NEW REVIEW: The GODZILLA Anime Trilogy (2017-2018)

MRMOVIESETC REVIEWS:

“Godzilla: Planet of the Monsters” (2017)

“Godzilla: City on the Edge of Battle” (2018)

“Godzilla: The Planet Eater” (2018)

Ah, anime – a medium that could take material like Godzilla to places it has not yet gone before in its decades-long history. It could have, and based on that alone, I think you know what’s next.

*** 

It is redundant to even complain about what passes for writing in a Godzilla film in 2019, right? As the series has moved along and grown over the years, the general acceptance appeared to be that audiences wanted to see Godzilla & Co. fight each other and destroy things while having just barely enough bad narrative to get by. The results were often silly, but hey, with continued advancements in technology and body suits, the entertainment factor held up nicely.

Now, with this new trilogy from Toho Animation, imagine roughly about ninety minutes worth of story stretched to nearly five total hours with some of the briefest and blandest Godzilla encounters mixed in with missed opportunities on top of missed opportunities. It is one thing for it to essentially be a rehash of the 1954 original “Godzilla” story about how the beast is a living embodiment of Earth’s revenge against the sins of humanity, except this time it is told through a newer, more colorful light. That’s completely fine with me, and to the screenwriters’ credit, there are a few items checked off in the Weird category; such as, Mechagodzilla taking the shape of a city and yet is somehow a living organism, and also, yes, really, an alien death cult. For a single feature-length film, that is not half-bad. For three films, however, it takes an eternity to reach its pinnacle with a finale you can see coming towards the end of “Planet of the Monsters”.

To flesh this out a little, the overarching story focuses on Haruo Sakaki – and Earthling that was forced to flee the planet as a small child due to Godzilla’s murderous rampage. With the humans finding it increasing difficult to sustain life on their ship and other planets, Haruo pledges to go back to Earth and rid it of Godzilla, for whom he has a seething hatred for and is his sole motivational arc throughout this entire trilogy, in order to give humanity a fighting chance to “take back what is theirs”. One of the only allies Harou has in this venture is Metphies, an alien priest whom uses his calm demeanor and so-called truths of a higher power to spark the spirits of what little military the humans have left to help exterminate Godzilla. Metphies has an unmistakably shady demeanor from the get-go, and when the battle with Godzilla finally starts to reach its breaking point, he adds a whole new dynamic of mammoth proportions to the fray that is kind of awesome.

I could easily add a few more odds and ends to the synopsis, but I’m not joking when I tell you that this is the main framework built to sustain a trilogy. Sure, Metphies can be interesting on occasion when he’s not spouting off the same religious lines over and over, but until literally the last twenty minutes or so of “The Planet Eater”, there’s not much for him to do other than to set brief plot devices in motion. It’s really kind of a shame, because he easily could have been used to add some much needed flavor to the first two installments.

Instead, we get to follow Haruo around the entire time – lucky us. Let me just say that if a one-note rage machine that tries to yell at and fail at killing Godzilla multiple times while on his path to pseudo-enlightenment, then by all means, get on the Haruo bandwagon. I may have lost count at some point due to my rapidly shrinking ability to give a crap anymore, but I’m fairly certain that at least twice during these three films, it is literally told right to Haruo that “THIS is why Godzilla is here. THIS is humanity’s fault”, and being the deductive being that he is, Haruo’s only response, as was his response to everything - “Fuck Godzilla!” I’m paraphrasing a little, but the dialogue could have used some F-bombs to keep the mood light.

There are of course other humans and characters in this show, although, seeing that they were all nothing by exposition-spewing robots, I am going to skip over all of that.

Moving on, let’s talk about the reason why anybody really watches these movies in the first place – The King. The Myth. The Legend. The One and Only GODZILLA. And the magnificent What-The-Fuck these films tried to make him out to be.

I have no idea how an animated Godzilla could have been created and approved to be this boring.

Not a single clue.

Allow me to paint the picture for you and save some time: He’s massive (cool), barely defined outside of his basic shape (not cool), never does anything outside of walking in a straight line slower than drying paint (seriously), and occasionally blast things (cool maybe the first two times). Should that not tickle you enough, he does engage in one Monster v Monster battle with Ghidorah in “Planet Eater”, and I say “Ghidorah” loosely seeing as he’s merely a three-headed hologram from a different dimension with no body. In case you are still somehow possibly wondering at this point, Ghidorah’s creature design is also about a dull as Godzilla’s, but hey, at least Ghidorah glows. Hoorah.

Basically, in a nutshell, the Godzilla anime trilogy is about humanity trashing the Earth and then getting pissed off and desperate that the Earth fought back to restore balance in the form of Godzilla; an alien death cult looking to destroy civilizations one-by-one with their Ghidorah deity for some dumbass reason; and a human named Harou right in the middle yelling at things and being emo in a way that’s supposed to tie up the first two points. Good God, er, Ghidorah?

Lastly, to end this review on a high note, not even the animation as a whole was much to write home about. It’s certainly nothing outside what the “Final Fantasy” or “Dead Space” films have already done. I feel like a broken record at this point, but how many synonyms are there for “bland”, “boring”, “listless”, “lifeless”, etc.?

Hopefully some Godzilla fans out there were able to get more out of this trilogy than I, but this has to be, without a doubt, one of the biggest disappointments on my viewing list so far in 2019. To be fair, it had moments here and there, and the whole occult vibe had something going for it had it not been half-baked. I am truly and utterly amazed what little was done with a palette of limitless possibilities like this. It’s damn near criminal.

“Godzilla: Planet of the Monsters”: 4/10

“Godzilla: City on the Edge of Battle”: 3/10

“Godzilla: The Planet Eater”: 4.5/10

NEW REVIEW: "The Lion King" (2019)

MRMOVIESETC REVIEWS:

“The Lion King” (2019)

Alright, let’s do this thing.

I didn’t see the new “Lion King” until the second weekend of its run, and even then, there were about eighty new reviews per day on social media ranking it, on average, as either “pretty good” or the “worst thing Disney has ever done”. Intentionally, I waited to put my take out until the dust had a chance to settle from both the masses and in my mind, because this remake was a momentous event in cinema regardless of emotions pre- or post-viewing. I honestly loved sitting back for a while and watching the film community buzz the loudest it has in years, regardless of negative or positive commentary.

As everyone and their dead relatives know by now, since this new version of “The Lion King” wasn’t altered all that much from the original 1994 material, I’m going to approach this review a little differently than I usually do as there’s not much benefit in rehashing on what does and doesn’t work with the story and its various beats. Instead, I am going to list out what my favorite and not-so-favorite things about this remake were, and put a nice bow on it afterwards.

