RAPID FIRE REVIEWS: February 3 - February 10, 2019

MRMOVIESETC REVIEWS:

“The LEGO Movie 2: The Second Part” (2019)

SPOILER: The trailers for this film were a lie. The events that took place had nothing to do with Taco Tuesday.

0/10

***

Bring some caffeine. You’re going to need it.

“The LEGO Movie 2” is a lot, and by that, I mean stuffed and crammed with a pinch of sensory overload.

In my recent review of the latest “How To Train Your Dragon” film, I talked about how some animators really like to show off their prowess by going nearly batshit bonkers with every trick in the book that a film of this kind will allow. Seeing as, at its core, “LEGO 2” is a simple and warm story about growing up and all the changes that occur therein regarding social behavior and pop culture sensibility (without giving it all away), there’s a balance to be struck in order to reach a wide target audience. The younger crowds will likely appreciate the catchy music and breakneck pace with about as much colorful filler as one could ask for, whilst older kids and adults will be more tuned into the nostalgic toy references and tongue-in-cheek humor.

The voice actors are clearly still game for what the series is selling, and the addition of always-charismatic Tiffany Haddish as Queen Watevra Wa-Nabe added some needed flair. Not all of it always works, per se, with the film getting too busy at times for its and the characters’ own good, but considering this is already the fourth one of these in fewer than six years, this LEGO film series continues to push ahead with enough creative, entertaining force to be a staple in the genre.  More importantly, even though it takes the silliness of the first film to a whole new level, it didn’t forgot how to keep things fun.

“The LEGO Movie 2: The Second Part”: 8/10

“The Wife” (2018)

It makes my heart happy to see a talent as wonderful as Glenn Close continue to kill it on screen after decades in the business. Ironically, happy isn’t an emotion often projected in “The Wife” with a narrative rooted deeply in a lifetime’s worth of anger, resentment, and regret caused by the person her character devoted her life to, and society’s attitudes towards women being the lesser species in the literary world for no other reason than that – gender.

                                                                                                                                

To watch Close’s Joan Castleman expertly begin to slowly unravel from the inside during what is supposed to be a celebratory occasion for her husband, Joseph Castleman (the also great Johnathan Pryce), it is nothing short of dramatic excellence. Between her performance and Jane Anderson’s engaging screenplay, the audience cannot help but cheer when she finally becomes liberated from her ghosts.

If there are a few shortcomings, and it is truly only a few, one would be that the ending is rather cliché in an old school way, and I really didn’t buy into the couple’s son, David (Max Irons), whom is so whiny and entitled that he’s almost insufferably distracting.  Granted, he serves as more of a device to expose Joseph’s character flaws, but even those weren’t enough to be of any real significance compared to Joan’s memories.

Nonetheless, “The Wife” is an exceptional film that deserves to stand out as one of the best dramas from last year. One that certainly makes me want Glenn to never retire.

“The Wife”: 9/10

“The Nutcracker and the Four Realms” (2018)

Taking into consideration how many good, and even great, films that Disney puts out, I’d wager that there’s no other studio currently in existence that releases quite as much high budget meh as they do. True to form yet again, it’s the live-action holiday fare that has been CGI/green screened to death that gets the next spot on the dusty shelf. Sure, some of it looks good thanks to Disney money, but having so much of it sucks the life out of the film.

Don’t get me wrong, it’s not terrible – if you’re in age group that falls below ten-ish. Should that be the case, by all means, knock yourself out; I’m sure the troop of legitimately freaky clowns will help you keep your grateful parents up all hours into the night. On the flipside of the coin, however, adults are going to see any little twist coming ages ahead of their delivery, which isn’t inherently a bad thing if done in a clever way, but bad news bears, clever is in short supply in the Four Realms. Some of the comedy isn’t too bad, but maybe it felt that way because it was rare and added some life to the plastic.

The best thing about the movie – creepy clowns aside – is the acting. Nothing less should be expected seeing that Morgan Freeman, Helen Mirren, Kiera Knightley, and Mackenzie Foy are entirely too good for the material. Then again, Disney likely pays pretty well , so one can hardly blame them for agreeing to breeze through this while in some fun costumes. Speaking of Kiera, did anybody else who has seen this know her voice could do that? I sincerely took me a moment between that and the makeup to realize it was her, and for the life of me, I can’t decide if that’s a good thing or not.

Eh, yet another cog that has been the amusingly uneven directing career of Joe Johnston. Try as he might, at least he can never go lower than “Jurassic Park III”, am I right?

“The Nutcracker and the Four Realms”: 4/10

“Widows” (2018)

Well, this was rather disappointing.

To expand on that, “Widows” is disappointing for a Steve McQueen film. After solid projects like 2011’s “Shame” and 2013’s “12 Years A Slave”, McQueen this time adopts a heist thriller with an intriguing twist that should have worked bar none, and I guess it kind of did work, but it didn’t leave much of an impression either. I suppose it could serve as a good problem to have if a drama/thriller like “Widows” would be considered a win for a filmmaker still cutting his or her teeth, but only so-so for an “A”-class director like McQueen.

The whole cast does a great job – Viola Davis is magnificent as always, even if she’s had better roles in which to shine; Daniel Kaluuya is quite the intimidating badass; Robert Duvall’s minor role was effective enough for anyone to want to punch in the face by design; and Elizabeth Debicki may have had the best the bunch as the portrayed “underestimated ditzy blonde”. All of these actors really riff well off of each other and make for a pretty solid First and Second Act.

