NEW REVIEW: "IT: Chapter Two" (2019)

MRMOVIESETC REVIEWS:

“IT: Chapter Two” (2019)

"No one who dies here ever really dies."

WARNING: This review contains exceptions and excuses that would normally not be awarded to other films.

I thought I should get that out there, because it’s bound to come up one way or another.

***

It’s a strange feeling to me to have been this excited for a new horror film, especially seeing as that hardly ever happens anymore. I was literally counting down the days over the past few months for September 5^th to finally arrive so I could channel my inner, younger dork and go see a scary movie late at night. Yet, at the same time, the Voice of Reason in the back of head told me to keep some reasonable expectations for reasons we Stephen King fans already know well enough – the second half of “IT” just isn’t the greatest.

I’m of the mindset that, going clear back to the novel, “IT” could have ended with the kids. Don’t get me wrong, the adult side of the story has its positives in both the book and the miniseries, but to consider how good the first half is, the same tricks are not as effective from the grown-up perspective. It didn’t work great then, so it didn’t shock or disappoint me that this half, once again, still fell short in some areas with the same old issues. That being said, Director Andy Muschietti (returning from “Chapter One”) and a ridiculously well-placed cast –more on that later – did the best they could with what they had to work with. “IT” may be iconic, and for good reason, but it has flaws and it always has.

“Chapter Two” picks up twenty-seven-years after the events of “Chapter One”, where Mike (Isaiah Mustafa), whom never left Derry after the events of the first film, has been slightly obsessive in his quest to figure what Pennywise/IT is and where he/it came from. After doing some snooping around and discovering that Pennywise has returned as promised and is up to his old murdering ways, he calls in the Losers Club to enforce the promise they all made back when they were kids.

The film offers a brief look into the lives of the now fully grown Losers, and soon, Billy (James McAvoy), Beverly (Jessica Chastain), Richie (Bill Hader), Ben (Jay Ryan), and Eddie (James Ransone), make their return to Derry confused as to why Mike has called them there. Due to some strange cosmic occurrence, or perhaps their own mental repression, all the Losers that left town cannot really remember anything that happened while they lived there – good and bad.

When Mike finally tells the rest of the gang why he summoned them back to Hell, naturally most become terrified and/or pissed off and immediately try to get back out of town faster than they arrived - except for Bill. Bill still appears to be suffering from a deeply-seeded guilt from feeling responsible for the death of his little brother Georgie because he feigned illness that left Georgie one-on-one with Pennywise. Between Bill being the former leader of the group, and Beverly revealing that she’s been having premonitions about all their deaths due to having contact with Pennywise back in the sewer all those years ago, they all reluctantly stay and hear out Mike’s plan to use the ancient “Ritual of Chud” to destroy the evil entity that is Pennywise.

According to Mike, the only way for this to work is for the Losers Club to split up and find important “tokens” from their childhood that can be brought together to strengthen the ritual. Sure enough, as each member of the Club branches out, Pennywise reveals himself to all of them. This time, since the Losers are no longer kids, he seems less interested in so much scaring them by triggering the innermost fears, but instead, taunting their innermost insecurities in an effort to ultimately drive each Loser to their death, mostly by insanity; a feat that he successfully achieved with Stanley (Andy Bean) prior to the Derry reunion. Through these fears and reopened wounds from old skeletons in the closet, each Loser find themselves inadvertently on a journey of self-healing on the road to one final Battle Royale with Pennywise.

In a lot of ways, again, hearkening back to pre-viewing expectations, I’m pretty content with the decisions made with the storytelling in this film. It’s not entirely faithful to the novel, but nor is it completely unfaithful. Yes, it’s true that the pacing isn’t perfect, particularly in the shifts between present and past, but personally, I loved the incorporation of flashbacks that filled in some holes and created some new scenes not found in “Chapter One”. Of course these snippets in time present occurrences and character traits already learned in the first movie, though from where I sit, that was a necessary move to enhance the plight of the adult characters whom have never been more interesting than the kids. Granted, with some of the changes in story arcs for each character and the cuts back and forth, Muschietti was able to use that as a good excuse to make this cut almost three hours long so he could try and enrich material that is already weaker by default.

Honing in on that topic for a second, I’ve been reading and watching a lot of fans of the first movie whom said that they really felt this runtime, and not in a good way. I frankly did not have that experience. The pacing isn’t perfect, not by a long shot, but to me, “Chapter Two” didn’t feel grueling or really any longer than “Avengers: Endgame”. Admittedly, there’s not a ton of story or extra character development in this film, yet it still manages to feel like it went by decently fast for its long runtime. I had heard some rumors that Muschietti has a four-hour cut of this film out there somewhere, and I sincerely hope that’s true, because, if anything, this film’s plot could have used some cleaning up and expansion to drive the stake in a little deeper.

Switching gears over to the acting now – my god – this is hands down the best ensemble casting I have seen made perhaps in my lifetime. Not only for their acting abilities, though they all do a fantastic job with Hader and Skarsgard being the standouts, but also with how well they line up with their younger version counterparts. I don’t know right off hand what awards are out there for casting, but give all of them to this crew. Good grief, it’s the closest thing to perfection as one film is likely to ever get.