Cool?

Cool.

THE POSITIVES:

-          The Animation – Duh. The trailers for this film alone were enough to indicate that this was going to be one of the most jaw-dropping studio animation productions ever made. For somebody like me that is a dork when it comes to these things, “The Lion King” was nothing short of mesmerizing. I wouldn’t say it was entirely “realistic” across the board, especially with the lion cubs, and oddly, adult Nala for some reason, didn’t quite look as solid as Mufasa, Scar, and the other background wildlife. Nevertheless, from the crawling ant, the leaping antelope, and all the way down to the giraffe dung ball carrying Simba’s fur (super cool scene), this was a job well-done for the ages and will be taking home all kinds of hardware during award season.

-          Scar – I fucking LOVED Scar in this remake. Oh, he doesn’t sound like Jeremy Irons? Well, for the rest of my life, there will now be the Jeremy Irons “Scar” and the Chiwetel Ejiofor “Scar”, and they will live together in harmony. I thought his design in this film was brilliant, and he even got a few new shadow scenes that were borderline scary. Additionally, Ejiofor brought a Shakespearean touch to the role that I felt totally worked. Considering this was the dynamic of the film that I was most concerned about seeing that Scar is my favorite character in the original, this reworking far surpassed my expectations.

-          The Hyenas – If we had gotten about another thirty minutes in their world, I would have been fine with it. To attach the term “bad-ass” to any character in this film, it belongs to none other than Shenzi. Sadly we only got a few glimpses of her in that position, but to have her in her own alpha dynamic – including over Scar if you think about it – she was both intimidating and commanding of all her scenes. Realism was clearly one of the top goals of this movie, and should one watch a National Geographic documentary or two, hyenas are not to be taken lightly in the wild even when it comes to lion competition. While I think this could have been pushed further to the forefront, the film overall did a good job of making the pack something to be feared whilst still keeping some of comedy of the first film intact.

-          The Voice Acting – Obviously I’ve already spoken to Ejiofor, but some of the other standouts were Donald Glover (Adult Simba), James Earl Jones (Mufasa again), Alfre Woodard (Sarabi), Florence Kasumba (Shenzi), John Oliver (Zazu), Billy Eichner (Timon), and Seth Rogen (Pumbaa). There were of course others that were good as well, but in my mind, this batch best embodied their respective creatures. I know this film has been much maligned for the animals’ inability to emote; however, taking into consideration how difficult it must have been to rely solely on voices to carry out all the emotion and character vibrancy, this group did a fantastic job doing just that. On an added note, I’m not at all shy to say that Glover took Simba to a whole new level of sexy and suave that Matthew Broderick could not. Oh, and before anybody gives that look of “’Sexy’ in a children’s film??” you know damn well there were crushes on ’94 Mufasa. Don’t even try to lie to me.

-          The Music – Alright, before you bite my head off on this one, it only applies to a few. “The Circle of Life” came back just a strong thanks to a lovely performance by Lindiwe Mkhize, which isn’t at all surprising given her already awesome performance of said song in the Broadway production; “I Just Can’t Wait to Be King” worked pretty well considering the animals weren’t dancing on top of each other in an acid trip of colors; lastly, I got a big kick out of “The Lion Sleeps Tonight” and the montage of animals joining in the fray to add some volume.

-          Jon Favreau’s Brass Kahunas – Look, no matter your perspective on this project and its legitimacy in film culture for years to come, you have to at least appreciate the magnitude of this risk Jon Favreau took on here. Something like “The Jungle Book” is easier to get away with, and clearly boosted his confidence to take on a project like this. Even if he received a massive paycheck and “The Lion King” turned out be a massive piece of garbage, a move like this can be a career-burner. Sure, not all audiences and critics loved this one, but I like that Jon went against the odds and came still smelling pretty rosy.

THE NEGATIVES:

-          “Be Prepared” – I keep going back and forth on this one, because I highly doubt that the same theatrics during this number in the 1994 version would have carried over  to this one very well at all, so I can understand the thought process behind the “spoken-word” approach. That being said, it still didn’t work and ultimately felt entirely too limp for such an important scene. There’s not much more I can say about this missed opportunity to bring more heft.

-          Cringe in the Gorge – I am mainly referring to the flashback of Simba’s “NOOO!” scene where the camera panes away in cheesy awfulness. If you’ve not seen this film yet and you still plan to, I’m sorry, but you’ll have to suffer through that three seconds like the rest of us.

-          Adult Nala – This is going to sound like nitpicking, and that’s probably because it is. I didn’t have any issues with her character or Beyonce’s voice work. Both of those were fine. In fact, they made some rather positive adjustments to her overall presentation to make her bolder and stronger. I’m not entirely sure how they would have done any differently, but every time her mouth moved on-screen, it looked mechanical, whereas most other animals looked more natural, as ridiculous as that sounds. No matter what the angle or lighting, Nala, to me, just didn’t look right.

-          “Can You Feel the Love Tonight” – Beyonce’s and Glover’s voices went together like hot gravy on mashed potatoes. It was in the afternoon, though. Why? Why, Jon?

-          The Absence of the “Morning Report” Song – I’m just messing with you. That song sucks. Thank Neptune it wasn’t in here.

Assuredly, there are a few things in both categories that I am forgetting or that you feel you should be in there, but I think that covers most of it.

Overall, I dug this reboot, and I do not say that often when it comes to reboots – even Disney. As far as 2019 goes, I didn’t care for “Dumbo” at all, and “Aladdin” was mostly decent, but it had flaws up the wall, too. “The Lion King” does perhaps benefit from playing it safe and sticking close to the original script. Also, taking into account that different doesn’t necessarily mean better nor good, I have to counter the claims that this version is “soul-less” and call bullshit on it – this version is different. It had to be, and frankly, I don’t understand why that’s somehow automatically a fault.

Would dancing animals not look slightly ridiculous in something that is trying to look like it came straight from location in the African savannah? Did everyone want the animals to look like they did in “Mowgli”, i.e., terrifying (no offense, Serkis)? Given the amount of effort that went into this production, “soul-less” would seem more like a projection, no?

At the end of the day, this film it what it is. I’m pretty good at compartmentalizing and seeing two films with the same name in two different packages. I believe this one was made with enough care and style that I will sometimes want to watch this one instead of the 1994 version; just like I’ll want to watch the 1994 version ahead of this one. Depending on my mood, that is likely how it’s always going to be for now on.