It’s really in the Third Act that kind of strips the guts out and makes the film miss its landing. Sure, the plot can truly be more about the women facing down the odds in a situation where men are all in power and said men assume these women are utterly helpless lambs. Be that as it may, all the build-up to the climax promises are a stout finale; instead, it wraps up cleanly and quickly, and all I could really think was “That’s it?”

To be sure, McQueen’s fingerprint is still evidently all over this film, and he brings some adequately stylish shots and a few twists to the foreground. Perhaps the screenplay could have used a few more re-writes to have reached the caliber everybody knows he possesses.

“Widows”: 7/10

“The Girl in the Spider’s Web” (2018)

Alright, if Fede Alvarez can’t make this material worthwhile anymore, then it’s time to stop.

If we’re being honest with ourselves, the only thing that stands out about the original Millenium trilogy by Stieg Larsson is Lisbeth Salander. “Dragon Tattoo” – both the Swedish version and David Fincher’s American remake – is a fine, densely textured mystery-drama that Noomi Rapace and Rooney Mara bring compellingly to life in their respective renditions of Salander. “Played With Fire” and “Hornet’s Nest” began a steady decline in mystique, and ultimately lead to a lackluster conclusion of the trilogy.

Unsurprisingly, since the money factory has to keep chugging away, multiple Salander sequels have continued to be released in print well after Larsson’s death in 2004, and now we have America’s first crack at a sequel to “Dragon Tattoo” that, I think, stands outside the original trilogy? Eh, this is Hollywood, and clearly they don’t care about timelines, so why should we, right? Although, judging by the box office, it would appear American audiences gave even less of a shit about this than they did in blasphemous fashion with Fincher’s cut.

This time, at least, audience disinterest was well-founded as “Spider’s Web” is the hollowest dud of the lot so far. I’m not going to say there weren’t some cool scenes, especially towards the end, but other than that, this film has absolutely nothing of substance to add. It takes no new risks and it continues to lie on its rape-y laurels to make it gritty. In doing so, this feature manages to kill whatever Lisbeth had left to make her exciting. Not only that, sad to say, Claire Foy was a poor fit for this role. She’s a good actress and has proven that multiple times; however, she doesn’t have that natural hard persona that worked so well for Noomi and Rooney. Every time she was on screen, try as she might to hit Lisbeth’s mannerisms, the whole act felt forced.

Luckily of her, she wasn’t alone. Sverrir Gudnason brought nothing to the table for Mikael Blumkvist, though nobody can touch Michael Nyqvist’s original performance (may he rest in peace), and Lakeith Stanfield was dreadfully underused in a one-dimensional role that he couldn’t save no matter what he did.

Outside of that, the plot is basic with no decent payoff, and I don’t really need to ramble anymore because one should just simply skip this like most people apparently did.

“The Girl in the Spider’s Web”: 3/10

“A Private War” (2018)

Rosamund Pike is frustratingly underrated and underappreciated, is she not?

I thought for sure she was going to blow up after “Gone Girl”, and yet after more stellar performances in “A United Kingdom” and now in “A Private War”, nothing much has changed. I don’t know. Maybe she prefers it that way? Or studios are too dumb to promote her properly? Both are feasible, in my estimation.

Anyway, Pike stars in this biography about war freelance reporter, Marie Colvin, and her journeys into extremely violent and war-torn territories, such as, Sri Lanka, Libya, and Syria, in a passionate effort to show the world what is really going on to civilian lives. What makes her story both beautiful and tragic is that she never sees fit to back down from her job, despite being terribly injured in an explosion that leaves her blind in her left eye, and the devastating PTSD-like effects it’s leaving on her between missions that she can only calm through alcoholism. The film clocks in at less than two hours, so the time lapses between assignments move rather quickly and it shows how rapidly her body is deteriorating away from all the abuse. In a way, this serves as the film’s main weakness. There were multiple scenes that I wanted to get more out of before it moved on.

Specific kudos also needs to be given to Director Matthew Heineman, whom was a natural choice for the project given that this sort of subject matter has been his claim to fame from previous documentaries he has shot. His expertise in the field is clear during the more suspenseful scenes on the battlefield, and fortunately, he was able to transition over to the quieter moments with the same amount of grace.

I know war films are not everybody’s cup of tea, and even if that’s case, I’d still highly recommend checking this out solely for Pike’s performance. This is a drama that should not be allowed to float under the radar.

“A Private War”: 9.5/10

NEW REVIEW: "Boy Erased" (2018)

MRMOVIESETC REVIEWS:

“Boy Erased” (2018)

“Here he is, Jared. Your father is sitting here and I want you tell him how affected you are by him, and how angry you are. 

Tell him how you hate him . . .”

While I wasn’t a massive fan of Joel Edgerton’s directing debut, 2015’s “The Gift”, I nonetheless had an appreciation for Joel’s willingness to dive into a black-hearted, suspenseful drama that maybe didn’t land the punch that it swung for. Still, I was curious to see what direction stylistically Edgerton would go in next; for instance, would he do something wildly different, or he follow a similar path to hone in on his craft like, say, Ben Affleck?