I also appreciated how the character screentime had better balance in this one. In the first film, Mike and Stanley especially, got pushed to the back. This time, each character had a more important part to play to start tying up all the loose ends. Hell, if anyone got it shorter, it was Skarsgard; then, that does line up with the book and the mini-series pretty well.

In terms of the scariness scale, no, “Chapter 2” doesn’t have nearly as much going for that as “Chapter One”. I am sure I’m starting to sound like a broken record at this point, but I wasn’t expecting a lot of scares because the first adaptation wasn’t and nor was the book – blah blah blah. However, I did still have a need to see some modest creepiness and suspense, and I did get both of those. There is a heavier use of CGI monsters in this one, and I will say some of them were not great. I appreciated the good intentions, but like the hatching fortune cookies in the First Act for instance, some were snicker-worthy. The rest were, for the most part, creative and well-executed for the sake of jump scares.

Sadly, the Ending, which I won’t spoil though I’m sure most of you already know what happens, doesn’t get much improvement over what has been attempted in the past, and honestly, was just as anti-climactic here. Obviously, with a better budget and technological advancements over the last thirty years, it sure looks better than before, but that only carries it so far. I won’t say more than that, but if I could pick only one thing to be most disappointed about with “Chapter Two”, it was the resolution of the final fight; although, the rest of the scene was pretty entertaining. I don’t know, maybe “too easy” is the phrase I’m looking for.

Anyway, I feel I could write a review half-as-long as the novel, but I think I’ll end it here. “IT: Chapter Two” is going to divide audiences and fans of the book even more than the first film did. I had a feeling I wasn’t going to like it as much as “Chapter One”, so I didn’t feel any letdown. I think what the film did well, it did very well, and that’s what is going to stick with me the most.

Putting both films together, I have to say that Andy Muschietti did one Hell of a great job adapting a gargantuan novel, from one of the biggest novelists of all time, and did it perhaps the best justice that any filmmaker is going to be able to. It’s far from perfect, “Chapter Two” shouldering most of that blame, but this is a set of films I know I’m going to enjoy watching for years to come.

“IT: Chapter Two”: 7.5/10


**Before I forget: Stephen King's cameo in this film is one of the funniest cameos I've seen in years. Loved it!**

NEW REVIEW: "MA" (2019)

MRMOVIESETC REVIEWS:

“MA” (2019)

 "Oh. Okay. Now I see what's going on. A man sending a girl to do his dirty work."

Whenever I try to draw a comparison to the talents of Octavia Spencer, the only other actor that comes to my mind is Paul Giamatti. I’m not saying they are both two sides of the same coin as they are both uniquely their own, but rather they are both outstanding actors whom are great in all the films they are in, while not every film that they are in are always all that good. For instance, Giamatti had “TMNT 2: Out of the Shadows” – I still don’t understand that one – and Spencer has “MA”. There are others to be sure, but those two stand out as the biggest question marks to me in terms of the stage not matching the player’s abilities. Still, it’ll forever be a curiosity to see such consistent actors go outside of their comfort zone.

“MA”, despite its good intentions as a thriller, doesn’t work very well and likely would have been dead on arrival if not for Spencer thinly holding it together. The other characters check off every one-dimensional stereotype checkbox, and each are cast with actors that have done some good things elsewhere, but are completely phoning it in here. The plot has some interesting side-streets that don’t get fully fleshed out, though I won’t spoil them because there is some seriously twisted-ass shit going on that keeps things vaguely interesting from time to time. Additionally, the dialogue also takes some really random turns in an effort to create some much-needed tension and make the teenagers seem “bratty”, but wow, is it ever awkward in delivery. Not even the biggest douchebag I can think of would carry conversations in this way.

Aside from the aforementioned side-streets, the main storyline and character arcs struggle during “MA”. It’s almost as if Scotty Landes’ screenplay couldn’t decide whose and what story to tell. Regardless of the fact that the concept of getting the backstory of both the protagonist and antagonist is nothing new in books or movies, both in this film are entirely too weak and start to run out of gas before the ninety-nine-minute runtime expires.

The story (sort of) centers around Maggie Thompson (Diana Silvers), and her mom Erica (Juliette Lewis), after they move back to their Ohio hometown following the divorce of Maggie’s parents. Maggie gets quickly approached by a group of friends in her new school, and while she doesn’t act too terribly shy or desperate, Maggie is passive about going out to party just yet. With Erica now being a single parent and learning the ropes of her new job, she’s away from home regularly, and Maggie eventually gives into her soon-to-be new friends.

In order to help her become more “outgoing”, they dare Maggie to post up outside of a convenience store to see if they can bribe a legal adult to by them alcohol. Enter Sue Ann Ellington, a.k.a. “MA” (Octavia Spencer), whom happens to be walking by with her dog and catches Maggie’s eye. At first she is reluctant to give in to the innocent-looking pleadings for booze, but eventually Sue Ann caves after ultimately assuming that the kids seem trustworthy enough. Soon this leads to more rendezvous’ for liquor and hangouts in Sue Ann’s basement that she has opened up as a safe haven to throw parties. 