The big question now, for me, is what Disney is going to do with these achievements moving forward. Make no mistake; the studio was flexing its muscles with this one, on the beach, lathered in baby oil, without a scrap of shame. That’s all well and good, but will they do more with it? We know they can, and really from here, they must. Stick this technology and dedication to a new idea, and movies will be taken to the next level just like “Avatar”, “Jurassic Park, “Jaws”, etc., did back in their day. Both “The Jungle Book” and “The Lion King” can be seen as the pioneers that started the next evolution, but Disney and other such giants cannot let the opportunity rust with more of the same.

You’re move, Hollywood. We the Audience are waiting.

“The Lion King”: 8/10

RAPID FIRE REVIEWS: April 28th - May 4th, 2019

MRMOVIESETC REVIEWS:

“Dragged Across Concrete” (2019)

“Dragged Across Concrete” comes as the anticipated follow-up of Director S. Craig Zahler’s 2017 feature “Brawl on Cell Block 99”, which served as not only one of the positively jaw-dropping surprises of that year, but also as arguably the finest performance of Vince Vaughn’s career. Vaughn has played some serious roles in the past, however nothing quite like Bradley Thomas - a stoic, no bullshit bringer of unimaginable pain and face-crushing so swiftly brilliant it would make Gallagher blush. Now, to see Vaughn return alongside Mel Gibson as a duo of cops with some racism issues whom turn to a life of crime after getting suspended without pay, it’s no wonder that fans of “Block 99”, myself included, were chomping at the bit to see what the almost three-hour “Concrete” had to offer.

I cannot speak for the rest, but from where I sit, I could only find the entire feature to be drastically underwhelming. For a lack of a better term, I was somewhat astonished at just how soft the whole thing turned out. To be clear, I do not have anything in the slightest against slow burning films, or even long slow burning films. In fact, I get quite a lot of enjoyment being able to get lost in an immersive plot that allows me to lose total track of real time. Where I believe “Concrete” misuses this opportunity and causes it to ultimately stumble is in its need to elongate procedural scenes. “Concrete” is a good, albeit familiar story in of itself; however, as an example, I did not need Vaughan chewing loudly in Gibson’s ear for several consecutive minutes, especially since it establishes nothing of value. There was another scenario where Zahler attempted to establish morbid gravity by giving a side character almost a full formal introduction as a bank teller just returning from maternity leave at a bank that’s about to be robbed; a scene that could have been easily been saved as an extra on the DVD. Cut to about three or four more of these types of situations, and I found myself far short of the ability to give half a damn.

Granted, “Concrete” isn’t just two grumpy cops exchanging dialogue in their car; Zahler does bring some of his signature brutality here and there, and it is executed with the type of finesse that has given him the audience’s eye the past few years. That being said, this is a film that should have been so many shades darker than it was that, even by the time the blood starts to spill, it’s too little too late and any sort of satisfying payoff was dead on arrival. Gibson does turn in a performance that keeps the film on life support as it slowly died, but as a clearly intended character-driven drama, all of them were too sorely underwritten for it to work.

It’s a shame, but I’d say skip it.

“Dragged Across Concrete”: 5/10

“Another Year” (2010)

Of all the ranges of emotion that films can submit unto me, it’s really quite rare that one could give me *anxiety* as thoroughly as “Another Year” accomplished.

Thank you, Mike Leigh.

*** 

No joke, Director Mike Leigh is so good at creating character drama that, in the case of “Another Year”, he reminded me why I am glad to have the size of social circle that I do. I suppose, in a way, that clarifies pretty simply how good of a filmmaker Leigh is, and this title is no exception.

Without getting into spoilers, the genius of this narrative is how it leads the viewer into thinking it is all about a year in the life of the happily married couple (Jim Broadbent and Ruth Sheen), along with their family and closest friends; then, in the second half of the film, it pulls a “Gotcha! Now go feel sad and guilty for a while.” Most importantly, it’s the type of transition that is entirely earned through carefully constructed interactions that may initially feel random and awkwardly out of place, yet proves to be Leigh stacking the deck to dump just that much more emotional baggage the audience could very well see coming but may not be adequately prepared to handle.  The final shot alone is effectively lasting enough on its own that one will be tempted to quickly find some sunshine afterward in order to feel better.

There’s really not much more I can say about this one. Mike Leigh is a master at this type of drama, and while I haven’t seen nearly as much of his filmography as I would like to yet, this is easily my favorite one so far.

“Another Year”: 9/10

“The Kindergarten Teacher” (2018)

Speaking of feeling uncomfortable, what better film to see right after something like “Another Year” than “The Kindergarten Teacher”; a film that made me talk to the television, which is significant because I’m just not that kind of person. Much like the previous film review in this batch, that speaks to not only how good this film is, but continues to cement my opinion that Maggie Gyllenhaal is far too underrated as an actress. I truly admire how bold she has become over the years and her performance here only cements that transition.

Ironically, as much as I really enjoyed Maggie’s performance, I will use this part of the review to bring forth my one main grievance with “Teacher”, which is that I could not be sold on Lisa Spinelli’s story arc. Maggie sells the hell out of it for sure and Lisa as a person is certainly intriguing; however, and this isn’t really a spoiler because it’s in the Netflix synopsis, there is some clear mental illness at play here that doesn’t really work in the overall narrative that she’s only bored and intellectually unfulfilled. The film gives plenty of glimpses into her home life and how it came about being structured the way that it is – normal and healthy – that her quick dive into some really inappropriate behavior does not make a whole lot of sense. Again, Lisa is an interesting woman brimming with good intentions, but for me, the dots just didn’t connect on this one glaring thing.

Stranger yet, thanks to Gyllenhaal and the absolutely adorable Parker Sevak alongside her, the somewhat flimsy foundation still manages to get through its barely over ninety-minute runtime unscathed as a fully absorbing drama that plays out as a slow-motion car crash that doesn’t let the viewer look away. Truly, the fact that it does get to its destination in good time is likely the key component outside of the acting that keeps it from overstaying its welcome.

This is certainly one of the stronger films under the Netflix umbrella that deserves to be seen. Don’t let this one get away from you as the streaming service continues to pile newer titles on top of it.

“The Kindergarten Teacher”: 8.5/10

“Missing Link” (2019)

What is certainly their most kid-centric film to date, LAIKA still continues to prove that they are the masters of their craft, and yet somehow continues to be criminally underappreciated in the mainstream.