The answer is really neither. Bits and pieces of “Boy Erased” harken back to the darker, harder-to-digest side of “The Gift”, but this time it comes in the form of a biography adaptation based on the life of Garrard Conley, a gay man describing his experiences about being raised in the South by his Christian-devoted mother and Baptist minister father, as well as the time he spent as a teenager at a conversion therapy clinic - the latter of which is the bulk of the film’s focus.  Undoubtedly, this serves as quite the bold move for Edgerton as a filmmaker still looking to create an identity for himself. Let’s be honest here, LGBT cinema has only just begun to make its way into the mainstream, and with a storytelling well of justifiable baggage from decades and decades of civil discrimination, it would be astonishingly easy to spew out of control bile all over the screen in an attempt to make demons out of true story oppressors. There will surely be a day when these stories will not have to go hand-in-hand with pain, but until that time, not everything can be “Love, Simon” levels of sweet.

Fortunately, Edgerton shows some true focus and necessary restraint, and despite the film still having some of the same rigidness that haunted “The Gift”, this film serves as a true step up for both the genre’s exposure to a larger audience and Edgerton as a director.

Note:  Names in the book, including Garrad’s, were altered in this adaptation.

As previously mentioned, the film begins with Nancy Eamons (Nicole Kidman) checking her son, Jared Eamons (Lucas Hedges), into Love In Action, a gay conversion therapy clinic. The film goes back and forth between this current timeline and spaced apart flashbacks that show the events leading up to Jared’s admission to the therapy. During these flashbacks, it shows Jared appearing like a perfectly normal, happy teenager that plays high school sports, has a steady high school girlfriend, and a job at a car dealership that his father, Marshall Eamons (Russell Crowe), runs outside of his profession as a Baptist preacher. When Jared is alone with his girlfriend, he shows signs that he isn’t entirely comfortable with the type of intimacy she desires despite playing it off like nothing is bothering him.

Nevertheless, Jared ends the relationship when he goes off to college, where he immediately strikes it up with another young man, Henry, with whom he shares some common interests. Late one night, it appears as though the two are perhaps going to spark a romantic moment, until it all falls apart when Jared’s new friend tries to force him into having intercourse; an act that so frightens Jared that it wakes his neighbors and the rape ends before it can begin. To make matters worse, Henry was also raised as a God-fearing teenager, so he’s afraid that Jared will tell everyone his secret and actually calls Jared’s parents posing as a college counselor to out Jared as homosexual. Jared desperately denies this claim to Nancy and Marshall initially, however he becomes frustrated under the weight of his own secrecy and announces his attraction to men. Obviously, this revelation goes immediately poor, and after some deliberation with fellow members of the church, Marshall declares that Jared must change his ways. Jared reluctantly agrees, and that essentially leads up to Love In Action, where homosexual men and women are told they must change to be accepted by God, and they are pushed and coached in morally grey ways to believe just that.

It’s not as simple as it sounds, but I will not spoil any of that. Take my word for it that some scenes are rather difficult to watch.

I have yet to read Conley’s memoir, and seeing as literature source materials tend to be more finely textured than their adaptations as a general rule, I can only imagine just how piercing it is given how poignant of a film Edgerton has created here. This story and the way it has been told on screen is designed to get under your skin and make your heart bleed – in balance. I think it’s really important to note that the antagonists are not menacingly evil. For instance, Marshall Eames is not a bad father, and Nancy isn’t a bad mother; they are simply terrified parents rooted deeply in their ideology and made rash decisions to “save” their son. Hell, even Sykes fully believes in that what he is doing is helpful despite being ignorant as fuck to the mental scarring caused by his “therapy”.

Granted, this all probably sounds like an elaborate excuse, and maybe it is to a degree, but if put into consideration the fact that big pieces of religion rely on fear to conjure obedience, it only makes sense that kind of fear would cause blind, irrational decisions. Edgerton truly does a great job at illustrating the imperfections of humanity in this film on both sides of the fence, and that makes a huge difference in its emotional impact. Not only that, but while flashbacks as a means of direct storytelling can sometimes be annoying, Edgerton made sure that the sequences wove together in a meaningful way leading up to the climax.

Now, this next part is a little strange for me to say as I am NOT her biggest fan for multiple reasons, but for something like this, proper credit is due: Nicole Kidman is near-perfection in this movie. She’s not at all like the things I normally complain about, such as being cold or fake-like, but instead wonderfully embodies a loving mother torn down the middle between doing right by her husband and doing right by her son. Crowe was a good as one would expect him to be, and Hedges continues to blossom into an exceptionally talented young actor; however, even though she’s not the story’s main focus, Kidman really did put in a show-stealing effort.

Recognizing that this is indeed a big step up for Edgerton as a filmmaker, he still has some work to do to reach any level of standout greatness. Again, there are moments where his direction is a bit rigid and mechanical, and oddly enough, the one character that in my estimation needed a little polishing was his own in Victor Sykes. I really want to explain that out as it is kind of important, but it’s apparent enough that you’ll know it when you see it. I also am not quite sure yet what kind of director Edgerton wants to be. His work in “Boy Erased” is competent and then some, but there’s nothing signature yet that I can put my finger on. I digress on that, though, because that’s another conversation for another day. Besides, Joel did a much better job this time around sneaking in some stomach-turning subtly that added some gravity to the already dark circumstances at Love In Action.