It becomes abundantly clear in a hurry that Sue Ann has some deep-rooted issues that she thinks will be solved by becoming the “cool adult” and integrating into this crowd of high school students. Eventually, Sue Ann starts getting entirely too clingy and stalker-esque, thus making the kids uncomfortable and they begin avoiding her. Add that to the other spoiler items from before, and that’s when the film starts making its dark turn hinted at in the trailers.

I really don’t want to be hard on this movie, because once it does finally get going in the last thirty minutes or so, it gets pretty entertaining. I wouldn’t go as far as to say it’s scary or suspenseful, because you will see a bulk of the gruesomeness a step ahead of when it arrives. Still, it is fun to see Spencer go full crazy and terrorize a bunch of kids in true “Fuck the World!” fashion. Heck, there were a few instances where I was almost more on her side due to not giving a crap about any of the other characters’ fates, and some of her rage was warranted. In that regard, I did like the film’s moral ambiguity, as fleeting as it was.

Still, I can’t help but assert that it is the writing that keeps “MA” from being any sort of memorable. Budget, I assume, might have come into play as teases of good ideas were hiding just out of sight only to get partially inserted and never fully cooked. It was either that or the only ambition of this project was to get a good sell out of Octavia’s name and move forward with the presumption that nothing else needed to be elevated to match her skills, i.e., treat the audience like idiots. I hope it is the former, because the latter is starting to get really old.

Maybe even at its best, “MA”, as an idea, could only be an average movie. That’s not a philosophy I subscribe to, but with this one having so many pitfalls in so many places, it seems unlikely that it would achieve anything higher.

Sadly, I cannot force a recommendation for this one even for the sake of its excellent lead. Bummer.

“MA”: 4.5/10

NEW REVIEW: "Crawl" (2019)

MRMOVIESETC REVIEWS:

Due to a much needed Labor Day weekend getaway, I didn’t get a chance to take any films off the watch list for a review. I’m trying to get a steady Mon-Wed-Fri regimen going, so to fill today’s slot, I’m going to reach back to a film that came out mid-summer.

I hope you enjoy!

“Crawl” (2019)

I imagine I’m not the only one that felt some giddy excitement when the trailer for “Crawl” dropped last spring. Killer alligators haven’t been a mode of creature feature that has gotten a wide theatrical release in quite a few years, or Hell, made it off the Syfy Channel at all. By default, quality-wise, the only expectation one would reasonably need to have is something that was going to look marginally better than, say, “Sharknado”, and has about the same amount of self-seriousness without skimping on the cheese.

Then again, “Crawl” presents some eye-catching talent behind the scenes. For one, Director Alexandre Aja is no slouch behind the camera. His re-imagining of “The Hills Have Eyes” back in 2006 is easily the better of the two versions, in my humble opinion. “Piranha 3D” back in 2010 was blood, beasts, boobs, and Christopher Lloyd, so go ahead and try and act like that wasn’t a good time. Additionally, Sam Raimi is credited as one of the producers on this film, and he definitely doesn’t require an introduction.

The story is an expected simple one. Kaya Scodelario plays Haley Keller, a gifted competitive college swimmer at the University of Florida in the middle of tryouts when a powerful hurricane is expected to rock the Florida coastline. After receiving a phone call from her concerned sister regarding Haley’s estranged father Dave (Barry Pepper) not answering any of her messages, Haley reluctantly agrees to go and try to track him down at his home in Coral Lake that is in direct path of the storm. Upon her arrival, the hurricane has already begun its rampage with city streets beginning to rapidly flood. Haley is quickly able to find Dave in the crawlspace under his home; however, he is unconscious and badly injured for initially unknown reasons. As Haley tries to carefully move him out to safety, sure enough, a pair of alligators invades the crawlspace via a drainage pipe that leads down to the nearby swamp. And from there we have our movie.

To start, really everything about this movie is way better than it should be. How many times has a concept similar to this been made on the cheap with very little effort to make a quick dollar off an audience hungry for thrilling escapism? Aja and Raimi do not operate like that, no matter how chuckle-worthy the material, so instead, “Crawl” turns out to be one of the most satisfying thrillers of the entire summer. It doesn’t overstay its welcome, nor does it try to make more out of a premise that needs to be claustrophobic and non-stop. “Crawl” successfully hits both of those notes.

What really caught my eye – unsurprisingly for anyone that knows me – was how realistic the alligators looked on-screen, especially up close. Sometimes the distant and overhead shots of the CGI wasn’t as good, but down in the crawlspace where they were much more right in the face, they could have passed for photo-realistic a few times. I couldn’t say for sure how realistic they were in terms of scale in that region of Florida, but whatever the case may be for that, they weren’t obnoxiously huge like they were on reptilian steroids.