Look, for the sake of argument, LAIKA likely has the understanding that parents with young children are going to be timid about their releases after the (awesome) nightmare fuel that was “Coraline” and “Kubo and the Two-Strings”. Sure, the studio was pretty aggressive in the ad campaigns for “Missing Link” that it is an absolutely family-friendly adventure tale led by Zach Galifianakis (whom has never been an opposing figure). Then again, “Kubo” was equally advertised as a colorful adventure tale.

At least “Kubo” didn’t have black button eyes in it. What more do you want??

Personally, while the animation and storytelling would typically be plenty for me, what I love most about LAIKA is their variety. Since the comedy in “Missing Link” was not directly at those my age a majority of the time, it didn’t do a whole lot for me; however, the more dramatic and action-adventure type scenes were still engrossing. A large part of that success can be attributed to the antagonist, Willard Stenk (Timothy Olyphant), whom is pretty one-note, but thanks to Olyphant’s voice work, he’s the perfect dirty Old West archetype that takes full command of a scene every time he’s on screen. He provides the kind of counter-balance needed to keep Sir Lionel Frost’s (Hugh Jackman) nobility and Susan’s (Galifianakis) goofiness grounded.

For what is still a limited library for LAIKA, while “Missing Link” is likely the one film they have so far that I would reach out for the least, I have a feeling I’m still going to have a general fondness for it for all the positive aforementioned reasons. If you have any sort of respect for the craft that this studio continues to adhere to in a CGI-crowded space, I think you owe it to yourself to support them and check this one out.

“Missing Link”: 8/10

“Young and Beautiful” (2013)

Taking into consideration the bold performance of lead actress Marine Vacth, and the boldness of the story at play about a young woman turned sex worker, it is more than a little sad that “Young and Beautiful” (or “Jeune & Jolie”) played out as wooden as it did – no pun, I swear. Now, when I say Vacth’s performance was bold, that’s not to say that is synonymous with good. Without a doubt, I will beat the drum all day in support of any actor that takes the leap in their job – as difficult as it is already – and performs a bulk of said role in the nude for the sake of the art. Nevertheless, sex and nudity can never truly make up for poor writing and otherwise lackluster performances.

If that scenario is the type of thing being sought out, PornHub assuredly has an app for that.

Underneath all the risqué business, the main premise here has a heavier lean towards coming-of-age self-discovery after Isabelle (Vacth) loses her virginity and becomes increasingly enticed by the possibility of exploring these newfound sensations while getting paid really good money for it. Of course, this comes with some dangerous setbacks to the tune “What could possibly go wrong?”, i.e., asshole clients that treat her like a piece of meat, the fact that she’s technically underage and has lied to said clients about her age, and she still lives at home with parents that have no idea what she’s up to.

Her actions would suggest that she gets enjoyment out of this paid hobby for more than just the money; she also seems to like the sex and the quiet power trip that comes with it. Sadly, none of that, the ups or the downs, come through effectively enough by Vacth.  Even as she begins to perhaps develop romantic feeling towards one of her much older clients, it barely comes through as anything other than a dull, fleeting spark, and the film suffers because of it.

I’m not sure if that falls entirely on Vacth, or if the directing had a part to play as well. Francois Ozon has been known for his multiple accolades over the years, so it is all the more baffling how this film ended up being as flat as it turned out. It’s certainly not wholly incompetent by any stretch. I was in it enough to see it through until the end, but there was nothing that was incredibly moving, either.

It's tough on this one for me to place a preference one way or the other, though I can feel myself gravitating towards a “Skip it” recommendation.

“Young and Beautiful”: 5.5/10

RAPID FIRE REVIEWS: March 24 - March 30

 MRMOVIESETC REVIEWS:

“The Paperboy” (2012)

Wait, hold on a second.

I just need to check something really quickly.

Matthew McConaughey

Zac Efron

Nicole Kidman

David Oyelowo

Scott Glenn

John Cusack

Macy Gray

Lee Daniels, Director

Yeah, that’s what I thought.

Wow, with all of that talent, I should consider it impressive how much this movie sucks.

***

Pete Dexter, the author of the 1995 novel for which this film is based upon, is listed as a screenwriter credit alongside Director Lee Daniels. Part of me wants to immediately jump to the conclusion that Dexter must not have had a huge part in the process, aside a blessing or two, considering how non-cohesive and overcomplicated the final cut turned out.  Then again, this is the Hollywood Money Machine, so it is hard to be entirely sure until different cuts of a film come to the surface.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand, I will say you can immediately strike McConaughey, Oyelowo, Glenn, and Gray, for all intents and purposes, off the list of anything that matters in this film, because their arcs or lack thereof, have little to no bearing on the outcome. Boiled down, “The Paperboy”, in its cinematic form, is really only about Efron being poorly written as a horny twenty-something that wants to get between the legs of Nicole Kidman’s character who’s poorly written as having a hard fetish for prison dick (no nicer way to put it), and she lands a particularly greasy-looking one in Cusack whom is so clearly psychotic to everybody except Kidman that Efron knows he must come to the rescue.

Fuck it – if that’s all “The Paperboy” was I would entertainment it. Granted, in this format and being told in the stale way that it is with a group of actors achingly too good for the paygrade, it would probably still suck even then. Nevertheless, at least it would cut to the chase better than this and avoid a half-ass murder mystery with no adequate conclusion. The sad part is, even if the screenplay was shredded to bits for whatever reason, there’s nothing of substance here. Instead, it’s pure shallowness trying to pass itself off as edgy art material, and it’s so nakedly fails at it.

Ugh, I don’t really know what else to say. I guess Kidman is really the one shining performance as she didn’t come off as mailing it in, and while I’m sure it was fake, we do get to see her urinate on Efron’s jellyfish stings, so there’s that?

Bottom-line is: Don’t waste your time.

“The Paperboy”: 3/10

“Aquaman” (2018)

Well, I’ll be damned; Wonder Woman is going to have to share some of her thunder.

To be clear, “Aquaman” doesn’t raise quite to the heights that “Wonder Woman” set back in 2017, but I would be remiss if I failed to recognize that perhaps the DCU is possibly starting to dig out of its self-imposed hole. Between “Wonder Woman”, “Aquaman”, “Shazam” looking so dumb it might just work, and James Gunn coming to help everybody forget about the first “Suicide Squad” - there may be some hope after all.