To wrap this up, “Boy Erased” absolutely lived up to the hopes I had for it. This is a fascinating time in both cinematic and cultural history as whole where stories like this need to be told, and more importantly, need to be told well. I feel everybody did their part to make that happen in this film, and I give this one a high recommendation.

“Boy Erased”: 9/10

NEW RAPID FIRE REVIEWS: January 28 - February 3, 2019

 MRMOVIEETC REVIEWS:

“When Angels Sleep” (2018)

I kind of want to slide this into the “Good Try” category. It’s not really bad, but not too great either. I want to say I liked it, but only in spurts. I don’t know; maybe I’m not the right audience for a plot that advances solely based on the increasingly stupid decisions made repetitiously by the characters in stressful or desperate situations. I can appreciate the attempt at realism there, but the two leads come off as reasonably intelligent people whom would eventually break the cycle.

At the same time, when the film does start to reach its suspenseful peak, it’s pretty gripping and effective. Watching German (Julian Villagran) slowly reach his breaking point knowing his freedom is on the line after a terrible car accident leaves a young woman dead, it starts to play with the audience’s psyche as to whether or not he’s going to something incredibly irrational, and if he does, is it justified?  I likely would have enjoyed the film more if said suspense lead to what looked like a satisfactory ending instead of what turned out to be.

I guess I can give it a casual recommendation.

“When Angels Sleep”: 6.5/10

“I Am Not A Serial Killer” (2016)

For a low-budget monster movie about an almost eighty-year-old Christopher Lloyd lumbering around a sleepy town killing people to rejuvenate his dying body, it’s not half-bad.

Do I need to continue? If that doesn’t sell you, I cannot imagine anything will.

Alright, well, if you need more, “I Am Not A Serial Killer” could actually be seen as two films with very different character arcs. Lloyd’s Bill Crowley character is interesting enough, sure, but he serves as more of a distraction/fascination for teenager John Wayne Cleaver (Max Records), whom spends a majority of the film trying to convince himself and everyone around him that he’s a sociopath capable of serial killing, and the results are a little cringeworthy. One cannot help but sympathize with him though as he’s clearly trying to reconcile a less-than-stellar childhood.

I’m not going to say this blew my mind or anything, though the gritty and faded cinematography gave it some extra charms where needed.

“I Am Not A Serial Killer”: 7.5/10

“Hunter Killer” (2018)

I enjoyed the Hell out of this.

No, seriously, I had a pretty good time!

To be clear, “Hunter Killer” is not a good film. Gary Oldman’s character could have been played by anybody with a face, Gerard Butler isn’t bad but that’s about it, and the CGI, especially underwater, is going to leave a lot of people wanting for better. However, once it quickly becomes obvious where the film is going and what it is going to be all about, there is an abundance of delicious 90s cheese in which to indulge.

“Red October” and “Crimson Tide” it is not, but then again, what exactly is? With brains fully turned off and a bowl of popcorn at close range, “Hunter Killer” can deliver some thrills.

“Hunter Killer”: 8/10

“First Man” (2018)

I had completely intended to do a full write up for Damien Chazelle’s latest attempt at Oscar gold in “First Man”; though, the more I thought about it, I just couldn’t think of a way to do it.

“First Man”, by default, has a big mountain to climb, because while it clocks in at just under two-and-a-half hours, there was clearly way more material that could been included to show the physical and emotional strife on Neil Armstrong leading up to his historical moon launch. Chazelle is much more interested in the drama on the ground than in the sky (though the scenes within the shuttle’s cockpit are stunning in a variety of ways), which isn’t a bad approach. The issue with that, again, is time constraints. All the tests leading up to the mission meant handfuls of fatalities for those that were supposedly close to Armstrong, but it all comes and goes so quickly, so there’s little chance for the audience to absorb it before moving on to the next thing.

Fortunately, towards the end when Neil is preparing for his departure, the dust is allowed to settle and Claire Foy finally gets a chance to shine as a wife that can barely tolerate being supportive any longer. Gosling is also at his best when he reminisces about his daughter whom died at a terribly young age due to a terminal disease, and Chazelle did a fantastic job of capturing those moments as the clear motivator for Armstrong’s reluctance to give up despite the odds.

I’m not going to say it’s my favorite Damien Chazelle film so far, but it is still a fine piece of filmmaking that shows he’s willing to take his craft into different genres and be successful at it.

“First Man”: 8/10

NEW REVIEW: "How To Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World" (2019)

MRMOVIEETC REVIEWS:

“How To Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World” (2019)

“And out there, beyond the sunset, lies the home of the dragon, and I believe it is your destiny to one day find this hidden world, so that people and dragons will fight no more.”

Wow. What a year 2010 was for animation. After “Toy Story 3” confidently waltzed up on stage and brought to a close what was, at least then, arguably the best animated trilogy of all time, who would have ever predicted that DreamWorks had something so special waiting up their sleeve that we would be all sitting here again with the same baited breath almost a decade later?

For as long as they’ve been around, DreamWorks Animation has never been able to shed its black sheep persona in the animated film industry. Often it has been awkward over last two decades watching DreamWorks trying to keep step with the genre golden child, Disney/Pixar, only to stumble short more often than not with well-intended films that lack the essentially pizzazz that the latter seems to nail on the head consistently. Nevertheless, as these things often go, when DreamWorks does create a spark that catches flame, it burns mightily. To date, the best and brightest of the sparks was 2010’s “How To Train Your Dragon”.