I was impressed with how up to task the two main, and really only, actors were for this, too. I’ve known Barry Pepper from a few of his works in the past, mainly “The Green Mile”, and while I don’t know Scodelario quite as well, both pulled off two people in the middle of abnormally perilous circumstances. The writing for Haley’s character was an additionally clever touch with making her an experienced swimmer to take the scenes that would call for that to the next level.

The film definitely does take its fair share of conveniences in stride, to be sure. Haley and Dave do take one Hell of a beating in this movie, some of it pretty hard to watch, and yet there were a few instances that make you think almost out loud, “Yeah, that would make you bleed out…and so would that…and also that…”

Other than that, I had very few faults that I could point out with “Crawl”. It’s a legitimately suspenseful thrill ride that never quits once it gets passed all the obligatory set up. Frankly, I can’t help but find how criminally below standard the promotion was for a film that deserved much better. I think it ended up doing marginally okay at the box office, but regardless of that, if you were on the fence before, absolutely give this one a chance when it hits the physical and streaming platforms. This film far surpasses all of its genre standards and was a blast to watch.

“Crawl”: 9/10

RAPID FIRE REVIEWS: August 30th, 2019

MRMOVIESETC REVIEWS:

“The Biggest Little Farm” (2019)

“The Biggest Little Farm” is a true story about a newlywed couple, John & Molly Chester, whom aspire to create their own thriving farm in California full of fresh produce and livestock. What makes their vision far more unique than other typical farms that do that same sort of stuff is they want their farm to have a full ecological balance that not only meets their needs, but can also be a thriving haven for wildlife; in other words  – Nants’ Ingonyama – the land gives sustenance to life and life gives back to the land as a continuous sustaining process. The biggest challenge, of course, is learning to create that balance without intervening and harming any pests by use of chemical or weapon.

The documentary chronicles the Chester’s farm over a seven-year time span, which is admittedly a lot to cover in a short ninety minute film. Be that as it may, the whole thing is pretty awesome! Not just the story, though that is impressive without question, but just the footage of the trials and triumphs over hurdle after hurdle is both breathtaking and thought-provoking. Some of the shots obviously looked like they were done on either a cell phone or lo-fi camera, but the ones that clearly were professional grade and show all the creatures in their habitats created by this farm - it’s nothing short of gorgeous. This is made more significant by the fact that, since nobody in this film is an actor, most the verbal communication is done by voiceover work, and thus opens the door to up-close and sprawling images to really help the viewer absorb everything in a visually satisfying way.

The only real complaint I have with any of it is the fact that part of this whole mission was predicated on Molly & John providing a forever home for their beloved dog, Todd; a rescue from a house that was overrun by dogs due to hoarding. It’s a nit picky thing, but they wanted to give Todd wide open spaces to roam, which is great, but after that initial introduction, Todd never shows up again until the very end and the documentary is concluded with a narration of promises kept. Again, it’s hardly anything to complain about, but it seems like he should have been in the film more as a sort of spiritual symbol.

Ok, maybe one more. Maybe Molly & John were incredibly patient, understanding people, but in seven years’ worth of footage, there wasn’t a single argument between the two.  I mean, c’mon, there should have at least been one “I can’t believe you talked me into this! I should have married that high-dollar stripper in Vegas when I had the chance. At least then I wouldn’t be broke with swine afterbirth all over me!”

I’m (mostly) kidding. But you have to admit, that would have been funny as Hell.

Other than that, this is a fun little documentary that is entertaining, inspiring, and educational as an example that more people should follow. Unfortunately, we suck as a species, so that will never happen until society collapses and we have no choice.

Definitely check this one out!

“The Biggest Little Farm”: 8.5/10

“The Secret Life of Pets 2” (2019)

Holy shih tzu – it didn’t suck!

***

All I can really tell you from my first and only viewing of the original “Secret Life of Pets” is how much I remember hating it. I’m pretty sure my review of it that is still out there somewhere will back that up. The only good parts were from the trailer, it was staggeringly void of any soul, and Kevin Hart’s bunny antagonist thing was ear-piercingly annoying. Considering the fact that, up until that point, I had been a defender of Illumination Studios and its filmography, I was basically astonished and confused on how they managed to lay such an egg as rotten as that.

Yet, here I am, so clearly I didn’t learn my lesson. The trailer for “Pets 2” suckered my intrigue just as thoroughly as the first, and I didn’t try too hard to fight it. Thank Zeus this sequel, by rare odds, is a mile ahead of the first one in virtually every way. That’s not to say it’s anything transcendent or remotely holds a candle to its animated competition; in fact, when boiled down, it’s rather pointless and survives only on pet puns and sight gags, but at least they managed to do it better this time. Hell, dare I say, I was laughing my ass off a couple of times.