There were certainly a handful of things about “Aquaman” that I didn’t much care for, but the thing is so off-the-walls bonkers and assaulting to the senses most of the time that it was hard for me to care about them. For one, I am a little sad that nothing about this film felt like a James Wan picture that has so fueled my man-crush on him. I can tell that he probably had one Hell of a good time making the movie, and good for him, but a lot of me really wanted to see some of his signature suspense and I just couldn’t feel it anywhere. Secondly, DC seems to be suffering the same way as MARVEL in the villain department in which they are, shall we say, lacking intimidation and memorability. They did give Patrick Wilson a pretty cool costume for the final battle, though. Third, I’m still not entirely sold on Jason Mamoa. He’s a big, booming presence, and much like Dwayne Johnson, he has to be acknowledged solely for that fact. That’s not to say he doesn’t have his moments, because he mostly certainly does, but somebody will have to pinch me if he shows off anything in the way of range. Lastly, I could have done without the pirates. I know that Black Manta’s portion of the narrative gave him that *henchman with a bone to pick*, but seeing “Aquaman” as it stands is already rather lengthy, the battle sequences involving the pirates didn’t do much for me when compared to the underwater scenes with all the beasts.

Speaking of which, now that the bitching part of the session is done: The final battle with the giant kracken – BADASS. In fact, the entire climax is probably one of the most jaw-jarring spectacles DC has put on screen possibly ever. I haven’t read any reviews as to how the 3D version of “Aquaman” turned out, though I’d really like to take a peek at it just for the last twenty minutes alone. Truthfully, in the end, this was all “Aquaman” needed to be in the first place: a popcorn action flick with a CGI-onslaught and Jason Mamoa using his smolder to deliver a few one-liners and keep the audience trained on his charisma. While some of the hand-to-hand combat didn’t quite work in the CGI underwater, the film does deliver where it needs to.

Obviously nobody knows yet if DC can truly be saved from the WB’s countless errors in judgment, but if it can and Aquaman does come back for more (there’s one billion dollars’ worth of reasons that he will), I will definitely give it a look.

“Aquaman”: 7/10

“Stan & Ollie” (2018)

Growing up, I was never really exposed to the comic workings of Stan Laurel & Oliver Hardy, Charlie Chaplin, or The Three Stooges, and fair enough, I probably wouldn’t have understood much as a kid that was highly transfixed in the animation world. Truth be told, there were only two reasons why “Stan & Ollie” caught my attention to begin with, and those reasons were Steve Coogan and John C. Reilly; a couple of my favorite comedians whom effortlessly transition from comedy to drama and back again. Also, I was intrigued that the film was focusing more on the duo during their more tumultuous middle-age years when their popularity had long since dissipated, and they decide to do a big European tour in hopes to gain the funds to create a “Robin Hood” passion film project.

Not surprisingly, Coogan and Reilly were absolutely excellent together. They bring the laughs, and thanks to a well-constructed screenplay, the duo also brings a sufficient amount of heart to the screen that, being a virgin of sorts to the material, I did not see coming. I’m not sure exactly who the target audience was for “Stan & Ollie”, but if it was to open the eyes of people like myself, then the film was a total success. Due to the strength of the two leads, I started falling in love with the legend (and some of its baggage) that is these two men, and I truly did not want it to end.

I know this doesn’t constitute as much of a review, although “Stan & Ollie” is a simplistic biography without a lot of bells and whistles and does a great job at telling a story. I guess I could level one minor complaint in that it often tried to bring the wives of the two men front and center a few times out of necessity, but in the same breath, didn’t really know what to do with them. It’s not so much crippling as it is a minor distraction.

Regardless, I’d be lying if I said that, by the end, it was holding a couple of onions close to my face to make my tear ducts moist.

“Stan & Ollie”: 9/10

RAPID FIRE REVIEWS: March 17 - March 24

MRMOVIESETC REVIEWS:

“Life Itself” (2018)

MILD SPOILERS:

Huh.

You know, I’m going to try to word this carefully enough as to not ruin the ending, but did this film seriously try to wrap things up so neatly that the traumatic event linking the two young would-be lovers together never ever came up between them? Not even in a conversation? Especially considering that the victim of that emotional trauma is, I don’t know, still very much impacted by it? Just complete wedded bliss, huh?

Well, okay, if you say so.

*** 

I guess “Life Itself” can be considered a semi-decent drama just as long as you do not think too deeply about it once it’s over. The journey itself is fairly harmless, sans a Second Act that is so goddamn mopey that an afternoon with Eeyore on the gloomiest day of the year sounds invigorating by comparison. It also carries substantial weight over the climax, which is why I don’t feel too badly about discussing it in brief. Unmistakably, the film tries to sell the ending as the biggest emotional knockout, when really it arrives as a rushed dud due to the overly long fleshing out of the film’s darker sequences.

“Everything---is---really---sad. Everybody---is---a---martyr. The---world---is---better---off---without---me. Heyeverythingworkedout. Happyhappyyayclichelifelessontheend.”

I know, that’s a terrible illustration, but the pacing of this thing is like a bad sugar rush in reverse. From where I sit, Dan Fogelman’s screenplay could have used a few more passes in order to really reign in some of the more deserving dramatic narratives that could have given “Life Itself” the balance that it needed. His direction of what did make the final cut isn’t all bad, though. Fogelman successfully extracted yet another solid performance from Oscar Isaac, whose character arc in the First Act is far and away the most gripping of the entire plot. I also really enjoyed Sergio Peris-Mencheta in the Second Act’s lead role and the quiet charisma he brought to it; which is why it was so frustrating to see him criminally underwritten. The entire time he was on screen I kept thinking a big, compelling truth was going to come out to take the film to the next level, and then it just didn’t so the storyline could continue its downhill tumble to the finish line.

Ultimately, Fogelman had a genuinely good idea that was perhaps too broad and ill-defined. He’s certainly not a hack behind the lens, and if granted the opportunity, I will give whatever he has planned next a fair shake. “Life Itself” is a near miss, but by miss, I mean instead of hitting the target, he hit an old lady standing next to said target in the face.

“Life Itself”: 5.5/10

“Mudbound” (2017)

While there is an endless amount of cinematic material that can be pulled from America’s biggest and most atrocious black eye (no pun intended), the need to keep things fresh and relatable never goes out of style. Sure, filling a film with an onslaught of “Passion of the Christ” levels of physical violence may not stray far from historical accuracy, and to be clear, “Mudbound” does dabble in this as one of its final uppercuts to the jawbone, but that’s not strictly what racial oppression was all about after the turn into the 1900s. Being a World War II era story, “Mudbound” places its narrative at a time where the country and the people in it are trying to start correcting their trajectory; yet, being in the Deep South, there is still a frustrating amount of hateful separation even with a younger generation trying to stand up to the ways of their elders.

