even fill an hour of movie, and conventionally speaking it probably wouldn’t, but considering that Wick has to punch, kick, slice, and shoot through horde after horde of henchmen like a video game on crack, the film pads out the two hours pretty smoothly. As expected by now, the fight scenes continue to be awe-inspiring for a man that is well into his fifties and still does all his own damn stunts. Of course, Director Chad Stahelski can’t be having John kill people the same way all the time, so there are some new additives of killing on horseback, killing on motorcycles, killing martial artists in a room made of practically nothing other than glass, and killing alongside Halle Berry at one point so she and her two fearless canines can mess the shit out of people, too.

There’s really no room for error in any of these “John Wick” movies. The plot(s) are kept functionally simple so Keanu can do what he does best, and I imagine fans of this series could not care less about much else. As much as I do enjoy them in the moment, the first two, and now the third, are mainly just that – fun in the moment. I like them, and I respect the Hell out of them, although they have always been and always will be one-time watches for me. That being said, I will keep on watching the new ones for as long as they keep on making them, even if they are really starting to bleed together to the degree of only being memorable for the best deaths.

“John Wick Chapter 3: Parabellum”: 7/10



“The Dead Don’t Die” (2019)


Huh. Hmmm.

Well, damn, this one was kind of a disappointment.

Stylistically-speaking, “The Dead Don’t Die” has all the Jarmusch-isms that have made Jim Jarmusch great throughout the years: A solid cast, minimal plot mechanics, dead-pan comedic delivery, and an ingenious pacing method to mirror the tone and narration of the film.  Unfortunately, between a social commentary that is so dead-on-the-nose that it is almost cringe-worthy, and the not great comedy used to drive that commentary, the whole thing felt depressingly empty and nothing more than a finger-wag to humanity. Then again, maybe that was the point, but one would hope that Jarmusch hasn’t reached the level of Lars Von Trier narcissism. That guy has enough of it to cause cancer through the TV waves.

In the rural town of Centerville, the normal routine of Police Chief Cliff Robertson (Bill Murray), and Officer Ronnie Peterson (Adam Driver) gets turned upside down when the Earth suddenly shifts its axis due to world governments fracking excessively at both poles, causing daylight hours to get completely out of whack, wildlife to behave strangely, and, because reasons, reanimate the dead. Like most zombies, these creatures crave the flesh of the living, but also the things they loved most when they were alive – chardonnay, coffee, baseball, toys, comics, wifi, etc. Being a simplistic small town setting, none of the residents fully know how to react to the invasion despite some of their clear knowledge of needing to “kill the head”, so the infection begins to rapidly spread, with remaining survivors becoming increasingly stranded.

I don’t want to say that, even though I felt mostly let down, that there were no redeeming qualities to “The Dead Don’t Die”. Having Bill Murray as the star is already a plus seeing that deadpan is his bread and butter, and Adam Driver is becoming one of my favorite newer A-list actors. The two don’t have amazing chemistry, but that looked to be by design to showcase a generation separated by technology and popular culture. Driver’s character is also the only one that is “in” on the entire plot from the start, which is supposed to be one of the long-running jokes of the whole thing, but sadly one of the many that fell flat. Nonetheless, I did at least get some grins and chuckles out of it, if nothing else, thanks to the banter between the two leads.

Giving credit where it’s due, I’m always glad to see Jim Jarmusch attempt new things and different genres whilst still staying true to his craft. Sometimes, though, there are going to misfires, and this one was a straight wash.

“The Dead Don’t Die”: 5/10



“Being Frank” (2019)


Once, just once, I would love to see a screenwriter and/or director take one of these “person living a double life” stories and go completely left field with it. Whether it’s uproariously funny, risqué, off-the-wall-bizarre, or whatever else one can possibly conjure up, I don’t care, just be something different. Leave my jaw on the floor, that’s what I would like to have happen.

To my experience, that hasn’t happened yet, and with “Being Frank”, the dream is still only a dream.

*** 

If there’s one thing I really respect about Jim Gaffigan outside of his standup – I do really love his standup – is that he hardly ever brings that persona onto the big screen. I certainly do not see him as some transcendent actor, and I have a feeling he agrees with that if you have ever listened to his standup routines before, though he’s never been afraid to test his acting abilities with dramatic roles. “Being Frank” is yet another one of those.