When I say “pointless”, it is not an exaggeration. There’s literally three mini-plots going on throughout the course of the entire film that loosely tie together at the very end for the sake of saying “facing your fears is important”. I guess in order to get that realization we had to see a dog pretend to be a cat in order to save the favorite toy of Max (Patton Oswalt) from an apartment full cats (hoarding is a theme in this Rapid Fire), while Max and his buddy Duke (Eric Stonestreet) are off on a family trip to a farm where Max meets his would-be mentor, Rooster (Harrison Ford – yes, really), and also Snowball (Kevin Hart) has a completely separate random-ass thing where he joins Daisy (Tiffany Haddish), whom employs him to save a tiger cub from a shockingly-sadistic-for-a-kids-movie circus owner/trainer.

Make sense?

Well, it doesn’t really matter because the whole thing goes by so fast you will hardly notice. Plus, the kids in the room will be entertained and I assume that’s the whole point.

The first “Pets” didn’t leave much longing for a sequel, even if it had been good, and clearly the idea well wasn’t that deep with a clear lack of a story to tell here. Still, I feel glad that this sequel was made to bleach out the first’s stain on the underwear of Illumination.

“The Secret Life of Pets 2”: 7/10

“Rocketman” (2019)

Alright whoever is making the David Bowie movie - no pressure! Hollywood saw Freddie Mercury and raised us an Elton John biopic that I would argue is not only more entertaining than “Bohemian Rhapsody”, but definitely wins in the creativity department as well. Ziggy Stardust is going to have a bit of a mountain to climb to be King of Hollywood’s new fascination with rockstars.

It’s a good problem to have.

*** 

“Can you hear me, Major Tom?...Can you hear me, Major Tom?”

Shit, maybe not. Now it’s stuck in my head.

*** 

Ok, all kidding aside, all three legends were legendary for their own very different reasons. No matter how you slice it, no single feature length film will have the ability to capture the full essence of personalities as huge as Freddie Mercury, David Bowie, and with “Rocketman”, Elton John.

“Bohemian Rhapsody” did a lot of things well, some others not as well, though it survived the day thanks to a monster performance from Rami Malek. Taron Egerton as the titular Rocketman also channeled Elton’s immortality for one Hell of a show-robbing display of drama and radiance. What additionally gave this film a leg up over “Rhapsody” was how it was presented more as a “fantasy based on a true story” by using Elton’s songs as a means to tie scenes and various plot points together instead of the tunes merely existing as a byproduct.

By the way, if “Rocketman” doesn’t at least get an Oscar nod for Best Costume Design, there’s more wrong with the Academy than we originally thought. From what I can tell, Elton John did not consult on this film much at all, aside from telling Egerton not to try and mimic him perfectly, so to see all of his out-of-this-world concert threads done so flawlessly deserves a little credit.

Like I said in the beginning, the passage of time is always going to be a flaw with films like these, and “Rocketman” is no exception. The timeline here covers about two decades of Elton – from his start to his pinnacle – so the pacing doesn’t often stop to catch its breath. Keeping in mind this was written to capture Elton’s struggles in his personal life - from disinterested parents as a child to rampant drug abuse and toxic relationships - none of that truly gets a chance to set in before it is off to the next thing. Then again, given his life in the fast lane, I suppose that makes sense in its own way.

It’s kind of difficult to go into much detail without the intention of writing a short novel. “Rocketman” is an experience much like the man it’s based on. If you’re a fan of Elton John already, you’re likely going to get a big kick out of this and want to sing along to every dance number.

Give this one a look; it turned out rather well.

“Rocketman”: 8/10         

NEW REVIEW: "22 July" (2018)

MRMOVIESETC REVIEWS:

“22 July” (2018)

"You can't call the Prime Minister. And Norway isn't on trial. You are."

“22 July” is the latest biopic from Director Paul Greengrass centered around the terrorist attacks that took place in and around Oslo, Norway back in 2011 carried out solely by Anders Behring Breivik (played here by Anders Danielsen Lie). A member of the “Knights Templar”, a secret nationalist organization that formed shortly after 9/11, Breivik decided it was time to carry out the mission of his so-called brotherhood and attack via a car bomb at the Prime Minister main office building and mass shooting at an island retreat for teenagers whom are also the kids of government officials on July 22, 2011. The reason for this attack, so he says, was due to Norway’s liberal insistence of multi-cultural acceptance of foreign refugees when not everybody, speaking mainly from his own point of view and some others, are not on board because those under the Islam flag are all dangerous without exception.

These events capture what is almost the entire First Act of the film. From there, it centers on main character and real-life survivor, Viljar Hanssen (Jonas Strand Gravli). After barely escaping the aforementioned retreat with critical gunshot wounds, including a round that exploded inside his brain, Viljar must not only summon the courage to recover and accept the fact a few remaining pieces of shrapnel near his brain stem can kill him at any given moment, but also face Breivik during trial so he can tell he side of the story of what happened.

That’s essentially it as far as the story goes; though, “it” is a gross underrepresentation of what is, by the numbers, the most devastating plot against human life Norway has ever known, and truthfully the worst all of Europe has ever known post-World War II. It’s a tragedy that cannot be slimmed down in so few words.