I think what I liked most about “Mudbound” was its decision to tell the story from no one specific central character perspective. It is mostly male-centric, which is in a way too bad because I would have liked to have seen more from Carey Mulligan and Mary J. Blige; though this is not entirely surprising given the time period and the limits put on the common housewife’s daily routine. In total, there are members from three different generations “sharing” a plot of land – 2 white families and one black family – whom the film shows interactions amongst their own and with each other; some of which are ugly confrontations like the aforementioned climax of the feature, and others more compassionate like Jamie McAllen (Garrett Hedlund) and Ronsel Jackson (Jason Mitchell) whom discover a common bond after their servitude in the war.

Be forewarned that “Mudbound” that does leap well over two hours in length, and none of it moves at a blistering pace. This is definitely a period character drama that takes deliberate steps in no particular hurry so it can really drive home a brutal, yet bittersweet conclusion. Yes, there is a sense of the “white savior” card being played here, although, if somebody has an ally in enemy territory, it kind of is what it is at that point. I realize that has been a cultural hot button for quite some time, and fair enough, but the context of it here makes decent sense without really anything in the way of narcissism.

The acting is also solid across the board. I cannot really choose one player that did better than another, and that’s a nice problem to have. The two young gentlemen, Hedlund and Mitchell, were an excellent backbone with the more screen time they had, and, not surprisingly, Jonathan Banks as the unflinching racist patriarch is about as good as you’d expect from him. Again, I wish Blige had gotten more chances to shine, but I can definitely see why she won the Oscar for Best Original Song. She hasn’t lost a step over the years.

All-in-all, it’s a really good film, and I recommend checking it out.

“Mudbound”: 8.5/10

“A Long Way Down” (2014)

Everyone has likely come across a film at least once that was genuinely a big mess, yet had a few redeeming qualities that acted as a sort of glue that not only kept the whole project from falling apart, but by some miracle made it sort of work. For me, “A Long Way Down” is one of those – a messy, aimless black comedy surrounding the topic of suicide that can be legitimately funny at times thanks mostly to the performance of Imogen Poots.

Now, when I say “messy and aimless”, I don’t feel that to be an overreaching complaint. I can only assume that Writer Jack Thorne had a much more fleshed out plan for this story that ended up getting chopped to bits along the way and put back together haphazardly, because if not, there are probably not too many nice words I could come up with to defend whatever was happening here. Between a completely disposable Second Act with an irrelevant message that I am guessing was “Money cannot buy happiness” told in the slimiest sort of way from characters that the audience is supposed to be empathizing with, and the random interjections of ninety second character bios for each of the four leads that really did nothing to bring forward anything unknown, sans perhaps Toni Collette’s arc, all that truly remains is the interactions between the members of the group.

Frankly, the film would have been exceedingly better served had this been a character-focused dramedy, especially since Pierce Brosnan, Imogen Poots, Toni Collette, and Aaron Paul had some reasonable chemistry and interactions that were much more enjoyable than all the garbage in the background. Hell, despite all the narrative shortcomings, it does somehow manage to find itself in the closing minutes of the film and has some poignant things to say about depression. Yes, it’s true, one could read those same things in a pamphlet and saved time for a better movie, but again, Poots alone is often delightful enough for the price of time admission.

I’m really not sure how to rate this thing, since against all logic, I somehow managed to walk away from the movie feeling kind of good and wanting to spend more time with the characters.

Damn.

I guess I’ll leave it here and walk away, even though I know I’ll want to change it a least a dozen times.

“A Long Way Home”: 6/10

RAPID FIRE REVIEWS: March 10 - March 16, 2019

MRMOVIESETC REVIEWS:

“Instant Family” (2018)

Can we pause for a second and really absorb the fact that “Instant Family” comes to us from the same director as 2008’s “Sex Drive”?

This isn’t to be meant as a negative connotation – RUMSPRINGA for life! – but then have his biggest follow-up to that be 2012’s “That’s My Boy” and, holy shit, did that car veer off into the ditch in a hurry. The point is that these titles, and even the two “Daddy’s Home” films, are not the type of material one would expect a filmmaker like Sean Anders to have lead up to a dramedy that tackles the sensitive topic of child adoption. Then again, that’s not to say a subject that can cut deep for some should be devoid of comedy; in fact, the exact opposite is true. The entertainment industry has been made to fear handling potent issues with anything less than kid gloves when, truthfully, that’s not a fair representation of life.

At the very least, I commend the willingness of Anders to not only recognize this, but strike a fully pleasing balance in what has to be one of, if not the best, family films of 2018. Of course it is glittery as Hell with an ending suited to be found at the end of a rainbow, but it’s a film with a clear ambition to make the audience (god forbid) feel good about something. Additionally, the screenplay was given plenty of chances to address the not-so-cheerful side of the equation as well. At one point, the social cliche of a white couple adopting three Hispanic children was made as kind of an awkward joke that did land in its own right; more importantly, that same point was later revisited as not at all humorous, creating one of multiple examples of tonal balance “Instant Family” often successfully strikes.

Mark Wahlberg and Rose Byrne have some excellent chemistry in this film, and Byrne shines especially in her role. She has the perfect acting personality as that loving woman that will bend to a certain degree but nothing more after a breaking point. Olivia Spencer is absolutely hilarious in her role as the main case worker, and honestly, who better to deliver some of the biggest comedy lines than an actress whom can deliver them with such deadpan force? Saving the best for last, Isabela Moner as the oldest of the three children was equally excellent. I’m not at all familiar with her Broadway and singing ventures, but I hope she decides to continue including acting in her repertoire, because she’s got a lot of promise.

This is the type of film that could easily end up being the crowning achievement of Sean Anders and his particular set of sensibilities. It’s funny in the places it needs to be, and darker and real when it needs to be. Normally I try to not to bring up mainstream critiques very often simply because I could hardly give a shit, but in this case, don’t believe the negativity. This is a good one.

“Instant Family”: 9/10

“Back Roads” (2018)

And now, Ladies and Gentlemen, a film about physical abuse, emotional abuse, sexual abuse, sociopathy, and crippling depression to sober you up from any good feelings you were possibly having that day. I suppose the first half of that statement renders the second half redundant. No joke, though – “Back Roads” has not a single ray of metaphorical sunshine and there’s a good chance you’re going to feel that by the time it is over.