Even though I was armed with this information in the back of my mind, I sat down to “Being Frank” fully expecting a mostly silly comedy based off of the trailers, and that is not the case at all. There are certainly funny, silly, and outright hilarious moments, maybe even enough to call it a dramedy, but with Gaffigan especially, there was more seriousness in the actual core of this than I initially expected.

Taking a closer look, Frank is a middle-aged man that inherited a successful ketchup business and has a lovely family with his wife Laura (Anna Gunn), his son Philip (Logan Miller), and daughter Lib (Emerson Tate Alexander). Due to being atop the family business, Frank must frequently leave home for weeks at a time so he can go to Japan for business purposes. What is family doesn’t know is that when Frank means he’s going to Japan, he really means he’s going to be with his secret second family, consisting of his other wife Bonnie (Samantha Mathis), his other son Eddie (Gage Polchlopek), and other daughter Kelly (Isabelle Phillips). What sends Frank’s secret into a tailspin is when Philip goes against his parents’ wishes and sneaks off to Florida for Spring Break and happens to catch Frank in the act of being with his second family.

Philip is able to infiltrate this other home by pretending to be the son of Frank’s closest friend that nobody mysteriously has ever met, and uses the situation as black mail so Frank will let Philip go to the university that he really wants to go to that Frank opposes. Soon thereafter, Laura discovers Philip has disobeyed her, and she shows up in Florida as well by surprise, making Frank’s situation all the direr and humorously chaotic.

I don’t intend to spoil the ending or anything like that, but if you’ve stuck with me this far, you know exactly where this is going, because this type of film always goes that way. The path to getting to t


hat point is hit-and-miss, however there are some fruits along the way. Easily the most entertaining side-plot of the whole film is when Kelly starts falling in love with Philip, seeing that she has no clue whom he really is in relation to her life. Speaking of, Miller is really the big star of the whole show. He has to go through multiple different cycles of vengeful, hurt, playful, funny, and heartfelt, and I would say he carries the load nicely. Gaffigan is certainly fine too in the old “guy running around in circles trying to save his ass” routine. In fairness, it’s pretty hard to screw that up.

In the end, this is a film that could have easily been twenty minutes shorter for what it was trying to sell, and while it’s completely predictable and unoriginal, there’s enough starpower and good notes to get it where it is going without too much fatigue.

I can’t exactly say I recommend it, but if you get a free rental or something and there’s nothing else, go for it.

“Being Frank”: 6/10

Wednesday, September 11, 2019

NEW REVIEW: "Destroyer" (2018)


MRMOVIESETC REVIEWS:

“Destroyer” (2018)

"I know what it's like to grow up bad, jealous, hungry, scared. I didn't want that for you."

You know, if I had to pick just one favorite recurring line that has been used numerous times in the entire history of cinema, I think it’d have to be the classic “ENTERNAMEHERE is back”. I mean, I don’t know about you, but nothing else quite makes my ears perk up than when I feel like I’m about to be vaguely introduced in a chilly, quivering voice from a protagonist or side character to some unknown badass that makes time stop everything he/she/it is in the room. Sometimes they do not even have to be in the room, but can still haunt based solely on reputation or the threat of action. No matter which way it ends up going, usually the trick works really well, and while “Destroyer” approaches it differently than most that I have seen recently, it leans towards the latter of the two.

Truthfully, I hesitate to get into the story of “Destroyer” much at all in this review, because it has the type of narrative structure that basically equates to two-hours-worth of baiting. It is established almost immediately that something big and terrible - actually that plus a lot of little things - has already happened, and the film is going to spend most of its time gradually uncovering what those things were mostly in the present time, so it can properly build up to the Big Finish. Granted, that’s not anything new in storytelling, but, as they say, “If it ain’t broke…”

Officer Erin Bell (Nicole Kidman) is inwardly (and outwardly) a hardened cop with alcohol consumption issues, to put it lightly, whom arrives on the scene of a murder already being handled by some of her colleagues. Clearly sleep-deprived, they tell her the scene is under control and that they don’t need her there. Insisting to examine the corpse anyway, Erin notices a piece of evidence next to the body – a one-hundred dollar bill splattered with purple ink. While she never reveals anything about it to the other on-duty cops at the scene, it is made clear to the audience that this holds personal significance to Erin before she leaves to go back to the office.