Make no mistake, “Shrek” was a landmark for its time, and both “Madagascar” and “Kung Fu Panda” have made for some infinity re-watchable trilogies; however, “Dragon” was the first real willingness by DreamWorks to bite the bullet and create this massively beautiful fantasy world that spawned one of the most delightful character dynamics in modern cinema – Hiccup and Toothless – that, to this day, Disney and other contemporaries have still yet to replicate. Thinking back to all the iconic cinema Disney and Pixar have created, that statement carries significantly noteworthy weight.

Now, after nine years and a highly successful sequel back in 2014, Hiccup, Toothless, and the rest of the gang come back for one final bow in “The Hidden World”. Taking place only one year after the events of “How To Train Your Dragon 2”, the villagers of Berk have begun sharing their island with a rapidly increasing population of dragons they’ve been saving from wave after wave of dragon trappers that still view them as a menace in need of being exterminated; most notably Grimmel the Grisly, the new film’s main antagonist with a scheme to capture and kill Toothless in order to complete his goal of eradicating every Night Fury off the face of the planet. Recognizing the relentless threat, Hiccup takes hold of his new duties as Berkian chief and decides that everybody should flee the island to find The Hidden World – a legendary dragon utopia hidden on the edge of the Earth where their beloved dragons can live and thrive in peace.

To further complicate things, Toothless discovers the existence of a Light Fury along the way – a pure white dragon with similar abilities as he – and he falls instantly smitten with her. Initially, Hiccup is all for this; that is, until he starts to notice just how lost he feels without Toothless around. Between that and dealing with Grimmel and his massive fleet hot on their tails at every turn, Hiccup finds himself in the ultimate predicament that will put everything he has learned and loved to the test.

I won’t say what or why, because that goes into full-on Spoiler territory. This also means that the juice that would normally enhance a review is going to have to stay relatively tight-lipped.

First, the Good:

Much in line with the two predecessors, the animation quality of “The Hidden World” is nothing short of flawless. After re-visiting the first two films shortly before going into this one, I was reminded once again of how particularly breathtaking the aerial shots were back then, and they are that much further refined here, with some ocean and forest designs appearing almost photo-realistic. The Hidden World itself is especially breathtaking. It’s been extremely popular in recent years for animators to flex their muscles and show off just how much color they can make explode off the screen, and “Hidden World” is no different. Thankfully, it does flex said muscles without crossing the line from tasteful into obnoxiousness. The details of the humans and dragons alike also became richer without sacrificing the cartoon softness and playfulness that has remained consistent up until this point.

The voice cast still proves that they are fully game for the material, with the returning talents of Jay Baruchel, America Ferrara, Kristen Wiig, and newcomer F. Murray Abraham bringing both a rich, dramatic depth and familiar signature comedy to their respective characters. While “Hidden World” is noticeably more serious in tone than the previous installments, it never truly loses step with what made the series so endearing to begin with in these areas.

Now, the Bad:

Alright, don’t worry; there was nothing outright BAD about “The Hidden World”. The biggest issues can really be reduced to Grimmel’s character. F. Murray Abraham does a really good job and breathes some entertaining and cynical life into the role, but the character is written essentially as an amalgamation of Pre-Dragon Converted Stoick the Vast and Drago Bludvist in terms of attitude and scheme. He does carry with him some pretty cool scorpion-like dragons that help him execute his plans, and the final battle is decent despite paling in comparison to the previous two films’ respective climaxes. Everything about Grimmel felt either too familiar or under-explored to make him standout in any interesting way where it really mattered.

It is also a little too bad that, after such an important introduction in the first sequel, Hiccup’s mother, Valka (Cate Blanchett), didn’t have anything to do in this film. Granted, yes, the primary focus of “Hidden World” is truly about the evolution of Hiccup’s and Toothless’s friendship - as it very well should be - although it would have been nice to see her influence as a parent be slightly more pronounced than it turned out to be.

Nevertheless, Writer and Director Dean DeBlois, whom has carried this series in both positions since the beginning, should be beyond proud of this near-masterpiece trilogy. Trust me, I want to talk about every turn and every emotion that “The Hidden World” raised out of me, and perhaps at some point I will do a full series overview, but until then, there’s not much more I can say. What I will say for now is that this is the ending the series deserved, and an ending that will undoubtedly and unashamedly leave bittersweet tears all over the laps of its fans.

“How To Train Your Dragon” has brought so much joy over the years, and this last installment shows how much it also meant to the filmmakers behind it. DreamWorks may turn out just as many misses as hits, but with this series, they may just have one of the biggest hits not likely to ever be rivaled.

“How To Dragon Your Dragon: The Hidden World”: 9/10

NEW REVIEW: "Make Way For Tomorrow" (1937)

MRMOVIESETC REVIEWS:

“Make Way For Tomorrow” (1937)

"I just want to tell you, it's been lovely, every bit of it, the whole fifty years. 

I'd sooner have been your wife, Bark, than anyone else on Earth."

As an undying fan of the Criterion Collection platform, one of my favorite things that the studio does - obviously outside of the physical media - are these little episodes that are shot inside the “Criterion Closet”. Other than being a torturous glimpse into Heaven on Earth, what the episodes consist of are various directors, screenwriters, producers, and actors that get invited into Criterion’s vault of inventory with full permission to take as many titles as desired.