While clearly low budget and rough around the edges, particularly in the acting department, “Back Roads” is an effective and ultimately devastating story about a rural family that is cracked and dysfunctional – to put it lightly – all the way down and through its foundation. What at first is played as a dark drama about an oldest sibling, Harley, in his early twenties taking care of his three younger sisters after their mother is sent to prison for murdering their father - presumably because of his consistent violence towards his wife and children - the plot digs significantly deeper to show the impact on all four siblings whom are all going through different modes of trauma; most of which are thinly veiled until put on full display in the climax that could possibly test some gag reflexes.

There are some hints early on that may give away the farm when noticed, though Harley’s love affair (not exactly in a romantic way) with next door neighbor, Callie (Jennifer Morrison), keeps things distracting enough that it’s tempting to question what’s real and what is not. It can also be said that the ending is going to make the audience feel like are some significant loose ends that go unanswered, but that’s really the point of it all. How that is taken is, well, up to each viewer to process.

It’s not a perfect film, but it works, and I would be down to watch it again someday.

“Back Roads”: 8/10

“Hold the Dark” (2018)

Go read the book instead. I have yet to read it and I’m still going to recommend that you do that, because it just has to be better.

After viewing “Hold the Dark”, I did some digging into interviews that Director Jeremy Saulnier had done promoting the film in order to get an inside look to what drove his decision-making. I can have a certain appreciation for wanting to shroud major aspects of a dark mystery-thriller that deals out copious amounts of murder in mystery as opposed to having a face tell right to the screen the past/present/future of events therein, but not at the cost of adequate character development – the film’s fatal flaw.

At first, I was completely into it. Russell Core (Jeffrey Wright) served as a worthy, stoic lead getting tangled further and further in a pseudo-spiritual spider web of death in rural Alaska, and even after it turned away from the initial guise of a grieving mother whom claims to have lost her child to wolves to the full on mystery that was the central plot, I continued to feel decently engaged. It wasn’t until the film went into full-on grisly mode that it begun to devolve into meandering static, as strange as that sounds. Russell slowly fades into the background of his narrative as the justification of his presence begins to make less and less sense, and the focus goes more towards the antagonist whom never was that interesting from the beginning.

Again, not every “Why?” needs to be answered in a film, but to make the central characters and their respective prerogatives as one-dimensional as humanly possible doesn’t initiate mind-bending intrigue as much as genuine disinterest.  The scene locations and cinematography are rich, and there’s one cool shootout worth mentioning; although, none of those things are enough to save this disappointment.

“Hold the Dark”: 5/10

“Ain’t Them Bodies Saints” (2013)

For a film that’s about as simple as it gets at its roots, “Ain’t Them Bodies Saints” has an interesting blend of themes for a modern day drama. The southern U.S. landscape gives it a warm and almost wholesome backdrop to match the true nature of the central characters, and the only main antagonist, per se, is the hauntings of past poor decisions made during times of desperation that slowly culminate into a quiet suspense regarding the safety and livelihood of a young girl. It’s surprisingly effective for a slow-burner, and some thanks for that should go a tight editing job that keeps this running just over ninety minutes.

Rooney Mara, whom I’ve mostly only known up until this point for her more intense and unhinged roles, was admirably good as the tender yet tough Ruth Guthrie, whom wants nothing more than to see her husband (Casey Affleck) again after his stint in prison – from which he has evacuated illegally – but also grapples with the fear that his past carries entirely too much baggage to keep their daughter safe. Ruth soon realizes that this dark cloud is going to force her into some of the most difficult decisions of her life.

Usually I’m not a big fan of the cliché side romances that films like these tend to push because the mother surviving on her own simply cannot resist the caring hand of another man, in this case, Ben Foster, and while the film kind of playfully toys with that, it wisely keeps it at arms-length so as to not invalidate the strength of Mara’s central figure. It also doesn’t hurt that Mara and Foster have a good chemistry to keep the audience chomping at the bit.

Overall, “Saints” is a solid little movie. It doesn’t bring anything particularly eye-opening to the table, yet it seems perfectly content with that approach. As it turns out, I walked away feeling on the same wavelength.

“Ain’t Them Bodies Saints”: 8.5/10

RAPID FIRE REVIEWS: March 3 - March 9, 2019

Fuck colds.

Personally, I’d rather have the flu, because at least then you’re down for the count; whereas, with colds, there’s not a legitimate excuse to do nothing and shy away from societal duties. After that, though, you’re too tired to do anything other than watch some movies, but the cold medicine makes the brain too mushy to get reviews written.

Thanks to that – another round of Rapid Fire.

MRMOVIESETC REVIEWS:

“Gringo” (2018)

You know, if this didn’t have its head up its ass the first two Acts attempting to establish some side plots that a film like this could easily live without, it’d be a pretty decent thriller.

No offense to Director Nash Edgerton (yes, brother to Joel) as this was his first bigger budget vehicle at the helm with a background based almost solely in stunt work – an art of its own that I have a huge amount of respect for – but until the narrative evolved into its inevitable action sequences in the Third Act that Nash would undoubtedly have a strong familiarity with, “Gringo” is tone-confused and messy.  David Oyelowo did quite well in the lead as a clueless Average Joe dropped into a ridiculous drug dealing situation, and Edgerton guided him through that with relative grace. Truth be told, he’s really all the star power “Gringo” needed to get by seeing as the lackluster and goofy screenplay could not elevate the likes of Joel Edgerton, Charlize Theron, and Amanda Seyfried. Ugh, Theron got the especially raw end of the deal with a completely useless, yet over-the-top obnoxious antagonist that her talent couldn’t possibly make appealing. I could not help but feel embarrassed for her.

Don’t get me wrong, if this is a direction that Nash Edgerton was to pursue further into his career, much like Joel has started to do, I hope he will be given the opportunity to grow. Like I said, when the action started ramping up, I found myself getting more sucked into the film; whether that was out of relief or not, who can say for sure. This certainly isn’t the worst foot he could have started on; it just won’t be a memorable one either.

“Gringo”: 5.5/10

“Our Souls at Night” (2017)

I understand that Jane Fonda doesn’t have the most popular reputation as a human being for various reasons, and I do know of a few that make me grimace; however, I still cannot and will not deny her the due credit of being a solid actress. The fact of the matter is, as far as anybody knows, her sins do not hold a candle to some of the recently unearthed shit that Hollywood has had to answer for in the past few years, and if I can be shown a perfect human being that is still kicking ass at their craft over the age of eighty, I will gladly get off my soapbox for a minute or two.