Upon arriving at her desk, a postage envelope is there waiting for her holding similar cash that also has the purple ink. This is the where the aforementioned “too well. Now, back in the present, Erin must follow the trail of her past so that she can get to Silas first before he can cause all sorts of trouble for her and her family.
is back” reference comes in when Erin reports the taunt to an FBI confidant and tells him that Silas (Toby Kebbell) has returned and has quite possibly marked her as a target. Over sixteen years prior to that moment, the film shows a younger Erin and her partner, Chris (Sebastian Stan), preparing to infiltrate Silas’ gang of drug dealers and bank robbers. Flashbacks show that the partners meld into the group successfully, and perhaps a little

Obviously, there’s a shit ton more going on here, but I’ll leave it at that.

Sigh – it may finally be time for me to admit that I kind of, maybe, sort of, possibly, probably, and/or reluctantly like Nicole Kidman as an actress now. I am extremely unapologetic when it comes to absolutely not liking much, if any, of her earlier work. Try as I might, I can never seem to nail it down to anything more than how I think she came off as really fake and pretentious in her constant quest for award nominations. She does still seem to pick those kinds of roles these days, although something about her effort seems far more genuine now. “Destroyer” may very well be one of the most demanding roles she’s had in recent memory, and considering that this film is all about her character, she positively kills it. There’s no other real description that fits. She transforms Erin Bell into a relatable, yet totally no-bullshit mother and police officer that has long since thrown caution into the wind and will do what she must to make things right, even if that goal is seemingly impossible.

This is definitely a film that gives the impression that it’s going to be wickedly gritty and violent, and while it does have those things, it was surprisingly quiet and introspective most of the time. I would have been more than okay if Director Karyn Kusama had decided to make this a 90s throwback and have Erin go full guns-a-blazin’, yet I’m kind of glad it had more realistic roots than that. A plot as morally grey as this one, or, Hell, let’s just call it black, needs more substance than style for what it is trying to accomplish, and I think Kusama did that and then some.

“Destroyer” also has some remarkably good pacing for a film that continues the recent Hollywood trend of non-linear storytelling. It’s become such a gimmick anymore that most filmmakers and editors don’t bother to put much care into the craft, but with this one, there is the right amount of back-and-forth between past and present to make for a truly heartfelt climax. For a film that’s not really trying to dazzle in any way except for compelling character drama, it makes the two hour slow(ish)burn worth the trek.

I do wish a couple of the subplots in this film involving Erin’s family and current police partner had been given better closure, especially considering how much emphasis was put on them along the way. I also would have liked to have seen Silas end up being more interesting than he really was, but I guess for both complaints, not having them be too prominent was kind of the point. The story isn’t about them; it’s about Erin’s trials and triumphs, and how these side characters happen to be connected to her physical and psychological scars. That being said, the slightest bit of enhancement to either one of those would have made the ending payoff that much better for the time spent getting there.

Sorry to be more vague than usual on this one. Some films demand the full experience, and “Destroyer” is certainly one of those. It’s too bad Annapurna didn’t, or couldn’t, push this project out to the masses on a bigger scale, because this is easily one of the better suspenseful dramas of 2018. If nothing else, it’s definitely worth the watch to see Kidman take the shape of a person almost unrecognizable to the rest of her filmography.

You should give this one a shot. It’s currently streaming on Hulu.

“Destroyer”: 8.5/10

Monday, September 9, 2019

NEW REVIEW: "Booksmart" (2019)


MRMOVIESETC REVIEWS:

“Booksmart” (2019)



I’ve always found comedies to be the most difficult films to review at length, unless they’re terrible, because at least then I don’t need to feel too guilty about digging a bit deeper into what failed and why. Good comedies, on the other hand, I almost prefer to leave alone or keep vague at a maximum so as to not ruin the setups of the best jokes. I’m not sure how this one is going to turn out since I am obviously not there yet, but if it does end up being on the short side because I felt it necessary, my apologies in advance.