I really, really HATE those people. Thank you for the cinematic blue balls, jerks.

In all seriousness, though, the great thing about this is seeing filmmakers get just as giddy as any other movie nerd about classic and contemporary film from some of the medium’s greatest minds. One such walkthrough that really caught my attention featured Phil Rosenthal, whom most would know as the creator of the “Everybody Loves Raymond” television series. After skimming through various titles, he came across a film called “Make Way For Tomorrow” which, up until that point, neither Phil nor I had previously heard about. It was when he inquired about it that a woman’s voice from behind the camera stated that it is “the saddest movie you’ll ever see.” Phil ultimately passed on it (not in the mood), but from the moment I heard that, I was hooked. Personally, I love and am fascinated by sad films. For one thing, it’s one of the few genres that can invoke such an emotion in a vast variety of ways; on the other hand, it helps me remember that I am not dead inside and/or have been filled with mechanical parts in my sleep.

Fair warning – this review may contain Minor Spoilers. The story of “Make Way For Tomorrow” plays it nakedly straight forward, though, so it doesn’t really have anything to hide.

Barkley (Victor Moore) and Lucy (Beulah Bondi) are a married couple in their Golden Years during the Great Depression. For a number of years now Barkley has been unable to work, and as a result, all of their savings are depleted and they can no longer pay for the family home. With nowhere else to go, the couple asks their four now fully adult children (a fifth lives across the country) if they can live with them on a temporary basis until Barkley can find steady employment again. Unfortunately, only one of them, Nellie (Minna Gombell), has enough room to house both mother and father, but she immediately passes off the hospitality due to the fear of her husband not being at all for the idea. It is then decided that the two will have to split up, with Lucy going with their son, George (Thomas Mitchell), and Barkley off with their daughter, Cora (Elisabeth Risdon), whom live about three hundred miles apart.

On Lucy’s side, the arrangement isn’t too bad at first. George seems to have a good deal of respect for his mother, and she is well-liked enough by his wife and teenage daughter. Once some friction starts to form between Lucy and her daughter-in-law, however, George caves rather easily and starts to casually assert that perhaps it would be in Lucy’s best interest to be with “friends her own age” at a retirement home up state – a scheme Lucy discovers but passes it off as her own idea to George since she does not want to be burden.

Barkley’s experience is a little different in that Cora is clearly not at all on board with his stay. She’s not brutal by any means, but when Barkley falls ill, her control freak nature comes out and it is none-too-pretty. She also seizes the opportunity to blame the brutal winter weather for her father falling sick and insists that he must move to a warmer climate – in California where Barkley’s daughter Addie lives.

Without a position to bargain, Barkley and Lucy pull strings so that can spend one afternoon together before Barkley’s train leaves town for cross country travel to last a stretch of time that is anybody’s guess.

I think what makes this film so brilliant and effective is how Director Leo McCarey kept the story as this present moment in time without deviating to expository backstory monologues or using flashbacks. The satisfaction of the journey comes from the no-frills screenplay and seeing the buried pain of separation on the faces of Barkley and Lucy whom no more want to be stuck apart in their children’s homes any more than the kids want them there. Then, he uses the current happenings of the Second and Third Act as a means of going back in time to really throw the sucker punch that the audience will see coming a mile away, but still stings nonetheless. There’s even a particularly potent moment where Lucy talks about how much happiness a person must truly be afforded during one’s lifetime, and it may not come at the same period as somebody else; yet, now being in their 70s and paying their dues, the viewer cannot help but feel like this should be their time and they’re being robbed of it. This is truly a moving screenplay that still resonates even over seventy years later.

Okay, yes, could these circumstances be considered extreme regardless of time period? Absolutely. A majority of grown offspring are not so narrow-sighted as to allow their parents to be harshly torn apart. Even if one were to play Devil’s Advocate and argue to the contrary, every generation is guilty of it at one point or another as a side effect of the imperfect human condition. In fact, that may be as good of an explanation as any as to how McCarey made this picture so sobering. We as human beings are often keenly aware of our shortcomings, and somehow we still let them happen for our perceived betterment.

Make no mistake, McCarey should get a lot of credit here for his craftsmanship, but he did have help. While both Victor Moore and Beulah Bondi were both excellent as the lead roles in the highest regard, I feel it was truly Bondi whom was the big star of the show here. The reason for that is Moore was around sixty years old when “Tomorrow” was released; Bondi was only in her late forties – something I did not know prior to this review and something I absolutely could not and did not guess while watching the film. Proper dues should go out to the makeup artists and costumer designers, of course, but Bondi sold her role so flawlessly that I’m still kind of amazed by it. Hell, this might be subtle proof that High Definition technology in modern film can be more of a curse than a blessing because a film these days can rarely pull off such a convincing age transformation.  

That’s really I can and should say about “Tomorrow” before leaving it off for you to see and experience on your own should you choose to do so. It’s so simple in its style, execution, and intentions, that it cannot help but be anything other than perfection. Maybe some could and would be willing to nitpick down to a cellular level to find a flaw or two – sometimes I am that person – but that’s not needed here. The film does its job incredibly well, and I for one am never going to forget it nor pass up many opportunities to see it again in the future.