If it wasn’t obvious, Fonda, coupled with Robert Redford, make me fear their respective retirements after turning in a sweet film about aging, loneliness, self-reflection, and friendship, that I would argue is one of the best films I’ve yet to see so far under the Netflix umbrella. Hell, if I were in the directing business, I would almost be jealous of Ritesh Batra, because after seeing the acting lineup, he probably thought “Shit, do you thing. You don’t need me telling you what to do.” Of course I say this in jest as Batra deserves full kudos for a well-paced film packed with just enough heart and drama to be relatable to any adult age group. It’s the kind of wholesomeness that I can easily get behind and recommend, and if you haven’t checked it out yet, I strongly urge you to do so.

“Our Souls at Night”: 9/10

“The Vanishing” (2019)

I’m always glad to see Gerard Butler continuing to stay busy. Sure, more often than not, his films these days are less than stellar, but he’s always struck me as a likeable and hardworking dude that I wouldn’t mind throwing back a few beers with in an old pub somewhere.

He could also be a complete asshole in person, I don’t know, so I’ll stick with the first stance.

Back to the topic of his films, 2019 has been pretty smooth sailing for Gerard from where I sit: “Hunter Killer” was tasty in its goofy 1990s cheesiness; he had a small reprisal of his Stoick role in the third “Dragons” movie; and now with “The Vanishing”, Butler turns in a slightly edgier performance of a lighthouse keeper that bends to psychologically damaging whims of guilt and paranoia after he and his crew discover a chest of gold on a secluded Scottish isle.

Based on the real life disappearance mystery of three men back in 1900, coined “The Flannan Isle Mystery”, “The Vanishing” doesn’t necessarily bring anything new to the Psychological Drama/Thriller department, nor is it the best of its kind; nevertheless, it is rather sly in how it gets its cold, suspenseful hands around your neck by the time the Third Act arrives, and Butler’s performance as James Ducat gets uncomfortably scary for a stretch. Additionally, Peter Mullan is damn effective in his role as the tormented leader of the pack, even if his arc fell a little flat with ultimately nowhere to land its feet.

Go figure a film more deserving of a wider audience is the one that gets buried for nobody to see. It’s available at Redbox now, and I suspect it will be hitting the streaming circuit on one venue or another soon enough. Give this one a look; it’s worth it.

“The Vanishing”: 8/10

“The Favourite” (2018)

Well, after setting basement-level expectations after the god awful hemorrhoid that was “The Killing of a Sacred Deer”, I’m pleased to announce that Director Yorgos Lanthimos can manage to pull something significantly better out of the void. Despite the fact that “The Favourite” did leave a lingering question over my head to the tune of “What was the point of this?”, I will nonetheless concede that I had a good time while it lasted.

The comedy at play is rather effective, even if at a magnified glance, it’s entirely one-note. “Oh! Modern club-dancing and potty humor, but retrofitted to more historic European times – that’s funny!”

The best news of all is that they managed to ruin only two scenes this time with a repetitive and dialogue-drowning score that sounded something like an old, out-of-tune piano with a flatulence issue. If you haven’t guessed, as long as these cursed decisions exist, I will never stop making obnoxious off-beat comparisons to better illustrate how annoyed they make me.

The plot isn’t much to write home about either, though for something like this, it doesn’t really need to be. Truly, all the summary you need is whom can kiss the hand of Queen Anna with more fervor and give her proper orgasms. Yep, the real politics of the time period are just window dressing for historical relevance to remind everybody that this was loosely a thing that actually happened. That being said, what makes “The Favourite” click within its strengths are the three excellent performances from Olivia Colman, Rachel Weisz, and Emma Stone. I wouldn’t say any of them were Oscar-worthy, per se, but the banter between them was really all I needed to stay engaged.

If this turns out to be the height of Lanthimos’s material, I can humor it. I’ve yet to really see anything that makes me believe he’s going to be the next big thing in cinema, but at least here he proved that he’s not fully trapped in the current indie garbage trends of soullessness passing itself off as edge.

“The Favourite”: 7.5/10

“Ben Is Back” (2018)

  

Say what you want about Hollywood and its numerous shortcomings, but if there’s one thing its consistently on target with, it’s timing.

Is the U.S. experiencing a bit of a drug abuse crisis? Say no more! Enter “Ben Is Back” and “Beautiful Boy” – two films that appear similar on the surface, and while they do share some narrative parallels, they do take their own path eventually. More importantly, you can hardly go wrong either way; both are solid films!

While “Beautiful Boy” deals more with a father’s witness of his son’s decline into addiction as the snowball begins its destructive tumble down the mountain, “Ben Is Back” picks up a little after that where the damages have already been done and shows the victim of habit (Lucas Hedges) exposing his mother (Julia Roberts) to the dangerous side of drug dealing where a debt hasn’t been settled. I believe what makes this plot so effective and heartbreaking is the twenty-four hour time frame for which it is confined. To go from a surprise, tearful reunion on Christmas Eve to a white-knuckle suspense where death for more than one person is a looming possibility really shows the traumatic trainwreck these families can go through behind the curtains.

There are some young actors that show promise and then somehow end up disappearing sadly into obscurity; I don’t believe Lucas Hedges is going to be one of those. I’ve become more and more sold on his abilities with each passing role, and with “Boy Erased” and “Ben Is Back” this year already, Hedges is going to find himself to be a big star above what has already been an impressive young career. Also, yes, I am very happy to say that Julia Roberts has made a nice comeback in this film after somewhat of a standout drought. Her character was loving but also brutal when she had to be, and that made her the true backbone of the film.

Like I said, you cannot really go wrong with either film, so if you’re in the mood to cry twice over, give them both a look.

“Ben Is Back”: 9/10

 

“Vox Lux” (2018)

“E” for Effort?

“Vox Lux” doesn’t really try to hide the card its playing under any kind of subliminal messaging about what a young child star turned young adult may be like in a world as politically hostile as ours currently stands. Much akin to the whole “Hollywood timing” commentary in the previous review, “Vox Lux” is clearly trying to strike a nerve on gun violence, except in this plot, how it affects an A-list celebrity on a singular level rather than a greater populace. It’s an interesting take to be sure, and Natalie Portman sells the hell out of a woman that has already been through the bullshit grind enough that the threat of backlash from continuing on her singing tour despite killers posing as her dancing crew just causing havoc on a public beach.

In the end, however, the whole thing comes off a little bit plastic, and while the mini-concert finale is fun on its own, it doesn’t really bring the journey home. It’s not terrible, but it doesn’t really hit its target, either.

“Vox Lux”: 5/10