When “22 July” was released last year on Netflix, I vaguely recall some criticisms towards it as a movie, but not so much the social and political side. The main point of contention, of course, was the very upfront presence of Breivik and that the mere portrayal of him on screen was a glorification of his deeds.  To be absolutely clear, I am more than receptive to that concern – to a degree. Of course nobody likes having the bandage of history ripped off when the wound is still this fresh, and yes, thanks mostly to sensationalist media, the killers almost always get the scales tipped in their favor when it comes to the spotlight. Nobody can really be blamed for having a negative reaction to a film having this kind of set up.

That being said, the ugly side of history cannot be swept under the rug. I mean, sure, “22 July” could have started right after the violence and been entirely about Viljar’s journey leading up to the trial, but it could also be argued that approach would rob his redemption of its backbone. To me, it’s all about balance when it comes to these stories and this has been the calling card of Greengrass his entire cinematic career, sans the “Bourne” films. The First Act is an unsettling thing to see, and while it does have that Hollywood-esque suspense polish to it, Greengrass does a good job of not making it feel like it should be entertainment, per se, despite the high heartrate it creates.   

The other big complaint is more minor in my view, and that was the fact that the film was in English when, being based in Norway, that wouldn’t be the language traditionally spoken. This is indeed a true instatement, and fine, whatever, it would not have bothered me one little bit if I had to read subtitles instead, but that isn’t at all the point or the reason. “22 July” wasn’t made for a smaller crowd of people like myself whom don’t care what language a film as in as long as there are subtitles; it was made for a wide global audience, most of which would likely understand English, so that’s what Greengrass decided to do. It’s over, it’s done, please move on.

Seeing as this film is all things human-driven drama, the caliber of performances is what stands out the most, and they are quite good. Lie doesn’t exactly pull off the look of Breivik in real-life, but I can see why the casting crew went after him – he’s a seriously intense performer. A native of Norway himself, as well as most of the cast, I cannot fathom how hard it must have been to mentally prep for a role like this knowing it was going to get some backlash. It is abundantly clear, however, that he was sold hard into the vision that Greengrass was trying to create, and his character oozes that hateful naivety created from fear of a world he doesn’t understand as much as thinks he does.

On the flipside of the narrative coin, Gravli is also excellent as young man whose world is turned upside down and now literally has no idea when he’ll die, but it could be at any moment from one bad shake to the head. At first I thought his performance was inconsistent in a negative way, but now after reflecting, I think I liked him more because of that fact. Viljar would have been going through a myriad of emotional mood swings as Gravli tried to bring to life in his own way (Viljar Hanssen is quoted as saying this film got it right in the accuracy department), so it was fitting to see fluent acting mixed with some rigidness. This film most likely does not work very well at all if these two fell short in any areas, so it’s great to see that not be the case.

If it wasn’t obvious already, the pacing side of things is going to be perhaps less forgiving depending on what you’re expecting. The film practically plays out as the experience of a roller coaster ride in reverse; instead of waiting in line to get on the ride, you immediately get to ride the roller coaster, and then wait in line to exit. That’s a really crappy example, but I think you get the idea. That’s how it went down in reality so there’s not much else to be done with it, but just be ready for a lot of quiet after a brief stint of big noise.

One area I do feel fell oddly short is the lack of attention to Lara Rashid, another survivor of the retreat whom lost her sister in the attack, and ultimately, has the foreign background that drew Breivik's ire. Obviously that would have made for a much different, longer film, but the context of it alone hould have made her much more than Viljar's shoulder to cry on. 

At the end of the day, a film like this even being made is going to ruffle some feathers either before or after it is seen. I can only imagine that was anticipated well in advance, because, as I said, this is Paul’s territory. This is what he does, and he’s damn consistent at it. I’ve heard there’s an equally good, if not better, documentary already out there. I liked this one enough that I cannot believe there’s a wrong choice going either way.

This isn’t the sort of film that one really “recommends”, but if you like giving your history itch a good scratch, this is at least one stop you can make along that road.

“22 July”: 8/10

NEW REVIEW: "Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark" (2019)

MRMOVIESETC REVIEWS:

“Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark” (2019)

 "This town has told stories about me; horrible stories. 

But they don't realize, I have scary stories of my own"

I know it is way, WAY too soon to start thinking about Best lists for 2019, especially with so much of the year left and its entire artsy drama faire still coming down for award season. That being said, when that magical time of year does draw nearer, I will definitely have “Scary Stories” in the hat for consideration.

It’s really that good.

***

Okay, yes, I usually play an introduction like that out sarcastically, most often with horror, before I drop a bomb on it and send it to the dusty closet where it belongs. This time, however, I am being completely sincere - “Scary Stories” is a great fucking time, and the most fun I’ve had watching horror probably since “IT” back in 2017. The film does have its flaws, and I will be sure to cover those later on, but they didn’t stop me from grinning ear-to-ear as I was leaving the theater.