*** 

It’s not really at all surprising to me that Olivia Wilde would choose “Booksmart”, an R-rated teen comedy, as the platform for her directing debut. To my knowledge, I don’t believe she’s actually starred in many outright comedies in her still-growing career, but she’s always had this dry wit to her that I’ve loved. Couple that with a team of writers that have either directing experience of their own and/or are good at writing from the female perspective accurately and humorously, I can see why a film like this that has been done many times before with various levels of success received buzz on the indie circuit.

The story for “Booksmart” is about two best friends, Amy Antsler (Kaitlyn Dever) and Molly Davidson (Beanie Feldstein), on the Eve of their high school graduation. As the title aptly implies, both girls are extremely classroom intelligent with incredibly bright college futures ahead of them. Naturally, this means they perfectly fill the “nerd” stereotype: All work and no play outside of hanging out with each other. In the beginning of the film, neither one is bothered by this as they believe, or at least Molly believes, that they are step above the rest of their classmates whom never outwardly cared about studying nearly as much as they cared about partying and all other forms of socialization. The twist in the plot comes in when the realization is made that – oops – many of said classmates excelled equally as well despite having a work/play balance that both Amy and Molly thought to be impossible. Now, they feel must immediately drop all previous inhibitions and party the night away before the next chapter of their lives begins the following day.

Of course, the full narrative is significantly richer than that, especially with the character development. I really loved how, instead of making it a full-blown event, Amy is a lesbian that is already out of the closet, although she’s never had a romantic relationship yet, so there’s awkwardness and shyness with both her own insecurities and interactions with her parents that proves to be hilarious material. All of that is also ushered along with Molly’s extroverted nature that creates both intentional and unintentional embarrassment for Amy. It also goes without saying that many plans for the night go awry and that’s where the bulk of the funny comes in. The film isn’t wholly original in that regard, though execution has always been more critical than anything else with these kinds of movies.

I cannot say for sure if it was by design or the production simply lacked the funds, but assuming it was the former, I got a lot of appreciation out of how there wasn’t an A-List name on the marquee for “Booksmart” to act as a lure for audiences as opposed to letting the two main leads shine on their own terms. Jason Sudeikis does a make a few brief appearances, and that shouldn’t be shocking given that he’s the significant other of the director and all. Outside of him, Devers and Feldstein run the show, and they are spot-on perfect for this film. I’ve been watching Devers act for a handful of years when she was a regular on the initial run of the “Last Man Standing” TV show, and to me, she was always the standout with her dry humor delivery; a bulk of which translates over “Booksmart”. I’m not able to say the same about Feldstein, but that shouldn’t diminish anything about her ability because she shows exactly why she deserved her role.

Low and behold, “Booksmart” manages to miraculously be another comedy from 2019 to make the token vulgarity trope work to its benefit rather than against it, and no, not just because girls are doing it this time, therefore, funny. It’s amazing how much better humor like that performs when its situational and took its time in the build-up instead of randomly seeing how loud genital terms can be shouted in a typically derogatory fashion. That’s not to say that kind of shtick is without a home, but it’s become a staple that has been beaten into the grave thrice over.

If I have any complaints, and they are few, they would mainly be regarding the transitions from comedy to drama. Said transitions are entirely warranted as the narrative does go into the heavy, mostly with Amy, but when they do come along, I feel they could have used fleshing out and less easy resolutions. There is also one giant plot convenience that instantly makes no sense if allowed to be reflected upon for more than a few seconds. Fortunately the film does move at an expert pace that it truly is easily forgotten once a few minutes go by. None of these things are nearly as jarring as those descriptions make them sound; I just can’t think of a better way to put it out there.

I think I will leave it at that for “Booksmart”. While I didn’t find the more heartfelt moments to be as effective as they should have been, this is still one excellent debut for the two leads and Wilde as a director. It is refreshingly funny all the way through with a mix of silly and clever, and none of the antics feel forced or out of place. I recall feeling slightly astonished at how long it’s been since I have seen a new comedy flow as well as this one does. Don’t be at all surprised if this one turns up on a lot of Top Ten lists come December.

Absolutely recommended.

“Booksmart”: 8.5/10