“Make Way For Tomorrow”: 10/10

Phil Rosenthal’s Criterion Closet episode: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fkS1CpXhv9c

NEW REVIEW: "Halloween" (2018)

MRMOVIESETC REVIEWS:

“Halloween” (2018)

"Ugh, I got peanut butter on my penis."

Alright, so let me see if I can get this straight:

2018’s “Halloween” is not a reboot, but in fact the new “Halloween II” that so happens to share the same name as the original film, and completely eliminates the timeline of every film in the series from “Halloween III: Season of the Witch” and beyond; well, maybe “Halloween IV” and beyond since “Witch” exists in the same (sort of) reality.

Ok, good so far.

In fact, that’s probably not the worst decision that could have been made creatively for the series as a whole with previous installments taking the eventual path into the wood chipper with “Resurrection”, and/or seemingly almost everybody hated Zombie’s “Halloween II”, so that head was cut off as well.

Here’s where my question comes in. “Halloween II 3.0” takes place forty years after the terrorism of Michael Myers on the sleepy town of Haddonfield one Halloween night. When all was said and done, Laurie Strode survived and Myers is apprehended to the loony bin – but when was he apprehended?  Michael Myers infamously escapes at the end of the original film, and at the end of “Halloween II” – the first one – Michael supposedly burns to his death.  Even if that latter detail wasn’t true, it would make more sense in terms of his capture that somehow didn’t happen but did anyway. Hell, would the unmasked Myers in this new film been that much creepier if he had some burns on his body? Perhaps, burns that were serious enough to have easily doomed any normal man, but not that pesky demon Myers? All I’m saying is that there feels like an opportunity was missed here by cutting off a little too much fat.

But I digress. “X-Men” isn’t keeping score anymore in the space-time continuum, so why should “Halloween”?

To fill in any remaining plot points, Laurie Strode returns after getting a second chance at life, and is now a paranoid, reclusive mother of estranged daughter, Karen Nelson (Judy Greer), and grandmother of Allyson Nelson (Andi Matichak). Mainly, Laurie’s only serving purpose in this film is to show that she’s completely badass with a gun in her hand, and warn everybody Michael will return someday, so, better be ready for that shit when it hits the fan. One day when a pair of murder podcasters, Expendable Tweddle Dee and Expendable Tweedle Dumb, visit Myers at the asylum after somehow getting a hold of his mask, the Shape snaps out of his stupor, escapes during a transit to another prison, and returns to Haddonfield to carve up some more babysitters and, big twist, teenagers not having sex.

Gosh, and here I thought Myers was some kind of abstinence crusader. What a disappointment.

In the end, what turns out creating the most exciting pop in this new installment is what everybody came to see anyway – “Myers v. Strode: The Rematch”. During her years of seclusion, not only has Laurie taught herself to be a sharpshooter, but she has additionally retrofit her home as a sort of fortress in order to establish a survival edge against the next inevitable Myers attack. At first it comes off kind of plain, although, as the climactic battle gets heated, there are some flashes of true creativity that are nothing less than satisfying. Honestly, some of the final scenes in this new “Halloween” are the best the series has looked in decades, which is an impressive feat being now the eleventh film in the brand.

Still, it has been a solid decade in-between films, and to see this one arrive as something remarkably average is a bit of a letdown. Sure, one could argue that the movie had some decent kills and that these hit a lot of the same nostalgic beats reminiscent of the original, and I could say that’s true to a degree; however, you can strike similar cords without practically repeating them like a Greatest Hits montage. I will say there was one such instance that could possibly be construed as a taunt from Myers in a “Hey, remember this?” type of fashion, though the film didn’t play it off like that so I could be completely wrong. Either way, the whole Myers murder spree comes off as completely soulless as if Director David Gordon Green cared more about Michael’s obligatory kill count of inconsequential characters to show the old man still has carving skills instead of creating any meaningful suspense to go with it. Suspense may not have ever been the strength of “Halloween” to begin with, but at least Carpenter and a few of the directors after him knew that it was important to create that critical sense of dread.

Again, most of this is shockingly cured by what becomes a pretty great Third Act. When Jamie Lee Curtis takes over full control of the spotlight in this final phase of the film, she proves once again why she always has been the true lifeblood of the series. I have no idea how much she was paid to get back on board, but she sold the part like she hasn’t lost a single step, and thankfully her character arc makes much more sense this time around instead of falling anticlimactically off a damn building.

Andi Matichak as Allyson was pretty good, too. I wish she had gotten some more development as the next Strode to carry the Michael-slaying torch in future sequels, but I suppose for the sake of hooking a hungry fan base after a long wait, keeping the next generation in the background, initially, makes a certain amount of sense.

Basically, that’s all I really have or need to say about “Halloween”. There’s some notable highlights to sustain just enough momentum moving forward for future installments, and Green does bring some eye-catching cinematography and slick pacing to an otherwise disposable first sixty or seventy minutes void of any fresh ideas. Maybe “Halloween III” had the right idea and it’s time for future filmmakers to do some exploring to get out of this creative corner.

I’m not sure really sure I can recommend this, though with such a big audience, “Halloween” is likely always going to have a home regardless. I won’t say I outright disliked it. I was only hoping for more.