Taking into consideration that the original book of stories by Alvin Schwartz came out way back in 1981 – ugh – and Hollywood’s obsession with adapting novels and shorts of all stripes, I’m genuinely surprised it took almost forty years for a filmmaker to make a pass at “Scary Stories” and put it on the big screen.  I know a documentary has been made at some point in time, and I intend to get that checked off the list, but this third major feature by the incredibly talented Director Andre Ovredal and screenwriter Guillermo Del Toro couldn’t have been in better hands given the curious nature of its nostalgic revival. Hell, when “Goosebumps” got the same treatment back in 2015, all I really hoped for was something that slightly resembled the book series that completely consumed my imagination and free time back in my childhood, all the while keeping in mind that it was likely going to be light and geared towards those twenty years younger than me at the time.

The results of “Goosebumps” were silly and mixed, and I probably would have had the same expectations for “Scary Stories”, that is, until I saw Del Toro’s name attached. Being one of my favorite fantasy/horror filmmakers, I always have faith that he is going to take the material serious and do it justice. Besides, the infamous artwork by Stephen Gammell is just as creepy now as it ever was and is so incredibly perfect for Del Toro’s sensibilities that I have to believe he’s been waiting for the right moment to pounce on this project. Combined with a rising star like Ovredal and enough faith from CBS Films to give “Stories” a respectable budget to work with, the results are a tense, atmospheric, (mostly) realistic-looking, and effectively creepy batch of ghost stories rolled into one linear narrative that never loosens its grip once it gets rolling.

Said narrative focuses on a trio of teenage friends: Stella (Zoe Colletti), August (Gabriel Rush), and Chuck (Austin Zajur), on Halloween in 1968. After a somewhat successful attempt at a prank against school bully Tommy(Austin Abrams), they inadvertently add a fourth member to their group – the mysterious Ramon (Michael Garza) – after he helps the three friends hide from Tommy in a drive-in movie theater. Stella immediately starts taking a shine to Ramon and asks if he’d like to join them to check out an old, creepy mansion that is said to be haunted by a local legend named Sarah Bellows. Sarah, among other things, was most notorious for keeping a book of scary stories that she wrote and told to children of the town through the walls of her cruel, dark prison-esque cellar bedroom that her abusive family kept her in. After stumbling upon Sarah’s book of stories, Stella – an aspiring horror writer in her own right – takes the book home to read and enjoy Sarah’s cryptic musings.

Soon after returning home, Stella discovers that Sarah’s spirit is not only still alive and well, but perhaps angered by the theft of her writings as brand new stories begin to fill the book each night in front of the kids’ eyes; each one written about them in a manipulation of nightmares or inner fears that each character carries. From there, various monsters and ghouls from the book, including The Toe Monster, Jangly Man, Harold the Scarecrow, and the Pale Lady, begin taking down the group one-by-one as they rush to try and find a way out of the curse that Bellows has placed on them.

Now, some of the kid/monster scenes are more effective than others – Toe Monster would likely be my favorite – though the one thing they do have in common is Ovredal’s exceptional ability of setting each confrontation up by making full use of the set pieces therein. For a plot that progresses such as this, adequate execution of suspense is crucial due to the audience knowing well in advance that someone or some-thing evil is coming. Anyone familiar with Ovredal’s previous title “The Autopsy of Jane Doe” should find this attention to detail familiar and is as refined as ever.

Getting into the flaws of the film, I would say most are rooted in the story itself. A bulk of the First Act truly takes its time getting the audience acquainted with the main characters and their respective personalities. There’s nothing incredibly grandiose about the proceedings, though I can always appreciate a horror film that doesn’t insist on narrative minimalism for the sake hitting the gas as quickly as it can; however, when it comes down to it, the plot itself is still thin at its core, and is something that get more noticeable as the film moves on.

Fortunately, all four of these young actors are so absolutely game for their roles that the lack of depth on the story side doesn’t end up mattering all that much, and I was highly impressed with how well they sold it. There isn’t too much attention paid to each of their individual backgrounds, and while that could have been beneficial to the emotional tones of the film, Del Toro is already trying to cram in as many monsters as he can for when the narrative does make the hard left turn into Nightmareland, that it likely would have come off pretty forced if he tried to slow all of that down for the sake of character reflection.

The motivational arc for the antagonist, Sarah Bellows, was a curious one as well. I won’t spoil any of it, but as everything started to come to a head at the climax, the less sense her actions made.  Sure the perspective of it could be twisted and contorted into a way that does work better, but it would be a stretch at best. Again, it doesn’t really lessen the impact of her as a villain; although, if there is anything about this film that is going to bug me forever, it’s going to be that.

When it comes down to it, though, I am much more forgiving of these things in horror films when it gets all the juicier stuff right, and “Scary Stories” does absolutely get it right where it matters and does its own title total justice. It delivered everything I could have expected from it and then some, and yet I was still practically begging for more. What can I say? I am prepared to admit that this one gave me a good jump in my seat, and that is a rare mark on the scoreboard.