“Halloween”: 6/10

TOP 10 FIRST-TIME WATCHED FILMS in 2018

Greetings, Film Fanatics!

I thought it would be fun to do one more Top 10 list before putting 2018 in the rearview mirror. Granted, the title sucks, but the premise here is that these are the Top 10 movies I saw for the first time during 2018 that were released prior to 2018.

I won’t get too in depth with these. Some of them I have already done a short or full review on, but if you want to see a review on any of these, give me a shout!

Here are the Top 10 First-Time Watched Films in 2018:

#10: “THE VANISHING” (1988)

Before the FilmStruck streaming service met its (*sob*) untimely demise, I managed to squeeze in “The Vanishing” – a film I’ve had my eye on for a while. Being in the Criterion library, and knowing nothing about it, I was more or less expecting an exceptionally well-crafted “whodunit” type of caper. The craftsmanship part was definitely true, but what I did not see coming was the story being told mostly from the point of view of the kidnapper; a kidnapper that’s also a family man and possibly sociopathic. Despite that, story still manages to string the audience along in wondering exactly what happened to the kidnapped wife of the main protagonist.

What’s not to love?

#9: “THE DEVIL’S CANDY” (2017)

A horror film that contains demon possession, a Metallica soundtrack, and some really badass paintings?

It’s on Netflix. Go watch it. Chop chop!

#8: “THE FLORIDA PROJECT” (2017)

Not only is this film depressing, but it’s made all the more depressing by having disappointment lurking around every corner just waiting to crush all the kids’ child-like wonders while Willem Dafoe secretly tries to play the hero; however, knowing deep down that he’s completely powerless.

You’re welcome.

Hey, at least the ending is about as beautifully poetic as you could get given the circumstances. And there's quite a bit of humor, so there's that.

#7: “FERDINAND” (2017)

Score another one for Blue Sky. It’s kind of too bad that the studio is currently relying on an “Ice Age” sequel every two years to keep a decent income coming in, because after this and “The Peanuts Movie”, I’m ready to be a believer.

#6: “THE INTOUCHABLES” (2011)

I didn’t even know until about two weeks ago that this was getting a remake by the title of “The Upside”. That being the case, I’m really glad I saw this original first so I can happily avoid “The Upside”. Even if it ends up being good, Kevin Hart could not touch Omar Sy’s performance, and frankly, I’m not sure Bryan Cranston is the right guy to play Phillipe either.

Long story short, give this movie a chance even if you don’t like subtitles. It’s funny and charming in all the right ways.

#5: “THE FAULT IN OUR STARS” (2014)

Okay, fine, I’ll admit I was one of those people that immediately wrote this off back in 2014 as nothing more than Kleenex bait for the Hallmark crowd so they’d have an excuse to go home and guilt trip their significant others about whatever. Instead, I can now happily say that this is one of the best romantic dramedies I’ve seen in ages, and it makes me feel even worse for a decent actress like Shailene Woodley getting roped into that “Divergent” fiasco.

P.S., I may have gotten a little emotional during this film because I saw it after “Baby Driver”.

“If you can outrun Kevin Spacey, you can outrun cancer goddammit. You can’t die, Baby!”

#4: “LE SILENCE DE LA MER” (1949)

Never once did I consider the possibility that I could ever feel sympathy towards a Nazi – and now I have felt sympathy towards a Nazi.

What’s even more shocking is how the film managed this whilst only taking place 99% of the time in a single room where the Nazi is doing all the talking. Seriously, though, watching the transformation from braggadocious asshole to art-loving man that realizes he’s made one hell of a mistake, yet is still screwed because he’s sworn his allegiance to the Reich was quite the cinematic experience. It’s a slow burner, but wow, was it worthwhile.

#3: “BEFORE I WAKE” (2016)

Yes, I know it was released on Netflix in 2018, but after going through the shuffle and getting screened in 2016, that was the year I ultimately used. Either way, Netflix better release this on blu-ray, because it blew any and all expectations out of the sky. It’s scary, it’s touching, and I hope it finds the audience it deserves after the production hell it went through.

#2: “BIRD BOY: THE FORGOTTEN CHILDREN” (2015)

HO-LY SHIT.

There was neither sunshine nor rainbow to be found. It has violence, suicidal-like depression, drug-use, racism, and murder - most of these things involving teenagers – and I loved every damn second of it. Being an animation nerd, I loved that aspect too, but the story was so relentless and brutal; yet, somehow, it still lights a fire of hope in the audience that the protagonists might just succeed in their endeavors.

This film might be one of my new favorite things, ever.

#1: “GRAVE OF THE FIREFLIES” (1988)

I know, I know – I just called myself an animation nerd, and yet it took me this long to see “Grave of the Fireflies”. Epic fail on my part.

Be that as it may, would it help to know that this film tore my heart out of my chest and curb-stomped it to death? No, really, this movie completely and utterly CRUSHED me. I’m talking a lump in my throat the size of a baseball. I guess I can partially thank parenthood for that, but even if I weren’t one in real life, “Fireflies” still probably would have killed me. To see this young boy try so hard to survive and fail, mainly due to his pride, is almost too much to swallow.

It may take a while before I can watch that one again. No matter how long that takes, I will never be able to forget this film. It is truly that powerful.

I hope you enjoyed this list! I may have a few random ones throughout the year, but for the most part, I'm looking forward to another great year of film!