This project is dripping with nostalgic pandering, but for once, it doesn’t feel like a cheap thing. The source material was strong enough as it was, and there was genuine love and respect for the craft put into this by Ovredal and Del Toro that was evident not only in the technical aspects, but in the human side of it as well. I can only imagine how many doors this is going to open for Ovredal in the future, and I will definitely be keeping a close eye on his future endeavors. After kind of being in the gutter for a while, it’s nice to see that the genre has a bright future ahead of it with all the creative talent starting to crop up.

Long story short, as I have rambled enough in admiration as it is, the point is that “Scary Stories” without a doubt deserves to be seen. There are a few bumps in the road, sure, but it never loses its momentum.  Understandably, it’s easy to shrug off a PG-13 horror flick these days, but I can assure you, that button is pushed to the maximum, and it does get a few uncomfortable blows to the gag reflex that wouldn’t necessarily be expected walking in to it.

This one earns one of my highest recommendations of the year up to this point.

“Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark”: 9/10

NEW REVIEW: "A Dog's Journey" (2019)

MRMOVIESETC REVIEWS:

“A Dog’s Journey” (2019)

"But first, I need to get a few things out of the way. I need to play. 

I need to wrestle. I need to bite a few faces." 

Just in case you’ve lost track with all of the films that have come out in the same vain as this one the past few years as quickly as a kid goes through a Pez dispenser, “A Dog’s Journey” is the sequel to 2017’s “A Dog’s Purpose”, which are both based on novels written by W. Bruce Cameron; whom also wrote the book “A Dog’s Way Home” that received its own adapted release in 2019, whilst having nothing to do with these two films. There’s also “The Art of Racing in the Rain” that additionally came out in 2019 featuring a pup with an inner monologue, but I know next to nothing about whatever that is supposed to be.

Hollywood, we get it; people love dogs. Settle down.

***

I do recall being a little harsh on “Purpose” back in 2017 by basically claiming that it was pretty dumb and laid on so much of the sweetness that I need a dose of insulin afterward. It wasn’t by any means an awful film, though with the mix of overdone emphasis on reincarnation, destiny, and dog puns galore, I couldn’t take it seriously no matter how sincere and heartfelt beats it was trying to hit on the target. The human cast was certainly game, to give it due credit, and Josh Gad had proven to be an entertaining voice actor in various different features, so I can’t say I suffered through it, even if I needed to watch something with a bit more testosterone afterwards.

“Journey”, or “A Dog’s Purpose II: The Next Generation”, as either title would appropriately fit the plot, is just about as dumb and sappy, but I will admit is marginally better all around. I got more laughs out of it, the spirituality is toned down to a tolerable level, and the character drama is more engaging to allow for an overall better payoff.

This time around, the story picks up where “Purpose” left off with Bailey (Josh Gad), the loyal canine friend of Ethan (Dennis Quaid), living out his days peacefully on Ethan’s farm, as he and his wife Hannah (Marg Helgenberger) are helping raise their 2-year-old granddaughter, CJ. CJ’s father has passed away, living her young mother, Gloria (Betty Gilpin), bitter, clueless, and neglectful. Thinking that her parents are going to take away her late husband’s life insurance money because reasons – there would be no movie otherwise - she packs up CJ and heads for New York to pursue a music career. At this time, it is discovered that Bailey has a tumor, and before he slips away in death (these films love death), Ethan asks Bailey to find CJ in the next life and protect her. Following a similar rhythm to “Purpose”, Bailey comes back, finds CJ, then dies and loses CJ, finds her again, helps piece together her broken life as she grows up, so on and so forth. Again, ultimately it’s harmless-ish, regardless of its goofy ideologies.

If anything, where “Journey” struggles the most is in its focus; particularly around Bailey’s voice over dialogue in an effort to make sure he has something to contribute. The one-liners do land better in this film, and there were a couple sprinkled throughout that were genuine laugh-out-loud moments. Then, equally as often, the script would try to interject really random jokes from Bailey that had not much to do with anything going on in that moment, and consequently miss the mark. It’s almost as if the screenwriters thought the audience would forget this is a movie where a dog can audibly portray its inner thoughts, so better randomly toss in something that will make everybody think “Ha, it’s funny because dog stuff!” Maybe that will payoff better with others than it did for me, but the flow was doing okay enough on its own that it didn’t require the interruptions.

I won’t spoil the ending, despite it being predictable as all Hell, but while it’s equal parts groan-worthy and sugary, I couldn’t force myself to dislike it. It brings the story full circle in a completely logical way as far as its world is concerned, and I imagine it will leave animal lovers of all stripes assuredly pleased.

Other than that, there’s not a whole lot more I can say about this one. Running at nearly two hours, this sequel sails by pretty quickly without many speedbumps, and while it does play it safe by following a near-identical structure to tell its tale, “A Dog’s Journey” is a non-offensive, feel-good conclusion to a film that really didn’t need a sequel, but makes the first entry almost better because of the boost in character depth it provides. It’s far from perfect, and while I wish it would have taken way more chances off the beaten path that it did to create something closer to my cup of tea, it’s a pretty okay film.

If you liked the first one, check this one out. You’ll probably like this one, too.

“A Dog’s Journey”: 6.5/10